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

[K Kathirasan NCS]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

Txs for sharing the teachings of Shankara so beautifully in this post
and the earlier ones. I am re-quoting a portion of your reply to
Kartikji. I am of the opinion that the thrust of your argument lies in
this quote:

<quote> 

bhaskarji :

If kritopasti is the jnAni & his jnAna= mukti then he is not at all a
*student/sAdhaka/jignAsu/mumukshu...he is brahman itself..since
a-kritopasti has not yet gained that paramArtha jnAna, he has to put
further efforts to attain that highest jnAna.  But once that knowledge
of
ultimate is dawned & has become one with THAT, he need not have to put
further efforts (vidhi-s) to *cement* IT...

<unquote>



Warmest Regards,
Kathirasan K

-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:56 PM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: A Myth About Sankara (was Re: [Advaita-l] jnAna-vijnAna,
...)

praNAms Sri Karthik prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Karthik prabhuji:

My reply to this posting will not contain anything concerning
SSS-and-the-Sampradaya,

bhaskar:

but you have meticulously kept on highlighting the word *saMpradAya* in
all
through your below mail:-))

Karthik prabhuji :

but only some clarifications to Bhaskar's emails.

bhaskar :

if you think *deletion* is the clarification to my observation...so be
it
:-))

> 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.
>

Karthik prabhuji:

The fact that you find this surprising says a lot about the kind of
propaganda you've been subject to.

bhaskar :

So, according to you questioning the labeling of shankara bhAshya as
lower
authority *within* *advaita saMpradAya* is propaganda for you!!!

Karthik prabhuji:

Not so.

There is a definite hierarchy of the texts within the Advaita Vedanta
Tradition:

1) Sruti
2) Smriti
3) Bhashyas on the above by various Acharyas **of the Sampradaya**.

bhaskar:

My dear prabhuji please note shruti, smruti, vEdAnta sUtra, purANa,
itihAsa
all are pramANa-s...you cannot give a *separate* status to shankara
bhAshya
& branded it as *lower* in status since shankara speaks about
shruti,smruti,nyAya in his commentary nothing else!!!!...Moreover, when
it
comes to *siddhAnta nirNaya* *within* advaita vedAnta saMpradAya nobody
quotes parallel quotes from shruti-s/smruti-s directly (are we mature
enough to do that??!!).  First & foremost thing they will do is take
bhagavapAda's commentary as the *authority no.1* in interpreting these
shruti/smruti/nyAya prasthAna-s...If at all shankara bhAshya-s having a
lower status within advaita saMpradAya, why bhAmatikAra, vivaraNakAra
etc.
etc. have taken all the trouble to propagate their doctrine by writing
vyAkhyAna on bhagavadpAda's commentary on nyAya prasthAna.. they would
have
simply opted to write their own treatise by directly taking the
reference
from original texts...is it not??

Karthik prabhuji :

There is no doubt that Sankara's commentaries occupy a lower status
compared to Sruti and Smriti.

bhaskar :

pls. clarify, whether any AchArya *within* saMpradAya has done any
research
work on this by *comparing* shruti with shankara bhAshya & labelled
shankara bhAshya lower in status?? or is it your own assumption just to
accommodate *something else* within the sAmpradAyic frame??

Karthik prabhuji:

I will now delete most of your ill-informed facts about authority in
the Advaita Vedanta tradition.

bhaskar :

And you have religiously retained your own assumption onceagain without
caring for duplication by thinking that it is well-informed firm facts
*within* sampradAya & readers have to read it twice:-))  Anyway, I've
deleted your duplicated mesg.

Karthik prabhuji:
>
> * Sankara's disciples' interpretation of Sankara's writings is the
> correct interpretation of Sankara's writings.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> how about if a desciple himself says he is going *against* his
> AchArya's
> teachings?? what would be the treatment that he is going to receive
> within
> saMpradAya??
>

Karthik prabhuji:

Good question.

bhaskar :

but I am sorry to say yours is completely irrelevant answer...I shall
tell
you why...

Karthik prabhuji:

What happens if a disciple of Sankara argues against the Sankara
Bhashya?

The answer:

bhaskar :

The answer you have provided below is not relevant to my question...I
asked
you *how* this achArya will be treated within saMpradAya..??  I am not
asking about justification that he provided for his *alternative*
commentary...I am asking about his *status* within saMpradAya *after*
finding *fault* with his own guru's position.

Karthik prabhuji:

2) The Jivanmuktiviveka considers two kinds of students of Vedanta:
the Kritopasti and the a-Kritopasti, and says that the former's Jnana
is the same as mukti, while the latter's is not (i.e. further effort
is required in this particular case to attain mukti).

bhaskar :

If kritopasti is the jnAni & his jnAna= mukti then he is not at all a
*student/sAdhaka/jignAsu/mumukshu...he is brahman itself..since
a-kritopasti has not yet gained that paramArtha jnAna, he has to put
further efforts to attain that highest jnAna.  But once that knowledge
of
ultimate is dawned & has become one with THAT, he need not have to put
further efforts (vidhi-s) to *cement* IT...

Karthik prabhuji:

Now, it is futile to quote a thousand Sruti statements proclaiming
that Jnana=mukti and claim that this contradicts the
Jivanmuktiviveka, because these Sruti statements can easily be
interpreted as the Jnana of the Kritopasti.

bhaskar :

kritopasti's jnAna is the *real* jnAna & there is no gradation in that
*Atma jnAna*..a-kritopasti-s jnAna cannot be called as brahma jnAna in
absolute sense, it can be either a saguNa brahman jnAna/ parOksha jnAna
or
jnAna that is occured in pratyaya rUpa through guru & shAstrOpadEsha.
See
shankara bhAshya which I've quoted in Part-II.

Karthik prabhuji:

Therefore, in order to truly disprove the doctrine of the
Jivanmuktiviveka,
there must exist a reference from the Sruti or the Smriti to the effect
that even in
the case of the a-Kritopasti, the Jnana dawned is the same as mukti.

bhaskar :

Infact, I am arguing about the same points with you...your claim is that
ajnAni's jnAna of shAstra is referred to Atma jnAna & he is jnAni
himself &
in jnAni's jnAna there is unsteady & steady jnAna, pAditya/jnAna
*always*
mean Atma jnAna etc.etc. And you have miserably failed to provide me any
valid pramANa to show the difference between jnAni-mAtra jnAni & ajnAni
(who has mere shAstra pAnditya)..so, your shruti viruddha statements
donot
hold any worthy stuff to infer it as a *fact*!!!

By the way, pls. clarify, in bruhadAraNyaka maNtra 3-5-1, first brahmaNa
is
kritopasti or a-kritopasti??

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org