[Advaita-l] Dakshinamurthystotra

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

Thanks for your mail.

​​
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:00 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> This is regarding my earlier statement that Sri Subbaramaiya, in his
> commentary on Sri Dakshinamurthy Stotra, has contended that it advocates
> DSV. I based this on two counts. One is that the title given to section 2.1
> (dealing with the first verse of the stotra)  is “ DSV “. The second is the
> following statement found therein.
>

​I think your conclusion on above two counts was right. In any case,
although I was glad to see Subbraramaiyaji endorsing Dakshinamurti stotra
as DSV, my conclusion was arrived at earlier itself when the work was
taught. I had mentioned other reasons in that thread.
​

> I was just revisiting another text on Naishkarmya Sidhi. In the course of
> a comparison between Bhamati and Vivarana schools, the author mentions that
> Bhamati is considered as favouring nAnAjIvavAda while Vivarana favours
> EkajIvavAda.
>
​This is another happy surprise for me, but since Swami Vidyaranya has also
voiced something similar about DSV, it should hopefully not be shocking to
Vivarana followers.

I was surprised by this and as a consequence went through Sri
> Subbaramaiya’s explanation for his above quote in section 2.1. This deals
> with the first verse of the Stotra.  As far as I could judge, he is
> interpreting the Stotra exactly on the lines of SDV !!!
>
​I have my own ways to interpret unless specifically said otherwise, which
most who have discussed with me know by now. If I see a rope-snake or
especially dream example used, I will be convinced of DSV. For what its
worth, there need not be a distinct bheda between prakriyAs in any major
Vedanta work. A part of it can be SDV and other DSV, the same thing being
meant for all types of adhikArins. Each picks one or the other learning
from it and move on for one's own sAkShatkAra; One should neutrally be able
to see both possibilities exist, since the commitment is in neither.


> You may like to take some time off (not much though) to cross check and
> come to your own conclusion.
> ​ ​
> And of course I would be very happy if you could convey your conclusion
> also in this regard.
>
​I'll surely look up and do so, thanks. ​We have just begun chAtussutrI
study and its getting a little hectic and terse. I intend to steal time
before today's grahaNa japa if possible.


> I am very sorry if I have misled you, but you will appreciate that it is
> not my fault entirely.
>
​Not at all. As I said, my conclusions preceded your mail about the book
comment.​


​gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen​