[Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara

[Praveen R. Bhat]

​​Namaste,

>From our own list webpage:
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/pre-sankara.html

//Quote
To be sure, there were also pre-Sankaran representatives of non-advaita
vedAnta traditions, many of whom seem to have been *bhedAbheda-vAdins* of
one kind or the other - proponents of a doctrine of identity-in-difference.
Chief among them are the names of auDulomi, Asmarathya (both mentioned in
the brahmasUtras), bhartRprapanca, brahmadatta, bhartRmitra and bodhAyana.
//Unquote

With that in the background, what is important​ to note though is that just
as Bhashyakara dismisses the non-Vedanta traditions as they end in duality,
he also dismisses some Advaita-ending schools of thought since jnAnena
muktiH is compromised in them. samucchaya- or upAsana-prApyamuktiH is
anityA and so, siddAntaviruddhaH.

However, jnAnena avidyAnivRttiH and thereby advaitamuktiH is not
compromised by any sub-commentators of bhAShya, and therefore, they are
mere prakriyAbhedas and not tattvabhedas. This fact cannot be stressed
enough.


​gurupAdukAbhyAm
,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji,
>
> ​
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 3:19 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Bhashyakara was not opposed to the final conclusion of ​Vrttikara's
> Bhedabheda that Atman is brahman, but that upAsana is needed for the same
> even after jnAnotpatti. This is elaborately dismissed in the bhAShya under
> tattu samanvayAt, considering all possible upAsanA options.
>
> ​
> ​
> Kind rgds,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>