[Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Adityaji,

If you want to have a meaningful discussion, kindly do not top post every
time. All the discussion is lost and I do not want to waste time in
repetitions or explain something when you just read what you want or
misunderstand what I have written. Please reply inline so people can know
what you are talking about, when I ask or comment something.

I'm combining the replies to your multiple posts, herewith:

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> ​I have already stated, there are quite a few who think Vivarana and
> Bhamati are irreconcilable. I will write an essay on it in future, when I
> familiarise with them fully. ​​
>
​I do not need to say anything after this statement of yours since it means
that you have yourself not even familiarised yourself with Vivarana and
Bhamati, but you have offered *conclusions* regardless of what others say
who have familiarised themselves!! Still, I will say and close from my side
unless you come up with something new.


> ​​
> You are saying as if I am a blasphemer or some sort of slanderer who is
> here to spread hate.
>
​I am not asserting any of the three; however, if you feel that you fall in
that category, you are welcome to tag yourself.

But when vivaranakaras themselves say appalling things like prushta sevaka,
> it does not bother you at all.
>
By comparison then, you've confirmed that you are indeed calling names!
Congratulations, so much for "yukti". So pRShTa sevaka bothers you and
gardhabagAna doesn't? To me, it bothers only to the extent that it is name
calling, but I don't see either proving that mukti is impossible in the
other prakriyA.


> After all, I don't remember having slandered anyone.
>
​Not remembering doesn't meaning not slandering.​

On the other hand it is you and few others who are so touchy that you
> insult others as 'non-traditional' etc.
> ​​
>
​Calling others who have not studied in the tradition (= lineage of
teachers or with a huge concession, at the very least, traditional
translators) as non-traditionalists is a statement-of-fact. Why feel
insulted? A chArvaka, scientist, a philosophy professor/ student making
comparative studies, or a neovedAntin, who calls all or many traditions
wrong or useless and thereby, if he is tagged as traditionalist, should he
feel insulted? It he does, isn't he the one who's "touchy"? If I am
insulting others, I am indeed doing so for those who insult the tradition
to begin with and in the spirit of Arjavam, let me correct my statement
made earlier that I am not bitter... I am indeed somewhat bitter about such
people.
​


> Okay I'll try to be as brief as possible because you will most certainly
> derail the thread further.
>
​Oh, I'll more likely bring it back to traditional quotes that you find
derailing your free-spirit, anything-goes-as-yukti, thread.​


> You declared that whichever view compromises with 'jnana alone leads to
> moksha' is tatva bedha and the rest can be prakriya bedhas. Audolomi also
> believes so (jnana alone leads to moksha). But the dispute is over a
> different issue.
>
​What different issue, care to enlighten?
​


> So I presume you will start to add a new clause to what is prakriya bedha
> and what is tattva bedha, of course without any basis.
>
Don't presume anything, that is the second problem with you; first being
wrong sources. You have presumed whatever you like. ​Kindly add a basis so
that yours can be meaningful statement.​


> Bhartrprapancha -does not deny- that aikya jnana is responsible for
> moksha.
>
​I've quoted a bhAShya line that you find irrelevant and I asked you to
reread, which you re-ignored. Please tell me the basis for your erroneous
conclusion above.
​

> But you got all excited again trying to refute jnana-karma samucchaya as
> if you are telling something new.​
>
​samucchaya is one part of it. That has been refuted elsewhere, not in what
I "quoted".
​

> The case in point is, what can be reconciled and what not. What is a
> prakriya bedha and what is a tattva bedha.
>
​And on what basis will one decide that? On who calls whom which names​?!


> ​​
> I have already stated, there are quite a few who think Vivarana and
> Bhamati are irreconcilable.
>
> Revisiting with your statement, who are these quite a few *within* the
tradition? At least from Appaya Diskhit onwards to the traditional scholars
who made this list website and many participants on this very thread think
otherwise. What are your sources and that should tell you why you yourself
should not feel insulted if you're called as a non-traditionalist.
​​


> Thanks for the brand new definition of prakriya bedha. ​
> ​
>
​
To say that, you should know something old and mine should be shown
different from it. ​In any case, at least I have a definition, whats yours?
Or doesn't Dasgupta give one
​​
? To repeat whats my definition, it is as defined by Bhagavan
Sureshvaracharya as yayA yayA bhavet puMsAM vyutpattiH pratyagAtmani, sA
saiva *prakriyA* sAdhvI. If anything, I have scope to be more
accommodative! Ergo, yes, I will broaden my perspective, if the flaws seen
by others are not flaws as per this definition.
​

> I only said traditional scholars could be wrong as well. I said this
> because so many theories are justified only by 'traditional...
> ​​
> ' and not by yukti. ​
>
Last but not the least, if ​​

​traditional scholars who are trained in tarkashAstra are not using yukti,
but you are, please state what your claim to fame of yukti is, by listing
your background in nyAya-tarka shAstra and why it is not hetvAbhAsa.

N
​ext time you write, instead of just projecting upon me your ideas of
copy-pasting, being bitter, touchy, new definition, irrelevancy, etc, or
making a blanket statement on the traditions as irreconcilable, kindly add
some useful content, else I am not wasting my time further on refuting your
accusations; you can keep them.
​
​
​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] */​