SSS and Madhva (was Re: [Advaita-l] Review ofMarthaDoherty'scomments on Sri Satchidanandendra Sarasvati)
slu at bredband.net
Thu Mar 1 08:51:05 CST 2007
> > An then regarding your claim "testified by his own Guru": When SSS
> > wrote his
> > book "Mulavidya nirasa" in 1929, his Guru Sri Virupaksa Shastri
> > said that
> > "The style of the writing of the treatise is good, but the
> > exposition of the
> > subject matter is against the tradition".
> Thanks for proving my point.
No, it does not prove your point at all. If you took the next following
lines in my mail in consideration, you would see why. I wrote: "In other
words, Sri Virupaksa Shastri said that SSS´s treatment of mUlAvidyA was
against tradition. But this could hardly have been any big news to SSS,
since the very point with that book was to critizise the treatment of
mUlAvidyA within tradition!! To my knowledge, Sri Virupaksa Shastri never
called SSS an asampradayavit. And he never said that SSS´s book "should not
be respected by those who are desirous of liberation", as falsely claimed by
Martha Doherty in her PhD on SSS. This claim made by Doherty is baseless."
Moreover, you have not commented the fact that SSS was highly praised, among
others, by the shankaracharyas of Sringeri, Kanchi and Dwaraka. That was
also obvious from my mail, more precisely from the quote I presented there.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list