[Advaita-l] Re: yoga and vedanta - Shri Bharati Tirtha Svami's words

[bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com]

praNAms Sri Ramakrishna BalasubramaNian prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Since my guruji, Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan prabhuji, noticed & said that I
am not open minded in this discussion (I too do feel so!!), I thought I
should stop my postings on this thread.  But before doing so, while asking
for his kind permission, I'd like to share my last bunch of thoughts with
your goodself prabhuji. This would be my last post on this thread anyway.

RB prabhuji:

But this is nothing new. As early as the 12th century, citsukha has
already noted that there is a multitude of "means", but that they all
teach advaita and in my opinion has effectively "reconciled" all the
"conflicting" viewpoints.

bhaskar :

prabhuji then it is clear that two of our great Acharya-s (chitsukha &
appaya dIkshitar) have already noticed these different view points within
tradition & reconciled the same even centuries before SS taken this task!!
prabhuji, would it be possible for you to include those reconciliatory
statements of those Acharya-s in your forthcoming article on SS Vs
vyAkhyAnakAra-s prabhuji...this would be of great help to tyros like me to
understand advaita from a broader perspective.  Hope you would do it.

RB prabhuji:

There is really no point in splitting hairs about what sha.nkara
"really" teaches because:

a) there are "significant" differences in sha.nkara's own works - re:
the bR^ihadaaraNyaka vs the suutra bhaaShya

bhaskar :

Even SS himself noticed these differences & comments about it & thinks that
though differences are significant the same can be reconcilable without
damaging the mUla siddhAnta & prakriya-s. It does not anyway mean that he
subjectively protected these differences, again, he openly leaves this
issue to traditionalists/historians to decide it.

RB prabhuji:

b) there are "significant" differences between sha.nkara and sureshvara.

(Note the significant within "")

Whitewashing the differences between sha.nkara and sureshvara as not
"significant" is subjective.

bhaskar:

No prabhuji, as far as I know, SS even in this issue (i.e. shankara Vs
surEshwara) has undertaken the study in the same degree of intensity as he
did in paNchapAdika & bhAmati prasthAna.  If you read his commentary on
naishkarmya siddhi (klEshApahAriNi) & taitirIya vArtika, you'll notice how
objective he is even in analysing surEshwara's works with that of
shankara's original bhAshya. IMHO, SS does not subjectively biased in his
views when it comes to sureshwara's works.

RB prabhuji:

What is not significant for you (or SS) may be significant for someone
else. What is significant for you (or SS) may be insignificant to me and
the rest of the "traditional"
advaita gang.

bhaskar :

Yes prabhuji, I agree with you, holding the second view point which you
mentioned above, SS discusses the most conspicuous differences in
vyAkhyAna-s & mUla bhAshya...finally thinks these differences are
irreconcilable with shankara's mUla bhAshya.  Following are the few points
which he discussed in great detail & thinks that these are incompatible
with mUla bhAshya:

(a) treatment of vidya & avidyA
(b) bhAva rUpa avidyA or avidyA upAdAna kAraNatva
(c) ultimate realization of advaita paramArtha jnAna (whether it is sadEha
or vidEha)
(d) prasankhyAna even after realization of Atma jnAna
(e) role of nirvikalpa samAdhi (asaMprajnAtha samAdhi in patanjala yOga) in
advaita vEdAnta

Prabhuji, I hope you would address these points in your article.

RB prabhuji:

Followers of SS calling the "traditional" advaitins as
not being "true" to sha.nkara, while liberally using sureshvara's
works, is then a case of the proverbial pot and kettle. Not of course
to mention the differences within sha.nkaras works itself.

bhaskar :

Reasons for this are quite obvious prabhuji, that you yourself mentioned
above.  SS thinks differences between vyAkhyAna-s & shankara bhAshya
significant & irreconcilable & difference between vArtika prasthAna &
shankara bhAshya though significant in some sense but definitely
reconcilable.

Finally, thanks a lot prabhuji for spending your precious time with me to
clarify certain view points.  Also, kindly note whatever you say in reply
to this mail has my acceptance.

I'shall be eagerly awaiting your article on SS & I humbly request you to
complete it AEAP.

Rama

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar