[Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara

[Aditya Kumar]

 You are saying as if I am a blasphemer or some sort of slanderer who is here to spread hate. But when vivaranakaras themselves say appalling things like prushta sevaka, it does not bother you at all. After all, I don't remember having slandered anyone. On the other hand it is you and few others who are so touchy that you insult others as 'non-traditional' etc. 
Okay I'll try to be as brief as possible because you will most certainly derail the thread further. You declared that whichever view compromises with 'jnana alone leads to moksha' is tatva bedha and the rest can be prakriya bedhas. Audolomi also believes so (jnana alone leads to moksha). But the dispute is over a different issue. So I presume you will start to add a new clause to what is prakriya bedha and what is tattva bedha, of course without any basis. 
Bhartrprapancha -does not deny- that aikya jnana is responsible for moksha. But you got all excited again trying to refute jnana-karma samucchaya as if you are telling something new. The case in point is, what can be reconciled and what not. What is a prakriya bedha and what is a tattva bedha. 
I have already stated, there are quite a few who think Vivarana and Bhamati are irreconcilable. I will write an essay on it in future, when I familiarise with them fully. 
    On Monday 18 September 2017, 10:21:04 PM IST, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Namaste Adityaji,
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com> wrote:

 You have simply copy/pasted the portions irrelevant to the discussion mixing it with the bitterness of your own mind. 
​First of all, if I'd copy pasted, it would have still been better than your copy-pasting Dasgupta and the like, who have no bearing on sampradAya. In any case, what I have done is translated them, not copy-pasted. And just because you can't make out head from tail of a sampradAya-argument, it doesn't stand as irrelevant. As for bitterness, I have none, since I accept all sub-commentators; you on the other hand... well, best left unsaid, you have yourself voiced it enough without any supporting basis whatsoever.

Bhartrprapancha is not against 'jnana removes avidyanivritti' - your brand new requirement. 
​This comment on requirement doesn't make sense! Please reread the first sentence of the bhAShya quoted. Its no wonder, it seems irrelevant to you.​

The point of disagreement is that Shankara says 'jnana alone' leads to moksha. 
​Yes. And please read as to what jnAna means to Vrttikara. Just because its spells j-n-A-n-a, it doesn't mean the same to all.​

Your take home points are as incorrect as any of your statements. 
Prove it. Use bhAshya statements, if you know what to "copy-paste", not Dasgupta. If you can't or don't want to prove it, start learning. The link of this very list's website is worth reading, written by sampradAya followers and research scholars, both, not one at the cost of the other like many!

While you have conveniently rejected any fundamental difference between V and B as to how aparoksha jnana is generated, you seem to strongly believe that it was a critical point in the very previous paragraph! 
Hilarious; at the very least, try to come out of confusion by reading what is written, instead of using your own ideas. Please read Sw. Gambhiranandaji's translation of tattu samanvayAt if it helps to see the context of difference.

So the sub-commentators thought of saying things which meant nothing?​ Ashrayatva is a mere technicality? 
​Since when is technicality nothing for a researcher?! The sub-commentators have a role to justify and analyse each word of the bhAShya; its what is called shraddhA, unknown outside sampradAya. That is why there are various sangatis to hetus, etc, *without* compromising the bhAShya.​

Whatever that means! 
​Look up a dictionary, if it helps.​

This difference is solely for research purpose? really? why would anyone research something pointless? 
​You are the one to know pointless activities, why ask me!​

A simple question - If Brahman is the ashraya of avidya, how does avidya nivritti take place in a jiva? 
I've already stated the reason in the definition. Please reread.​In the end, this is for the benefit of other readers in the unlikely case that they too missed what I was quoting from Bhashyakara: it is that even if Vrttikara said that jIva may be brahman, ​his suggested means to advaita-mokSha cannot result in mokSha. I see a lot of objection to the word prakriyAbheda; those objecting should instead prove as to why the vivaraNa or bhAmati *prakriyA*, cannot result​ in advaitamokSha. If no one can, it is just a prakriyAbheda. 
​gurupAdukAbhyAm,​
--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] */