[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Becoming Hindu
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Becoming Hindu
-
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@braincells.com>
-
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 21:56:35 GMT
-
Apparently-To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Consolidated Braincells Inc.
> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 01:09:16 GMT
> From: "janahan (j.) skandaraniyam" (skandar@nortel.ca)
> Organization: Bell Northern Research
> Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
>
>
>
>
> On the other side of what? Why do you need help? You yourself are help
enough.
>
Much as I hate to admit it, I'm sometimes wrong about things. It would be
the height of narcissism for anyone to pretend that everything they
believed was truth.
>
> How do you know that they did not justify their positions with mysticism?
> Are you saying that Shankaracharya had no connection with mysticism?
I know in the case of Shankaracharya because I have read his work and
listened to the teachers who are in direct descent from him.
Shankaracharya may be mystical in some ways but he justifies his positions
with logic not the "third eye."
> 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.
The "grounds for truth" or Pramans are pratyaksha (perception), anumana
(logical inference), and Shabda (the shastras) Accepting only perception
is a view of Nastikas not Vedantins.
> 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.
It is no more neccessary to know all of Vivekanandas followers to make such
a statement than it is to know the exact number of hairs on someones head
before one can say they're going bald.
> 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.
One can easily tell who is a real follower or not. Shankaracharya
established a lineage of disciples to carry on his teachings which exist to
this day. One can ask them or look at the historical and literary record.
If your allegations of childsex-abusing "Gurus" of ISKCON have any merit we
should be able to verify them in the same way.
> 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.
Except Shankaracharyas followers do strictly follow Dharma. You needn't
rely on my saying so. You can go to Srngeri or Dwarka or Kashi and verify
this for yourself.
> 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"
Obviously some did or there wouldn't be any Shrivaishnavas today.
Obviously Ramanuja thought there would be some people who would think like
that or we wouldn't have wasted time writing such voluminous works.
Check it out for yourself. The Shribhashya should be available in any
major library. After reading it yourself you'll know whether it relies on
logic or mysticism.
> 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.
So lets see a little more logical speculation and a little less fuzzy
thinking.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com] I will choose.-_|\ free will
Consolidated Braincells Inc. / \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ -)==Perth=Amboy=>*.--._/ o-
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy v McQ!
