05-29-2005, 07:56 PM
Hi Pulikeshi.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Further, I said belief as opposed to ideas, please do not interpret my words. I try hard to say exactly what I mean. I did not mean blind beliefs or any other such construct.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You still haven't been able to explain what the exact difference is, while trying to pretend that there are no insinuations. Of course, you say you don't like explaining things using terminology or words, although you have a predilection for dealing in zen koans!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Remember the vedas, upanishads, etc. were written over a period of time, by acharyas who differed in their opinion and ideology. The sad part is that we have made the Vedas, Upanishads, etc. into some rigid holy book. Whereas, they are guideline for new ideas to come forth. Hinduism survived because it evolves, not because it is some rigid dogmatic belief system.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I agree. And my argument is exactly the same. Examine the evolution even as recently as 1500 years, and you will see who made a dogma out of Advaita, rejecting any further experience or elucidation of Absolute Truth. You will see who persecuted whom, who did so when they felt their ceremonial authority threatened, etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah! Spiritual anything can never be science, as there is no way to set up repeatable experiments to prove or disprove a theory.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As Rumi put it, "There are many ways, but there is only One Way". There are variants of this in any religious text. What does this mean? Sadhana is a science, not in the silly sense of "repeatability", but in the psychospiritual sense. What makes each one of our spiritual paths unique is the uniqueness of our mental make-up. Navigating our own psychophysical natures is what is unique, but the science of how to do so, the guidelines, etc are quite precise. Of course, I did not mean to stretch the word "science" to to suggest that spiritual progress is a <i>mechanical</i> process, and I think you knew that, but I guess nitpicking is a human failing.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The theory suggested by the monists is very simple, but not simplistic.
[...]
Thus, I have no issue with worshipping Vishnu or Shiva, but at the same time subscribe to the idea of monism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sorry, dogmatic Advaita (mayavad) is simplistic, not simple. Let's quit the word-jugglery for a bit, bro. <b>Don't dignify every ludicrous contradiction by calling it a "singularity"</b> just because it makes you feel intellectual. Take the instance of yourself "worshiping" Vishnu or Shiva. Now that would be dabbling in "Bhakti", right? Now why not take a look at what the Bhakti-shastras say about practicing Bhakti-yoga while entertaining notions of Impersonalism? They condemn it at every step, and I'm referring to sages like Vyasa, Narada, Shandilya, Garga, not to mention the recent Vaishava acharyas. This makes perfect psychological sense, <i>even if</i> we assume that the ultimate reality is something as simplistic as undeviating non-dualism. In terms of <i>practice</i>, you're wasting your time "worshipping". This is the only point I was trying to make. I am not "raging against" any school of philosophy, but against meddling rascals who want to re-define and misrepresent and rationalize other systems of Yoga according to their preconceived beliefs (oh sorry, "ideas").
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no Sanathana Dharma without monism. This can only be understood if you can analyze why Hinduism (which I prefer to use interchangably with Sanathana Dharma[SD]) has survived all these eons, whereas other relgions have come and gone the way of the dodo. The central philosophy of SD is a paradox (like a black hole)...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Er, do you actually understand Achintya Bheda-bheda tattva (or any Vaishnava philosophy)?? Achintya bheda-abheda means <b>"the inconceivable paradox of simultaneous Oneness and Difference". Vaishnavism is centered around this deep paradox, this singularity, but everything else falls beautifully into place in relation to this axiom. </b> This is as opposed to the Advaitin (turned mayavadi) popes' version of simple and absolute Oneness, something that intellectual giants like yourself can wrap their finite intellects around and still sound mystical. <b>Mayavad is littered with umpteen paradoxes and contradictions, not just one. </b>But I think you actually like sexy words like "paradox" and "black holes", even though you profess disdain for terminological words. <b>An elegant and SIMPLE (not simplistic) theory can accommodate ONE paradox, not a million contradictions.</b> Occam's razor anyone?
Mayavadis keep talking of Unity, but they only have a Multiplicity of Contradictions! Vaishnavism speaks of only ONE Paradox.
You are also ignorant of "other religions" and their core philosophy. For example, although 99.9% of "Muslims" do not even know this, the real philosophy that the Prophet Muhammad transmitted to his closest disciples was pretty much about the "mystery of Uniqueness in Oneness". What dies like a dodo is the outer shell of religious tradition bereft of spirtual substance.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus you and the pope ratzinger share the same rationalizing principle that binds you with your belief. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm glad that in this post you were more open with the personal attacks, which you did by insinuation in your last post. My cup is actually quite empty, no offense to Suzuki. But like all half-baked, posturing mayavadis, your cups is brmming with disdain.
