[Advaita-l] A 5th Century AD view of Vedanta (Some Comments)

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,
I had previously said:
A reading of the translation presented in your other email does show
some critical differences with advaita.
To which a question was raised:

> How so?  Differences in presentation sure, but in basic doctrine I don't
> see it.
>

If we take the translation at face value, there appear to be some pretty
fundamental differences, some outlined below:

1) kartRtva / bhoktRtva in Bhavya's description of vedAnta is attributed to
the Self / puruSha (see points 3 & 14 of the translation email), whereas
the Self is neither a kartA nor a bhoktA in advaita.

2) Moksha is described as a sAdhya (something to be attained) as opposed to
a siddha vastu (something that is ever attained). The description by Bhavya
(see point 3 of translation) describes liberation as the 'attainment of
unity' with the puruSha, whereas this is an ever present identity in
advaita.

3) The means for the attainment of moksha as meditation (dhyAnayogena - see
point 16, dhyAnachakshu: - see point 3), as opposed to jnAna in advaita.

4) The mention of attributes of the puruSha, and no mention of His ultimate
attribute-lessness. Attributes such as rukmavarNatva (point 3),
sUryavarachasva (point 2), his being endowed with the aShTa mahA siddhis
(point 8) are mentioned by Bhavya - which in itself is fine, because the
upaniShads themselves contain several statements describing saguNa brahman.
Importantly though, Bhavya makes no mention of nirguNatva as the ultimate
siddhAnta within vedAnta. If the pUrvapaksha is being stated in order to be
refuted, it would be inappropriate to refute an interim conclusion and
leave the final conclusion unrefuted.

5) No apavAda of creation, or reality of the world / no mention of
vivartavAda.

6) Finally and most fundamentally, the core tenet of advaita is not that
the Self is One, although it is one of things taught - Rather, it is a
philosophy that holds that there is nothing else but the Self. However,
Bhavya makes no reference this at all.

So what else could Bhavya be referring to as vedAnta, and why?

The brahma sUtra alludes to various teachers within the vedAntic tradition.
For example, in the vAkyanvayAdhikaraNa 1.4.19 - 1.4.22 of the brahma
sUtra, Ashmarathya, auDulomi, kAshakRtsna, are referred to. ShankarAchArya
argues that Ashmarathya's and auDulomi's views are not to be accepted as
they are not in line with the right interpretation of the upaniShads.
Therefore, there were prior interpretations of the upaniShads (and thus
could be termed vedAnta), some of which were refuted by the bhAShyakAra
(and thus could not be classified as advaita). It is quite possible that
Bhavya may have been referring to some of these strands of vedAnta.

For example, according to Ashmarathya AchArya, the jIva and paramAtma have
a bhedAbheda relationship. In the Tibetan version of the mAdhyamaka hrdaya
referred to by Prof. Nakamura (Page 212), a view of vedAnta according to
Bhavya is presented as the "Supreme Self and the individual self are
neither one or different", which the Professor takes as bhedAbheda. Was
Bhavya referring to a view akin to Ashmarathya's?

On the other hand, according to auDulomi AchArya, the jIva and paramAtma
are intrinsically different during samsAra and at moksha the jIva attains
paramAtma and becomes one. As ShankarAchArya says: विज्ञानात्मनो
ज्ञानध्यानादिसामर्थ्यात्सम्प्रसन्नस्य परेणात्मनैक्यसम्भवादिदमभेदाभिधानमित्यौ
डुलोमिराचार्यो मन्यते. Some of the translation of Bhavya's work seem to
hint towards such a view too (points 3 and 16 of the translation). Perhaps
Bhavya was referring to auDulomi, or his followers?

In summary, while we cannot be certain what Bhavya was referring to, there
is some evidence to hold that he was not talking of advaita, but something
else altogether.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan