[Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

We are forgetting Mandana Mishra Mata of Vedanta. Probably this was there
in Adi Sankara's time also. Later Vyakhyana Karas accepted many points of
Mandana when Sankara Bhashya was not clear. Example is Avidyaa Ashraya is
not clear from Sankara Bhashya but Vachaspati took Jeeva as Avidyaa
Ashraya. This is coming from Mandana Mishra. We have to say Thanks to
Mandana for making Sankara Bhashyas clear.

Probably Anirvachaniyatva of Avidyaa is also coming from Mandana. Then even
Vivarana has borrowed this Mandana point because Sankara Bhashya is not
very clearly saying that. Another point is Sankara Bhashya is not very
clearly saying Avidyaa and Maayaa are same. But Mandana said that and later
Vyakhyana Karas also followed him.

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 3:19 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >  //I have cited a Taittiriya Bhashya passage of Shankara where he
> declares
> > that he, the monist, is the lone representative of the Vedanata and is
> > faced with a number of non-monists who are outside the Vedanta. The
> > subcommentator in the Br.Up.bhasya (if I remember right) has identified a
> > purvapaksha as Bhartruprapanchamatam.//
> >
> > But we know that Bhartrprapancha was also a vedAntin. Shankara's claim is
> > typical of all schools. Every school thinks that it is the true vedAntic
> > school. Viewed in this light, Shankara's claim does not provide us any
> > historical information about existence of other vedAntic schools at his
> > time. But his criticism of earlier commentators shows that such schools
> > existed.
> >
>
> There is a difference. Shankara has not claimed that he is refuting
> pre-existing Bhāṣyas on the Brahmasutra as others have done. All that he is
> claiming is that the monist is the only representative of the Upanishadic
> mata and all his opponents are dualists.  We find the proof of this in his
> refutation of the various schools such as the sankhya, yoga, vaisheshika,
> bauddha, jaina, pancharatra, pashupata, mimamsa, charvaka..  That gives us
> an idea that there were no Vedantic schools that Shankara was opposed to.
> And from his statement in the Br.Up. bhashya we know that all those who
> swore by the Upanishads were unanimous on the jiva-brahma identity, even
> though there might have been differences on particular points. None of the
> above listed schools based their doctrines on the upanishads. That is why
> they have been included in the smritii section.
>
> On the contrary, for instance, the Madhvas claim that theirs is the
> siddhanta that has refuted all, some 20 plus, pre-existing Vedantic
> bhāṣyas, and rests unopposed. It would be interesting to verify if Madhva,
> or even Ramanuja, has cited the various 20 plus or as the case may be,
> doctrines by name or otherwise, including the ones that existed prior to
> Shankara, and refuted them.  We find Shankara referring to thoughts like
> the bheda-abheda, jnana karma samucchaya, and refuting them.  If we find
> the other two commentators citing such specific doctrines of pre-Shankara
> period, then that would give us a certain idea of the pre-Shankaran
> vedantic schools.  In fact the Tanka, Dramida (Dravida), Brahmanandi that
> the Ramanuja bhashya is said to name as his purvacharyas, are admitted to
> be Advaitins by the Shankaran followers. In the Thangaswamy book that gives
> a list of ancient Advaitins many of these names appear.  Anandagiri too in
> a subcommentary of Shankara's quote ‘सिद्धं तु निवर्तकत्वात्’
> इत्यागमविदां सूत्रम्
> ॥  in the Mandukya karika 2.32 bhashya, says that Shankara is citing the
> support from Dravidacharya.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
>
>
>
> >
> > //In the Thangaswami research work on Advaita Vedanta literature, on
> > p.191, on Upavarsha it is stated that the view of the Vishistadvaitins
> > identifying Upavarsha with Bodhayana is incorrect.He considers Upavarsha
> as
> > a vrittikara that Shankara alludes to.//
> >
> >
> > Ok. I myself am not sure if this identification is correct.
> >
> >
> >  //In this book Bhartrpraoancha is stated to be a bhedābhedavādin but not
> > as an author of a vritti on the Brahmasutra.//
> >
> >
> > Narayana Panditacharya, the biographer of Madhva counts BhartRprapancha
> as
> > a commentator on the brahmasutras.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Kalyan
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > On Sun, 9/17/17, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara
> >  To: "Kalyan" <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
> >  Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> > vedanta.org>
> >  Date: Sunday, September 17, 2017, 3:56 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Sat,
> >  Sep 16, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
> >  wrote:
> >  Vishishthadvaitins hold
> >  that Bodhayana is the same as Upavarsha, that Shankara
> >  refers to. Both Shankara and Bhaskara hold Upavarsha in high
> >  esteem, even though their schools are different, so it
> >  cannot be claimed for certain that Upavarsha was an
> >  advaitin.
> >
> >
> >
> >  Narayana Panditacharya, the biographer of Madhva, refers to
> >  a vrittikAra as one of the commentators on BS. Bodhayana or
> >  Upavarsha (whether or not they are the same person) could be
> >  this vrittikAra.
> >
> >  Here is a study on the
> >  Bodhayana-Upavarsha topic:
> >  https://sreenivasaraos.com/category/bodhayana-upavarsha/
> >  Nothing final arises from the
> >  study.
> >  Another
> >  article:  http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/01/who-was-
> > upavarsa-2.htm
> >     which is however missing now.
> >
> >
> >
> >  //The schools that  Shankara refutes in the second
> >  chapter of BSB are all  non-Vedantic//
> >
> >
> >
> >  This does not prove anything. Bhartrprapancha, a
> >  bhedAbhedavAdin, has written a commentary on BS (according
> >  to Narayana Panditacharya) and I dont remember that he is
> >  refuted by Shankara in the second chapter.  Just because no
> >  other vedantic school was refuted by Shankara in the 2nd
> >  chapter, it does not mean that there was no other vedantic
> >  school at the time of Shankara.
> >
> >  In BSB 2.1.14 a certain bhedābheda
> >  vāda is refuted. The identity of jiva-Brahman is admitted
> >  by that vādin in the mokṣa state but not in the bandha
> >  state. In that school both bheda in bandha and abheda in
> >  moksha are absolute. In the 2.2 of BSB however, the schools
> >  refuted are all non-vedantic. I have cited a Taittiriya
> >  Bhashya passage of Shankara where he declares that he, the
> >  monist, is the lone representative of the Vedanata and is
> >  faced with a number of non-monists who are outside the
> >  Vedanta.  The subcommentator in the Br.Up.bhasya (if I
> >  remember right) has identified a purvapaksha as
> >  Bhartruprapanchamatam.
> >  In the Thangaswami research work on
> >  Advaita Vedanta literature, on p.191, on Upavarsha it is
> >  stated that the view of the Vishistadvaitins identifying
> >  Upavarsha with Bodhayana is incorrect. He considers
> >  Upavarsha as a vrittikara that Shankara alludes to. In this
> >  book Bhartrpraoancha is stated to be a bhedābhedavādin but
> >  not as an author of a vritti on the Brahmasutra. He is
> >  believed to have written commentaries on Br.up. and
> >  Kathopanishat. Shankara alludes to him as
> >  'aupanishadmmanyaḥ', a derogatory term to mean:
> >  one who thinks he is a follower of the
> >  Upanishad.
> >  regardssubbu
> >
> >
> >  Regards
> >
> >  Kalyan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh