Bad take. Paurāṇika timescales or a literal understanding of Yugas are not the make-or-break issue you deem them to be. There is scope for interpretation.
Those who get angry at non-literal, data-concordant, more robust & creative interpretations of yuga timescales should also get angry at this kind of take, for instance:
What you saw was Śrī Ganganath Jha’s translation of a portion of Kumārilabhaṭṭa’s Tantravārttika (His Siddhānta portion, not Pūrvapakṣa).
You can still disagree with his take but Kumārila is as legit as it gets.
You can still disagree with his take but Kumārila is as legit as it gets.
The only thing that makes a Guru ‘legit’ is the desire for truth. What would make a “legit Guru” superior to others of his class is clear-headed thinking i.e. knowing where & how to apply Śabdapramāṇa & where not.
Blind denialism of any evidence or rigor in matters is an attitude of recklessness towards truth. Thus, even if one is learned in all Śāstras, he can’t be said to have a desire for truth.
We may be charitable & take the position that he lacks clear thinking & has not grasped how to handle both Śāstra & data/evidence without giving up on either. But that would not be a great look for the Vidvān, would it?
Here’s an example of a healthy take by a Śivavipra scholar of the Ādiśaiva Brāhmaṇa community. He differentiates between the supernatural & the historical accounts of the Ādiśaivas community’s origins, without denying either.
Loading suggestions...