[Advaita-l] Re: Pa~nchapAdikAchArya

venkata subramanian venkat_advaita at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 11 05:20:47 CST 2006

My last mail too. to this.

Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:    
This is like me saying that Z is an alphabet in English with you
countering that Z does not exist in Swahili. AllI said was that IF Sri
Narasimha Bharati and Sri Virupaksha Sastri were brahmavits, then
accepting the pa~ncapaadika did not stand against getting
brahma-j~naana. I never said that to be a brahmavit you nedd to accept
the pa~ncapaadikaa. So using the pa~ncapaadikaa is not a problem,
period! Whether it's a necessity was not covered by me at all. As a
matter of fact, Sri Candrashekhara Bhaarati Svaaminah has clearly and
explicitly stated that to gain brahma-j~naana you need not even study
the shAnkara bhAshyas, so where is the pa~ncapaadikaa then?!!
  Well it is like a Brahmavit who accept Panchapadika and another Brahmavit who does not accept it as correctly explaining the Bhashya.  i dont think we can raise this better.   
> Actually this is repudiated directly by his direct disciple in a
> publication by the kaaryaalaya itself. Mr Gangolli claims that all
> these people did not understand shankara, and it was SSS (with some
> help from Krishnaswamy Iyer) who did it all by himself.
> Ramaji, you cannot consider such books and authors to make your view on that Swamigal. i can say only so much on this.

SSSs own disciple, writes in a book published by SSSs own institution
that SSS gained knowledge by self-study. Yes, that's what I would
indeed choose to believe. Unless you have some other more convincing

    i repeat, you canNOT consider such books and authors to make your views on that Swamigal.   He is a person who has traditionally studied under a Guru and has received the true upadesha from his Gurus.    He is a Brahma Nishta par excellence in the most traditional sense of it.    all such scriblings are about others too - a section of "sishyas" of swami Vivekananda claiming that he has "invented" Neo Vedanta.....,  "Sishyas" of Ramana Maharishi claiming that he is an "avatara" different from "Others".  am sure you are quite matured enough to understand such "Pujas"......  Gangoli has surely NOT claimed anywhere that he is a direct sishya of that swamiji.    and even if he claims (anywhere), i dont think whatever he says would necessarily be correct and be the view of that Swamigal.     That Swamigal was humble enough and had great Vinaya.   

Thanks & Regards,

Sadgurubhyo Namah.
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list