[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Puraanas
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> H. Krishna Susarla <susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu> wrote in article
> <ghenE0qtrE.1Gt@netcom.com>...
> > If you take a look at the Matsya Puraana quote again, you will see that
> I accept the Puranas in their entirety probably more strongly than you do.
> I don't take every single word literally, but then neither do you. To me,
> it is easy to accept the statements that say the Bhagavata Purana is the
> best of the 18. They are what the Mimamsa shastra calls arthavada. They
> are an advertisement of sorts designed to praise the study of that Purana.
Jaldhar, I am sorry to say this, but you are wasting your breath trying to
explain mimamsa and how a study of it is essential for vedanta. Gaudiyas
have nothing to do with vedanta per se and prefer to stick to puranas. Their
so called acharyas go to the extent of criticising yajnavalkya as
"pantheistic" and dismissing the upanishad itself. References were given in
srv a short time back and you should be able to get it on Deja News.
> You are indeeed mistaken. It is the Purva Mimamsa that explains the nature
> of dharma and its practice. For one who follows its injunctions, there is
> only birth after birth. So the Uttara Mimamsa or Vedanta teaches the
> knowledge of the Atmas oneness with Brahman which is Moksha.
> Madhusudan Saraswati spoke highly of the Bhagawata Purana and as you
> mentioned, Shankaracharya quoted from it, something he would hardly do if
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> he felt it was a Dvaita text.
Shankara has quoted nothing other than the Vishnu Purana, which is pretty
much advaitic. You have been fooled by typical Gaudiya misinformation
campaign.
Ramakrishnan.
--
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
