[Advaita-l] Nelson's position on the Advaitasiddhi and Bhaktirasayana

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

For your kind perusal I give below  the abstract of Nelson's PhD dissertation, "Bhakti in Advaita Vedanta: A translation and study of Madhusudana Sarasvati's Bhaktirasayana" 
(January  1, 1987),  where Nelson says that the Bhaktirasayana (BR) has borrowed the thesis from the Vaishnava devotionalists. This abstract appears at the beginning of his dissertation. 


Secondly, Nelson mentions the Gudarthadipika and Advaitassiddhi as later works, where Madhusudana abandons the idea that 
bhakti is an independent spiritual path and itself the parampurusartha.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bhakti in Advaita Vedanta: A translation and study of Madhusudana Sarasvati's Bhaktirasayana
Lance Edward Nelson,McMaster University

Abstract
Madhusudana Sarasvat i (16th century), one of the greatest and most 
vigorous exponents of post-Samkara Advaita, was simultaneously, and 
somewhat paradoxically, a great devotee of Krsna. He authored several 
works in which he sought to give bhakti a more prominent place within 
Advaita, a system traditionally regarded as hostile to devotional 
spirituality.  The Bhaktirasayana (BR), the most important of these, is 
an independent composition which attempts a theoretical integration of 
non-dualist metaphysics and the ecstatic devotionalism of the Bhagavata 
Purana.The work's main thesis, borrowed from the Vaisnava 
devotionalists, is that bhakti is highest goal of life 
(paramapurusartha).To establish this in the face of the orthodox 
Advaita doctrine that liberation alone is the highest aim, Madhusudana 
argues (1) that bhakti is God (bhagavat) appearing in the melted mind of the devotee, (2) that, since bhagavat is supreme bliss, so is bhakti, 
and (3) that bhakti includes knowledge of the atman and is a more 
blissful experience than moksa.  While the argument for the experiential superiority of bhakti in the state of j ivanmukti ("liberation in 
life") is plausible, Madhusudana does not show, in Advaitic terms, how 
it can be experienced eternally after death. Moreover, he fails to 
establish that bhagavat is ontologically equal to Brahman, which makes 
it difficult to see how bhakti, as identified with bhagavat, can be 
ontologically superior, or even equal, to moksa. In short, he does not 
present a convincing argument for bhakti 's being the paramapurusartha.In later works such as the Gudarthadipika and Advaitassiddhi, 
Madhusudana abandons the idea that bhakti is an independent spiritual 
path and itself the paramapurusartha.The commonly accepted view that 
he was a champion of the cause of bhakti who successfully integrated 
devotion and Advaita cannot therefore be accepted without serious 
qualification.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Friends, you must have now seen that Rajaram does not really know the views of Nelson.


Regards,

Sunil KB