I am always strong, I am always right and I never sin

Originally posted by divegeester
Even if YOU explain it..Please grace us with your insight.

The reason I cant give you the long answer is because of the reasons given in another thread called (you must get yourself qualified).........but I will add this anyway,

The teaching that Vivekananda teaches .......is impersonalism, and Vedanta presents personalism, which is a very big error on his part.

There are many persons who present impersonalism and it is akin to atheism.

Impersonalism presents that there is not a personal God.

Vedanta presents that God has personality and specific identity.

Impersonalism presents that you are God, I am God and your wife is God and your new born baby is God.......Vivekananda teaches this, and it is incorrect as you are aware.

Originally posted by Dasa
The reason I cant give you the long answer is because of the reasons given in another thread called (you must get yourself qualified).........but I will add this anyway,

The teaching that Vivekananda teaches .......is impersonalism, and Vedanta presents personalism, which is a very big error on his part.

There are many persons who present impersonalism an ...[text shortened]... your new born baby is God.......Vivekananda teaches this, and it is incorrect as you are aware.

Your representation of Vedanta is as usual rather disputable and personalized.
The advaita school: monists or impersonalists believe that god is ultimately impersonal and the soul is non-different from god.
The dvaita school: dualists or personalists believe that god is personal, and the soul is distinct from god.
Both schools embrace Vedanta.

Originally posted by souverein
Your representation of Vedanta is as usual rather disputable and personalized.
The advaita school: monists or impersonalists believe that god is ultimately impersonal and the soul is non-different from god.
The dvaita school: dualists or personalists believe that god is personal, and the soul is distinct from god.
Both schools embrace Vedanta.

Yes both schools do embrace Vedanta , and one school teaches error and the other does not.......this is why one must only study Vedanta that is authorized.

Originally posted by Dasa
Yes both schools do embrace Vedanta , and one school teaches error and the other does not.......this is why one must only study Vedanta that is authorized.

What if someone from the other Vedanta "school" says the same thing about yours?

Originally posted by Dasa
Yes both schools do embrace Vedanta , and one school teaches error and the other does not.......this is why one must only study Vedanta that is authorized.

So do you agree that it boils down to the interpretation of Vedanta if one believes in a godhead or not?
And do you agree that it is confusing when so many followers of the Vedanta seem to disagree and throw mud to each other?

Originally posted by FMF
What if someone from the other Vedanta "school" says the same thing about yours?

They will........and Vedanta can defend itself, but it will require the person to respect the authenticity of the Vedic conclusion.

The bottom line is .......impersonalism is saying everyone is God and personalism is saying God is God, so common sense will dictate which is in error.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No surprise that you refuse to explain in detail how you extracted your conclusions , since there is no rational way to get there from the quoted text. This is typical of how fundamentalist Christians try to "defend" their "interpretations", no matter how idiotic. It's the only way they can "defend" their core beliefs and so seem to feel free to do so wit ...[text shortened]...
Perhaps you so dislike Dasa because he exhibits many of the same behaviors that you do.

Try engaging your brain and disengaging your presumptive bigotry before re-reading the OP. Good luck.

Originally posted by divegeester
Try engaging your brain and disengaging your presumptive bigotry before re-reading the OP. Good luck.

lol. You're the one who is evidently unable to explain in detail how you extracted your conclusions. Then, in a pitiful attempt to cover up this fact, you stoop to making juvenile accusations. Seems to be a common tactic of choice amongst the fundamental Christians who post on this forum.

It's really pathetic how you started a thread in an attempt to disparage Vedanta via Vivekananda and only managed to make a fool of yourself. Classic.

Originally posted by souverein
So do you agree that it boils down to the interpretation of Vedanta if one believes in a godhead or not?
And do you agree that it is confusing when so many followers of the Vedanta seem to disagree and throw mud to each other?

Right from the beginning when Vedanta was put into the written form 5000 yrs ago, there was always the atheist type of person who took the Vedanta and misinterpreted its conclusion.

And as a result we have two versions of Vedanta....personalism and impersonalism.

Impersonalism is the fabricated version and it supports an atheistic mentality, so when you say we throw mud at each other, in reality it is the age old conflict between atheism and theism, but it seems that Vedanta is conflicting with Vedanta, but this is not so.....it is Vedanta conflicting with atheism, and this particular type of atheism is disguised as something spiritual and they even use Vedanta to support their conclusions......but anyone who is truthful can easily see that what they present is in error.

Ask yourself this....are you God, is your next door neighbour God....this is what impersonalism presents, and even you can answer this question truthfully without any assistance from me.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. You're the one who is evidently unable to explain in detail how you extracted your conclusions. Then, in a pitiful attempt to cover up this fact, you stoop to making juvenile accusations. Seems to be a common tactic of choice amongst the fundamental Christians who post on this forum.

It's really pathetic how you started a thread in an attempt to disparage Vedanta via Vivekananda and only managed to make a fool of yourself. Classic.

It's self evident you nitwit. You're the one who's opening post was argumentative. I actually like Dasa, he contributes to the forum, you on the other hand seem to spend your limited intelect picking fights with people.

Originally posted by divegeester
It's self evident you nitwit. You're the one who's opening post was argumentative. I actually like Dasa, he contributes to the forum, you on the other hand seem to spend your limited intelect picking fights with people.

lol. No surprise - the juvenile accusations continue.

Go ahead, here's your chance to prove your case. Here's your chance to to prove your superior intellect. To hear you tell it, all you need do is detail what you see as "self-evident" anyway. What could be easier?

Once again:
"explain in detail how you extracted your conclusions"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. No surprise - the juvenile accusations continue.

Go ahead, here's your chance to prove your case. Here's your chance to to prove your superior intellect. To hear you tell it, all you need do is detail what you see as "self-evident" anyway. What could be easier?

Once again:
"explain in detail how you extracted your conclusions"

What conclusions?

Originally posted by divegeester
What conclusions?

Uh, the conclusions given in the title of the thread as applying to Vivekananda based on your quote of him in the OP.

You're really something. Earlier you called them "self evident" and now you ask what they are?

Originally posted by Dasa
Yes both schools do embrace Vedanta , and one school teaches error and the other does not.......this is why one must only study Vedanta that is authorized.

Oh rubbish!!

Nothing is true everything is permitted (William Burroughs)

To me that means that we "authorize" whatever "truths" we want .
We take the bits that apply to us and discard the rest.

Once again - "One size does NOT fit all"- (Frank Zappa)



edit: of course we should thouroughly examine all information before forming conclusions, but because everyone is unique, ao are all our dharmas (life paths)
It is up to us to discover our own dharmas.
I can respect others beliefs, like having JC as our saviour (or however that goes), but it is not for me.
But I still respect others that hold those beliefs, as long as they are not violent, people should be able to embrace whatever paradigms they want. That is the only way forward

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Oh rubbish!!

Nothing is true everything is permitted (William Burroughs)

To me that means that we "authorize" whatever "truths" we want .
We take the bits that apply to us and discard the rest.

Once again - "One size does NOT fit all"- (Frank Zappa)

I dont authorize anything, but Vedanta authorizes itself because it is coming from the Personality of Godhead, and when one studies the entire collection of writings it is evident what is what.