[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vedanta discussions
-
Subject: Re: Vedanta discussions
-
From: manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
-
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 21:54:37 GMT
-
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
From news@cadence.com Mon Jan 9 16: 45:24 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
-
References: <3eeu1n$phq@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
-
Sender: news@cadence.com
Vidya, here is a friendly response, hope this works better!
vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) writes:
|> In article <3da1vl$1ml@ucunix.san.uc.edu> manish@cadence.com (Manish
|> Tandon) writes:
|>
|> 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.
Let me cite another one. Brahma sutras begin with 'athato brahma-jijnasa'
which is addressed/explained in the beginning of Srimad Bhagvatam, which deals
with (explains if you will) that very issue 'om namo bhagvate vasudevaya,
janm-adi asya yataha...' I am sure if you look with an open mind, you can see
the similarity and understand the rationale behind it.
|> 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.
btw, I notice that you have only cited the _explanations_ of the karma-kanda
section and not one from the jnana-kanda. Any particular reason?
|> 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.
Brahma-sutras are _extract_ of the Upanisads.
Puranas/itihas is _explanation_ for those metaphysical truths.
Extract and explanation are two completly different things. Also, Vyasa wrote
Bhagvatam after writing the Brahma-sutras, being told to do so by Narada, which
is why Bhagvatam is explanation for Vedanta. Chaitanya mahaprabhu explicitly
said that a person aspiring for spiritual life (sannyasi in particular) must
study the Vedanta but only after studying the Bhagvatam so that (s)he would be
in the right mindset.
how is that?
|> > FYI, Veda Vyasa wrote the Puranas to explain the meaning of the Vedas...
|>
|> 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.
One that implies that the Vedic culture was discriminatory by not giving the
actual knowledge to the less fortunate people and two this artifically limits
the scope of 'arthavada'. Read the explanation on arthavada below.
The fact that Puranas and itihas explains that same metaphysical truths in
simpler terms (for the less fortunate) only shows the greatness of the Vedic
culture where no one was denied the right to the knowledge. A good teacher is
one who cares equally for all his/her students.
|> 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.
Krishna explained Gita only to Arjuna because, 1) Arjuna was His personal
friend, 2) Arjuna asked for it, 3) that was what the situation then demanded,
i.e. Krishna wanted Arjuna to fight, besides his being qualified student.
Without understanding the books for first grade, one can not understand the
mathematics beyond that.
By claiming that Puranas only explain the purpose of karma-kanda section of
Vedas (as you did) you are certainly trying to lower/limit the status/scope of
'arthavada'. I don't think there is anything said anywhere to limit the
meaning of arthavada by Vyasa himself or any other acharya.
|> > 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.
now, now. This is a true classic!
I asked you for a ref and you say well everything I said qualified for ref
and that is because "all your posts are filled with dogma of one particular sect"!
if memory serves me right, you accused me once of "citing an induction to
prove the principle of induction".
Vidya, the fact is just as I am biased by my dogma, you are biased by yours.
Anyways, I won't fight on these trivial things now.
|> > 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.
So is it true that you are saying that Puranas/itihas only contain narrative
stories? I remember you also said once that Mahabharat is merely itihas and
since Bhagavad Gita is a part of it, it can not be compared with Vedanta which
is philosophy but as far as I know, you never replied to my objection back then
about BG being pure philosophy contained within a narrative.
|> > 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.
thus proving once again that your assumption(s) was wrong :-)
|> 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.
this is not fair. How did you know that I didn't knew what I was talking about
back then, (even after acknowledging here once "Thanks. I wasn't sure you knew
the difference")?
|> Jaimini's philosophy has been rejected only in part, not in whole.
I never said that Vyasa said every word that Jaimini said was wrong, that would
be akin so saying American Heritage rejected Oxford dictionary. I think there
has been some confusion over words on both sides.
|> Oh, you do, then please explain to me what is arthavada and what is not.
well, 'artha' means "meaning" so 'arthavada' simply means "one that deals with
or explains the meaning".
