 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
The religious stature of a person cannot be used to defend what he says
on things not pertaining to religion. For example, the br.hadAraNyaka
upanishad talks of fire, water, earth, air and space as elements. That
does not mean that the r.shi yAjnavalkya is a scientist. There might
have been a time when these five were considered to be elements
throughout the world, but nowadays, any eighth grader will tell you
otherwise. No, yAjnavalkya is not a scientist, he is a philosopher, and
the upanishad is valued for its philosophy and for its religion, not for
the scientific knowledge of the period when it was written down. In
short, when a religious leader whose proper domain is religion makes
pronouncements on science (or history), scientists (or historians) are
well within their rights to point out his mistakes - "nahi nahi rakshati
kAshAya vastre."
[...]
> My request to people who want to garner credit for the Hindu
> accomplishment by citing realized souls is just this -
>
> Please do not quote 'out-of-context, non-existent, convenient-
> to-the-point' articles without verifying the authenticity of
> such. In the recent times, especially since the RJB times,
> claiming everything to be of the Hindu origin is a fad that
> better be checked.
>
> Vishnupriya
>
I don't understand the sentiments you espouse here. I doubt that the
article quoted originally by Madhava Turumella is 'non-existent'.
Madhava could not have made up the entire article. What would have been
his motive? Of course, he could have given some references, but I guess
it was from one of the numerous Kanchi-math-approved English
translations of Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati's Tamil speeches. Under
the circumstances, aren't you attributing the fad (that everything is of
Hindu origin) to Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati himself?
S. Vidyasankar
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|