In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) writes:
|> > 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?
I suppose because they are not crystal clear. But you could
have figured that one out on your own.
|> 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
Vaisnavas accept smrti as well; so do Smartas, who follow Sankara.
But I'll quote some sruti for you
Rg Veda: om tad visnoh paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah
"All the demigods are constantly looking to the supreme feet
of Lord Vishnu"
Atharva Veda: From Narayana comes Brahma, from Narayana comes
Rudra, from Narayana comes Indra, the cosmic manifestation,
Narayana Upanishad: The son of Devaki is the same Narayana
|> 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?
The point was simple -- he was a very advanced leader in the Sankara
sect but he later accepted his natural Vaisnava position. He had a very
high level of jnana, and once he learned of the supremacy of bhakti
he quickly saw that Sankara's writing was misleading.
|> 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.
Or as sectarian as math majors are when they fanatically argue
that "2+2=4 dammit! I know it is." There's no sectarianism in the
|> 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
In what way does it prove it?
|> S. Vidyasankar