[Advaita-l] ’upAsana' and 'bhakti' part 2

[ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli]

Namaste Satish,
The following are in response to someone else? They were not my statements. 


">Just as you feel the Shankaravijayam is a bundle of fanciful stories so too >do I feel about your ramblings on tantra and mantra.
   All I will say for now is that you are in for a rude shock if you really think each and every detail in the shankara vijayam is true. 


Not just to shankara vijaya, this comment of mine will apply even to hagiographies of well known tAntrika-s. 

I am sure this pleases you. :) So you know now that I am not using double standards. 


>This list which primarily discusses Advaita as taught by Shankara and His tradition is not >the place for the stuff you are coming 

up with.  Pl. keep them away from >this List and spare the members here the space and time for discussing the >true agenda 

of this List.

 Ah! Talking about relevancy...are we now? This thought of yours would have saved many people's time, if only it occurred a few weeks before. :"


Shankar


----- Original Message -----
From: ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj at yahoo.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] ’upAsana' and 'bhakti' part 2



Namaste Satish,

"The preta-mata [Christians]  & the rAkShasa mata could similarly say 
something on these lines quoting their respective books...it is only 
that they cannot prove/verify  it.. other than quoting a text"

Not exactly. There is an entire subject that worries about what is provable, what is not, what is axiomatic and so on. What is acceptable as sabda pramana, is based on how it fares with what is verifiable and not otherwise. 

So it might well be okay to say acceptance of Sruti is belief, but for that matter all the upAsana SAstra is based on sabda pramana too. The issue comes when such "belief" has to be based on something that is contrary to what is verifiable, which is the case with abrahamics. 




Shankar


________________________________