[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vedanta Discussions
-
Subject: Re: Vedanta Discussions
-
From: manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
-
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 15:50:13 GMT
-
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
From news@cadence.com Tue Dec 20 10: 40:36 1994
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
-
Sender: news@cadence.com
vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) wrote:
|> In article <3cldv1$j04@ucunix.san.uc.edu> manish@cadence.com (Manish
|> Tandon) 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).
|>
|> ...The Puranas are ancillary texts, subordinate to the Vedas proper.
Again your prejudice shows up, see explanation on arthavada below.
|> Also, for your information, "arthavAda" does not mean that they are
|> rejected per se. It means that they perform a purely explanatory role.
Aha, trying to save yourself by contridicting what you said earlier?
Earlier, Vidya has said, "according to Mimamsas, Puranas and Mahabharat
are arthatvada and we don't have to believe in their thruth or falsehood".
Now realizing his mistake, he is trying to save his face by giving the
correct meaning of 'arthavada' - "explanatory" but still not excepting
them, i.e. holding on to the misconception that we don't have to accept
their truth or falsehood.
Listen Mr. Vidya, if the Puranas and itihas are "explanatory" texts, what
are they "explanatory" for??
FYI, Veda Vyasa wrote the Puranas to explain the meaning of the Vedas
based upon his own realization and the realizations of other sages (Puranas
contain the statements made by earlier sages also).
|> 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.
If you cannot accept the explanation of the original compiler rather want
to invent your own concocted explanation based upon your own preconcieved
notions, you have no business calling yourself vedic.
Note again, Veda Vyasa himself wrote in Bhagavad Purana:
'itihasa-puranam ca pancamo veda ucyate' (SB 1.4.20),
i.e. the Puranas and the histories such as Mahabharata, are
known as the fifth Veda.
[This is a statement made by Veda Vyasa to substantiate his own explanation,
I am merely quoting it. The accusition that this is using the inuction to
prove the basis of induction does not hold against me (it may hold against
Veda Vyasa) because neither the induction not the basis is mine. This
explanation is given here to explicitly and clearly explain to Vidya who
is very apt in flinging accusitions and equally weak in logic.]
|> > 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.
You certainly are very apt at lying Vidya.
Give atleast *one* instance of where I said simply because Srila Prabhupada
said this so you all must accept it
and
atleast *one* instance of my fudging between logic and dogma.
However let me remind you and others, you did say, "according to the
mimamsas who are the highest authority on this topic, the Puranas and
Mahabharat are arthavada and we don't have to believe in their truth or
falsehood."
I suppose the readership here is intelligent enough to see what the real
story is.
|> 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.
I have studied logic in enough detail and am still studing.
FYKI, one don't have to study nyaya to study/understand logic. They are
merely systems of logic and can be used as examples of a logical system,
not to study logic itself.
|> > 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,
And Vidya doesn't understand English either. What to talk about logic.
I said "Veda Vyasa himself rejected the philosophy put forward by Jaimini!!"
You interpreted it as my saying "Veda Vyasa himself rejected the philosophy
put forward by Jaimini due to his calling puranas/itihas arthavada".
Listen Mr. Vidya take a course in elementry english grammar before trying
to argue about logic and philosophy.
|> but over what is arthavAda and what is not. With your keenly logical
|> brain, I am sure you can understand the difference.
Yes I do. thanks for the complements.
|> ...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.
Listen Mr. Vidya, I agree with the principle of 'arthavada'.
Also listen Mr. Vidya, 'arthavada' means "explanatory", and the question
for you again is "explanatory" for what??
For your scholarly brain which is so apt at flinging accusitions and lying,
the explanation given by Veda Vyasa on the Vedas (in the Puranas and itihas)
is better and very logical.
If you reject the explanation given by Veda Vyasa (given that we both have
to accept that 'arthavada' means "explanatory"), you certainly will have
no support from Veda Vyasa, but you might get some support from the
hypocritical "Hindu religious community", for which I could care less.
|> > "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.
Since you and logic are the two ends of a long road, I cannot help.
Listen Mr. Vidya, the sun is there, I can show it to you but I cannot
make you see it.
|> > 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.
Yes you did.
If anyone wants, I will repost the article where Vidya first called me
"blind", "ostrich", "taken over by pride" (i.e. arrogant), and Padma
Purana as "lame".
If however you want to say that when you used these words, you really were
talking about my attitude, I can also say that when I used words like
"idiot" and "moron", I was referring to your attitude not the jivatma
inside your body.
Vidya, what you have said here (that all that you do is white and what
others do is black) only proves my point about hypocrisy.
Add this to the abilities of Scholar # 1 - "Lying on public forum."
|> 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.
And I could care less if a person with a -- moronic attitude -- respects/
understands my views or not. [netters note this is not name-calling per Vidya]
|> 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.
This only shows your prejudice and lack of knowledge of the Gaudia Vaisnava
tradition and the "acintya bhedabheda tattva".
The Lord and the living entities are qualitatively one but quantitatively
different because whereas the Lord is Infinite, the individual jivas are
infinitestimal.
|> S. Vidyasankar
Hari Bol!
manish
