05-12-2005, 11:55 PM
Wow. Looks like there's been a bunch of posts since I last visited. I haven't actually read through all of them, but let me quickly reply one last time to a couple of points I caught while scanning through.
<b>Sunder</b>,
I won't be able to spend time actually rebutting every theological argument about advaita on this BB. The thread was about academic and popular misrepresentations about 'Hinduism', and that's all I wanted to highlight.
But suffice to say that in every Upanishad or other scripture you mention, there is plenty of evidence to point to something MORE than Brahman. Note that the Vaishnavas do NOT deny the existence of Brahman, and in fact Brahman-realization is a preliminary stage to full svarupa-siddhi. This realization is supported by great mystics outisde of India also, such as Jalaluddin Rumi, etc. And to give you just one example of mischievous mayavad misquotations, the verse 7:24 in the Gita, which mayavadis like to translate as "fools think I have assumed a personal form whereas I am actually unmanifested..." can also be translated exactly the opposite to read "fools think that I am only unmanifest...". Depends on whether you decide that "apannam" modifies "avyaktam", or "vyaktim". Besides, there are innumerable quotes in the Gita, taken coherently, that support the Vaishnav position. The Vaishnav position is INCLUSIVE of Brahman, whereas the mayavad position is in denial of anything further. Mayavad quotes are always selective (just like the p-secs selectively quotes the vipraah quote), and convoluted in interpretation. Occam's razor should be enough to cut down most mayavadi arguments, but the tarka-shastra injunctions against vitanda and jalpa rather than vaad completely seal the fate of the mayavadis.
Anyways, all this has been conclusively proved and debated in public by great acharyas and scholars over the centuries, and one nationalist, sectarian Vivekananda coming out and preaching to largely clueless Hindu masses does not change that. The literature is there, go read it without prejudice. The Vaishnav literature is comprehensive, and debates openly. The mayavad literature is selective and polemical.
Also, watch what you call "sectarian". As you've seen, the Vivekananda types are more active in spouting ethnic chaivinism, interfaith polemic and other sorts of political rhetoric. This guy "bharatvarsh" doesn't even seem to have much respect for the bona fides of a guru-shishya parampara!
Anyways, just thought I'd make a point on this forum. Ramana ji on BRF pointed me here. Hari bol.
<b>Sunder</b>,
I won't be able to spend time actually rebutting every theological argument about advaita on this BB. The thread was about academic and popular misrepresentations about 'Hinduism', and that's all I wanted to highlight.
But suffice to say that in every Upanishad or other scripture you mention, there is plenty of evidence to point to something MORE than Brahman. Note that the Vaishnavas do NOT deny the existence of Brahman, and in fact Brahman-realization is a preliminary stage to full svarupa-siddhi. This realization is supported by great mystics outisde of India also, such as Jalaluddin Rumi, etc. And to give you just one example of mischievous mayavad misquotations, the verse 7:24 in the Gita, which mayavadis like to translate as "fools think I have assumed a personal form whereas I am actually unmanifested..." can also be translated exactly the opposite to read "fools think that I am only unmanifest...". Depends on whether you decide that "apannam" modifies "avyaktam", or "vyaktim". Besides, there are innumerable quotes in the Gita, taken coherently, that support the Vaishnav position. The Vaishnav position is INCLUSIVE of Brahman, whereas the mayavad position is in denial of anything further. Mayavad quotes are always selective (just like the p-secs selectively quotes the vipraah quote), and convoluted in interpretation. Occam's razor should be enough to cut down most mayavadi arguments, but the tarka-shastra injunctions against vitanda and jalpa rather than vaad completely seal the fate of the mayavadis.
Anyways, all this has been conclusively proved and debated in public by great acharyas and scholars over the centuries, and one nationalist, sectarian Vivekananda coming out and preaching to largely clueless Hindu masses does not change that. The literature is there, go read it without prejudice. The Vaishnav literature is comprehensive, and debates openly. The mayavad literature is selective and polemical.
Also, watch what you call "sectarian". As you've seen, the Vivekananda types are more active in spouting ethnic chaivinism, interfaith polemic and other sorts of political rhetoric. This guy "bharatvarsh" doesn't even seem to have much respect for the bona fides of a guru-shishya parampara!
Anyways, just thought I'd make a point on this forum. Ramana ji on BRF pointed me here. Hari bol.