[Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Simply saying Yukti you cannot say you are using Yukti. Your friend is
repeating like a parrot Bhashya statements without understanding them
correctly and you are repeating second hand arguments from academic nuts
and others. Where is your original Yukti here? None. If you read
Traditional scholars there is a lot of Yukti in them at every step. They
are not asking us to follow them in blind faith. But you will not read them
in original Sanskrit because you cannot understand it. Therefore simply
repeat some wrong translations.



>
> On Monday 18 September 2017, 10:36:27 PM IST, Venkatesh Murthy via
> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
> Namaste
>
> Here basically we have two Asampradayavits. One does not understand even
> his own Guru. Another thinks university professors are better than
> traditional scholars. He believes in Dasgupta's words. They are  supporting
> and patting each other's back and questioning Sampradaya Acharyas. Yes this
> happens in Kali Yuga. Hats off to Kali Maharaja.
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > 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] */
>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>


-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh