jagannathan.mahadevan at gmail.com
Wed Sep 13 20:53:21 CDT 2006
I was trying to follow this thread but ended up getting confused a little bit:
1) Is Pancadasi same as Panchapadika?
2) I did not see any quotations from the work itself in the arguments:
only exclamations and comments on whose interpretation of the work is
more precise (Sri SSS or Sri Vidyaranya/citsuka et al.)
3) What is it about Sri-SSS's interpretation of Pancadasi that
disagrees with Sri Vidyaranya for example? (Kartik, I agree Pancadasi
is quoted as an authority by Sri Vidyaranya, but what is the point of
contention exactly - for instance does Sri-SSS disagree with the
interpretation of Sri Vidyaranya or with the work itself ? if so what
does he not agree with?)
4) From the brief quotation by Rama from Sri SSS's comments, I do feel
avidya is not maaya and hence subscribe to that statement. Please
explain why that is not true ( Rama, I am unable to decipher the
apparent error in that)?
5) To Rama: what was the point in your last mail in connection with
this context? I do not know what was said to you in person; what are
the modifications and changes that has come about?
On 9/13/06, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> I received a personal email from someone, which is prompting me to write this.
> The idea of a "true" tradition which is "lost" and then "rediscovered"
> is a very *Western* concept and is utterly alien to the Indian/Hindu
> way of thinking. In the Hindu way of thinking the same underlying
> philosophy exists - sanaatana dharma. No one can destroy it. The
> sampradaayavids always exist. Modifications on top of the fundamental
> ideas happen over time, which do not invalidate the sampradaaya.
> Changes are accepted and embraced. They are not harshly criticized.
> This is the fact. Most Western educated Indians themselves are not
> aware of this key fact and adopt a historical analysis of anything and
> everything, which will lead you no where in the Indian philosophy - at
> least if you are a practitioner, or want to really understand the
> Hindu way of thinking. But historical analysis is certainly good if
> you want to write papers in journals and publish books.There is a
> saying that when biologists don't know what to do, they'll start
> classifying things. The same goes for philosophers arranging
> philosophy within neat historical compartments.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list