[Advaita-l] RE: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 41, Issue 28
K.Sankarasubramanian(Finance/TVS-E)
k.sankarasubramanian at tvs-e.in
Fri Sep 29 00:02:42 CDT 2006
To Sri Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
One small doubt.. You are referring to "1200 years" which I believe is
related to Adi Sankara's life time (founder of Advaita sastras)... But I
find that Sri Adi Sankara was born at Kaladi on Vaisaka sukla-panchami
of the cyclic year Nandana - Kali 2593 corresponding to 509 B.C.
(reference in kamakoti.org website)
This means about "2500 years" for all your references.. Can you please
tell me which is correct - 1200 years or 2500 years
Please help and guide us
KSS/29.09.2006
-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of
advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Sent: 28 September, 2006 22:30
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Subject: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 41, Issue 28
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Re: Pa~nchapAdikAchArya (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian)
2. RE: Re: Pa~nchapAdikAchArya (K Kathirasan NCS)
3. New member introduction: Jose Alvaro Taboada Osori
(Jaldhar H. Vyas)
4. Overlooking what is Immediate - parables of Sringeri Acharyal
(Sundar Rajan)
5. verse on AtmA (S.N. Sastri)
6. Kanchi Maha-swamigal's Discourses on Advaita Saadhanaa
(KDAS-73) (V. Krishnamurthy)
7. Re: Re: Pa~nchapAdikAchArya (venkata subramanian)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:07:13 -0700
From: "Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian" <rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re: Pa~nchapAdikAchArya
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Message-ID:
<d6ea147d0609271807j7f9300b7obf6196ed6966b45 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I fear I might just be flogging a dead horse, but I'll continue. Sorry
for the long gaps in response, but I have just been too busy at work
recently.
First, it's not my intention to be rude or anything, but some glaring
facts present themselves as I read books from the kaaryaalaya. If we can
be abstract about 1200 years of advaitins being wrong, we should be able
to consider that assumption may be wrong in the abstract also.
I'll address a few points, I have problems with:
1. Definitions of traditional teaching and otherwise.
2. Repeating "Let Sankara speak for himself" and asking everyone to
ignore sub-commentaries - Does this even make any sense?
3. Cherry picking things to choose and discard from tradition,
completely arbitrarily, to suit ones own fancies.
4. Followers (a very large percentage, but not all) of SSS riding the
high horse, and calling everyone else a scoundrel or cheat, or at best
an idiot, without even knowing the full facts in many cases.
Unfortunately I'll have to deal with this piece-meal over a few days and
will choose one topic per post.
First, traditional teaching and otherwise: Sri Venkat said that
Satchitdaanandendra Saraswati Swamigal (SSS from now) belongs to the
same "tradition" as Vidyaaranya et. al. The reason being even Sureshvara
disagreed with Sankara, and by extension SSS disagreeing with 1200 years
of advaitins does not mean he is not from that tradition.
a. Sureshvara did not dismiss Sankara as a blind man leading the blind.
The disagreements are somewhat tangential to the main theory if you look
at it carefully. But from a practical stand-point, sometimes these do
make a difference, e.g., who can take sannyaasa. Note that both agree
*everyone* is qualified for brahmaj~naana. The disagreement is only who
can choose sannyaasa as a *means* to realization. In some sense it is
not all that important,
Or the puraaNa-itihaasa reference in vedas. *Both* agree puraaNas and
itihaasas are pramaaNa, being smR^iti. That is the most important thing.
The disagreement is ONLY over whether the reference to puraaNa and
itihaasa in the vedas mean the bhaarata, etc., or the stories in the
veda itself. This argument does NOT affect the fact that the bhaarata is
considered a pramaaNa by BOTH. The argument is arcane in some sense, and
seems to reflect two different views within the mImA.nsA school.
But SSS dismisses the entire writings of the last 1200 years as wrong.
