A Myth About Sankara (was Re: [Advaita-l] jnAna-vijnAna, ...)

Jaldhar H. Vyas jaldhar at braincells.com
Wed Mar 14 13:35:13 CDT 2007

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> No, No, No! Both the Bhamatikaara and Viavaranakaara themselves say
> that they AGREE with shankara. It is *misinformed* people who claim
> that they disagree with sankara.
> At the risk of repeating myself for the 50th gazillionth time,
> citsukhaacaarya has shown how they BOTH agree with Sankara, although
> the expositions are indeed different.

Given that the bhamati and vivarana disagree with each other obviously 
only one can agree with Shankaracharya.  Now you say Chitsukhacharya 
reconciled bhamati and vivarana  with each other and with Shankara.  Well 
who is to say some recent Chitsukhacharya couldn't also reconcile Swami 
Sacchidanandendra too?

> The case of Sureshvara is quite different, he explicitly says that
> what Sankara said about sannyaasa was ***durukta*** and proceeds to
> give an explanation based on smR^iti.

Which is further proof that shastra not a personality is the pramana 
doesn't it?

And tell me if a person can go as far as to say use a phrase like durukta 
without being disowned by his Guru or drummed out of town by that Gurus 
followers what exactly did SSS do which was so unforgivable?

> Two quite different situations indeed, and clearly "both sides  are
> not wrong" as you claim. Only one side is wrong, and I know who it is
> : -).

Both sides are wrong but in different ways.  Your side is wrong because it 
is making a tempest in a teapot.

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list