 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
This is totally false. I really wish you would take the time to get your
facts straight, rather than listening to any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens
to have a bone to pick with Gaudiiyas. Baladeva presented the Brahma-sutra
bhaashya because two Vaishnavas of the Raamaanuja order disupted the
Gaudiiya's claim to being a bona fide Vedanta tradition. As I understand
it, the story goes like this: these two Vaishnavas (I also heard that one
was from the Maadhva tradition, but I'm not sure about this) complained to
the King of Orissa that the Gaudiiyas were not really authentic Vaishnavas.
Baladeva tried to convince them on the basis of the Bhaagavatam, but they
did not accept this. So, he wrote and presented the Govinda-bhaashya
(called this because Lord Krishna Himself was said to have given him the
commentary) and defeated the two other Vaishnavas. In doing this, he
demonstrated that the Brahma-sutra and Bhaagavatam were nondifferent in
purpose, and furthermore he established the authenticity of the Gaudiiya
sampradaaya in the eyes of the ruling class.
There was certainly no danger of the sampradaaya going extinct, at least,
not at that time.
His Brahma Sutra Bhashya
> is supposed to be a copy of that of the Madhva school.
Oh really? Have you studied Madhva's Brahma Sutra Bhaashya as well as
Baladeva's? It seems to me like you are making spurious statements with no
evidence at all to back them up.
It was also conveniently
> forgotten that the supposed commentaries on the upanishads no longer
exist.
This is also false. Baladeva's commentary on the iishaavaasya is still
extant.
> This is the amount of respect the Gaudiyas have for vedanta.
I fail to see how the loss of several of Baladeva's commentaries can lead
one to conclude that Gaudiiyas have no respect for Vedanta. Furthermore, in
order to make such a claim, it seems like you would have to at least know
what Vedanta is. I have seen no evidence here or in any other forum that
you actually had a serious interest in the subject.
In fact, you yourself have stated, "I have no use for sampradayas or any
such thing."
(http://rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu:8080/srh_home/1995_12/msg00255.html). In
fact, in the same article, you also said: "I consider the Brahman or Lord
Krishna or Lord Shiva as wish you to call it, my guru. I am also indebted
to various personalities (too numerous to even mention) and books for
solving many of my doubts."
So, is this a delusion of grandeur, or did God really come and instruct you
in spiritual matters? Everyone knows that real advaitists do accept guru
and sampradaaya. And you would know that too if you were a real advaitin,
as opposed to a typical Hindu using advaita as an excuse to pick fights on
the net.
In any case, it is clear that anyone who refuses the principle of hearing
from a guru is certainly a hypocrite for accusing someone else of not
respecting Vedanta. Every Vedantist accepts the principle of learning from
a guru who comes in some sampradaaya.
One can only
> hazard a guess whether Baladeva actually wrote something worthwhile in
those
> commentaries or merely copied Ananda Tirtha's commentaries.
One can only hazard a guess as to why anyone could have the gall to make
statements like these, and then accuse others of having no respect for
Vedanta.
In fact, given Ramakrishnan's claims that all of Baladeva's Upanishad
commentaries were lost, one has to wonder how he could think that the
commentaries were copies of Aananda Tiirtha's. It seems a little difficult
that anyone in this day and age would have access to nonextant
commentaries, enough so that he could make the claim that said commentaries
are simply copies of older works.
Perhaps this is the same logic that would have us believe that authentic
Vedanta schools accept Puraanas as pramaana as long as they do not conflict
with shruti, and yet schools which "prefer to stick to Puraanas" as long as
they are consistent with shruti are still not Vedanta.
Or, more likely in this case, it is an example of intellectual dishonesty.
Given the record of
> quoting non-existent verses from Upanishads,
Ramakrishnan, would you be happy to eat your words if I can produce a
manuscript from a third party proving in fact that those verses do exist?
verses not found in any extant
> copy of the Padma purana (sic)
One verse not found in any extant copy. I fail to see how this supports
your thesis in any way.
Frankly, I don't think Gaudiiyas need any Padma Puraana verse to show that
your school is unauthorized. Practitioners of your tradition have been
defeated over and over again, just as you have been here.
As far as laymen are concerned, I think it is obvious that you seem to be a
very bitter and unhappy man. The fact that your only postings on SRH seem
to always do the same thing: namely, setting up strawmen and knocking them
down, suggest to me that there is very little joy for you in the practice
of your chosen path. Maybe you should consider this before you proceed to
criticize someone else.
one wonders if he just submitted a few blank
> pages with some random shlokas.
>
> The rest of HKS's long, rambling post with no points, I'll just ignore.
>
> Ramakrishnan
Naturally. Whenever a philosphical point is made that you cannot respond
to, you pretend that there is nothing to talk about. But as long as it
seems that I am saying something to insult you personally, you respond with
great zeal. How do I know that? Because you yourself said it: "This
happened once before and he tried to hit below the belt and butted in with
comments about evolution, chestbeating etc during a discussion I was having
with some else (Vivek or Vijay Pai, I don't remember). Of course I made
sure I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
hit below the belt in return and harder."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is archived at
http://rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu:8080/srh_home/1996_9/msg00040.html. Frankly,
I think it speaks volumes about your attitude and style of argument. You
care more about mud-slinging than about discussing philosophy.
Incidentally, you have a habit of saying things only to regret them later.
One example of this was when you made fun of Gaudiiyas for saying that
Shankaraachaarya is an incarnation of Shiva. But then we saw several
advaitins support this claim. Another time was when you claimed that the
classification of Puraanas as taamasic, raajasic, etc. was invented by
bigots. But then I produced evidence to support this, enough for you to
check it in any third-party publication of the Puraana. Instead of an
apology, all we got from you was curious silence.
I guess it must be hard for you to admit when you are wrong. It's better
instead to find a new angle from which to attack. Needless to say, this
lack of sincerity on your part isn't going to impress anyone.
-- K
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|