In fact we would be hard-pressed to find him giving any credence/praise
to any one, The only instance I know is he grudingly praises citsukha in
his vedaanta-prakriyaa-pratyabij~naa. He questions the very fundamental
statements of vidyaaraNya, et. al, and so that affects EVERYTHING. In
essence he claims that they are COMPLETELY wrong and that it is NOT
possible to attain brahma-j~naana by understanding vedaanta through
these works such as pa~ncadashii.
That's a big difference, and a loose comparsion to Sureshvara is not
going to help.
Just because he was a student of viruupaxa shasstri also means zilch.
Especially after deriding him implicitly (or should that be
explicitly) as one of the blind people led by the blind. I am
continuosly amazed by people not understanding the implications of a
statement. When he makes a general statement like "blind being led by
the blind" etc, if you don't see what it actually implies in a
*particular situation*, it just doesn't seem like much.
b. I think we should be careful in talking about whether SSS belonged to
the tradition. The key issue is if SSS thought that he belonged to the
tradition as we (non-followers of SSS) know it? The answer seems to be
no. Here's what his direct disciple says in the book published by the
kaaryaalaya itself.
"On their own, both the mentor Iyer and pupil Subbaraaya considered
seriously the paradoxical question .... They could pinpoint and point
out the distorted interpretations of the original bhaashya sentences by
the vyaakhyaanakaaraas were in themselves the real culprit .,.."
Note the "on their own". Obviously they had to - poor viruupaaxa
shastri, their guru, was only the last in a procession of blind men, no?
Even Mr Gangolli asks the same question I asked, namely - how could the
tradition stop with Sureshvara and only SSS discover it after 1200
years? He comes to the rather unsuprising conclusion that it is because
SSS is an avatara of Sankara. This is *not* a digvijaya type of
*glorification*, but what he actually thinks is TRUE, because
*even* Gangolli is *completely amazed* by this 1200 year gap. Now this
has 2 assumptions, that SSS is correct because Gangolli thinks SSS is
correct. Also it presumes that anyone else who disagrees with SSS is
wrong because Gangolli knows SSS is correct! To top all of it he comes
to the conclusion that SSS is an avataara of Sankara! Such
presumptuosness about the idiocy of anyone who dares to disagree with
SSS is the *norm* among SSS's students. We can judge only by writings,
and not stories about personalities. More on this later.
It is also clear then that SSS and at least his direct followers,
accept that a tradition can be rejuvenated (if lost in the first place,
which I most emphatically disagree) by studying books. If not, who was
his vidyaa guru, in the sense Sankara was for Sureshvara? If it was
Krishnaswamy Iyer, who was his guru? Avataara arguments suffer from the
fallacy of infinite regress, who is to reliably certify someone as an
avataara. If someone does, then who is to certify that this someone is
correct and so on.
To be continued..
Rama
On 9/18/06, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have been following the posts in this thread with more than a little
> interest and some concern. I think a few general statements are in
order here.
>
> No one, and I'm sure I may safely include Ramakrishnan here too,
> questions that Swami Saccidanandendra Saraswati was part of the
> tradition of advaita vedAnta. Inasmuch as he not only wrote treatises
> in his student days, but also renounced the world and took to formal
sannyAsa within the living monastic tradition of Sankara, Swamiji was
very much a representative of the tradition.
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:43:44 +0800
From: "K Kathirasan NCS" <kkathir at ncs.com.sg>
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] Re: Pa~nchapAdikAchArya
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Message-ID:
<7EE9DB90C000AC47983CD3A0CD6C985403AE0039 at ncsmailsg02.ncs.corp.int-ads>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Namaste Ramaji,
I have always admired your posts for its objectivity. But this one seems
to have a more defensive tone. I do not belong to any camp while I
appreciate the teachings of all camps. But I do see a sense of loyalty
to whatever tradition you subscribe to (my hunch is that it is
Sringeri). In any case I look forward to your other posts. I would
appreciate if you could keep to refuting SSS's views on the
'fundamentals' of Advaita Vedanta and not what his disciples thought
about him. I wish you quote his words from his writings and refute them
systematically using the rules of engagement that SSS and many other
Advaita Acharyas have employed.
