[Advaita-l] A matter for Adjudication

[Venkata Subramanian]

The subject matter for adjudication is quite interesting, but I am not sure whether the Adjudication can be done on this matter here in this forum!!.  
 
Of course Sri V Subrahmanian's postings were interesting; but the other point is also equally a matter of fact that precisely these and more objections have indeed been well discussed in chapter-2 the work "MulAvidya NirAsa" of Sri Sachidanandendra Saraswathi Swamigal; and then his reply is in Chapter-3.   Therefore it is not that that Swamigal has concluded hastily something of such significance; while he should have been aware of what it means to say so boldly "that after Suresvara, what was said was not necessarily what Shankara and Suresvara said".
 
The problem in our attempt to adjudicate is that there sems to be no one, I repeat, who 
(a) has directly studied completely the Prastanatraya Bhashya and the Vartikas, under the Holenarsipuram Swamigal;
(b) has a reasonably good English writing, 
(c) is aware of and can use these modern utilities like the internet and
(d) is having access to, the liking to engage and participate in such e-forums and represent that Swamigal's side clearly in a reasonably good English.
 
Thus one of the Pakshas not being represented at all properly, it would be unfair to adjudicate "ex partie" without even considering the other side reasonably well.    There are a few exceptions like Subhanu Saxena and others but not a one like described above, which is necessary to represent their side so that we the members get immensly benefited for the "Adjudication".
 
Thanks & Regards,
Venkat.

Sadgurubhyo Namah.

--- On Sat, 10/4/10, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A matter for Adjudication
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Saturday, 10 April, 2010, 4:14 AM


--- On Fri, 4/9/10, savithri devaraj <savithri_devaraj at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Here is one interested member's
> opinion -
>  
> This is not a matter for adjudication - where loukika
> pramANa and vaidika pramANa have not helped, how can
> consensus help? 
>  
> Vedanta is to be directly and individually intuited from
> sruti and teacher, not based on consensus. 
>  

I cannot help but agree with the last statement above. Truth, especially Vedantic Truth, cannot be decided by "majority vote".

Besides, the "adjudication" process requires a great scholar who is competent, impartial and **acceptable to both parties involved in the debate**. I doubt if such a person exists on this list.

Regards,
Kartik

> Everyone's understanding is based on their own conditioning
> and capability/eligibility, and it should be left to that.
> The list serves the purpose of disseminating
> information, but can't go further than that. I don't
> think anyone can convince the other about their point of
> view, no matter how many times its argued and with any
> number of quotes, especially when both parties are using the
> saming quotes to promote their theory. Even if a
> million are against one, still the one can have his/her own
> valid understanding.
>  
> It seems pointless to me to argue indefinitely whether a
> jnani has avidya-lesha. Then there really is no meaning for
> jnana. I don't see what the jnani has to do with the body
> or mind, isn't he/she beyond the triad of pramANa, prameya
> and pramAtru? For the ignorant onlooker he may seem to go
> on, but jnana removes avidya, hence jnani is beyond all
> avidya-kalpita samsara, why tie her down with avidya-lesha?
> 
>  
> How can knowledge remove beginingless avidya only
> partially? If so, veda would be only a partial pramANa,
> isn't it? Veda is a pramANa as it reveals our true nature,
> not because it creates new knowledge. 
>  
> just my opinion,
> Savithri
> 
> Based on the foregoing points and the facts available in
> the posts on the
> topic and the Bhashya passages, the members are requested
> to decide on
> whether there is any justification in Shri Bhaskar ji's
> vociferous protests.
> One can easily show that the Bhashya passages he is quoting
> are out of place
> and wrongly connected to the topic. That is another
> matter.
> 
> I request all the interested members and the Moderators to
> give a serious
> thought to this, especially in view of the posts from Shri
> Bhaskar ji.  An
> adjudication based on the facts that are clearly available
> to us at this
> point of time will go a long way in preventing students of
> Advaita, both
> members who are present here and those who might view these
> discussions in
> the archives in the future,  from arriving at (1)
> wrong conclusions and / or
> (2) resting with the feeling that 'this is a point of
> contention, not
> decidable for eternity'.
> 
> If this post from me is considered uncivil in this forum in
> any respect, I
> seek your pardon; the Moderators may prevent it from
> remaining in the
> archives.
> 
> With warm regards,
> subrahmanian.v
> 
> 


      
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org



      The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/