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

Re: ARTICLE : Becoming Hindu

Shrisha Rao wrote:

> If an insane person's delusions need to be specially justified for
> you, I wonder what worth to your world-view at all.

How do you know the person is insane? You assume too much.
 

> The first is possible (and has already been dealt with in extensive
> detail on the Dvaita list)
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, that explains it all. You wouldn't happen
to be a member of ISKCON would you? 

>and the second untrue.

Nope. The second true.

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

These characteristics only appear on those that have intense
visions, on those who are very spiritually advanced. 
 
> >Do you think that the realization of Brahman can be "proved"
> >using a "rational" process?
> 
> Yes.

Prove it to me.

> >Your statements are similar to the famous
> >statement : "If there is a God, show him to me.".
> 
> No.

Yes.

> Your brand is one that involves such chimerisms as a "third eye,"
> etc.

When did I say that my brand involves the "third eye"? I get
the feeling you do not know what I mean by the "third eye",
it is not an extra eye, physical or anything else. It is
the "Chakra" located between the eyebrows and referred 
to extensively in the Tantric scriptures. 

> >>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.

Oh boy, not your comparisons again. Haven't you read my other post yet.
But again, we are comparing V's Vedanta. V's Vedanta to my knowledge
makes no reference to the third eye. I'm talking about his
Vedanta, not his writings on the various yogas etc. So, explain why
V' Vedanta is bunk.(If you have read his Vedanta that is, not heard
it from someone else.)

> It is not obvious that spiritual development spans more than one
> incarnation.  That has to be proved also, as part of said development
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^
Rationally I assume?

> itself, and cannot be assumed a priori.  Second, it is certainly
> possible that medical knowledge can also be gained over more than one
> lifetime.     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rationally prove the above to me!!

> 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?

The fact that spiritual develpment "can" span a number of incarnations
is shown in many scriptures. But on the note of someone needing
a Phd, or some high qualification to speak on certain matters is,
as you say, "rubbish". If you disagree, explain Einstein to me.

> Does that mean you say he didn't?

It means that I don't know if he did or didn't, otherwise why
would I ask you if he did?
Since you made the statement, you still have to answer, 
Did he say that? 
 

> No; that isn't what is irrelevant.  What is irrelevant is your asking
> "how do you know I am not classically qualified," etc.

Yes, it is relevant. It tells me what type of a person you
are. You have made many assumptions, e.g. Vivekananda's statements,
etc. If you are a person who simply assumes everything, it tells
me alot.

> A very wise policy, given the obvious absence of it.

Not wise, but private.

> In what way, exactly?

That is what I made claims to and that is what started
this thread.
 

> 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.

A very wise policy, given the obvious absence of an answer.
Take your own definitions of Brahman, liberated, and God,
and give me an answer.


> >What is the use of constant argument?
> 
> Differentiation between right and wrong is the use.

If you harp too much on what is right and what is not,
you will end up nowhere.
 
> >The purpose of Vedanta is to know Truth.
> 
> Wherefrom did you come to the conclusion?  My seventh ear hears
> differently.

I came to this conclusion from my eight ear. :-)
 
> >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

Correct.


>although you spoke of
> your "third eye," etc., previously.  Perhaps the "third eye" needs
> specs?

On the way to Truth, you come across various truths and things, and experiences.
The "third eye" is one of these. But in no way does it mean that I have
reached the end.

> 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."  

How about if we go and meet the four of them. It will
be "ratinal" proof to you.

> Hmm... perhaps they'd change their minds if you showed them the
> optician's prescription for it...

Your continuous line of jests show only that you cannot
argue with me, and you are looking for a way out of
this argument.


> Thanks.  But I am no longer looking.  I found what I was looking for
> years ago.

NO you haven't. You have been blinded by what you found years ago.
People who say that they have found it when they haven't simply
have the luxury of blind-faith, they don't even have two eyes.

PS. If you are going to reply again, reply with
    some solid answers , not with bunk similar to 
    the above. Your above post was simply a run-around.
                                      
                                              
                                              J.
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.