Re: [correct vs. apaurushEya]
From the Bhakti List Archives
• April 4, 2000
In response to my remark/query: > > I had the impression that visistAdvaita philisophy (and vedAnta in genera= > l) > seem to rest, among other things, on two premises: > > 1. The veda is apaurushEya (un-authored and beginningless), and > 2. The veda is correct. > > But it appears to me that the first premise is redundant. Srimans Hari and Mani have very appropriately pointed out that the correctness of the veda by itself is not sufficient to establish its validity as a pramANa; its apaurushEyatva serves the purpose of confirming its correctness. I am grateful for this clarification. krishNArpaNam Kasturi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files. Install today: http://click.egroups.com/1/2344/2/_/716111/_/954876182/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH - To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list@eGroups.com Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information
- Next message: Srimahavishnu Vinjamuri: "HAPPY UGADI"
- Previous message: Sadagopan: "Srimath RaamAyanam: NavAha PaarAyaNam of Sundara KaaNDam"
- Maybe in reply to: M.S.HARI (Madabhushi Sarangarajan Hari): "Re: [correct vs. apaurushEya]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]