[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: New site needs your point of view
Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>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".
*** Please go ahead and brand all advaitins Vivekanandaites or
anti-prabhupadites. Whats in a name anyway?? It is only a reflection
of what you think about advaitins and I am sure people dont care
about what your opinion of them is
>
>>>I find neo-advaita significantly less appealing, both from an
>>Pray, what is neo-advaita?
** Sir. I have been reading advaita for about 4 years now but as far
as I know there is nothing like a `Classical Advaita' and a Neo-
advaita. Actually I like the term as long as it is not going to
mean something else(like `FUNNY' sometimes meaning`PATHETIC'!!!)
In fact how about calling us Quantum Advaitins. That would be right
on line with the classical and quantum mechanics concepts!!!
>
>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.
** What is this `seeming to be closely linked'. Are you afraid to make
a definetive statement because you yourself are not sure of what we
are. By the way what is `being closely LINKED with CLASSICAL advaita'
Please elaborate on this profound statement.
Let me ask you one more question. I think this will put the statement
in the right perspective. `Which form of philosophy do you really seem
to be closely linked with??'( I cant stop laughing)
>
>>>intellectual standpoint, and from a standpoint of "beauty", than
*** Beauty?? What beauty are you talking about?? Physical,intellctual
or spiritual(if there exists something like a spiritual beauty!!)
Somethings may be beautiful to look at but may be fatal if you try
to do something with(say eat). Have you ever looked at Nuxvomica
seeds?? They have a golden hue and are so`beautiful'(I am using
this word in the same sense as you have which I am not sure of).
But you eat one and i bet you will be dead in no time. So some
philosophies may look really`beautiful' but if you practice them
they may have some dire consequenses on the lives of the people
who do so!!!!!! So `beauty' is a bad stand point of judging something
like advaita.
>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.
**** What do you mean by Bland?? Whats going on. I thought advaita
was a highly involved intellectual science. And why are people using
adjectives like BLAND and BEAUTY to refer to this. I will with
humility repeat whatever you have written before.
`For the sake of actually communicating with everyone else, it would
help if you dont create your own definitions'.:-)
>
>Given that there are most definitely advaitins who wrote beautiful
>things, I'll pass on your interpretation.
**** Sir. If you are not sure please dont comment. Who GAVE you
this statement that `there are MOST definitely advaitins who
wrote beautiful THINGS'. What are these THINGS you are referring to?
Are you sure of any one who wrote?? If yes have you read any of them.
If yes again pray tell us so that we can also enjoy the so called
`BEAUTY'. Let me put it the way you do. `It seems most definetly
that I am unaware of this `BEAUTY' and hence the philosophy
that i believe in seems most definetely to be `BLAND'.
Given that the above observation is most definitely true, let me
make the philosophy less `BLAND' by adding some `BEAUTY' to it.
( I just cant keep laughing at these.)
>
>
>
>>>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
** Good that you see a vast range of posts under advaita. I dont see
any range in the posts under the ones countering advaita( I think
i need not expicitly state what i want to write here)
>
>
>
>
>>>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
** One straight forward question. If anyone was at His level do you
think he would be arguing with you for so long?? By the way one more
term here. What is this `LEVEL'
>
>
>>
>>Is it?
>
>Sometimes, funny means pathetic.
*** Sometimes what does `Sometimes' mean?? or rather What does sometimes
`sometimes' mean. Sometimes sometimes means sometimes and sometimes
it doesnt
mean sometimes. Well are you not `creating definitions' and making
communication with every one else difficult??
Please give a list that tells which word means what in each letter.
Please... Otherwise your writings will surely be misinterpreted.
>
>
>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.
*** Well this is really funny err... pathetic. Well it really seems like
it is most definitely funny.
>
>
>
>>>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
*** Good. Who cares if there are Hindus are BORN in the US or not??
BTW no one becomes a hindu or a muslim or a christian by birth(though
unfortunately that is how people look at things). A hindu is a person
who follows and lives according to the principles of hinduism and
believes in its philosophy.
>
>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
*** Who is this lot?? Pray mention a few from this LOT.
>
>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.
*** Actually if i think all paths are SAME why should i know or
pay attention to the DIFFERENT paths?? Then i will be contradicting
my own theory. It is you who feel that they are different so you
keep track of the differences. Makes sense???
>>>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.
** Are you talking about the Hindu community in India or in the US
or both?? Pray enlighten me on this.
>>???!!! 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.
*** I totally agree with Ramakrishnan here.
>
>Then I'm even more convinced that in a generation, there won't be any
>Hindus born in the US.
** Good. What if there are not any?? I dont see any reason for
alarm. BTW do you consider yourself as a protector of Hinduism
or something like that?? Please answer this question.Please
enlighten me on this too. I am not aware of what you feel about this
>
>(re)Define it, like you do so many other words.
** Please do it yourself.
>
>
>should try to appear more fair.
*** What is this `you should try to appear more fair'.
Are you really more fair or are you trying to APPEAR more fair or what??
Pray enlighten.(or are you really unfair and are trying to appear
fair which is hypocrisy :-)
>
>
>
>Except for the fact that I've seen vanishingly few examples these days
>among people calling for "Hindu Unity".
*** Sincere question. What do you exactly mean by HINDU UNITY
Please ignore all my previous questions and answer this question
without using `seems' or `most definetly'.
Thanks for reading if you have read the full letter.
Regards
Prasad S Sista
>
>
