[Advaita-l] Fw: Re: vedAntins at the time of shankara

[Ravi Kiran]

If BhartRprapancha considers both (jagat and Brahman) as Real (paramArtham)
viz bheda in bandha is satyam and abheda in mokSha is satyam too - which
seems Dualistic, which is termed BhedAbhedha, how can jnAna (it being vastu
tantra) bring about avidyAnivrittiH, by destroying the satya jagat ?

mithyA jagat alone can be destroyed/sublated by aikya jnAna.



On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Aditya Kumar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
>
>   Just thought of clarifying what I am saying. Although Bhartrprapancha is
> favouring jnana-karma samucchaya, it can be reconciled under the vyavahara
> plane as described by Bhaskarji. So why didn't Shankara consider it as mere
> prakriya bedha? In Bhamati and Vivarana too, Bhamati requires manas-shuddhi
> for aparoksha jnana which is nothing but moksha. How is this prakriya bedha
> and not Bhartrprapancha's view?
>     On Monday 18 September 2017, 8:27:05 PM IST, Aditya Kumar via
> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>   You have simply copy/pasted the portions irrelevant to the discussion
> mixing it with the bitterness of your own mind. Bhartrprapancha is not
> against 'jnana removes avidyanivritti' - your brand new requirement. The
> point of disagreement is that Shankara says 'jnana alone' leads to moksha.
> Your take home points are as incorrect as any of your statements.
> 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!
> So the sub-commentators thought of saying things which meant nothing?
> Ashrayatva is a mere technicality? Whatever that means! This difference is
> solely for research purpose? really? why would anyone research something
> pointless? A simple question - If Brahman is the ashraya of avidya, how
> does avidya nivritti take place in a jiva?
>