[Advaita-l] The safe way

[Aditya Kumar]

How did you arrive at the above conclusion calling it a 'fact'? To be a Shaiva one must believe that moksha is going to Shivaloka, Kailasa and remain there as an entity different from Shiva. Also that all jivas are absolutely different from each other. Did Appayya Dikshitar subscribe to these beliefs in his personal life? Who is Neelakantha? Did you mean Srikantha? In fact his system is Shiva vishishta advaita. Appayya Dikshita also wrote concise commentaries on the Brahma sutras as per all the four schools. Would you call him a Dvaitin, Vishisthadvaitin (Ramanuja), Srikantha-school and Advaitin all rolled into one? What is the rationale behind your conclusion? 
A : Apologies, my bad. Yes I meant Srikanta. In the beginning of sivarkamanidipika, on Srikanta's Shaiva commentary to the Brahma-Sutra he says - Vyasa in his Brahma-Sutra tried to establish the superiority of Saguna Brahman Shiva as interpreted by Srikanta. 
Shankara and Vyasa are believed to have written works on Patanjala Yoga. Do you conclude that they are Patanjalas? Vachaspati Mishras works on Nyaya, Purvamimasa, Sankhya etc. are considered to be authentic works on those schools. Would you think he was a Sankhya, etc. and not an Advaitin? There are scholars of Ramanuja school who have written works on Purvamimamsa, vyakarana ,etc. Are they 
A : Writing about many subjects is different from attempting to reconcile different subjects.  



You are only making much ado about nothing. All the so-called 'street-fight' is nothing but naught. No advaita sādhaka has ever seen these as fights, nor has he had any tough time with these 'differences.' He has only seen all these as ideas for manana and nothing more than that. So, the talk of 'admitting the truth' has zero content in it.     
A : Again, you are speaking for all Advaitins which I don't think is correct. Further you have declared that these fights/difference of opinions are nothing but naught but didn't care to explain exactly how. 



All the logical formalism, etc. are eminently found in Shankara's works. It is only evident that you have neither studied Shankara nor the others' works in enough detail in order to make a sweeping statement such as the above.   
A : I am not surprised by your comment at all. You can pretty much find anything you fancy in Shankara's works. I suspect you can even drink even a mirage to your heart's content. 




If you think you are justified in making a concession with regard to the Bhāmati, how can you disallow that with regard to the other works that others think are required in their appreciating and understanding Advaita/Shankara? 
A : Sure, I never contended that. I only said the various views floating within the Advaita school cannot be reconciled. A hybrid view cannot be afforded as it won't be able to satisfy all objections. 
    



Has anyone so far proved that all the sub-commentators have ended up establishing anything other than Advaita? The perception of all rival schools about all these works is that they are all advaitins. Do you have the wisdom to say the contrary?
A : If you choose to overlook glaring contradictions, then it's not difficult to say everything is Brahman. How can we judge what's inside a fruit without dissecting it? On the outside a Mango may look flawless but it might be foul inside. Anyways whether the sub-commentators established Advaita or not is not even the concern here as they all have based their works on Sutra Bashya. The only matter of concern is who has faithfully followed Shankara and who has digressed(which means contrary to Shankara).
regardssubbu