[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
Pradip Gangopadhyay <pradip@lism.usc.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDyAuq2.LBw@netcom.com>...
> 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.
I beg to differ. It mentions Hari and also addresses Him as Shiva. I think
it also addresses Him as Rudra. Both are names included in the
Vishnu-Sahasra-Naama. Thus, if you want to say that it mentions Lord Shiva
as a Personal Form of God, you are welcome to. However, that interpretation
is not consisent with what we see in other reliable Vedic scriptures where
Shiva is seen as a devotee of Vishnu. Thus, it is more logical to assume
that it is Vishnu being addressed, as auspicious (Shiva) and as the cause
of destruction (Rudra).
I think that, were the Upanishad trying to tell us that both Vishnu and
Shiva are equally worshipable forms of God, it would do so in an explicit
way. Something like, "Vishnu is the Supreme Lord. He is also Shiva, the
husband of Durga. People in Kali Yuga will say that they are different.
This is due to ignorance only. One can gain liberation by worshipping Shiva
alone."
> >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's a generalization with little merit. Most aachaaryas have found many
teachings in other traditions that they would agree with, others which they
would choose to explain differently, and perhaps a few they would disagree
with completely. However, I doubt the disagreements in most cases are so
significant. I rarely hear talk of "others are wrong and only their
interpretation is right." Only ignorance of their teachings can actually
prompt one to say such a thing.
That seems to suggest that that there is the
> possibility that all of them are only partially right.
Rightness or wrongness is determined by the Vedas. Rather than speculating,
it's better to examine the evidence and see for ourselves. If you want to
claim that someone's teachings are partially right, then that means you
think they are partially wrong. What is your basis for assuming that
someone's teachings are partially wrong? That's my point. You are just
trying to fit other world-views into one that you happen to like, without
critically examining any of them.
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?
On the subject of Vishnu as the Supreme God, on His being ultimately a
person, and on His having Lord Shiva as a devotee, yes, I think this is the
correct conclusion. Shankaraachaarya does admit that Naaraayana is beyond
the material nature, although his notion of the hierarchy between the
deities seems to be at the vyavahaarika level only. I disagree more with
his conclusion than I do with the others.
> >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.
That's fine, but the assumption is still flawed. If you admit that the
devas under Indra are subordinate to Vishnu, then why it is hard to imagine
the same about Shiva and Uma? There is no doubt that Brahmaa and Shiva are
above Indra and the others, but I don't think the evidence is strong enough
to say that they are on the same level as Vishnu.
> 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.
I do not accept Kevala-advaita. While some of its tenets may be correct, I
don't think its system is the correct way of understanding the Vedas.
However, this is not the point. When I disagree with a great aachaarya's
conclusions, I do so on the basis of what other aachaarayas and scripture
says. You on the other hand do so on the basis of your own personal
opinions. The quotes you brought up rely always on hidden meanings which
don't make sense in context. I noticed for example, that you did not say
anything more about that Kena Upanishad example. I think that was probably
a good idea. I checked it out, and it seems quite clear that it did not
equate Uma with the Supreme Brahman. Rather, according to two different
readings of the text, Uma appeared after Indra, Agni, and Vaayu were
humbled by Vishnu to instruct them. Actually, there is more to it than
that, but the point here is that I don't see how you came to the conclusion
based on that Upanishad that Uma is another form of God.
I think that, if you want to disagree with an aachaarya's conclusions, you
should do so on the basis of what the scripture says, and/or what other
great aachaaryas said. The chief disagreement I have with many Hindus, and
with the sect of Hinduism which you represent, is their tendency to gloss
over the teachings of great authorities in favor of those who are more
modernist in their outlook. I think that many so-called advaitins would
gain more respect for themselves if they gave up this trend and tried to
live up to the teachings that are passed down in line from Shankara. I
certainly would not put a Ramakrishna or a Vivekananda on the same level as
Shankara, either in terms of knowledge or qualification.
Finally, it occurs to me that this conversation has drifted considerably
since it started. It was not my intention to get into a discussion over the
supremacy of Vishnu over other deities. Rather, the point I was trying to
make, and I believe I have, is that the Bhagavad-Giitaa's teaching of
Vishnu's supremacy is not a mere interpretation by some sects; it is the
fact. Nothing you have said to the contrary is convincing.
That is also why we cannot define Hindu by what is taught in the Giitaa,
unless you want to exclude Shaivites, Shaktiites, etc.
regards,
Krishna
