A Myth About Sankara (was Re: [Advaita-l] jnAna-vijnAna, ...)

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

In this context it is good to reproduce what Sri Anand Hudli kindly
wrote a while back:

"We should view shankara's school with more magnanimity. Here is what Shri
Bharati Tirtha Svami has to say, in his foreword blessing the publication of
Appayya Dikshita's siddhAnta-lesha-saMgraha by Vedanta Bharati,
Krishnarajanagar, Mysore District, 2001:

paramashivAvatArAH shrimachchhaMkarabhagavatpAdAchAryAH
prasthAnatrayabhAShyANi virachayya advaitAtmaGYAnameva kaivalyasAdhanamiti
spaShTaM pratyapIpadan.h | tadanantarakAlikA advaitAchAryAH **
siddhAntamimaM AikakaNThyena pratipAdayanto .pi  pratipAdanaprakAreShu
vaividhyaM anvasaran.h ** | tadidaM vaividhyaM siddhAntasya na kShatikaraM
kintu puMsAM pratyak-prAvaNya-saMpAdanAyaiveti

yayA yayA bhavetpuMso vyutpattiH pratyagAtmani |
sA sAiva prakriyA GYeyA sAdhvI sA chAnavasthitA |

iti vArtikakArapAdAH abhidadhuH |

Shri Shankara Bhagavatpada, an avatara of Parama Shiva, authored the
bhAShyas on the prasthAnatraya (Brahma sUtras, upaniShads, gItA) and clearly
established that the means to liberation is the knowledge of the nondual
Self. AchAryas of later times, while **unanimously propounding the same
conclusion, followed a variety of methods in explaining it**. This variety
(of methods) is not damaging to the siddhAnta, rather it is meant for
achieving inclination (becoming absorbed) in the Self by people.

And he quotes the verse of the vArtikakAra, which we have seen before.

So what is clear is that later AchAryas taught the same advaita that
Shankara taught. And hence, no one can be led astray by studying the works
of the later AchAryas, rather there is a benefit of gaining more inclination
towards the Self (as opposed to the nonSelf)."