[Advaita-l] Traditional Scholarship vs Modern Pseudo-Intellectualism

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> 
> > Unlike A, B thinks that each of the traditions he has studied have good
> > rational arguments in favor of their respective interpretations, and it's
> > impossible to say that one school got it right everywhere, and others
> > didn't.
> 
> 
> So, it comes that good study of B has led him to a state of lack of
> conclusion. And it also comes that a neutral person as B either lacks
> capacity to decide or can't understand those all texts. He has just read
> them.
> It also appears that B studied without any motive to acquire determination
> according to one school and he didn't bother to reach it even if he was
> able to understand them. Here he differs from traditional people.

Not necessarily so. With the right attitude and the right inputs, B can come to
a state of personal conclusion, but still possess the ability to teach others what
they need to know and to let others come to their own conclusions at their own
pace. He or she can see perfectly well what the determination is according to
one school. In Indian intellectual history, we have had many master scholars
who were capable of doing just that. For example, vAcaspati miSra, who wrote
with as much authority on nyAya and yoga as on mImAMsA and vedAnta. 

Or rarely, B may be able to synthesize elements from different traditions in a
unique way. If B is able to do this so that the different elements harmonize well
and do not conflict with each other, then time takes care of the authenticity of 
that new vision that B may contribute. 
 
Regards,
Vidyasankar