Dear Bhagavatars, re venerable NC Nappinai's arguments. Using scientific metaphors and similies doesn't work here. One needs to look at the evidence and draw conclusions, not fit the evidence to the scholastic conclusion. I think that this is what we tend to do as Vaishnavas. Objectively, all the "Vedic" evidence points towards a "nameless" Supreme Being who can be called by whatever name one choses. Hence the various sects can quite justifiably use the very same Vedas to support their claim of sectarian monopoly on God. The problem is the framing of the thesis. If we declare subjectively - "I BELIEVE that the Supreme Being is Sriman narayana only" - then there is no argument because it is a personal conviction. But when we declare objectively - "THE SUPREME BEING IS NARAYANA ONLY" then we need to provide objective Scriptural evidence to convince others. And I'm afraid such exclusive evidence is lacking otherwise every Vedic scholar including Sankara Acharya, Swami Dayananda, Tilak, Aurobindo and others would have come to the same conclusion. Adiyen Sriram
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |