 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
>
> Please also advise us mortals on who owns the copyright for the BG. I
> wouldn't want to get thrown into the slammer for quoting the BG without
> permission.
>
> Ramakrishnan.
Namaste Ramakrishnanji,
Some time ago, you offered the following words of wisdom:
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, a mere 3 days later, you also posted 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.
Would you please care to explain these seemingly contradictory viewpoints?
That is, how is it that you can say the Puraanas are pramaana and yet claim
that a school which "prefers to stick to puranas" has nothing to do with
vedanta? In order to make that assertion, you would have to conclusively
show that such reliance on the puraanas leads to conclusions which are in
contradiction to the Vedas, as per your definition of the "position of all
genuine vedantic schools."
I await your reply on this issue, sure as I am that it will be both
profound and enlightening.
regards,
-- K
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|