Who Is A Hindu

[Guest]

Carl,

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Therefore it is not unreasonable that acintya bheda-abheda tattva should have a singular paradox as one of its axioms. In fact, it is very reasonable that it does.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Could you tell me what this singular paradox is in one line? – My personal interest is not the supremacy of one theory over another, as I am yet to see any theory make perfect sense. I honestly do not have the time to read your long posts, but I want to understand your point, so I request a short answer to the point.

You said that to understand a teacher/avatar/etc. one has to consider: desha, kala, paatra.
Fine, don’t you agree that the BG was written, much later, after the Vedic exuberance, and the idea that Krishna supposedly says, “brahmano hi pratishtha-aham” in the BG, is revisionist in one sense. The Vedic acharyas would not have known Krishna – in the sense the BG authors would have. 500 years from now there may be a God called Carl who claims that he is Krishna, who is also Brahman. Given your confidence in your beliefs, I don’t doubt this potential reality. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But also, the Vaishnava commentaries clearly <b>posit the existence</b> of the Original of which everything on this side of existence is the material reflection, with the brahman realization inbetween. While for the Impersonalists, merging with Brahman and annihilating identity is final. This is not supported by the great sages, for whom Brahman realization is only a preliminary step.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>Posit</b> being the key word – “to assume or affirm the existence of”. Thus in your own words Vaishnavaism is another idea, yet unproven. Further, according to you is all monistic ideas necessarily mayavadi? I see you desire a purposeful, casual, predictable universe which is shepherded by a deity. The mere understanding, or attempt at understanding, the infinite is in no way freeing, annihilating or liberating, just as understanding gravity does not make you free of it. Knowledge never sets one free, it only makes us see how unfree we are!