[Advaita-l] Abheda

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:17 AM Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji,
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 4:12 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 3:32 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > According to Madhva-s, they have identified 21 'Ku-bhashyas' that Madhva
> > has refuted/rejected.  Of course this list includes Shankara, Bhaskara,
> > Yadavaprakasha, Ramanuja and others.  As per their Ishavasya
> > interpretation, all those who hold/subscribe to 'mithya jnana' (flawed
> > doctrine, that is, opposed to Madhva's system) are destined to andham
> > tamas.  So, the entire 21 are suffering in that region. The brand of
> > Vaishnavism of Ramanuja and all others who came after Madhva, Nimbarka,
> > Chaitanya, etc. are all unacceptable to Madhva and thus these individuals
> > and their followers are in andham tamas or on the way to it.. In fact
> > according to them whoever opposed, fought with and were slain by Bhima in
> > the Mahabharata  are asura-s and thus in andham tamas.
> >
>
> Basically, my way or the highway; all kapolakalpita and baseless; most of
> their so-called pramANas are outside of Upanishads; again, I do not know
> why they categorise themselves as Vedantins!
>

Actually Dasgupta in his History of Indian Philosophy Vol.2, on p.192: has
said:

//The importance of VaisheShika was gradually increasing as it was
gradually more and more adopted by Vaishnava realistic writers such as
Madhva and and his followers and a refutation of the Vaisheshika would also
imply a refutation of the dualistic writers who draw their chief support
from Vaisheshika physics and metaphysics.//

So, you can see how he has characterized the 'Vaishnava writers...dualistic
writers...'

Some others use the term 'theistic schools'.

In any case what is striking is this: the common feature of all dualistic
schools that Shankara called 'dvaitins' in the Mandukya Karika bhashya:
kapila, kaNAda, Jaina, Bauddha, etc. (Yoga of Patanjali, Charvaka,
Pashupata and Pancharatra and Purva mimamsa) is the 'jagat satyatva and
jiva nanatva'.   It is no wonder how Madhva and Ramanuja and every other
school that came after Shankara found the latter unacceptable since it hits
at the very basis of these schools.  That is the reason why Madhva is
extremely critical about Shankara even though the refutation of jagat
satyatva and jiva (Atma) nanatva is not exclusively aimed at Madhva; it is
ativyaapti when Madhva considers Shankara as his opponent for such a
treatment. It is well known that when Shankara wrote the Bhashyas Madhva
was nowhere in the picture.  One can see the point in the observation of
Dasgupta ' a refutation of the Vaisheshika would also imply a refutation of
the dualistic writers.'

regards
subbu

>
>
> 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] */
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://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
>