[Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Adityaji,

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> You have simply copy/pasted the portions irrelevant to the discussion
> mixing it with the bitterness of your own mind.
>
​First of all, if I'd copy pasted, it would have still been better than
your copy-pasting Dasgupta and the like, who have no bearing on sampradAya.
In any case, what I have done is translated them, not copy-pasted. And just
because you can't make out head from tail of a sampradAya-argument, it
doesn't stand as irrelevant. As for bitterness, I have none, since I accept
all sub-commentators; you on the other hand... well, best left unsaid, you
have yourself voiced it enough without any supporting basis whatsoever.

Bhartrprapancha is not against 'jnana removes avidyanivritti' - your brand
> new requirement.
>
​This comment on requirement doesn't make sense! Please reread the first
sentence of the bhAShya quoted. Its no wonder, it seems irrelevant to you.​

The point of disagreement is that Shankara says 'jnana alone' leads to
> moksha.
>
​Yes. And please read as to what jnAna means to Vrttikara. Just because its
spells j-n-A-n-a, it doesn't mean the same to all.​

Your take home points are as incorrect as any of your statements.
>
Prove it. Use bhAshya statements, if you know what to "copy-paste", not
Dasgupta. If you can't or don't want to prove it, start learning. The link
of this very list's website is worth reading, written by sampradAya
followers and research scholars, both, not one at the cost of the other
like many!

While you have conveniently rejected any fundamental difference between V
> and B as to how aparoksha jnana is generated, you seem to strongly believe
> that it was a critical point in the very previous paragraph!
>
Hilarious; at the very least, try to come out of confusion by reading what
is written, instead of using your own ideas. Please read Sw.
Gambhiranandaji's translation of tattu samanvayAt if it helps to see the
context of difference.

So the sub-commentators thought of saying things which meant nothing?
> ​
> Ashrayatva is a mere technicality?
>
​Since when is technicality nothing for a researcher?! The sub-commentators
have a role to justify and analyse each word of the bhAShya; its what is
called shraddhA, unknown outside sampradAya. That is why there are various
sangatis to hetus, etc, *without* compromising the bhAShya.​

Whatever that means!
>
​Look up a dictionary, if it helps.​

This difference is solely for research purpose? really? why would anyone
> research something pointless?
>
​You are the one to know pointless activities, why ask me!​

A simple question - If Brahman is the ashraya of avidya, how does avidya
> nivritti take place in a jiva?
>
I've already stated the reason in the definition. Please reread.
​
In the end, this is for the benefit of other readers in the unlikely case
that they too missed what I was quoting from Bhashyakara: it is that even
if Vrttikara said that jIva may be brahman, ​his suggested means to
advaita-mokSha cannot result in mokSha. I see a lot of objection to the
word prakriyAbheda; those objecting should instead prove as to why the
vivaraNa or bhAmati *prakriyA*, cannot result​ in advaitamokSha. If no one
can, it is just a prakriyAbheda.

​gurupAdukAbhyAm,​

> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>