[Advaita-l] Traditional Scholarship vs Modern Pseudo-Intellectualism

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com
Sat Nov 12 22:16:01 CST 2011

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 08:23, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste
> The question you are asking is depth or breadth better?  It is always
> better to know one thing in great depth than to know a hundred things
> in breadth.

And depth can not come without breadth here.
Any determination in one school can not come without refuting conflicting
schools. And to refute those schools one needs to study them without bias
to first school. So, both are needed.

> They say if you know only one mantra that is Gayatri Mantra and
> practice it sincerely not knowing any other mantra that is sufficient.
> No need to know anything more.

But, how could one practice gAyatrI without having determined validity of
veda-s ?

>From your example
> given below A is better than B. But B may look like a scholar.  But
> what is important?
> If all people call you a scholar but you are not reaching your
> spiritual goal what is the use?

Spirituality is not a goal unique to all. Why are you making it a scale ?

> The Western Academic Professors may be
> scholars but they
> are not practicing the knowledge. They are good for clearing exams and
> getting marks.

Do you mean that they can't understand because they don't practice ? Are
you practicing everything you know ? Or, is it ever possible to do so ? If
not, why are you insisting it for foreigners ?

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list