[Advaita-l] jnAna-vijnAna, gradations in Atma jnAna,

[NARAYANA MURTHY]

Shri.Ravishankar venkatraman,
   
  My family belong to shrungeri sharada peetham and that of my wife’s belong to kanchi math.  As already said by shri. Vidyasankar, no one can officially or unofficially talk on behalf of either of the maths.  But the tone and tenor of your letter gave an impression that devotees of shrungeri math pour vitriolics about kanchi math.  This is far from true.  For one thing, the devotees of shrungeri math have high esteem for periavaas of kanchi math.  Without prejudice to this fact, they address the issues from a historical or intellectual platform wherever they warrant so.  
   
  Coming to the link given by you in kamakoti.org, in which shri.ra.ganapathi wrote about our paramacharyaal and paramacharyaal of kanchi. First these were write ups of sh.ra.ganapathi.  Sh.ganapathi is a very articulative writer.  But, there were factual inaccuracies in the article.  Contrary to what is written there, Shri.Chandrashekara Bharathi swaminah have never discouraged people when they addressed issues on math from historical perspective.  Advocate Sh.Krishnaswamy Iyer’s (latter Sh.GnyAnAnanda Bharathi swaminah) book on issue of maths was referred in the article.  Shrungeri devotees know for well that Shri.Krishnaswamy Iyer was one of the most beloved sishyaas of our paramacharyaal and is revered much by the devotees of sharada peetham.  He has composed books on prakarana granthas of Adi shankara, translated into tamizh, vyakhyanam on Viveka chudamani by our paramacharyaal, written books like saint of shrungeri, dialogues with the guru and among other topics
 covered issue on maths on a historical perspective.  Sh.Krishnaswamy Iyer (GnyAnAnanda Bharathi swaminah) was no XYZ. He is a much revered soul.
   
  As far as issue on SSS was concerned, Shri.Ravi, you yourself agreed that many of his views are away from the tradition although some of his views fit into the tradition.  Barring a few instances where karthik’s replies were a bit personal, that of karthik’s and rama’s replies were very critical and straight away addressed the issues.  Acharyas from traditional maths assisted Sh.SSS since, *part* of his writings,* also*, were traditional.
   
  If there was no offense when SSS could say that after Sureshwaracharya, it was sort of blind man leading procession of blind, there can not be any offense when he is termed as an asampradayavit.  Its no secret that his views were away from traditional point of views.  If he is sort of revolutionary and away from sampradaya and without any hesitation take pride in it, why should anyone try to fit him by force in sampradaya.
   
  There is shivadvaitam, dvaitAdvaitam, krishnAdvaitam and many more categories of advaitam as developed by noble personalities.  Being a yati Sh.SSS is pujaniya.  Let his be another sampradaya like so many are there when he is not comfortable with traditionalists (sampradayavits).
   
  Regards
  N.murthy
   

 				
---------------------------------
 Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers