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

[malathy]

Dear Members
Iagree with what Sri Shyam tries to put forth.He is only emphasising the
fact that we are not competent enough to interpret Sruti in the light of our
modern outlook however best we may claim that we are still conservatives.Sri
Sankara has been accepted as the paramachrya  of the advaitha vedantha and
the guruparampara continues to this day.If someone tries to say that The
great Acharya has erred in an interpretation of a Sruthi vakya eventhough
he-someone- may agree in all other respects of Acharya`s interpretations it
is not for us to debate it    as in that process we are bound to take sides
because of our ego and lose sight of the supreme goal.I think this is what
Shyam tries to put across.R.Krishnamoorthy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Amuthan" <aparyap at gmail.com>
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: A Myth About Sankara (was Re: [Advaita-l] jnAna-vijnAna, ...)


> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>