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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 10:58 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.)
>

Dear Raghav ji,

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20 bhashyam Shankaracharya makes a very
far
reaching statement:

// sarvopaniShatsu hi vijnAnAtmanaH paramAtmaikatva-pratyayo vidhIyata
ityavipratipattiH sarveShAmupaniShadvAdinAm. //

[That `All the Upanishads teach the idea of unity/identity of the Supreme
Atman
and the individual Atman’ is an undisputed understanding of all the
adherents of the Upanishads.]

However, Shankara has remarked thus, in three instances:
बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्द्वितीयोऽध्यायःप्रथमं ब्राह्मणम्मन्त्र २० - भाष्यम्

………तत्र पण्डितम्मन्याः केचित् स्वचित्तवशात् सर्वं प्रमाणमितरेतरविरुद्धं
मन्यन्ते, तथा प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधमपि चोदयन्ति ब्रह्मैकत्वे………


बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्द्वितीयोऽध्यायःतृतीयं ब्राह्मणम्मन्त्र ६ - भाष्यम्

………औपनिषदम्मन्या अपि केचित्प्रक्रियां रचयन्ति — मूर्तामूर्तराशिरेकः,
परमात्मराशिरुत्तमः,


बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्द्वितीयोऽध्यायःपञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम्मन्त्र १५ - भाष्यम्

………कृत्स्नः प्रज्ञानघनः अजोऽजरोऽमृतोऽभयोऽचलः नेति
नेत्यस्थूलोऽनणुरित्येवंविशेषणः भवति । तमेतमर्थम् अजानन्तस्तार्किकाः केचित्
पण्डितम्मन्याश्चागमविदः शास्त्रार्थं विरुद्धं मन्यमाना


In all these occasions, Shankara is referring to those who think they are
adhering to the Upanishad but not.


warm regards

subbu





> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>