"Jagat satya!"

[Ashish Chandra]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:06:34 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM>
wrote:

>Ashish Chandra wrote:
>
>> You should really ask why, and how, Jagannath thinks Swami Vivekananda's
>> views differed from the early teachers. Why do you take his word for it
>> without your own enquiry?
>
>Please.  Do you think I would have even entered into this topic without
>doing my own research?

So you can at least understand why Swami Vivekananda has inspired so many
people.

>If you examine the rhetoric of the Hindutva partisans (which I agree is
>opportunistic) when they invoke Shankaracharya or his successors (Do
>they really do this?  I haven't seen too many examples myself.)  it is for
>different reason then when they quote Vivekananda.  For the latter it is
>show how "modern" Hinduism is which was my only point.

Sri Ramakrishna was not a "modern saint". What he gave Swami Vivekananda
was not "modernism". Perhaps I am missing the point but Swami Vivekananda
did not try to prove that Hinduism is modern. Rather, he only affirmed how
relevant it still was when people were marching through the streets of
Calcutta abusing Hinduism and tearing up Bhagavad Gitas. This was the kind
of tendency that Swami Vivekananda defeated by his work.

>
>Ashish Chandra wrote:
>
>> People who follow Vivekananda today do so because he was made famous by
>> his speech in 1893 in the Parliament of Religions.
>
>If celebrity status is a good reason for following a philosopher maybe we
>should start Hritik-Roshan-L :)
>

If Hritik Roshan has a Guru like Sri Ramakrishna, I would have no problem
listening to him.

>> If he had not made that speech, would
>> Vivekananda have thought differently even though no one followed him?
>
>Please understand my purpose in all this is not to "blame" Vivekananda.
>As I said in one of my first mails, what he did and said may have been
>appropriate for his particular circumstances.  My concern is for today.
>Based on what I know about the history and philosophy of our religion and
>other religions, I think our classical tradition provides a much firmer
>basis for continued growth and vitality in the long run than any of the
>reform movements.
>

And I am not saying you are blaming Swami Vivekananda. You hold that Swami
Vivekananda tried to reform Hinduism. I hold that he tried to reform the
people, the way they looked at themselves and their religion/culture, so
they could turn back to Hinduism. This he did with people who called
themselves orthodox as well as those who had forgotten the ABC of Hindu
thought. He did not try to reform Hinduism. That is our difference.

>Ashish Chandra wrote:
>
>> So it does not matter to you "why" we should be compassionate? Where is
>> the automatic acceptance coming from if not due to faith in the words of
>> the Vedas and/or the Guru? Where is the logic? I am not against logic but
>> there are certain things that we just cannot know right now, today. It is
>> upto us whether or not we accept them on faith in the words of the Guru
or
>> we just keep running around in circles. That is what I had meant to
convey.
>
>This is a question which cannot be solved once and for all but I feel
>practice is more important than ideology.  First one does by imitation and
>then one thinks about what one is doing and starts doing consciously.
>E.g. you tell a child it's not nice to hit people.  They do it to please
>you (or to avoid being punished.)  Then when they grow up they start to
>think about why nonviolence is better than violence.
>

And still indulging in lies and deception and mental violence, one keeps
getting lost unless there is the support of Dharma (Vedas) and Guru to hold
one in place.

>> Logic is for today. It is not for tomorrow.
>
>This message is being sent today, not tomorrow. :)
>

So I should disregard it tomorrow ? ;-)

ashish