> On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote>
> Namas te. Thank you for your lengthy reply. Since I have
> myself taught others most of the things you've mentioned
> here, for many years, I don't need to convince you that I
> understand and agree with you about them. So I'll just comment
> on a few things.
> That the teachings of both coincide does not make sha.nkara a plagiarist.
> Not so. Read on.
> That way the
> giitaa is a
> > plagiarism from the vedas.
> Again not so. Sri Krsna is the author of the Vedas, as He Himself
> asserts in 15.15. Sankara is not the author, nor is Sai Baba, but
Huh? The vedas are apaurusheyatva and not "written" by the Lord. Please talk
> their interpretations would lead one to believe that they are,
> since they claim, or fail to deny, that Sankara and Sai Baba are
> also God.
> In short, as far as philosophy in Indian tradition . . .
> (very eloquently put)
> > Now if you can provide quotes from Satya Sai Baba where he mentions verses from
> > the giitaa (perhaps in his lectures) and claimed that he made them up himself,
> > I'll eat all my words and admit that he is a plagiarist.
> The logic of his interpretations obviates the need for this.
> And this conclusion is inescapable if one accepts such an
You not agreeing with Sai Baba's interpretation does not make him a plagiarist.
Many people disagree with Prabhupada's translation too.
> I appreciate your point, and I think mine is clear and cohesive
> as well.
I don't think so. A clear case of the cart before the horse. You start out by
disagreeing with Sai Baba based on Prabhupada's interpretation and then call
others plagiarists. Typical ISKCON "logic", I must say.
I'll also take the opportunity to answer HKS's claim that the Gaudiya tradition
has great respect for the vedas since Baladeva wrote commentaries on the
upanishads. Of course it was conveniently forgotten that he did it purely
because the Gaudiyas were threatened with extinction. His Brahma Sutra Bhashya
is supposed to be a copy of that of the Madhva school. It was also conveniently
forgotten that the supposed commentaries on the upanishads no longer exist.
This is the amount of respect the Gaudiyas have for vedanta. One can only
hazard a guess whether Baladeva actually wrote something worthwhile in those
commentaries or merely copied Ananda Tirtha's commentaries. Given the record of
quoting non-existent verses from Upanishads, verses not found in any extant
copy of the Padma purana (sic) one wonders if he just submitted a few blank
pages with some random shlokas.
The rest of HKS's long, rambling post with no points, I'll just ignore.