[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vedanta Discussions
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Vedanta Discussions
-
From: vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)
-
Date: 17 Dec 1994 03:54:20 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
From news@nntp-server.caltech.edu Fri Dec 16 23: 14:21 1994
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
-
References: <3cldv1$j04@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
In article <3cldv1$j04@ucunix.san.uc.edu> manish@cadence.com (Manish
Tandon) writes:
> In article <3aed3c$7b9@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil
(K. Sadananda) writes:
>
>
> 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).
Whoever has accepted that some Purana is Vedic scripture? There are four
Vedas, Rg, Yajus, Sama and Atharva. All the Vedic scriptures are part of
one or the other of these four. Which Veda does the Padma Purana belong
to? The Puranas are ancillary texts, subordinate to the Vedas proper.
Also, for your information, "arthavAda" does not mean that they are
rejected per se. It means that they perform a purely explanatory role.
Also note the key term "vAda", it is not Sruti. vAda is somebody's
explanation, not necessarily the original text itself. If you cannot
accept the distinction between Sruti and the rest, you have no business
calling your ideology Vedic.
>
> This was also the logic used by Sri Madhavacharya to expose the
> hypocrisy of the advaitans.
Madhva, you mean. Madhavacharya (also called Vidyaranya) was an advaitin.
^^^^^ (note the spelling)
>
> 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.
Look who's talking. The only fudging between logic and dogma that I can
see has been on your side. I don't say, "Sankara said so, he is final",
unlike you, who keeps coming up with reasons why Prabhupada is the final
authority, etc. I quote Sankara only to show how consistent he is with the
Upanishads, and that too, only because you attack him, and dismiss all of
advaita as superstition.
Also, FYKI, if you want a system of logic, go learn nyAya and navya nyAya.
Vedanta is first and foremost a mImAmSa, a textual exegesis.
> 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)
Listen, Mr. Tandon. The reason Badarayana Vyasa disagreed with Jaimini is
this. Jaimini regards the entire jnAna kANDa i.e. the upanishads,
AraNyakas and the brAhmaNas as subsidiary to the karma kANDa, the ritual
portions. The disagreement is not about the principle of arthavAda itself,
but over what is arthavAda and what is not. With your keenly logical
brain, I am sure you can understand the difference. In the entire Brahma
Sutras, which you claim you can understand without the help of any
master's commentary, the references are only to the Upanishadic
statements. There is no reference at all to any Purana. If you do not
agree that the Puranas and the Itihasas are arthavAda, give the larger
Hindu religious community some seriously cogent reasons for it. If you do
not agree with the principle of arthavAda itself, let me tell you, you
will have no support from Vyasa himself.
>
> 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).
Thank you Sadananda, for your compliment, not that I do claim to be
scholarly. However, if Sadananda thinks Mani and I are scholarly, I don't
see what is hypocritical about it. Please live up to your claims, Mr.
Tandon, and be logical about what you say.
>
> 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.
I did not. I only pointed out that dismissing advaita as a superstition is
being blind to realities, and an ostrich like attitude. I was talking
about your attitudes, not your abilities. I do not consider that
name-calling. On the other hand, calling me an idiot and a moron, as you
did, is definitely so. In any case, if you do not see the difference, let
it be. I don't wish to press the point.
I cannot speak for either Jaldhar Vyas or Mani Varadarajan, but let me
just say this. I respect the knowledge both of them have, much more than I
can respect yours. From the dvaita side, there have been a couple of posts
that were really scholarly, and I can respect those posters too, but you,
definitely not.
Finally, let me point out that no one is asking you to accept anything.
All I am telling you is that advaita is not "superstition". In fact, it is
your Hare Krishna ideology that comes across as superstition, more than
anything else in this discussion. More so, I am not asking you to accept
advaita on the basis of pUrva mImAmSa. All I am saying is that pUrva
mImAmSa has formed the core of the orthodox Vedic establishment for
millenia now. So, if you cannot talk to them on their own terms, the worse
for you. Only don't keep harping on "Vedic scriptures" without first
knowing what they are.
S. Vidyasankar
