[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why Paaramparaa?
susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote:
>In article <4frkmr$bv6@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>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.
>
>What I like about using the paramparaa versions of scripture is that you get a
>very consistent picture of the Vedanta. Ultimately, I think that people who
Consistent in this way: A child closing it's eyes thinks it is invisible to
it's mother.
[diatribe on moral conditions deleted]
>No why am I bringing all of this up? The unfortunate fact is that I (and many
Precisely my question also. Take care of your own morals and if your
personality is forceful enough people will follow your lead. There is no need
to go on criticising other people for deficiencies.
>So, this brings me back to the supposed inconsistency of the Vedic literatures
>and the importance of hearing through paramparaa. Ultimately, when you hear
>scripture through one of the four bona fide sampradaayas, you will get a very
>consistent picture of the Truth, as well as some consistent rules and
>guidelines which should be followed to get there.
Algorithm of the Vaishnavas, at least the ones who voice their opinions on
this net:
1. Take any literature
2. Either misinterpret it or if not amenable to mis-interpretation declare it
either tamasic or rajasic.
3. Point out verses in the selected literature proving my superiority.
4. Since I am superior, only my selection of the literature is correct.
5. CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! BRAVO! ENCORE! We are sooooo consistent. Look at the
advaitins. They are not. Ofcourse there is no logic in our procedure. But we
are (sound of a million people clapping) SOOOOOO consistent.
6. All people have to be totally convinced by these brilliant arguments. If not
obviously they are engaged in chest-beating, tamasic/rajasic activities or
eating cows. Since they'll anyway go to the "planet of the faithless" finally
, we are THE winners.
7. Go to step 1.
>real purpose of human life is. No one will respect Vedic culture if the Hindus
>themselves do not respect it.
Why are you so keen on winning other people's appreciation of the Vedic
culture? If you have enough belief, follow it. If your personality is forceful
enough people will follow you.
>The paramparaa system makes sense because there has to be some way of
>filtering out the authentic scripture (those actually compiled by Vyaasa) from
Your paaramapara system totally lacks logic. You are ofcourse free to follow it
and declare consistency. But, unfortunately I think logic is quite desirable,
atleast for now. And also note that it is consistent only in a parochial sense.
>those which are later corruptions. I don't mean to name names and stir up bad
>feelings, but just to take an example, Ramakrishnana Balasubrmanian scoffed at
>the very idea of hearing scripture through a paramparaa. But this attitude is
>short sighted. If you don't accept guru-shishya paramparaa as the proper way
>of hearing the Vedanta, then you have no way of deciding what versions of a
Thanks for your advice. I never said that there need not be any guru. I just
said that there is no reason to accept YOUR tradition as the only one.
I have guru(s) who have cleared up my doubts.
>scripture to accept, and what to reject. That means that if you know a
>
[long meandering arguments which serve no purpose, deleted]
>Everyone accepts the Bhagavad-Gita, and the Gita very clearly states that
No, the Shaiva siddhantins in Tamil Nadu give a very minor position to BG.
Their picture is as consistent as that of the Vaishnavas.
Just going on and on about the BG is equivalent to the Christians harping
about the Bible.
>you who are interested in the Absolute Truth and who accept the Gita, I
>suggest you start with Bhagavad-Gita and judge the authenticity or lack
>thereof of other beliefs and paramparaas according to it.
Thanks for your suggestion. My life has totally changed seeing such cogent
arguments.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Sitting quietly doing nothing, spring comes and the grass grows by itself.
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
