[Advaita-l] Regarding the Pancharatra, Shankara is one with Purvamimamsa

[Kalyan]

 //Madhva is said to have written the 'Mahabharata Tatparya nirnaya' which must have taken all that is said in the Mahabharata into consideration in order to give out a distilled purport of MB.  If he too has refuted sankhya, can we assume that he has not understood the 'sankhya' of MB?//



This is a strange question, coming from an advaitin.
For advaitins, Madhva has not understood the upanishads properly. How then can an advaitin argue that Madhva must have understood Mahabharata properly?


    On Saturday, July 14, 2018, 7:23:39 AM GMT+5:30, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com> wrote:

 //The term 'sankhya-yoga' has different meanings. In Vedanta, it means that which is according to the Upanishads, with Brahman as the cause of the universe.  The 'sankhya' that is refuted in the BS is the one which has the insentient pradhana as the cause of the universe. In the BG itself this term occurs several times.//
Since in the Mahabharata, the Sankhya is mentioned apart from Vedas, it cannot be the case that Sankhya there means just the Upanishad doctrine.

I would like to just point out that apart from advaitins, the other schools adhering to Vedanta too have refuted the sankhya, yoga, etc. in their Brahma sutras.  Madhva is said to have written the 'Mahabharata Tatparya nirnaya' which must have taken all that is said in the Mahabharata into consideration in order to give out a distilled purport of MB.  If he too has refuted sankhya, can we assume that he has not understood the 'sankhya' of MB?