Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 192

Thread: Superiority Complex?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337
    Though I know that everyone needs Bhagwan I feel that it is not my "job" to shove him down other people's throats. I feel confident that he will and does reveal himself to those who are ready.

    I have the utmost respect for Prabhupada as I do for any other hindu scholar but I can not agree with the approach of some devotees.
    satay

  2. #22
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Some ISKCON followers do get angry, Bhakti Yoga Seeker is right.

    And verily many of them have "superiority complex", think of Prabhupada's version of Gaudiya-vaishnavism as a standard not only of Vaishnavism but even of Vedic religion and denigrate other sampradayas without any proper knowledge of those.
    Dear Arjun

    As long as you respect Gurus of ISKCON and do not degrade ISKCON with Sahajiyas, they will not get angry

    As you are angry when I interpret your texts, they will be angry on comparison with Sahajiya and statements against their gurus.

    That is why I suggest, we must have a table - who is incompatible with what

  3. #23
    Namaste. I do not agree with you Bhakta of God. The real preachers of Vaishnavism do so in a non-confrontational way similar to some Muslims I know. They will be happy to talk about their views when asked and won't hesitate to give you literature or point you to information if you would like to have it. It is a indirect form of preaching where they are always happy to bring more people into thier belief system but without going around with a sales pitch to accomplish that goal. Most Gaudiya Vaishna preachers I have come across do not have "merciful" eyes but instead have suspicious and paranoid eyes as if everyone but them is going to the hell realms in their next life. I am quite good at reading people's body chemistries, detecting auras, and seeing through the eyes of a person so to speak. I have yet to meet a preacher that I would consider anywhere close to a pure soul. The overwhelming majority of them again have a look of disdain in their eyes indicating a superiority complex. It begins to feel like their motive for preaching isn't to help you but to prove to you how much better of a person they are than you.

    This is certainly not the case with all preachers but these are the experiences that I have had. Some people may have had different experiences. Frankly, I don't appreciate it when other people try to control my life. I am an adult and expect to be treated as one. When I am carrying groceries in to the house or walking to work, I don't appreciate nor condone having a total stranger stop me and tell me how to live or not live my life. Especially if these are Gaudiya preachers and they can figure out I'm a Hindu as I wear tulsi beads around the neck. I'm over the age of 18 and don't need other strangers telling me how I can have sex or what I can drink or smoke and how I can meditate or pray and to whom I can meditate or pray toward. There is nothing merciful about preaching. If I want advice on how to live my private life then I will approach them and ask them for advice. If I'm not asking for their advice they should go away and bother someone else.

    Namaskaar. ~BYS~

  4. #24
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Italy
    Age
    36
    Posts
    651
    Rep Power
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Dear Arjun

    As long as you respect Gurus of ISKCON and do not degrade ISKCON with Sahajiyas, they will not get angry

    As you are angry when I interpret your texts, they will be angry on comparison with Sahajiya and statements against their gurus.

    That is why I suggest, we must have a table - who is incompatible with what
    What does mean Sahajiya?

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhakti Yoga Seeker
    Namaskaar. I share the same feelings. While this isn't the case with all members of the Vaishnava sects, it is a noticable trend. A trend I notice with Shaivites, Shaktas, Smartas, and others is a more non-judgmental approach to other sects and without preaching or converting. In fact, I cannot ever recall a Shaivite or other type of non-Vaishnava Hindu trying to preach or convert others to his or her school. As to the non-judgmental trend, they will tend to be less sectarian in the sense that they do not regularly assert to all other Hindus that they are a member of such and such school and consider themselves to be Hindus while acknowledging that there are many different sects.
    It is the philosophical difference that leads to this scenario. According to Smartaism or even Shaivism, Vishnu's place in the ontology is supreme. In contrary, Vaishnava Theology renders Shiva as an individual soul. It is just like Chirstianity or Islam or other faiths. Consequently...

