[Advaita-l] BrahmaGYAna and jIvanmukti - 5 (Other References)

[Stig Lundgren]

Dear Kartik,

I´m afraid my only intention here was to point out that even though Swami
Satchidanandendra Saraswati did refute the opinion that Vivekachudamani is a
work by Shankaras pen, and even though he didn´t approve of all standpoints
presented in Jivanmuktiviveka, he nevertheless considered those two works to
be most important works within the Advaita Vedanta tradition. He did not
consider as useless all works written after Sureshvara, as some people seems
to believe.

Warmest regards
Stig Lundgren




 > > critizise
> > some parts of the book.
>
> Criticism should be leveled only after every effort has been made to
> resolve all contradictions.
>
> For example, we have the following statements in the upanishhads:
>
> KaTha 1.2.20: "The desireless man sees the Self."
> BR^ihadAraNyaka 3.5.1: "After Self-realization, one renounces
> desires."
>
> The above statements *appear* to be contradictory, but are they
> really? The first statement does speak of Self-realization after
> renunciation of desires, but allows for the possibility of
> Self-realization before renunciation of desires. Also, perhaps the
> two statements are speaking of two different kinds of students.
>
---------------------------------------,
>
> I'd be interested to know why exactly SSS felt that the JMV's views
> were not fully in line with Sankara.
>
> > but this doesn´t imply
> > that JMV
> > would be useless or outside the Advaita Vedanta tradition. It is
> > one thing
> > to say that a work is not by Shankara´s pen -- or perhaps that it
> > even
> > differs from Shankara´s views in some details -- but another thing
> > to say
> > that the work does not belong to the Advaita Vedanta tradition. To
> > my
> > knowledge, Satchidanandendra Swamiji never said that any of those
> > works
> > written by later advaitins did not belong to the Advaita Vedanta
> > tradition.
> >
> > Warmest regards
> > Stig Lundgren
> >