• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Re-energising the Kanchi mutt

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear sri adiyen Ji,

Yes, Sri Rama put Srimathi Sita through the wringer, not because He ever doubted Her. But because He wanted to make sure that others did not doubt.

In our context, I do not understand your stand.

Who should prove that our current Acharyals are beyond any doubt?

Regards,
KRS



Respected Sri KRS ji,
Thanks for your reply.
I agree that "Current Acharyals were blessed and selected by none other than the Maha Periaval."
But even Ram - Vishnu had to displace Sita for the sake of Rajya Paripalana though she was innocent.
Mutt will exist but many people (as far as i know) will miss the active involvement with mutt and its extended influence on their life. I hope this is also important. Otherwise there is no needfor any re-energise/revive effort- as It is a centuries old institution and as long as it serves the interests of Jagat, it will exist.
Regards
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly KRS-ji.

The things that certain people have alleged against swamiji is atrocious (i used to watch the news with great interest when the arrest happened and listened to all the accusations).

They say in the kaliyuga no religious leader will be spared of false accussations.

Sonner or later swamiji will come out of all this definitely. Its only a matter of time.

I do not accept nor will the countless devotees accept any idea of electing a new head.
 
Last edited:
The murder of Shankararaman if solved and the motive established will throw Kanchi's Seer's case out
If someone can do a high profile private investigation and get the truth out I think that would help
After all
Shankararaman too was a TB
 
Dear sri adiyen Ji,

Yes, Sri Rama put Srimathi Sita through the wringer, not because He ever doubted Her. But because He wanted to make sure that others did not doubt.


KRS
Yes but is that real good quality
I mean to subject a person to a test just to prove to others that he or she is correct and that too a loved one
personally I wud care less because it is my belief in my loved one which would be important
after all others will always have doubts no matter what you do to put your loved one to test
 
Dear Srimathi HH Ji,

There are certain things in life that one must take for as granted. Like the Sun will come up in the east and set in the west. Like one's parents will always love one. Like a guru who was selected by Maha Periava in the tradition of a grand philosophical tradition of Adi Shankara will not even go near where there is any controversy, let alone ordering something akin to a mafia chieftan.


Regards,
KRS

Your analogy is imperfect
1. Sun's path is a physical rule of the solar system and one can expect that not to change in the near future or even for that matter in the distant future say till the sun reaches its next stage of stellar evolution (note: Human influence here is Null)
2.Mothers love and the mafia chieftain thing
it is entirely human nature and not governed by laws of the universe and physics
so purely in terms of chance and probability of happening nothing can be ruled out
 
The murder of Shankararaman if solved and the motive established will throw Kanchi's Seer's case out
If someone can do a high profile private investigation and get the truth out I think that would help
After all
Shankararaman too was a TB

i think sri jayendra swami is being made into a scape goat, some people who want to (probably) control the finances of the mutt do not want him and seem to have falsely implicated him in an attempt to get rid of him.

Yes but is that real good quality
I mean to subject a person to a test just to prove to others that he or she is correct and that too a loved one
personally I wud care less because it is my belief in my loved one which would be important
after all others will always have doubts no matter what you do to put your loved one to test

you speak my mind arun, i wud rather live by my beliefs instead of providing proof of it, but unfortunately kings in the past seem to have had no such freedom of choice. their public role was more important to them, sometimes they had to marry even if they did not like the groom or bride for the sake of brokering peace..

Your analogy is imperfect
1. Sun's path is a physical rule of the solar system and one can expect that not to change in the near future or even for that matter in the distant future say till the sun reaches its next stage of stellar evolution (note: Human influence here is Null)
2.Mothers love and the mafia chieftain thing
it is entirely human nature and not governed by laws of the universe and physics
so purely in terms of chance and probability of happening nothing can be ruled out

omg, you have gone far ahead...we souls are only looking at what we see and understand now..not about how things can be in future or by probability...jeevitham lo eydi shashvatham leydu kadaa (am taking the liberty since you are in hyderabad)...sigh..when there is so much impermanence in nature, we still look for permanent identities...
 
