[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vedanta discussions
In article <3eue79$ldt@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Assuming that by the word nitya-siddha you mean jivanmukta, fine. Your
>particular brand of Vaishnavism holds very contrary doctrines on many
>issues.
If by "contrary" you mean inconsistent or self-contradictory,
please be specific. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is one of the more
consistent philosophical systems available. I would like to
hear of any major inconsistencies.
If by "contrary" you just mean slightly different from other Vaisnava
traditions, then guilty as charged. All the Vaisnava traditions
are slightly different, though, as many feel, fundamentally compatible.
>In any case, all my observations regarding Vyasa not being Narada's sishya
>have been conveniently ignored by you. Care to comment?
Sorry for my indiscretion; in my fashion, I was only thinking about
the issue of Bhakti. As the Bhagavatam reveals, it was certainly Narada
Muni who instructed Vyasadeva to compile the Bhagavatam and thus openly
explore the issue of Bhakti in great detail. Undoubtedly he
may have learned the issues of dharma,artha,kama,and moksa (which form
the majority of the Mahabharata) from his father, and if that is what
the Mahabharata says, who are we to argue? However, with regards to the
supreme purusartha, prema, Narada Muni is certainly Vyasa's preceptor.
Anyway, I have addressed a few issues raised by you that you have also
ignored so far:
* the compatibility of dvaita and acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva
* Ramanuja and the Bhagavata
Care to comment?
>Your claims to being the most authentic "Vedic" tradition do not really hold
>ground, you know.
Who has ever claimed such a thing? Please be specific. Either
a tradition is authentic or not; there are several equally authentic
traditions in the Vaisnava system, as sanctioned by the Bhagavatam.
>S. Vidyasankar
Yours,
Vijay
