Thanks airing and sharing the outstanding informative video always scintillating the Dharma of the individual.Endeavours are preponderanting.Bliss. Namaste
I'm saddened to see some comments here. Petty people unnecessarily criticizing minor things and trying to discredit honest scholarship and honest effort. Look at what an inspiration Manjushree is to the youth, pursuing such a serious study of shaastra. Who, in this day and age, is having the courage and dedication to do this? Petty people are the reason for the decline of shaastra study these days.
There are lots of people doing Shastra Study these days. Don't worry. I am a big fan of Ms Manjushree Hegde and listen to her captivating lectures. However, following sampradaya would have avoided these comments. Brahma Vidya ought to be revered and respected in actions also.
असम्प्रदायवित्सर्वशास्त्रविदपि मूर्खवदुपेक्षणीय:।(आदि-श्रीशङ्करभगवत्पादाचार्य:) Madame speaker here is without a bindi and a bare neck. May be addressing in mlecha bhasha to mlecha audience.
@@nischalanandagiriswamis7772 where is licentousness in sincerely studying sankara bhasya. Sampradaya is learning sastra from tradition. She did that. Pursuit of knowledge with passion gives meaning to life. She did that too. Lot of outward practices and dressing styles changed from rig vedic times. Dressing during time of sankara is very different from dressing during rig vedic times. This is also a natural change which no one can stop.
The Sāṃkhya school of Hindu philosophy is a dualist school, which means that it believes that there are two fundamental realities: purusha (spirit) and prakriti (matter). The Advaita Vedanta school, on the other hand, is a monist school, which means that it believes that there is only one ultimate reality, Brahman. The Sāṃkhya school argues against the Advaita Vedanta school's belief in Brahman on a number of grounds. First, the Sāṃkhya school argues that the concept of Brahman is incoherent. They argue that Brahman cannot be both one and many, both eternal and changing, both conscious and unconscious. Second, the Sāṃkhya school argues that the concept of Brahman is unnecessary. They argue that the same insights can be achieved without positing the existence of Brahman. For example, the Sāṃkhya school argues that the experience of unity that Advaitins claim to experience can be explained by the fact that the mind is capable of apprehending the unity of things. Third, the Sāṃkhya school argues that the concept of Brahman is harmful. They argue that the belief in Brahman can lead to complacency and a lack of motivation to improve oneself. They argue that it is better to focus on the reality of purusha and prakriti, and to work to achieve liberation through the practice of yoga. Here are some specific arguments that the Sāṃkhya school makes against Advaita Vedanta: The Sāṃkhya school argues that the Advaita Vedanta concept of Brahman is incoherent because it is both one and many. Brahman is said to be one, but it is also said to be the cause of the many. This is a contradiction, because something cannot be both one and many at the same time. The Sāṃkhya school argues that the Advaita Vedanta concept of Brahman is unnecessary because it can be explained by the Sāṃkhya concept of purusha and prakriti. Purusha is the eternal, unchanging, conscious principle, and prakriti is the material, changing, unconscious principle. The universe is said to be a product of the interaction of purusha and prakriti. The Sāṃkhya school argues that the Advaita Vedanta concept of Brahman is harmful because it can lead to complacency and a lack of motivation to improve oneself. If one believes that everything is an illusion, then there is no point in trying to improve oneself or the world. The Sāṃkhya school argues that it is better to focus on the reality of purusha and prakriti, and to work to achieve liberation through the practice of yoga.
