Shankaracharya controversy about worshipping Sai baba by Hindus - Page 4

Originally posted by: souro

Debate with logic only. If you can't support your statements with proofs, then that's your problem. Don't resort to personal attacks for your inability to logically back your arguments.

Moreover, my conclusions and derivations were from stated facts, they are not my perception or notion. What you are concluding on the other hand is completely your perception, because nowhere is it stated that it is so. Neither did you properly establish that it is as you are claiming it to be. And when your perception is questioned, you get irked enough to resort to personal attacks instead of defending your perception with a logical reply.

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

What makes you think he is completely within his rights to denounce worshipers on a public platform & hurt their sentiments?...this is a classic example of taking "the freedom of speech" to an extreme demented level...it is not his place to denounce Hindus who worship Sai Baba.. our Vedas are indeed very important to our religion but never does it say that people shouldnt worship anyone who isnt "sanctioned as a god" by the vedas & should worship only those "sanctioned as a god" by the vedas..infact vedas itself teach us that Parabhrahman "The Supreme God" is formless,genderless,omnipotent,omnipresent...God can be worshipped even in the form of a rock,if a devotee believes that his god exists in the rock,he is well within his right to worship the rock..that is a personal matter between Aradhak & Aradhya..nobody gets a say otherwise...anybody who does is committing an ATROCITY against the god,the devotee & Hinduism itself which perfectly allows such liberty...

Originally posted by: souro

Originally posted by: souro

What makes me think that he is within his rights? It's the freedom of expression and freedom to voice ones opinion that makes me think that he is completely within his rights to say that something is contrary to Hindu values. That is his personal views about what should be permissible in Hinduism and he has absolute right to express that. Whether his views are correct or not is obviously debatable, but just because someone's sentiments will get hurt doesn't mean whatever they are doing cannot be wrong or no one can point it out.

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

First of all re-read the article.. it clearly states that Shakaracharya took a dig at Sai Baba's Muslim identity..the fact that u r trying to connect this statement with Shankaracharya's other statements only highlights the desperate measures to clear him of this blame..such made up desperate made up arguments can hardly be considered as logically correct..

Nope u did not state what was originally stated by The Shankaracharya in the article that I pointed out..u only connected it with his other statements to arrive at a made up statement...in the article that I pointed out, Shankaracharya clearly said "worshiper of a muslim" & NOT "worshiper of a muslim who was not included in Vedas"..

May be such statements can be justified by people who share some sort of mystical mind connection with Shankaracharya but for the rest of us, logic demands to accept the fact that he does have a problem with Sai Baba's Muslim identity more than anything else..

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

Seriously, I need to borrow ur dictionary.. bcoz as far as I am concerned a 'personal attack" is when someone verbally or physically attacks a specific person with due attention to the person on the receiving end..my statement on the other hand was a generalized statement wherin everybody who ignores concrete evidences was included..it wasnt specifically directed towards u..

Originally posted by: souro

@Bold: Why come all the way to borrow my dictionary. I use the same dictionary like any other sensible person.

Really? Seriously? Do you really think you're the only brainy one and everyone else is as dumb as a tree stump? Bringing in a statement like that in an argument with me and now trying to sell it off as a general remark not directed towards me. Lol, you're good at trying to weasel out, I've to give full marks for that 'trying' part.

Originally posted by: souro

I had already read the article and posted the link for that article. Maybe, you didn't notice it and that's why you posted the article a second time for me and now advising me to re-read that.

Nope I was perfectly aware of that , thats y i suggested u to re-read the article but i guess I should have suggested to re-re-read the article..so thats my bad..

@Bold: Now let us see. We were discussing Shankaracharya's comments against worshipping Sai Baba in general. You brought in his comment where he remarks about Uma Bharti worshipping a Muslim man instead of Lord Ram. And you concluded that since the Muslim man (in this statement) is Sai Baba, so his main objection to worshipping Sai Baba (in the other statement) arises from Sai Baba being a Muslim.

Which is this "other statement" you are talking about in the above context?.. my views were strictly directed towards this only one statement where he took a dig at Sai Baba's Muslim identity..I never connected it with the "other statement" ( u did) ; u ll find a better explanation of it below...

So, according to you, you're free to connect both statements to come to a conclusion, but I'm denied of the same privilege. If I still dare to do so, then it becomes a 'desperate measure', 'made up argument' and something that 'can hardly be considered logically correct'. Very amusing, but I'll have to respectfully disagree.

I repeat, I NEVER CONNECTED THE TWO STATEMENTS , I DEALT WITH THE TWO STATEMENTS INDIVIDUALLY/SEPERATELY.. a better explanation can be found below.. Moreover, thank you for breaking it down into steps, it will make the understanding of the current predicament much easier..

Allow me to break it down into steps, maybe it will be easier for you to make the connection then.

1. Both statements are made regarding worshipping of Sai Baba

TRUE

2. Both statements are made by Shankaracharya

TRUE

3. Both statements are made at the same time

TRUE

So you see, since the subject is same, since the speaker is same and since the context is same, I don't need a 'mystical mind connection with Shankaracharya', I can logically use both statements to make my point, just as you did.

FALSE !.. u c, the difference is, I never used one statement to overshadow another like you did.. I presented my counterarguments to each of his statements separately..So Unlike you I gave due credit to each of his statements & the gimmick used by you to overpower one of his statements with the other to make ur point was purely your creation..

Statement No.1 was regarding Sai Baba's Muslim identity.

Statement No. 2 was about not worshiping gods who arent mentioned in Vedas.

I never used one statement to diminish the meaning of other statement, in fact I gave due credit to each of his statements & presented my argument explaining why it is such an "Atrocity" ( remember now?..if it still doesnt ring any bells then I suggest you re-read earlier posts too)...It was you who became fixated on just one of his statements & tried to justify his other statement with such a flimsy logic..