[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Becoming Hindu
In article <ghenE02uv9.7z2@netcom.com>,
janahan (j.) skandaraniyam <skandar@nortel.ca> wrote:
>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"?
If an insane person's delusions need to be specially justified for
you, I wonder what worth to your world-view at all.
>>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.
The first is possible (and has already been dealt with in extensive
detail on the Dvaita list), and the second untrue.
>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?
By proving the existence of the referent of the vision, viz., Krishna,
in a rational process, and also proving by a rational process that the
someone has the characteristics of having had a vision, by a rational
process.
>Do you think that the realization of Brahman can be "proved"
>using a "rational" process?
Yes.
>Your statements are similar to the famous
>statement : "If there is a God, show him to me.".
No.
>What do you mean by my brand of Vedanta? Do you know what my brand
>of Vedanta is? You assume too much.
Your brand is one that involves such chimerisms as a "third eye,"
etc.
>>I am distinguishing between Vedanta and bunk, to be more precise.
>
>OK, explain to me why it is bunk?
Because, as I said, a "third eye" is like a rabbit's horn, and any
theory that rests on the fallacious assumption re the existence of the
one must be no different from a delusion re the latter.
>>-- 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.
It is not obvious that spiritual development spans more than one
incarnation. That has to be proved also, as part of said development
itself, and cannot be assumed a priori. Second, it is certainly
possible that medical knowledge can also be gained over more than one
lifetime. So would you accept a quack as a physician, who perhaps in
addition to what I'd said above, said he'd earned an M.D. in some
other lifetime?
>>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?
Does that mean you say he didn't?
>>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.
No; that isn't what is irrelevant. What is irrelevant is your asking
"how do you know I am not classically qualified," etc.
>>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.
A very wise policy, given the obvious absence of it.
>>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.
Done.
>>> 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.
In what way, exactly?
>>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.
Please define "Brahman," "spiritually complete," "liberated," and
"God." If you fail to give a proper definition, then your point, if
there is one, needs must be dismissed as rubbish.
>>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?
Differentiation between right and wrong is the use.
>The purpose of Vedanta is to know Truth.
Wherefrom did you come to the conclusion? My seventh ear hears
differently.
>Once you do, what is there to argue about?
Let's see. Given that you yourself have been arguing for a while now,
it must be that you have not known "Truth" yet, although you spoke of
your "third eye," etc., previously. Perhaps the "third eye" needs
specs?
>>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.
I expressly said I was speaking of people I knew; I unfortunately
don't know any of the Shankaracharya-s, past or present, although I
fail to see how they would take you seriously for claiming a "third
eye." Hmm... perhaps they'd change their minds if you showed them the
optician's prescription for it...
>>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.
Thanks. But I am no longer looking. I found what I was looking for
years ago.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
--
http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html
