[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
-
To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
-
From: Pradip Gangopadhyay <pradip@lism.usc.edu>
-
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Hari Krishna Susarla (susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu) wrote:
[some portions snipped]
>I should add that I checked the "interpretations" given by one of your
>own Ramakrishna mission swamis. I think it was Swami Nikhilananda's
>translation. In any case, it was pretty clear from the text that he
>did not interpret the SU as a Shaivite Upanishad.
I quoted the name from memory and got it wrong. I was quoting
Radhakrishnan. SU is not a Shaivite or Vaishnava Upanishad. I am saying
it mentions both Hari and Shiva, because they are Personal Forms.
>On the other hand, you are expressing opinions that have no basis in
>the Vedas. It is your opinion which is sectarian. It is contradicted
>by many of the great schools of Vedanta, and it is contradicted by the
>Giitaa and the Bhaagavatam. Do you think your opinion is correct, and
>all the great aachaaryas are wrong?
All the great Acharayas have disagreed among themselves. Every
Acharya after Sri Sankara have suggested that others are wrong and only their
interpretation is right. That seems to suggest that that there is the
possibility that all of them are only partially right. Surely all of them
can not be completely right. You have asked me if I think all the Acharyas
are wrong. Do you think all the Acharyas are right?
>This is not logical. It is based on the assumption that the "various
>deities" of whom you speak are also infinities in and of themselves.
>That is refuted by the Bhagavad-Giitaa. The devas are not infinite.
>They are subordinate beings with elevated powers and consciousness.
I am not talking of devas like Indra, Vayu etc but Shiva, Uma etc.
>Even Sri Sankara is guilty of this failing... but you are not?
>This is arrogance. Who are you to point out the flaws in the
>aachaarya's and their teachings? You keep saying that the great
>spiritual leaders have had various failings based on what *you* think
>is right. That's all. It's your personal opinion against the
>philosophies put forward by some of the great Vedantists who happen to
>be much more learned than you. There is absolutely no scriptural basis
>for what you are saying. Instead you are poking at hidden, indirect
>meanings and saying that they should be taken more seriously than the
>literal meanings.
Surely you do not agree with all the Acharyas. Do you believe in
Sankara's Kevala-Advaita system? If you do not believe in it, do you still
think Sankara is correct? I am saying this to show that disagreeing with any
of the great Acharyas is not arrogance. In fact it is wrong to slavishly agree
with whatever the great Acharyas have said.
Regards
Pradip
