[Advaita-l] Fwd: "time" as defined in Vedanta pariBAsha.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,
Sure, as long as there is agreement on siddhAnta, one can choose any shruti
approved prakriya.
We can keep arguing which prakriya is better till the cows come home.
यया यया भवेत् पुंसां व्युत्पत्तिः प्रत्यगात्मनि।
सा सैव प्रक्रिया साध्वी विपरीता ततोऽन्यथा ॥

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 26 Dec 2016 8:01 a.m., "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
>
>
>
> Reg  << As you are aware, there are several views of kAla within advaita
> darshana >>,
>
>
>
> Let alone on kAla,  there are several advaita sidhAntas themselves apart
> from the one advanced by sri Bhagavatpada. To name a few भावाद्वैत,
> शब्दाद्वैत,  सत्ताद्वैत (bhAvAdvaita,  shabdAdvaita,  sattAdvaita) etc.
> भावाद्वैत (bhAvAdvaita) is advocated by Sri Mandana Mishra, शब्दाद्वैत
> (shabdAdvaita) is advocated by Bhartruhari etc. None of these is accepted
> by Sri Bhagavatpada. Apart from this there are any number of instances
> where views different from the Bhashya are taken on specific issues while
> accepting the overall concepts of the Bhashya. When different views
> prevalent in advaita sidhanta on specific topics are presented in different
> works, it is not always made clear whether any or all of them are in
> accordance with the one advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada. I face that
> difficulty whenever I refer to Sidhantaleshasamgraha of Sri Appayya
> Dikshitar himself.
>
>
>
> You have referred to the work by Sri Subbaramiah. I have not read the
> same. I am not sure if he has clarified on this point. You may please
> confirm. I invariably like to go by the Bhashya only. In my understanding
> Sri Bhagavatpada does not admit of any entity other than mAya/avidya (of
> course ascribibng various alternate names to it ) prior to Creation. And
> all other nAma-rUpAs including kAla are products of mAya/avidya only.
>
>
>
> You have also referred to Suta Samhita and commentary of Swami Vidyaranya
> on the same. While I have not read the same, I think it should be possible
> to interpret the commentary in line with the Bhashya ( Sri Bhagavatpada ).
> I cannot imagine Swami Vidyaranya taking any such major deviation from the
> Bhashya.
>
>
>
> Regards
>