[Advaita-l] Temples , smArtha-s, vaiShNava-s

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
>
>  I am getting a little sick and tired of Hare Krishnas/Sri Vaishnavas
>> (wannabe Sri Vaishnavas?) etc invading our list and wasting everyones
>> time.
>> Can we give this a rest?
>>
>>
> Uh where is this occuring?  Shri Jai Simman made a very simple point:
>
>
>
>>> Don't criticise a person or his view without directly speaking to him
>>> about
>>> it and asking why he has said this and in what connection.
>>>
>>>
> Which sounds eminently sensible to me.  Wouldn't we want the same courtesy
> extended to Advaitins?
>
> Now it has also been said that it is only the view that is being criticized
> not the person and this is of course completely legitimate. Perhaps it is
> best follow the lead of our shastras and introduce incorrect views with
> "some say" or "it is said"  It gives the historian who is trying to figure
> out who "some" is a headache but it avoids the problem of making arguments
> personal.
>

Although this method appears to be advantageous, yet it is not free of
problems.  In most such cases the BhAshyakAra or some other commentator
comes to say 'who' that 'some' is.  For example, in the Chandogya Upanishad
VI .2.1 we have the Upanishad saying:

...तद्धैक आहुः असदेवेदमग्र आसीत्....[....With regard to that some say, "In
the beginning this was non-existence alone..."

Shankaracharya, while commenting says: ...एके (some) = nihilists.

Again, the Brahma sutra 3.3.53 is worded: एके आत्मनः शरीरे भावात् [ Some
(deny) the soul's existence....]  Shankaracharya comments:  'some' =
देहमात्रात्मदर्शिनः लोकायतिकाः...those who hold that the body alone is the
self, materialists

Also, a careful reader will always try to 'see thru' every word of what is
said.  Indefinite references like 'some',  'they say'  etc. will not be left
at that; they will be probed and questioned and the author will have to
provide the specific answers.  Shankaracharya, for example, in the sutra:
उत्पत्त्यसंभवात्  2.2.42 says it is the Bhaagavata, pAncharaatra school that
is being discussed here.  Other Acharyas have not agreed with this.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v


>
> -