Various vAda-s in advaita (was Re: A few questions)

[Anand Hudli]

      Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
> [...]

   Thanks for the interesting article and welcome back. I have one question
   regaring maanasollaasa and gauDapaada kaarikaas. I have other questions
   too, but that will have to wait for some time.
>
> The vAda-s given by gauDapAda are nothing other than dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda.
> The vAda-s given in the mAnasollasa vArtika are again the same. Of course one
> may doubt the authorship of sureshvarAchArya in the latter case, but it has
> been quoted by vidyAraNya himself as being authored by sureshvarAchArya in his
> paJNcha dashii. I am not sure if the author you mention follows the books I
> quote exactly, but the vAdas given in the two books I quote are commonly
 called
> dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda. Oh, another text is of course the yoga vAsishhTha.
>

  I have only an introductory understanding of Kashmir Shaivism, so
  my comments below are to be understood with that in mind.

  A reading of the maanasollaasa shows that the author accepts that
  kriyaa (activity) is in Brahman. From what little I know of Kashmir
  Shaivism, kriyaa is said to be in Shiva (Brahman). But this is not
  the position of advaita according to which Brahman is nishhkriya,
  actionless. In fact, Shankara goes to great lengths to deny _any_
  semblance of activity in Brahman in his major works. So on this point
  alone, one could argue that the author of maanasollaasa was not
  Sureshvara or if he was, he probably wrote it under the influence of
  Kashmir Shaivism.

  Again, this point of Brahman being nishhkriya in advaita vis a vis
  Brahman being with activity in Kashmir Shaivism distinguishes the
  maanasollaasa from GauDapaada kaarikas, where we do not find activity
  attributed to Brahman.


  I am not suggesting that Kashmir Shaivism is completely different from
  advaita. I think they have a lot more in common than a few differences.


  Anand