[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: New site needs your point of view
In article <4ickit$h2@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) wrote:
>>otherwise. Most of the people who post here in support of Srila
>>Prabhupada's philosophy are not from ISKCON. Surprising? Hardly so.
>
>OK, I know this. Vijay (or was it you, sorry) and HKS have told in previous
>posts that they do not belong to ISKCON. I merely used it as a generic term
>for Prabhupada supporters + Gaudiya Viashnavas. I explained this once before
>also.
For the sake of actually communicating with everyone else, it would
help if you didn't create your own definitions. Given that there are a
lot of non-ISKCON Gaudiyas, calling them "ISKCONites" is about as
correct as calling all advaitins "Vivekanandaites".
>>I find neo-advaita significantly less appealing, both from an
>Pray, what is neo-advaita?
To put it politely, it's the philosophy spouted by people who claim to
be advaitins, but who don't really seem all that closely linked with
classical advaita.
>>intellectual standpoint, and from a standpoint of "beauty", than
>
>Advaita is not about beauty. It's about self-realization.
Your comments sound quite a bit drier and more bland than the actual
famous advaitins of the past. Of course, this doesn't surprise me.
>You might try the Van Gogh museum instead of Advaita for beauty.
Given that there are most definitely advaitins who wrote beautiful
things, I'll pass on your interpretation.
>And anyone reading Advaita for "beauty" is only a mere intellectual.
>Many of us are rather serious practitioners.
And in one felled swoop, you've not only rewritten history, but you've
also established yourself well above those "less serious
practitioners" (or were they charlatans in your opinion?) of the past.
Congratulations. Humility is so overrated, and I'm glad to see you
don't bother with that conventional wisdom.
>>from mine, but I find a vast range of quality in the posts which
>>these days get lumped under "advaita". Needless to say, these stem
>
>I haven't seen any 'vast range' in posts on Advaita.
I have.
>Can you point out some of them to me?
Since you ask, I'll give you two examples - see Vidya's posts or
Anand's posts. In my opinion, they are significantly better than those
of many of the other people who claim to be advaitins.
>>not only from the authors themselves, but also from the people
>>whose viewpoints those authors are representing. To put it nicely,
>>a lot of the people who claim to be philosophically linked to
>>Sankaracharya just don't seem to be on his level. Granted, these
>
>Did anyone claim to be Shankara here?
Please re-read those sentences.
>Most of us are sadhakas (I presume) and
>trying to attain self-realization and not prove that we are aacharyaas. And of
>course I have to presume that you perfectly know on what level Shankara was.
You don't have to determine his exact level to filter out things
nowhere close to that level.
>How about explaining to us? I have nothing but the GREATEST regard for him and
>have been unable to see on what level he was.
To give you a more concrete example, if I have a bar of gold and a
pile of refuse, I don't have to know the exact value of each to
determine which is more valuable. Of course, if I have a bar of gold
and a bar of platinum, life becomes harder.
>I also find it quite funny that you expect us to be on the level of Shankara,
I don't. Please re-read that section carefully before jumping to this
sort of erroneous conclusion. Specifically, _three_ different types of
people are mentioned, and the followers of Shankaracharya are not
listed in two two sentences, as far as I know.
>>However, this continual ISKCON-bashing is quite funny to me,
>
>Is it?
Sometimes, funny means pathetic.
>>I am not in ISKCON proper. I most definitely help ISKCON, and
>>I support them, but here's the catch - it's with the approval
>>of my family's guru back in India. Surprised? Don't be. We descend
>>from the Gaudiyas.
>
>Should I be surprised? Did you think I even cared? Or did you think my aim in
>life is to "convert" ISKCONites to advaita? What do I care whether you had
>your Guru's approval or not?
Given that you keep on referring to people as "ISKCONites", then it
should be pointed out that you are most definitely incorrect. However,
I was not aware that you were redefining English words to your own
fancy. I'll be more careful in the future to figure out what you
_really_ mean when you use already existing labels.
>>is better than none, I had no problem suggesting that she join.
>>Likewise, would it surprise you that I also support other temples
>>besides Vaishnava temples?
>
>Should I be surprised? Do you consider it something extraordinary that I
>should be surprised?
Given that you've been trying to paint everyone you define as
"ISKCONite" as a fanatic who doesn't support any other practice in any
way, shape, or form, if you are not surprised, then I find your attempts
at branding others most disingenuous.
>>Everyone seems to be talking about "Hindu Unity" these days, but
>>they seem very unclear on what that means. At this rate, there won't
>>be any Hindus born in the US in about a generation or so. This
>
>???!!!
If you have a specific question, ask it. If not, abuse punctuation to
your heart's content.
>>nihilistic approach to being a Hindu "either be an all-accepting
>>Hindu or do nothing" will yield the latter. Already I see a lot of
>>people suggesting that any belief is fanaticism, and that's just
>
>???!!!
