[Advaita-l] Question on Mayavada

Praveen R. Bhat bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Tue Dec 7 00:21:29 CST 2010

Hari OM, Rajaramji,

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani
<rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>   2. The padma purana verses do not refer to Sankara. Someone on the forum
>   supported the stand that it could refer to Ramanujacharya saying that when
>   the verse is clear there is no need to look at the following or preceding
>   statements. As a smartha brahmin, a son of a staunch advaitins and a devotee
>   of Sankara, I am dismayed by such shallow arguments.

Since I am also that "someone" who supported the stand, let me share
that I'm equally dismayed for the same reasons as stated by you for
bringing up the Padma Purana verse and arguments
in its favour. :)

If some one says,
>   "Rama, an incarnation of Vishnu, appeared at Sita's svayamvara. He wielded
>   the axe in a manner that scared kshatriyas assembled there". If one leaves
>   the second sentence, it will not refer to Parasurama.

This is an incorrect example to prove your case. When the second
sentence is a pronoun that refers to the earlier sentence, its clearly
a continuation of the person named earlier. Thats not how
it is in Padma Purana anyway. Its philosophically a very valid
argument to say that when the direct meaning is clear, an indirect
dependency from earlier quotations is not called for. Else the
argument violates law of parsimony.

--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list