Last edited:
i think sri jayendra swami is being made into a scape goat, some people who want to (probably) control the finances of the mutt do not want him and seem to have falsely implicated him in an attempt to get rid of him.
You are right and that is what I am trying to say
but instead of saying "Some People" as you have said in your post
is it not the duty of TMs to get the some people and absolve Peetadhipathi?
what is use of saying he was framed unless we get hold of the framers
 
I am putting on my hat as a Moderator. Discussions regarding Adi Sankara's date of birth and the origin of the mutts are are not relevant to the topic of "Re-energising the Kanchi mutt".

In any other case I would have suggested opening a separate thread. But these two issues have been discussed for more than a hundred years with no positive outcome. They have only divided the Brahmin community.

So please Cease and Desist.
You are right ( in fact I have started a thread to that effect at http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=2211)
but in order to reenergise the Matt
the following questions have to answered on a factual basis
1. What exactly is the function of the matt has it changed in time and has it actually deviated due to the involvement of peetathibathis in politics etc.,
2. Is it actually functioning as a centralized religious jurisdiction of the Hindus or just for the Iyers
I see that the Iyengars are not sensitized by this issue I am pretty sure there are a lot of Vishanvites in this forum
3. What exactly is the duty of the peetathibathi
and many more
 
Am going to attempt this, a weak attempt by a layman (please use you own discretion, i maybe wrong):

the following questions have to answered on a factual basis
1. What exactly is the function of the matt has it changed in time and has it actually deviated due to the involvement of peetathibathis in politics etc.,

The functions of mutts may have evolved over time. The Shankara mutts were generally established as a monastic tradition, of the uttaramimansa vedanta specialisation kind. They read both shrutis and smritis, but are monks, renunciates, usually studied to be brahmavadins, but always aimed for moksha. They follow traditions that varied within, in 'small' ways (eg varying traditions within the dashanamis). That is how they also functioned in the 4 places where Sri Sankara established them (please note there were various ashrams present long before Sri Shankara established His 4 ones).

Over time, the Shankara mutts also seem to have started training priests of the purvamimansa schools, became involved in managing temples, etc. Perhaps they started veda paatshalas of purvamimansa schools to keep the traditions alive. But discounting this and talking only about the past, no one knows how and when the purvamimnsa ritualism school and uttara non-ritualism schools reconciled; or perhaps were not seperated in the first place.

I do not know if the purva mimnsa schools had their own establishments, which i think they might have had, as gurukuls where they were taught under a teacher, or perhaps they were taught by their father, but there is no clarity on how they became associated with mutts of monastic traditions that followed no ritualism.

One explanation is that since Sri Shankara won over Mandana Mishra and other purvamimansakas of his time, they became affiliated with the mutts. But it is probable, as it appears, that the purva ritualists gave up ritualism and took up the sanyasa or bhakti marga after being won over then (hard to know if there were grihasta priests present with the mutts then like the present purvamimansakas).

In terms of concepts professed, the purvamimansa and uttaramimansa may come across as non-reconciliable. Jaimini and Badrayan argued it out with their mimansasutra and brahmasutra respectively. The monks follow the non-ritualism of the uttara mimansa school and were considered brahmins since they sought brahman. The priests followed ritualism of the purva mimansa sutras and it is hard to say if they were considered brahmins at that time, since they believed in no brahman to merge into,
at that time.

Some say the uttaramimansa texts were meant to be a continuation of the purvamimansa texts, and a man is supposed to use ritualism for a period and then he outgrows it as he moves on in his spiritual quest. It is hard to say if the monks and acharyas of the Shankara mutts follow this. Monks not associated with the Shankara mutts still do not profess purvamimansa ritualism (if you notice a good many sages in the pre-Shankara and ancient times were born out of wedlock, the rishis who sired them do not seem to have been purvamimansa followers) and they are considered vedantins or uttaramimansakas (followers of the upanishadic era perhaps).

There is also possible controversy in the following matters:

1) Non-Shankara mutts / ashrams allow women into sanyashrama (which Shankara mutts do not seem to admit as far as i know), something that can be considered controversial because it is supposedly not a uttaramimansa vedanta concept (disallowing women from sanyaashrama, it seems, is actually a concept from the dharmashastras or smritis).

2) Non-Shankara mutts / ashrams allow anyone from any jaati profession group seeking brahman under a brahmavadin or a guru (i dunno if the Shankara mutts allow the same, was told by someone they don't, which again seems to be a dharmashastra system).

3) Also am told the Kanchi mutt appears to be following the smriti or dharmashastra system of birth based jaati (which i hear is what purvamimansakas do).

