07-23-2005, 01:39 AM
<b>Hayagriva</b> prabhu,
The "Neo-Vedantists" (who like to refer to themselves as Advaitins or Vedantists whenever they can get away with it), are a set of colonial Indians who have twisted the Vedas out of shape to support the latest philosophical theories that the White Man comes up with. <b>The "philosophy" of Vivekananda is simply a rehash in Vedic terms, of what Von Holback and Auguste Comte and others had propogated in Europe, and which was very much in vogue at the time. Their works used to be taught to the Indians in British colonial schools</b>, and that is no doubt where our hero-swami picked it up. The same ideas..."this world is merely matter in motion", the partial acceptance of "deity" (like Holyoake said), etc, etc.
But in doing so, these "Neo-Vedantists" have to also reconcile the majority of Vedic literature, which clearly does not fit in with this contrived theory. So they have invented a <b>two-tiered theory of Absolute Truth -- they say, "it all depends on whether you wish to be the Observer or not". This is their pathetic attempt to artificially reconcile the Vedas with the contrived, colonial-inspired theory of Neo-Vedanta.</b> These low-IQ asses do not even understand what the word "absolute" in "Absolute Truth" means. Their minds are so implicated in the relative duality of maya, that their theories are as illusory as maya itself. <b>But as usual, while liberally using the language of Shankara's Advaita, the Neo-Advaitists contradict Shankaracharya himself, what to speak of Vedanta in its complete form. Shripada Shankara has EXPLICITLY and repeatedly condemned the idea that Brahman can be a "two-sided" Reality. The idea of "icebergs floating in an ocean", or "two sides of a coin", etc are not Advaitic ideas, they were invented by Sri Ramakrishna, etc., and do NOT agree with Shankara's Advaita.</b> Now we would have no problem if they called their school "Sri Ramakrishna/S.Radhakrishnan's" religion <b>(as Vivekananda once admitted)</b>, but we are forced to criticize when they try to surreptitiously piggy-back on the reputations of great sages and teachers.
<b>In fact, the only historical "acharya" whose theory comes closest to Neo-Vedanta is the little-known Bhaskara.</b> I quote from my post on the other thread: The classical theory of Bhaskara holds that bheda and abheda are sequential: the initially distinct (bheda) infinitesimal soul can, upon liberation, become identical to the unlimited Brahman (abheda). <b>This concept of spiritual mutability is fundamentally at odds with Vedic philosophy since it indirectly challenges the infallibility of Brahman by allowing for change, thereby dragging the pure Brahman conception down into the gutter of imperfection. This has been the perennial charge against Bhaskara, and as a variant, Neo-Vedanta is also subject to the same criticism.</b>
Our friend <b>sunder</b> has as yet been unable to explain why, throughout the centuries, EVERY TIME there has been a great public debate on Vedanta between a Vaishnava and a mayavadi (of whatever brand), the Vaishnavas have always come out on top. Apparently all those great scholars and sages were wrong. They would have us believe that only Sri Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan got it right -- with conclusive support from white people in 18th century europe!
quote sunder:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, I have nothing against anything, for I am everything.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh sure...with the exception of "Allah", "Jehovah", and all the great Vedic sages who don't agree with "Neo-Advaita". Its great to know that we have self-realized souls on this forum, but it would be even better if you could be a little less pompous. Your hatred has been manifest on this forum through your shenanigans (like this thread), despite your quick attempts to delete particularly vivid posts. You also didn't stick around long enough to have a structured, CONCEPTUAL discussion on Vedanta with me, but can only indulge in <b>hit-and-run, copy-paste rubbish from dubious internet sources </b>to impress your chamchas.
