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

[Amuthan]

namo nArAyaNAya!

dear shrI shyAm,

On 3/16/07, Shyam <shyam_md_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>   I find it difficult to believe that a student of advaita can question Bhagawan Shankara's authority as a revealer of what Mother Shruti conveys.

  i get a feeling that you are missing the main thrust of shrI
jayanArAyaNan's argument regarding the authority of bhagavatpAda
within the sampradAya. shrI jayanArAyaNan had stated his position so
clearly that it hardly leaves any room for misunderstanding. for easy
reference, i quote the most relevant part of his mail below:

On 3/14/07, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> * IF AND ONLY IF there is a contradiction between the views of
> Bhashyakaras, belonging to the Sampradaya, on a specific issue
> ***that cannot be resolved by any amount of interpretation***, that
> Bhashyakara's view will be accepted as valid **on this specific
> issue**, which tallies with reasoning based on the higher authorities
> -- Sruti and Smriti.

  since others have addressed the various issues you have raised in
your mail, i'll remain content to comment on only one of your
objections.

On 3/16/07, Shyam <shyam_md_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
 To say that latter day commentaries improve our understanding of
vedanta over and above Shankara's exhaustive and elaborate bhashyas is
indeed preposterous.

not at all. it is well known that sha~Nkara writes his bhAShya-s
having an uttama or madhyamAdhikAri in mind. sha~Nkara *presupposes*
sAdhana chatuShTaya sampatti in his readers and also makes this fact
very clear in his works. not just this, there are lots of issues, like
the necessity of yoga, to which AchArya indirectly refers in various
parts of his works assuming that they will be taught when one seeks
shelter in a vedAnta sampradAya. it is indeed from the living
tradition that follows sha~Nkara that we can understand AchArya's
hRdaya. that the sampradAya is true to sha~Nkara is amply 'proved' by
the jIvanmuktAs (as AchArya describes them) it has produced over the
centuries.

in short, later commentaries do indeed clarify and amplify what
AchArya had written in his prasanna and gambhIra bhAShya-s. if
sha~Nkara's works were self-sufficient for *** all *** adhikAri-s, why
should even sureshvara care to write a vArtika on his bhAShya-s? (***
please *** understand this sentence in the right spirit.)

vAsudevaH sarvaM,
aparyAptAmRtaH.