[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vedanta Discussions
-
Subject: Re: Vedanta Discussions
-
From: manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
-
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 15:27:45 GMT
-
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
From news@cadence.com Tue Dec 13 11: 12:39 1994
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
-
Sender: news@cadence.com
In article <3aed3c$7b9@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil (K. Sadananda) writes:
<a lot of very auspicious critique deleted>
|> It is said that discussions are of four types: Samvada, Vada, Jalpa and
|> Vitanda.
...
|> Name calling (those that disagree with their established notions are idiots
|> and rascals and the profanity ) that I have seen during the past couple of
|> weeks in this news net, unfortunately does not fall in any one of these
|> four established discussion types, because our ancestors never imagined
|> that our culture will degrade to that.
Calling a spade a spade is NOT name calling, and it never was.
Lord Krishna said (in Samvada as per your classification), "na mam
dushkritino mudhah" -- those who the lowest among mankind, who are grossly
foolish (i.e. idiots) and whose knowledge has been stolen by illusion and
who partake of the atheistic nature of the demons (literally "rascals"),
do not surrender unto Me.
Even Shankaracharya said "bhaja govindam mudhamate". FYI, mudha literally
translates to "idiot".
People like you, who apparently have nothing to contribute to the actual
discussion itself, occassionally try to jump in a discussion and try
to show their all auspicious, all clean, all pure type views and basically
just interrupt the discussions. We have seen several such examples.
There is certain level of sanity to be maintained by both sides in
order to have a *better* discussion then we are having here.
Advaitans begin with saying that they are Vedantin(c) and accept
the Vedic scriptures as authoritative. Then they selectively pick
the stuff that suits their purpose and reject the remanining as
'arthavada' (esp. the Puranas).
This was also the logic used by Sri Madhavacharya to expose the
hypocrisy of the advaitans.
Be it samavada, jalpa, or whatever, if one side just blindly rejects the
the basis of the opponents views as bogus (aka 'arthavada') just because
someone (purva memamsas in this case) said so, then the opponent has the
right to call them as bogus as well.
Fyi, a system of logic has to rest on some dogma and arguments about
the logic and the dogma itself should not be intermixed, otherwise
the sanity will of the discussion is lost. Unfortunately, due to the
inflated egos, people every so often do it, the discussion(s) here being
no exception.
|> Let us work together and elevate the quality of these discussions.
Yes, and one way to do that is to actually contribute to the discussion,
if you can, instead of criticizing others.
|> ...the three authoritative texts ), Vedas, Bhagawad Geeta and
|> Brahamasutras. Vedas are considered as the highest Pramanas.
And your scholarly Vidya said that Mahabhara (as a whole - i.e. including
the Bhagavad Gita) is itihas and hence 'arthavada' and therefore cannot
tbe used on the level of Vedanta which he said is philosophy.
|> Discussion is not about the Acharyas or any individuals who interpreted
|> what etc.
okay, lets analyse what your points are then.
1.
|> We are more interested in the interpretations and their logic and their
|> validity.
2.
|> It does not matter a bit for us whether Sri Sankaracharya, Sri
|> Ramanuja or Sri Madwa or Sri Prabhupada or other umpteen Acharyas were
|> right or wrong. It does not help us a bit.
sorry to tell you that 1 and 2 are contridictory. In a system of logic,
one accepted way is to check for consistency and your arguments fail there.
|> Keep the discussion as logical as possible and provide the
|> correct and self consistent explanation. You can criticize the other's
|> interpretations on logical grounds to show the fallacy of the logic, but
|> be open that your interpretation of other's interpretation itself could be
|> wrong.
Using your own line of reasoning, would you mind giving us even one
example of me or others saying that Srila Prabhupada said this so you
all must accept it, without using your own intellegence/logic?
It is always better to say less but say the truth.
Flinging charges for the sake of doing so is considered lying and on a
public forum like this, it will not help you much.
Also, atleast so far, you have not even attempted to show that any
interpretation cited in this discussion were not logical (from either
side) but criticizing seems to be your primary business, and your seem
to be quite adept at that.
Otherwise, please show me the fallacy of any of Srila Prabhupada's
argument and we will logically discuss that.
It was in fact the opposition (Jaldhar and Vidya) who tried very hard
to make everyone accept what the Purva Memamsas said just because they
believe them to be the "greatest authority on these matters".
(The really funny thing is that Veda Vyasa himself rejected the philosophy
put forward by Jaimini!! - there was no other purpose of his writing the
Uttara Memamsas after Jaimini' Purva-mimamsa)
Tell them (and yourself) about logic, not us.
|> I would be happy if scholarly people like Main and Vidya and any one who is
|> convinced about the philosophy and knows about it enough to participate to
|> lead the discussion. At the end of each topic of discussion, be available
|> to receive criticisms, comments or even questions for further
|> clarification.
"scholarly people like Mani and Vidya"?????
This must be kali-yuga (the age of hypocrisy).
Lets analyse some of these scholars.
Scholar #1 - Vidya
Started name calling by using words like, "blind, ostrich,
lame, etc" againgt me, obviously for the lack of logic to
substantiate his views.
Scholar #2 - Jaldhar
Said "Manish is right, Vivekananda was an idiot".
Later on however when he started to loose ground, this scholar
tried very hard to change the course of the discussion by
repeatedly claiming that I started name calling.
Also, Scholar #1 and Scholar #2 wants us to blindly believe in
advaita on the basis of the Purva Memamsas.
Neither have shown any affinity for logic yet.
Scholar #3 - Mani
Very interesting.
Cited the "excellent work" of some westeners to show that
Bhagvatam was written in the 9th century, not realizing
that the said "excellent work" is only a fraction of the
overall "excellent scheme" proposed by western so called
scholars which say that the entire Vedic history is a myth.
The idea of an advanced medival Vedic culture DOES NOT fit
anywhere in the western Evolutionary model of the Universe.
In general, argues on the basis of Ramanuja's philosophy.
Please also tell us how you want to the discussion to be, based upon logic
or based upon someones interpretation?? Dont try to mix the two, you can
not mix the discussion of the system of logic with the discussion over
the basis of the system if you want to maintain the sanity of it.
I am glad that you proposed some new topics for discussion though.
regards
