[Advaita-l] Fwd: Re: [advaitin] Re: Prashthana traya

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sunil ji,

It is the post shown below that I referred to.

regards
subbu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2016 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Prashthana traya
To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>, "A discussion
group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>,
"Advaitin" <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>
Cc:



On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Subbuji,
>
> It appears to me that the Prasthantraya division was first suggested by
> Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati.
>
> As regards the Bhagavadgita bhshya it appears to me that it was probably
> written by the great scholar Sri Vidyashankara, who was born 81 (or is it
> 76) yeas after the passing away of Sri Ramanujacharya. Sri Vidyashankara
> wrote the Bhagavad Gita bhashya to establish it as an advaitic text by
> refuting the Vishishtadvaita interpretation in  the Bhagavadgitabhashya of
> Sri Ramanujacharya.
>

Dear Sunil ji,

In order to prove beyond doubt that the Advaita commentary to the BG
preceded Ramanuja, we can consider just one sample (out of perhaps many)
from Ramanuja's BG commentary to the 2.12 verse. The Advaita commentary
there makes a very bold statement:

देहेभेदानुवृत्त्या *बहुवचनम् *ना*त्मभेदाभिप्रायेण।*। [The plural used by
the Lord is keeping in mind the difference in the bodies (of jiva-s) and
not considering the difference in the Ātman(s).

Ramanuja refutes this view:

एवं भगवतः सर्वेश्वराद् आत्मनां परस्परं च भेदः पारमार्थिकः इति भगवता एव
उक्तम् इति प्रतीयते। अज्ञानमोहितं प्रति तन्निवृत्तये
पारमार्थिकनित्यत्वोपदेशसमये अहम्त्वम्इमेसर्वे वयम् इति व्यपदेशात्।
*औपाधिकात्मभेदवादे
हि आत्मभेदस्य* अतात्त्विकत्वेन तत्त्वोपदेशसमये भेदनिर्देशो न संगच्छते।
भगवदुक्ता*त्मभेदः* स्वाभाविकः इति श्रुतिः अपि आह नित्यो नित्यानां
चेतनश्चेतनानामेको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान्। (श्वेता0 6।13) इति। नित्यानां
बहूनां चेतनानां य एकः चेतनो नित्यः स कामान् विदधाति इत्यर्थः।
अज्ञानकृतभेददृष्टिवादे तु परमपुरुषस्य परमार्थदृष्टेः
निर्विशेषकूटस्थनित्यचैतन्यात्मयाथात्म्यसाक्षात्कारात्
निवृत्ताज्ञानतत्कार्यतया अज्ञानकृतभेददर्शनं तन्मूलोपदेशादिव्यवहाराः च न
संगच्छन्ते।
अथ परमपुरुषस्य अधिगताद्वैतज्ञानस्य *बाधितानुवृत्तिरूपम् इदं भेदज्ञानं
दग्धपटादिवत्* न बन्धकम् इति उच्येत न एतद् उपपद्यते मरीचिकाजलज्ञानादिकं हि
बाधितम् अनुवर्तमानम् अपि न जलाहरणादिप्रवृत्तिहेतुः। एवम् अत्र अपि
अद्वैतज्ञानेन बाधितं भेदज्ञानम् अनुवर्तमानम् अपि मिथ्यार्थविषयत्वनिश्चयात्
न उपदेशादिप्रवृत्तिहेतुः भवति। न च ईश्वरस्य पूर्वम् अज्ञस्य
शास्त्राधिगततत्त्वज्ञानतया बाधितानुवृत्तिः शक्यते वक्तुम्यः सर्वज्ञः
सर्ववित् (मु0 उ0 2।1।9

Ramanuja uses the same word 'ātmabheda' that the Advaita bhāṣya has used.
You can see the rest of the sample of Ramauja bhāṣya criticising concepts
that are unique to Advaita.

Ramanuja's commentator Venkatanatha too clearly says: Shankara's view is
what is being criticized here.

Now, we can also see Madhva's commentator Jayatirtha doing the same
criticism of the Advaita idea of: the Lord's plural usage is only
body-difference-based and not ātman-difference-based:

 अत्र भगवता जीवानां परस्परमीश्वराच्च भेदे प्रतिपादितेऽपि *बहुवचनं *शरीरापेक्षया
न त्वात्मापेक्षयेति वदतो शं.चा. भविष्यत्युत्तरम्। Jayatirtha continues the
criticism in the next verse's commentary too, giving clear indications that
he is addressing the advaitic commentary.

So, it is beyond doubt that the Advaitic commentary that preceded
Ramanuja's was that of Shankara alone. Contrary to your view that
Vidyashankara criticised Ramanuja, we see Ramanuja opposing the Advaita
doctrine.

regards
subbu






>
>
>