Since things followed by the Kanchi mutt can come across more as following purvamimansaka and dharmashastra concepts, it is hard to say if it has remained as uttaramimsaka vedanta specialization school, as professed by Sri Adi Shankara, anymore.


But then if you see around, it is rare to find uttaramimansaka schools, pure vedanta, or pure advaitha anymore, not that they have ceased to exist, infact a good many seem to be thriving well
(though they are not as popular as the purvamimansa schools) which is why one says the path to brahman has remained, still remains and shall always remain open to all.

In terms of what is followed by mutts, somewhere concepts mingled to co-exist and mutts perhaps just went by the changes in time (i suspect the co-mingling and subsequent changes happened in the aftermath of the mughal invasions).

2. Is it actually functioning as a centralized religious jurisdiction of the Hindus or just for the Iyers
I see that the Iyengars are not sensitized by this issue I am pretty sure there are a lot of Vishanvites in this forum

Only iyers i think. There is no centralized religious jurisdictions in hinduism. If diff people followed diff dharmashastras, concepts, beliefs, its tuf to think they can be centralized. i think the Shankara mutts are religious jurisdictions for smarthas.

As such abt hindusim, i think not being an organized religion is a huge advantage. It gives room, space and place for all kinds of schools, concepts, etc.


3. What exactly is the duty of the peetathibathi
and many more

i think the peethadhipathi
conducts the daily prayers at the peetham, is a religious leader and guide for those associated with the peetham.
 
Last edited:
Fantastic answers to the questions
but the part "has it actually deviated due to the involvement of peetathibathis in politics etc.," has gone unanswered
you have dwelt into a lot of things to answer the first part of the first question and in the process ignored the second part of the first question
which is the crux
Only thing I miss is has the Mutt transgressed the boundaries of spiritualism and religion by involving in the govt politics
let me remind you that the Popes of yester years did the same to the extant that they were de facto rulers and now see the fate of vatican after the renaissance
Never mix religion with politics
Good work HH
keep it up
A lot of info you post is wealth to me!
 
Arun,

That question is very tuf to answer. I agree with you that its not a good idea to mix religion with politics. It never has been. The outcome has always been creation of factions like catholics and protestants, Sunni and Shias, leading to inner intra-religion rivalry.

Paramacharya was a very popular and loved guru, people of all kinds thronging to be associated with Him was attributed to His popularity. Lets not forget that politicians sought guidance, but Paramacharya never involved himself in political issues.

But now it may be possible that some quarters resent the involvement of Jayendra Swami in political issues, esp politicians, i think (?) And Jayendra Swami happens to be very frank, outspoken and forthright, which may be troublesome to vested interests.

In history, kings have sought counsel from monks on their own, not as an obligation or for any idea that they "had to listen to" a rishi. Counsel was followed after consulting various quarters, the accountants had to provide data, to decide if a war was financially sustainable; public opinion and morale of the troops mattered, there were so may things to be looked into, a decision obviously wud have been taken after the overall picture was taken into account....but today we have an "image idea" that kings "had to" follow a 'brahmin' and that 'brahmins' were the behind-the scene-rulers. That is far from true.

Even at that time, rajnithi politics and spiritualism was hardly mixed. A king went to a monk for blessings and guidance, and to a ritualist priest when he wanted certain things done, like a putrakameshti yagna for himself, or when he and his 'nobles' wanted to expand the kingdom, they got an ashvamedha yagna done..each had a role and a job, and no one was considered superior or inferior. The infantry cleaned their war camps (like 'dalits') as well as fought battles. Its hard to say if there was a 'shudra' or untouchable class at all, as it came to be from the medieval period onwards.

But its really hard on the heart when a mathadhipathi explains dharma as per the dharmashastra law-books (which hardly was followed by the uttaramimansaka vedantins). There is a fallacy that dharmashastras were certainly followed by monks, but nope smritis were not "followed" per se. They were read yes, but not followed, its like people study pcmb (physics, chemistry, maths, bio) in 12th std, do a graduation in one subject and also study other subjects as ancillary or minor topics and then go on to specialize in one field after an undergrad degree.

In a similar fashion, uttaramimansa schools read all hindu scriptures as ancillary subjects but "followed" or "specialized' in the uttaramimansa texts. So if they "followed" the uttara school, it means they were to be monks with no wordly interests...

