re: Intra religious distinctions series

[Guest guest]

In furtherance of Mani's comments:

 

The polemics between the Advaitins and the Visistadvaitins seems unending.

It has continued for over 700 years and shows no signs of abating. Though

both sides are but a systematic exposition of an accepted canonical

literature, they disagree over virtually everything - raning from a theory

of knowledge all the way to eschatological, cosmological, and ontological

considerations.

 

After the initial formulation of the Advaita philosophy by Sankara, both

schools have grown out of critical reflections on and from previous

philosophical positions. They both have roots which go back into the mists

of history and each exegesis claims to be a faithful explication of the

"true" meaning of the sruti. For, after all, both philosophical sysems are

but deductive interpretations. They both assumed the validity of

Badarayana's sutras and then unfolded its meaning as implied by the

relevant Upanisadic statements.

 

Both systems assert that the Vedas are apauruseya and hence,

unquestionable. However, they also assert that the principal primary means

of liberation is jnana according to Advaita and bhakti according to

Visistadvaita. In order to make these positions intelligible, they have to

emphasise certain scriptural passages instead of others, and interpret them

to suit their own standpoint.

It is this fact, that the Upanisadic statements can be interpreted

differently which accounts for the differences among the Vedantic systems.

 

The value of polemic works is that they invariably end in construction. The

Indian philosophical systems have employed polemics both as a necessary and

desirable part of their history. Their main function was not so much to

refute a particular system, though that certainly played a part, as to

define and distinguish their own position vis-a-vis that of the other

systems. The main purpose of such works is to become clearer on the

doctrine itself, as well as to clarify one's position for others. The goal

is clarity rather than demolition. What is implicit becomes explicit

through such an endeavor. This is the great value of a polemic work.

 

There seems to be an historic need for each school of thought. With the

great diversity of human predilections, everything seems to have its reason

to be. The conflicts which exist between the systems do not seem to affect

their value as a particular system of thought. One may even go so far as to

claim that the various systems enrich and inspire each other with their

mutual fecundity.

 

John

 

---

John Grimes, Dept of Philosophy, NUS