[Advaita-l] Fw: [hc] Reinterpreting Dwaita versus Adwaita by sanjay rao

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

 Quoted below is an excerpt from Swami Maheshananda Giri's introduction to
the Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya, edited and published by Mahesh Research
Institute, Varanasi, 1982:

// We have been studying the different commentators, such as Srikantha,
Ramanuja, Vallabha, Nimbarka, Baladeva, Srikara, Madhva and the moderners,
for over fifty years now. We have seen that apart from the criticism of the
Advaita-view, there is little more in the content of their traditional view
that is not found in Shankara, or is not just a logical corollary of what
he has said. It is our challenge that apart from logic-chipping, not a
single spiritual fibre, which has not been either supported or contradicted
by Shankara, can be shown in the works of these commentators. All the
statements of the other commentators about God, are melted down in the
crucible of the concept of Saguna Brahman of Shankara. The concept of
Brahman of Srikantha and Ramanuja is practically identical with Shankara's
concept of Ishwara, and they rarely try to contradict it. Similarly,
Shankara's concept of Virat or Sutratman takes care of Madhva, Vallabha and
others. Thus, what they contradict, is the range outside their vision. Had
they been true traditionalists, they would have presented different facets
of the same Truth which Shankara had presented. When it comes to present a
positive aspect of the spiritual Being, they have little to say, though
they roar to assert what it is not. This gives the lie to their having
received a different unbroken tradition. ......but the traditionalist that
Shankara was, he never criticised or disowned the views of Virat,
Hiranyagarbha or Ishwara. He rather developed complete harmony between
them. Thus, without any fear of contradiction, we can say that Shankara's
is THE Hindu tradition. //

Regards,
subbu

----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
> To: "hinducivilization at yahoogroups.com" <hinducivilization at yahoogroups.com
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [hc] Reinterpreting Dwaita versus Adwaita by sanjay rao
>
>
> Namaskar,
>
> Majority of the Sankara-maths subscribe to the view that Adi Sankaracharya
> passed away in in the early 5th century BCE and they produce the unbroken
> guru-parampara to prove that.  Adi Sankaracharya was not the first person
> to talk about Advaita. Patanjali in his Patanjali-Pancasiti,which has been
> referred to by Abhinavagupta as Ananta-karika,  talks of Advaita. Then came
> Gaudapada, the param-guru of Adi Sankaracharya, who was also an advaitin.
> They all trace the concept of Advaita to Shruti. The Advaita is not for
> everybody. It is only for a  person, who has seen the temporal world and
> has developed the mental make-up to make that person yearn for the ultimate
> truth. The truth is that the Lord has not created the world out of anything
> external to Him. Everything is Him  and nothing but Him. Advaitin thrives
> for that unity and wants to get out of the notion of any separateness (ie.
> any individual existence).
>
> It is not that Madhvacharya did not understand the Advaita. In some of his
> works he did write a line or two on Advaita. Madhvacharya, however despised
> Adi Sankaracharya and thought that Adi Sankaracharya was out to destroy the
> world. Madhvacharya did realise that the individual identities or egos make
> the world, where one sees the others as separate beings. He  interpreted
> the losing of the ego or the individual identity as the destruction of the
> world. As he loved his own individual identiy (particularly as the son of
> Vayu) he was afraid that he would lose his dear individual identity if
> takes the path of Advaitic thinking.
>
> Regards,
> Sunil KB
>
>