mahendra varma pallava
panchap at ICSL.UCLA.EDU
Tue Jun 15 15:38:15 CDT 1999
> He may have attacked Jainism or Buddhism. But does this
> necessarily mean what he wrote about them is false? Was there a
> basis in reality for what he wrote about them? Even Sureshvara,
> the direct disciple of Shankara, was a mImAmsaka before he "converted"
> to advaita. And he wrote criticisms of the mImAmsakas themselves after
> his "conversion." We do not take such criticisms of Sureshvara as lacking
> in truth and substance just because "he had reasons to attack mImAmsA."
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the above argument is valid.
The question of the truth in Sureshvaracharya's attacks on
logic/metaphysics of opposing systems is one of logic/philosophy, but any
claims/accusations of copying, are historical claims, and do not have the
same validity. They are to be settled by historical research, not by any
extension of valid philosophical criticism by Sureswara on mImAmsA or
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list