Its even harder when the idea gets rooted in people's minds that a brahmin must be able to do everything, yet not try to accumulate wealth. Was it true the 'brahmin' was able to do everything? There were several classes, types and traditions of renunciates as well as the priestly purvamimansakas.

The priestly purvamimansakas owned cows and lands, they were not renunciates, they studied the vedic scriptures, specialized in their own shakhas, and were "paid' for their services (as daanams), they did not have to seek bhiksha.

The uttaramimansaka renunciates on the other hand, were the ones that studied everything, but sought nothing but moksha as monks. They were the ones who wore nothing but a kaupinam and a thread as a brahmachari initiate, and sought bhiksha. But upon sanyashrama, they gave up things, it was to say that nothing belongs to them, not even a thread, and they have no desires, so they won't do any rituals to beget anything.

What we see now is that a purvamimansaka ritualist, who probably was not considered the 'brahmin' in the old times, who lived life fairly 'comfortable' with cows and land in the past, now considers himself to have come from the monastic traditions of brahmin renunciates..

If the renunciate monastic ones were the ones that do not seem to have hoarded wealth, then how is it possible to reconcile divergent schools of thot, that a 'brahmin' must not seek wealth - is that the reason we see confusion today about the role of a 'brahmin' ? And by following 'dharma', which role is a 'brahmin' supposed to revert back to? Should he become a purvamimansaka ritualist (which he already is) or should he become a uttaramimansaka renunciate (which the mutt supposedly represents)?

Its true crossing over of monks into ritualism existed (as in the case of yayavaras), and moving of ritualists into monkhood also should have existed (since seeking sanayasam was not restricted to anything)...but this happened in very old times and importantly, they were not confused over their roles - if they were purvamimansaka ritualists, then they lived by that norms; and if they were uttaramimansaka renunciates, then they lived by those norms, they did not mix up both..

Also there is this question of whether 'brahmin' took to various profession in the ancient times or not; instead i may choose to ask, were the people who moved into various professions in the past 'brahmins' at all?

I suspect the mixing up of divergent schools of thot, of what can be allowed or not for a purvamimansaka as per the dharmashastras, actually happened as recent as post-mughal invasions. Which is why puranas kept getting written to help cope with occupational changes.

In the face of adversity like islam that burnt down and ravaged everything, members of various hindu schools of thought had to reconcile, mix and merge..and i also suspect interpolations that created a lopsided allowances for 'brahmins' also happened in a large part during this time, out of necessity for survival rather than anything else.

I do not know if someday i will have to do prayashchitham for opening my heart with such doubts...more importantly i dunno if i will be forgiven by a guru who i have held dear to my heart since young..
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri arunshanker Ji,

Ramayana was written to show how a God in human form acts. It is a story.

It does not naturally follow a common man needs to emulate all the behaviours of a man god.

Regards,
KRS


Yes but is that real good quality
I mean to subject a person to a test just to prove to others that he or she is correct and that too a loved one
personally I wud care less because it is my belief in my loved one which would be important
after all others will always have doubts no matter what you do to put your loved one to test
 
Dear Sri arunshaker Ji,
My intent was on showing what we 'assume' and 'presume' regarding certain things. I was not trying to be perfectly correct in the usage of logical grammer.

For a layman, Sun coming up and a mother's love are easily understood as near certainities if not absolute certainities. As I am after all a layman, that's how I think. Call me a simpleton!

Regards,
KRS

Your analogy is imperfect
1. Sun's path is a physical rule of the solar system and one can expect that not to change in the near future or even for that matter in the distant future say till the sun reaches its next stage of stellar evolution (note: Human influence here is Null)
2.Mothers love and the mafia chieftain thing
it is entirely human nature and not governed by laws of the universe and physics
so purely in terms of chance and probability of happening nothing can be ruled out
 
Dear sri arunshanker Ji,

Shankara maths were started by Adi Shankara to do missionary works for Hindus. If you are a Smartha (mostly Iyers), then your family Guru is one of the two Shankaracharyals in the south.

There are no restrictions placed on our Gurus as to in what sphere they should get involved in. Underlying your question on this lies an assumption that to get involved in politics as a head of a matham is not good. I totally reject this idea. because a missionary's larger task is to safeguard and propagate the religious tenets of his/her religion in any legal way he/she seems fit.

