[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Interpretation of verses (was Re: ISKCON etc)
vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) wrote:
>Let's see if I follow this conversation:
Yes, Let's.
>R says that Prabhupada's translation is bunk.
>M replies with the names of some scholars
>
>R says that anyone can get scholars to support them, and that
> it's inconsistent that this other version isn't supported by
> M, even though it has some scholars behind it.
>R asks "oh yeah, who are these scholars"
>c) if "anyone can whip up a few followers [among the scholars]",
> then this should've been the logical reply to "if that were
> the case, then..." In other words, why wait until the scholars
> are named before issuing this statement?
I admit I was a bit hasty here. I was getting too tired of this Padma puraaNa
stuff.
>d) if we assume that the scholars are valid, then it seems to
> me that the logical step for R would be to show why the
> support of the scholars is not relevant. After all, it would
> be logical to show why we should ignore the praise of the
> scholars.
True.
>e) if we do not wish to give the scholars some basic credit,
> then we at least need to establish why R's critique is
> somehow superior to the other critique, or why the other
> critique is inherently wrong.
You mean, you didn't read my criticism of the article "What is Mayaavadam?"
either? I clearly pointed out a verse which had been translated wrongly. One
need not be a sanskrit scholar to understand simple verses from the puraaNas.
Ofcourse in your case or HKS's case it might be different. Also I pointed out
how illogical it was to use some Dvapara yuga stuff to criticize Shankara.
>Granted, I will make no claim to being a logician, but the way
>this exchange has run, it's a wonder to me why these issues
>haven't been addressed already.
And I wonder why the issues of this circular Padma puraaNa stuff hasn't been
addressed already. I have to yet see a post attacking the meat of my post,
viz, this whole Padma puraaNa thing:
1. Why should we accept the Padma puraaNa instead of Shiva P?. The Vaishnava
aaacharyaas say so.
2. Why should we listen to only the V. aacharyaas? The Padma puraaNa says so.
One can accept the Shiva puraaNa and become a Shiva Vishishtaadvaitin or Shiva
Dvaitin (such sects do exist). Oh, I just realized I said "meat" of my post,
will I be born as an animal in my next birth?
I dare you to once address the more important issues. But then, it goes down to
the core of your beliefs, which you may not want to question.
Ramakrishnan.
PS. Hey I didn't attack ISKCON. Isn't that great? BTW, I am waiting for your
reply to my previous post on why I attacked ISKCON continuously. Don't
disappoint me.
--
Salvation is the realisation of one's true self and the resulting bliss.
Shiva Purana I.13.66
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
