[Advaita-l] The safe way

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Thu Sep 14 19:12:38 EDT 2017

On 15 Sep 2017 00:58, "Aditya Kumar" <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com> wrote:

That does not make him a shaiva. Any god can be saguna Brahman in advaita.
Suredhwara in vartika has held any of the three murtis and guru can be
antaryamin. So your conclusion is not based on facts.

A : Not just that. There are many more differences like Shiva being both
the material and efficient cause of the universe.

So what? He did not say the two schools are identical. He only said it is
closest to Advaita compared to the other schools. Even the much earlier
sarvadarshana sangraha had stated such a hierarchy. After all Appayya was
writing as per that school.

Appayya dikshita has stated a hierarchy across the four schools.
Reconciliation arises only when there is difference.

A : Not sure what you intend to say here. Are you saying there is only a
hierarchy and no difference among the chatur matas? Do the Vaishnavas agree
with this hierarchy? To whom is this relevant then? Chaturmatasara, the
title itself reveals the intent.

There is difference among the schools. He appealed only to those who were
willing to transcend bigotry.

The answer is already there. They all lead one to the same goal. Sureshwara
has said this very clearly.

A : What Sureshvara has said in two lines is applicable if it were mere
different models/illustrations. However the moot point is that they are
siddhanta bedha.

No one has succeeded in proving parama siddhanta bheda.

If you can fancy anything in Shankara and others why can't I?

A : Sigh. I was referring to the development of Nyaya techniques and Nyaya
school's attempt to deconstruct Mithyatva in Advaita. Can you cite the
instances where Shankara has resorted to logical formalism?

The second chapter of mandukya in particular. You can find the drshyatva
hetu in BGB 2.16 and logic throughout the prasthana traya bhashya.

Your fundamental premise itself is flawed. That they are all contradictory
is itself a product of misguided study.

A : I am eager to be refuted but apart from Sureshvara's quote (Sureshvara,
btw, predated Bhamati&Vivarana schools), you have offered nought.

That one quote is enough to silence the opponent. In fact it says that
there is simply no limit ever to the number of such prakriyas that take
their adherents to advaita. So any Acharya in eternity can device a
prakriya to suit his pupil with perfect conformity with the fundamental

You can never prove that without risking the charge turned towards you. Sri
SSS did that and ended up being seen as one who deviated from Shankara. It
is dubbed as 'Matthur prakriya' by others.

A : I am not trying to prove anything but merely stating the fact that a
hybrid prasthana of Bhamati and Vivarana is not possible because 1) they
disagree with each other and 2) such a hybrid view cannot satisfy all
objections which may arise. No one can deny this. Although it may seem as
if the difference is negligible, the implications are inevitable. For
instance, the controversial DSV finds it's roots in Vivarana. But Bhamati
does not accommodate it. Same for EJV and NJV.

All this is not at all a problem to the sincere seeker. No sincere seeker
has ever stated these as a problem. It is only the historian or the curious
that has no interest ever in Sadhana that sees these as a problem. Clearly
such a one is an asampradayavit as per Shankara. Such a one has no place in
advaita Sadhana.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list