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Sri arunshanker Ji,
Ramayana was written to show how a God in human form acts. It is a story.
It does not naturally follow a common man needs to emulate all the behaviours of a man god.
Regards,
KRS

Dear Arun, I would add here..

God always wanted to initiate a communique with his creations(human being) in an understandable way to them. Before human race started exploring God-head, before we learned to read/write,before we had rituals/prayers/philosophy, God's only option to implant 'The presence of God' was through mythologies.

The term mythology should not be taken in colloquial terms .. Modern thinkers say 'Mythology is some thing which never existed, but do exists in our day to day life'

If you read mythology in this context, you will enjoy/learn a lot.. Interestingly, creation mythology of all major religions, and even isolated tribal religions in deep wood, all have some similarity.. All of them define a time span for creation & and talks about great flood
 
Interestingly, creation mythology of all major religions, and even isolated tribal religions in deep wood, all have some similarity.. All of them define a time span for creation & and talks about great flood

what we carry as tales are because "we were tribals" at some point or or the other...

dunno "myth"ology, but things like floods are more likely to be just history that cannot be evaluated or have not yet been evaluated in the current time..
 
Dear sri arunshanker Ji,

Underlying your question on this lies an assumption that to get involved in politics as a head of a matham is not good. I totally reject this idea. because a missionary's larger task is to safeguard and propagate the religious tenets of his/her religion in any legal way he/she seems fit.

Regards,
KRS
Yes but politics not only involves the Hindus or the samrthas but also the population of India in general (All religions included) hence the Paramacharya cannot speak for a sect of Hindus in a larger forum involving the diverse India
It is best to work within the boundaries of ones' sphere of influence to safegaurd ones' image
 
Dear Sri arunshaker Ji,

For a layman, Sun coming up and a mother's love are easily understood as near certainities if not absolute certainities. As I am after all a layman, that's how I think. Call me a simpleton!

Regards,
KRS
What I am trying to say here is
A layman can be certain of the Sun or rather the earths path
a 100% but Mother's love is a different issue
what have you got to say about female infanticide
A layman in the villages of Madurai is not as certain about the mother's love as he/she is about the earth's path
That is what I trying to bring out
Human behavior is not certain and can never be compared with the amount of certianity of the path of heavenly bodies
 
Dear Sri arunshanker Ji,

You seem to be stuck on Science's certitude versus other 'socialogical' conditions that do not fall under such a certitude.

Okay, in that sense, I have already admitted that I have used the wrong analogy. But, it seems to me that while you are looking at the trees, you seem to neglect the view of the forest.

What female infanticide got to do with a mother's unconditional love? It probably has a lot to do with her role in a family where she has no voice.

Regards,
KRS

What I am trying to say here is
A layman can be certain of the Sun or rather the earths path
a 100% but Mother's love is a different issue
what have you got to say about female infanticide
A layman in the villages of Madurai is not as certain about the mother's love as he/she is about the earth's path
That is what I trying to bring out
Human behavior is not certain and can never be compared with the amount of certianity of the path of heavenly bodies
 
What female infanticide got to do with a mother's unconditional love? It probably has a lot to do with her role in a family where she has no voice.

someone i know says she came across women who used to cry their heart out after delivery, if the baby was a girl, because the "new mothers" knew they cudn't do anything to save the child after going thru all that labour...some women wud refuse to breastfeed, some were eager to breastfeed to feel thir child atleast for a while before she is taken away to be 'done away with'..

am sorry this is beside the topic but just felt like sharing..
 
Dear Arun, I would add here..

God always wanted to initiate a communique with his creations(human being) in an understandable way to them.


To tell you the truth
I have very deep rooted questions
the first of which is a simple one - Did God create life and the humans or did Humans create God
Personally I subscribe to the idea that Humans created God
I find it difficult to move further in the posting of the sections including the one which says "This section questions our current understanding of scriptures and existing practices. If you absolutely believe that our current ways are supreme and that traditions should not be questioned in any way this is NOT the thread for you."
Because I question the very philosophy of the existence of God!
 
To tell you the truth
I have very deep rooted questions
the first of which is a simple one - Did God create life and the humans or did Humans create God
"
Because I question the very philosophy of the existence of God!

Dear Arun,

indeed an impressive question... Once I crossed age 30, I also had such dilemma.. but then, found the answers, definitely not through any religious scriptures/god heads/faith/spirituality/rituals..., but through my quest for philosophy..


