[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Animal-Killing, and Soul-Merging Condemned
shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Shrisha Rao) wrote:
> In article <4ekm5d$91g@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> Ken Stuart <kstuart@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>
> >All the following are my understandings of Vaishnava doctrine:
> >
> >1) Shankara was an incarnation of God to lead people from an
> >atheistic Buddhism to an impersonalistic Advaita, since the latter was
> >better for them (even though it wasn't the ultimate viewpoint).
>
> False, according to the Maadhva school. Said school makes no claim
> about Shankara's divinity (and some parts of it make quite a reverse
> claim), and also sets out to prove that Advaita is actually a
> disguised Buddhism that is just as inadvisable as the
> straight-and-narrow version.
I didn't see the original post by Ken. I usually ignore anything with "animal
killing" in it, however I somehow happened to read this and couldn't resist
replying :-). Ken, did you by any chance get this "better for them" thing from
the ISKCON homepage on Shankara? If so I must tell you that the person who
wrote it has a good imagination, but a not so good talent for detail. It is a
well known fact that Kumarila Bhatta was the person who defeated the Buddhists
and NOT Shankara. Shankara did not have a SINGLE argument with the Buddhists. So
the supposed verse from the paadma purana, linking Shankara with "misleading
teachings" is definitely nothing but wild imagination (even assuming that the
given verse is true and not present only in the ISKCON version). And many of the
"facts" from that page are quite untrue (atleast according to the biographies
of Shankara).
> This may quite plausibly strike you as being a parochial party line; I
> am not trying to defend the above claims here, but only to state that
> they are made.
So what is your opinion on the party line?
> >2) Those who follow Shankara by wanting to lose their individuality
> >and merge with God, are condemned to "the planets of the faithless,
> >full of darkness and ignorance".
> >
> >Is this right?
>
> "Planets of the faithless" is a specific term that might not be
> totally accurate (I would prefer 'worlds' over 'planets'), but
> basically, yes.
Sounds like a really cool place :-).
> Shrisha Rao
>
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Ken
Rama "citizen of the planet of faithless" krishnan
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
