[Advaita-l] SSS: Anantanand Rambachans Study

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

On 5/9/07, K Kathirasan   NCS <kkathir at ncs.com.sg> wrote:
> Namaste Sri Rama,
>
> The reason why modern scholars attributed the anubhava to a mystical
> experience could be due to a subsequent development that took place
> after Vacaspati Mishra's Bhamati (9th century CE). In the Bhamati one
> would find probably the first time in the Vedanta tradition the equation
> of 'anubhava' to Patanjali Yoga's Samadhi. Subsequent authors who used
> the Bhamati as an authority could have interpreted anubhava from this
> angle and developed further. This could have also given rise to the
> Nirvikalpa and Savikalpa Samadhi teachings in Vedanta. So what is termed
> as modern interpretation may not be that modern after all. In fact, the
> views of Sri Abhinava Vidya Teertha can be said to be modern when
> compared with the Anubhava that Anantanand explains in this book with
> the necessary support from Shankara's bhashyas.
>
> The reason why I found Anantanand's work very good was that he kept to
> the core teachings of Shankara with respect to the efficacy of Shabda
> Pramana to give rise to immediate knowledge. And Shabda pramana being
> the sole pramana for Self knowledge. To me it is indeed a ground
> breaking work but it may not be acceptable to those who accept the
> teachings of the Vivarana & Bhamati to be absolute.
>
> So now do you feel like dumping this professor as well because he
> doesn't agree with your views?

Who said the good Prof doesn't agree with my views, or vice-versa?
It's kinder-garten stuff that nirvikalpa-samaadhi does not take
precedence over shruti. This has been explicity stated by Vidyaranya,
among others and emphasized by many recent advaitins like
Mahaasannidhaanam. Why do all these people following SSS think that
only they know this?

BTW, why are you dragging Vacaspati here? First of all I don't think I
ever referred to Vacaspati Mishra in my paper (as any kind of
authority at least). So quoting the Profs paper because *you think* it
contradicts Vacaspati is of no use, and absolutely irrelevant. And
second, I am not interested in correcting your wrong ideas of what the
great Vacaspati said.

The problem is that you think Vacaspati said something, and that I
believe it. The fact is that Vacaspati never said what you think he
said. In any case, unless you can find something that the good Profs
paper being contradicted in my paper, the reference is useless. If you
do find something that he contradicts in my paper (I might have missed
it), let me know, and I'll think about it.

I already said that the good Professors study is somewhat
complementary to mine because we address slightly different topics.

Rama