[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva Vada - part 1

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

You are making a tangential point. In Naiskarmyasiddhi the Atman or Brahman
is Ashraya for Avidyaa. Therefore it proves according to you DSV has a
strong base in Sankara and Sureshwara. You are missing this point. Mandana
may or may not be Sureshwara. It does not matter.

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Namaste,
>
> But tradition itself says that Mandana Misra was pre-sanyasa name of
> Sureshvara. That said, this is a much broader topic and based on my own
> 'leanings' I am trying to explore it. In the sense, I am assuming
> Vachaspati Misra's Bhamati as the best representation of Shankara as it
> appeals to me. In this light, I am trying to explore the authenticity of
> few books, the authorship of some celebrated personalities such as
> Sureshwara, the apparent contradictions between the works etc. I may never
> find an answer but it's kind of become a hobby so I shall pursue it.
>
> So if we consider Mandana Misra same as Sureshwara, and take into account
> the fact that Vachaspati Misra chose to write his Bhamati based on
> Brahmasiddhi rather than Naishkarmyasiddhi, many allegations will be
> resolved (at least for me).
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> vedanta.org>
> *To:* A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> vedanta.org>
> *Cc:* Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 23 July 2017 1:32 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Advaita-l] Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva
> Vada - part 1
>
> Namaste
>
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Venkateshji,
> >
> > But Holenarsipur swami himself contradicts Shankara when he says that
> > Avidya is nothing but mere Adhyasa. Further, I have glanced through some
> of
> > his works. He is extremely disrespectful towards Mandana Misra, a trait
> > often seen among scholars when they don't have a strong footing.
> >
> > On the contrary, DSV finds its roots in 'Brahman is the ashrya of Avidya'
> > view. So one school attacks another, but if we try to dive deep, Misra's
> > view appears rock solid. No dualist or non-dualist can challenge the view
> > of Misra as he humbles them all with his Anirvachaniya weapon.
> >
>
> Earlier you said DSV is not according to Sankara Bhashyas. But now are
> arguing for Mandana Misra even though he is against Sankara. Vacaspati
> follows Mandana mostly. It means Vacaspati is also against Sankara in some
> places. Take the Prasamkhyana meditation of Mandana and Vacaspati. This is
> not there in Sankara Bhashyas. Sureshwara has severely attacked
> Prasamkhyana meditation theory in his texts.
>
> Sureshwara is the best Disciple of Adi Sankara and he has very closely
> followed him. Brahman is the Ashraya for Avidyaa for Sureshwara. Therefore
> if you say the roots of DSV is in Brahman as Ashraya for Avidyaa it means
> DSV has roots in Sureshwara and it means in Sankara Bhashyas only because
> Sureshwara is the closest follower of Adi Sankara.
>
>
>
>
> >
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh