07-18-2010, 03:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2010, 03:05 PM by HareKrishna.)
[quote name='Husky' date='18 July 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1279436542' post='107508']
b.) - you are wrong about the way traditional Hellenes viewed Philosophy. Julian is certainly not the only example to make the point I had mentioned in my post (and I merely re-iterated their views, of course: it was too serious an issue for me to opinionate on). And Julianus was himself re-stating the common views of his Hellenistic predecessors and contemporaries. R.Smith's explanation of Julian's reason for choosing to bring up this established Hellenistic view in public - in order to use it vis-a-vis christianism - certainly has its merits. However, the point here is that Julian's supporting references to his predecessors' views on the matter, shows that it was indeed the established, common Hellenistic POV.
It is Julian and his fellow Hellenes that know their religion.
Your logic is wrong. It does not and never did concern a mere word in the case of Philosophy: Philosophy is a religious term and has a very specific meaning. The error I speak of is akin to saying "Vedanta is universal and can be applied to all religions in the world" if we just adopted it into English to mean what "philosophy" means now in English. No, Vedanta is not universal, it is Hindu alone.
English has been misusing Philosophy in this way.
It subverted a core religious term that has a specific meaning (which it deserves to retain) among those who own everything to do with the word.
c) The "animist" accusation is entertaining.
Let's try to recall the different things you've accused me of being over the years of your visiting IF.
Smarta. Wrong. Advaitin. Wrong. On yet another occasion, you declared I was doing some random "folk religion" or something. Wrong. (Unless it's defined as just the religion of the Hindu folk. )
Then there was another accusation - I forget. (You accuse so often, it's hard to keep track.)
Now animist. (Ironically, despite the christoword, you may be getting closer. Well, it depends on the intended meaning/connotation of animist.)
I'll make it easy for you.
Leaving aside my own person, my *ancestors* - down to my parents and uncles and aunts - are of the very same religion as the Hindu monkey that hugged his=my Rama-moorti before dying at Rama's feet and the Hindu Cobra that did puja to his=my Shiva-moorti (news articles on this were posted in the Hindu thread I think). I.e. the Hindu religion. My ancestors are of the religion of the RuShis who set down knowledge of the Hindu religion/Gods in our various scriptures.
You're again creating a "Husky" that doesn't exist. I will state my views for myself if or when I choose to. Don't ascribe opinions to me (which you seem to do just so you can declare you disagree, the same way you presume to attach labels to me - how often must you be so totally wrong before you will stop it?)
d) Poor misrepresented Shankara Bhagavadpada: most of the vocalists speaking on Vedanta today and bringing him in, entirely ignore his many works on the Gods and imagine that he was purely a "philosopher", and so they keep peddling just that one aspect of his: the one aspect that they are able to appreciate. It's because the Gods don't compute to the modern people who have developed an interest in Vedanta: people who generally tend to have been non-religious until they 'discovered' Advaitam. (I have yet to find one who didn't fit this pattern.) In contrast, the Gods certainly computed to Shankara. E.g. he declares at the end of his SAL, which is in praise of the one he was named for, that he did not lie in his praise. People who discover Shankara and his explication of Vedanta frequently dismiss - when they do not outright ignore - all the rest of his works, as being but his materials "meant for the (unintellectual) Hindoo masses". Yet all his output was part of his same Hindooness, and he was sincere about them all.
They've entirely hijacked (<- that word again) Adi Shankaracharya. But he was just a Hindoo. An Acharya, yes (I have made his stotras on the Gods my own*, as I have those of others before and after him: they so eloquently say what I want to say), but a Hindoo.
* Lines like "aham chAtibAlo, bhavAn lokatAtaH" addressed to shaktipaNe :mine: are simply perfect for me to want to steal the words. The entire stotram is magnificent, like the shloka on worshipping His Twelve Infallible Arms that protect the Universe :love: and the one on the same Baby - who was already seen addressed as the Father of the Kosmos - running to its Dad.
Anyway, I think affected and concerned Hindus really should reclaim the Acharya before it is too late for them. Else the way Vedanta is being manipulated in our time (particularly Advaitam, esp. as explained by Shankara), will force these Hindus into an unnatural 'choice' - where there never was any before - between the Gods and Shankara/Shankara's explication of Advaitam. That was never his intention.
[/quote]
Philosophy mean love of wisdom ,if it was something like philolimposophia :love for the Olympian(gods)wisdom you may have a case.Vedanta cant be applied to anything else.Vedanta mean the end(conclusion) of Vedas.We have something very specific here.
You didnt read my texts were i laugh at the so call pure advaitins and i have debates whit some of this so call shankarians and they dont believe that Shankara was a gods worshiper,that he say :worship Govinda,or they believe that he did it only symbolically.
But you also miss some things from Shankara.He was what we can call today ,a missionary.He travel all over debating whit different schools and usually wining the debates.And the defeated intellectuals will recognize his points as superior to them and sometimes converted to his views.Maybe hindus today dont like debates but that was part of hindu tradition.
When i say impersonal advaita im not talking about gods,but about Brahman(that was impersonal in Sankara system).
And in my system there are 3 types of monotheism,the impersonalism being the type 3.And i believe are also 6 versions of type 2 monotheism in hinduism.
Call it wrong but the point that i make is that i consider just missionarism my moral right and you shouldnt take it from me.Only thing you can do is to shot the door when you see me,which is fine whit me as long as im not attacked physically.
By western understanding ,animism usually mean worship of spirits ,the spirits being the watered-down version of gods,or the gods are the spirits on steroids.
It came from anima meaning soul or spirit.
I dont know Husky but i made assumptions about his views from what he write.
