[Advaita-l] Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva Vada - part 1

Aditya Kumar kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 23 08:23:01 EDT 2017

Yes, I admit that it's a long shot. I may be completely wrong throughout. However, the fact remains that both Mandan Misra and Vachaspati Misra were both very influential and prodigal scholars. Besides, Mandana was a contemporary of Shankara. Hence we cannot disregard them, specially in favour of others like Prakasananda or Madhusudana. When there is a conflict between Sruti and smriti, we choose one over the other. So what nyaya is applied when we prefer one author over another? We cannot conclude that everyone is saying the same thing when most of modern Advaitic concepts such as DSV and other topics are absent in both Shankara and other Advaitins' works. Moreover, a particular author clearly disagrees with another author/view. It's like saying 'All paths lead to same destiny'. It is merely a non-confrontational, conformist view and certainly not the truth. 
Om. May Brahman protect us both! May Brahman bestow upon us both the fruit of Knowledge! May we both obtain the energy to acquire Knowledge! May what we both study reveal the Truth! May we cherish no ill feeling toward each other! Om. Peace! Peace! Peace! 

      From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
 To: Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com> 
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Sent: Sunday, 23 July 2017 5:25 PM
 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva Vada - part 1
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:

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

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>

> 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


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list