[Advaita-l] naiShkarmya siddhi reference

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Subramanya Uchangi Hiriyannaiah <
subramanyauh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Ramakrishna,
>
> It is very sad to read that one should avoid SSS vyakhyana of NS. Mr
> Ramakrishna has not justified why it should not be read! Ask pooja shasthri
> to clarify. Is she competent to comment on a Brahmajnani? A true Sanyasin to
> the core, than who heads Mutts.
>

The above indeed is a sad commentary on the Jivanmukta AchAryas of the
tradition who have also headed muTTs.

>
> It is sad to read that a commentary of a British Author is better than an
> Indian Sanyasi? How can they understand our culture, Samskriti, heritage,
> Samskaras Sampradaya etc etc? Read Shankara's commentary in Gita 13-2 (
> tasmat Shasthravidopi asampradayvit murkhavadeva upekshaniyah)
>

The followers of the tradition hold such an opinion on SSS's views too by
quoting the very bhashya vakyam as above.

>
> For your infn and infn of all the members of the list, you will  appreciate
> that SSS is the only Shuddah Vedanti, a researcher, who lived for 96 years,
> whose memory was intact till 96, who has penned about 200 books. Pl visit
> their web site ; a link is given below my signature. you can download most
> of the books and read them free in djVu format. You can comment only after
> reading his books and not by hearsay.
>

His 200 books are largely by way of explanations/elucidations of the works
of Shanakara, Gaudapada and Sureshwara.  Sri Appayya Dikshita is also
acclaimed as a great scholar with hundreds of works to his credit on several
shastras.  Vachaspati Mishra, the author of Bhamati and Sri Vidyaranya too
belong to such a category.  Why should they be denied the epithet of
'Shuddha Vedantin'?

>
> Ask those who have read his master piece "Vedanta prakriya Pratyabhijna"
> about 900 pages in Sanskrit, the language no less than Shankara's.(Note: I
> haven't read since it is in Sanskrit- now being translated into kannada). It
> is a magnum opus.
>

Without reading it how could you conclude that it is a magnum opus?  Is it
not on hearsay?

>
> Sri SSS has written a commentary of 119 pages for 3 pages of 'Adhyasa
> Bhashya' of Shankara.
> He also asks you to read only the originals of Shankara Bhashyas only and
> not the  later followers of advaita who have penned commentaries against the
> teachings of Shankara


If only originals of Shankara are to be studied, why should anyone study
SSS's commentary of the adhyAsa bhAshya?  Will not people be better off by
reading Shankara in the original and avoiding SSS's works?

This logic applies to the works of SSS too:
श्रीचरणानां रचनाः न पठितव्याः, शांकरोत्तरव्याख्यानत्वात्,
भामत्यादिव्याख्यानवत्  [The works of SSS are not to be studied.  Because
they are explanations to Shankara's works, coming at a date later than
Shankara.  Just like the BhAmati, etc.]

On the same count, even the vArtika-s of Sureshwara should not be studied as
they came as elucidations of Shankara's bhAshya (on the Taittiriya and
Br.Up.). Scholars have opined that Sureshwara differs from Shankara on
certain topics. Even Shankara's kArikA bhAShya should be rejected as it is
only on Gaudapada's kArikas on the mAnDUkya up.


> (Ex Mulavidya, Avrana, Vikshepa etc which words are
> not used by Shankara which is challenged by late SSS and which is not
> replied till today by anybody )
>

The terms like 'ajAti', 'adhyAsa', 'adhyAropa', 'vyAvahArika',
'paramArthika' etc. are not found / used in the principal Upanishads.  Yet
Shankara used them in the bhashya.  So Shankara is to be blamed.

The objections against mUlAvidyA and other issues have been aptly replied by
scholars of the traditional school.  Even in the recently concluded
Holenarasipur meet scholars raised several points to which the followers of
SSS had no satisfactory answer, so I am told.

>
> No body has understood Shankara and Gowdapada like him.
>

This is a very wild claim that anyone else too can risk making.

>
> I welcome more comments for my comments. As a budding Vedantin, I don't
> have any Priya-Apriya (raga-dwesha) against anybody but I couldn't tolerate
> such comments without justification
>

In fact  rAga for one's guru and dwesha for other AchAryas has already been
given expression to in the above allegations.  The comments made against the
Acharyas of tradition have been indeed made without any justification.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

>
>
>