Discussion and Philosophy

[Guest guest]

> This is especially valid when someone wants their lower pramanas

> to override higher ones, something I admit I've often witnessed there.

 

Jiva Goswami lists 3 pramanas in our Vaisnava philosopy; sruti (hearing from

authorities); pratyaksha (sensual perception) and anuman (deductive

reasoning) - the most important being sruti. I've seen TD rules as

supporting the source of 'logic' - but whose logic? Nyaya is a science - not

a sporting pastime to be bandied about by someone with limited

understanding, especially in comparison to Srila Prabhupada. Questioning

Srila Prabhupada and saying it's exercising one's power of 'logic' or

'reasoning' or 'discrimination' is not any of those things - it's sheer

foolishness, and a downright lack of humility.

 

> It seems to be that there were people with many and various personal

> and spiritual problems on TD, so my best faith is that the moderators

> practically suspended our Vaisnava-siddhantas there just to try to somehow

> encourage these people in any way they could. That motive, if so, is

> noble and compassionate.

 

I beg to disagree - at least with the idea that the moderators' intentions

of suspending Vaisnava siddhantas to deal with 'spiritual' problems was

'noble'. I really can't see how you would think that. I would say it

immediately disqualifies them to deal with anyone if abandonment of Vaisnava

siddhanta was the adopted method. I would want to find someone a little more

balanced - and more advanced spiritually - to deal with my personal

problems.

 

> > These are not "arguments"

> > that were raised: they are our philosophy. There is a gulf of difference

> > between making a philosophical point and arguing mindlessly,

> > This is an excellent point; in my experience, those who don't like

> what the pramanas demonstrably say will try to depict them as someone's

> personal opinion, or interpretation--even when it can similarly be

> demonstrated that Srila Prabhupada and his purvacaryas interpreted the

> given pramana in exactly the same way.

 

The argument of 'interpretation' is dubious at best. That someone assumes

they have the clarity of vision razor sharp intellect and force of

intelligence required to challenge and defeat Prabhupada's 'interpretation'

is - well, actually it's laughable. No wonder Prabhupada said they should

simply be 'neglected'.

>

> There's no problem with having different opinions among Vaisnavas,

> but all Vaisnavas agree that these must demonstrably have

> guru/sadhu/sastra as their logical basis. Maybe this doesn't apply for

> nonVaisnavas, but if that's whom we're speaking of, one has to wonder why

> these nonVaisnavas would associate with devotees so much, use Vaisnava

> names, and otherwise express concern and even opinons about Prabhupada's

> teachings as if they were practitioners too.

 

I feel the same. I don't agree with the Catholic Church - so I don't

*associate* with them; I didn't join them; I don't invent a whole new strain

of Catholicism and label the ones practising the old one 'fools'. I mean,

it's a ludicrous path to take. So why hang around devotees, criticize them,

slander Prabhupada, deride the philosophy, and fight tooth and nail to hang

onto a forum that is just useless in any Vaishnava capacity?