[Advaita-l] The safe way

[V Subrahmanian]

On 14 Sep 2017 23:58, "Aditya Kumar" <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com> wrote:





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.


That does not make him a shaiva. Any god can be saguna Brahman in advaita.
Suredhwara in vartika has held any of the three murtis and guru can be
antaryamin. So your conclusion is not based on facts.


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.


Appayya dikshita has stated a hierarchy across the four schools.
Reconciliation arises only when there is difference.





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.


The answer is already there. They all lead one to the same goal. Sureshwara
has said this very clearly.



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 can fancy anything in Shankara and others why can't I?




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.



Your fundamental premise itself is flawed. That they are all contradictory
is itself a product of misguided study.




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).


You can never prove that without risking the charge turned towards you. Sri
SSS did that and ended up being seen as one who deviated from Shankara. It
is dubbed as 'Matthur prakriya' by others.


regards
subbu