The Mimaasaka perspective

[un824 at FREENET.VICTORIA.BC.CA]

Namaste,

Vidyasankar writes:

>..............The words of smrti are accepted as valid if they do
>not contradict the Sruti (vedas). In practice, this gives enormous
>flexibility for various traditions, even within Indian communities. So,
>someone like Plotinus or Eckhardt would be seen as not contradicting the
>vedas, and therefore acceptable. As you may be aware, people like
>Radhakrishnan have already pointed out the similarities.
>

OK, so let's assume Eckhardt's writings and realization are "acceptable" in
that they do not contradict vedas. Let's also assume Eckhardt had no access
to written copies of the vedas and he made no mention of anything literally
identifiable with them. We then seem to have the situation where the
essential universal truth was directly realized outside of literal contact
with the vedas. So, part of my original question remains to be answered,
which was...

>>If the essential universal truth can be directly realized outside of
>>contact with the vedas then how can the vedas be considered to be "the only
>>source by which Atman = brahman is known"?

If the vedas are maintained to be "the only source by which Atman = Brahman
is known" (and Eckhardt's realization is "acceptable" in that it does not
contradict the vedas) then in what way were the vedas the source of
Eckhardt's realization?

namaste,

Allan Curry