I hope that all of us benefit from your observations. Thanking you in
advance.
Vidya Dadhatu Vinayam.
-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:07 AM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re: Pa~nchapAdikAchArya
I fear I might just be flogging a dead horse, but I'll continue. Sorry
for the long gaps in response, but I have just been too busy at work
recently.
First, it's not my intention to be rude or anything, but some glaring
facts present themselves as I read books from the kaaryaalaya. If we can
be abstract about 1200 years of advaitins being wrong, we should be able
to consider that assumption may be wrong in the abstract also.
I'll address a few points, I have problems with:
1. Definitions of traditional teaching and otherwise.
2. Repeating "Let Sankara speak for himself" and asking everyone to
ignore sub-commentaries - Does this even make any sense?
3. Cherry picking things to choose and discard from tradition,
completely arbitrarily, to suit ones own fancies.
4. Followers (a very large percentage, but not all) of SSS riding the
high horse, and calling everyone else a scoundrel or cheat, or at best
an idiot, without even knowing the full facts in many cases.
Unfortunately I'll have to deal with this piece-meal over a few days and
will choose one topic per post.
First, traditional teaching and otherwise: Sri Venkat said that
Satchitdaanandendra Saraswati Swamigal (SSS from now) belongs to the
same "tradition" as Vidyaaranya et. al. The reason being even Sureshvara
disagreed with Sankara, and by extension SSS disagreeing with 1200 years
of advaitins does not mean he is not from that tradition.
a. Sureshvara did not dismiss Sankara as a blind man leading the blind.
The disagreements are somewhat tangential to the main theory if you look
at it carefully. But from a practical stand-point, sometimes these do
make a difference, e.g., who can take sannyaasa. Note that both agree
*everyone* is qualified for brahmaj~naana. The disagreement is only who
can choose sannyaasa as a *means* to realization. In some sense it is
not all that important,
Or the puraaNa-itihaasa reference in vedas. *Both* agree puraaNas and
itihaasas are pramaaNa, being smR^iti. That is the most important thing.
The disagreement is ONLY over whether the reference to puraaNa and
itihaasa in the vedas mean the bhaarata, etc., or the stories in the
veda itself. This argument does NOT affect the fact that the bhaarata is
considered a pramaaNa by BOTH. The argument is arcane in some sense, and
seems to reflect two different views within the mImA.nsA school.
But SSS dismisses the entire writings of the last 1200 years as wrong.
In fact we would be hard-pressed to find him giving any credence/praise
to any one, The only instance I know is he grudingly praises citsukha in
his vedaanta-prakriyaa-pratyabij~naa. He questions the very fundamental
statements of vidyaaraNya, et. al, and so that affects EVERYTHING. In
essence he claims that they are COMPLETELY wrong and that it is NOT
possible to attain brahma-j~naana by understanding vedaanta through
these works such as pa~ncadashii.
That's a big difference, and a loose comparsion to Sureshvara is not
going to help.
Just because he was a student of viruupaxa shasstri also means zilch.
Especially after deriding him implicitly (or should that be
explicitly) as one of the blind people led by the blind. I am
continuosly amazed by people not understanding the implications of a
statement. When he makes a general statement like "blind being led by
the blind" etc, if you don't see what it actually implies in a
*particular situation*, it just doesn't seem like much.
b. I think we should be careful in talking about whether SSS belonged to
the tradition. The key issue is if SSS thought that he belonged to the
tradition as we (non-followers of SSS) know it? The answer seems to be
no. Here's what his direct disciple says in the book published by the
kaaryaalaya itself.
"On their own, both the mentor Iyer and pupil Subbaraaya considered
seriously the paradoxical question .... They could pinpoint and point
out the distorted interpretations of the original bhaashya sentences by
the vyaakhyaanakaaraas were in themselves the real culprit .,.."
