[Advaita-l] The safe way

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

I am making a general post instead of arguing with ongoing opinions,
assuming and hoping that it may help neutral or confused readers.

It is disheartening to see that people get lost only in the negativity of
the sub-commentators instead of the content for an individual's journey
towards the goal, where there is no tAtparyabheda! The name-calling used,
if at all it is name-calling as showcased in this thread, it is only a
"trick" used in tarka, nothing more. To give up both thinking that both are
wrong is sheer foolishness or is with a political agenda. In Marathi, this
is called doghAnchyA bhANDaNAt tisryAchA lAbha. In a fight between two, [an
unconcerned] third benefits. Instead, the sampradAyavAdins follow the
teaching setting aside name-calling and find a samanvaya. Each of Bhamati
and Vivarana has the same goal of aikya. Bhashyakara has no problems in
using either of the techniques followed by them, albeit elaborated further
by them, why should we? The moderners who set aside both Bhamati and
Vivarana, and even Shruti-tarka based advanced works such as seen in
brihatprasthAna are self-styled and use their own kapolakalpita
interpretations of bhAShya and err beyond recognition, going against all
existing sampradAyas creating their own. There are many such.

OTOH, it was also voiced something to the effect that those scholars
studying in Universities are real seekers! This is equally ridiculous.
There is nothing wrong with scholarship, its a desired status even in
sampradAya, but not the ones taught only in Universities. It should be
studied in the sampradAya, else there is an easy trap to hold on to
translations done by those who do not know what sampradAya itself is, as
accurate. So where to study, which sampradAya? Advaita sampradAya; it
doesn't matter whether it is Bhamati or Vivarana, or initially neither.
Start off, instead of armchair-philosophizing. As Swamiji said on another
thread on Advaitin, learn, even if only to refute! Bhagavan Madhusudhana
Sarasvati also started learning tarka, pUrvamImAMsA and Advaita Vedanta
also only to refute Advaita Vedanta, but surrendered to the same, since it
was unopposed to His bhakti. The so-called refutation that people think
they have done, without even studying those works, is bhrAnti; it helps no
one, including themselves. They themselves risk getting influenced by
name-calling and end up doing the same over and over, disregarding the
tAtparya of the discussion. This is precisely why viveka is the first of
the sAdhanachatuShTaya, not only to know what is the tAtparya of life, but
also to see what is the tAtparya of the sub-commentators.

As it has been mentioned on Advaita-L many times, the tradition is a living
one, it breathes differently for different seekers based on their
questions, *without* compromising the tAtparya. It was also strange to read
that there were no Dvaitins during Bhashyakara's times!! These are the same
people who voice that sub-commentators gave an opportunity to bring back
Dvaitins who were demolished by Bhashyakara. What a contradiction! Anyone
who has studied bhAShya properly should know that all of Bhashyakaras
pUrvapakShas were Dvaitins. One advaita sampradAya Acharya said in his
teachings that advaitaH means na dvaitaH advaitaH, while na advaitaH means
dvaitaH, thereby including Charvakas and Buddhism along with all
unmentioned as dvaitaH and not only other five darshanas and Jainism.

​sampradAyAya
,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */