reposting again

[K. Sadananda]

>
>So, we should conclude that when telling us how one appears to be many,
>and how to go back to the one, the chAndogya Sruti is implying mAyA, in
>the mature Advaita conception of the term. If Sruti directly referred to
>it here, there would be no room for any other interpretation! There may
>be a reason why this is so. The tradition of brahmavidyA leaves room for
>many approaches, each suited to different kinds of adhikArin-s.
>
>Best,
>Vidyasankar

Vidya - you are right.  Interpretation is logical and no question
about it.  If other daarshanika-s explained the same using a
different model logically from their point then that interpretation
also carries the same validity - logical interpretation rests on
anumaana pramaana in one form or the other.  Then one has to look at
total perspective to see which interpretations sound more logical, at
the same time agree with shaastric statements.  It is not just the
kinds of adhikaarin-s that we are concerned about.  That is only one
factor.   We have to be clear about the nature of the goal and
sadhana obviously depends on the goal.  I have no question in my mind
that advaita stands absolutely correct in the sense that existence of
one's own self is absolutely non-negatable and beyond any pramaana -
apremeyam. I recognize, of course, that current understanding from
modern science in terms of relativity of the universe lend its
support to vyavahaara satyam. Identity of aatma to brahman that
advaita Vedata emphasizes is obviously based on shruti pramaana.
maaya has been brought in to account for the equation and the
non-reality of the plurality.  I do have some concerns about bhaava
ruupa aj~naana to account for projection.  This came up when Shree
Anand Hudli presented Shree Ananda Giri's vyaakhyaana on Shankara
bhaashya.  I hope to bring these issues when I start writing
Ramanuja's laghu and maahaa puurvapaksha and siddhaanta-s.

I am examining other sidhaantins to see what their real objections to
the adviata are and how far they are valid and on what basis - on the
basis of logic or on the basis of shaastra or on both.  For that I
need to have clear understanding first from their perspective so that
I can understand their puurvapaksha objections  correctly, before one
dismisses their arguments.

Another point of interest - Is it true that shataduushanii of Vedanta
Deshika has not been responded on item by item basis.  Apparently
Shree Ananta Shaastri? wrote very recently 'shata bhuushanii' but
apparently it does not specifically address the dialectic arguments
presented in the Shataduushanii.  Madhusuudhana's Advaita Siddhi
addresses mostly the dialectic arguments of Vyaasa Tiirtha's of
Dviata-school - NyaayaamR^ita.  This is what I gather.

Hari OM!
Sadananda




--
K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623