[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On attempting to define Hinduism)
-
To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On attempting to define Hinduism)
-
From: Pradip Gangopadhyay <pradip@lism.usc.edu>
-
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 14:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>That is not what I remember having read. I was objecting to your
>statement, "Hinduism is against intellectual interpretation of the
>scriptures." Whether scriptures are parA- or aparA- vidyA is besides the
>point for the purposes of this discussion. The scholastic traditions,
>which form the backbone of Hinduism, like it or not, are squarely on the
>side of intellectual interpretations of the scriptures. That is all I
>wanted to say. You may give it different names - GYAna, viGYAna,
>whatever else. But you can't escape from intellectual interpretation of
>the scriptures.
It is because the scriptures are aparavidya that a mere intellectual
interpretation of scriptures is not possible. This is because the intellect
alone can not grasp the nature or existence of the Ultimate Reality. Mere
intellect is not sufficient for understanding the scriptures since they deal
with the supersensuous Ultimate Reality. This is the reason why most Hindus do
not believe that Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja, and Sri Madhva ,for example, were
mere scholars. Unless you have some experience of Reality it is not possible
to understand the true spirit of the scriptures. So I would say that
Dhrubababu is right. I would only say that he would have been a shade more
accurate if he had said that "Hinduism is against mere intellectual
^^^^
interpretation of the scriptures.
Regards
Pradip
