SMS chari is in town

[Guest guest]

Krishna Kalale writes:

> incidentally he [s.M. Srinivasa Chari] is planning another

> text t00,, - Bramhasutras and a comparitive analysis of bhasyas of

> Sankara Ramanuja and Madhva. IT will be really great if he finishes that

> book. SS raghavachar wrote such a book but he feels that work has to be

> done more thoroughly since authors like THibaut have made powerful statements

> which are misleading - such as " the sutras seem to go towards Sri Ramanuja

> and the upanishads seem to side shankara" - this is quite a damaging statement

> both for advaita and visistadvaita!!.

 

I recently reread what George Thibaut says concerning this topic.

They occur in the course of his Introduction to his translation

of the Vedanta-Sutras, vol. 34 of the Sacred Books of the East

series, published at the turn of the century.

 

It seems to me that most Indians have misunderstood what Thibaut

has written. He definitely says that an impartial analysis of

the text of the Sutras will show that their philosophy is better

represented by Ramanuja's commentary than by Sankara's. He points

out several places where the latter's interpretations are

extremely forced.

 

Now to the Upanishads. Thibaut says that Sankara's doctrine

of maya and avidya cannot be found in the Upanishads at all.

He also thinks vivarta-vaada is also not found in the Upanishads,

whereas some form of pariNaama-vaada is, though not necessarily as

presented by Ramanuja.

 

vivarta-vaada - the doctrine that the universe

is a mere illusory superimposition on a unitive,

non-differentiated Brahman

 

pariNaama-vaada - the universe is a real emanation of some

sort from Brahman

 

However, since he thinks that the Upanishads do not embody

one distinctive philosophy, an opinion shared by most Western

scholars, he thinks Sankara's distinction of a higher and lower

Brahman and two teachings is a most ingenious one and solves

many problems in Upanishadic interpretation. In addition, he

thinks that Sankara's view of moksha, where the individuality

of the jIvaatma is lost in Brahman, better approaches the

philosophy of the older Upanishads. This latter argument is

powerfully presented and needs an adequate response from

Visistadvaitins.

 

Note that it is only in these two respects that Sankara is

thought to be a better interpreter of the Upanishads. Moreover,

the first point is not a significant one, since Thibaut is

more impressed with Sankara as an original thinker than as

a faithful representative of Upanishadic philosophy.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

> However, since he thinks that the Upanishads do not embody

> one distinctive philosophy, an opinion shared by most Western

> scholars, he thinks Sankara's distinction of a higher and lower

> Brahman and two teachings is a most ingenious one and solves

 

....

 

I tend to think that the various bhAshyakAras were quite aware

of the fact that various lines of thinking co-exist in the upanishads.

Their way of putting this is slightly different, given the apourusheyatvam

of Sruti.

 

As for the two teachings, isn't it in the upanishads itself that all vidyas

including the Vedas are called apara and Brahmavidya is parA vidyA? From

there it is no big leap to distinguish between two teachings and two levels

of reality.

 

Furthermore, Sankara uses mAyA synonymously with daivAtmaSakti. avidyA is

an individual thing, which causes the individual to be ignorant of Reality.

The many cues in the upanishads which say "na sa veda", "na vidyate" etc. in

various places gives rise to a natural use of avidyA.

 

Interestingly, some modern scholars see difference in emphases between

Sankara's BMS bhAshya and Br. up. bhAshya. BMS bhAshya is perceived to be

more "traditional" than the Br. up. bhAshya, where he puts forth advaita in

more original terms.

 

As for vivarta and pariNama, Sankara himself is not very helpful one way

or the other. He tends to mix the two in some places. As a vAda, vivarta

seems to be post-Sankaran. There is also another important vAda, that of

ajAti, as in Gaudapada's karikas, within advaita.

 

Vidya