Note the "on their own". Obviously they had to - poor viruupaaxa
shastri, their guru, was only the last in a procession of blind men, no?
Even Mr Gangolli asks the same question I asked, namely - how could the
tradition stop with Sureshvara and only SSS discover it after 1200
years? He comes to the rather unsuprising conclusion that it is because
SSS is an avatara of Sankara. This is *not* a digvijaya type of
*glorification*, but what he actually thinks is TRUE, because
*even* Gangolli is *completely amazed* by this 1200 year gap. Now this
has 2 assumptions, that SSS is correct because Gangolli thinks SSS is
correct. Also it presumes that anyone else who disagrees with SSS is
wrong because Gangolli knows SSS is correct! To top all of it he comes
to the conclusion that SSS is an avataara of Sankara! Such
presumptuosness about the idiocy of anyone who dares to disagree with
SSS is the *norm* among SSS's students. We can judge only by writings,
and not stories about personalities. More on this later.
It is also clear then that SSS and at least his direct followers,
accept that a tradition can be rejuvenated (if lost in the first place,
which I most emphatically disagree) by studying books. If not, who was
his vidyaa guru, in the sense Sankara was for Sureshvara? If it was
Krishnaswamy Iyer, who was his guru? Avataara arguments suffer from the
fallacy of infinite regress, who is to reliably certify someone as an
avataara. If someone does, then who is to certify that this someone is
correct and so on.
To be continued..
Rama
On 9/18/06, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have been following the posts in this thread with more than a little
interest and some concern. I think
> a few general statements are in order here.
>
> No one, and I'm sure I may safely include Ramakrishnan here too,
questions that Swami Saccidanandendra
> Saraswati was part of the tradition of advaita vedAnta. Inasmuch as he
not only wrote treatises in his
> student days, but also renounced the world and took to formal sannyAsa
within the living monastic tradition
> of Sankara, Swamiji was very much a representative of the tradition.
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com>
Subject: [Advaita-l] New member introduction: Jose Alvaro Taboada
Osori
To: Advaita-L <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609272159250.13131 at jaldhar-laptop>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Hello Sirs,
My name
is Alvaro, I was born in Madrid, Spain, in
1961.
I'm a seeker.I want
be a honest seeker.In my firts ages, I looking
for the answers, the questions of the life:
Who am I?, What is this creation ? Who is
his creator?
And now, advaita tradition
is the direction. The unicity of reality
is very simple, very profound. The knowledge
of atman (atmavidya)and the knowledge of
advaita vedanta.
Sravana, Manana,
Nididhyaasana.
Best regards
Alvaro.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Advaita-l] Overlooking what is Immediate - parables of
Sringeri Acharyal
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Message-ID: <20060928035747.64656.qmail at web60720.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
(From the book: 'Edifying Parables' of HH Jagadguru Sri Abhinava
Vidyateertha Mahaswamigal published by Sri Vidyateertha Foundation,
Chennai)
Overlooking What is Immediate
=============================
Once ten fools crossed a river. After reaching the opposite bank, they
wished to ascertain whether all of them had crossed.
One of them started to count. He listed all except himself and so
concluded that one of them had drowned. This caused him much grief.
Another fool made the same error and confirmed that one person was
missing. Consequently, all of them began to weep.
A well-wisher happened to pass that way and sought to know what their
problem was. One of the fools said, "Ten of us set out to cross the
river but now we are only nine."
The well-wisher was amused. He told the leader "Please count and let me
know how many of you are here." As the others had done before him, he
arrived at the answer, "Nine". The well-wisher announced, "No. The tenth
man is not dead."
The fools experienced some relief. Quickly pointing at the man who had
counted, he continued, "You are the tenth man."
The significance of the well-wisher's words dawned on the fools.
Exultation replaced their grief.
