Ancient Knowledge, New Knowledge

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Giri wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, sadananda wrote:
>
> > got burried in the oblivian.  I am looking for besides the mahavaakyaas any
> > other sciptural statements from the prastaanatraya - B.G., Brahma Sutra or
> > Upanishads that catorically supports the adviatic theory!  Any help in
> > this?
> >
> > Hari Om!
> > Sadananda

I was planning on responding to this later, but here goes for an initial
reference. Check, Bodhananda (17th c.), Bodhanandagita, also known as
dasopanishad-artha-tatparya-prakasika. This work contains selections from
the ten principal upanishads, and is in verse. It was published with notes
by E. Easwaran Nambudiri, by the Adi Sankara Samskarika Kendra, Trivandrum
in 1980.

Coming to Giri's comment:

>
>         Is that possible ? If one of the statements from the

Why not? Every teacher in the vedanta traditions has recognized that there
are different abheda and bheda Srutis. According to the advaita school,
the abheda Srutis always occur in the context of moksha, whereas the bheda
Srutis are intended for other purusharthas.

There is no reason to suppose that all the Srutis support only this or
that view. Especially when the various commentators of the Srutis
themselves do not impose such restrictive criteria of consistency or
completeness on them. The Srutis cannot be reduced to a formal axiomatic
system.

> prastaanatrya categorically supports only the advaitic theory, then how
> could Ramanuja, Bhaskara, Madhva etc comment on it ? They would have to
> comment on this in such a way that their theory is supported, not advaita.
>

Exactly. It does not mean that all of them are right, nor does it mean
that nobody is right. Interpretation is not necessarily the actual or the
intended meaning. One has to choose one interpretation of scripture over
the others. In this choice, one is guided by one's own inclinations, and
by one's guru.

For example, the passage from the Brhadaranyaka, which begins, "yatra tu
dvaitamiva bhavati, ....," and goes on to say, "yatra tvasya sarvam
Atmaivabhut, ...." can hardly be interpreted as endorsement of dvaita, but
Madhva thinks it is. One cannot accept both Sankara's and Madhva's
interpretations. In my opinion, the advaita interpretation is the correct
one, and the dvaitin twists the words till they are distorted beyond
recognition. Now, you might say that I prefer the advaita interpretation
because I myself subscribe to the advaita theory, but I think it is the
other way round. It is because I find the advaita interpretation
consistent with the entire intention of the Maitreyi Brahmana, that I
accept advaita as a valid scriptural interpretation in the first place.
Needless to say, scriptural interpretation is only one function of advaita
texts.


S. Vidyasankar