A Myth About Sankara (was Re: [Advaita-l] jnAna-vijnAna, ...)

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

 3/13/07, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com wrote:
>
> >
> > "For the followers of the Advaita Vedanta tradition, Adi Shankara is
> > the authority No.1...If we consider Shankara as the greatest
> > authority within the Advaita tradition..."
> >
> > Is the above really true? I don't think so.
> >
> > bhaskar :
> >
> > Are you sure you are saying this!!! do you mean to say *in the advaita
> > vEdAnta tradition* shankara IS NOT the authority No.1??!!  quite surprising
> > indeed.
> >
>
> What I interpret Karthik as meaning is that Shankaracharya is not an
> authority by virtue of being Shankaracharya but only by virtue of being a
> true expositor of shastras.
>
> The same issue comes up in Brahmasutra 2.1.1.  Here and onwards there is a
> sustained criticism of Samkhya.  One of the arguments the followers of
> Samkhya make is that the vedantic criticism is illegitimate because Kapila
> the founder of Samkhya is a Rshi and the mindborn son of Brahma thus
> surely belongs to "astika" sampradaya.  Shankaracharya says that even if
> we were sure that the Kapila mentioned in the shastras was indeed the same
> person as the founder of Samkhya, being an august personage is not
> sufficient for being considered an authority only concordance with Shruti
> is.  If it does not match, it is nastika no matter who says it.
>
> The ironic thing about the current discussion is that by this standard
> both sides are wrong.  Swami Sacchidanandendra, if he is a true expositor
> of the shastras cannot be outside the sampradaya even if he disagrees
> with other representatives of it.  And if Bhamatikara or Vivaranakara are
> true expositors of the shastras, they cannot be outside the sampradaya
> even if they disagree with Shankaracharya.
>

No, No, No! Both the Bhamatikaara and Viavaranakaara themselves say
that they AGREE with shankara. It is *misinformed* people who claim
that they disagree with sankara.

At the risk of repeating myself for the 50th gazillionth time,
citsukhaacaarya has shown how they BOTH agree with Sankara, although
the expositions are indeed different.

The case of Sureshvara is quite different, he explicitly says that
what Sankara said about sannyaasa was ***durukta*** and proceeds to
give an explanation based on smR^iti.

Two quite different situations indeed, and clearly "both sides  are
not wrong" as you claim. Only one side is wrong, and I know who it is
:-).

Rama