[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: superstitions (2 of 2)
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: superstitions (2 of 2)
-
From: vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)
-
Date: 1 Nov 1994 23:10:50 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
-
References: <3945nf$ked@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
In article <3945nf$ked@ucunix.san.uc.edu> vijaypai@rice.edu (Vijay
Sadananda Pai) writes:
>
> In article <38p3gr$jic@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, vidya@cco.caltech.edu
(Vidyasankar Sundaresan) writes:
> |> I have commented on this once before on s.r.e. I do so again here.
Firstly
> |> this Purana is ignorant about the basic idea of advaitic non-duality.
> |> There is no way this could be a verse composed by the great Veda
Vyasa.
> |> Since this refers to Siva explaining that he himself teaches advaita,
it
> |> definitely refers to the incarnation of Sankaracharya (8th century A.
D.).
> |> Therefore, this work definitely dates from after the 8th century A.
D. at
> |> the very least. However, for at least two to three centuries after
>
> According to your logic, Kalki has already appeared, since he
> is mentioned (& glorified) in the scriptures. The scriptures are
> absolute truth and thus speak of past, present, and future. Siva
> speaks of his future Sankaracarya incarnation in the same way that
> other sections of the Puranas speak of the advent of Kalki.
Aha, but Kalki is always referred to in the future tense, whereas your
quotation from the Padma Purana has no future tense in it. In any case,
the Padma Purana is not Sruti, so even though you may call it "Vedic", you
are on extremely flimsy ground regarding scripture. Also, your argument
can be equally used against you by quoting alternative Puranas. We do not
do that because we are not in the habit of quoting random Puranas.
>
> Also, don't kid yourself; there were still followers of the Tamil
> Alvar tradition, the Ubhaya Vedanta Vaisnava system,
> between the time of Sankara & Ramanuja (eg. Yamunacarya).
> This was a philosophical tradition that was very much alive
> in the two to three centuries after Sankara (not to mention
> long before Sankara too).
>
> -- Vijay
>
Before Ramanujacharya, the Tamizh Vaishnava system was not even called
Vedanta to begin with. The Azhvars are Pancharatrins and Bhagavatas. It is
a moot point whether they were considered Vedantins, especially as the
Vishnu Purana (surely you accept this Purana as crystal clear) itself
identifies these groups as distinct. One dimension of Vedanta is textual
exegesis - it is a MeemaamSa. So long as no Upanishadic texts are taken up
for analysis, no system can claim to be a Vedanta. And we all know that
Ramanuja was one of the first Vaishnava acharyas to do so. Unless of
course the Vaishnava Agamas and the Tamizh Pasurams are also claimed to be
"Vedic".
S. Vidyasankar
