5/12/2008 7:35 AMMG Chandrakanth wrote:
, I feel now there is a difference between the following: 1.Guru and Acharya: A Guru may say smoking is bad and he may teach it effectively. But he himself may smoke.But an Acharya not only says smoking is bad, and he does not smoke too. An acharya follows what he preaches. A Guru need not. And Balu and others may belong to this category 2. Professor of Religion and Religious person: A professor of religion (may be Wendy Donige, Balu, just for example) may explain religious profoundly, with great semantics, scholarship, verbose. But s/he may not have a single religious experience. Just because one teaches Religion, does not mean that s/he has religious experience. I sincerely believe (I may be wrong or proved wrong by all types of logic), that a religious person teaching religion is believable because s/he has that experience, while a professor of religion without religious experience, cannot be believed, because s/he has no religious experience. Hence I am yet to find a Professor of Religion who is also religious, may be I may find him or her in BHU, Varanasi in the Sampurnananda Sanskrit University, as some one pointed out. Like the Paramacharya of Kanchi, who never spoke or uttered a word when Smt Indira Gandhi or any dignitary met him. He just gave his blessings, that is all. If you know you will appreciate in Kannada: Mathu belli, Mouna bangara. These professors who speak tonnes and tonnes, and are not Bhavukas, what they know about religion? There are several compositions in classical music karnatic: Bhavuka Phaladayini, unless a person is bhavuka, what is the use of teaching religion? s/he may only win some trips abroad or may get some rich projects, but ask his conscious, s/he is not a religious person and is full of contradictions himself/herself. What such researches can find further is of no consequence.
As u say u r measuring circle with a scale, is the same as measuring religion with science or vice versa. Not all can be scientific questions. What is your name is not a scientific question, what is the difference between a scientific question and a non-sceintific question? I do not know u r confusing and your expressions are confusing in your lecture to students. Why all the time keep science above everything. For me science and religion or science and other subjects or methods have the same weight. For an anthropologist who uses participant observation, which may not be scientific or follow statistical procedures, gives me much more than what scientific method can give.
Worshipping rat may be weird for one person / religion, may not be for others. As if westerner is great and non westerners are not. Why everytime you keep or go on saying the westerner as a “mana danda” or an ideal. I do not understand. No just because I learnt English, I am not looking everything thru English or their culture. I limit it for my class room discussion teaching economics.
Our practice is based on our belief. U r veg because cow is sacre Reply to this
5/5/2009 4:52 AM
Rajan wrote:
Accidentally( by God's grace) I landed on this site. I went thru some of the discussions going on between the original writer and the responder Chandrakanth etc. I felt I am just witnessing the fight between 'diggajas 'and I am just a strand of grass at the edge of the arena, feeling the heat. I just could not get to the beginning of this long dual. With out knowing the context I was not able to make out much of either of U. Can you please enlighten me a little more on the issue on which u are 'quarreling'. Please do not quarrel. That is the basic premise a wise debate. Westerners as I understand have made the primordial contribution to Indology. The western translators in 18th century have helped us to get access to the ancient literature. Only because of such Indologists our "Buddhivantas" including Mahatma Gandhi, could read, understand and start preaching as if they have discovered or given the original interpretations. Aadi Shankara never would have made statements that many vain people in our country (India) have been making. The scientific world has deposited so much of faith and hope in Indian literature (of course, including Buddhism) as they have 'put all their eggs in one big basket' called "The God's particle experiment" in CERN, Geneva. They are hunting for the God 'matter'. It ultimately required the thapasvis ( I call them the scientists) belonging to the whole world, who are sitting in the deep tunnel for the last three decades doing Tapasya(Experiments) just to prove what was told by our Rushis in Naasadiiya suukta,Purusha suukta etc. Science is the present day expression of human brain. Goddess Saraswati is described as the lord of Trimuurtis. So we cannot decry the scientific way of thinking about religion/god/culture...bla......bla..... Reply to this
, I feel now there is a difference between the following:
1.Guru and Acharya: A Guru may say smoking is bad and he may teach it effectively. But he himself may smoke.But an Acharya not only says smoking is bad, and he does not smoke too. An acharya follows what he preaches. A Guru need not. And Balu and others may belong to this category
2. Professor of Religion and Religious person: A professor of religion (may be Wendy Donige, Balu, just for example) may explain religious profoundly, with great semantics, scholarship, verbose. But s/he may not have a single religious experience. Just because one teaches Religion, does not mean that s/he has religious experience. I sincerely believe (I may be wrong or proved wrong by all types of logic), that a religious person teaching religion is believable because s/he has that experience, while a professor of religion without religious experience, cannot be believed, because s/he has no religious experience.
