Vichu's Collage of Cliches - A Critique

Naresh's critique of my earlier piece, has been posted as an original blog for two reasons (a) It's just not a critique but a sort of his own take on how and what should have been my theme instead of the one presented and (b) the comments column has restrictions on the number of words it can accommodate etc. 

It's in the form of a mail addressed to me and blogged verbatim.


Dear Vichu Athan,

Since you are dying to read a bhasyam, let me at least attempt a critique by starting in a light vein -

1. You are a scholar and so you have scholarship. It's not because you have scholarship you are a scholar.

Hen or chicken? How do I possess scholarship if I had not been a scholar? Catch-22 , does not qualify to be a sutra. It is purely illogical, balderdash, in PG WODEHOUSE , terminology. ( don' t mind, you asked for this)

2.Aspire to be a scholar, but don't be fascinated by scholarship

Fantastic, this qualifies to be a cliche at least, still not good enough for a sutra. You could put any attribute in place of scholarship and any possessor of that attribute in the first part of the sentence, and it would still hold true, therefore this is a classic cliche. For instance, "Aspire to be wealthy, but don't be fascinated by wealth" is equally true and equally mundane.

3. Sankalpams lead to scholarship, Sankalpam -less meditation leads to realization .

Now, the quality is improving, albeit marginally. The first part is applicable for anything hence is still in the cliche domain. Sankalpams lead to great physique, great property, great progeny.....
The second part is interesting, "sankalpam-less meditation leads to realization" - of what? 
To my understanding, you should have rounded it off by saying "sankalpam-less meditation leads to realization of That which needs no sankalpam" , this would pique the reader to go further on to the next sutra.

4. There is no point in pursuing "Knowledge" , YOU ARE.

Re-phrase to - "There is point in pursuing (empirical) knowledge only till you realize that you are.( that thou art)

5. As YOU ARE in realization, You will just "be"  

This appears to be a statement , it sounds better in third person - As ONE is in realization, ONE will just be! 
The use of "YOU" IMPLIES EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER AND DETRACTS FROM THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT THAT THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF YOUR SUTRAS ARE LEADING TO.


6. Don't just be fascinated by "advaitham". experience & become an  "advaithin

The term advaithin is at worst a mirage and at best a short form for advaitha vedantin or advaitha vaadin.
On the other hand advaitham is both an attribute and state. 

The answer to who's attribute and what kind of state must come from the system of these six sutras, that i presume was your raison d'être for the mail. therefore, the construction of your sutras should have started with -

1. What is the only objective worthy of a sankalpam?
2. What is the result of sankalpam and sankalpam-less meditation?
3. Therefore attainment of what must be the sole human aspiration?
4. What is the state and attribute of ONE that has attained?
5. Is there a paradox in such attainment?
( btw, even The Lord ducked this last one when confronted by Arjuna , responding, sarva dharma an parityjya mam Ekam........  Strongly feel that MAM and EKAM refer to the same Unity that is to be "realized"  ( ?)  and the locus is provided by the mam, namely within oneself)

And finally, end with a sutra that answers the question - does the above system pass the tests of modern/scientific syllogistic questioning?

Don't escape by saying you didn't understand what I have written because I have references ( in jignyaasaa) of your admission that bhasyams are meant be and often are tougher than sutras :)

Your previous sutras were better, sir , you cannot better your best! ( how's that for a sutra)

Straight from the hip, no words minced,

Regards,
Naresh