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

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

I understand that in the Chapter 22 of the "Mahabharata Taparya Nirnaya" Sri Madhvacharya  had tried to do character assassination of Adi Sankaracharya by calling the latter as a demon trying to misinterpret the shastras. Has any of our esteemed members seen the above Chaapter 22.

Regards,
Sunil KB


________________________________
 From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fw: [hc] Reinterpreting Dwaita versus Adwaita by sanjay rao
 

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
>
>