SSSS, of course, refers to the famous, if contentious, Advaitin Sri Satchidanandendra Saraswati Swamiji (1880 – 1975).
In 2014, I wrote a review of the article “A New Approach to Understanding Advaita as Taught by Sankara Bhagavadpada” by Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian – https://www.advaita-vision.org/review-of-article-by-ramakrisnan-subramanian/. The article was very critical of SSSS and my review provided a defense.
SSSS’s book “Salient Features of Ṥaṅkara’s Vedānta’ has an introduction by Prof. S.K. Ramachandra Rao and the latter makes the following points:
He [SSSS] was branded as a rebel by the conventionalists because he dared to question the prevailing approach to Ṥaṅkara, which is moulded principally by the sub-commentaries (Bhamati and Panchapadika). But the Svami has convincingly demonstrated, by elaborate and painstaking scrutiny, that the subcommentaries have subscribed to, and introduced, many a concept that are altogether alien to Ṥaṅkara’s commentarial corpus, and that not infrequently this concepts militate against the tradition that Ṥankara attempts to uphold.
This has been the achievement of the Svami’s long life and single-minded devotion. And reasons are not far to seek why this discovery of the unadulterated philosophical position of Ṥaṅkara (Suddha – Ṥaṅkara – Prakriya) has not received the recognition, celebrity and acceptance that it merits; the strength of convention has set up strong barriers in the minds of people, and there is resistance both unconscious and deliberate, to welcome any attacks on the conventional views, however well-founded and cogently presented.
It is a curious irony of our religious attitudes that the dogmatists are prepared to sacrifice Ṥaṅkara’s commentaries for the sake of the sub-commentaries on them, namely, Bhamati and Panchapadika. It appears all too important for the dogmatist to defend Vachaspati – misra and Padmapada even when they misrepresent Ṥaṅkara. It, therefore, required of the Svami courage of conviction and steadfast determination to speak the truth at all costs, Instances are numerous as to how attempts were made to discredit the Svami and prevent his viewpoints from being recognized.
Towards the end of his long article, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian goes into considerable detail concerning the ‘reaction’ of the ‘Tradition’ to SSS’s works, some in favor and some against. To explain why SSS ‘misunderstood’ Ṥaṅkara, he lists:
1) Lack of formal training in Saṃpradāya subjects (Nyāya and Pūrvamīmāṃsā), and
2) His (along with Krishnaswamy Iyer, his mentor) basic training was a Western education.
Before the conclusion, RB ends with the statement: “No doubt SSS’s textual analysis skills are excellent, but the problem I see with SSS’s writings is his obsession with terminology, rather than philosophy. Indeed none of his works are about the philosophy of Advaita, but are oriented almost exclusively towards contradicting previous commentators of Ṥaṅkarācārya”.
And, in the conclusion, he adds: “I feel Padmapādācārya has been meted out a grave injustice by many authors, including SSS, who have largely misunderstood him. The difference between Padmapāda and SSS is that the former is a philosopher, while the latter is a textual analyst” (!). – [From my article in SSS defense in Advaita Vision –
And, in the conclusion, he adds: “I feel Padmapādācārya has been meted out a grave injustice by many authors, including SSS, who have largely misunderstood him. The difference between Padmapāda and SSS is that the former is a philosopher, while the latter is a textual analyst” (!). – [From my article in SSS defense in Advaita Vision –
https://www.academia.edu/9474530/Review_of_A_New_Approach_to_Understanding_Advaita_as_Taught_bSa_nkaraBhagavadp_ada