Futility of strict shastra based laws

YES. Vivekananda was writing pages after pages in his book about "difference between Aryas and Mlechhas'.

And these guys here are saying that Vivekananda disapproves of the concept and existence of Mlechhas. Ha ha ha.

RW liberalism makes people dumb

https://twitter.com/TIinExile/status/1308753642808246272?s=19

@HindolSengupta is right. Vivekananda is not condeming Mlecchas here, he is simply using it as a counter against Brahmin orthodoxy. He says 'if you want to blindly follow Shastras, then burn urself as well' . @TIinExile should be fair and accept the mistake

https://t.co/bY5rSmCOpO

https://twitter.com/Okeera4/status/1308735358410973184?s=19

@TIinExile was right about the iconography of Vamana . He was also right a out Ashoka ( he became a Buddhist before invading Kalinga) . But he is wrong here . We have to be intellectually honest if we are seeking the truth . Nothing personal

Swami Vivekananda is not using these examples to denounce Mlecchas , as you suggested , but is simply using the discourse to point out the futility of strict shastra based laws in the modern context.

Indeed, the root is your rebuttal to this tweet .Question is whether Swami Vivekananda opposed the notion of Mleccha.U quoted a snippet in which he USED the term;this isn't rebuttal since the context was rhetorical , and not endorsement of Mleccha concept

https://t.co/UxiGz75vwW

https://twitter.com/Okeera4/status/1308748131358523396?s=19

I never made the claim that he never used the word Mleccha . Pls read the threads again 

My entire point was based on the original claim of @HindolSengupta suggesting that SV DISAPPROVED of the of Mleccha concept . Your countered that he USED the word . This is not a rebuttal++

The 1887 comment on food was clearly rhetorical and cannot be taken as his definitive view. But if you were to show that the other dozen or so references were after the 1984 speech , I will concede

https://twitter.com/Okeera4/status/1308756245432549382?s=19

To be honest , it does suggest that he placed Aryan values over Mleccha values . But this cannot be considered a final picture of someone who wrote as widely as Swami Vivekananda . @HindolSengupta 's tweet might be what SV ultimately thought about the matter . To counter HS++

To counter HS++ , one should show a chronologically later quote of SV where he re asserts the Arya-Mleccha binary

https://twitter.com/Okeera4/status/1308753663834251264?s=19

Swami Vivekananda was of course playing to the western gallery on western soil. Hatred in the context he mentions connotes safeguarding oneself from evil or ill influences of degrading culture and is not the harmful emotion it is associated with.

https://twitter.com/sanjeevkadv/status/1308774593339957249?s=19

See Brother on the Context of Dharm there is no bigger authority than Guru Sankaracharya , mean no disrespect to Swami Vivekananda, this by no means was a disrespect of him,but when it comes to Dharm only Sankaracharya is the Highest authority not swami vivekananda...

https://twitter.com/ka2ekaatejaenge/status/1308773845822832645?s=19

Yeah. Secularisation of Vivekananda and Paramahamsa is widespread. 

Swami Vivekananda is shown as a nationalist, but his hindu identity is suppressed.

https://twitter.com/lifeofsurya/status/1308757291009597447?s=19

Vivekananda has been promoted by Christian World .Many of his things he said were false .Read traditional Hindu books

https://twitter.com/Subhash194/status/1308757891491528708?s=19

Mlecchha is probably derived from Meluha, people beyond the Makkoran or Makran coast. It means different culture. I don't know what formal education Swami Vivekananda had in Hindu dharmic tenets, his Guru was a mystic.

https://twitter.com/vijayvaani/status/1308758001428254720?s=19

To clarify my stand on Vivekananda - like any other human being he had his own fault lines. But the never ending love,courage and compassion he had for the cause of awakening the spirit of India and continuing to inspire India is second to none.

https://twitter.com/chyavanmallya/status/1308763069070241793?s=19

He is Shankaracharya Maharaj, has higher authority than Vivekananda.

Vivekananda maybe well versed on the philosophical part (as Maharaj Himself admits) but had a very poor understanding of Varna Ashrama Dharma.

https://twitter.com/gajaturagapada/status/1308763754272702467?s=19

So Swami Vivekananda travelled all the way to Melacha land, to address malechas as brothers & sisters.

Sir - this is not Sincere.

Do not call spade a Holy spade

🙏

https://twitter.com/pa_dd_y/status/1308764200160776192?s=19

I am not interested in arguments but facts. What you presented itself says that Vivekananda had great reverence for Jesus. 

Anyway, you are free to keep your biases. Bye.

https://twitter.com/TUndercoverMonk/status/1308764462350958592?s=19

What Vivekananda is saying is practice what you preach then the world would be at your feet. The particular example was taken as the orthodox brahmin society at that time preached such things but themselves hobnobbed with Mughals, Brits etc

https://t.co/B9gehbrhCA

https://twitter.com/Dutt_An/status/1308766668471119878?s=19

Vivekananda is a rookie lmao. Calling him the "greatest"😂

English speaking is not a measure of one's intellect. At best Vivekananda can be compared to pop culture "Gurus" like Sadhguru 😂

Ever heard of Dharma Samraat Karpatri Maharaj? Yeah he is the G.O.A.T.

https://twitter.com/raghav22554468/status/1308767993808080896?s=19

Science theory is a subdiscipline of ethics

Here you finally admit the way you really think. You have concluded in advance that the Srimad Bhagavad-gita is truth, and that anything that contradicts it must be explained away by hook or by crook. It is not surprising, then, that you callously accuse hundreds of thousands of scientists of having done the exact same thing: you're projecting, because you have never even imagined that anyone would actually think in a scientific way.

... you admit that you only pretend to engage in science – that the goal for you is not better understanding of the subject matter of science, but "to achieve the ultimate goal of the human form of life"! The outer appearance of science is just a means to a completely different end to you! Here, too, it is not surprising that you callously accuse hundreds of thousands of scientists of having done the exact same thing: you're projecting your own goal-oriented thinking onto everyone else, because you have never even imagined that anyone would actually think in a scientific way.

Please don't get me wrong. If you believe you know what ultimate goal of the human form of life is, and how to achieve it, by all means do so and tell us about it! I'll be honestly happy for you! But it would be a fundamental misunderstanding to believe that science tries to achieve any such goal. The goal of science is to better understand its subject matter (which I like to call "reality" as possibly distinct from "truth"); no less, no more. Don't pretend to pursue that goal when you're actually pursuing a quite different one. You would only continue to confuse people – including, evidently, yourself.

Of course not many scientists are _only_ scientists, _only_ insterested in the goal of science. Many believe in political or religious ideologies and hope to use the understanding they gain through science to further the goals of these ideologies. As an almost trivial example, a noticeable number of scientists have been (and of course some are today) Christians who hoped that their research in the sciences of nature, of Creation, would give them greater insight into the Creator. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this kind of thing. But the moment you assume you _already have_ that greater insight into the Creator and deduce from it that anything in science which appears to contradict this insight must be explained away by hook or by crook – that moment you are no longer a scientist, you're no longer doing science.

Be honest with yourself. Science is the application of science theory, and science theory is a subdiscipline of ethics – the ethics of belief.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ethics_of_Belief

David Marjanovic

To view this discussion https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/trinity-5fa0ad58-5a4d-4484-87a9-6b091cf3077b-1598975759812%403c-app-gmx-bap34.