Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00206)

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 
explain them." 

(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 
Upanishads? etc.

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 
the Puranas."

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 
this forum.

It is good that BAG challenges the assumptions of Theosophists but 
BAG's own assumptions should also be challenged and scrutinized.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc