Bhaamatii and VivaraNa (Re: SSS and Madhva (was Re: [Advaita-l] Review of MarthaDoherty's comments on Sri Satchidanandendra Sarasvati))

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

On 3/2/07, Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy <annapureddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> praNAm.h shrI Ramakrishnan,
>
>
> >
> > In case any one did not get it, Kartiks mail was about why/how
> > *terminology* should not be confused with *philosophy*. Terminology
> > can change quite a bit over time without the philosophy changing. And
> > philosophy is the most important thing - at least to most of us.
>
>
> Could you tell us what your position vis-a-vis bhAmatI and vivaraNa is? Are
> you saying that while the two works use different terminology, the
> philosophy they teach is exactly the same?

A brief comment on just this, since I am busy now. A more detailed
post may follow later. My opinion is of no use. Let's just take the
advaitic sampradaayavits such as Citsukha and Madhusuudana Sarasavati.
They have clearly shown that the philosophy they teach is EXACTLY the
same, the difference is due to some other things which are tangential.
Of course the "tangential" points are sometimes worthy of
argumentation, as is clear from the expositions of the bhAmatI and
vivaraNa themselves. No one is denying that.

Rama