There is nothing implied by the meaning of 'arthavada' to say that it only
explains the meaning of some particular section of Vedas. If you think about
this, I'm sure you would realize that Puranas/itihas is really the explanation
for the Vedas.
To answer you earlier point on why Vyasa did not tell people to just read that
and since he did not, they must be somehow lower in value, I would say, if a
fourth grade kid asks me what does the theory of relativity says, I may just
give a simple example whereas to say a freshman, I might give the actual def.
Now, both the example (if it it correct) and the definition are correct and tell
basically the same thing except that they may be meant for different audience.
I don't see any reason to condemn one or the other. btw, one can also cite
the example to a more advanced student also.
Bottomline is, just because the Puranas/itihas explains the same intricate things
in a simpler manner does not mean they are inferior. Actually it is an art to
explain through examples, anyone can tell the definition.
btw, I have already objected to your only citing the Puranic ref. to explain
karma-kanda portions, so that is not a limit either.
|> How about your prejudice and lack of knowledge, in calling advaita as
|> "superstition"?
Actually your claim is sensible but then same is true for mine. I believe in
acintya bheda-abheda so your views look prejudiced to me and vice versa.
|> > 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?
Vidya, first of all I could have been a little careless about the choice of
words, i.e. qualitatively, and two, we know there is often no one-to-one
mapping between sanskrit and english.
By qualities, I was refering to the _attributes_ of sat, cit, and ananda.
We believe that the Lord who is para-brahman has the attributes of sat, cit,
ananda, and vigrahah so do the jivas. Now, the Lord has infinite knowledge
and bliss and we have them in minute quantities. About sat, you really cannot
say one has a limited amount of it, "limited eternity" :-) that would be a
paradox. btw, we also believe that the Lord has an infinite form which is also
eternal but we acquire these temporary material forms while in this world.
Nonetheless, the spirit, we believe, has an eternal form which gets _covered_
by these temporary forms.
The jivas are qualitatively similar because we are parts and parcels of the Lord.
Lord Krishna Himself explained this,
BG 15.7 mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani prakriti-sthani karsati
so, how does all this sound?
|> 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).
1. We do NOT follow Madhva's dvaita or Ramanuja's vishita-advaita
2. Since both Madhva and Ramanuja were vaishnavas, we respect them.
3. Gaudia's only follow/accept acintya bheda-abheda tattva, atleast in
principle they should
Your claim that Gaudia's follow Madhva's bheda and talk of achintya bheda-abheda
is akin to saying that Gaudia's go/try to go North and North-west simultaneously.
I think your misunderstanding is based upon either some foolish gaudia follower
telling you that who didn't knew what is what or some advaitan/dvaitan telling
you his/her understanding of Gaudia's which was based upon the same mistake.
|> Srisha Rao has pointed out this discrepancy once before.
All I can say is that Srisha Rao was wrong. Either he didn't know what he
was talking about OR he wanted to portray a bad image of Gaudias so he willfully
presented his concocted theory about them.
|> Religiously you may all be Vaishnavas, but philosophically you hold very
|> different positions.
We certainly do. Agreed.
|> Achintya bheda-abheda cannot be acceptable to any real follower of
|> Madhva's system, and vice versa.
Correct again.
btw, this contridicts your earlier statement that we follow/accept both.
|> Yet you claim to accept both.
We do not.
Atleast, I as a follower of Gaudia tradition do NOT accept dvaita or
vishista-advaita. My understanding is that acintya bhedabheda is like qualified
dvaita so going back it means dvaita is incomplete rather than simply wrong.
|> If you think that is being very
|> logical, so be it. I waste my time talking to you.
Vidya, please see that in the light of the explanation I have given here and
tell me if your opinion is still the same.
|> S. Vidyasankar
Manish