05-14-2005, 10:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+May 15 2005, 12:48 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ May 15 2005, 12:48 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->But who gave Muhammad and Moses the right to ban something just because they didn't like it. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a different topic, and one in which culture, historical circumstance, etc play a part. These things influence the mode of action, etc. Also, the circumstance of the Sikh gurus is quite different, and I think you understand that.
But we have tons of such examples from Vedic literature also. When Balarama was on His pilgrimage and he came upon the pashandi "guru" who was preaching some concoction, He immediately beheaded him without any preliminary discussion even. And what gives Krishna the "right" to say that He descends to "destroy the evil-doers and protect the sadhus"? But anyway, this is getting into a different topic. The issue here is the dynamics of theological debate, and how that can be balanced with certain socio-cultural imperatives for India and Hinduism. In that context, your question may be accommodated, because common preachers of any creed all too often try to "imitate" rather than "follow" the masters, an important distinction.
<b>sunder</b>,
I confess I was a little taken aback when I found myself "ambushed" in the beginning, and subsequently I might have let a few sparks fly. Please accept my apologies.
Why is the term "mayavad" offensive? Of course, it is a derogative, but has been in use for centuries. The reason it is used to descrie the carping opposition is because, when probed, their arguments fall apart, and with their backs to the wall, the final argument is always, "this is maya, it is beyond understanding within the duality of Mind, it is beyond debate". Hence "maya-vadi". But if you find it offensive, then I don't mind using another term. The reason I don't want to use "Advaita" in polemic is because Advaita itself is not "wrong", only incomplete, and because of its association with Sripada Shankara. Shankara is venerated by Vaishnavas for the role he played, as is Buddha. At no point do I want to give the impression that this argumentation against present-day self-styled "avatars" means I have a similar mentality about Sripada Shankara.
That's a different topic, and one in which culture, historical circumstance, etc play a part. These things influence the mode of action, etc. Also, the circumstance of the Sikh gurus is quite different, and I think you understand that.
But we have tons of such examples from Vedic literature also. When Balarama was on His pilgrimage and he came upon the pashandi "guru" who was preaching some concoction, He immediately beheaded him without any preliminary discussion even. And what gives Krishna the "right" to say that He descends to "destroy the evil-doers and protect the sadhus"? But anyway, this is getting into a different topic. The issue here is the dynamics of theological debate, and how that can be balanced with certain socio-cultural imperatives for India and Hinduism. In that context, your question may be accommodated, because common preachers of any creed all too often try to "imitate" rather than "follow" the masters, an important distinction.
<b>sunder</b>,
I confess I was a little taken aback when I found myself "ambushed" in the beginning, and subsequently I might have let a few sparks fly. Please accept my apologies.
Why is the term "mayavad" offensive? Of course, it is a derogative, but has been in use for centuries. The reason it is used to descrie the carping opposition is because, when probed, their arguments fall apart, and with their backs to the wall, the final argument is always, "this is maya, it is beyond understanding within the duality of Mind, it is beyond debate". Hence "maya-vadi". But if you find it offensive, then I don't mind using another term. The reason I don't want to use "Advaita" in polemic is because Advaita itself is not "wrong", only incomplete, and because of its association with Sripada Shankara. Shankara is venerated by Vaishnavas for the role he played, as is Buddha. At no point do I want to give the impression that this argumentation against present-day self-styled "avatars" means I have a similar mentality about Sripada Shankara.