[Advaita-l] Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva Vada - part 1

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Aditya,
I
​ couldn't help responding to you comment over the sampradAya teachers,
that too giants.

​
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Aditya Kumar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hence we cannot disregard them, specially in favour of others like
> Prakasananda or Madhusudana. When there is a conflict between Sruti and
> smriti, we choose one over the other. So what nyaya is applied when we
> prefer one author over another?


​​Logic of convenience. There is nothing like near or far in the tradition,
which is why it is called a paramparA or sampradAya. The derivation of the
words themselves say that it is the right version handed over. Your
choosing far-from-tradition Modi, Dasgupta​, etc, over Prakashananda
Sarasavati and Madhusudhana Sarasvati of the tradition shows that you
yourself are being outside the tradition. It is as simple as that. The
traditional approach is to show that the teaching is handed over. The
formers' words mean nothing and let me warn you that your words too will
mean nothing if you continue this untraditional approach. However, suit
yourself, but refrain from commenting on the advaita teachers of the
tradition.

We cannot conclude that everyone is saying the same thing when most of
> modern Advaitic concepts such as DSV and other topics are absent in both
> Shankara and other Advaitins' works.

There is no basis for the jump that you make that these are absent. You
have to be a literally sarvajna to make such a statement. Even if you don't
find it, absence of finding wouldn't prove finding absence. It just shows
lack of study. Many have shown Bhagavatpadacharya's support of DSV. You
fail to acknowledge, whether for lack of understanding or bias or whatever
other "scholarly" reasons you may have. Those who have really studied in
the orthodox tradition know that very well. Scholars may earn their
publication, doctorate or whatever, but its just that. That will never be
considered as an idam iddham fact by any sampradAyavAdin worth his salt.

Moreover, a particular author clearly disagrees with another author/view.
> It's like saying 'All paths lead to same destiny'. It is merely a
> non-confrontational, conformist view and certainly not the truth.
>
The research, even if called scholarly, does not make a truth. They are all
termed as paNDitammanyamAnAH by Shruti and sampradAya.

​gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen