[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Sikh view of Hinduism
In article <ghenDy9FtM.80J@netcom.com>,
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@braincells.com> wrote:
> Why? If God is unlimited, unbounded, and timeless, there is nothing
> you _can't_ say about him. He was born from the womb of Devaki, He
> is a pyramid shaped six-legged being from the planet Mars etc. All
> would be true. To deny it would be to limit God.
You seem to have a rather unique conception of what "limit" means. It
is quite commonly accepted that Vishnu's avataara-s do not have
material bodies, pangs, joys, etc., yet this is not a limitation,
whilst it must be according to you. Non-association with, and not
being subject to, entities that are themselves limited, is not itself
a limitation -- it is a sign of freedom from limitation. At least,
that is what I've been given to understand.
> I should point out here that the orthodox view is that any statement
> in the shastras which is not a command (vidhi) or prohibition
> (nishedha) is arthavada which may or may not be true.
Who defines "orthodox" in this case? I'm not aware there is any such
unanimity that can be called *the* orthodox view.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com] o- beable .-_|\
