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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji
Thank you for explaining  several notable points of divergence of Bhavya's
vedAntic pUrvapaxa from shAnkara advaita vedAnta.

In this context, I was wondering whether Acharyas Audolomi and Ashmaratha
and manDana Mishra are termed *Advaita vedAntic* Acharyas or just vedAntic
Acharyas.(given the not inconsiderable divergence between their and Adi
Shankara's positions)

I ask this in the context of your statement
'there is some evidence to hold that he (Bhavya) was not talking of
advaita, but something
else altogether.'

I was wondering whether it is  tenable to hold that there were other
earlier  *Advaita vedAnta* Acharyas who held positions different from Sri
Shankara? (This is different from just saying that there are vedAnta
Acharyas before Shankara.)

Thank you
Raghav







On Thu 27 Dec, 2018, 7:28 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>