Each fool forgot to count himself; we have forgotten our true nature of
being the non-dual Supreme. Playing a role like that of the well-wisher
of the story, the Sadguru tells his disciple, "You are not the limited,
miserable person you imagine yourself to be. You are the Supreme that is
of the nature of existence, consciousness and bliss".
A very pure-minded disciple promptly becomes enlightened.
A disciple of a lower caliber has to serve his Guru for long and
sincerely practice spiritual disciplines to rid himself of defects such
as uncertainty and misapprehension. Thereafter, he obtains direct
realization of the Truth.
Pranams,
Sundar Rajan
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:35:40 +0530
From: "S.N. Sastri" <sn.sastri at gmail.com>
Subject: [Advaita-l] verse on AtmA
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Message-ID:
<7b890d4a0609272305t4cbd1080xadedcb8a68cfaf87 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Verse on Aatma
In G.V.Iyer's movie on Adi Shankara there is verse that is chanted when
Adi Shankara takes sanyasa. Some parts of the verse that Ravi (a freind
of mine) and I could make out is as under:
aatma purastaat, aatmaa dakshinataH ...
aatmai vedagum sarvamiti
pashyatevam anvaana evam
The chanting is Krishna Yajurveda style, so I was wondering, if one
could identify the verse. I will greatly appreciate any help.
-- ShailendraH
The mantra referred to is in chandogya upanishad, 7.25.2. It is as
below:
--- AtmA purastAdAtma dakshiNata Atmottarata Atmaivedam sarvamiti sa vA
esha evam paSyannevam manvAna evam vijAnan--------
S.N.Sastri
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:57:12 -0700
From: "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Advaita-l] Kanchi Maha-swamigal's Discourses on Advaita
Saadhanaa (KDAS-73)
To: "advaita - L" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>,
"advaitinlist" <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <000801c6e306$0096ce70$6801a8c0 at ablubablu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Namaste.
For a Table of Contents of these Discourses, see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advaitin/message/27766
For the previous post, see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advaitin/message/33459
SECTION 57: CHAIN OF LINKED NAMES IN VISHNU SAHASRANAAMAM
*nishThA shAntiH parAyaNaM* comes in Vishnu-sahasranAmaM. Some names
occur here in a chain, relating to each other beautifully on the same
concept.
There are nine names (of God) strung together like flowers in a
garland, on the idea of SannyAsa.
*.. nirvANaM bheshhajaM bhishhak /
sannyAsakRt shamaH shAnto nishThA shAntiH parAyaNaM *//
*nirvANaM* is the end of jnAna-yoga. He is the same as the saguNa-mUrti
VishNu.
*bheshhajaM* means medicine. He is the medicine in the form of jnAnaM
for the disease of samsAra.
Muthut-tANDavar was a devotee of God Nataraja. He lived before the age
of the musical trinity of Tamilnadu. When a snake bit him he considered
Lord Nataraja as the only medicine and sang an extempore Tamil
composition
beginning with *aru-marundoru tani marundu* (meaning: the rare
medicine,
the unique medicine) on Lord Nataraja. He was relieved from the snake
poison..
When the poison of karma invades the system the medicine of jnAnaM that
is the antidote for the poison is only the Lord.
He is not only the medicine; but He is also the Doctor who gives the
medicine! So He is *bhishak* (Doctor). Here in Tiruvanmiyur (in Chennai,
India) the Lord presents Himself as "marundIshvara" (the Lord who is the
medicine). In the town called Vaideesvaran Koil he is called
"Bhava-roga-vaidyanatha swami' meaning the JnAna-Acharya who cures the
disease of samsAra. In his commentary on Vishnu Sahasranama, the Acharya
says "the Doctor who gave the medicine of the Gita for all the world".
