Returning to the roots of siddhanta - And avoidance of self-definition via antithesis

Some of the recent discussions have brought me to again think of a phenomenom often seen, the definition of oneself and of one's views via antithesis. An interesting evolution in the trend is the definition of oneself and of one's views via another's antithesis.

As peculiar as it is, we sometimes see individuals adopting and defending the views another objects to without questioning whether the said views are actually one's own or an accurate reflection of siddhAnta. In this scenario, a statement such as, "the sahajiyas are wrong in claiming that..." leads one to think, "they are blaming us, so these must be our views," prompting one to then mount an unwarranted defense of the said antithesis.

I would like to heartily encourage everyone to get to the roots of siddhAnta before forming definite and determined opinions. While I do not say, "question everything", I do say, "understand everything". Understand the sources of your conceptions, understand the path of rationale through which conclusions are reached.

Without back-tracking one's entire range of conceptions, one's theological premises are bound to be shallow and inconclusive, a collection of haphazard views isolated from the grand scheme of theunderlying siddhAnta.

The operator at the heart of understanding siddhAnta is not "it is so" - the operators are "why" and "how", the formula being, "why and how is it so?".

Beautifully said, dear friend.

I am glad that you are teaching me manners the hard way.
I guess you know that I can take.

You do a great job at being a fair moderator.
Honestly.

My heart is heavy, but I learn it by the "hammer -on-the-head"-method.

Kneeling for being hammered
Tarunji

Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures.

What do u mean by extreme circumstances?

The extreme measures I know.

I humbly bow to the Vaishnavas here and ask all to forgive my offenses I have committed in the past and present due to my stubborn nature and arrogance.

I am grateful for all that I have learned in your association and give thanks for you all being tolerant of me and correcting some of my inaccurate viewpoints.

Jai Radhe,

jijaji

For the umpth time,
I do too.

No need for apologies.

You make a very good point here, Madhava. People need to use their reasoning power rather than always resorting to authorities. The authoritative sources are there, but they also are there to appeal to our intellect and free will, as opposed to unbending edicts carved in stone that are themselves above reproach. If one's sources persuade on the strength of logical arguments as well as by striking a resonant chord with us emotionally, then they thereby win us over after we have submitted them to our judgement. Just because ten thousand people may tell us that the emperor is wearing clothes when he is plainly not wearing any clothes is no compelling reason for us to resort to this fallacious reasoning: Ten thousand people could not be wrong about this.

We should be proceeding with this step-by-step method:
1) Does it seem to make sense?
2) Are there corroborative sources?
3) Are those sources trustworthy?
4) Does it hold up under scrutiny and is its logic sound?