[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ARTICLE : Becoming Hindu

"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@braincells.com> wrote:


>However us poor unfortunates left on the other side need a little help in
>seperating realizations from idle noodlings.

On the other side of what? Why do you need help? You yourself are help enough.


>It may come as a shock to some people but Vedanta existed before the 19th
>century.  It has a long literary tradition and a technical vocabulary of
>its own.  Rather than justify their positions with mysticism they placed
>their philosophy on firm logical foundations.

How do you know that they did not justify their positions with mysticism?
Are you saying that Shankaracharya had no connection with mysticism?
If they justified their positions with  mere philosophical and 
logical foundations, then that is hardly grounds for Truth. The grounds
for Truth is experience, not mere philosophy and logic. One has to
SEE the Truth to KNOW it, not to speculate about it. Don't tell
me that the realization of Brahman is a philosophical or logical 
conclusion.   

>Advaita Vedanta says that Karma and Jnana are completely distinct.  For a
>Jnani there is no longer need to perform acts.  However Advaita is also
>extremely clear that only a sannyasi can be considered a Jnani.  (Because
>anyone who had truly realized Brahman would not feel the need to stay in
>worldly life a minute longer.) 

That does not mean that they wouldn't stay in worldly life a minute longer.

>Very few of the followers of Vivekanand are
>sannyasis so the rest should be walking the path of Dharma right?  However
>we see that the level of observence of these people is in general very low.

Oh really. Firstly, I guess you probably know all of Vivekananda's 
householder followers personally to know that their level of observance 
is in general very low. Secondly, what makes a person a follower?
If it is enough just for the person to say that he is a follower,
then I could say the same for all the Acharya's and spiritual leaders.
I know many people who say "I follow the teachings of the great
Shankaracharya",
or , "I am a follower of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu", and their observance
of Dharma is simply pathetic. For more famous examples, take the so-called
Krishna sects that still thrive today in India. Some of these sects
have sex practices which involve one man and many women. The women are
supposed to think of their man as Krishna. These sects claim to be
following, and I quote, "the incarnation of Krishna, the darling
Chaitanya". Following Dharma? I think not. What about the childsex-abusing
"Gurus" of ISKCON? Following Dharma? I think not.

> What's the problem?  Either Vivekanand failed to get the message across to
>his followers or he only pays lip service to the idea that non-sannyasis
>should strictly follow dharma.

Exactly!! What's the problem? Either Chaitanya, Shankaracharya, and Prabhupada
failed to get the message across to their followers or they only pay
lip service to the idea that non-sannyasis should strictly follow Dharma.

>> On another note, a few people have e-mailed me and asked how I
>> could make such a statement, what proof etc. do I have, and 
>> so on. I shall say it again, one's own realizations are strenght
>> enough. My statement was not based on anything from the physical,
>> i.e., V's and RK's works etc., it was purely spiritual. 
>
>How convenient.  In the Vedantic tradition we have certain authoritative
>texts and logical reasoning.  If some Acharya makes some claim, this can be
>verified by anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

How convenient indeed! I guess when Sri Ramanujacharya came up 
with his philosophy which opposed the dominant philosophy of 
his time(Shankaracharya's), all the great Vedantins simply hugged
him and said:

  "OH!! You bright young man, we have verified with our modicum of
   intelligence that your philosophy bears truth and we have decided
   to include you in our "great tradition" and follow your teachings"


>What you are proposing is nothing more than a cult of personality.  Some
>self-proclaimed "realized" person makes some unfounded claims and we're
>just supposed to follow along.  

That is not what I proposed, nor meant, nor said. I only
said that one who is "realized" would be able to judge the claims.
If one is not, one cannot say for certain whether the claims are unfounded or
not, one can only speculate.


                                                      J.
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.