[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vedanta discussions
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Vedanta discussions
-
From: vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)
-
Date: 27 Dec 1994 20:53:51 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
From news@nntp-server.caltech.edu Tue Dec 27 15: 44:09 1994
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
In article <3da1vl$1ml@ucunix.san.uc.edu> manish@cadence.com (Manish
Tandon) writes:
> 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??
They are "explantory" in the following sense. For example, in the Rg Veda,
the Aswins (demigods, by the way :-)) are praised, to grant youth and
immortality, even as they granted the old Bhargava. This reference is
understandable only through the Puranic story of Chyavana Maharishi.
Similarly, references to Vishnu's three wide strides in the Vedas are
understandood with reference to the story of the Vamana/Trivikrama
avatara. Reference to Rudra's destruction of Daksha's sacrifice, and
appeasing his wrath, are understood only through the Puranic story of Sati
Dakshayani.
All this, however, has nothing to do with the metaphysical truths of the
Vedas, specifically the Upanishads. FYI, that is why there was a need for
the Brahma-sutras in the first place. If the Puranas sufficed, Vyasa would
have just told his students to learn the Puranas.
>
> 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).
No, my dear sir, you completely miss the point. The Puranas are meant for
the general audience, whose understanding is not well developed. The
secrets of the Upanishadic teaching, namely the Vedanta, were taught only
to an advanced seeker. Krishna did not teach the Gita to anyone and
everyone in the two armies. He taught it only to Arjuna. Claiming that the
Puranas explain the "meaning of the Vedas" is like saying that the
arithmentic text books for first grade students explain all mathematics.
[Other interesting invective deleted.]
> atleast *one* instance of my fudging between logic and dogma.
All your posts are filled with dogma of one particular sect. Of course, it
appears very logical to you. My sympathies.
>
> 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.
Indeed. Please let me know what criteria of truth should be applied to
purely narrative stories.
>
> |> 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.
Thanks. I wasn't sure you knew the difference.
> And Vidya doesn't understand English either. What to talk about logic.
You are always very good at jumping to conclusions, aren't you!
>
> 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.
Listen, the original discussion was all about arthavada. When you said,
"Veda Vyasa himself rejected Jaimini's philosophy", you didn't know what
you are talking about. Jaimini's philosophy has been rejected only in
part, not in whole. A major part of what is rejected has to do with
Jaimini's dismissing the Upanishads as arthavada. Please read my previous
article with greater care.
It is quite common practice in the Indian traditions, to concede some part
of an opponent's philosophy, if it is consistent with truth. For example,
the Bhagavad Gita uses a lot of Samkhya ideas, though ultimately Vedanta
rejects Samkhya. Similarly, though Jaimini's philosophy is ultimately
rejected, a large part of it is accepted by Vyasa himself. In fact, in the
Brahmasutra, Vyasa himself refers to a principle of Jaimini's Mimamsa
Sutra to explain a point. That, by itself, shows that part of Purva
Mimamsa is accepted as legitimate by Veda Vyasa. Of course, the
Brahmasutras are crystal clear to you! Maybe you have a better explanation
why this is so.
> Listen Mr. Vidya, I agree with the principle of 'arthavada'.
Oh, you do, then please explain to me what is arthavada and what is not.
>
> Also listen Mr. Vidya, 'arthavada' means "explanatory", and the question
> for you again is "explanatory" for what??
Read above again, why Puranas are arthavada, and what is it that they
explain.
[Lots of plaintive stuff about hypocrisy and name-calling deleted.]
>
> |> 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".
How about your prejudice and lack of knowledge, in calling advaita as
"superstition"?
>
> The Lord and the living entities are qualitatively one but
quantitatively
> different because whereas the Lord is Infinite, the individual jivas are
> infinitestimal.
What do you mean by qualitatively one? In what quality or qualities are
they one? By what process did they become quantitatively different? Or are
they eternally different? If they are eternally different, how come they
are qualitatively one?
There is a big philosophical problem at the core of the Gaudia Vaishnava
philosophy. While claiming to follow Madhva's bheda (difference)
philosophy on the one hand, you also talk of achintya bheda-abheda tattva
(difference and non-difference). Srisha Rao has pointed out this
discrepancy once before. Religiously you may all be Vaishnavas, but
philosophically you hold very different positions. Achintya bheda-abheda
cannot be acceptable to any real follower of Madhva's system, and vice
versa. Yet you claim to accept both. If you think that is being very
logical, so be it. I waste my time talking to you.
S. Vidyasankar
