[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vedanta discussions
In article <3ff1h7$d8s@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>This is going to be my last post on this subject. We have our own
>views about things, and that is that.
Agreed. This is, in my opinion (and probably my advisor's also)
a good time to stop. We could go on this way till 1996 and still
not get anywhere. The Bhagavatam says that argument between the
devotees of Vishnu and Shiva is nothing new. With that in mind,
the monist vs. dualist debate could continue forever. In the
concluding chapter of Narada-bhakti-sutra, it is said that argumentative
debate alone will not resolve conflicts.
>Madhva, who wrote commentaries. It is difficult to take seriously the
>claim that commentaries are unnecessary as the Brahma Sutras are
>crystal clear, and the Bhagavatam is itself a commentary.
Ok, I think this has been a misunderstanding since the beginning
of this discussion. The commentaries that are not necessary are
speculative commentaries. For example, a window is crystal clear.
If you spray Windex on it, it remains crystal clear. If you
throw mud at it, it becomes non-crystal-clear. If commentaries
were useless, the great acaryas wouldn't have written them.
They are clearly helpful for those of us who aren't great acaryas.
The problem comes with speculative commentaries, and according
to Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Sankara's commentary falls in that
category.
>As for Gaudiya Vaishnavas not following Madhvacharya's system or
>otherwise, let me remind you that the first Goswamis after Chaitanya
>quote Madhva's works extensively. Madhva himself is listed in the
>guru parampara of Sri Prabhupada. "Achintya sakti" in Madhva's Brahma
>Sutra Bhashya is not an endorsement of achintya bheda-abheda. Madhva
>and his followers maintain bheda quite strongly. Tattvato Bhedah
>JeevagaNaa Hareranucaraa Neecocca Bhaavamgataah - There is no room
>for even a semblance of abheda in this.
Gaudiyas are clearly in Madhvacarya's sampradaya. Gaudiyas
consider this philosophy to be the natural conclusion of their
predecessors. Prabhupada quotes from Madhvacarya in many of his
commentaries. So, it's not that the philosophies are radically
different, only that one is an expansion of another. One could
say that they are "inconceivably one and different", I suppose.
>That will be all. There will be no further postings on this issue
>from my side, as I think I have made my point to my satisfaction, and
>there is no use discussing this any more. Let us agree to disagree
>and leave it at that.
I think this is a good position for this point. Vidya, I admire
your tenacity and your obvious knowledge of the subject. I'm also
glad that you are satisfied with agreeing to disagree; this would be
fine for me as well. However, I think it was cheap of you to extend
the olive branch and also take a parting shot with the Vishnu
Purana posting. That one will need to be deconstructed on a line-by-line
basis. I think I may have the time.
>S. Vidyasankar
Yours,
Vijay
