 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Never said so! Frankly, I don't think Ramakrishna was an advaitin in the
sense of sha.nkaran advaita. I merely made the statement that
Vivekananda cannot be regarded as having no relevance. However, you were
the person who introduced the example of your grandmother to make a
point about "English educated people" :-).
> The fact is that every statement in language is an opinion. 'unalloyed,
> incontrovertible truth' *is* an opinion.
Not so. The original posting was that Vivekananda has no relevance
because his works don't touch more than X% of the population. To which I
replied that is the case with all "relevant" philosophers also. I was
talking about "subjective-ness" in that sense only, i.e., dismissing him
because he has "relevance" only to X% of the population, while
neglecting the fact that the relevance of the traditional philosophers
is probably even lesser.
> >> Maybe that could be a reason why he was more 'open' to this section. Just
> >> speculating.
>
> >More importantly, sha.nkara was trying to defeat other vedanta schools
> >and was hence being complete. Swamiji may not have cared too much for
> >these passages and he has the right to neglect them if he wants to. To
> >expect everyone to be as complete as sha.nkara is extremely ridiculous.
> >In the present context there is no need to dwell on those passages.
>
> Good for you if you can read the minds of both shankaraachaarya and the swaami.
> :-)
Yes, it's not a talent many have :-).
>Why are swaamijiis always bothered by women? :-)
Good that you can read the minds of all the Swamijis :-).
Ramakrishnan.
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|