[Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 18 23:30:37 EDT 2017
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
> I only said traditional scholars could be wrong as well. I said this
> because so many theories are justified only by 'traditional...' and not by
> On Monday 18 September 2017, 10:36:27 PM IST, Venkatesh Murthy via
> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Here basically we have two Asampradayavits. One does not understand even
> his own Guru. Another thinks university professors are better than
> traditional scholars. He believes in Dasgupta's words. They are supporting
> and patting each other's back and questioning Sampradaya Acharyas. Yes this
> happens in Kali Yuga. Hats off to Kali Maharaja.
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > Namaste Adityaji,
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > You have simply copy/pasted the portions irrelevant to the discussion
> > > mixing it with the bitterness of your own mind.
> > >
> > First of all, if I'd copy pasted, it would have still been better than
> > your copy-pasting Dasgupta and the like, who have no bearing on
> > In any case, what I have done is translated them, not copy-pasted. And
> > because you can't make out head from tail of a sampradAya-argument, it
> > doesn't stand as irrelevant. As for bitterness, I have none, since I
> > all sub-commentators; you on the other hand... well, best left unsaid,
> > have yourself voiced it enough without any supporting basis whatsoever.
> > Bhartrprapancha is not against 'jnana removes avidyanivritti' - your
> > > new requirement.
> > >
> > This comment on requirement doesn't make sense! Please reread the first
> > sentence of the bhAShya quoted. Its no wonder, it seems irrelevant to
> > The point of disagreement is that Shankara says 'jnana alone' leads to
> > > moksha.
> > >
> > Yes. And please read as to what jnAna means to Vrttikara. Just because
> > spells j-n-A-n-a, it doesn't mean the same to all.
> > Your take home points are as incorrect as any of your statements.
> > >
> > Prove it. Use bhAshya statements, if you know what to "copy-paste", not
> > Dasgupta. If you can't or don't want to prove it, start learning. The
> > of this very list's website is worth reading, written by sampradAya
> > followers and research scholars, both, not one at the cost of the other
> > like many!
> > While you have conveniently rejected any fundamental difference between V
> > > and B as to how aparoksha jnana is generated, you seem to strongly
> > believe
> > > that it was a critical point in the very previous paragraph!
> > >
> > Hilarious; at the very least, try to come out of confusion by reading
> > is written, instead of using your own ideas. Please read Sw.
> > Gambhiranandaji's translation of tattu samanvayAt if it helps to see the
> > context of difference.
> > So the sub-commentators thought of saying things which meant nothing?
> > >
> > > Ashrayatva is a mere technicality?
> > >
> > Since when is technicality nothing for a researcher?! The
> > have a role to justify and analyse each word of the bhAShya; its what is
> > called shraddhA, unknown outside sampradAya. That is why there are
> > sangatis to hetus, etc, *without* compromising the bhAShya.
> > Whatever that means!
> > >
> > Look up a dictionary, if it helps.
> > This difference is solely for research purpose? really? why would anyone
> > > research something pointless?
> > >
> > You are the one to know pointless activities, why ask me!
> > A simple question - If Brahman is the ashraya of avidya, how does avidya
> > > nivritti take place in a jiva?
> > >
> > I've already stated the reason in the definition. Please reread.
> > In the end, this is for the benefit of other readers in the unlikely case
> > that they too missed what I was quoting from Bhashyakara: it is that even
> > if Vrttikara said that jIva may be brahman, his suggested means to
> > advaita-mokSha cannot result in mokSha. I see a lot of objection to the
> > word prakriyAbheda; those objecting should instead prove as to why the
> > vivaraNa or bhAmati *prakriyA*, cannot result in advaitamokSha. If no
> > can, it is just a prakriyAbheda.
> > gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> > > --Praveen R. Bhat
> > > /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one
> > > That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list