>Shrisha Rao <email@example.com> wrote in article <ghenE3LwI9.F6G@netcom.com>...
>> Well, yes and no. These are stated to be statements of puurva-paksha
>> in a PuraaNa. Ananda Tiirtha's Mahaabhaarata-taatparya-nirNaya
>Just for my education, what does "puurva-paksha" mean?
Whenever a traditional Vedantic text is to be begun, one has to
justify it. It needs to have a proper subject, a proper purpose, and
a non-empty set of individuals qualified to study it. In order for
there to be a complete absence of doubt in the minds of individuals
who study that text, there has to be a clear exposition of a possible
doubt about the worth of the text (granthaM nAraMbhaNIyaM, kAkadanta
parIxAgranthavat.h -- this text is not worth being begun, just as a
text to study the teeth of a crow), etc. That is a statement of a
doubt or sandeha. Similarly, when dealing with specific points where
one wishes to expound upon one's own position on a certain point, all
pertinent opposite views have to be stated clearly. Such an opposite
view is a puurva-paksha, and one who upholds such a view is called a
puurva-pakshin. In other words, a puurva-paksha is a statement of an
existing concept or understanding that one wishes to refute.
>> >can debate on that basis. However, the practice of quoting verses from
>> >sections of the Puraanas is certainly not unique to any one school;
>> Is that right. Can you give some examples of quotes from "lost
>> sections of the Puraanas" quoted by any non-Gaudiya schools?
>AS Raghavan does this a couple of times in his book on Vishishtadvaita (he
>is a follower of that tradition). I'm sure no one would do it to prove or
I don't know of any AS Raghavan, and I also don't know if the
VishishhTaadvaita tradition holds him in high esteem. I suspect not;
although Raghavan is surely a fine man in his own way, he sounds like
some fairly recent chap, perhaps one whose standard of scholarship
does not do adequate justice to the tradition which he allegedly
represents. Are there any examples from the stalwarts? Or even
considering that Raghavan is one other example, there have to be more
or else one would have to say that the practice is certainly unique
since the major scholars don't do it, and because only one other
example of a recent claimed affiliate can be found.
>I didn't want Ramakrishnan to take your opinions regarding the paramparaa
>issue to be representative of all Maadhvas. Apparently, some Maadhvas have
>no problem accepting that Gaudiiyas have a historical connection with the
That is because claims like "This Bhagavad-gita As It Is is received
through this disciplic succession," etc., are very recent, and many
traditional Maadhva scholars haven't awakened to it yet. That
situation, I'm happy to say, is in the process of being remedied even
as we speak.