05-17-2005, 06:03 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You claim that Mithya means false and therefore all except Brahman is non-existent and is a dream...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Er, my friend, in those lines I was stating the shunyavadi theory that I was arguing AGAINST. Did you read the full sentence?? It ends with "according to THEIR simplistic explanations". <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> After that I wrote 2 paras about what my understanding of maya is. Bro, if you want to attempt theological debate on an internet BB, you should try to read complete sentences before jumping up to criticize, or "laughing aloud"...
That shunyavadi theory (which you yourself have just mocked) is to be found in <i>several</i> books published by <i>initiated swamis</i> of the RK mission. You may verify this for yourself. You will also not deny the fact that there is no philosophical consistency within the RK mission, and many brannches are more-or-less independent. Further, several long-time initiates of the RK mission whom I know have echoed such shunyavadi notions. It is quite surprising to me, especially since Sri Ramakrishna himself has explained maya in more enlightened terms that Chaitanya mahaprabhu popularized in Gauda desh.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Carl,
I laughed loudly even more after reading your claim that you were stating Shunyavad theory when you wrote that all except Brahman is non-existent and is a dream. Shunyavad, expounded by Nagarjuna and commented on by Chandrakirti, is a Buddhist theory and rejects Brahman and Atman and all eternalism. Why did you suddenly jump from Advaita to Shunyavad and then you get shunyavad wrong? This is about the craziest answer I have ever come across. I was making a point about Advaita and this fellow jumps over to a faulty description of Shunyavadis. Why????
I did not mock Shunyavadis but you Carl. RK mission does not follow Shunyavad but bhakti misrita Advaita and also respects Ramanuja's Vishistadvaita. If you have seen shunyavad in RK mission swami's books then I suggest you check your eyesight.
You have also made the fatous claim that Sri Ramakrishna has explained maya popularized by Lord Chaitanya. I have some news for you Carl. The explanation of maya given by Sri Ramakrishna is a Sakta theory borrowed from Tantra/Kashmiri Saivism. It has absolutely nothing to do with the bahiraga/Antaranga or swarupa Shakti theory of Gaudia Vaishnava sampradya. You seem to be going all over the map, Carl!
To Be Continued
That shunyavadi theory (which you yourself have just mocked) is to be found in <i>several</i> books published by <i>initiated swamis</i> of the RK mission. You may verify this for yourself. You will also not deny the fact that there is no philosophical consistency within the RK mission, and many brannches are more-or-less independent. Further, several long-time initiates of the RK mission whom I know have echoed such shunyavadi notions. It is quite surprising to me, especially since Sri Ramakrishna himself has explained maya in more enlightened terms that Chaitanya mahaprabhu popularized in Gauda desh.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Carl,
I laughed loudly even more after reading your claim that you were stating Shunyavad theory when you wrote that all except Brahman is non-existent and is a dream. Shunyavad, expounded by Nagarjuna and commented on by Chandrakirti, is a Buddhist theory and rejects Brahman and Atman and all eternalism. Why did you suddenly jump from Advaita to Shunyavad and then you get shunyavad wrong? This is about the craziest answer I have ever come across. I was making a point about Advaita and this fellow jumps over to a faulty description of Shunyavadis. Why????
I did not mock Shunyavadis but you Carl. RK mission does not follow Shunyavad but bhakti misrita Advaita and also respects Ramanuja's Vishistadvaita. If you have seen shunyavad in RK mission swami's books then I suggest you check your eyesight.
You have also made the fatous claim that Sri Ramakrishna has explained maya popularized by Lord Chaitanya. I have some news for you Carl. The explanation of maya given by Sri Ramakrishna is a Sakta theory borrowed from Tantra/Kashmiri Saivism. It has absolutely nothing to do with the bahiraga/Antaranga or swarupa Shakti theory of Gaudia Vaishnava sampradya. You seem to be going all over the map, Carl!
To Be Continued