[Advaita-l] Dr Mani Dravid

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Both the bhAmatI and vivaraNa are equally acceptable - sure each
school has it's own writers forcefully putting forth their points. But
Citsukha has clearly shown  that they are both equally acceptable -
depending on adhikArI-bheda-nyAya.

Furthermore, Sureshvara in his vArtikas on the upanishads does not
talk anything about pa~ncIkaraNa. As far as I know, this is not a
major point of controversy between the two different schools. The
vivaraNa tradition is largely based on Sureshvara's arguments about
avidyA - which go further than what Sankara himself explicitly says.
That's really the key difference. But as I said, this is not really an
issue if we apply the Anathakya kind of reasoning as used by Citsukha.

Rama

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Antharyami <sathvatha at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hari OM~
> Shri Ramakrishnan ji and Shri Subramanian ji,
>
> As far as I know Shri Mani Dravid is an ardent follower of the Vivarana
> tradition. He is opposed to the Bhamati prasthana. He has written few papers
> lamenting the limitations (so-called) of Bhamati. I have spoken to him on
> few crucial issues on Bhamati and Vivarana differences. In my view I
> strongly subscribe to Vacaspati's views on Mula-avidya-tula-vidya
> bifurcation and the avidya-(jiva)asraya theory upon which the internal
> differences in Advaita is largely based. Vacaspati's classification on the
> two-fold avidya 'anirvAcyAvidyAdvividha' is more logical and convincing and
> i insist that it ought to be read with Kalpataru and Abhoga. Further with
> regards to the metaphysics, Trvrtkarana is clearly endorsed by the
> Sutra-kara with full Sankara-sammati as found in the bhasya. The so-called
> Suresvara tradition as promulgated by SSS taking full-rights n patent can
> mean nothing to Sastraic scholars. SSS is not a tradition per-se but just an
> offshoot of non-Pancapadika movement.