[Advaita-l] Supremacy of Shiva over Vishnu

[D Gayatri]

//however, the third, ie the analysis of Shankara bhAshya to determine
tAtparya, should be according to sampradAya, and not contradictory to it. //

Is there any reason why this should be so? For example, does it require
sAmpradAya, to count how many times Shankara has quoted the BU in his BSB?
Or does it require sAmpradAya to know whether or not he has used the word
vivarta anywhere? Aren't these available to perception and inference? And
moreover, what guarantee do you have that the sAmpradAya never evolved and
is static? Aren't there advaitins like Sri SSS who thought that later
advaitins changed the meaning of Shankara's teachings?


//The second one, ie commentary on the personality of Shankara, I would
argue is probably best preserved in tradition, unless it is argued that
modern scholars have the extra sensory perception to delve back a 1000
years to make any statement on it which is not anything more than
conjecture.//


Does it really require an extra sensory perception? Don't you think, the
works of Shankara or his disciples cannot provide any clues?


//While you were pointing out that some western scholars' views on vedAnta
should be accepted, you were unprepared to accept any element of
historicity to any traditional accounts preserved in mathas.//


Sorry, I never said any western scholar's views should be accepted without
question. You are welcome to check my messages. I have no personal affinity
to Hacker's theories. If you have any evidence contradicting Hacker, you
are welcome to present it.


On Saturday, 3 September 2016, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> //One is worldly knowledge, aparA vidyA, whose knowledge is derived from
> pratyaksha pramANa and the other is spiritual knowledge, aparA vidyA, which
> depends on shruti pramANa.//
>
> <<The question of history of the Shankara mutts and the personality of
> Shankara, and scholarly analysis of his bhAshyas does not require Shruti
> pramANa, since these are available to pratyaksha and anumAna. >>
>
> The first of the three items referred by you in the paragraph above
> (history of Shankara matha) is available to pratyaksha and anumana,
> however, the third, ie the analysis of Shankara bhAshya to determine
> tAtparya, should be according to sampradAya, and not contradictory to it.
> The second one, ie commentary on the personality of Shankara, I would argue
> is probably best preserved in tradition, unless it is argued that modern
> scholars have the extra sensory perception to delve back a 1000 years to
> make any statement on it which is not anything more than conjecture.
>
> Coming to the topic of this thread, which is the interpretation of
> Shankara bhAshya, if any scholar is deviating from sampradAya in
> interpreting Shankara bhAshya, that is a serious flaw in my opinion. The
> tAtparya of Shankara bhAshya is nirguna Brahman.
>
> I am neither qualified to comment on or interested in the historicity of
> Shankara or Shankara mathas, so I haven't commented on the other thread.
> All I was pointing out was what I perceived to be slight double standards.
> While you were pointing out that some western scholars' views on vedAnta
> should be accepted, you were unprepared to accept any element of
> historicity to any traditional accounts preserved in mathas.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 3 Sep 2016 11:28 a.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','agnimile at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> I can because I have interacted with Subbuji in the past and I do not
>> think he is prejudiced.
>>
>> On 3 Sep 2016 10:42 a.m., "D Gayatri" <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> //Please don't paint this as prejudice of western views.//
>>>
>>> Isn't it prejudice to imply that all western scholars are fools? You may
>>> not have this prejudice, but my post was not directed at you either.
>>>
>>>
>>> //The analogy of acceptance of western views and inventions such as
>>> computers
>>> etc but non acceptance of western views in matters of Vedanta is not
>>> appropriate here as we are talking of two different spheres of knowledge.
>>> One is worldly knowledge, aparA vidyA, whose knowledge is derived from
>>> pratyaksha pramANa and the other is spiritual knowledge, aparA vidyA,
>>> which
>>> depends on shruti pramANa.//
>>>
>>>
>>> The question of history of the Shankara mutts and the personality of
>>> Shankara, and scholarly analysis of his bhAshyas does not require Shruti
>>> pramANa, since these are available to pratyaksha and anumAna.
>>>
>>>
>>> //Even in parA vidyA, no one is dismissing *all* the views of *all*
>>> scholars,//
>>>
>>> I am not sure how you are able to speak on behalf of everyone here.
>>>
>>>
>>> //On the other side of the equation, coming to aparA vidyA, to dismiss
>>> all
>>> traditional accounts as hagiographies devoid of historical merit is
>>> throwing the baby out with the bathwater.//
>>>
>>>
>>> By nature, each tradition glorifies itself at the expense of others. And
>>> most traditions have mixed the natural and the supernatural. Naturally,
>>> such accounts are more appropriately called as hagiographies rather than
>>> biographiesWhile you were pointing out that some western scholars' views on
>>> vedAnta should be accepted, you were unprepared to accept any element of
>>> historicity to any traditional accounts preserved in mathas.
>>>
>>