    On the other hand, a Vaishnava trend I have seen on every forum including this one as well as out in society includes the following:

    1. Preaching and converting
    Has been part of the Hindu tradition, and not anything new. It is well known that Hindus clashed head on with both Buddhism and Jainism in the past. That includes advaita too. You could say that advaita has become modern , while Vaishnavite religion retains its medieval flavour.


    2. Criticizing, ridiculing, and excessively debating against other schools
    Unfortunately, this is common to all Hindu traditions, including advaita. You only have to flip through the works of say, Madhusudhana Saraswati or Appayya Dixita. I beleive there used to be some decency in their debates, which is becoming increasingly lost.

    3. Re-defining their sect as Hinduism instead of defining their sect as one out of many sects of Hinduism
    Common to all vedantic schools. Why do you think the schools of Shankya, Nyaya, Vaisheksika, and Yoga, and even Purva Mimamsa are non existant now? They have been out debated, and shut down.

    4. Failing to acknowledge that there are other valid sects of Hindu philosophy
    No classical Hindu school acknowledgedges any non vedic sect. I beleive this is again a new trend, due to the mixing of the Hindu religion with Islam and Christianity. I think it is a good trend...we need to keep in pace with the world.


    This can also be witnessed here on this forum where certain Vaishnavas excessively debate against all other users while constantly bringing up their school. These people seem to have an inferiority complex. Even when other members would rather have a discussion than a debate and discuss the topics in as non-sectarian a way as possible, certain Vaishnavas go to extreme lengths to argue that their view in their school is the right one. It is this constant attempt to prove that they are right and everyone else is wrong often when their debates are not in context and irrelevant and even inappropriate to the type of dialogue that is being engaged in that it becomes quite annoying and unfortunately gives Vaishnavas a very bad name. Similar to misbehaved kids, they cannot focus on their own problems and instead try to correct everyone else instead of simply minding their own business.
    Excessive debating is encouraged by all schools that promote concepts like damnation, or grading of people, and beleive in the superiority of one specific God over others. Such people feel the need to "save other souls" from hell or samsara. Nothing much we can do about it. We cant change their philosophy, nor their beleifs, and consequently their actions. Only God can change that.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhakta of God
    What does mean Sahajiya?
    Sahajiyas once upon a time were Tantris, they existed even before Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Upon the advent of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabu, they accepted his teachings but retained there Tantric practises, and rejected the basic tenant of Shri Chaitanya - Dualist Philosophy of Shri Madhavachaarya

    According to many Gaudiya Vaishnavs and ISKCON to be very particular, they are called kulabrashtaas - out castes; Sahajiyas perceptors are called babajis, though they accept Krishna as supreme lord, they differ from other vaishnav on many counts., like generally Vaishnavs agree that Shri Radha was married to Shri Krishna, Srivaishnavs call her nappinai and Madhavi's call her Shrimati Radha Rani, Sahajiya's deny this fact, the feel that she was married to some one else later.

    I am not going deep into philosophical inqueries of Sahajiya for two counts

    1. I am none to do that, Sahajiya's are very small sect having their individual thought, we cannot deny them their rights.
    2. I do not see any person in sahajiya representing here in this forum, (if so, we can hear from him directly)

    As Satay pointed out, I too feel, this thread cannot be debate thread

  7. #27
    Hi, I like idli’s and not cheesburger or scotch or drugs. There may be others who may not like idli’s but the rest. I don’t shove it down others throat. If asked or provoked idli’s are dumb, I have the right to defend it. I do not respect others who like beef and drugs. Does that make me sectarian ? Are you demanding that I show the same respect to people who consume them even though I dislike them ? Bhagavad Ramanuja never respected advaiti’s and condemned them, so is he plain wrong ?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by idli_sambar
    Hi, I like idli’s and not cheesburger or scotch or drugs. There may be others who may not like idli’s but the rest. I don’t shove it down others throat. If asked or provoked idli’s are dumb, I have the right to defend it. I do not respect others who like beef and drugs. Does that make me sectarian ? Are you demanding that I show the same respect to people who consume them even though I dislike them ? Bhagavad Ramanuja never respected advaiti’s and condemned them, so is he plain wrong ?
    I like the way in which your name and first post synchronises

    If you ask me yes, we want you to respect them as long as it is not scotch and drugs. If you do not like scotch and drugs, in this forum, make your opposition gently condemning the practise and not the person.

