[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 20:51:30 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
From news@nntp-server.caltech.edu Tue Dec 27 15: 41:38 1994
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
-
References: <3dfpf4$8om@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
In article <3dfpf4$8om@ucunix.san.uc.edu> manish@cadence.com (Manish
Tandon) writes:
> vijaypai@kachori.rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai) writes:
> |> In article <3d51g0$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:
Thank you for your evaluation of my scholarliness. I shall endeavor to
better myself.
>
> 1. Chandogya Upanisad is not one of the real (original 108) upanisads,
> but one that ISKCON/Vaisnavas fabricated.
Wrong. Don't assume too much credit for ISKCON. The Chandogya is one of
the most authoritative Upanishads, and it preaches Advaita, if you ever
care to read it, rather than the Padma Purana. Your peculiar brand of
dvaita and achintya bheda-abheda have no support from the Chandogya
Upanishad.
>
> 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.
Wrong again. While it is true that the term 'panchama veda' is used for a
wide variety of fields, that is irrelevant from the context of the
Chandogya Upanishad. Read my response to Vijay's posting.
>
> 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).
(Other fancy deleted.)
Thanks, you have started doing me the favor of thinking for me, and
posting imagined responses for me, a task which you doubtless wanted to
relieve me of. I suggest you take over the remaining of the argument that
follows this thread. I do not have much time to din some sense into your
thick heads.
S. Vidyasankar
