From: lyeh@alleg.edu (Hun Lye)
Subject: Re: Spirit in the light o
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:56:31 GMT

In article <k66uTB5w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us  
writes:> kish@ring8.rutgers.edu (Kish) writes:
> 
 I know this is not the place to carry out discussions on Eastern  
religions.  But because Kalki Dasa is posting in this group and there is  
something I wish to comment about his above mentioned posting, I have to  
do it here.  So, please excuse me and I shall try to make it brief. 

Kalki Dasa writes:>
> To accomplish 1, 2 and 3 together, Lord Buddha invented the philosophy
> of the void, which gave atheists, who were inimical to a personal God,
> something formless and passive to put their faith in. This, along with
> the idea of ahimsa, effectively "annihilated the demons" since it turned
> them into Buddhists who no longer gave trouble to "devotees", or
> animals. It also "established principles of religion" in the form of
> obedience to Lord Buddha's teachings.
> 
The Buddha did NOT invent the philosophy of the "void."  If you imagine  
that the "void" or emptiness (sunyata) taught by the Buddha is something  
he invented or created, you have totally missed the point.  Emptiness is  
about the true nature of things.  Whether Buddhas appear or not, things  
are still empty.  Emptiness, far from denoting "nothingness," refers to  
the state of things where they are empty of a substance or a "self."   
Things are without "self."  Is this negative?  No, Nagarjuna explicitly  
states that precisely because things are "empty of a self-nature," they  
can exist.  It is positive - you can change from a state of suffering to  
that of liberation because you do not have a "self-nature."  If there was  
a "self-nature," then you are stuck in whatever state you are in!

Kalki Dasa
> This is some indication of the meaning of Lord Buddha's descent.
> Although it sounds contradictory that God Himself should deliberately
> deny His own scriptures and preach a philosophy of atheism, the
> contradiction is resolved by realizing that sometimes God acts to
> rectify an emergency by instituting temporary measures in a certain
> place at a certain time. Thus although Lord Buddha is undoubtedly God,
> His philosophy is not complete, and is not meant to be definitive, since
> it does not refer to God. Therefore it is not followed by those who are
> inclined toward a personal relationship with the Lord in full knowledge.
> 
There is always this tendency among Eastern traditions or at least  
contemporary promoters of these traditions to interpret other religions in  
terms of their own.  Therefore we have people who claim proudly that they  
are so broad-minded because they include great masters like Jesus,  
Muhammad, Moses, the Buddha etc. in their religion.  BUT, i think this is  
not being broad-minded at all!  You are not accepting these masters on the  
terms of what they have taught.  Of course you can always claim that their  
followers have corrupted the original.  But who is to say?  Oh, that's  
simple - my holy scriptures, or my teacher or my guru.  Convincing?  It's  
like going to court on a charge of theft and you have your whole family to  
be witnesses to your innocence.  Convincing?

Kalki Dasa writes: 
> A few days ago I posted a list of 64 attributes of Krishna, the Supreme
> Personality of Godhead. This list contains very specific descriptions of
> God, drawn from the Vedic scriptures. If you like I will post it again.
> Or, in another letter, I can discuss some of the direct personal
> features of God: what He looks like, where He lives, what His pastimes
> are,...etc.

Your Vaishnava tradition is a personalistic approach to the Absolute.  And  
you can of course read everything else through the world-views of that  
tradition.  My world-view is from the impersonal approach, can I interpret  
your beliefs in my terms?  Probably not.  Why?  Well, simple:  The BOOK  
says so.  Your Vaishnava tradition is very faithful to the scriptural  
truths and that's great.  And you will see everything else through the  
scriptures.  But the tradition I am familiar with is a "transmission of  
the mind, a tradition independent of scriptures."  Can I interpret Krsna  
in my terms then?  Absolutely not.  But why?  Very simple too:  The BOOK  
says so.   

By the way, if you are a servant of Kalki avatara, does that mean that you  
will help Kalki avatara to exterminate the "godless."  Are you trying to  
do it now through the computer?  Well, I thought Kalki avatara is gonna be  
on a white horse with a superpowerful sword?  But just for your info.,  
according to the Kalacakra Tantra, Kalki avatara will come from Shambala  
(somewhere in Tibet?) and have a "battle" with Mara and his horde and  
convert the world to the teachings of the Buddhas!  What do you say about  
that?


Regards,

Hunyeow Lye

lyeh@alleg.edu

"When the Many returns to the One, where does the One return to?"
I think the One is going to K-Mart!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,alt.religion.kibology,alt.religion.scientology