reposting again

Vidyasankar vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM
Tue Jul 31 11:37:21 CDT 2001

>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

Agreed, but with caveats. What sounds more logical to one person
does not to another, and vice versa. Different interpretations
cannot all have the same validity at the same time. That they all
depend on anumAna in some sense is accepted. But it is a different
question whether the specific anumAna(s) made by one school are
equally valid as compared to those made by another school.

And finally, when we look for agreement with SAstric statements,
we cannot arbitrarily limit ourselves to the ten or twelve major
Upanishads. All the major commentators, including Sankaracarya,
have quoted numerous other texts in their works. So when discussing
Sankara and Ramanuja, we should look at these other texts too -
e.g. subAla upanishad, paingala upanishad, etc. There is no point
in claiming that a particular thing is not found in the major texts,
when even the bhAshyakAra of each tradition has referred to other
so-called minor texts. So we have to refer to all the texts that
are legitimately concerned in the discussion.

>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

It is in the disagreement about the nature of the goal that most of
the philosophical disputes arise between Advaita and other schools.
At the core, the debates about mAyA, avidyA/ajnAna etc. are all
rejections of the Advaitic conception of the highest Brahman and the
identity of Atman with Brahman.

Re: SatadUshanI, I have heard it often repeated that no one in the
Advaita tradition has refuted the work. I wonder how much truth there
is to this. Within the 20th century itself, in addition to Nurani
Anantakrishna Sastri's SatabhUshanI, there is also the work called
advaitAmoda, by Vasudev Sastri Abhyankar. The text has been published
recently, with an English translation and commentary by Michael Comans
of Australia. It might interest readers to know that Comans is closely
associated with Swami Paramarthananda of Madras and the Arsha Vidya
Gurukulam's Swami Dayananda Saraswati.

I have found that not many, even among Advaitins, are aware of the
advaitAmoda text. Without seeing what it has to say, I would like to
reserve judgement on whether the points raised by SatadUshanI have been
addressed adequately or not.

Best wishes,

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list