01-11-2005, 10:20 PM
Pathma,
I agree, some of my sentences may be classified as rants.
But whatever sophistry in justifying/condoning/applauding behavior I have seen from many postors after shri shankaracharya's arrest, deserves a few.
I have been thoroughly appalled that people would use completely unrelated biases, prejudices and casteist thinking in trying to 'explain' a blatant abuse of power and justice system. Shankararaman was a brahmin too. So, where did all those posts about alleged 'caste biases' of Shankaracharya come into play. He was charged in a murder case, of a brahmin. Even the supreme court now agrees that the evidence is just too thin.
Anyone who drops down to using such sophistry to justify an abuse of justice needs to be challenged and reminded that the ground they stand on is morally vacuous, however pretentious. You may disagree, but you did appear to be on the approving side for this abuse of the political power and justice system.
I sincerely hope for all hindus and for India, that such lapses into moral relativism were an aberration. I also hope that we can get to discussing without 'rants', and there I am in agreement with you.
Regarding calling "Vaishnavism' and 'Shaivism' as different religions, I disagree. Religions typically provide mutually exclusive paths to salvation. Ask Jew, Christian or Muslim clerics. According to their dogma, people of other religions would not be 'saved'. Is that the way 'vaishnavism' and 'shaivism' differ in your opinion?
There has been a lot of discussion whether Hinduism, Budhism etc should be called 'religions'. By terming these 'dharmas' religions, we unwittingly adopt a term which is unfairly loaded against the basics of the 'dharma'.
The flavor I get from some ISKCON and also from siddha.com website is this penchant on codifying the "I believe x but not y" type of statements which sound so alien to Hindus from India, but for western born Hindus, they sound just fine. I still can't get over an 'We belive x' type of a statement from an ISKCON preacher. He said: 'We believe that there is a planet called Vaikuntha where Krishna lives'. Converting a 'Loka' to a planet, and saying it in such cut and dry 'We believe' type of statemet makes one wonder whether they truly belong to a religion of the book or are they truly Hindu.
My point is this: I love, adore and worship Krishna. He is like a friend, a teacher, a God. But I really don't 'believe' that he lives on a planet called Vaikuntha. Sounds almost like 'Our father who rules in Heaven'. How empty and limiting such 'I believe x about Krishna' type of ststements are can be seen if one were to look for descriptions of Krishna from all the sacred literature. If one were to just peruse Gita one would know how misled a person is he who thinks Krishna lives on a 'planet'.
Is Krishna just limited to his description of the stories? It is a little known secret, but in Tantra, Krishna and Kali are closely related. BhadrakAlI and Krishna also share the same bIjamantra' of 'krIm', kAlI's bIja is 'klIm' . But in stories kali and durga are often called bhavAnI, that is wife of bhava or shiva. There is just too much of a textual record to differentiate too much between the Hindu divinities.
Same about Shiva. I have developed a great liking for Kashmir shaivism and hold it as one of the greatest philosophical and meditational systems. Although I am really a shAkta. So what am I, a vaishNava, a shaiva or a shAkta? I just prefer to call myself 'Hindu'. Calling 'VaisNavism', shaivism, shAktism etc as different religions would cut too unfairly through the structure of 'dharma'. Judaism, Christianity and Islam share some texts, but they are vastly different religions, too separated from each other. You mentioned vaishNavism and shaivism are different religions sharing same texts. But the differences between them are not as stark as between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They can't be cut asunder into separate 'religions', At best we should call them 'sects', not religions. JMHO.
I agree, some of my sentences may be classified as rants.
But whatever sophistry in justifying/condoning/applauding behavior I have seen from many postors after shri shankaracharya's arrest, deserves a few.
I have been thoroughly appalled that people would use completely unrelated biases, prejudices and casteist thinking in trying to 'explain' a blatant abuse of power and justice system. Shankararaman was a brahmin too. So, where did all those posts about alleged 'caste biases' of Shankaracharya come into play. He was charged in a murder case, of a brahmin. Even the supreme court now agrees that the evidence is just too thin.
Anyone who drops down to using such sophistry to justify an abuse of justice needs to be challenged and reminded that the ground they stand on is morally vacuous, however pretentious. You may disagree, but you did appear to be on the approving side for this abuse of the political power and justice system.
I sincerely hope for all hindus and for India, that such lapses into moral relativism were an aberration. I also hope that we can get to discussing without 'rants', and there I am in agreement with you.
Regarding calling "Vaishnavism' and 'Shaivism' as different religions, I disagree. Religions typically provide mutually exclusive paths to salvation. Ask Jew, Christian or Muslim clerics. According to their dogma, people of other religions would not be 'saved'. Is that the way 'vaishnavism' and 'shaivism' differ in your opinion?
There has been a lot of discussion whether Hinduism, Budhism etc should be called 'religions'. By terming these 'dharmas' religions, we unwittingly adopt a term which is unfairly loaded against the basics of the 'dharma'.
The flavor I get from some ISKCON and also from siddha.com website is this penchant on codifying the "I believe x but not y" type of statements which sound so alien to Hindus from India, but for western born Hindus, they sound just fine. I still can't get over an 'We belive x' type of a statement from an ISKCON preacher. He said: 'We believe that there is a planet called Vaikuntha where Krishna lives'. Converting a 'Loka' to a planet, and saying it in such cut and dry 'We believe' type of statemet makes one wonder whether they truly belong to a religion of the book or are they truly Hindu.
My point is this: I love, adore and worship Krishna. He is like a friend, a teacher, a God. But I really don't 'believe' that he lives on a planet called Vaikuntha. Sounds almost like 'Our father who rules in Heaven'. How empty and limiting such 'I believe x about Krishna' type of ststements are can be seen if one were to look for descriptions of Krishna from all the sacred literature. If one were to just peruse Gita one would know how misled a person is he who thinks Krishna lives on a 'planet'.
Is Krishna just limited to his description of the stories? It is a little known secret, but in Tantra, Krishna and Kali are closely related. BhadrakAlI and Krishna also share the same bIjamantra' of 'krIm', kAlI's bIja is 'klIm' . But in stories kali and durga are often called bhavAnI, that is wife of bhava or shiva. There is just too much of a textual record to differentiate too much between the Hindu divinities.
Same about Shiva. I have developed a great liking for Kashmir shaivism and hold it as one of the greatest philosophical and meditational systems. Although I am really a shAkta. So what am I, a vaishNava, a shaiva or a shAkta? I just prefer to call myself 'Hindu'. Calling 'VaisNavism', shaivism, shAktism etc as different religions would cut too unfairly through the structure of 'dharma'. Judaism, Christianity and Islam share some texts, but they are vastly different religions, too separated from each other. You mentioned vaishNavism and shaivism are different religions sharing same texts. But the differences between them are not as stark as between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They can't be cut asunder into separate 'religions', At best we should call them 'sects', not religions. JMHO.