But you are right in admitting, as the great exponents of "Neo-Vedanta" have done, that "Neo-Vedanta" is an attempt to integrate all sorts of non-Vedic theory into one "kitchen-sink" theory of everything. <b>Neo-Advaitic Motto: please everyone, and gain mass support.</b> That includes the Shunyavadi Buddhists (whom Shankaracharya fought), and even the Charvakas! <b>Neo-Vedanta ultimately accomodates materialism, impersonality, personality, nihilistic void, and anything and everything else â all in one relativistic system.</b> Ins't that interesting? A relativistic system of the Absolute Truth. This is truly "achintya". <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I fell off my chair laughing when I read chamcha "gangajal" calling sunder's last post a "tour de force". Kinda reminds me of the way Pakistanis use the term "raison d'etre". <b>sunder uvaacha:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->know that the Observer is none other than Shiva/Vishnu. Shiva and Vishnu are but names assigned to your Self. I realize that Dvaitha cannot not fully appreciate this viewpoint. This will be realized gradually. <i>Bahoonaam Janmanaam anthe gnaanavaan maam prabhadyathe. Vaasudevah Sarvam ithi, sa mahaathma sudurlabhah</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Consider the verse quoted from the B.Gita. The neo-Advaitists hold that Jnana is the ultimate, Bhakti being only an infantile but necessary pre-cursor. But this flies in the face of all Vedic scripture, including the Bhagavad Gita. This verse clearly points out that the jnanis, after speculating for lifetimes, finally surrender unto the Supreme Personality. A cursory glance at the preceding verses shows this. And this point is reinforced when Sri Krishna answers a direct question on this point by Arjuna. No doubts left. But fools do not heed. They like to superimpose their own interpretations. Same is the case with the verse (mis)quoted from the Narayana sukta.
To conclude, given their fundamental hostility to the idea of a Supreme Deity, the Neo-Advaitins have been trying to garner support from every two-bit Western philosopher who wrote a book in the last 2 centuries. But as Sri Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita:
asatyamapratishhThaM te jagadAhuranIshvaram
aparaspara saMbhUtaM kimanyatkAmahaitukam
<b>"They (the asuras) say that the universe is untrue (illusory), without basis [in reason/scripture], and without an Ishvara; that it has no mutual coherence..."</b>
The "Neo-Vedantists" (who like to refer to themselves as Advaitins or Vedantists whenever they can get away with it), are a set of colonial Indians who have twisted the Vedas out of shape to support the latest philosophical theories that the White Man comes up with. <b>The "philosophy" of Vivekananda is simply a rehash in Vedic terms, of what Von Holback and Auguste Comte and others had propogated in Europe, and which was very much in vogue at the time. Their works used to be taught to the Indians in British colonial schools</b>, and that is no doubt where our hero-swami picked it up. The same ideas..."this world is merely matter in motion", the partial acceptance of "deity" (like Holyoake said), etc, etc.
But in doing so, these "Neo-Vedantists" have to also reconcile the majority of Vedic literature, which clearly does not fit in with this contrived theory. So they have invented a <b>two-tiered theory of Absolute Truth -- they say, "it all depends on whether you wish to be the Observer or not". This is their pathetic attempt to artificially reconcile the Vedas with the contrived, colonial-inspired theory of Neo-Vedanta.</b> These low-IQ asses do not even understand what the word "absolute" in "Absolute Truth" means. Their minds are so implicated in the relative duality of maya, that their theories are as illusory as maya itself. <b>But as usual, while liberally using the language of Shankara's Advaita, the Neo-Advaitists contradict Shankaracharya himself, what to speak of Vedanta in its complete form. Shripada Shankara has EXPLICITLY and repeatedly condemned the idea that Brahman can be a "two-sided" Reality. The idea of "icebergs floating in an ocean", or "two sides of a coin", etc are not Advaitic ideas, they were invented by Sri Ramakrishna, etc., and do NOT agree with Shankara's Advaita.</b> Now we would have no problem if they called their school "Sri Ramakrishna/S.Radhakrishnan's" religion <b>(as Vivekananda once admitted)</b>, but we are forced to criticize when they try to surreptitiously piggy-back on the reputations of great sages and teachers.
