[raincom]

It depends on the goal: whether one wants human knowledge or something exotic/esoteric/supra-mundane/Divine/super-natural knowledge, etc. (In Semitic religions, God's revelation is Divine knowledge, which is independent of human knowledge). If one wants human knowledge, we can't allow fundamental contradictions. But the article has such contradictions; maybe, these contradictions are there in the Sanskrit text or in the 'interpretations' over the last 2000 years.

At least I know, Sanskrit text doesn't talk about 'transcendent'. The transcendent of the interpreters is "Para" in Sanskrit. In Skt, it simply means: other. Even in many Indian languages, the word "para" is heavily used: "paradesi","paraayi vaallu"(in Telugu), etc.

It is like importing Semitic theology to understand these Sanskrit texts. I don't want to blame the Westerners. Even Indian Sanskritists (or the so-called Insiders) are the biggest offenders here. They also bullshit as if they are dealing with some kind of literary text.