Namaste Chitteranjanji,
A brave effort at reconciliation. I think that in
this case Shankaracarya was in a cleft stick. Writing a commentary on
Mandukya Up. some reference had to be made to the karika of his paramaguru
Gaudapada. Positions put in that work if encountered anywhere else would
have been shredded. Here he simply makes them explicit and leaves them
alone. Where lineal piety cannot ignore the import of a sutra he takes it to
be a reducti ad absurdum move.

To confirm for yourself that is the case go back to his own commentary on the
Mandukya Up., the two are together in the Advaita Ashrama edn. What he has
to say there about the dream and the waking state is in substantial agreement
with the B.S.B. and Brh. Up. comm.

The developement and the realisation of the implication of philosophical
positions can take hundreds of years. Only in modern times is the legacy of
Cartesian dualism (17th.C.) being systematically dismantled and that is
chiefly the work of the great genius Wittgenstein. So Gaudapada wasn't
wrong, just noetically early.

An extract from Surendranath Dasgupta's History of Indian Phil. deals with
this issue
http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0087.htm

Best Wishes, Michael.

Namaste Shri Michaelji,


Thank you for your comments, Michaelji.


> Writing a commentary on Mandukya Up. some reference had to be
> made to the karika of his paramaguru Gaudapada. Positions put in
> that work if encountered anywhere else would have been shredded.

The position that the syllogism of the Karika proves the unreality of
the world has been shredded by the other schools. If the Karika is
not taken as being aimed at the Buddhists, the current interpretation
still lays it open to the fault of irrelevance, since it cannot
convey the meaning of unreality to someone for whom the vyapti is not
a familiar instance. It is my belief that this is the reason why Shri
Shankaracharya does not follow the line of the Karika, in order that
the doctrine of Advaita may be enunciated and directed to those that
are characterised by avidya rather than to a jnyani. Perhaps this
expediency was required to prevent the perplexing conception of world-
unreality from further accentuating the curvature of the avidya-laden
lens through which the world is looked at.


> The developement and the realisation of the implication of
> philosophical positions can take hundreds of years. Only in
> modern times is the legacy of Cartesian dualism (17th.C.)
> being systematically dismantled and that is chiefly the work
> of the great genius Wittgenstein. So Gaudapada wasn't wrong,
> just noetically early.

I agree. It may seem strange to many ears in this forum, but I
believe that the idea that Madhwa Dvaita is a philosophy of dualism
is another legacy that needs dismantling.


Warm regards,
Chittaranjan

Dear Chittaranjan ,

Namaste.

> I agree. It may seem strange to many ears in this forum, but I
> believe that the idea that Madhwa Dvaita is a philosophy of dualism
> is another legacy that needs dismantling.

You are welcome to try that by all means !

If you & moderators don't mind , bring up this topic of yours in
vAdavaLi. We'll take up from there.

Regards,
Srinivas.




--- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Chittaranjan Naik"
<chittaranjan_naik@y...> wrote:
> Namaste Shri Michaelji,
>
>
> Thank you for your comments, Michaelji.
>
>
> > Writing a commentary on Mandukya Up. some reference had to be
> > made to the karika of his paramaguru Gaudapada. Positions put in
> > that work if encountered anywhere else would have been shredded.
>
> The position that the syllogism of the Karika proves the unreality
of
> the world has been shredded by the other schools. If the Karika is
> not taken as being aimed at the Buddhists, the current
interpretation
> still lays it open to the fault of irrelevance, since it cannot
> convey the meaning of unreality to someone for whom the vyapti is
not
> a familiar instance. It is my belief that this is the reason why
Shri
> Shankaracharya does not follow the line of the Karika, in order
that
> the doctrine of Advaita may be enunciated and directed to those
that
> are characterised by avidya rather than to a jnyani. Perhaps this
> expediency was required to prevent the perplexing conception of
world-
> unreality from further accentuating the curvature of the avidya-
laden
> lens through which the world is looked at.
>
>
> > The developement and the realisation of the implication of
> > philosophical positions can take hundreds of years. Only in
> > modern times is the legacy of Cartesian dualism (17th.C.)
> > being systematically dismantled and that is chiefly the work
> > of the great genius Wittgenstein. So Gaudapada wasn't wrong,
> > just noetically early.
>
> I agree. It may seem strange to many ears in this forum, but I
> believe that the idea that Madhwa Dvaita is a philosophy of dualism
> is another legacy that needs dismantling.
>
>
> Warm regards,
> Chittaranjan

Dear Shri Shrinivas-ji,

I believe that you have misunderstood whatever I said to be some kind
of a challenge to Dvaita. That was not at all my concern. I was
saying that Dvaita is not what is commonly understood today as
dualism, by which term is normally meant that a plurality of
independently subsisting things exist. The understanding that I got
from my discussions in Vadavali was that the existence of the world
is sustained only by the existence of Brahman. If my undertanding is
wrong, then I stand corrected, and then let the matter rest here.
Thank you for the invitation, but I have no wish or desire to take it
up in Vadavali.

Regards,
Chittaranjan



--- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p@y...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Chittaranjan ,
>
> Namaste.
>
> > I agree. It may seem strange to many ears in this forum, but I
> > believe that the idea that Madhwa Dvaita is a philosophy of
dualism
> > is another legacy that needs dismantling.
>
> You are welcome to try that by all means !
>
> If you & moderators don't mind , bring up this topic of yours in
> vAdavaLi. We'll take up from there.
>
> Regards,
> Srinivas.
>
>
>
>

Dear Sri Chittaranjan-ji,

Thanks for clarifying your position. I stand corrected about your
posting.

>I was saying that Dvaita is not what is commonly understood today as
>dualism, by which term is normally meant that a plurality of
>independently subsisting things exist.

Yes indeed, it is the general misconception about Dvaita vEdAnta
among outsider. I thank you for your bold effort, while yourself
being an outsider, to correct that misconception by attesting the
correct position.

>The understanding that I got from my discussions in Vadavali was
that the existence of the world
>is sustained only by the existence of Brahman.

Your understanding is to the point and thanks again for it.

Regards,
Srinivas.

Namaste Shri Srinivasji,

Thank you for your reply. All's well that ends well! :-)

Warm regards,
Chittaranjan


-- In advaitin (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Sri Chittaranjan-ji,
>
> Thanks for clarifying your position. I stand corrected about your
> posting.
>
> >I was saying that Dvaita is not what is commonly understood today
as
> >dualism, by which term is normally meant that a plurality of
> >independently subsisting things exist.
>
> Yes indeed, it is the general misconception about Dvaita vEdAnta
> among outsider. I thank you for your bold effort, while yourself
> being an outsider, to correct that misconception by attesting the
> correct position.
>
> >The understanding that I got from my discussions in Vadavali was
> that the existence of the world
> >is sustained only by the existence of Brahman.
>
> Your understanding is to the point and thanks again for it.
>
> Regards,
> Srinivas.