[Advaita-l] Fwd: SSS, avidyA, shrI Ramakrishnan

[bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com]

Humble praNAms Sri Anand Hudli prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Dear Anand prabhuji, I am afraid, we are spending our time & energy in
clarification of some unnecessary things..Anyway, this is my last post on
this issue prabhuji.

AH Prabhuji :

I repeat what I said earlier since the point seems to have been lost on
you.
What difficulty do you have in accepting HH Bharati Tirtha's opinion?
Please
do not keep harping on blind faith. This is the borderline upon crossing
which all the members of this list will feel insulted. This is the advaita
list for God's sake, not some hocus-pocus mysticism or fanatism list.
Obviously, Sri Bharati Tirtha would have studied what Sri SSS has said and
only then made the statement I mentioned earlier about the consistency of
later AchAryas and Shankara. When we have two Acharyas (Sri SSS and Sri
Bharati Tirtha) saying what they said what we shoud we do? We know that Sri

Bharati Tirtha would have studied Sri SSS' works and all that he said.
Therefore, we should conclude that Sri SSS' sayings are refuted by Sri
Bharati Tirtha, since the former AchArya's works were taken into
consideration by the later AchArya.

bhaskar :

Frankly, I am failed to understand as to how you are relating HH Sri
Bharati Tirtha mahAswamina's statements in introduction to *siddhAnta lEsha
saNgraha* to the refutation of Sri SSS's works...I earnestly think that HH,
here talking about the discrepancies in bhAmati & vivaraNa in general & Sri
Appayya dIkshita's effort to reconcile the same in particular.  I dont know
how HH's  comments in a particular book is the *overall* refutation of Sri
SSS's works. Neither HH has mentioned Sri SSS name directly anywhere here
nor he talked anything about his works indirectly. Under these
circumstances, I just wonder there is no valid reason to infer that HH is
*directly* refuting Sri SSS's works in an entirely different context.

But on the other hand, it is a matter of fact that Sri Abhinava VidyAtIrtha
mahAsvaminaH, the guru of HH Sri bhArati tIrtha mahAswaminaH, has
*directly* showered appreciation on Sri SSS for his efforts in bringing out
shuddha shanakra siddhAnta, personally discussed with Sri SSS about some
*delicate/complicated* issues in shankara vEdAnta in general & Sri SSS's
work *mAndUkya rahasya vivrutti* in particular. After this meeting, HH
Abhinava vidyAtIrtha was very much impressed by these developments & ready
to finance for Sri SSS's works publication!!!  and Sri sannidhAnaM had also
allowed at his august presence to debate on mUlAvidyA between Sri
jnAnAnandendra Saraswati, (formerly Sri Vittala Shastry), the first
disciple of Sri SSS and a pundit in shrungeti maTha.. If Sri SSS's works
were *completely* sampradAya virOdhi, if it was mere personal attacks on
later vyAkhyAnakAra-s without any *stuff* in it, why on the earth, HH was
ready to finance the *saMpradAya virOdhi* activities/ works of Sri SSS ??
>From this, can we infer that HH himself encouraged sampradAya virOdhi
activities??!! I hope no tradtionalist would accept it!!! Now prabhuji, you
tell me, why dont you believe prompt & open appreciation of HH Sri abhivana
vidyAtIrtha mahAsvAminaH on Sri SSS?? & why dont you allow us (Sri SSS's
followers) to raise our  voice against something which we think goes
against mUla bhAshya of shankara??

While on the subject, it may be also appropriate to recall that Sri
Chandrashekharendra Saraswati mahAswAminaH, then pontiff of kaNchi kAmakOti
peeTham marvelled by astonishing philoshical acumen of Sri SSS, called him
*puruSha saraswati* & openly appealed that every possible help should be
given to propagate Sri SSS's views on shankara vEdAnta.

AH prabhuji :

Again as I said earlier (I have to keep repeating old arguments), there are

bound to be differences in approach among the galaxy of AchAryas of
Shankara's sampradAya. But these differences are not so great as to cause
an
erosion of Shankara's core teachings. This is the point. And if you say
that
there should never have been even those peripheral differences, you are
asking for the impossible from a rich tradition that extends over 1200
years. As I said earlier, Shankara would have employed parrots to memorize
his bhAShyas and had the parrots transmit them verbatim down the
generations, if he wanted, but he chose to have human disciples like
PadmapAda, Sureshvara, and others who used their own original methods to
further explain what Shankara taught.

bhaskar :

I've already shared Sri SSS's view points with regard to his insistence of
*going back* to shankara vEdAnta...If the later vyAkhyAnakAra-s are not
like parrots & if they adopted their unique method of approaching non-dual
philosophy of scripture ...so be it..we dont have any issue with it...but
for god's sake let them not announce that they are indeed teaching *actual*
views of shankara!!! From the strict *tattva jignAsu* view point, if
anybody observes these two vyAkhyAna-s (bhAmati & vivaraNa), their
methodologies or theories are drastically parting away from each other in
different directions.  This is what opinioned by Sri SSS.  So considering
this sad scenario, Sri SSS appeals that the tattva pariSOdhaka-s/ tattva
jignAsu-s should realize that at the best the vyAkhyAna-s are ONLY
instruments or means to help us to reckon the true meaning of the mUla
bhAshya of shankara bhagavadpAda and NOT that they are in themselves,
INDEPENDENTLY AN AUTHORITATIVE MEANS to non-dual philosophy. Sri SSS humbly
plead the discriminative readers to be objective & without giving any scope
whatsoever for attachment or hatred to any particular cult with biased mind
set, they should dedicate all their time and efforts in realizing the
reality of self according to the siddhAnta enshrined in the shuddha
shankara prakriya.

That's it from my side prabhuji...

Anand

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar