|
Post by JD33 on Jul 16, 2009 23:18:52 GMT -6
Deva and Deva Deva - will you kindly join the symposium and add to the discussion here regularly?
|
|
|
Post by Deva on Jul 17, 2009 10:36:22 GMT -6
Uh am I not already in the symposium?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 17, 2009 11:14:05 GMT -6
Uh am I not already in the symposium? No, you are only on the outer steps. There is much more inside, but you're fine where you are if that is what you want.
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jul 18, 2009 10:01:30 GMT -6
Religion and the idea of God have only acted as crutches in human history. They have slowed human development and growth down, kept countless humans in ignorance and suffering, and given the human race a sense of helplessness. It is time for the human race to leave behind its childhood fascinations with such fictions and grow up. That, as I see it, is the whole point and brilliance of the Caitanya tradition. From your mouth to my ears. This was more or less the same thing I discovered when I started analysing the arguments about the "case for God". As you would know, most atheist critique usually makes mincemeat of Judaeo-Christian traditions and is usually unsatisfying for a more Indic-oriented person. But when I started applying the same principles to Indic beliefs and seeing where the chips fell, I was surprised by how the Caitanya tradition seemed to come on top. Of course, as it has risen from the depths of "normal theism" there are certain elements that are throwbacks to an outdated culture, but the more sophisticated nuances seem to be beyond the reach of modern critical thinking. By this, I don't mean to say that CV offers any hard answers to hard questions such as the proof for God's existence or something, but the answers that it does offer to some questions are quite unlike the answers provided by Judaeo-Christian traditions, which puts definitely puts CV in it's own category. It led me to think that whoever were the individuals responsible for codifying the Gaudiya doctrine (perhaps Rupa-Sanatana being the most influential ones), they are unlikely geniuses.
|
|