[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Stuff from "Vedic cosmography and astronomy" (was Re: The moon ..)
In article <4qp5hk$jgg@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>Then, let me congratulate you on neatly snipping out the relevant parts of my
>post and then giving answers, so that your answers look logical.
I snipped out almost all of your post. I hardly thought all of it was relevant.
>I certainly mentioned the "spiritual planets" concept. In fact I even conceded
>that Mr Thompson may know better about what SP actually meant. However it is
The fact is that this was mentioned in passing in your post and the
bulk of it was on the second part. That's why I said you glossed it
over. Call it whatever you want.
>clear from the book that SP _also_ doubted that the astronauts had visited the
>material moon. That is why Mr Thompson, gives a photograph (given by NASA) and
>gives some reason to "prove" that the US govt lied about the moon trip.
So he gives two possible explanations? And?
>Note that I did not "gloss" over the 1st explanation as you suggest. On the
I'm not about to get into a line-counting argument with you.
>other hand, shri HKSji totally ignored the latter part of the discussion by
>Thompson like giving the _photograph_. It is clear to me you want the whole
>thing mis-represented.
No, it's clear that I find one argument more plausible than the other,
especially given the parallels found in other explanations. I also
don't feel like pretending to be Mr. Thompson's spokesperson, so I don't
see any reason why I should have to answer every point you make.
>There can be no other, due to the _photograph_ being given. Also the
>description of what might have actually happened by the phrase "man made
>illusions" leaves no scope for other interpretations.
I don't feel like checking the archives, but I believe you stated that
the word "honesty" was used by Srila Prabhupada, and the photograph
was provided by Mr. Thompson, correct?
>> Ahmadiyyas, the Baha'i's, etc., etc. In my opinion, it's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> unresolvable and a waste of time.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>1. The claim goes that chaitanya defeated the "tattvavaadis" of Udupi
> (according to the "biography" of chaitanya).
You are being selective in quoting that, without making mention of the
rest of the articles on that thread.
>2. The Gaudiya lineage also claims that they got their teachings from Vyaasa
> through Madhva.
Again with the selectivity.
>Since there are philosophical differences between dvaita and gaudiya schools,
>and specially since Chaitanya defeated the "tattvavaadis" of Udipi, and since
>the Gaudiyas got their teachings from Vyasa _through Madhva_, in effect
>Madhva was actually not a tattvavaadi, but rather a Gaudiya. In other words,
>the Udipi people converted from Gaudiyaism to Tattvavaadam at a later date.
I have yet to see anyone make the claim that these chains travel
upward. If so, your argument is incomplete, since the first link was
Brahma. So, if your logic were true, it wouldn't have been the
Brahma-Madhva school to begin, since after the appearance of Madhva,
Brahma would've converted. Since that has never been stated, your
argument is fallacious.
>Ehrr, you must think the rest of the world is composed of simpletons to
>believe in such things. May be the argument is unresolvable for you, but not
>for the rest of us. Certainly it's a waste of time for you, since logic does
>not support the Gaudiya's preposterous claims.
See the mention of siksha and diksha in that thread.
>Unfortunately, as Ragunandan pointed out, the verse was no where to be found
>in the upanishad. In fact the quoted verse was supposedly from the 2nd chapter
>of the krishna upanishad, while there was only one chapter in the upanishad.
That discussion continued in other threads for a while, if I remember
correctly, and I while I didn't follow it thoroughly, I didn't get the
impression that the reference you give was either the final word on
the subject or the most conclusive.
>Yawn. The dual nature revealed for example, by extra chapters appearing in
>upanishads? So that your upanishad is not any one else's and so on?
Funny that you mention this. Quick quiz question for anyone interested
- what famous figure quotes from texts which nobody else seems to
have, and what is the justification given by his disciples?
>Small correction: There has been general agreement that the vedas (Rg, Yajur,
>Sama and Atharva) are alone supreme, and the rest get a lower priority, among
>the three main schools, advaita, dvaita and vishistaadvaita.
Vedas alone supreme? Hardly - another quiz question - who describes
the vedas as having flowery language and suggests that the fruitive
results therein can distract men? Here's a hint: He (hint, hint) spoke
a text which many people consider more important than the vedas.
>This ofcourse brings up another question. When Ananda tirtha does not
>subscribe to this view of puranic and vedic being interchangeable, one
>wonders about the honesty in referring to the tradition as
>Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya (sic).
Wonder all you want, but I don't see the logic in doing so. I don't
view this discussion as being some sort of contest between Madhva and
Chaitanya.
>Thanks. Luckily, I do not require advice from _you_ on what to read. I never
Now you're getting positively snippy here, pun intended. I don't care
what you do or don't read or what you do or don't interpret
correctly. However, at least be good enough to concede that you may not
know the entire story if in fact you don't know the entire story.
>The point I mentioned was the transmission of knowledge _through Ananda
>tirtha_. This cannot be the case, since he was a tattvavaadi and not a
>Gaudiya.
See quiz mention #1.
>The concept of _transmission_ itself was _not_ doubted.
Good.
As a side note, I'm just about as bored with this thread here as I was
when it appeared on SRV. I guess this confirms the concept of
resurrection, since that same thread has found a new body somewhere
else.
-Vivek
