[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On attempting to define Hinduism)
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On attempting to define Hinduism)
-
From: dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu (Dhruba Chakravarti)
-
Date: 30 Aug 1996 22:00:57 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: University of Nebraska Medical Center
-
References: <ghenDwHznC.9A0@netcom.com> <ghenDwqLww.Bpu@netcom.com> <ghenDwt2DE.ME1@netcom.com> <5077j1$rd2@news.ececs.uc.edu>
Vidyasankar Sundaresan (vidya@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
: I completely agree with Jaldhar Vyas on this. Without intellecutal
: interpretations of the scriptures, one is nowhere. To the list of people
: Jaldhar gives above, you can add luminaries like Kumarila Bhatta,
: Sriharsha, Gangesa Misra and others from elsewhere in India, in addition
: to the three famous Vedantic teachers, Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva. If
: there were to be no intellectual interpretation of the scriptures, were
: all of them so stupid as to keep writing treatises that could be
: understood only with a high level of intellectual interpretation?
: Whether you talk of advaita or dvaita or nyAya or sAmkhya or mImAmsA,
: all of them are highly intellectual schools.
: Please note that the upanishad which makes the distinction between
: parA-vidyA and aparA-vidyA itself characterizes the scriptures as
: aparA-vidyA. The four vedas are included under aparA-vidyA, let alone
: smrtis like the dharmasutras. It is a fundamental mistake to call the
: scriptures parA-vidyA. The only parA-vidyA is brahmavidyA. The
: scriptures tell you about parA-vidyA, they are not parA-vidyA
: themselves. It is only brahman that cannot be understood purely
: intellectually. The scriptures are open to intellectual interpretation.
: However irreverent towards the scriptures this may seem, note that this
: is the position of all advaita vedantins, including Vivekananda.
Dear Sri S. Vidyasankar:
Thank you for joining this discussion. You are absolutely right about
saying that Scriuptures are described as aparA-vidyA. If you read what I
wrote one more time, you will see that I wrote that viGYAna is parA-vidyA.
aparA-vidyA is GYAna. I did not call Scriptures parA-vidyA.
Sri kR^ishhNa gave his opinion on this issue in the SBG. He said that the
knowledge of both kshetra and kshetraGYa is necessary (13.20), again,
GYAna and viGYAna is liberating (9.1) etc. He also said that He gives the
viGYAna knowledge (10.11). These verses describe that GYAna and
viGYAna are distinct, and viGYAna is superior to GYAna. The stongest
statement about this issue I think is in the Isha upanishad:
andhaM tama pravishanti...
In that verse it is said that those who persue avidyA alone go into
darkness and those who persue vidyA alone they go into greater darkness.
Therefore both are necessary. However, it is also true that Upanishhads
in general, do have a preference for viGYAna over GYAna.
I do not disagree with what you said, except that I do not think that
commentaries should replace the original as Scriptures. I am not
convinced that the authors of commentaries intended so.
With best regards,
Dhruba.
