[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Becoming Hindu
"janahan (j.) skandaraniyam" <skandar@nortel.ca> wrote:
> shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao) wrote:
> >"janahan (j.) skandaraniyam" <skandar@nortel.ca> wrote:
>
> >Is that right? If so, then why can we not say that "one's own
> >realizations are justification enough" for such things as a hare's
> >horn, a flower in the sky, a childless-woman's-son, etc.?
>
> Are these things related to spirituality?
> The third eye is a spiritual phenomenon.
These things are related to the "third eye," not to spirituality;
just as a "third eye" is unseen, so are these. If the "third eye"
is a "spiritual phenomenon," then so are these.
> >If things
> >are to be accepted without proper evidence based simply upon "one's
> >own realizations," then anything at all would become acceptable.
>
> Nope. Again, only things related to spirituality. But why
> would "anything" become acceptable? And that too to everyone.
> Notice I used the word "one" in my statements. In other
> words, through "your" own realizations, "you" can verify the
> claim about the third eye to "yourself", not to anyone else,
> otherwise it would be blind faith.
A madman can "verify" the existence of things no sane person accepts;
such "realizations" as he may have are called delusions instead.
Things have to be *proved* to an acceptable standard so that all can
understand and accept it, subject to a certain rational process. That
is the scientific method, which you seem to so conveniently discard
when it comes to your brand of Vedanta.
> >> Classically?
> >
> >Yes, that's right. By that term I mean a proper schooling in Shruti
>
> You mean "Vivekananda was not well-schooled in classical Vedanta".
> Although Vedanta is Vedanta, I guess you are trying to distinguish
> between Vedanta and Vivekananda's synthesis of Vedanta.
I am distinguishing between Vedanta and bunk, to be more precise.
> >and in the classical subjects of grammar, etc., and also a rigorous
> >training in the prasthAna-traya texts, etc., which is done by serious
> >"classical" students by full-time effort lasting several years (twelve
> >according to tradition, but may vary somewhat depending upon the
> >individual, the specific school, teacher, etc.).
>
> Yes, I know. But again,
> like you said, it depends on the teacher and the disciple. What
How long a certain graduate student takes to complete a Ph.D. depends
upon the student, his advisor, etc.; I've heard of people doing it
in less than two years, and of some taking even eight or more years
full-time. However, that is no excuse for someone *not* having a
Ph.D. to strut around pretending to have one. The duration of
classical study may be variable, but classical study there has to be;
all this "transmit" business you have here:
> is important is the essence of Vedanta, not the grammer etc.
> associated with it. I am sure you have heard of Shankaracharya's
> "Bhaja Govindam". Now, if the teacher has realized Brahman, he
> embodies the essence of Vedanta, and can transmit its essence
> to a spiritually qualified disciple over a certain period without
> having to teach the disciple the vocabulary, grammer, etc. He
> can teach Vedanta to the disciple, however he so deems fit.
> Ofcourse, the disciple also has to put a large amount of effort.
-- is nonsense. Would you accept as a physician a quack who said he
had "realized" medicine without having put in the rigorous effort
of years it takes to earn the M.D.? Would you accept that he was
medically qualified, since he had had stuff "transmitted" to him by
a "realized" teacher, although sorry, he couldn't give you any
specific information about what was written in the medical texts, he
hadn't learned the medical terminology, etc.?
> >I'm sorry; you've got me there. All I know is what I read from
> >someone else.
>
> Interesting, I hope your opinions of Vivekananda are not based
> entirely on what someone else told you.
I notice you snipped out the latter part without comment. So I'll
ask again: did or did not Vivekananda assert that there is no place
for heaven and hell in Shruti?
> >Indeed? Now, this is exactly the kind of feelgood rubbish that sets
> >apart the ersatz neo-Vedanta or pseudo-Vedanta of the likes of
> >Vivekananda, from the Real Thing. The approach of the
> >pseudo-Vedantins seems to be, "let's wave our hands all over the
> >place, for all that we point to is Brahman." This does justice
> >neither to Advaita nor to any other meaningful doctrine , and somehow,
> >people seem to miss the fact that even purely mundane fields and
> >studies need a sustained effort and discipline spanning years or
> >decades, and expect that Vedanta, which by all accounts is a superior
> >kind of learning, will come instantly and effortlessly. That
> >assumption, that there will be great reward with no meaningful effort,
> >and that the rigors and disciplines laid down by tradition to acquire
> >this knowledge may be conveniently dispensed with, alone is enough to
> >boggle the mind of any straight-thinking person. Of course, it is
> >nonetheless a convenient delusion to have, so there are any number of
> >misguided innocents who will guilelessly accept it without
> >examination.
>
> Indeed? Please tell me Shirsha, how you came to the conclusion that
> I am a "pseudo-Vedantist" with no training in the "classical" school of
> Vedanta? How do you know that I have not studied the Shruti under a
> "classically" qualified Guru?
This is irrelevant, but let's cut to the chase anyhow. Have you?
If yes, what texts have you learned, where, from whom, and for how
long? One does not automatically assume that every average joe one
meets is a Ph.D., and so also, one does not assume that every person
one comes across, in real life or on the Net, is classically learned.
In some famous centers of learning, etc., this may be different.
> My statements that you quoted were my
> claims on Vivekananda's spirituality, not his works, not the RK mission,
> nothing else, it was only on Vivekananda's spirituality.
And what does that have to do with anything?
> Now tell me,
> Shirisha, if I have completed my studies of the "classical" doctrines,
> am I qualified enough, or do you think that I could have achieved enough
> realization to make such a claim?
It has been my great fortune to have come across a few really learned
Vedantic scholars. These are really great people, worthy of my
respect, who can give one profound answers at a snap, clear one's
doubts about certain ideas expressed in the prasthaana-traya texts or
the works of great Achaarya-s of their traditions, etc. Things being
what they are, these scholars are also split regarding the purport of
the classical texts, and can argue with a great deal of animation to
show why their interpretation of something rather than some other is
right, etc. But in spite of their disagreements, they do have one
very important thing in common: you could tell them about your
"realization," third eye, ear, nose, etc., until you were blue in the
face, and you wouldn't get anything more than a sneer out of any of
them. And true to that, that's all you'll get from me.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
--
http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html
