[Advaita-l] Difference in the approaghes of Madhacharya and Shankaracharya

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

 Dear Srinathji,

Please pay attention to the whole truth. Vedanta is the Para-Vidya and the Veda is the Apara-Vidya

skb


--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 8/20/16, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Difference in the approaghes of Madhacharya and Shankaracharya
 To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
 Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "yahoogroups" <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>
 Date: Saturday, August 20, 2016, 7:52 AM
 
 
 
 On Fri,
 Aug 19, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
 wrote:
 Well, there does not
 appear to be any valid reason at all  to use Apara vidya to
 explain Para-Vidya. 
 
 Your
 very identification that Veda as "para vidya" is
 quite unvedic and wrong. muNDakopaniShat has this say about
 entire aagama texts;
 
 || dve
 vidye veditavye iti ha sma |  
  yad.hbrahmavido vadanti paraa chaivaaparaa cha ||
 4||
 || tatraaparaa
 R^igvedo yajurvedaH
 saamavedo.atharvavedaH shikshaa kalpo
 vyaakaraNaM niruktaM chhando jyotishhamiti |atha
 paraa yayaa tadaksharam adhigamyate || 5|| 
 
 As you
 can see muNDakopaniShat puts the entire Agama, the only
 admitted sourceof knowledge of Brahman, under the
 category of apara vidyA as per "tatraaparaa R^igvedo
 yajurvedaH saamavedo.atharvavedaH ".
 So, your premise itself is wrong
 here.
 
  The Upanishads
 constitute the Vedanta,i.e., the highest knowledge and the
 Lord says in the  Chapter 15 of the Bhagavad Gita that he
 Himself is the source of the knowledge of the Vedanta.
 
 
 Aren't you refuting yourself by
 quoting gIta (which is non-vEda and apara per you) to
 justify your position? This is the classical svavachana
 virOdha or apasiddhAnta flaw in tarka.
 More over Advaita does not
 accept all Shruti as scripture, in addition, preferring to
 arbitrarily brand some inconvenient ones as
 "atatvaavedaka" and "anuvaadaka," so its
 own record in this matter is highly
 questionable.
  The explanation of the
 highest jnana by lower jnana may appear obvious to the
 Dvaitins but not to the advaitins including the greatest
 Advaitin, Adi Shankaracharya.
 
 
 It may
 be so for advaitins. But for others they are going by the
 very definition of 'Agama' as given by texts
 themselves and consider purANas as quite valid in this
 context;
 
 RigAdyA bhArataM chaiva
 paJNcharAtramathAkhilam.h |mUlarAmAyaNaM chaiva
 purANaM chaitadAtmakam.h ||
 ye cha anuyAyinastveshhAM sarve te
 cha sadAgamAH |durAgamastadanye ye tairna j~neyo
 janArdanaH ||
 (vEda-s starting from Rg, and
 the pancharAtra in their entirety, the mUla rAmAyaNa in its
 entirety, and those purAaNa-s that follows the previous.
 These, and others that follow these, are all sadAgamA-s;
 others are durAgama-s, and from these janArdana (Brahman) is
 not known)
 Also shruti asserts `itihAsapurANaH
 panchamO vEdAnAm vEdaH' 
 In another place Bru.Up asserts
 --
 sa
 yatHaadreidhAgnErabhyahitasya pruTHag dhUmA vinischaranti,
 Evam vA arE asya mahatO bhUtasya niHshwasitamEvaitad
 yadrigvEdO yajurvEdaH sAmavEdO athH vrAngIrasa itihAsaH
 purANAmvidyA upanishadaH shlOkaH sUtrANyanu
 vyAkhyAnAni vykhyAnisTaM hutA mAtisham pAyitamayam cha lOkaH
 parachaH lOkaH sarvANi cha bhUtanyasaivaitAni sarvANi
 niHshwasitAna ||
 (Just
 like how smoke and sparks emits from the raw firewood,
 similarly; from the Great Being of `hayagrIva' rUpi
 parabrahman, all these of Rig-yajur-sAma-atharvaNa vEda-s,
 itihAsa, purANa, mUla vEda, Upanishads, brahma sUtra,
 vEda-vykhyAna-s, yAga, hOma, annadAna, jaladAna, aids to
 achieveparalOka, all charAchara creatures emits
 at the beginning of creation. )
 
 
  
 
 
 As to the claim about Madhva's always citing specific
 texts, the  Brahmatarka is the greatest obstacle for
 anybody outside the Madhva tradition to agree to that
 assertion. . Dr. B.N.K.Sharama himself admitted that Madhva
 quoted Brahmatarka 500 times, but nobody knows from where
 Madhva found the  Brahma tarka  and when during his
 life-time did the Brahmatarka vanish. Not even a single
 disciple of Madhva  had seen the Brahmatarka. That is the
 reason why Non-Madvhites are justified in not recognizing
 the Brahma-tarka.
 
 
 
 
 Brahmatarka is also  quoted by the
 early 17th century advaitin AdvaitAnanda, the author of
 BrhmavidyAbharaNa on Shankara's BSB.
 As far as charge of aprasiddha texts
 are concerned, it also apply to others. Aprasiddha Paingi upaniShat is quoted by
 Shankara. Please
 show me any non-advaitic tradition who holds such texts
 as yoga-vashiShTha, adhyAtma-rAmAyaNa etc as
 valid. 
 Why that far, there is big
 disagreement about texts authored by Acharaya Shanakara
 himslef in the tradition, what to speak about such ancient
 texts such as Brahmataraka etc. not being carried on by
 advaita tradition.
 /sv