[Advaita-l] Patanjali Yoga Sutra. I.3

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya
<sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Quote
>
> Please read the brahma-sUtra-bhAshya where it is clear that Sankara
> refutes Sankhya and yoga. It does not matter what your perception of
> these are, but as per Sankara there are problems with both.
>
> Unquote
>
> Your comments are hasty. If you have read my letter properly you would have realized that Sankhyakarika, if taken as a complete statement of Sankhya, calls for refutation.  Sankhya as it stands is a lower level text than the Vedanta and was criticised by Vedantin. Sankhya has been treated holistically by Svetasvatara upanishad and that does not call for refutation. Sankhya combined with Yoga  and with subsequent treatment of Brahman, as treated holistically by Lord Krishna, also does not invite refutation from Advaitin. To my knowledge Adi Sankaracharya did not criticize the Svetasvatara Upanishad nor the teaching of  the Bhagavad Gita.

And how do you know that I have not read the Sankhya Karikas? As a
matter of fact, I have - many times - along with Vacaspatis
taattvakamudI.

> It is perfectly alright if you do not have time and inclination to read that Sankhyakarika could have lost a verse but people like Dr. S. Radhakrishnan found it  to be a matter of concern. It could also be that the verse was not deleted at the time of Adi Sankaracharya. The Brahmasutrabhashya itself says that the views are not of Badarayana alone and further as regards the Bhashya how are you absolutely certain that what we have today was written by Adi Sankaracharya and nobody has added anything to it or deleted anything from it.
>
> Please also tell us when and from which last writer, according to you, that the traditional writing ended, so that all the subsequent writings can be relegated to non- traditional category or rather uncalled for. This statement will be certainly stop any new discussion.
>
> You also said
>
> Quote
>
> All that meant was he could write a bhAshya on something without
> necessarily agreeing with it.
>
> Unquote
>
> This is a fantastic statement and I must salute you for this.

For any list members who found my statement about bhAshyas difficult
to understand, please consider the case of Vacaspati who wrote
excellent bhAshyas on all topics such as nyAya, sAnkhya, yoga, pUrva
mImA.msA and vedAnta. His tAtparyaTIkA is considered as an authority
by later nyAya writers, just as his bhAmatI is by vedAntins. Hopefully
it is clear that these two are distinct schools. Unless he was
suffering from an acute case of schizophrenia he couldn't be an
adherent of all these schools. Why - even today in Sringeri eminent
vidvAns and the jagadguru himself participate in discussions/sadas
assuming the viewpoint of nyAya sometimes advancing novel solutions to
problems. If you didn't know better, you would think everyone there
was a naiyAyika.

In any case, I don't think it's profitable to participate further in
any discussion where Radhakrishnan, of all people, is quoted as an
"authority" on advaita.

Rama