[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Animal killing and Soul merging condemned
vijaypai@mandolin.rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai) wrote:
>In article <4fj6al$klg@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>vijaypai@mandolin.rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai)
>>By an "ISKCON" page I obviously meant an "ISKCON" related page. Say
>>I refer to the Ramana Maharishi homepage in Canada. It's not maintained by
>>Ramana. However I think it can be referred to as the Ramana homepage.
>
>On the contrary, what you said would be parallel to taking some
>statement by Ramana about Sankara and then attributing the statement
>to Srngeri Matha. In case it isn't patently clear, you'll notice that
>that article doesn't say it is either by ISKCON or ISKCON-related; it says
>it is by _the Gaudiya Vaishnava Society_.
>
>>Also
>>ISKCON and Ramana have a wide enough following to justify such usage. I think
>>it's definitely ISKCON related (whether you agree or not) and so do some other
>>ISKCON members.
I accept your explanation and apologize for my error. Here is what another
knowledgeable nettor e-mailed me.
begin e-mail excerpt
>> SO, they are "anti-ISKCON" in terms of internal organizational
^^^^ (they = GVS)
>> matters, and indeed the philosophical opinions expressed by any of the
>> groups are those held by all the others.
>>
>> BUT, if you state "the Gaudiya Vaisanava Society says this, so ISKCON
>> believes it" then you lose credibility, just in terms of apparent lack
>> of accuracy, even though it is not a philosophical point.
end e-mail excerpt
>Fine, but realize that until the Advaita tradition agrees on its own history
>it cannot possibly fault other schools for agreeing with one subtradition
>within its history...
As you might have seen in Vidya's post, they do: on Kumarila's role. Hopefully
that is clarified now. That was the point I was trying to make. So my original
statement was wrong in a technical manner. I should have rather said "Prabhupada
was wrong in interpreting these verses as talking about Shankara, and
Prabhupada's followers are under the same misconception". (followers includes
both ISKCON and GVS and anyone else who is under this misconception)
>>It is quite probable that the verse allegedly referring to Shankara, in the
>>Paadma puraanaa exists only in the copies from Vaishnavite regions.
>It is indeed possible, just as it is possible that other verses attributed
>to PP exist only in smarta or Shaivite communities, etc.
At laaassst! I am glad you agree with me. So there is no question of claiming
puraanic superiority - neither by the Vaishnavaas nor the Shaivites nor the
Smaarthas. If you admit that you believe in Vaishnavism because you FEEL it's
right, I won't and can't argue. But, as you very aptly observed, different
versions say various things and you can't claim puraanic superiority by quoting
only those which support you.
There is nothing to prove your version is right other than your own belief. So
you can't use that to justify bashing Samarthas, Shavites or any other
tradition and then claim that the puaanaas justify only your sect. I hope all
misconceptions have been sorted out now.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Sitting quietly doing nothing, spring comes and the grass grows by itself.
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
