Mani-manjari vs Navadvipya-mahatmya (was Gaudiya epistemology and ontology)

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Vidyadhar Karmarkar" <vmk117

wrote:

 

> I don't have access to Mani manjari, but Sumeet had once posted the

> following on Vedic Society:

>

 

Thanks for posting this, Vidya. Now we know that Maadhvas do say

these things, and where they say these things.

 

As an aside, I thought it humorous how boldly Mani-manjari makes

these claims, especially considering the lack of supporting

evidence. It was like reading Navadviipa-mahaatmya all over again,

and like the NM, it seems to be a book which alleges all sorts of

unacceptable things about other aachaaryas just to explain their

relationship with one's own sampradaaya. And like NM, it likely has

no more value in debate.

 

But all the same, it was enlightening to see this.

 

K

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, krishna_susarla wrote:

> It was like reading Navadviipa-mahaatmya all over again,

> and like the NM, it seems to be a book which alleges all sorts of

> unacceptable things about other aachaaryas just to explain their

> relationship with one's own sampradaaya.

 

Do you mean that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura says things that are essentially

unacceptable?

 

 

 

> And like NM, it likely has no more value in debate.

 

Debate isn't the measure of all worth.

 

 

MDd