07-26-2005, 01:26 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-mitradena+Jul 23 2005, 10:24 PM-->QUOTE(mitradena @ Jul 23 2005, 10:24 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Carl,
Can you answer the question why the hypocrites in ISKCON praise Christianity and Islam while vehemently attacking other sects in Hinduism? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mitra,
Who said "ISKCON" vehemently attacks "other sects" in Hinduism? Following in the footsteps of all bona fide acharyas such as Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, and Sri Chaitanya, they only critique those sects that deny the Personality of the Absolute Truth, or try to water it down. They extend this critique to ALL exponents of such atheistic philosophies, including 18th and 19th century european cliques. As I pointed out in my last post, the ideas of Vivekananda are simply borrowed from the writings of Comte, von Holback, Holyoake, etc, which were taught to Indian schoolkids by the Brit colonialists. The whole edifice of "Neo-Vedanta" (or "Neo-Advaita") is simply a product of colonial education. And as I pointed out, this concoction is NOT faithful to the teachings of Shankaracharya, just like it grossly mis-represents Vaishnavism.
<b>So which do you prefer? An institution that is very clear about its philosophy and is faithful to the Vedas and parampara, or institutions that misrepresent the Vedas in a relativistic framework in their misguided effort to co-opt and identify with non-Vedic ideas?</b>
Also, who said that "ISKCON" completely endorses Christianity and Islam? They prefer not to get into theological debates with these sects, and they may try to establish common ground only for the sake of co-existing. ISKCON in engaged in missionary activity in extreme hostile environments, where adherents of these religions have indulged in violence and other forms of harrassment. Several ISKCON brahmacharis have lost their lives preaching in the Caucasus, Middle-east and Pakistan. So try to understand the practical compulsions and difference between what is "vyavaharika" and "paramarthika". As Srila Prabhupada would say, "Purity is the force; utility is the principle."
As for your last comment about my being "mleccha" -- I suggest you first re-evaluate your understanding of what "mleccha" means. Secondly, don't make assumptions based on my name. I'm 100% Indian. Third, I'm not "preaching" to anybody here -- I'm just putting forward a very authentic viewpoint, and trying to explain how modern "Hinduism" is a being misrepresented. <b>My only point is that by liberally allowing the term "Hinduism" to be misappropriated by every "neo-something" group, there is a chance that a dangerous hodge-podge will be created which will not be convincing to the young, intelligent Hindu who is trying to understand his religious heritage.</b> You have to admit that the great majority of the "830 million" people who call themselves "Hindu" have no interest in doctrine, and use it more as a cultural identification.
<b>"...Whosoever follows a false doctrine of the Self will perish."
-- Chandogya Upanishad VIII.8.4</b>
Can you answer the question why the hypocrites in ISKCON praise Christianity and Islam while vehemently attacking other sects in Hinduism? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mitra,
Who said "ISKCON" vehemently attacks "other sects" in Hinduism? Following in the footsteps of all bona fide acharyas such as Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, and Sri Chaitanya, they only critique those sects that deny the Personality of the Absolute Truth, or try to water it down. They extend this critique to ALL exponents of such atheistic philosophies, including 18th and 19th century european cliques. As I pointed out in my last post, the ideas of Vivekananda are simply borrowed from the writings of Comte, von Holback, Holyoake, etc, which were taught to Indian schoolkids by the Brit colonialists. The whole edifice of "Neo-Vedanta" (or "Neo-Advaita") is simply a product of colonial education. And as I pointed out, this concoction is NOT faithful to the teachings of Shankaracharya, just like it grossly mis-represents Vaishnavism.
<b>So which do you prefer? An institution that is very clear about its philosophy and is faithful to the Vedas and parampara, or institutions that misrepresent the Vedas in a relativistic framework in their misguided effort to co-opt and identify with non-Vedic ideas?</b>
Also, who said that "ISKCON" completely endorses Christianity and Islam? They prefer not to get into theological debates with these sects, and they may try to establish common ground only for the sake of co-existing. ISKCON in engaged in missionary activity in extreme hostile environments, where adherents of these religions have indulged in violence and other forms of harrassment. Several ISKCON brahmacharis have lost their lives preaching in the Caucasus, Middle-east and Pakistan. So try to understand the practical compulsions and difference between what is "vyavaharika" and "paramarthika". As Srila Prabhupada would say, "Purity is the force; utility is the principle."
As for your last comment about my being "mleccha" -- I suggest you first re-evaluate your understanding of what "mleccha" means. Secondly, don't make assumptions based on my name. I'm 100% Indian. Third, I'm not "preaching" to anybody here -- I'm just putting forward a very authentic viewpoint, and trying to explain how modern "Hinduism" is a being misrepresented. <b>My only point is that by liberally allowing the term "Hinduism" to be misappropriated by every "neo-something" group, there is a chance that a dangerous hodge-podge will be created which will not be convincing to the young, intelligent Hindu who is trying to understand his religious heritage.</b> You have to admit that the great majority of the "830 million" people who call themselves "Hindu" have no interest in doctrine, and use it more as a cultural identification.
<b>"...Whosoever follows a false doctrine of the Self will perish."
-- Chandogya Upanishad VIII.8.4</b>