[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Puraanas
I'm sorry for being late with this, but I couldn't help but notice
something that seemed like a contradiction.
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.
But then, the same Ramakrishnan a mere 3 days later, wrote the following:
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote in article
<ghenE18zJG.Dny@netcom.com>...
> As far as I am concerned all 18 puraNaas are pramaaNa whenever they
> don't contradict vedas. This is the position of all genuine vedantic
> schools.
Forgive me for questioning, but it seems to me that the above two
statements are somewhat contradictory. First, you say that Gaudiiyas have
nothing to do with vedanta because they prefer to stick to puraanas. But
then you say that you accept all 18 puraanas as pramaana (whenever they do
not contradict the vedas) and quite explicitly state "this is the position
of all genuine vedantic schools."
At this time, I do not want to comment on the accuracy of the statements
above. Let's just accept both of these for the moment. In addition, please
be aware that Gaudiiyas don't accept anything in the Puraanas which is
*explicitly* contradicted by shruti.
Given that, can you kindly explain to me how "all genuine vedantic schools"
can accept the puraanas as pramaana, and yet Gaudiiyas cannot be vedantists
because "they prefer to stick to puraanas?"
regards,
-- K