    Shrimad Ramanuja was not wrong,

    1. what is wrong is when we try to be a person like Shrimad Ramanuja, we first must have atleast half of his knowledge
    2. What is wrong is the idea he never respected Advaitis, what is right is he refused to respect the philosophy of advaiti. The topic is the practise and not the very person

    As Shri Satay has said, he is OK for debates happening on this forum, but should start, proceed and end is a respectable manner.

    Hope I am correct

  9. #29
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337
    perfect post Ramkish!

    idli: Welcome to the forums and namaste!

    I like your post too and here are my thoughts...
    I am from the north and my favourite food is rice (chawal). I once tried 'idli' on a friend's request and almost threw up!! No offense but I was not used to it and never had tried it before. It was not shoved down my throat but it was my choice to taste it but I didn't like it so I didn't try it again. What if someone had shoved it down my throat? What would have happened? I could not say for sure but I think I would have vomitted it right out...

    Now, I don't like idli that doesn't mean that I don't respect those who love idli like many of my tamil friends.

    The point is we can only make suggestions at best and then it is up to the other person to accept it, try it or reject it.

    When it comes to Bhagwan, we can only make a hint or suggestion at best...It is the other person's karma and their spiritual capacity to accept the dharmic life.

    It is not our job to be salesmen for Bhagwan. He can take care of himself. I refuse to sell him to others who seem to be happy without him.

    As far as advaitins, I have not studied advaita vedanta so I could not say if it is right, wrong or what. I am not shri ramanuja or shri madha or shri samkara or any other acharya...I have my own brain and reasoning to understand things from my own personal experiences of the divine and my own abilities...

    but one thing is for sure...the label "hindu" demands that we show tolerance and respect to our acharyas, all of our acharyas and all of our schools and sects.

    This is my opinion...

    And there are the site rules which I and other admins came up with. Even I am not above the site rules and sometimes I have deleted my own posts after posting and reading them and finding them inappropriate.

    The purpose of the site is have positive presenation of dharma and dharmis. to act like adults and if we must discuss disagreements then to discuss them in a mature manner and to focus on the topic at hand and not at the person.
    Last edited by satay; 28 April 2006 at 02:18 PM.
    satay

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    If you ask me yes, we want you to respect them as long as it is not scotch and drugs. If you do not like scotch and drugs, in this forum, make your opposition gently condemning the practise and not the person.

    easy to say don't condemn the person. Do you do that in practice? Have you respected everyone in your life though you felt they were evil ? Can you truthfully admit to this? Condemning a practice is percieved here as not respecting the person and their belief. Some can say bull, dog, cat, shiva, vishnu, snake, allah, satan are the same, so respect, but vaishnavas and shaivas cannot as their belief is staunch.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    1. what is wrong is when we try to be a person like Shrimad Ramanuja, we first must have atleast half of his knowledge.
    you don't have to be sri Ramanuja to condemn advaitins same as you don't have to be me to disrespect scotch and beef.
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    2. What is wrong is the idea he never respected Advaitis, what is right is he refused to respect the philosophy of advaiti. The topic is the practise and not the very person.
    w
    rong. If he respected then he would not have condemned. Contrary, can we say acharya was not a good human being but his actions were good? Why differentiate between the person and his actions ?
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    As Shri Satay has said, he is OK for debates happening on this forum, but should start, proceed and end is a respectable manner..
    Respect is relative. If I say dosai is not tasty, dosai might think I am not showing respect. I can't say I respect dosai but I don't respect the ingredients and way it is laid on the pan, can I?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •