[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: superstitions (2 of 2)
-
Subject: Re: superstitions (2 of 2)
-
From: manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
-
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 20:46:18 GMT
-
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
-
Sender: news@cadence.com
In article #1446, vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) writes:
|> In article <387n37$jcu@ucunix.san.uc.edu> manish@cadence.com (Manish
|> Tandon) writes:
|>
|> Vyasa did not write the Vedas, he compiled them. The Vedas are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
thanks for the technical nit pick.
|> apaurusheya. The Upanishads are included in this, as they are part of the
|> Vedas. Please list the 18 Puranas of Vyasa. Please read the Vishnu Purana
|> that begins with a categorical advaita statement. Then come back with a
|> reply.
I dont understand the reason you asked me to list me the 18 puranas.
The advise for reading the Vishnu purana is good, However, I have always
actually quoted sections of the scriptures when I told you or others to read
them and I'ld sincerely appreciate if you could also do so. This will also
help the readers in general to view the authanticity of your calims.
Or else, I can also make it a habbit of including in my responses advices
pertaining to reading some references without actually quoting them since
despite my specifically requesting this, you have not done it yet.
|> Thank you for the compliment. That the Padma Purana is a highly partisan
|> work is a well known fact.
thank you for enlightning us.
Now may I say that the "Vedanta Surtas" are highly partisan work is a well
known fact??
Let me assure you that I can provide some accepted and authoritative
basis for this. The scientists and archeoligists of the west have recreated
the complete history of the world including the Vedic scriptures (or so they
claim) and fyi, this is widely accepted as THE TRUTH be numerous scholars
since it is supposedly based upon _scientific_ findings.
|> It is not what I call lame.
So what was it that you called lame then???
|> The Poorva Meemaamsakas, who are the authority on Vedic exegesis, dismiss
|> the Puranas as arthavaAda - ultimately of not much consequence. It is not
|> I that abrogate to myself the decision about such things.
As I said earlier, the western scientists and archeologists, who are the
_authority_ on HISTORY dismiss the very notion that Vedic scriptures were
written about 5000 yrs by Veda Vyasa.
So you selectively decide the authority of what you like or the Meemaamsakas,
since they said (or so you claim) what you like, and reject other Vedic
scriptures as ficticious.
How about this:
According to the Pink Unicorn, who is the Greatest authority (greater than the
great Meemaamsakas) the advaita theory is.....oops, did I say that right Vidya?
thank you.
|> Rather it is you who selectively decide the authority of the Puranic works,
|> based on your own notions.
Please enlighten on the basis of your conclusion that "I selectively decide
the authority of the Puranic works". I am interesting to know how I do this
because I though that I clearly said that I accept all the Vedic scriptures
(sruti and smriti) as is.
now only if you say that I selectively decide the authority of Vedic
scriptures by rejecting the nastika works....
|> Name calling as rascal and moron does not serve your purposes. Usually it
|> takes one to know one.
you wrote:
>>How blind can one get? Mr. Know it all
>>Your pride really carries you away.
>>It is surprising how people can still be like ostriches
And I responded appropriately.
Please stop this hypocrisy. All the advaitans that I have so far dealt with
do the same. There is a difference between starting name calling and merely
responding to someone else's such act.
|> The Srimad Bhagavatam itself is a Purana, right? I thought you were
|> supposed to be great at logic - logic is your favorite subject. Now, just
|> as induction itself cannot be used to justify the principle of induction,
|> one Purana cannot be used to justify the authourity of the Puranas as a
|> whole.
Your supposed logical attack on my statement does not hold, and here is why:
If I was to use my induction to justify the principle of my induction, I would
certainly be guilty of breaking the ethical code of logicians.
But, that is not the case!!!
Veda Vyasa wrote the Bhagvatam (I dont care what your great scholarly
Meemakshas have to say on this), and he called the Puranas and the itihas
as the fifth Veda.
And anyways, you are more guilty of this than me.
Otherwise, please provide us the *external* references used by the Meemaamsakas
to justify that the Puranas (or some of them) are bogus.
|> There has to be external justification.
Please give an external justification (I mean outside of the advaitan bhasyas)
to prove that advaita is right.
|> If your statement is accepted, the Saiva Puranas (also written by Vyasa)
|> contradict and cancel out the Vaishnava Puranas and the Vaishnava Puranas
|> contradict and cancel out the Sakta Puranas and so on. Show me a logical
|> way out of this problem.
Please read my response to Jaldhar "Is this religious".
There is *no* contridiction between the puranas, however you advaitans always
try very hard to make others believe this, without ever citing any verses
which you calim are contridictory.
|> Inspite of the Srimad Bhagavatam's authenticating the Puranas,
|> the great philosophers and Vedic interpreters of the past have given the
|> Puranas a status subordinate to Sruti.
Neither the Vedanta Sutra nor the Upanisads come under the category of "Sruti".
How come they have higher authority than the "sruti"???
For others, "sruti" literally implies to the process of listening, and the
Vedas are called sruti scriptures because they were never written down before
but always passed by way of speaking.
"Sruti" in itself does not implies Higher status.
"Smriti" implies to 'memory' or what is written from memory.
Do you also say that the Upanisads and the Vedanta is bogus because they
are also smriti? Why not???
Anyways, as you would have us believe, Vedas (since they are srutis) should
have a status higher than even the Brahma sutras. In that case, I would
suggest that you read some postings by "Menan Vishnu" on s.c.i. or s.c.i.t.
regarding the "Ashvamedha yajna" described in the Rg Veda.
|> > However, devoid of all faith and their minds taken over by false pride,
|> > these advaitans have the audacity to pass judgement on the writings of
|> > Sri Veda Vyasa, which are the very foundation of the Sanatana dharma.
|>
|> Don't hide behind the name of Vyasa. Advaitins rarely pass judgement over
|> anything, except the erroneous philosophies of Buddhism and dvaita. Sri
|> Veda Vyasa's writings are in no way compromised by this.
Using an induction to justify the principle of induction?
Selectively deciding the authority of the section of Vedic scriptures that
happen to suit your purpose and hiding behind the curtain of "authority of
Meemaamsakas" to reject others?
etc. etc.
|> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lets examine your logic here. Will you Please cite some *external* ref.
to substantiate your claim or did one of your advaita acharya's said that
"advaita is correct and anyone and anything that says otherwise must be wrong,
willful misinterpretation, fake, etc" ??
|> 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
hmmm. Lord Siva says that he teaches such philosophy in kali-yuga, this does
by no means gives an indication when the verse itself was spoken.
The only way you can say that "Therefore, this work definitely dates from
after the 8th century A. D." is by use of your own biased and preconcieved
opinions.
|> the very least. However, for at least two to three centuries after
|> Sankara, advaita was the only major Vedantic school around. To refer to
|> advaita derogatorily, is a phenomenon that can definitely be dated to the
|> post Ramanuja and Madhva periods. Under the circumstances, that this
|> particular verse in the Padma Purana was composed by Vyasa, is highly
|> suspicious.
And again, please substantiate your claim that "a phenomenon that can
definitely be dated to" by citing some *external* reference.
|> Most probably this has been composed by some late dvaita
|> scholar, and foisted upon Vyasa, to serve his own vested interest.
|>
|> Seriously, do you yourself, Mr. Tandon, go by the words of the quoted
|> verse? It says, "SravaNa mAtreNa" - even jnAnis who just happen to listen
|> to the advaitic teaching fall down.
Yes I do go by it.
|> Mere hearing of advaita teaching, in passing, leads to such disastrous
|> consequences. Now, in the discussion that you have started, you have no
|> other choice but to read the advaitic teachings in a thousand different form
Interesting observation but it does not stand the test of logic.
Devotees of the Lord are always under the direct protection of the Lord
because they constantly prey to Him for His protection.
May I ask why you left this MOST IMPORTANT ingredient out of your analysis?
|> As for me, I am in the mode of tamas according to you - I cannot fall any
|> lower.
I have no instrument to gauge what mode you are in.
However, fyi, even within the different modes, there are levels. Not all
jivatmas in any given mode have the exact same level of consciousness.
|> Aren't you afraid that you will fall, inspite of your sattva-mode? Where
|> goes your faith, Mr. Tandon?
On my own, I certainly can fall down and I have no hesitation in accepting
that, BUT, Lord Krishna always protects us!!!!!
And it is exactly because of -faith- in Lord Krishna that we do not fall.
thank you.
|> If you really believe in the words of the Purana, you will not
|> continue this discussion any further, for fear of falling down.
Again, the devotees of the Lord do not fear falling down because they
constantly pray to Him for protection.
|> If you continue this discussion for the sake of refuting me, it follows
|> that you do not really believe in the Purana yourself.....
I believe the Padma Purana and I also fully believe in the protection of
Lord Krishna. Since you left the part about protection form the Lord
knowingly, your refutation is _baseless_ and hence dismissed.
thanks for trying to scare me though.
|> Would you hesitate to dismiss the Saiva and the Sakta Puranas that put
|> Vishnu lower down in the hierarchy? ....
We believe both Vishnu and Siva are part and parcels of Lord Krishna, however,
Vishnu is still higher than Shiva.
Please quote a verse of your choice that you think lowers Vishnu in comparision
to Siva and let us examine it here.
|> S. Vidyasankar
The advaita theory is *wrong* because it is based upon:
1. forgery/deceit: selectively accept the Vedic scriptures. accept
what you like, reject what you dont.
2. misinterpretation: twisting the meaning of clear word or God, like
"aham", "mam" to create confusion.
3. false pride: declining the Absolute authority of the Supreme Lord
(read B.G. 13.13 where Krishna specifically declares the
Brahman to be subordinate to Him).
4. Sucide: anhilation of the self by so called merging into the
Impersonal Brahman.
Hari Bol!
