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

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Take the following scenario.Just suppose Vidyasankar, Kartik and I
converged at some place and make the following statements:

Vidyasankar: The blue color of the sky is an illusion.
Kartik: The blue color of the sky is an illusion and the blue is a
deep-blue today
Me: The blue color of the sky is an illusion and I wouldn't categorize
the blue as a deep-blue

Are Kartik and I disagreeing with Vidyasankar, although we are
disagreeing with each other?

The fact that Sankaras commentaries allow for different
interpretations has been note by many, including notably S. S.
Surayanarayana Sastri (vide Collected papers of ...).

While the two schools have produced scholars who have defended their
positions, how both views fit with sidhhaanta has been shown by many
including Citsukha.

"What if" is not a reasonable option, only "What is". Any amount of
"What if" scenarios, can be dreamt up. What if a manuscript is
unearthed in which Sankara says that he was playing a massive joke,
and that he was actually a vaisheShika?

"What is" is clear enough - the views of Sampradaayavits such as
ViruupakSha Saastri and Sri Sannidhaanam on SSSs works.

I like to think of the sampradaaya as a self-correcting mechanism.
Whether two seemingly disconsonant views are against tradition is
known from tradition itself. Not by picking up two books and comparing
them. Giving more weightage to the printed word is a Western notion of
analyzing things.

Rama

On 3/14/07, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Given that the bhamati and vivarana disagree with each other obviously
> only one can agree with Shankaracharya.  Now you say Chitsukhacharya
> reconciled bhamati and vivarana  with each other and with Shankara.  Well
> who is to say some recent Chitsukhacharya couldn't also reconcile Swami
> Sacchidanandendra too?
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Which is further proof that shastra not a personality is the pramana
> doesn't it?
>
> And tell me if a person can go as far as to say use a phrase like durukta
> without being disowned by his Guru or drummed out of town by that Gurus
> followers what exactly did SSS do which was so unforgivable?
>
> > 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
> > : -).
> >
>
> Both sides are wrong but in different ways.  Your side is wrong because it
> is making a tempest in a teapot.
>