Jan 12, 2003 11:00 AM
by D. H. Caldwell " <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I give four quotes from BAG's postings:
(1) "The Vedic Hymns cannot be understood without reference to the
Vaishnava Sattvic (canonical ) Puranas, which context them and
(2) "In the earlier and authentic theistic Vedic Vaishnava
tradition, the Deity Name Purusha, like Purusottama, is understood as
refering to Vishnu or Asurya, the Supreme Being, Supreme Spirit and
Soul of the Universe. To properly understand the Vedas, it is
necessary therefore to study them in the context of the Vaishnava
Tradition of exegesis, including the Puranas."
(3) "Self Realization in the Vedic-Vaishnava Tradition of the Gita
means realizing one's UNIQUE PERSONAL SELF IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE
PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD."
(4) "The Vedic-Vaishnava Sanskrit texts"
What are some of BAG's underlying assumptions in the above quotes?
And how do we know that these assumptions are true?
Is the so-called "Vedic-Vaishnava Tradition" the only authentic
tradition in "Hinduism"?
Did the Vaishnavas write the Vedas? Did the Vaishnavas write the
When did the Vaishnava movement begin?
Notice BAG's statement:
"To properly understand the Vedas, it is necessary therefore to study
them in the context of the Vaishnava Tradition of exegesis, including
Why? Are there no other authentic traditions of exegesis other than
the Vaishnava one?
One may read all of the above scriptures in a "theistic" light but
can not one, also, see the above scriptures in a "pantheistic"
context? Or some other context?
These are just some of the questions that come to my mind as I mull
over what BAG has written.
I hope that these and other issues will be seriously discussed on
It is good that BAG challenges the assumptions of Theosophists but
BAG's own assumptions should also be challenged and scrutinized.
Daniel H. Caldwell
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application