Actually, I'll expand on this one - I got interrogated by a
twentysomething twit a few weeks back. She attempted to (erroneously)
attribute to me statements which she felt were fanatical. She was
clearly of the "all paths are exactly the same" school of Hinduism,
yet when I pressed her to actually name some of these paths or the
famous people in them, she couldn't. She didn't even know any of the
dozen or so (non-Gaudiya) schools/figures/texts I mentioned.
>>from within the Hindu community. In the end, it'll be "cool" to be
>>a "know-nothing". It's already that way to a large extent.
>
>???!!! May I know what you are trying to talk about? Why are you so concerned
>about whether there will be Hindus or not? They will exist as long as there
>are people who can set an example exist.
Then I'm even more convinced that in a generation, there won't be any
Hindus born in the US.
>>You can brand me a heretic for helping ISKCON (among others), but
>
>heretic??. That word does not exist in my dictionary.
(re)Define it, like you do so many other words.
>>at least I'm doing something. Likewise, you can sit back and
>>comfortably lambaste Srila Prabhupada for not meeting your standards,
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>but let's face it - take a look at the newer generation of Hindu
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>You are welcome to rant all you want. All I ask is that you get
>>your facts straight. You might, however, want to consider what
>>you accomplish.
>
>OK, Now I'll get to the point. Where were you when Vivekananda, Ramakrishna
>and Sai Baba were having their characters assassinated when they didn't meet
>the standards of X or Y or Z?
If your current stream of garbage is an attempt to roll in the
perceived gutter which others do, please feel free to continue with
what you're doing. However, might I point out that your own questions
are relevant to you as well? I'll note that those three weren't the
only people who have been negatively discussed in this forum or
others. If you're going to pretend to be superman, at least you
should try to appear more fair.
Like I said, you might want to consider what you accomplish.
>Or if you weren't around in those days what is your
>opinion on those posts? My sole aim in attacking ISKCON was to drive this
>point home.
Like I said above, feel free to "stoop" to the level of your
"opponents", if that's what you feel you want to do.
>If you don't want your pet organizations attacked, stop attacking others.
I have no illusions that this statement is and has always been false.
>I hope you have some clue of how others will get irritated when you attack
>their 'Gurus'.
Generally, when I've "attacked" someone, I've shown that the words of
that person are in direct contradiction to the claims of his
followers. I'm sure you or someone else are now going to dig up
counter-examples from the alt.hindu archives. However, if you're going
to even claim to be fair, you should also find the examples which
support my point.
>Bhakthi. However if people post articles of his, completely criticizing other
>traditions without understanding what they are talking about, what else do you
[...]
>denigrating everything else. I am really curious, don't you see the circular
>logic involved in this Paadma puraaNa stuff?
Do you fail to see your own hypocrisy? You are supposedly railing on
Prabhupada for your perception that he talks about stuff which he
doesn't understand, in your opinion, but now, you're asking me to
believe that you've somehow proved some circularity of logic in the
Padma Purana? Thanks, but I'll pass. The irony is just too heavy.
>In any case, I sincerely hope you have atleast some idea of what people feel
>when you attack their gurus etc. I have made enough effort to drive this point
>home and won't try again. If I haven't succeeded after all this time, I never
>will.
I will now jump back into my magic time machine, and shake my index
finger at all those people throughout history who have attacked
someone's guru. However, there's a minor problem here - most of the
gurus have also attacked other gurus.
Ah, we've now entered the realm of "know-nothing Hinduism", where it's
cool and hip to be stupid.
>Also, my opinion on teaching children is simple. Set an example. Most children
>will follow. There is no need to pontificate extensively on this subject.
Except for the fact that I've seen vanishingly few examples these days
among people calling for "Hindu Unity".
>Self-reform first, as THE man himself said "Let he who is not guilty cast the
>first stone".
I believe that should be "he who is without sin", but I might be mistaken.
>Frequently people who claim to be moral authorities never meet
>their own standards and children can't be expected to follow.
But it seems that when these get pointed out, you consider it a
"character assassination" of a guru.
>Instead, why not
>try to be "moral" and tell children that they are trying their best and that
>they too should too and EXPLAIN why. IMHO, that's a good way.
But wait - won't that make all the immoral people feel bad? After all,
what have they done wrong that you want to define their behavior as
immoral? Can't we all be moral be definition. Why doesn't someone with
the right authority declare that "everything is moral", so that way,
teaching the children becomes a no-brainer?
>Finally, others are also trying to do small services in their own way. You
>have no exclusive right over that.
I don't believe I ever claimed that I did, but thank you very much for
the strawman argument and the non sequitur, not to mention the
gratuitous righteous indignation. You've made my weekend.
-Vivek
