Guest guest Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 Namaste Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji, advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote: > > As far as Vivarana and Bhamati schools are concerned, I've > > said it before and I repeat it here, I am not interested in > > upholding the positions given in them. > In my opinion this is the flaw of upajIva-virOdha. Because, > all our knowledge about Acharya Shankara and his works, are > passed down to us only through the tradition. Our understanding > about Sri.Shankara is thus depend on tradition for its > validity. Here our knowledge is upajIvika and tradition is > upajIva. The virOdha lies in taking Shankara's work and > rejecting tradition. The bhashyas of Shankara are available to us. They are not lost. Why would I necessarily have to read Bhamati and Vivarana when Shankara bhashyas are available to me? The bhashyas of Shankara satisfy me as being the supreme revelation of Advaita. I have read Shankara bhashya. I have not read Bhamati and Vivarana, which are attempts at interpreting the bhashyas of Shankara. Why would I be guilty of virodha if I should abide by the main text and not go by these later explanations which I think are flawed? Is it because Dvaita text books refute this mixture of Vivarana and Bhamati? You argument is fallacious. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.