[Advaita-l] Inter Religious Dialogue - Part 1

Vidyasankar Sundaresan svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 22 08:57:58 CST 2011

> RV: CAPEEM and other law suits were based on discriminatory and derogatory
> treatment of Hinduism in the US schools and colleges. If you are interested
> in the evidence for discrimination, Kalavai Venkat will be happy to walk
> you through that.

I am perfectly aware of all of these. However, to quote your own words, when
dealing with a complex subject, much care has to be taken to not group them
and generalize! Your blanket assertions and reiterations clumping all and sundry
together are a clear case (to me) of unwarranted generalizations. 
> RV: I agree that Brahman transcends even the Vedas. But the term Sabda
> Brahman for the Vedas is used by the Lord in Bh. G. 6.44 to the
> Vedas. Madhusudana explicitly says Sabda Brahman refers to the Vedas.

The gItA reference to Sabda brahman has not made the pUrva mImAMsA
tradition accept an idealized picture of eternal existence of Sabda brahman.
What they mean by nityatva of the veda is quite different from what the
grammarians accept as eternal existence of Sabda brahman. And what
vedAnta says about it is also quite different from both pUrva mImAMsA and
vyAkaraNa. You are clubbing nityatva and apaurusheyatva together, which
is not the case for vedAnta at all.
I am at a loss to know what exactly your position is. Perhaps as you develop
clarity on it yourself, you will be able to articulate it better.  
For example, is your point that Western academic scholars mis-represent
the apaurusheyatva of the veda? There are exceptions to this generalization.
Or is your point that eternal existence of Sabda brahman should be accepted
by every human being on the face of this earth? Then you would differ from a
whole list of illustrious advaita vedAntins. Or is your point merely that if one
accepts Sabda brahman as eternally existent, then apaurusheyatva of the
veda necessarily follows? Not necessarily. Only nityatva follows, but not in the
sense meant by mImAMsA. Or is your point merely that you absolutely do not
want to read what academic scholars from a contemporary university setting
have to say about it (which was your reaction when I made a suggestion about
what you could read)? If so, then a fundamental requirement would be to get
a very solid grounding in Sanskrit, its grammar and pUrva mImAMsA in a
traditional manner, before venturing on opinions.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list