But as I hope I've made clear, the ideas you find attractive will find more real substance and support in Vaishnava philosophy than in the tongue-tied dogma, the sexy cliches and quotable quotes that you delight in. In any case, that's not the purpose of this thread. <b>My point here is to demonstrate how most people like yourself have a zero understanding of Vaishnavism (equating it with Vatican popery and fanaticism), and this lack of understanding is because of the mayavada misrepresentations that have flooded the public space, particularly in the last 100 years or so.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Further, I said belief as opposed to ideas, please do not interpret my words. I try hard to say exactly what I mean. I did not mean blind beliefs or any other such construct.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You still haven't been able to explain what the exact difference is, while trying to pretend that there are no insinuations. Of course, you say you don't like explaining things using terminology or words, although you have a predilection for dealing in zen koans!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Remember the vedas, upanishads, etc. were written over a period of time, by acharyas who differed in their opinion and ideology. The sad part is that we have made the Vedas, Upanishads, etc. into some rigid holy book. Whereas, they are guideline for new ideas to come forth. Hinduism survived because it evolves, not because it is some rigid dogmatic belief system.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I agree. And my argument is exactly the same. Examine the evolution even as recently as 1500 years, and you will see who made a dogma out of Advaita, rejecting any further experience or elucidation of Absolute Truth. You will see who persecuted whom, who did so when they felt their ceremonial authority threatened, etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah! Spiritual anything can never be science, as there is no way to set up repeatable experiments to prove or disprove a theory.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As Rumi put it, "There are many ways, but there is only One Way". There are variants of this in any religious text. What does this mean? Sadhana is a science, not in the silly sense of "repeatability", but in the psychospiritual sense. What makes each one of our spiritual paths unique is the uniqueness of our mental make-up. Navigating our own psychophysical natures is what is unique, but the science of how to do so, the guidelines, etc are quite precise. Of course, I did not mean to stretch the word "science" to to suggest that spiritual progress is a <i>mechanical</i> process, and I think you knew that, but I guess nitpicking is a human failing.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The theory suggested by the monists is very simple, but not simplistic.
[...]
Thus, I have no issue with worshipping Vishnu or Shiva, but at the same time subscribe to the idea of monism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sorry, dogmatic Advaita (mayavad) is simplistic, not simple. Let's quit the word-jugglery for a bit, bro. <b>Don't dignify every ludicrous contradiction by calling it a "singularity"</b> just because it makes you feel intellectual. Take the instance of yourself "worshiping" Vishnu or Shiva. Now that would be dabbling in "Bhakti", right? Now why not take a look at what the Bhakti-shastras say about practicing Bhakti-yoga while entertaining notions of Impersonalism? They condemn it at every step, and I'm referring to sages like Vyasa, Narada, Shandilya, Garga, not to mention the recent Vaishava acharyas. This makes perfect psychological sense, <i>even if</i> we assume that the ultimate reality is something as simplistic as undeviating non-dualism. In terms of <i>practice</i>, you're wasting your time "worshipping". This is the only point I was trying to make. I am not "raging against" any school of philosophy, but against meddling rascals who want to re-define and misrepresent and rationalize other systems of Yoga according to their preconceived beliefs (oh sorry, "ideas").
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no Sanathana Dharma without monism. This can only be understood if you can analyze why Hinduism (which I prefer to use interchangably with Sanathana Dharma[SD]) has survived all these eons, whereas other relgions have come and gone the way of the dodo. The central philosophy of SD is a paradox (like a black hole)...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Er, do you actually understand Achintya Bheda-bheda tattva (or any Vaishnava philosophy)?? Achintya bheda-abheda means <b>"the inconceivable paradox of simultaneous Oneness and Difference". Vaishnavism is centered around this deep paradox, this singularity, but everything else falls beautifully into place in relation to this axiom. </b> This is as opposed to the Advaitin (turned mayavadi) popes' version of simple and absolute Oneness, something that intellectual giants like yourself can wrap their finite intellects around and still sound mystical. <b>Mayavad is littered with umpteen paradoxes and contradictions, not just one. </b>But I think you actually like sexy words like "paradox" and "black holes", even though you profess disdain for terminological words. <b>An elegant and SIMPLE (not simplistic) theory can accommodate ONE paradox, not a million contradictions.</b> Occam's razor anyone?
Mayavadis keep talking of Unity, but they only have a Multiplicity of Contradictions! Vaishnavism speaks of only ONE Paradox.
You are also ignorant of "other religions" and their core philosophy. For example, although 99.9% of "Muslims" do not even know this, the real philosophy that the Prophet Muhammad transmitted to his closest disciples was pretty much about the "mystery of Uniqueness in Oneness". What dies like a dodo is the outer shell of religious tradition bereft of spirtual substance.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus you and the pope ratzinger share the same rationalizing principle that binds you with your belief. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm glad that in this post you were more open with the personal attacks, which you did by insinuation in your last post. My cup is actually quite empty, no offense to Suzuki. But like all half-baked, posturing mayavadis, your cups is brmming with disdain.
But as I hope I've made clear, the ideas you find attractive will find more real substance and support in Vaishnava philosophy than in the tongue-tied dogma, the sexy cliches and quotable quotes that you delight in. In any case, that's not the purpose of this thread. <b>My point here is to demonstrate how most people like yourself have a zero understanding of Vaishnavism (equating it with Vatican popery and fanaticism), and this lack of understanding is because of the mayavada misrepresentations that have flooded the public space, particularly in the last 100 years or so.</b>