In the Gita the Lord gave his final diagnosis and the curing medicine,
which is SannyAsa. He leads us on through the path of karma yoga
ultimately to the SannyAsa in jnAna yoga. In the science of Ayurveda,
they first give you a laxative-type of medicine and then only they give
you the medicine that is needed for the illness. So also the Lord gives
first the laxative of karma yoga so that all our karma-garbage may be
exhausted and then finally when he gives the medicine of jnAna, he
prescribes sannyAsa. In the beginning it was he who created the four
Ashramas and made Sannyasa the fourth Ashrama.
So He is *sannyAsa-kRt*, the maker of SannyAsa.
We saw a lot about *shama*. That is also the form of the Lord. When the
mind stills to rest that is shamaM. That is in fact the heart of jnAna
yoga, its life. Right now it is unbridled in us and from this through
the various stages of its control little by little, we have to go
through several steps.
Finally when nothing of the mind is left, it rests in the Atman; that is
the destination point. That is the goal of a SannyAsi. At this place
the Acharya gives a quotation which pinpoints a unique dharma for each
Ashrama. It says: "For the SannyAsi his dharma is shamaM; for the
Vana-prastha, his dharma is the conglomerate of tapas and vratas, all
together called niyama; for the householder the dharma is charity; and
for the brahmachari it is serving the guru.
*yatInAM prashamo dharmo
niyamo vanavAsinAM /
dAnameva gRhastAnAM
shushrUshhA brahma-chAriNAM //
Next comes the name *shAntaH*. He who has shama is shAntaH.
Only next to this, the word *nishThA* appears. Having become a sannyAsi,
and then also a shAnta for whom the mind is totally at rest, he
establishes himself firmly in the nishThA of the experience of jnAna,
that state is also the Lord. This is The SaguNa Brahman who is our Lord
with attributes, in His nirguNa state.
And in that state there is a total peace. Therefore *shAntiH*. And that
is the supreme goal; therefore *parAyaNaM*.
SECTION 58: SHRAVANAM ET AL - VEDIC COMMANDMENT
As soon as the sannyAsa is taken, one gets the mahAvakya-teaching. To
receive that is shravaNaM. 'mananaM' is the chewing and churning of that
in the mind by repetitions and analysis. Following that is the dhyAna
that is done to get the direct experience; this is called
nidhidhyAsanaM. These three complete the sAdhanA.
These three (shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsana) are actually commands
of the Vedas. The same Upanishad which talks about shama, dama, uparati
and titikshhA (BrihadAraNyakopanishad: II-4-5) also gives the commands
about these three. But shama, dama, etc. are not directly given as an
order, they are recommended only indirectly by saying that a jnAni would
have these treasures of spirituality, namely he will be a "shAnta,
dAnta, uparata" etc.
But these three have been what is called an 'injunction' in the form of
a formal order. *shrotavyo mantavyo nidhidhyAsitavyaH*. "The Atman
principle only has to be listened to, has to be repeated in the mind
and has to be meditated on" - this is the rule.
We shall take these one by one now.
Section 59: SHRAVANA AND SERVICE
(To be Continued)
PraNAms to all students of advaita.
PraNAms to the Maha-Swamigal.
profvk
Latest on my website is an article on Kanchi Mahaswamigal. Go to
http://www.geocities.com/profvk/VK2/Jivanmukta.html
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: venkata subramanian <venkat_advaita at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re: Pa~nchapAdikAchArya
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Message-ID: <20060928144349.55708.qmail at web60719.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
First, traditional teaching and otherwise: Sri Venkat said that
Satchitdaanandendra Saraswati Swamigal (SSS from now) belongs to the
same "tradition" as Vidyaaranya et. al. The reason being even
Sureshvara disagreed with Sankara, and by extension SSS disagreeing
with 1200 years of advaitins does not mean he is not from that
tradition.
--------
Sorry, i never said this i think. I never made the sentence that "SSS
belongs to the same "tradition" as Vidyaaranya et. al.".
The reason for that given - i do not subscribe.
Thanks & Regards,
Venkat.
Sadgurubhyo Namah.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
End of Advaita-l Digest, Vol 41, Issue 28
*****************************************
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list