> > The Shankara Acharya composed the following works: > > Bhashyas on Brahma Sutras... > > Zoran wrote: > According to George Thibaut Ramunuja's commentary of > Brahma Sutras is giving more accurate explanation of > what Vyasa said, but Thibaut also added that Shankara's > views are closer to Upanishad philosophers than > Ramunuja's. > Maybe so, but the TMer tradition follows the Adwaita tradition of Shankaracharya - we don't have anything to do with the qualified non-dualists (Visishtadvaitans) who posit the existence of two reals - it just doesn't seem to make any sensse that there would be a Brahman with attributes; a Lord Narayana or a Bhagavan, that is, a Supreme Being; the individual soul is Chit; matter is Achit. That kind of outlook just doesn't seem to make any sense.
> Also we must say that there are many Upanishads and each > school uses those ones which are basis for their specific > arguments. > Maybe so, but the tradition TMers follow is the Sri Vidya and the Trupura Upanishad. Shankara composed the Saundarya- lahari for our understanding. In it are enumerated the TM bija mantras including the bija mantra of Sri Saraswati, that is, Tripura, and the 'secret of the three cities'. > Thanks for mentioning Nimbark acharya... > The scriptures of the six Gosvamis mention the names of Acaryas such as Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva, Sri Visnu Svami, Sri Nimbaditya and Sri Vallabha Acarya. If the Nimbarka sampradaya had existed even to a slight extent at that time, then they would most certainly have mentioned the name of Nimbarka Acarya as well. However, they did not, so that leads me to conclude that Nimbarka came much later, probably in the 18th century.