Hence I am yet to find a Professor of Religion who is also religious, may be I may find him or her in BHU, Varanasi in the Sampurnananda Sanskrit University, as some one pointed out. Like the Paramacharya of Kanchi, who never spoke or uttered a word when Smt Indira Gandhi or any dignitary met him. He just gave his blessings, that is all. If you know you will appreciate in Kannada: Mathu belli, Mouna bangara. These professors who speak tonnes and tonnes, and are not Bhavukas, what they know about religion? There are several compositions in classical music karnatic: Bhavuka Phaladayini, unless a person is bhavuka, what is the use of teaching religion? s/he may only win some trips abroad or may get some rich projects, but ask his conscious, s/he is not a religious person and is full of contradictions himself/herself. What such researches can find further is of no consequence.
As u say u r measuring circle with a scale, is the same as measuring religion with science or vice versa. Not all can be scientific questions. What is your name is not a scientific question, what is the difference between a scientific question and a non-sceintific question? I do not know u r confusing and your expressions are confusing in your lecture to students. Why all the time keep science above everything. For me science and religion or science and other subjects or methods have the same weight. For an anthropologist who uses participant observation, which may not be scientific or follow statistical procedures, gives me much more than what scientific method can give.
Worshipping rat may be weird for one person / religion, may not be for others. As if westerner is great and non westerners are not. Why everytime you keep or go on saying the westerner as a “mana danda” or an ideal. I do not understand.
No just because I learnt English, I am not looking everything thru English or their culture. I limit it for my class room discussion teaching economics.
Our practice is based on our belief. U r veg because cow is sacre
Reply to this
Accidentally( by God's grace) I landed on this site. I went thru some of the discussions going on between the original writer and the responder Chandrakanth etc. I felt I am just witnessing the fight between 'diggajas 'and I am just a strand of grass at the edge of the arena, feeling the heat.
I just could not get to the beginning of this long dual.
With out knowing the context I was not able to make out much of either of U.
Can you please enlighten me a little more on the issue on which u are 'quarreling'.
Please do not quarrel. That is the basic premise a wise debate.
Westerners as I understand have made the primordial contribution to Indology. The western translators in 18th century have helped us to get access to the ancient literature. Only because of such Indologists our "Buddhivantas" including Mahatma Gandhi, could read, understand and start preaching as if they have discovered or given the original interpretations. Aadi Shankara never would have made statements that many vain people in our country (India) have been making.
The scientific world has deposited so much of faith and hope in Indian literature (of course, including Buddhism) as they have 'put all their eggs in one big basket' called "The God's particle experiment" in CERN, Geneva.
They are hunting for the God 'matter'. It ultimately required the thapasvis ( I call them the scientists) belonging to the whole world, who are sitting in the deep tunnel for the last three decades doing Tapasya(Experiments) just to prove what was told by our Rushis in Naasadiiya suukta,Purusha suukta etc.
Science is the present day expression of human brain.
Goddess Saraswati is described as the lord of Trimuurtis. So we cannot decry the scientific way of thinking about religion/god/culture...bla......bla.....
Reply to this