[Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

>
> Yes,  a healthy discussion on tattva is a part of shrauta manana...but
> here what we are seeing is vAde vAde jAyate 'vittanda' vAdaM...For
> example, Sri Subbu prabhuji, in his over enthu, selectively quoted my
> guruji's Kannada vAkya from sUtra bhAshya to show that even my guruji is
> in favour of 'avidyA lesha'...But he deliberately avoided the foot note in
> that same work where Sri SSS specifically mentioned that in the above
> bhAshya vachana there is no scope for 'avidya lesha'...( in Kannada :
> melena vAkyadalli 'avidya lesha' vaadavu illa vembudannu gamanisabeku).
> Now you tell me prabhuji, how can I continue my discussion with a 'vAdi'
> who wants (at any cost) to show me that I am wrong!!  If he is really
> objective in his discussion, he would have definitely quoted the remarks
> at foot note of my parama guruji's work to represent the correct stand of
> my parama guruji.. is it not?? Anyway, I shall continue to do my exercise
> with him if time permits prabhuji.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>



> Namaste.
>

I thank you for drawing my attention to the foot note you have referred
above.  Actually, I copied the Kannada translation as another person read it
to me over the phone as I do not have the books with me.  Neither he
bothered about the foot note nor did I have the presence of mind to ask him
to see if there was one.  I should have been wiser! It is well known that
SSS gives expression to his personal views that are not in accordance with
the Bhashya in the foot notes which readers who are not adherents of his
views ignore.

Even if I had noticed that foot note, I would not have been surprised.  I
would have only included it in my presentation and asked a further question:
How does SSS explain the Bhashya vAkya containing the word 'samskAra
vashAt'?

Best regards,
v.subrahmanian