[Advaita-l] SSS Discussions

[subhanu saxena]

Namaste a few responses to points made
Sri Subramanian wrote:“To my knowledge Martha Doherty is pointing to a Nagesa Bhatta (some two
centuries older) to be the one who preceded Sri SSS in this 'finding'.  I
think there is an even longer history to the source of this objection to
mUlAvidyA”
 
If you read the link I gave to Swami Jnanaprasunendra Saraswati’s note you will see he has clarified that the positiong taken by Nagesha Bhatta et al is of the Bhamati tradition to refute Mulaviya and nothing to do with Sri Swamiji (paras 33-35). With regards to the points made by Sri Mani Dravid, I would refer readers to paras 39 onwards . Incidentally, para 20 addresses the charge that Sri Swamiji has accepted a “state” prior to adhyasa, which is a common misunderstanding of Swamiji’s position, who simply follows Shankara’s necessary implication of thought with no temporal relationship between agrahana and adhyasa. I will come back to this point in another posting.
 
With regards Sri Venkatesh’s question, there has been a long history of theories different to mulavidya. Mandana explicitly states in the Brahma Siddhi that there were 2 distinct ancient schools: the school we now describe as Shankara’s tradition, which follows the methodology of adhyAropa-apavAda prakriyA (Mandana explicitly mentions this phrase), and a different school that postulates avidya as upAdAna kAraNam. The orthodox tradition does not accept this but I  have not been provided with any reason or source references to explicitly refute Mandana unambiguous statements.  In addition I have mentioned in the past a Swami Yogananda Saraswati, the first traditional initiated Sannnyasin who was born in the West, who is very close to the Sringeri Matha and has regularly contributed to tattvaloka in the past, and translated into French and English a number of Sringeri acharya’s compositions. His training was independent of Sri Swamiji, yet through his gurus he does not accept mulavidya as being part of Shankara’s tradition. This is one example. Also, the need to provide a cause for our ignorance at first sight seems a highly legitimate question so we should not be surprised that the tradition could attempt to find an answer. The fact that Shankara; Suresvara and Gaudapda are consistent in declaring this question as illegitimate becomes clear to aspirants as their sadhana deepens.
 
Regards
Subhanu