<b>In fact, the only historical "acharya" whose theory comes closest to Neo-Vedanta is the little-known Bhaskara.</b> I quote from my post on the other thread: The classical theory of Bhaskara holds that bheda and abheda are sequential: the initially distinct (bheda) infinitesimal soul can, upon liberation, become identical to the unlimited Brahman (abheda). <b>This concept of spiritual mutability is fundamentally at odds with Vedic philosophy since it indirectly challenges the infallibility of Brahman by allowing for change, thereby dragging the pure Brahman conception down into the gutter of imperfection. This has been the perennial charge against Bhaskara, and as a variant, Neo-Vedanta is also subject to the same criticism.</b>
Our friend <b>sunder</b> has as yet been unable to explain why, throughout the centuries, EVERY TIME there has been a great public debate on Vedanta between a Vaishnava and a mayavadi (of whatever brand), the Vaishnavas have always come out on top. Apparently all those great scholars and sages were wrong. They would have us believe that only Sri Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan got it right -- with conclusive support from white people in 18th century europe!
quote sunder:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, I have nothing against anything, for I am everything.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh sure...with the exception of "Allah", "Jehovah", and all the great Vedic sages who don't agree with "Neo-Advaita". Its great to know that we have self-realized souls on this forum, but it would be even better if you could be a little less pompous. Your hatred has been manifest on this forum through your shenanigans (like this thread), despite your quick attempts to delete particularly vivid posts. You also didn't stick around long enough to have a structured, CONCEPTUAL discussion on Vedanta with me, but can only indulge in <b>hit-and-run, copy-paste rubbish from dubious internet sources </b>to impress your chamchas.
But you are right in admitting, as the great exponents of "Neo-Vedanta" have done, that "Neo-Vedanta" is an attempt to integrate all sorts of non-Vedic theory into one "kitchen-sink" theory of everything. <b>Neo-Advaitic Motto: please everyone, and gain mass support.</b> That includes the Shunyavadi Buddhists (whom Shankaracharya fought), and even the Charvakas! <b>Neo-Vedanta ultimately accomodates materialism, impersonality, personality, nihilistic void, and anything and everything else â all in one relativistic system.</b> Ins't that interesting? A relativistic system of the Absolute Truth. This is truly "achintya". <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->I fell off my chair laughing when I read chamcha "gangajal" calling sunder's last post a "tour de force". Kinda reminds me of the way Pakistanis use the term "raison d'etre". <b>sunder uvaacha:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->know that the Observer is none other than Shiva/Vishnu. Shiva and Vishnu are but names assigned to your Self. I realize that Dvaitha cannot not fully appreciate this viewpoint. This will be realized gradually. <i>Bahoonaam Janmanaam anthe gnaanavaan maam prabhadyathe. Vaasudevah Sarvam ithi, sa mahaathma sudurlabhah</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Consider the verse quoted from the B.Gita. The neo-Advaitists hold that Jnana is the ultimate, Bhakti being only an infantile but necessary pre-cursor. But this flies in the face of all Vedic scripture, including the Bhagavad Gita. This verse clearly points out that the jnanis, after speculating for lifetimes, finally surrender unto the Supreme Personality. A cursory glance at the preceding verses shows this. And this point is reinforced when Sri Krishna answers a direct question on this point by Arjuna. No doubts left. But fools do not heed. They like to superimpose their own interpretations. Same is the case with the verse (mis)quoted from the Narayana sukta.
To conclude, given their fundamental hostility to the idea of a Supreme Deity, the Neo-Advaitins have been trying to garner support from every two-bit Western philosopher who wrote a book in the last 2 centuries. But as Sri Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita:
asatyamapratishhThaM te jagadAhuranIshvaram
aparaspara saMbhUtaM kimanyatkAmahaitukam
<b>"They (the asuras) say that the universe is untrue (illusory), without basis [in reason/scripture], and without an Ishvara; that it has no mutual coherence..."</b>