A Myth About Sankara (was Re: [Advaita-l] jnAna-vijnAna, ...)
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Thu Mar 15 02:56:16 CDT 2007
praNAms Sri Karthik prabhuji
My reply to this posting will not contain anything concerning
but you have meticulously kept on highlighting the word *saMpradAya* in all
through your below mail:-))
Karthik prabhuji :
but only some clarifications to Bhaskar's emails.
if you think *deletion* is the clarification to my observation...so be it
> bhaskar :
> Are you sure you are saying this!!! do you mean to say *in the
> vEdAnta tradition* shankara IS NOT the authority No.1??!! quite
The fact that you find this surprising says a lot about the kind of
propaganda you've been subject to.
So, according to you questioning the labeling of shankara bhAshya as lower
authority *within* *advaita saMpradAya* is propaganda for you!!!
There is a definite hierarchy of the texts within the Advaita Vedanta
3) Bhashyas on the above by various Acharyas **of the Sampradaya**.
My dear prabhuji please note shruti, smruti, vEdAnta sUtra, purANa, itihAsa
all are pramANa-s...you cannot give a *separate* status to shankara bhAshya
& branded it as *lower* in status since shankara speaks about
shruti,smruti,nyAya in his commentary nothing else!!!!...Moreover, when it
comes to *siddhAnta nirNaya* *within* advaita vedAnta saMpradAya nobody
quotes parallel quotes from shruti-s/smruti-s directly (are we mature
enough to do that??!!). First & foremost thing they will do is take
bhagavapAda's commentary as the *authority no.1* in interpreting these
shruti/smruti/nyAya prasthAna-s...If at all shankara bhAshya-s having a
lower status within advaita saMpradAya, why bhAmatikAra, vivaraNakAra etc.
etc. have taken all the trouble to propagate their doctrine by writing
vyAkhyAna on bhagavadpAda's commentary on nyAya prasthAna.. they would have
simply opted to write their own treatise by directly taking the reference
from original texts...is it not??
Karthik prabhuji :
There is no doubt that Sankara's commentaries occupy a lower status
compared to Sruti and Smriti.
pls. clarify, whether any AchArya *within* saMpradAya has done any research
work on this by *comparing* shruti with shankara bhAshya & labelled
shankara bhAshya lower in status?? or is it your own assumption just to
accommodate *something else* within the sAmpradAyic frame??
I will now delete most of your ill-informed facts about authority in
the Advaita Vedanta tradition.
And you have religiously retained your own assumption onceagain without
caring for duplication by thinking that it is well-informed firm facts
*within* sampradAya & readers have to read it twice:-)) Anyway, I've
deleted your duplicated mesg.
> * Sankara's disciples' interpretation of Sankara's writings is the
> correct interpretation of Sankara's writings.
> bhaskar :
> how about if a desciple himself says he is going *against* his
> teachings?? what would be the treatment that he is going to receive
but I am sorry to say yours is completely irrelevant answer...I shall tell
What happens if a disciple of Sankara argues against the Sankara
The answer you have provided below is not relevant to my question...I asked
you *how* this achArya will be treated within saMpradAya..?? I am not
asking about justification that he provided for his *alternative*
commentary...I am asking about his *status* within saMpradAya *after*
finding *fault* with his own guru's position.
2) The Jivanmuktiviveka considers two kinds of students of Vedanta:
the Kritopasti and the a-Kritopasti, and says that the former's Jnana
is the same as mukti, while the latter's is not (i.e. further effort
is required in this particular case to attain mukti).
If kritopasti is the jnAni & his jnAna= mukti then he is not at all a
*student/sAdhaka/jignAsu/mumukshu...he is brahman itself..since
a-kritopasti has not yet gained that paramArtha jnAna, he has to put
further efforts to attain that highest jnAna. But once that knowledge of
ultimate is dawned & has become one with THAT, he need not have to put
further efforts (vidhi-s) to *cement* IT...
Now, it is futile to quote a thousand Sruti statements proclaiming
that Jnana=mukti and claim that this contradicts the
Jivanmuktiviveka, because these Sruti statements can easily be
interpreted as the Jnana of the Kritopasti.
kritopasti's jnAna is the *real* jnAna & there is no gradation in that
*Atma jnAna*..a-kritopasti-s jnAna cannot be called as brahma jnAna in
absolute sense, it can be either a saguNa brahman jnAna/ parOksha jnAna or
jnAna that is occured in pratyaya rUpa through guru & shAstrOpadEsha. See
shankara bhAshya which I've quoted in Part-II.
Therefore, in order to truly disprove the doctrine of the Jivanmuktiviveka,
there must exist a reference from the Sruti or the Smriti to the effect
that even in
the case of the a-Kritopasti, the Jnana dawned is the same as mukti.
Infact, I am arguing about the same points with you...your claim is that
ajnAni's jnAna of shAstra is referred to Atma jnAna & he is jnAni himself &
in jnAni's jnAna there is unsteady & steady jnAna, pAditya/jnAna *always*
mean Atma jnAna etc.etc. And you have miserably failed to provide me any
valid pramANa to show the difference between jnAni-mAtra jnAni & ajnAni
(who has mere shAstra pAnditya)..so, your shruti viruddha statements donot
hold any worthy stuff to infer it as a *fact*!!!
By the way, pls. clarify, in bruhadAraNyaka maNtra 3-5-1, first brahmaNa is
kritopasti or a-kritopasti??
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list