[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 1, Issue 32

bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Wed Jun 11 01:11:47 CDT 2003

praNAms Hare Krishna

>  Sorry, directly I marked it to Sri Jaldhar prabhuji.

>  Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
---------------------- Forwarded by Bhaskar YR/BAN/INABB/ABB on 06/11/2003
07:05 AM ---------------------------
 (Embedded     Bhaskar YR/BAN/INABB/ABB                                                              
 image moved   06/11/2003 06:57 AM (Phone: +91 80 8395181, Dept.: AUTPE)                             
 to file:                                                                                            

To:    "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com>
Subject:    RE: [Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 1, Issue 32 (Document
       link: Bhaskar YR)

Security Level:?              Internal

Which leads to another question.  Why is there no mention of this Prajna
Tirtha in the works of Shankaracharya?  Either at that point the Dvaita
school did not exist , its views were not original enough to mention, or
it was not significant enough to be noticed.  As a comparison, we have the
names of several ancient philosophers such as Bodhayana who can be
reliablely identified as Vishishtadvaitins.  We know of their views not
just from texts of their own school, but from outsiders.

I think it is more plausible to believe as Jay suggested that the Dvaita
school did not exist at that time.  It's philosophy developed as a result
of and in reaction to Shankaracharya.

>  praNAm prabhuji
>  Hare Krishna
>  You are absolutely right prabhuji, though there is a mention about
*dvaita* & its negation from the persepctive of sAnkhya & vaiShEShikas, it
is quite obvious that Sri shankar  not directly dealt with strictly as per
Sri MadhvAchArya's pancha bhEda dvaita siddanta.   Sri Shankara clarifies
this clearly in sUtra bhAshya that, by that time,  there is no disagreement
among the followers of the upanishads with regard to the uniformity of
upanishadic purports which  deals with the identity of the individual & the
supremeself.  All teachers of mOksha hold that correct knowledge alone
leads to the final release nothing else.  This is quite evident that if
there were schools insisting upon absolute difference in final deliverance
also between Atman & paramAtman, shankara could not have said that there
was an universal agreement among vedantins in ultimate realisation.  Nor he
could have made the sweeping statement that knowledge alone was considered
as the one means of final release, if he had met with schools like dvaita &
v.dvaita which uphold the importance of divine grace, bhakti or any similar
means other than jnAna for the ultimate realisation.
>Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic21726.pcx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1640 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </archives/advaita-l/attachments/20030611/9585715e/attachment.obj>

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list