[Advaita-l] Re The stance of the upadeshasaahasrii on Ignorance, Deep Sleep

[rajaramvenk at gmail.com]

According Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal, the differing positions within the sampradaya are drshti bheda. He showed how the  differences are reconciled in response to my queries on theory of reflection as per different sub-schools of advaita. (I had to go in to it as reflection theory is critical to my study of bhakti in advaita).

Is it the hall mark of understanding when differences are resolved using right logic to create a harmonious view? I see Madhusudana and Appayya Dikshitar did that too. Or is it the desire to see unity where none exists?

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Sender: "Advaita-l" <advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:10:20 
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
 <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re The stance of the upadeshasaahasrii on Ignorance,
 Deep Sleep

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:18 PM, subhanu saxena <subhanu at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> 1)
> It has been acknowledged but ignored /superceded
> by later vivaraṇa school writers because they remained unsatisfied with
> Suresvara refusing to acknowledge the question “why is the Atman unknown?”
> as a
> legitimate question. This could be why Suresvara’s works are not
> prescribed by
> current orthodox teachers who direct students to Panchadasi and other works
> over Suresvara. I have certainly seen this happen. An additional reason I
> have
> also been given by teachers as well as seekers is that Suresvara’s works
> are
> too vast and inaccessible. This to my mind is a pity
>

Namaste

I have observed that the traditional scholars are quite well-read with
regard to Sureshwara's works.  I have myself been taught the Taittiriya
VArtika while this upanishad was being taught.  The Naishkarmyasiddhi is
also generally taught.  The Br. up. vArtika has remained in the background
mainly because of its volume and because many have not the patience to sit
through the huge work.  The late Vidwan Sri Kudur Krishna Jois who had
participated in the first mUlAvidyA debate in Bangalore has made a Kannada
translation of the entire Br.up. vArtika.  The huge volume of manuscript is
yet to be published.  Maybe only one or two volumes have been published.


> 2)
> There is a view within the vivaraṇa tradition
> that Suresvara does not represent the true tradition of Shankara.
> Interestingly
> I have met some scholars of the orthodox tradition who have expressed this
> view
> to me
>

To my knowledge there is no such view.  The scholars I have interacted with
have only been eager to substantiate Shankara's bhashya with citing
Sureshwara's views.

warm regards
subrahmanian.v

>
>
> 3)
> Suresvara has not been deeply studied by many,
> so these differences are not well understood. I would also proffer that
> the original
> works of the vivaraṇa tradition have also not been studied  by many to
> understand that the differences
> are there. The example I have given is that of Iṣṭa-siddhi so overtly and
> directly
> refuting Suresvara’s conception of ignorance as “I do not know”. Why should
> this be the case is worth studying by getting to know both works well.
> This is one
> of the reasons, to answer Bhaskar’s question,  I am championing the
> propagation of the study
> of Suresvara as a treasure trove that can unlock much wisdom for the
> seeker by
> helping to deeply test one’s understanding.
>
>
_______________________________________________
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