[Advaita-l] Modern science and Vedanta.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> > RV: Quran claims itself to be inerrant which Bible does not. Roman
> > Catholic Church does not say it is infallible but says Bible is inerrant
> > though our interpretations could be wrong. I do not know if you represent

I suppose you have a little bit of reading to do on the doctrine of papal infallibility
in the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, but that is peripheral to our list. Here
is something to get you started - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility.

All I meant to say was that our tradition's view of differences of opinion among
AcAryas within the same tradition is quite different from what most people expect
today, with their thinking being heavily conditioned by the assumptions of Western
civilization. And I will leave alone your statements about sarvajna-tva because I can
see that this discussion is quickly becoming fruitless and I have no desire to continue.

> > RV: If you unduly call me apologetic when I offer reasons for my position,
> > I will complain to the moderator about your rude post and ask for it to be
> > expunged from the proceedings. Or like the frog, in the story, who was
> > crushed by Rama's bow, keep quite :) When Rama asked the frog is said to
> > have replied,"When others hurt me, I cry to you Rama for help but who do I
> > call now?"

I am surprised that you think my usage of the word apologetic is rude, while you
used the same adjective with respect to an unnamed translator! Did you mean to
be rude to that unknown person? I did not intend to be rude to you, merely ironic.
 
Your position and the reasons you offered for it are not in consonance with each
other. On the one hand, you say that MS does not differ from Sankara. On the other,
you say that Sankara sees two verses as two separate sentences, whereas MS,
along with a number of other commentators, sees the same two verses as one
sentence. That in itself is a difference, wouldn't you agree?

Now, I have tried to explain to you that even in Sankara's commentary, the two
verses are indeed taken as one complex sentence, and that you are (or whoever
you are listening to, is) mistaken about how Sankara interprets the said verses.
Please read carefully and think twice before responding emotionally. And I don't
mean that you need to read my post carefully. I mean that you need to read
Sankara bhagavatpAda's bhAshya carefully. Needless to say, you also need to
read madhusUdana sarasvatI's gUDhArthadIpikA carefully.
 
That said, unlike Rama and the frog, this list has two other moderators in addition
to me. If you wish to make a complaint about my responses to you, including this
one, please feel free to do so. Since you are using legislative language about 
proceedings and expunging them selectively, let me use judicial language and 
promise you that I will recuse myself from any decision making process in this 
regard. In any case, please remember that all posts made to the list are part of
a permanent and public record; nothing gets expunged.
 
> >
> 
> 
> > As for Anandagiri's comments on the SAnkara bhAshya, he talks about states
> > of mind because Sankara himself also talks of states of mind. And Sankara
> > talks about states of mind, because the gItA verse in question itself talks
> > of
> > states of mind. The only bone of contention then is whether the word
> > "yatra",
> > by itself, indicates a state of mind, a mano'vasthA viSesha or the kAla
> > when
> > that state of mind is attained.
> >
> RV: I did not say that Sankara or Anandagiri is saying anything different
> from the Gita. What is your point?

My point, again, is that you need to read your selected texts carefully, if you are
so inclined as to do comparative textual research and come to conclusions like
the ones you want to convey here. However, the rigour required to embark upon
such a study does not come through in your postings. 
 
> RV: You are confusing between the connection and lack of it in the verses
> and how Sankara reads them. If you simply see any decent translation like
.... ... ...
> contact with sorrow to be what is called yoga (6.23). I think [{()}] have
> value in programming but not in grammar. I dont want you to take my word for
> it but study it along with a grammarian instead of coming to a conclusion
> without required knowledge of grammar.

I withdraw from further discussion with you at this point and refer you to that old
English adage about glass houses and throwing stones. Someone who thought,
not too long ago, that the Tamil pronunciation of "sagotharan" for the Sanskrit
word sodara/sahodara is instead derived from the term "sa-gotra", should think
twice before preening about their grasp over the grammar and usage of the
Sanskrit language.
 
Wishing you good luck with your studies on madhusUdana sarasvatI and bhakti,
 
Vidyasankar