[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: superstitions
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: superstitions
-
From: vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)
-
Date: 27 Oct 1994 08:32:29 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
-
References: <38hovm$ho5@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
In article <38hovm$ho5@ucunix.san.uc.edu> vijaypai@rice.edu (Vijay
Sadananda Pai) writes:
>
> In article <37uu8o$b36@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, vidya@cco.caltech.edu
(Vidyasankar Sundaresan) writes:
> |> How blind can one get? Mr. Know it all, please show me how the
> |> Brahmasutras are so crytal clear that they need no interpretation? Do
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This is true because it is said in the Vaivarta Purana. Also included
> in the list of crystal clear texts are the Vedas, the Puranas devoted
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to Lord Vishnu, and the original Ramayana. The same phrase was repeated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I see. So why aren't the Puranas not devoted to Lord Vishnu included here?
And who decides what the original Ramayana is? Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute?
It is very easy to claim anything from any Purana. I know of cases where
verses have been quoted from so and so Purana, for some absurd reason or
the other, and later scholarly evaluation of all available manuscripts
does not show any evidence of such verses. For a long time now, sectarians
like you have been working overtime, to interpolate verses suited to your
own vested interests in various Puranas, and then conveniently claiming
Vyasa to be their author. Precisely the reason why they are subordinated
to Sruti in the orthodox tradition. So your so called support from the
Vaivarta Purana vanishes yet again into thin air.
> by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu when he converted the impersonalist
sannyasis
> of Benares headed by Prakasananda Sarasvati. Prakasananda later
> commented, "Because Sankara wanted to establish monism, he had to
> interpret the Vedanta in a different way ... all authors who attempt
> to give their own views misinterpret Vedanta"
So Prakasananda was converted by Chaitanya and commented on Sankara's
work, and you mean he is the final word on the subject? What happens to
the intelligence that you are told to rely upon? Why should the opinions
of a few biased sectarians matter to a larger set of people?
> Ramanuja, Madhva, Sridhar Svami, Baladeva Vidyabhausana (sp?) and other
> great Vaisnava acaryas have all, of course, commented on the
Brahma-sutra,
> and they generally do _not_ disagree on philosophy, but
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> do sometimes in practice. But all the Vaisnava schools generally accept
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> each other; Gopala Bhatta Gosvami was born in a Ramanujite (read
> visistadvaita) home but joined Chaitanya's (acintya bheda-abheda)
> school. Similarly one of the greatest disciples of Chaitanya was
> Prabhodananda Sarasvati, who was also in the Sri (Ramanuja) sampradaya.
> Sri Chaitanya and Vallabhacarya were contemporaries and good friends,
> although they belonged to different Vaisnava sampradayas.
Again you show your general ignorance of the philosophical issues
involved. Madhva and Ramanuja agree on philosophy?!! So is that why the
Ramanuja followers are described as "Vishnu paaShaanDins" (Vaishnava
hypocrites) by Madhva's school? Is Ramanuja's philosophy of unity in
Saguna Brahman compatible with Madhva's doctrine of eternal difference?
And pray who is this Prabhodananda Sarasvati? Since when did followers of
Ramanuja start taking the very advaitic daSanAmi suffix of Sarasvati? What
does friendship between Chaitanya and Vallabha prove. Supposedly,
Vidyaranya, the advaitin, and Vedanta Desika, the viSishTAdvaitin, were
very good friends.
The various Vaishnava sampradayas accept one another, inspite of internal
philosophical differences, only because of their sectarian attitude.
Similar to the various Saiva sampradayas which all accept one another.
That proves nothing. We are talking of interpreters of the source books of
the Vedanta here, not necessarily of leaders of sects.
Your statements about the crystal clear nature of the texts, and their not
needing any explanation, are awfully close to the Muslim claims about the
Koran. Little wonder that you are as fanatic in your sectarianism, as most
Muslims are about Islam.
>
> |> Finally, see if you can convincingly prove how Sankara/advaita is
wrong,
> |> without quoting the Padmapurana or some such other lame work. A few
months
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Well, I'll quote from Padma Purana anyways
>
> Padma Purana --
> Lord Siva says:
> mayavada asac-chastram
> pracchannam bauddham ucyate
> mayaiva kalpitam devi
> kalau brahmana-rupina
>
> "The Mayavadi[impersonalist] school is inferior
> scripture & veiled Buddhism. I take the form of a
> brahmana [Sankara] to mislead the atheists"
>
Further proof that the Padma Purana (or at least these verses) have been
written by a later scholar who had all his teeth intact (sans wisdom
teeth, I suppose). Description of advaita as "prachanna bauddham" alone
proves this. For more comments on the Padma Purana, read my responses to
Manish Tandon. Basically, if you have faith in the words of the Purana,
stop your unreasonable bashing of advaita and Sankaracharya. It is easy to
make you people fall from your sattva-modes. All I have to do is repeat
advaita tenets a few times, "by the mere hearing of which, you jnAnIs will
all fall" :-).
S. Vidyasankar
