Sankhya vs. Advaita Vedanta
achandra at WNMAIL.WNDEV.ATT.COM
Mon Feb 15 10:02:39 CST 1999
Shrisha Rao wrote:
> To the extent that Advaita *is defined by* what Shankaracharya wrote,
> quoting him is indeed sufficient, as Ramakrishnan observed. The point to
> be made is that Advaita is not what someone would like it to be, or what
> someone else believes it to be, but is exactly what is written in the
> original texts of the tradition.
I thought that Advaita stems from expositions like Neti Neti, Aham Brahmasmi and
Soaham etc. Sri Shankara was the most brilliant philosopher that the world has
ever seen but how can one make a statment like Advaita *is defined by* Sri
Shankara's writings. His interpreted the Shrutis too. It might be the case that
his methodical and piercing approach is not visible, or available, in writings
prior to his coming.
Is it correct that if someone were to write Bhashyas on certain Upanishads and
Brahma Sootra, that would also be considered Advaitam, if the sections of these
texts were to be interpreted in the light of the concept of Brahma in the
> It is easy to be misled by the writings
> of Vivekananda, et al, but their relationship to the original Advaitic
> tradition is quite tenuous, at best, and it is unclear why their opinions
> should be considered binding on the authors of the doctrine.
To what is the nature of the relationship of Swami Vivekananda to Advaita been
ascribed to as being tenous ?
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
List archives : http://listserv.tamu.edu/archives/advaita-l.html
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list