[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
Pradip Gangopadhyay wrote:
>
[....]
>
> Of course, the different sects have given their sectarian
> interpretation and claimed superiority for their deity. I have never liked
> this sectarian competition to name one'e own Deity or conception of the Divine
> as superior compared to other sects. All the old line Vaishnava, Shaiva or
> Shakta sects have more or less taken such narrow positions. Even Sri Sankara
> is guilty of this failing. Sri Sankara, of course, accepts both the Absolute
> and the Personal God. However, I have always felt it illogical that he accepts
> the Personal Forms only at the vyabharica level.
I am afraid you are quite misunderstanding Sri Sankara's position. It is
because of the necessity of the logic of advaita that he says the
Personal Forms are at the vyavahAra level.
> If he believes that the
> Personal God is inferior to the Absolute
This wording "inferior" is not supported by Sankara. The Personal God is
the Absolute conceived with a particular name and form. The Personal
God, in Him(/Her/It)self, is not inferior to the Absolute. However,
one's conception of that God, as limited by a particular name and form,
is what is inferior to the Absolute Reality that the God essentially is.
There is a huge difference between these two positions.
> then why did he use the SBG to argue
> his case? Surely the SBG is a lecture by a Personal God.
>
One's own guru is at the level of vyavahAra, no? Does that mean one
disregards the guru's words. No. Similarly, SBG is a lecture by the
jagadguru, Sri Krishna. Where is the inconsistency in Sankara's
acceptance of SBG?
S. Vidyasankar
