[Advaita-l] Adi Sankara Vs Vyasa Debate in Sankara Dig Vijaya

abhishek sm abhishek046 at gmail.com
Wed May 23 04:40:21 CDT 2012


Here is an extract from wikipedia regarding the meeting of
Madhwacharya and Vyasa

" In Badri, he bathed in the holy Gaṅgā and observed a vow of silence
of 48 days. From there, he traveled to Vyāsa-Badri where he met Vyāsa
at his hermitage and presented him with his commentary of the Gītā.
Veda Vyāsa changed the word that claimed "I have written with all my
capacity" to "I have written with little of my capacity".

Upon his return from there, he authored his celebrated commentaries on
the Brahma-sūtras. Though he authored several works, he never wrote
any work with his own hands. Instead, his disciples transcribed his
dictation onto palm leaves. Satya-tīrtha was one of the disciples who
served as the scribe for most of his works. "

Also if the madhwa objection is that madwacharya learnt from Vyasa
unlike Shankara making the latter correct there is a counter objection
as well.

If Adi Shankara is wrong, then Govindabhagavatpada is wrong.
Consequently his Guru Gaudapada must be wrong. Hence, Gaudapada's guru
Shuka is wrong which implies that even Vyasa must be wrong, as Vyasa
is the father of Shuka muni. Why would Vyasa teach a wrong philosophy
to his own son? Are the madhwas implying that Vyasa or Shuka are
liars? If they must find fault in the gurus after Shuka then wouldn't
the fault be the responsibility of Shukadeva and Vyasa himself?
Finally, if each guru starting from Vyasa made a mistake, would
Shankara have been able to give such a strong and influential
Not to mention the fact that Bhagawan Dattatreya gave a treatise on
Advaita vedanta called Tripura Rahasya. Do all these finally imply
that all these people were wrong/liars?

On 5/23/12, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> In Telugu there is a saying which reads something like this when
> translated "Much study, made him lose simple common sense" or "Too much
> study, made him lose his mind"
> This seem to be the state of affairs now among those few left who are
> intent to continuing their traditions.
> praNAms Sri Satish prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> IMHO, your remark & sweeping statement on saMpradAya vida-s & vAdins is
> totally unwarranted.  As you know saMpradAya has its own vital role to
> play in guiding the sAdhaka-s sAdhana in a channelized systematic way. One
> should be proud that he belongs to sanAtana vaidika saMpradAya which has
> been graced by stalwarts of vedAnta prakriya.  Having said this, I do
> agree that there exist  some irrational & unreasoned parables which some
> people hold at high esteem in the name of saMpradAya.  But this would not
> anyway come in the way of tradition & its sanctity.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list