So it will be good to share your views about afterlife and the spiritual world .And finally ,do you see your gods(not in dream) ?
b.) - you are wrong about the way traditional Hellenes viewed Philosophy. Julian is certainly not the only example to make the point I had mentioned in my post (and I merely re-iterated their views, of course: it was too serious an issue for me to opinionate on). And Julianus was himself re-stating the common views of his Hellenistic predecessors and contemporaries. R.Smith's explanation of Julian's reason for choosing to bring up this established Hellenistic view in public - in order to use it vis-a-vis christianism - certainly has its merits. However, the point here is that Julian's supporting references to his predecessors' views on the matter, shows that it was indeed the established, common Hellenistic POV.
It is Julian and his fellow Hellenes that know their religion.
Your logic is wrong. It does not and never did concern a mere word in the case of Philosophy: Philosophy is a religious term and has a very specific meaning. The error I speak of is akin to saying "Vedanta is universal and can be applied to all religions in the world" if we just adopted it into English to mean what "philosophy" means now in English. No, Vedanta is not universal, it is Hindu alone.
English has been misusing Philosophy in this way.
It subverted a core religious term that has a specific meaning (which it deserves to retain) among those who own everything to do with the word.
c) The "animist" accusation is entertaining.
Let's try to recall the different things you've accused me of being over the years of your visiting IF.
Smarta. Wrong. Advaitin. Wrong. On yet another occasion, you declared I was doing some random "folk religion" or something. Wrong. (Unless it's defined as just the religion of the Hindu folk. )
Then there was another accusation - I forget. (You accuse so often, it's hard to keep track.)
Now animist. (Ironically, despite the christoword, you may be getting closer. Well, it depends on the intended meaning/connotation of animist.)
I'll make it easy for you.
Leaving aside my own person, my *ancestors* - down to my parents and uncles and aunts - are of the very same religion as the Hindu monkey that hugged his=my Rama-moorti before dying at Rama's feet and the Hindu Cobra that did puja to his=my Shiva-moorti (news articles on this were posted in the Hindu thread I think). I.e. the Hindu religion. My ancestors are of the religion of the RuShis who set down knowledge of the Hindu religion/Gods in our various scriptures.
You're again creating a "Husky" that doesn't exist. I will state my views for myself if or when I choose to. Don't ascribe opinions to me (which you seem to do just so you can declare you disagree, the same way you presume to attach labels to me - how often must you be so totally wrong before you will stop it?)
d) Poor misrepresented Shankara Bhagavadpada: most of the vocalists speaking on Vedanta today and bringing him in, entirely ignore his many works on the Gods and imagine that he was purely a "philosopher", and so they keep peddling just that one aspect of his: the one aspect that they are able to appreciate. It's because the Gods don't compute to the modern people who have developed an interest in Vedanta: people who generally tend to have been non-religious until they 'discovered' Advaitam. (I have yet to find one who didn't fit this pattern.) In contrast, the Gods certainly computed to Shankara. E.g. he declares at the end of his SAL, which is in praise of the one he was named for, that he did not lie in his praise. People who discover Shankara and his explication of Vedanta frequently dismiss - when they do not outright ignore - all the rest of his works, as being but his materials "meant for the (unintellectual) Hindoo masses". Yet all his output was part of his same Hindooness, and he was sincere about them all.
They've entirely hijacked (<- that word again) Adi Shankaracharya. But he was just a Hindoo. An Acharya, yes (I have made his stotras on the Gods my own*, as I have those of others before and after him: they so eloquently say what I want to say), but a Hindoo.
* Lines like "aham chAtibAlo, bhavAn lokatAtaH" addressed to shaktipaNe :mine: are simply perfect for me to want to steal the words. The entire stotram is magnificent, like the shloka on worshipping His Twelve Infallible Arms that protect the Universe :love: and the one on the same Baby - who was already seen addressed as the Father of the Kosmos - running to its Dad.
Anyway, I think affected and concerned Hindus really should reclaim the Acharya before it is too late for them. Else the way Vedanta is being manipulated in our time (particularly Advaitam, esp. as explained by Shankara), will force these Hindus into an unnatural 'choice' - where there never was any before - between the Gods and Shankara/Shankara's explication of Advaitam. That was never his intention.
[/quote]
Philosophy mean love of wisdom ,if it was something like philolimposophia :love for the Olympian(gods)wisdom you may have a case.Vedanta cant be applied to anything else.Vedanta mean the end(conclusion) of Vedas.We have something very specific here.
You didnt read my texts were i laugh at the so call pure advaitins and i have debates whit some of this so call shankarians and they dont believe that Shankara was a gods worshiper,that he say :worship Govinda,or they believe that he did it only symbolically.
But you also miss some things from Shankara.He was what we can call today ,a missionary.He travel all over debating whit different schools and usually wining the debates.And the defeated intellectuals will recognize his points as superior to them and sometimes converted to his views.Maybe hindus today dont like debates but that was part of hindu tradition.
When i say impersonal advaita im not talking about gods,but about Brahman(that was impersonal in Sankara system).
And in my system there are 3 types of monotheism,the impersonalism being the type 3.And i believe are also 6 versions of type 2 monotheism in hinduism.
Call it wrong but the point that i make is that i consider just missionarism my moral right and you shouldnt take it from me.Only thing you can do is to shot the door when you see me,which is fine whit me as long as im not attacked physically.
By western understanding ,animism usually mean worship of spirits ,the spirits being the watered-down version of gods,or the gods are the spirits on steroids.
It came from anima meaning soul or spirit.
I dont know Husky but i made assumptions about his views from what he write.
So it will be good to share your views about afterlife and the spiritual world .And finally ,do you see your gods(not in dream) ?