[Advaita-l] (Alleged) Internal Inconsistencies in the Advaita Tradition

[Shyam]

Pranams Rajaram

If you examine Sankara's commentary in the very excerpt I alluded to - what does 
He say? - vid. "He (the Lord) stands within the realm of the phenomenal 
vyavaharavishaye in the relation of a ruler to the so-called jivAs or 
cognitional Selfs - vijnanatmanah, which indeed are one with his own Self 
svatmabhutaneva--just as the portions of ether enclosed in jars and the like are 
one with the universal ether- but are limited by the assemblage of bodies and 
senses produced from name and form - namarupakrta karyakaranasanghatanurodhino - 
and that are conjured up by Avidya avidyapratyupasita" he clearly talks about 
the relation of many jivAs being in essence One and more so that One Self being 
non-different from the Lord. Be it abhasa vada, pratibimba vada, or avaccheda 
vada, all these prakriyas find resonance and legitimacy across the breadth of 
the AchAryA's prasthana trayi bhashyas - which latter then renders reconcilatory 
recourses rendundant.

And what is the sampradaya really speaking? What is its role or purpose? Is it a 
geopolitical entity entrusted with the task of listing a charter of mutually 
agreed upon postulates concerning metaphysical truths? I do not believe so - 
what it is simply an unbroken lineage based on a teaching methodology, in 
Upanisadic instruction handed down by the revered Bhagawatpada. The recipient 
for this teaching, the student is not merely a jijnasu, but much more 
critically, a mumukshu, whose singlepointed pursuit is moksha, and moksha alone. 
His aim then is at the paramartha, the vyavahara he already knows only too well 
to be his inescapable reality!.....on that score, understanding whether his 
jivahood status is on account of a destitute reflection or an imprisoned 
limitation makes not an iota of difference to his intolerable samsAra-bhAvA, 
which alone he seeks to transcend.

An elaborate expertise in and knowledge of these seemingly diverse prakriyas can 
fetch one PhDs, book titles, and bloated egos but does little in improving one's 
nishtA in the aham brahmAsmi bhAvA. It is interesting to read what Shri 
Roodurmum concludes in his book "Bhamati and Vivarna: a critical 
approach"...after pages after pages of a exhaustive analysis of all these 
polemic positions - "As a matter of fact , it is seen from an analysis of the 
Bhamati views as well as those of the Vivarna, as concerns the individual 
selves, as well as their nature and their relation to Brahman, that both schools 
postulate more or less the same doctrines"... !!

I believe Vedanta/Advaita, in essence, is extraordinarily simple - the infinite 
I seek without is the verisame infinite within, as what I take myself to me is 
but a phantasmic representation of an amalgamation fashioned of the nothingness 
of name and form alone. Understanding this is not extraordinarily difficult, but 
owning up to this is extraordinarily daunting - the majority of us who do not, 
find it safer instead, to take cover in the impregnable fortress of a 
perennially self-imposed incomplete understanding, a passport that permits us to 
stay distracted in the samsaric shabdajala, of prodigious polemics and 
perplexing prakriyas.

Hari OM
Shri Gurubhyoh namah
Shyam


----- Original Message ----
From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Tue, June 28, 2011 1:43:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] (Alleged) Internal Inconsistencies in the Advaita 
Tradition


BTW, my question is aimed at learning how the sampradaya explains
internal inconsistencies - e.g. one jiva or many.