reposting again

[K. Sadananda]

>
>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.

True.  Only problem is we do have concerns which are authentic and
which are not.  The ten is mentioned is only for the fact that  all
the three achaarya-s refer to them.  Other wise we will end up as in
Madhva tradition bringing in references that no one else have access
to or accept as pramaaNa.  That is absolutely unscientific approach.

Frankly I do have problem even accepting 'Brahmasuutra' as pramaaNa
since it is the opinion of an individual - baadaraayana - and one can
accept it only as such.  Equation of Baadaraayana with Vyaasa is
taken for granted and I am not sure that is valid either.

>
>>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.

Exactly - I could not have said it better.  That is precisely the
reason why one has to make sure one is convinced of the path he
chooses.  For that only critical thinking is required and analysis we
are doing in these adviatin lists helps us all, if do it objectively
without emotional attitudes clouding the issues.

>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.

It is good to know that. Do you have any further details on that
adviatAmoda text in term of publishers and where it is available etc?

Hari OM!
Sadananda


>Best wishes,
>Vidyasankar

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