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

Re: ARTICLE : Becoming Hindu

shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao) wrote:
>"janahan (j.) skandaraniyam" <skandar@nortel.ca> wrote:

>A madman can "verify" the existence of things no sane person accepts;
   ^^^^^^

Temper, temper my friend.

>such "realizations" as he may have are called delusions instead.
                                                                  
How do you know they are "delusions"?   

>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.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

OK, prove the existence of God to me using a rational process. 
The "scientific" method can never "prove" spirituality.
Tell me, if someone has the great fortune of obtaining a vision
of Krishna, how can they prove it to someone else using a "rational"
process? Do you think that the realization of Brahman can be "proved"
using a "rational" process? Your statements are similar to the famous
statement : "If there is a God, show him to me.".

What do you mean by my brand of Vedanta? Do you know what my brand
of Vedanta is? You assume too much. 

>I am distinguishing between Vedanta and bunk, to be more precise.

OK, explain to me why it is bunk? 

>-- 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.?

You cannot compare spiritual development to physicains etc. 
For example, spiritual development spans more than 1 incarnation,
which is not the same for other things. You above camparison is simply
pathetic.
 

>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?

You asking again????? YOU made the statement. I asked you to
give me the exact quote. So if anything, I am asking you,
Where did Vivekananda say this?



>This is irrelevant, but let's cut to the chase anyhow.  Have you?

Why is it irrelevant? You make an assumption and base your arguments
on it, and then you say that how you came to these assumptions is
irrelevant?

And, yes I have.

>If yes, what texts have you learned, where, from whom, and for how 
>long?  

That's personal, and I'm not one who openly flaunts my
learnedness. 

>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.

Ok, assume that I am an ordinary Joe, we'll continue from there.

>> 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?

That has to do with this entire thread. 

>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

Have they realized Brahman? Are they spiritually complete? Are
they liberated? Can they communicate with God?

If the answer is no, they are as good as garbage.

>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. 

What is the use of constant argument? The purpose of Vedanta is to know Truth.
Once you do, what is there to argue about? 

>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.  

Do you consider any of the four Shankaracharyas as any of the great
Acharyas? If you do, then your above statement is false. 

>And true to that, that's all you'll get from me.

That is what I expect aswell. But if you are looking for 
"rational" explanations to spirituality, goodluck.

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