Subject: Re: superstitions
From: email@example.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)
Date: 2 Nov 1994 00:13:20 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Vijay
Sadananda Pai) writes:
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
(Vidyasankar Sundaresan) writes:
> |> > in the list of crystal clear texts are the Vedas, the Puranas
> |> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> > to Lord Vishnu, and the original Ramayana. The same phrase was
> |> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> I see. So why aren't the Puranas not devoted to Lord Vishnu included
> I suppose because they are not crystal clear. But you could
> have figured that one out on your own.
No, the simple reason is that these Puranas do not serve a sectarian
purpose for you, so you exclude them. Your smug self-satisfaction is
irritating, to say the least.
> |> 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
> |> verses have been quoted from so and so Purana, for some absurd reason
> |> the other, and later scholarly evaluation of all available
> |> does not show any evidence of such verses. For a long time now,
> |> like you have been working overtime, to interpolate verses suited to
> |> own vested interests in various Puranas, and then conveniently
> |> Vyasa to be their author. Precisely the reason why they are
> |> to Sruti in the orthodox tradition. So your so called support from
> 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"
And the same verse goes on to say,
"te brahmaloke parAntakAle paramrtAt parimucyanti sarve" - indicating that
there is yet another stage of moksha for these nitya sUris, which is that
of non-difference. And please try a better translation than "demigods".
The word is a stupid Western term with absolutely no significance for us.
> 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, who disputes that? Shall I quote the Kaivalya upanishad and the
Sannyasa Upanishad? Are you prepared to accept their statements as Sruti?
> 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
Nice try. 2+2=4 is a mathematical truth. Try putting Vedanta into such a
formula. Why are ashamed of your Vaishnava sectarianism, and why do you
> |> Further proof that the Padma Purana (or at least these verses) have
> |> written by a later scholar who had all his teeth intact (sans wisdom
> |> teeth, I suppose). Description of advaita as "prachanna bauddham"
> |> proves this. For more comments on the Padma Purana, read my responses
> In what way does it prove it?
Because, "prachanna bauddham" is a criticism of advaita that was put forth
by later dvaita scholars. The Puranic verses are not in the future tense.
Puranas are not Sruti. They are not even canonical Smrti. Smrti is always
separated from Puranas in all references (Sruti, smrti, purANa, itihAsa).
Ever wonder why? Because they have been merrily tampered with, by all
sorts of sects.