 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
> So the position of say a dvaitin, on the verses
>>praising shiva in the Padma puraaNa, would be that it is apramaaNa. Note
>>however that this explicitly accepts the superiority of the vedas, atleast
>for
>>arguments with other schools.
[The above by Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]
Well, yes and no. These are stated to be statements of puurva-paksha
in a PuraaNa. Ananda Tiirtha's Mahaabhaarata-taatparya-nirNaya covers
the Padma P. issue, but I'm sorry I don't have access to that text
presently. Perhaps someone else might.
>>OTOH, at least on the net, you people keep quoting some verse from Padma
>puraaNa
>>(supposedly, I am not sure that it exists since no one else, not even the
>>Madhvas seem to have heard of this verse
>
>The verse you are probably referring to is the "four sampradaayas" verse
>which is not found in any extant version of the Puraana. However, it can
>nevertheless be seen to be correct since the only schools mentioned are
>those which have understood the Vaishnava, dualistic conclusions of the
>Vedas.
A highly unconvincing way of arguing, if I may be permitted the
remark. It assumes without evidence that:
1> the conclusions of the Vedas are Vaishnava and dualistic;
2> the schools named follow/state these correctly;
3> the internal differences of these schools do not matter at all
-- that there are such differences is obvious, for otherwise there
would be one school and not four.
Even a committed dualist who because of understanding or fancy
accepted 1 and 2 would nonetheless have much trouble with 3, for it
would mean that the Vedas are ambiguous, thus putting into question
the worth of studying them at all.
If you wish to say that the verse is wrong because some of the
>schools mentioned therein have not understood the Vedas, or that there are
>other schools with a proper understanding which have been omitted, then we
>can debate on that basis. However, the practice of quoting verses from lost
>sections of the Puraanas is certainly not unique to any one school;
Is that right. Can you give some examples of quotes from "lost
sections of the Puraanas" quoted by any non-Gaudiya schools?
>If you wish to keep claiming that the paramparaa listing through Madhva is
>incorrect, then it behooves you to show how this is so.
Very simple; because the person claimed to be Vyaasa Tiirtha's
disciple and Krishna Chaitanya's initiator's initiator is not called a
Tiirtha, as he would be were he a Maadhva. There is no record of
Vyaasa Tiirtha having had such a disciple, either. As such, the
listing is prima facie incorrect, and is stated to be so by
B.N.K. Sharma, et al. Besides, the sannyaasii-s of the Gaudiya
tradition follow rules very similar to those of the Ramanuja tradition
(wearing the sacred thread, reciting the Gayatri, being tri-daNDi,
etc.), but dissimilar in all these respects to those of the Maadhva or
Advaita traditions. This is further evidence against the claimed
link, for if the claimed link were authentic, the practices would be
identical to that of Maadhva sannyaasii-s.
>I have already pointed out that H.H. Vishvesha Tiirtha spoke very highly of
>Srila Prabhupada and the Gaudiiya paramparaa at the Maayaapur Samaadhi
>inauguration. I have this on very good authority from devotees who were
>actually there, and I even managed to obtain a transcript. In response to
>this, you simply said that the information was unreliable, but gave no good
>reason as to why. If this is going to be your response to any evidence
The matter is easily decided; if you would kindly provide the copy of
the transcript, I will e-mail the same to the Vidyapeetha and have it
confirmed or repudiated, as the case may be, by His Holiness's
secretarial staff.
Note, however, that the claim of Sri Vishvesha Tiirtha having spoken
in that fashion has nothing to do with the lineage issue. I don't
know why you brought it up.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>H. Krishna Susarla
-- http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|