 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Ok, it is very difficult to 'discuss' advaita. IMHO, commentators of texts have to
cater for their audience. This means that they cannot just translate as is and
leave it there; they have a point to make. Sw. Vivekananda may have had something
to say at the turn of the century but I can't understand why people today cannot
try to understand the texts by themselves. Surely we don't need 'authorized'
versions of 'authorities'! I am not saying that we should disregard everything
that has been written but I would rather advocate a reading of the original text
followed by a reading of the various commentaries. This seems reasonable, no?
I am sorry to have brought my grandmother into this without her knowing! :-)
>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.
Well, philosophers don't seem to have big following these days anyway. Compare the
number of people interested in advaita to that of the various messiahs, mothers
etc...:-)
I really wish the 'modern western educated baabus' would start learning some
Sanskrit and try reading the original texts rather than rely on interpretations.
And, of course, be less gullible to what the present age 'godmen', 'gurus' and
other 'authorized persons' have to say. Only a wish! :-)
>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 :-).
Ok, we are both talented! :-)
-- Girish Beeharry
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|