[Advaita-l] Supremacy of Shiva over Vishnu

[Venkatraghavan S]

//One is worldly knowledge, aparA vidyA, whose knowledge is derived from
pratyaksha pramANa and the other is spiritual knowledge, aparA vidyA, which
depends on shruti pramANa.//

<<The question of history of the Shankara mutts and the personality of
Shankara, and scholarly analysis of his bhAshyas does not require Shruti
pramANa, since these are available to pratyaksha and anumAna. >>

The first of the three items referred by you in the paragraph above
(history of Shankara matha) is available to pratyaksha and anumana,
however, the third, ie the analysis of Shankara bhAshya to determine
tAtparya, should be according to sampradAya, and not contradictory to it.
The second one, ie commentary on the personality of Shankara, I would argue
is probably best preserved in tradition, unless it is argued that modern
scholars have the extra sensory perception to delve back a 1000 years to
make any statement on it which is not anything more than conjecture.

Coming to the topic of this thread, which is the interpretation of Shankara
bhAshya, if any scholar is deviating from sampradAya in interpreting
Shankara bhAshya, that is a serious flaw in my opinion. The tAtparya of
Shankara bhAshya is nirguna Brahman.

I am neither qualified to comment on or interested in the historicity of
Shankara or Shankara mathas, so I haven't commented on the other thread.
All I was pointing out was what I perceived to be slight double standards.
While you were pointing out that some western scholars' views on vedAnta
should be accepted, you were unprepared to accept any element of
historicity to any traditional accounts preserved in mathas.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 3 Sep 2016 11:28 a.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> I can because I have interacted with Subbuji in the past and I do not
> think he is prejudiced.
>
> On 3 Sep 2016 10:42 a.m., "D Gayatri" <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> //Please don't paint this as prejudice of western views.//
>>
>> Isn't it prejudice to imply that all western scholars are fools? You may
>> not have this prejudice, but my post was not directed at you either.
>>
>>
>> //The analogy of acceptance of western views and inventions such as
>> computers
>> etc but non acceptance of western views in matters of Vedanta is not
>> appropriate here as we are talking of two different spheres of knowledge.
>> One is worldly knowledge, aparA vidyA, whose knowledge is derived from
>> pratyaksha pramANa and the other is spiritual knowledge, aparA vidyA,
>> which
>> depends on shruti pramANa.//
>>
>>
>> The question of history of the Shankara mutts and the personality of
>> Shankara, and scholarly analysis of his bhAshyas does not require Shruti
>> pramANa, since these are available to pratyaksha and anumAna.
>>
>>
>> //Even in parA vidyA, no one is dismissing *all* the views of *all*
>> scholars,//
>>
>> I am not sure how you are able to speak on behalf of everyone here.
>>
>>
>> //On the other side of the equation, coming to aparA vidyA, to dismiss all
>> traditional accounts as hagiographies devoid of historical merit is
>> throwing the baby out with the bathwater.//
>>
>>
>> By nature, each tradition glorifies itself at the expense of others. And
>> most traditions have mixed the natural and the supernatural. Naturally,
>> such accounts are more appropriately called as hagiographies rather than
>> biographies. For example, if you want to believe the hagiography of Madhva,
>> you will have to believe that he defeated the best advaitins of his age in
>> debate, including a reincarnation of Shankara. You will also have to
>> believe that he directly interacted with Vyasa. If you want to believe all
>> this, fine. Only a person can decide how much he or she wants to strain his
>> or her credulity.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, 3 September 2016, Venkatraghava
>>
>