[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vedanta discussions
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Vedanta discussions
-
From: vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)
-
Date: 8 Jan 1995 08:46:50 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
From news@nntp-server.caltech.edu Sun Jan 8 03: 37:01 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
-
References: <3ei7hj$jsl@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
In article <3ei7hj$jsl@ucunix.san.uc.edu> vijaypai@kachori.rice.edu (Vijay
Sadananda Pai) writes:
> Once again, Vidya tries to talk abou that which he knows _nothing_
Ah, shooting off your mouth again. Care to recollect your original article
about advaita's parampara? Did you know what you were talking about then?
>
> In article <3eeu1f$pee@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
> Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >Your philosophy does not even acknowledge that jivanmukti is possible
>
> You are _dead wrong_ here. Sukadeva Goswami was a nitya-siddha,
> just as were the gopis of Vrndavan, the intimate associates of Lord
> Ramacandra, and so forth. The Vaisnava philosophy perfectly well
> acknowledges the existence of nitya-siddhas;
Assuming that by the word nitya-siddha you mean jivanmukta, fine. Your
particular brand of Vaishnavism holds very contrary doctrines on many
issues. A large portion of both Ramnujacharya's and Madhvacharya's
criticisms of advaita centers upon the impossibility of jivanmukti, by the
way.
In any case, all my observations regarding Vyasa not being Narada's sishya
have been conveniently ignored by you. Care to comment? Your claims to
being the most authentic "Vedic" tradition do not really hold ground, you
know.
S. Vidyasankar
