[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ISKCON - help define these terms
In article <4ick4h$t8g@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>The one with esoteric questions thought:
>>Indeed. While I am not interested in assailing the personal character of the
>>person who made this claim, I must note that it is indeed a bold one coming
>>from someone whose idea of philosophy is to deny his own existence. One has
to
>I am not surprised at your ignorance (Advaita asking one to deny his own
>existence). After all, your knowledge (actually ignorance) of Advaita is from
>throughly illogical arguments by Prabhupada.
Once more, you make bold assertions as if they are self-evident, preferring
always to stay away from detail. The interesting thing is, it was from YOU
whom I learned that one must deny his personal existence.
In fact, Advaita starts from the
>opposite end, one's personal existence is the only thing which always IS and
>verifiable directly.
First you say that you have no personal existence, and now you say you do.
It's clear to me that you have no idea what Advaita is, what to speak of other
systems of Vedanta.
>
>>wonder how we can accept a statement of truth from someone for whom the
whole
>>world is an illusion.
>
>Look, I clearly criticized the article "What is Mayaavadam?". Look it up
again.
I can't, since the archives for that section are nonexistent. Anyway, I
already responded to your arguments. I don't know if you wrote further,
because I saw no further responses, either on my newserver or via gopher.
Anyway, the orignal point stands. For you, the whole world is an illusion. So
why should I accept anything you say? You are also an illusion, according to
your own so-called philosophy.
>All you can do is give meaningless arguments and comment on how arrogant
>people are. You have clearly shown yourself to be unwilling to engage in any
>logical argument, your arguments on paramparaa has been taken apart by
>Ken and I many times. But all you can do is start personal attacks. Ofcourse
>when there is a chance to pontificate you grab the chance by it's collar.
Once again, carefully avoiding substance, you make assertions you cannot
support. I find it amusing that you believe I have shown myself "to be
unwilling to engage in any logical argument," you who are not even sure of
your own existence. Then you state that "your arguments on paramparaa has
[sic] been taken apart by Ken and I many times." I will give you a chance to
argue against paramparaa in my other reply. For now, I can only say it
is amusing that you must rely on Ken, who equates worship of Beavis and
Butt-head and TVs with worship of Vishnu.
When
>I criticized Prabhupada what did you say? I was insulting him. Read your own
>article which follows.
>
>first: your reply to my post saying that I respect Prabhupada for his piety,
>but consider his interpretations wrong.
>
>second: a previous post of yours in ah.
>
>Both the first and second posts were forwarded to me by someone who noticed
>your inconsistencies.
>
>-----------first---------------------
>
>> Ramakrishnan, I really respect you. Your bhaasya is total tripe, and
without
>> humor. But I do respect you. Really.
>
>Yes, it is possible. You could respect me though you totally disagree with
me.
>I have no problems with that.
Well, I guess I have been over this point before. But still, I will say it
again. That you disagree is not the issue. What is the issue is that you
disagree so vehemently without putting up any kind of logical argument to
support yourself. You make statements like "I find Prabhupada's translations
to be absurd," but when someone challenges you we then find that you have no
qualification to judge the translation of Sanskrit.
> Most of us outgrew that stage wherein we saw disagreements as
>indicative of personal animosity. I can hate your ideas without hating you.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I suspect that the reverse is also true. Our philosophy, which comes from
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is no contradiction here. The difference between my disagreeing with
someone and your disagreeing is that
1) I base my disagreements on clear reasoning, much of which goes unanswered
2) you base your disagreements on accusations which you make as if they are
self-evident, things like "that was absurd," "that was utter tripe," etc.
[nonsense deleted]
Anyway, I am not going to further this discussion about who pulled whose nose
and when. You stated that you find Prabhupada's translation is absurd. What
translation was absurd? Tell us how it ought to be translated, or admit your
ignorance and leave the discussion peacefully. The bottom line here, is that
you don't know what you are talking about, but you act as if you do. Show me
one verse that Prabhupada has mistranslated, and then tell me how it should be
translated. I contend that you are blowing off steam as usual, based on your
desire to discredit genuine religion and glorify anything which allows you to
maintain your own materialistic lifestyle.
-- Krishna
