Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Thanks to Sri Harsha for a scholarly reply. But I think things like "Sankara arranged for vedic puuja in Bodh gaya" is not a verifiable attribution. There are so many stories attributed to Sankara. There is universal agreement only on few of them and most of them are quite questionable. For crying out loud, we do not even know in which century Acharya was born and maTha-s are in bitter disagreement over many things. What we know for sure is that Sankara dismisses buddhism in his major works. If Buddhism is incorrect from the point of view of vedAnta (all major schools), then purpose of buddhaavatara is only to mislead and hence karuNa argument does not stand. Also we do not know by Buddha, whether people mean Gautama the buddha or aadi buddha. These futile discussions were beaten to death in advaita-l and I see no point in repeating it in . I respectfully disagree with some points below and but owing to my ignorance of the texts described , I withdraw from this discussion. I do plan to study them in future. But I think most of them are later compositions and must be evaluated in each instance for its merrit. I think it better to approach them with questions than faith. In any case, thanks again for your scholarly post. At least as Adi-shakti suggested to me in person, I should start reading Rudra-yAmaLa to start with. With best regards, Ravi > > Satish Arigela [satisharigela] > Monday, February 23, 2004 11:25 PM > > Fwd: Dashavataras from Sri Harsha > > > > > Harsha Ramamurthy <harsha_ramamurthy wrote: > "Harsha Ramamurthy" > To: > Hello > Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:53:37 +0530 > > <snip> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.