[Advaita-l] Re: Pa~nchapAdikAchArya
rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com
Fri Nov 10 19:26:09 CST 2006
Dear Sri Venkat,
This will be my last mail on this topic.
On 10/25/06, venkata subramanian <venkat_advaita at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In any case, is your contention that either Virupaksha Sastri or Swami Sivabhinava Narasimha Bharati were the brahmavits he approached? If they were, then they accepted the pa~ncapaadika and they were brahmavits anyway. So what is the harm in using the pa~ncapaadika? But actually that's not the situation, no? SSS considered all these people blind!
> I dont think that to be a Brahmavit - one should accept Panchapadika. It is a sub-commentary with its own logical explanations. thats it. we are placing logic beyond its status - making it an over rated virtue. The Brahma Vidya that is conveyed in the Sruthi - that is the Tradition, which SSS received from his Gurus. Whether any logical explanation (like whether Avidya is Bhava or Abhava etc) those should be secondary details.
This is like me saying that Z is an alphabet in English with you
countering that Z does not exist in Swahili. AllI said was that IF Sri
Narasimha Bharati and Sri Virupaksha Sastri were brahmavits, then
accepting the pa~ncapaadika did not stand against getting
brahma-j~naana. I never said that to be a brahmavit you nedd to accept
the pa~ncapaadikaa. So using the pa~ncapaadikaa is not a problem,
period! Whether it's a necessity was not covered by me at all. As a
matter of fact, Sri Candrashekhara Bhaarati Svaaminah has clearly and
explicitly stated that to gain brahma-j~naana you need not even study
the shAnkara bhAshyas, so where is the pa~ncapaadikaa then?!!
> He has used Panchapaadika and he felt that that there is no need it and that the Bhashyas are self sufficient. I dont think that if one were to accept only one's Guru upadesa, - without considering any additional "aid", that should be a sacrilege.
> > By the way, i fully agree with you that tradition is not got by book reading. But is it not a fact that this Swamigal has read in the traditional way under Gurus. he never book read himself....
> Actually this is repudiated directly by his direct disciple in a
> publication by the kaaryaalaya itself. Mr Gangolli claims that all
> these people did not understand shankara, and it was SSS (with some
> help from Krishnaswamy Iyer) who did it all by himself.
> Ramaji, you cannot consider such books and authors to make your view on that Swamigal. i can say only so much on this.
SSSs own disciple, writes in a book published by SSSs own institution
that SSS gained knowledge by self-study. Yes, that's what I would
indeed choose to believe. Unless you have some other more convincing
As far as I can see:
1. SSS repudiated Sri Narasimha Bharati and Virupaksha Sastri by
calling them blind men. So they were not his gurus.
2. SSS's disciple says that SSS gained brahma-j~naana by self-study of bhAshyas!
I have provided direct quotes in support of the above. It has been
countered, as far as I can see, by speculation only. I leave it to
unbiased readers to make conclusions for themselves.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list