No subject

[Subhanu Saxena]

On September 18, Swami Atmananda wrote:

> 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."
> ^з
> Looking forward to some more light on the topic.
> ^з
> Sw.Atmananda
>
>
Please see my response to Anand Hudli dated 16th September, where I
mentioned that it makes little difference from the paramArtha
standpoint.  As Swami Atmanandaji mentions, on the dawn of Vidya, there
is nothing else (brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati).  For those of us stuck in
the clutches of avidyA, different methods suit different people.  For
those who choose a path to study Bhashya texts in more detail, it is
certainly helpful from the empirical standpoint to understand the
techniques employed in the Bhashya, and whether those who followed
interpreted in the same manner as Shankara, or differently. So as not to
get side-tracked in the pure scholarly debate, I always remember
Yudhishthira's response in the Yaksha prasna to the question what is the
path (different readings may differ in the words that follow:)

Shrutir vibhinnAha, smrtayascha bhinnAha
Naiko munihi yasya vachaf pramAnam

dharmasya tattwam nihitam guhAyAm
mahAjano yena gataha sa panthAha

The Sruti is one thing, the Smrti another
there is no one muni whose word is ultimately authoritative
The truth of dharma is as if hidden in a cave
How the great lived their lives, that is the path

or, as Shankara wrote
"anubhavAvasAnatwat bhutavastuvishayatwAtcha brahmajnAnasya"
brahmavidyA culminates in experience

Regards

Subhanu