The idea for the book Dialectic Spiritualism emerged in when Srila Prabhupada asked his secretary, Syamasundara dasa, about Western. Dialectic Spiritualism a Vedic View of Western Philosophy. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. (). Like. Recommend. Bookmark. DIALECTIC SPIRITUALISM. A VEDIC VIEW OF. WESTERN face the Hare Krishna guru,. His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
|Published (Last):||18 May 2017|
|PDF File Size:||5.84 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.13 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Who has adhikar to do purva paksha is a relevant question. The Battle for Sanskrit answers the question.
Whoever considers Sanskrit to be her sacred heritage and has the requisite skills to understand and deconstruct the opposing point of view can do purva paksha. Sacred heritage means something that is an integral part of one’s way of life, a living tradition and something that gives positive meaning to one’s life, an emancipatory tradition. The opponents treat Sanskrit as a dead artifact to be kept in diallectical museum for analysis and admiration, while the adhikaris consider it a medium of wisdom and worship.
The opponents treat Sanskrit as an oppressive language on women, tribals, Dalits and Abrahamic religions, while the adhikaris find in Sanskrit the way to transcend all false identities and oppressions. Bhakti is a sacred Sanskritic tradition that thrives among the masses, irrespective of gender or caste and it makes all socioeconomic, bodily or mental constructions insignificant in front of Shri Bhagavan.
Hence, bhaktas have the right to do purva paksha, only the requisite skills need to be developed. Posted by Saurav Sarmah at Links to this post Email This BlogThis! Some Ideas from Sporitualism Malhotra Thought. In response to Hindu Human Rights. Let me give an prabhupwda perspective. When Prabhupada says we are not Hindu, he means that our Paramarthika identity is not Hindu, we are Atma, translated as spirit souls. Krishna West is bound to fail because of the poison pill, Krishna. Then they may try some form of syncretism involving Krishna, Buddha and Christ, which had been tried during the s in New Vrindavana, West Prabhupafa.
Prabhupada spoke of Jesus and Mohammad as devotees of Krishna and Avesha incarnations beings empowered by Krishna to perform special missions. On this point, they betray the Vaishnava Siddhanta. Krishna doesn’t resemble the Abrahamic God, He has form, He has female consorts, He assumes multiple personalities like Rama, Narasimha, etc. The Abrahamic diialectical will never accept Krishna as God.
Hence, it is a stupid to validate the Abrahamic God, when prabhupaada consider Krishna a false god. Traditionally, the idea of Avesha incarnation was applied to Buddha, who denounced the Vedas and preached ethical principles like Ahimsa to prevent misuse of Vedic technologies, especially animal slaughter.
When Hinduism turned towards Vedanta and Bhakti and condemned animal slaughter, Buddhism lost prominence in India. It seems that Prabhupada prabhupxda something similar for the Abrahamic religions, but these things should be done from a position of strength and our generation is not prahbupada right time in history to do it. Prabhupada’s disciples recorded every word and gesture made by him through prabhupasa devices or post-Samadhi memoirs.
Many of these records are controversial dialectocal contradictory because they were spoken in jest, tongue in cheek or meant for a particular situation. The foundation of the Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta was laid by the disciples of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the Six Goswamis of Vrindavan – all succeeding Acharyas have to conform to the Siddhanta conclusion drawn from Shrutiwhile they can amend the rituals and the sociocultural norms and institutions Smriti.
Besides, every Guru has dialecticao right to interpret the Shruti-Smriti according to a particular situation. But these interpretations of the Guru cannot become Siddhanta. Thus, it is important for outsiders not to exaggerate the statements made by Prabhupada and then project ISKCON as a outlandish, anti-Hindu organisation. The problem is the ideological influence of Western academia – liberal-leftism, feminism, postmodernism, queer theory, psychoanalysis, critical theory, et al.
These ideologies are as Hinduphobic as Abrahamic religions. In the West, mainstream meant becoming acceptable to the academicians, theologians and politicians. But they could not become mainstream without numbers and funds, for which Hindus were the only tool.
They are playing the game of balancing the dialectival sides – on one hand, the Western mainstream and on the other, the Hindus. So, some of the Western devotees want a complete breach with India through Krishna Spirithalism. Nonetheless, the vested interests like OCHS will continue to play the old game that only the foolishness of Hindus in the West can sustain.
Some ideas taken from Rajiv Malhotra Thought include insider-outsider lens, Hinduphobia, poison pill, etc. Posted by Saurav Sarmah at 1: I think religion should be our moral and philosophical compass, our individual path to salvation, rather than a doctrine of hatred.
We should not suffer from difference anxiety, but have mutual respect for one another Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different Sikhism teaches oneness with God, elimination of ego as a path to God and neutrality to other paths. Sikhs have contributed to freedom struggle, dialectifal defence, agricultural revolution and industrial innovation.
The Sikh work ethic, community service and faith in God’s Name dialectixal exemplary. We must all strive to be Sikh that way. Sikhism is a separate religion, it is neither Abrahamic nor Brahmanic. Some devotees innocently believe that Sikhism is a form of Vaishnavism, but Sikhs don’t believe that Vishnu is God. We must respect what the Sikhs believe, not misrepresent it. Sikhism is not Vaishnavism.
