[Advaita-l] Vidyaranya and vedanta deshika.

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

And by the way if someone thinks that using Venkatanaatha instead of
vedaanta deshika means that they were intimately familiar, or they
were playing golii and gillii in the dusty streets of kaanchiipuram
when they were young, rest assured it is not the case. Most of the
colophons in manuscripts refer to the work as that of venkaTanaatha -
as can be seen from the editions printed by caukaamba and so on.

As Vidyasankar remarked, politics seems to be the key here.

Rama

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
<rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:18 AM, srikanta <srikanta at nie.ac.in> wrote:
>
>> Regarding you other point regarding Vedanta Desika being a clasmate or
>> known by Vidyaranya,there be no need for any political implications nor
>> compulsions.Vedanta Desika who studied at Kanchipuram when Vidyaranya was
>> a disciple of Vidyateertha,need not be a disciple of Vidyatheertha.Both
>> might have studied other subjects like Kavya or mimamsa or other subjects
>> common to them.Moreover,Vidyaranya in his "sarva Darshan
>> sangraha"specifically mentions Vedanta desika by his personal
>> name,Venkatanatha(that the tenets of ramanuja darshana must be known only
>> from venkatanatha's granthas.Vidyaranya has not mentioned so specifically
>> with reference to other darshanas in his review,notably in Poornaprajna
>> Darshana.
>
> No - he mentions Madhva specifically by name and also his theory that
> he is the third incarnation of the the wind-god. He also mentions
> Ramanuja specifically by name with regard to the vedaartha sangraha.
> AND he begins his summary of the Madhva system by specifically calling
> out Madhva by his name Anandatirtha. And in the Raseshvara darshana he
> specifically calls out the names of their authorities govinda bhagavat
> and sarvaj~na raameshvara. AND in the nyAya system he specifically
> calls out sarvaj~na, pakShila-svAmin and udayana. And so on and so on.
> Perhaps all of them were class mates at kaanchiipuram? Must have been
> a stellar class indeed - not to mention that they must have been
> students spanning many centuries.