[Advaita-l] Re: Pa~nchapAdikAchArya
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Mon Oct 30 04:14:09 CST 2006
praNAms Sri Ramakrishna Balasubramanian prabhuji
On 9/28/06, bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> In that case, there is no need to drag SSS either here...because he too
> advocates *advaita's final result* without any ambiguity (ofcourse,
> the traditional line of shankara siddhAnta according to prasthAna
> traya)....For that matter it is evident from bhagavadpAda himself that
Actually it is only SSS who keeps dragging bhaamatii and vivaraNa, so
this is reply to that.
This dragging, Sri SSS thought,is indispensable coz. later vyAkhyAnakAra-s
like bhAmati & vivaraNa have not done justice to shuddha shankara
prakriya...instead they have devoted their time to invent new things to
counter the objections from dualistic schools...
> there was no difference of opinion in the ultimate siddhAnta of non
> duality by that time...inspite of that shankara has taken the task of
> writing the bhAshya why?? it is coz. he thought a systamatic & properly
> channelized procedure is lacking in propagation of upanishadic *same*
This is utterly irrelevant, because he was talking about *other*
traditions. Sankara was clear that he belonged to sampradaaya and
salutes his guru, who removed his ignorance and clearly that's who
shankara approached. He did not call his guru a blind man and
purported to correct his "wrong" views.
If the *difference* between mUlabhAshya & vyAkhyAna is quite conspicuous, I
dont think it is a big crime to bring it to the notice of the shankara
bhagavadpAda followers...Sri SSS exactly did the same thing...during the
process, Sri SSS might have made some passing comments...prabhuji, I dont
know why you are holding those passing comments close to your chest &
pointing out now & then..unnecessarily..
> Anyway, IMHO, as Sri Reddy prabhuji said, discussion about which
> SSS belong to?? with whom he studied shankara bhAshya?? whether he has
> taken saNyAsa within the traditional circle or not?? whethere he is
> reincarnation of shankara or not?? whether he is jnAnanishTa shrOtrIya
That may be Sri Siddhrathas view. Shankara is unambiguous that
brahmaj~naana is to be had by approaching a brahmavit only. If you
consider that as of secondary importance, please feel free to do that,
but don't expect me to agree with you.
you are welcome to have your own opinion on it...I have no objection, but
kindly read out onceagain in what context the above statement has been
made...you were telling that Sri SSS is wrong while commenting on
vyAkhyAnakAra-s & your thorough study of both vyAkhyAna & SSS works brought
back you to square one etc. !! we are asking you to show us your indepth
analysis of the same...instead of doing that constructive work, I dont know
why you are simply holding some trifle comments & making it a big issue...
> First, those who are vociferously questioing the credibility of SSS
> interpretation of shankarabhAshya, should prove that SSS is flawed in his
> interpretation by comparing the mUla bhAshya of shankara , vyAkhyAna
> interpretation of the same & SSS's objections to that interpretation &
> stand parallelly....I hope that would be useful for the neutral readers
> this list.
That's a separate point.
But you know prabhuji *this separate point* is the need of the hour!!!...No
need to mention, every one of us (especially followers of Sri SSS) eagerly
awaiting your scholarly analysis in which you have promised us to establish
where SSS is wrong & vyakhyAnakAra-s are right in interpreting shankara's
prasthAna trayi bhAshya.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list