shvu 1 Report post Posted April 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I think everyone will agree with this. The only disagreement would be on how we define authentic sources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An authentic source is what is defined by the respective tradition, for both biographies and philosophy. Shankara is also said to have written Sthirasiddhi, a work on Nyaya. But if one wants to study Nyaya, this work should not be his choice, because Shankara is not from that school. For example, I have read 2 different biographies of Chaitanya. In one, he dies of old age. In another, he ran into the sanctum sanctorum of a temple and the doors closed behind him. When people opened the door, he had disappeared. In such cases, whatever is said in the Chaitanya Charitamrita would be the right one, I would think. Similarly there are conflicting biographies of Shankara, out of which the Madhava Vijayam is accepted as the authentic one by the Advaitins. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is a wrong conception to think that sruti texts are monopoly of advaitins, as it is also a fake to imagine that smrti texts are only meant for karmis and for bhaktas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually no one thinks so, to the best of my knowledge. The Vishsistadvaitins and the Dvaitins are also based on the Vedanta, although they interpret them in different ways. I was just saying that Vedanta is the highest authority for a vedantic school, whichever school it may be. Neither does it mean that everything else is worthless. The point is, what is not important to us, may be important to someone else, and hence should not be criticized. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