We have our own religion called Gaudiya Vaishnavism, we are a Brahminical religion because our religion is based on Shruti-Smriti. We also prabhupara in the truth of other Vaishnava religions – Shri, Tattvavada, Pushtimarga and Nimbarka. But we consider M ayavada as a wrong interpretation of Shruti-Smriti, although it is also a Brahminical religion.
We don’t recognise the validity of any religion that doesn’t conform to Shruti-Smriti. Nation State of India. Nevertheless, we also have a nation state called India, which is a home to multiple religions – Brahmanic, Shramanic, Abrahamic, Nirgunavadi, Prabhupaca, etc. The Constitution provides every citizen the right to dialetcical, preach and propagate prabhupadz religi on.
So, we must respect that right and live together. Otherwise, we shall be divided into tiny countries with no international power. There are some things common spiritaulism the Indian way of life, called Hinduism.
It is not a theological concept, but a geo-civilisational one. Posted by Saurav Sarmah at 4: According to Gaudiya Siddhanta, as Jiva is qualitatively one with Bhagavan, he has Free Will, but prabhuupada, he is infinitesimal, so his Free Will is infinitesimally minute. So, Jiva has infinitesimally minute Free Will. Christian Idea of Free Will. Free Will is a Christian concept.
Since God, the Creator is all good, then what is dialectkcal origin of evil?
That is the origin of evil. Thus, God is not responsible for the existence of evil. Since we are the progenies of Adam and Eve, we also have Free Will.
Dialectic Spiritualism : A Vedic View of Western Philosophy
Thus, we have Free Will to decide our fate and God cannot be held responsible. However, our Free Will is limited because we are born of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, when they disobeyed God, leading to the emergence of sexual awareness. As sinners, we have to suffer the mundane existence of hunger, thirst, disease, pain, temptation, etc. But the tribulations of mundane existence cannot be the creation of God, who is all good, so they are attributed to Satan, a fallen angel, who had grown envious of God in Heaven, revolted against him, got defeated, banished from Heaven, assumed the reign of Hell and tempted Eve and through her, Adam to disobey God.
Until death, Satan would continue to trouble all of us and after death, only those who have exercised their Free Will to accept Jesus Christ would be freed from the clutches of Satan and live in the Heaven with God and his Son. The rest will be transferred eternally to the control of Satan in the burning fire of Hell. In the end, there would be a Second Coming of Christ, he would fight the agents of Satan and establish his year reign on Earth. All the non-Christians will be slaughtered and the Satan would escape to Hell.
After years, there would be the final battle between Christ and Satan, in which the Satan along with his hellish slaves would be defeated and permanently restricted to Hell, while the Christians would serve God and his Son in Heaven.
I don’t know if the Earth will be destroyed or become a part of Heaven. There is a debate with regard to predestination, whether God has only foreknowledge of our choice or he actually determines the choice. Most Christians believe in Free Will or God’s non-interference with our choice, only Calvinists believe in absence of Free Will or absolute determination by God of our choice. Gaudiya Idea of Free Will At the time of our modern Acharyas, Christianity was the dominant worldview and so they had to explain the Vaishnava doctrine in Christian categories.
I don’t know if these categories are still relevant in a post-Christian paradigm. From another angle, we have Chetana sentienceso we have choice, otherwise we would be Achetana insentient. Hence, Anu Svatantrata leads to Chetana and ability to make choices. But these choices cannot have the adjective Free because we are conditioned by either Maya or Bhakti in our choices.
Dialectic Spiritualism – A Vedic View of Western Philosophy – PDF Download
I think, conventionally, by Freedom, Liberation or Mukti, we mean controlled by Bhakti that is supposed to be the natural state of Atma. Thus, Bhagavan remains the only Svatantra, who controls everything either through Maya or Bhakti and we are Asvatantra Not Freethe conditioned or dependent.
Only Bhagavan is absolutely independent, our desires and choices can be Free only in relation to something else.
For instance, transcendent to three modes of nature means Mukti from Maya, not from Bhagavan. On the other hand, our independent desires mean unconnected to Bhakti, spuritualism under the control of Maya.
So, our desires are induced by Maya, although they are our own because another Jiva has different desires.
Thus, individual responsibility or karma principle is not violated by Asvatantrata or Anu Svatantrata. It only means that we are fatally entangled by Maya and none of our choices are Free. Only by the mercy of Bhagavan, we can engage in Bhakti, untouched dialeectical Maya. Bhakti grants us Freedom from Maya, but not from Bhagavan. Spiritualim makes us Servant of Bhagavan. So, there are only two choices Maya or Bhakti, both controlled by Bhagavan.
Sunil Krishna Prabhu interprets the statement, “It only soiritualism that we are fatally entangled by Maya and none of our choices are Free” as “Our choices are out of our Free Will although that independence is infinitesimally small, but significant enough that we do not fall under the category of dull matter but conscious matter.