[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDx64FJ.1D6@netcom.com>...
> >
> >Krsna or Christ, The Name Is the Same
> Could it, by any chance, be a swami trying to convert westerners to his
creed
Well, no, since he did not attempt to convert anyone to a creed which he
simply made up, but rather to the creed which he followed, that of the
Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaaya. Also, to say that he sought to "convert"
them would be inaccurate -- more accurate to say that he sought to
"reconvert" them since Krishna-consciousness is the original position of
all living entities according to the Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
> by "diluting" Indian philosophy? I mean, use the carrot and stick
principle,
Two more errors. He never presumed to speak on Indian philosophy (which can
mean almost anything to anyone these days...) but on *Vedanta* philosophy.
One is limited to a particular region and its culture; the other is
transcendental to all such bodily designations. And if you wish to claim
that he diluted Vedic philosophy, you are welcome to point out specific
examples of practices he taught which are at odds with shaastra and
paramparaa predecessors (not that I expect that you will be able to). As it
is, for someone who is alleged to have diluted "Indian philosophy," he
certainly insisted that his disciples follow much stricter standards of
behavior than many of his critics are willing to even try.
> i.e., dangle the carrot that christ = Krishna to get more followers,
since many
Right, and then tell them that scripturally-sanctioned sex means within
marriage, and *only* for the purpose of procreation, *only* after taking
permission from the guru, and *only* after performing the garbhodhana
samskara, and then *only* once a month at a specific time when the wife is
most likely to conceive.
Call me crazy, but that does not sound like the way to win Western
followers. In fact, it's difficult enough to win Indian followers with
ideas like that.
> Westerners would like a creed that accepts Jesus.
Whatever "accepts" mean in this case... One can accept that a great person
taught some things which are correct, but he can also accept that what that
person taught was incomplete.
This is still a far cry from the neo-advaitin view which indiscriminately
insists that Christianity and Hinduism are the same.
> Hey, I dunno.
Naturally, and it didn't stop you from posting, did it?
> But seriously if "our father who art in heaven" refers to Krishna and
christ =
> Krishna,
The claim was nowhere made that Christ = Krishna.
[snip]
> And any Indians here who pronounce Krishna as Krsta? If you do, I think
you
> have some serious problems with speaking simple words :-).
They are not alternate pronunciations. What is proposed is that one is
derived from/related to the other. Certainly "object of attraction" is also
a meaning which applies to Him, who is all-attractive.
> Ramakrishnan.
> --
> Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant (May faulty logic
> undermine your entire philosophy) -- strong Vulcan curse
It's really ironic to see this quote in your .sig ....
-- Krishna
