[Advaita-l] Re: yoga and vedanta

[Anand Hudli]

On 7/20/05, bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>

>prabhuji your observation that *certain individual points* of shankara &
>surEshvara is really interesting. Kindly clarify whether shankara
>propagated anywhere his own *individual points* without taking care of
>shruti siddhAnta prabhuji.  If shankara's individual points are completely
>in order with shruti...how can then madhusUdana a true representative of
>advaita differs from it??
>
>Kindly, prabhuji, if possible give the detailed account of those
>differences between shankara & madhusUdana & madhusUdana's justification
>for it.
>

When an AchArya writes a work, his points may be elaborated on by subsequent 
AchAryas. Further, a subsequent AchArya may write on points that were not 
addressed by the previous AchArya. In doing this, if there is an appearance 
of contradiction or difference between the AchAryas, it is probably only an 
appearance, but not real.

madhusUdana has defended classical theories of advaita in the 
advaita-siddhi. Nowhere has he put forth a brand new theory. In the 
siddhAnta-bindu, he has shown how various views in advaita, such as those of 
the vArtika, saMkShepa-shArIraka, avachchheda-vAda, pratibiMbavAda, 
AbhAsa-vAda, and ekajIva-vAda or dR^iShTi-sR^iShTi-vAda, can all be 
reconciled. He cites the vArtikakAra:

yayA yayA bhavetpuMso vyutpattiH pratyagAtmani |
sA sAiva prakriyA GYeyA sAdhvI sA chAnavasthitA |

By whatever (approach) one attains the knowledge of the Inner Self, that 
itself is to be understood as *a* (not *the*) right method. It is not fixed 
(to a particular approach).

Going by this definition, we can talk about *a* right method but not *the* 
right method.

Perhaps, the only so-called "difference" between Madhusudana and Shankara is 
the emphasis of the former on bhakti, as described in the gUDhArtha-dIpikA.

Anand