Appreciate if you could ck in this thread, browse through the posts and post back...

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=2098
 
Once I crossed age 30, I also had such dilemma.. but then, found the answers, definitely not through any religious scriptures/god heads/faith/spirituality/rituals..., but through my quest for philosophy..

if the quest was genuine and personal, and not socially oriented or an image-serving pseudoquest, by now you wud have realized the fallacy of involving faith / spirituality in the statement above.

if you wish to think theology is the same as philosophy (since you mention theology / philosophy in the same breath) as you did in a previous thread, then please go ahead, and prove that christian theologists are philosophers.

and before you start to discuss hinduism and the role of its philosophers in it, you wud need to answer this: http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showpost.php?p=22543&postcount=25

you are welcome to start the discussion anytime you wish to.
 
Last edited:
Let me add to what I know of Theology and Philosophy
There is a distinct difference between the two
Philosophy generally is understood as an attempt to understand the world in its most broad, general features. It includes metaphysics or ontology (the study of being, of what “is”), epistemology (the study of knowing) and theory of value (ethics, aesthetics, etc.)
so here
the philosopher spends more time studying natural revelation than the theologian, while the theologian spends more time study Scripture;
hence the philosopher who will transcend the boundary of so called Gods revelation will be more rational ( if it is right word) than the theologian who will be confined to interpretation within what is said in the scriptures and more so will be disinclined to discard it.
on the other hand philosopher can make a wise human judgment which accords with Scripture thought is not necessarily warranted by Scripture. The comprehensiveness of philosophy will lead philosophers to seek rule over all other disciplines, even over theology, over God’s word which may be or may not be blasphemous to the theologian.
The philosopher can insist that Scripture itself cannot be properly understood unless it is read in a way prescribed by the philosopher.
The theologian may reject the idea saying that we are not contesting the Gods' word but only trying to understand it.
the theologian seeks a concept which is an application of Scripture and thus absolutely authoritative; his goal is a scriptural theory before which he can utter “Thus saith the Lord" No questions should be asked. There ends the matter.
I will give you an example here
"The essence of various religions (Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism) lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous"
[FONT=&quot]A miracle, in the orthodox sense of the term, is impossible and incredible. To accept a miracle is to reject a demonstrated truth. The world is governed, not by chance, not by caprice, not by special Providences, but by the laws of nature; and if there be one truth which the scientist and the philosopher have established, it is this: THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE. If the laws of Nature are immutable, they cannot be suspended; for if they could be suspended, even by a god, they would not be immutable. A single suspension of these laws would prove their mutability. Now these alleged miracles [ (siting a few here) of Christ- Virgin bith,Lazarus, Old testament- Division of water to make way for Mosses, Gabrielle vision to Mohammad, Adi Shankara - [/FONT]Padmapadha (lotus feet).walking on lotuses in water)[FONT=&quot], and the many associated with Krishna] required a suspension of Nature's laws; and the suspension of these laws being impossible the miracles were impossible, and not performed. If these miracles were not performed, then the existence of this supernatural power of the miracle-performing religious characters is false and is just to make believe stuff, for the gullible and frightened who were in large numbers during the early evolution of regions and who would rather accept these miracle than question due to fear and various other social reasons ( please note the world is NO more like this now with the advent of liberal thought and hence the miracles have stopped!)[/FONT] ( modified from ref John E. Remsberg New York: The Truth Seeker Company, 1909.)
Here the theologian will try and explain the miracles in what ever way most people can accept but the philosopher will do away with this and go ahead with the message
the rationalist will ask
why has religion stopped its evolution and most importantly why have these miracles so conveniently stopped occurring when human mind has started stringent questioning of miracles
So I would say that
the line is drawn where a philosophy contradicts Scripture, or more in the liberal free thinker's mind (One whom I am ) it seeks to inhibit the freedom of thought without Scriptural warrant, it must be rejected.
In very simple terms if some one said (in history- scriptures) or says it now and or says it in future that " this is final and don't question it then "
it clearly means that the one who says it is obstructing free liberal thougght and imposing knowledge
The Theologian MAY or May NOT ACCEPT THIS
The Philosopher Grinds this to suit the science of philosophy
The rational free thinker rejects this - questions it and if satisfying his terms may even accept this

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top