No subject

[Swami Atmananda]

I have been closely following the Subhanu Saxenas article on Vedanta toolkit. The subsequent discussion on mulAvidya is particularly interesting. I have a question on the above topic which I would be obliged if some one throws some light on. 

What are the implications of accepting mulAvidya or not accepting it, with regards to our understanding of the self and the subsequent sadhana, which is retention of its awareness. In both the cases viveka is called for and done, both say that once vidya dawns there is no more any avidya around, both accept shastra as pramana and both have utmost faith in Shankara's works. Suppose I do accept the existence of mulAvidya then what difference does it really make. If some later Acharyas did introduce this concept, then does it not simply facilitate this same very objective, by laying to rest some questions on avidya. I am not trying to prove any point, but just trying to objectively understand the exact implication of the view of Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati.

I am still looking forward to some response to Sri Anand Hudli's letter which said that "So the prakriyA's of later advaitins, such as those of the vivaraNa and bhAmati schools, are as valid as Shankara's prakriyA since they have the same result, ie. the Reality of the Nondual Self."

Looking forward to some more light on the topic.

Sw.Atmananda

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </archives/advaita-l/attachments/19980918/7f4deaf5/attachment.html>