[Advaita-l] jnAna-vijnAna, gradations in Atma jnAna,

[Ravishankar Venkatraman]

>From: NARAYANA MURTHY <malahanikareswara at yahoo.co.in>

>
>   My family belong to shrungeri sharada peetham and that of my wife’s 
>belong to kanchi math.  As already said by shri. Vidyasankar, no one can 
>officially or unofficially talk on behalf of either of the maths.  But the 
>tone and tenor of your letter gave an impression that devotees of shrungeri 
>math pour vitriolics about kanchi math.  This is far from true.  For one 
>thing, the devotees of shrungeri math have high esteem for periavaas of 
>kanchi math.  Without prejudice to this fact, they address the issues from 
>a historical or intellectual platform wherever they warrant so.
>

The article in the link speaks for itself. I am not giving any impression 
here. Time and again sanyAsis of the tradition have been belittled to 
promote a particular point of view.

A reader will know what is prejudiced writing and what is not. The purpose 
of my post was not to bring this topic again, but to highlight the bias of 
the forum while discussing certain topics.

>   Coming to the link given by you in kamakoti.org, in which 
>shri.ra.ganapathi wrote about our paramacharyaal and paramacharyaal of 
>kanchi. First these were write ups of sh.ra.ganapathi.  Sh.ganapathi is a 
>very articulative writer.  But, there were factual inaccuracies in the 
>article.  Contrary to what is written there, Shri.Chandrashekara Bharathi 
>swaminah have never discouraged

I do not think that Sri. Ra.Ganapathi wrote anything with any malicious 
intent in that article. He was trying to promote goodwill among general 
public to look at the positive aspect of the things. He may not have 
reproduced conversations verbatim, but he has tried to get the essence of 
it. Some of the incidents in the article (team visiting Sringeri Acharya and 
the palanquin incident) have been told to an elderly relative of mine by the 
people who were direct witnesses. Apart from what Ra. Ganapathi wrote there, 
I have heard people who met Sri. Chandrasekhara Bharathi Swamiji narrate a 
lot more stories, some of them on how He held Kanchi Acharya at a high 
esteem, but for the most part Swamiji was absorbed in meditation.

>
>   As far as issue on SSS was concerned, Shri.Ravi, you yourself agreed 
>that many of his views are away from the tradition although some of his 
>views fit into the tradition.  Barring a few instances where karthik’s 
>replies were a bit personal, that of karthik’s and rama’s replies were very 
>critical and straight away addressed the issues.  Acharyas from traditional 
>maths assisted Sh.SSS since, *part* of his writings,* also*, were 
>traditional.
>

Unfortunately I did not mean my statements that way that the Swami was 
steering away from tradition. If it gives in some misunderstanding, I am 
sorry about that. I also consider my knowledge level as mediocre when it 
comes to Vedanta, and I do not want to pass my judgement on someone like 
SSS, who was a very erudite scholar and also a sanyAsi.

Differing philosophical positions should not be a problem, that is what 
would promote knowledge. When it done in a way that people have a sidebar 
conversations apart from the topic itself (like this one), we need to wonder 
what is causing this.

Is there an assumption made here why Acharyas funded SSS projects?

>   If there was no offense when SSS could say that after Sureshwaracharya, 
>it was sort of blind man leading procession of blind, there can not be any 
>offense when he is termed as an asampradayavit.  Its no secret that his 
>views were away from traditional point of views.  If he is sort of 
>revolutionary and away from sampradaya and without any hesitation take 
>pride in it, why should anyone try to fit him by force in sampradaya.
>

What is sampradayA? Can we define it? In simple terms, it is following the 
injunctions of the sanyAsa AshramA coming down for generations. There are 
not rules about whether one should follow bhAmati or vivaranA. Even if there 
were, they were created after these schools originated. These schools have 
nothing to do with the direct experience of Brahman or the realization of 
the Self. People like Sri. Ramana Maharishi did not have to follow any of 
this tradition to attain realization.

It behooves all of us, who have loose ends to tie up in our own lives, when 
it comes to following Dharma (exactly as prescribed in the scriptures), not 
to pass judgments on sanyAsis for the sake of it. “SSS is an asampradayavit” 
should not come from us, but it should come from a sankarAchAryA who follows 
the tradition.  What bothers me is that when Sringeri Acharya does not have 
problems in accepting SSS, his disciples find new ways to circumvent to 
criticize him for reasons unknown to me. In my humble opinion, individuals 
like us who shun away from having even ShikA, cannot pass judgements on 
someone who is a sanyAsi.

In this kali yuga, nAstikAs will certainly condemn sanyAsis. In the name of 
tradition, AstikAs also do that.

Thanks,
Ravi

_________________________________________________________________
Find what you need at prices you’ll love. Compare products and save at MSN® 
Shopping. 
http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701