[Advaita-l] Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva Vada - part 1

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 22 08:12:57 EDT 2017


If you take Vyakarana Sastra there Panini is the Master. Vararuchi wrote
his Vartika but in many places he is not agreeing with Panini and in some
places he has removed Panini sutras. In some places he has corrected
Panini. In others he has explained Panini very nicely. Then Patanjali has
written Mahabhashya and in some places he has defended Panini and in some
places he has agreed with Vararuchi. That is why they say उत्तरोत्तरमुनीनां
प्रमाणम् The next Muni is more correct than previous Muni.

This is the tradition. Nothing wrong in Vyaakhyaanakaara correcting and
adding explanations to Bhaashyakaara. Silly people think we should not
touch Bhashyakaara at all.

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Aditya Kumar via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > Further, many scholars like P M Modi(not the minister) opine that
> > Madhusudana clearly deviate from Shankara, quite boldly, which can be
> > verified by reading his works like Gudarthadipika.
> >
> Madhusudana Saraswati, at the very first invocation to his Gudarthadipika
> says:
> भगवत्पादभाष्यार्थमालोच्यातिप्रयत्नतः । प्रायः प्रत्यक्षरं कुर्वे
> गीतागूढार्थदीपिकाम् ॥ १
> He has at the very outset said that he is lookig into the Śānkara bhāṣyam
> with great effort shed light on almost each letter (word) of the Gita's
> deep meaning.
> When such is his commitment to Shankara's bhashya, it is only strange that
> such allegations are made against MS.
> oting P M Modi from the Introduction part of 'Siddhantabindu' English
> translation :-"To illustrate briefly, in Advaitsiddhi, Madhusndana has at
> various places differed from Sankaaracharya in his interpretation of the
> Brahmasutras which he has quoted. He is the only exception from among the
> Aeharyas of the Sankara Sehool of Vedanta, to differ from Sankara in this
> manner."
> > "But in the Gndharthadipika he goes further and rejeets the view of
> > Sankara altogether whenever , he found that it was not in harmony with
> the
> > Bhaktimarga of the Gita."
> > Here the author is talking about the fact that Madhusudhana Saraswati
> > considers Bhakti Marga as a legitimate 3rd marga other than Jnana and
> > karma. However, Shankara and the mainstream Advaita does not consider
> > Bhakti marga as a path in itself like Jnana and Karma. Considering this,
> it
> > is perhaps not surprising to see this interpretation of Tat Tvam Asi.
> >
> Can any specific instances from the MS's commentary be shown to
> substantiate the above claims?
> > Further, if we compare Madhusudana Saraswati and/or Prakasananda
> Saraswati
> > with the likes of Vachaspati Mishra, in terms of how they explain the
> > unreality of the world, it is clear that there is some radical difference
> > in the approach. Where Misra focuses solely on Maya/Ajnana and proceeds
> to
> > elaborate it in line with Shankara's explanation of Maya, MS and PS
> > (needlessly) attempt to explain the unreality of the world purely from a
> > logical stand point. For instance, the world which we perceive is because
> > Ajnana projects the world and hides our intrinsic nature. The dream
> > examples are mere illustrations to explain the concept of maya/ajnana.
> > But MS and PS try to take the examples/illustrations itself as the proof
> > or stretch them beyond it's sphere of application(as originally intended
> by
> > the authors) and try to arrive at unreality logically.
> Shankara's bhashya-s are full of instances of  explaining
> maya/avidya/unreality of the world on sound logical terns.  Those who have
> not studied the bhashyas under the guidance of traditional Acharyas alone
> make such claims as above.
> regards
> vs
> > However, it is clear that whenever the logic fails or reaches it's limit,
> > they inevitably rely on the Sruti statements of abheda nature. When
> > eventually, you had to rely solely on sruti, what was the need to explain
> > it solely from a logical point of view? In doing so, both these persons
> > have stretched the illustrations beyond it's application and used the
> same
> > as proof. This is same like various schools of Buddhists.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list