HinduNet
  
Forums Chat Annouce Calender Remote
[Prev][Index]

Re: Vedanta Discussions



vijaypai@kachori.rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai) writes:
|> In article <3d51g0$s9g@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
|> Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
|> >Whoever has accepted that some Purana is Vedic scripture?
|> 
|> Veda Vyasa has -- it's right there staring at you in Chandogya
|> Upanishad.
|> 
|> "itihasa-puranah pancamah vedanam vedah"
|> The Itihasa and Puranas are the 5th Veda
|> 	Chandogya Upanishad (7.1.4)

I think the (not so) scholarly Vidya will now say one of the following:

1. Chandogya Upanisad is not one of the real (original 108) upanisads,
   but one that ISKCON/Vaisnavas fabricated.

2. The term 'pancham veda' is used to elevate the status of whatever
   needs to be (he has said this before), like aaurveda etc, and to 
   substantiate that, he will cite the ref. from something which is 
   neither sruti nor smriti.

3. The Puranas contridict each other, so we cannot accept their word
   even if they are the fifth veda (this also he has said before and
   was proven wrong).

4. The purva mimamsas said that Puranas are 'arthavada', so we don't have
   to believe in their truth or falsehood. Here again he has been proven
   wrong because 'arthavada' means "explanatory", which only proves
   our point that they are the explanation given by Veda Vyasa himself
   and hence their authority is higher than any other explanation given
   by the acharyas including Jaimini, Shankara, Ramanuja, etc.

   (Vidya, FYI, Srimad Bhagvatam is the 'arthavada' i.e. explanation, 
    of the Vedanta Sutra by Vyasa and given that it runs counter to the
    Sriraka bhasya, Sriraka bhasya is the one that has to be rejected.)

5. some new figment of his brain.

|> This view has been supported by Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva
|> and other great acaryas.

Hari Bol! 



Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.