[Advaita-l] 'Prana' as Brahman

[Kaushik Chevendra]

>
>
>>
> The Advaita scholars see this as a clear refutation of Shankara.
>

It would be a refutation if he says that the souls have origination. If
shankaracharya can accept the pancharatra to some extent and discard the
vedavirudha notions in them. Why is amalananda saying that the vedhavirudha
statments can be interpreted differently a refutation?

It is a subtle advisory to Shankara that it is to be taken in a secondary
> sense. He is expressing what the Vaishnavas say about this: it is in a
> secondary sense.  'Don't you even know this?' is the tone of his comment.
>
No advaitin will say anything in that tone to our stapakacharya who is
believed to be bagavan Shiva himself.

>
>
> There is a definition of a 'vartika': that which is said, not said and
> wrongly said is discussed in a vartika.
>

Here a reconciliation is what is done and not a refutation.

> On these lines a commentator sometimes disagrees with the muula bhashya.
> This is there in other schools too. Some people have pointed out Sureshwara
> too disagreeing with Shankara.  I don't remember the exact instances
> though.
>
> regards
>
>>
>>>>>>