07-26-2005, 02:56 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Carl+Jul 26 2005, 01:26 AM-->QUOTE(Carl @ Jul 26 2005, 01:26 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our friend Carl here is busy making personal attacks on others and telling stories about Shankara and Vivekananda and Ramakrishna in this and other threads. Some of Carl's stories are actually very funny. I am still laughing at Carl's claim that Shankara bhasya is in partial agreement with Vaishnavas. since Shankara says that ultimately all forms including Vishnu are unreal in direct disagreement with Vaishnavas. Now Carl is saying that Vivekananda borrowed from European writings when any knowledgable person knows that Vivekananda interpreted the Vedas in the light of Sri Ramakrishna's direct experience of Brahman. It is indeed well known that Vivekananda did not agree with all of Shankara's teachings for the simple reason that Sri Ramakrishna did not agree with it. This is the reason why Vivekananda's version is called by scholars as neo-Vedanta and NOT Shankara's Kevala Advaita.
I also noticed that our friend Carl used Jeffrey Kripal's notoriously fraudulent book, 'Kali's Child' to make the case that Sri Ramakrishna was a mere tantrik. For those of you who do not know about the book, Kripal claims that original Bengali source books show Ramakrishna buggering little boys and apparently Ramakrishna buggered Vivekananda. Obviously Carl has not read Swami Tyagananda 's refutation of Kripal's fraudulent book. I have myself compared word for word Kripal's book with the Ramakrishna Kathamrita in Bengali and found that Kripal has made up the entire book. More I read Carl's posts, more I find the aptness of the saying,"Little learning is dangerous".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our friend Carl here is busy making personal attacks on others and telling stories about Shankara and Vivekananda and Ramakrishna in this and other threads. Some of Carl's stories are actually very funny. I am still laughing at Carl's claim that Shankara bhasya is in partial agreement with Vaishnavas. since Shankara says that ultimately all forms including Vishnu are unreal in direct disagreement with Vaishnavas. Now Carl is saying that Vivekananda borrowed from European writings when any knowledgable person knows that Vivekananda interpreted the Vedas in the light of Sri Ramakrishna's direct experience of Brahman. It is indeed well known that Vivekananda did not agree with all of Shankara's teachings for the simple reason that Sri Ramakrishna did not agree with it. This is the reason why Vivekananda's version is called by scholars as neo-Vedanta and NOT Shankara's Kevala Advaita.
I also noticed that our friend Carl used Jeffrey Kripal's notoriously fraudulent book, 'Kali's Child' to make the case that Sri Ramakrishna was a mere tantrik. For those of you who do not know about the book, Kripal claims that original Bengali source books show Ramakrishna buggering little boys and apparently Ramakrishna buggered Vivekananda. Obviously Carl has not read Swami Tyagananda 's refutation of Kripal's fraudulent book. I have myself compared word for word Kripal's book with the Ramakrishna Kathamrita in Bengali and found that Kripal has made up the entire book. More I read Carl's posts, more I find the aptness of the saying,"Little learning is dangerous".