Namaste,
You are all replying to six years old thread!
yes
no
don't care
Namaste,
You are all replying to six years old thread!
satay
Namaste SatayYou are all replying to six years old thread!
I have proven myself to be a one year old member and idiot that I am once again!
Now I know why I don't understand advaita. because I don't even know what time it is or what bath I just jumped into.
Om Namah Sivaya
Last edited by ShivaFan; 05 April 2013 at 06:43 AM.
Pranams,
Sri Vaishnava is correct. I have no interest in naming names, but there are users on this and many other Hindu forums who clearly have only superficial knowledge of our scriptures, and yet they repeatedly object to scripturally-based presentations of philosophy whenever they don't like them, often casting knowledgeable members as fanatics, sectarian, etc etc. It is a classic case of evidence and rationalism being discarded in favor of the ideology of the masses. These kinds of people never acknowledge their limited understanding, yet they are always ready to attack those whose views have solid basis in shAstra. It reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition at times.
There is nothing wrong with not knowing the scriptures. But there should be some humility that comes with that. Actually, humility is a very good thing in general. But, the point is, it is meaningless for some people who lack knowledge and lack the ability to argue logically to attack those who are presenting viewpoints which are steeped in thousands of years of scholarly commentary and erudition. It is preferable to see mature disagreements between knowledgeable people that have no resolution, but which give everyone a chance to see the relative strengths and weaknesses of each person's views. It is not desirable to see stubborn arguments from someone whose sole knowledge of Hinduism is what he learned from VHP propaganda or Agniveer.com.
I follow a very simple rule in discussions. I am not interested in "winning" any debate, so much as I am interested in examining the strength and weaknesses of my own understanding of a given body of evidence in contrast to the strengths and weaknesses of other understandings. If someone presents evidence that seems to contradict my view, and which should be accepted by me as genuine, then I make it a point to read up on it. This is more constructive and useful for my sadhana.
Also, SV might take note that our moderator Satay has recently expressed great interest in the writings of S.M.S. Chari and Dr. Shanbhag author of "Vishnu is Brahman." I remain optimistic that being a gentleman and sticking to one's principles in an assertive yet non-dogmatic way ends up winning more friends and respect in the end.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Why not participate selectively? I would love to see a thread on the Vaishnava concept of vyuhas from you. I have been searching for good reading material on the subject for months, but to no avail.
Also, I have sent you a PM with some doubts I have about Vaishnava Vedanta. I would be grateful if you can take the time out to reply.
namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||
Om shrImAtrE namah
sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu
A Shaivite library
http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary
I second the call for more participation by Sri Vaishnava (the user as well as more Sri Vaishnavas). In fact, I would like to see more participation by traditionally-minded Shaivites and Advaitins and all other traditional, pre-colonial-era schools. This would really raise the standards of discussion, and I know (my selfish motivation admittedly) that I would learn so much more.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks