[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On attempting to define Hinduism)
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On attempting to define Hinduism)
-
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@braincells.com>
-
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 02:45:52 GMT
-
Apparently-To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Consolidated Braincells Inc.
-
References: <ghenDwHznC.9A0@netcom.com> <ghenDwqLww.Bpu@netcom.com>
dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu (Dhruba Chakravarti) wrote in article
<ghenDwqLww.Bpu@netcom.com>...
Jaldhar H. Vyas (jaldhar@braincells.com) wrote:
> Thank you for your comments, they are very interesting reading. I must
> however say that I was not particularly happy to read your observations
> on Swamiji's scholarship. I was wondering how else would you
> translate 'ekam sadviprA vahudhA vadanti agniM yamaM mAtarishvAnmAhuH.
> RigVeda 1.164.46).
>
I did this in my earlier post.
> Perhaps a case may be made for the view that purva-mimAMsA suggests
> shruti and smR^iti to be binding, but I am not so certain about
> uttara-mimAMsA.
The difference between the two is that Purva Mimamsa deals with Dharma
while Uttara Mimamsa deals with Brahman. Purva Mimamsa has nothing to say
on Brahman (which is why it is often considered to be atheistic.
Non-theistic would be more accurate.) Vedanta has nothing to say on
Dharma. Each relies on the other for subjects outside its specialty.
Apart from the fact they are both called Mimamsa there are other reasons
to assume they are two parts of a unified system. Maharshi Jaimini is
quoted in the Brahma Sutras. Maharshi Badarayana is quoted in the Purva
Mimamsa Sutras. Mandana Mishra a great Mimamsak debated Shankaracharya.
When he was defeated (on the nature of Brahman only) he took sannyas and
become known as Sureshwaracharya one of the gratest of Advaitins. Such
Vedantic luminaries as Vachaspati Mishra, Vidyaranya, and Appaya Dikshit
also wrote (Purva) Mimamsak works.
>
> As far as I know, Religion is not about eating preferences, in fact, as
> you surely must know, the word 'religion' means re-connect, re-connect
> with God, that is yoga. I am optimistic that you do not want to say
that
> yoga squarely consists of eating fish or eating vegetables. Eating
habits
> have their place in the life of the sAdhaka, but as I understand, do not
> define religion. For evidence, I will say for now that, Swami
Vivekanada
> (who you seem to disagree with) characterized this attitude as 'my God
is
> in my kitchen' (or something like that).
Well there's your (and Vivekanands) problem. You are talking about
religion. I'm talking about Dharma. I couldn't care less about religion
but I'm keenly interested in being Dharmik.
> Many Gurus ask their disciples
> to not eat non-vegetarian because a particular yogic method is not
> compatible with non-vegetarian eating practices. Your observation that
> eating preferences define different Hindu religions, is curious, but I
am
> not convinced that you are correct.
>
It's one of the things. On certain matters we disagree with vegetarian
groups too. The yardstick is fidelity to Shruti, Smrti, and
Shishtachara.
> The teachings of Hinduism, whichever way you look at it, are expressly
> against intellectual interpretations of Scriptures.
I vehemently _disagree_ with this baseless statement. It completely
ignores the vast amount of polemic literature that has been written
through the centuries. This literature which was aimed at demolishing the
views of rival schools _was_ based on intellectual interpretation of the
scriptures. Indeed logic was developed to an astonishingly high level.
Your own Bengal was the home of such decidedly non soft-headed people as
Swami Madhusudan Sarasvati, Raghunatha Tarka Shiromani, Gadadhar
Bhattacharya, and Jagdish Tarkalankara.
> The whole thing about
> parA-vidyA is thus said to be yogic, that is, revealed knowledge.
Which is completely other-worldly. If you wish to learn this knowledge by
all means renounce everything and become a sannyasi. As long as you
maintain even one toe of one foot in this world you are bound by the rule
of the shastras.
>In fact, we should be happy that intellectuals do not dominate our
religion.
>
>
_Your_ religion. And we should grieve deeply as your religion has somehow
become the official faith of secular India and for a nation of close to a
billion people to be guided by such an apalling muddle puts us all in
great peril.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com] o- beable .-_|\
Consolidated Braincells Inc. / \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ Perth Amboy-> *.--._/
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy finger me for PGP key v McQ!
