[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Puraanas
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote in article
<ghenE130Cr.5qv@netcom.com>...
> 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.
It's amazing to see these sentiments echoed once again, even though they
have already been dealt with. At the very least, I would have expected that
if a person refuses to think for himself, he would at least examine all
sides of an argument before taking up one side and risk putting his foot in
his mouth. In any case, anyone who claims that study of the Puraanas has
nothing to do with Vedanta is certainly misinformed. Both Jaladhar and I
agree that the Puraanas constitute the fifth Veda. There is ample support
for this in scripture, and thus only someone who is ill-informed can make
the claim that Puraanic scholars have "nothing to do with vedanta per se."
The actual meaning of Vedanta refers to that which is the end of the study
of the Vedas, or in other words, the conclusion of Vedic study. Thus a
Vedantist is someone who at the very least is interested in the goal of
studying the Vedas. The Puraanas are helpful because they make this
information available to all, regardless of qualification. One can study
Vedanta through the Puraanas, and if you wish to claim otherwise, I would
like to hear some well-reasoned arguments to that effect.
> Shankara has quoted nothing other than the Vishnu Purana, which is pretty
> much advaitic. You have been fooled by typical Gaudiya misinformation
> campaign.
It seems that it is you who are mounting a misinformation campaign. I never
claimed that he *quoted* the Bhaagavata Puraana. I only said that he wrote
a work called Sri Prabhodasudhakara which describes all of the pastimes of
the Lord as described in the 10th Canto of the Bhaagavatam. I can't help
but notice that you are always quick to attack, but you rarely seem
interested in actually talking philosophy. It is also interesting to note
that you once claimed you only brought up philosophical objections in the
past but did not indulge in personal attacks. But when I showed you
specific instances of you attacking my tradition (as opposed to simply
challenging the philosophy), you simply disappeared. Care to comment on
that?
By the way, I remember not long ago that you arbitrated the Shiva Puraana
as pramaana and refused to accept any contradictory evidence in any other
Puraana. Now, here you are admitting that the Shankaraachaarya only quoted
from the Vishnu Puraana. Given that, we must conclude based on your
behavior that 1) There are Puraanas other than those quoted by Shankara
which are authoritative, 2) You honestly don't care what Shankaraachaarya
considers authoritative, and are simply bringing this up now because you
like being on the offensive, or 3) It was wrong of you in the past to
entrench yourself in the Shiva Puraana to the exclusion of any
contradicting Puraana.
regards,
-- K
