[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Animal-killing and Soul-merging condemned
>susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote:
He's baaaaacckkk!! Sob! (tears of joy). HKS, I was beginning to miss your posts
and was actually becoming nostalgic and there you are.
>>>In article <4f6deg$ea3@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> >Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> it is also false according to the Gaudiya Vaishnava school -- Shankara
>>>> is considered an incarnation of Shiva sent by the Lord (Narayana) to
>>>> preach the mayavada philosophy.
>>>
>>>I had no comments on this, I fail to see why this was brought out here.
>>>The absurdity of the supposition of the Gaudiya school speaks for itself.
>>
>I find it more than just a little interesting that your only way to react to
>something you don't like is to declare that it is intuitively absurd.
That makes two interested people. I have never ceased to be interested by your
astounding Bhashyas of my posts. You haven't lost your touch.
Consider the event A={Someone says something absurd}
the event B={I don't like it and say so}
the event C = {I say something as absurd because I don't like it}.
Now A=>B. You made your usual mistake. Since I said A=>B you think B=>C,
where C is a totally unrelated event which you have made up, because you agree
with not(A).
>That too, considering the fact that you call yourself an advaitin. Since
>everything is one according to your philosophy, calling Sankara an incarnation
>of Siva is not something you can refute.
Neither you nor I are any different from Shankara. Actually by advaita there is
neither Shankara nor Buddha.
>>Eradication of Buddhism = arguments with them and hence defeat them. Since
>>Buddhism was eradicated by Kumarila (supposedly an incarnation of Kartikeya),
>>
>OK, and what scripture is that from?
Uhm, you might have heard of something called history. You know, the study of
ancient happenings. They teach it in high school. Remember? History says that
Kumarila was the main force in the demise of Buddhism with a slightly minor
role played by Bhatta Bhaskara. Kumarila being an incarnation of Kartikeya is a
story passed down by the 4 mutts. It may or may not be true, which is why I
said "supposedly an incarnation". The fact is that the DigVijaya (Madhaviya)
written by Madhava-Vidyaranya (a person in the Sringeri line) talks about
Shankara arguing with Mandana, Bhatta Bhaskara, Neelakantha and Abhinavagupta.
These were the main opponents. Other minor people were the Vaishnavas, Jainas,
Nyaya school etc. In fact I have elaborated my views on this subject, with
reasons, in my reply to Vivek Pai's post. Please have a look at that also. I
don't want to repeat everything here.
>>>this reasoning by Prabhupada can at best be dismissed as absurd. Obviously he
>>Oh yes. I forgot. Prabhupada supports what he teaches from Padma and Siva
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Puranas,
^^^^^^^^^^^
Since you have re-entered srh, I have composed a poem on this momentous
occasion. However, writing poetry is not my forte, so it's technically not
very good. I crave thine indulgence.
O, Hari Krishna Susarla,
Gem of the BMG(*) tradition,
Upholder of Dvaitin doctrines,
Welcome back to srh.
O, Master of all tarkas,
Thou art a puraanic scholar,
condescend to tell thine audience,
the subtleties of the Shiva purana.
The Shatha Rudra Samhita in the Shiva puraanaa,
the greatest of all the puraanaas,
elaborates on the incarnations,
of Shiva, with matted hair.
However, O great scholar,
It does not mention the avataara,
of Shiva as Shankara Bhagavatpaada,
to the surprise of thine humble servant.
I beg humbly of thee,
to explain to me,
Did Lord Narasihma whisper in your ear,
something which we should hear,
About the Shiva puraana?
Thank you for your indulgence,
and once more O master, forgive,
the technical mistakes in this poem.
(*) BMG = Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya and not the competitors of Columbia house.
>and yet you call his reasoning absurd. But when you declare that
>Buddhism was defeated by an incarnation of Kartikeya (with no scriptural
>support whatsoever) we are supposed to just accept that. Okay...
May I say that Prabhupada was talking utter tripe (and not for the first time)
about evidence from the Shiva puraana?
>I grant you that you are very good at being offensive when you want to be. But
Yesssss, my life's made, now that you have admitted that I'm good at being
offensive. Now if I can book my ticket to the planet of the faithless ...
And you know, you don't have the prerogative of being offensive. People who
support ISKCON seem to feel that they have some such prerogative.
>simply calling another person's reasoning absurd does not conceal the fact
>that there is not substance to your arguments at all. You did not bother to
>address the Puranic verses regarding Sankara and Siva, and you provided none
>of your own when asserting that Buddhism was defeated by Kartikeya.
History supports me. So does the main Shankara Dig Vijaya. Also see my reply to
Pai in this regard. Of course I clearly said "supposedly an incarnation". I am
sorry if you can't comprehend simple English. 'Wren and Martin' is a good
starting point for learning the rudiments of the usage.
>>had no clue of the various Digvijayas and took some bedside tales and
>>converted
>>>them into Puranic and Vedic assertions of his tradition's greatness.
>>
>>[sigh] didn't humans evolve past this chest-beating stage tens of thousands of
>>years ago?
They did, Advaitins were the first ones to evolve. However in my experience and
others' ISKCON members have been known for chest-beating - accosting people at
various places and telling them how all interpretations of everything is wrong
except their own. Lot of people have told me that many ISKCON members indulge in
chest-beating. However I consulted the Webster dictionary on the meaning of
chest beating. May be that's not certified as a genuine dictionary by the
Paadma puraanaa? Does the Maadhvaa doctrine say to which planet people who
consult the Webster's and not a genuine dictionary, will be banished to?
Note to the readers of srh and the moderator : The "chest beating" was clearly
a personal attack. This tactic of Susarla is well known to old readers of srh.
>>-- HKS
Ramakrishnan.
--
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
