The unity in the diversity of Vedantic philosophical thoughts

January 7, 2003

Namaste:

The Book Review provided below from 'The Hindu' newspaper is quite

relevant with respect to the ongoing discussion on "advaita and

visishtadvaita." The reviewer in the last paragraph nicely conclude

with the statement: "If Truth may be compared to a multi-faceted

diamond, then each face of it must be admitted to be dazzling in its

own light and right."

This is the underlined 'unity' behind the different schools of

thought. The Hindu religion with thousands of schools of thoughts is

fundamentally unified by 'Dharma' which can't be described by words

but they can be understood by 'deeds.'

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

Book Review from the Hindu: Date:07/01/2003 URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/br/2003/01/07/stories/2003010700090300.htm

Date:07/01/2003 URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/br/2003/01/07/stories/2003010700090300.htm

Purport of the Upanishads

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE UPANISADS: S. M. Srinivasa Chari; Munshiram

Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Post Box No. 5715, 54, Rani Jhansi

Road, New Delhi-110055. Rs. 650.

THE BOOK under review is the latest one on the subject of the

philosophy of the Upanishads coming from the facile pen of a highly

venerated, distinguished scholar. His study is based on a careful and

minute evaluation of the commentaries of the three important

Acharyas — Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa who represent the views of

Advaita, Visishtadvaita and Dwaita. Although Ramanuja did not comment

upon the Upanishads like the other two Acharyas, he has taken up some

crucial passages of Upanishads and explained them in his

Vedarthasangraha. He had before him, the interpretations of some

crucial Upanishadic texts given by Yamunacharya and Nathamuni. Sri

Rangaramanuja is the regular commentator who followed the lead given

by Ramanuja.

Several modern scholars like Dr. Paul Deussen (German), Dr. S.

Radhakrishnan, Swami Nikhilananda and Prof. K. T. Pandurangi have

translated some important Upanishads. Innumerable are the works,

which explain one or more of the Upanishads that have been appearing

from time to time.

The author studies 14 principal Upanishads in the present work in a

masterly and dispassionate manner. Apart from taking the views of the

three traditional Acharyas, he has also carefully considered the

views of Badarayana, the author of the Brahmasutra for a close

examination. The Brahmasutra, in the beautiful language of Sri

Sankara, strings the choicest flowers of the Vedantic passages.

The present book contains two parts. Part I presents the important

passages of the Upanishads with an English rendering and throws light

on the variations found in the interpretations of the three

commentators. This part also discusses the philosophical implications

in the Vedanta doctrines developed in the post-Upanishadic period. In

part II the author discusses five important concepts of God, man, the

world, means of liberation and the ultimate goal of life, which are

to be found scattered all over the Upanishads. He, with sufficient

evidence and conviction, tries to show that the Upanishads are not in

favour of Sankara, according to whom Brahman is Nirvisesha

(qualityless) and there is no difference between God and man. He also

tries to show that there is no conclusive proof in support of some

very popular Advaitic concepts like Maya and Jivanmukti. According to

him, the purport of the Upanishads is Theistic Monism (Savisesha-

Advaita) advocated by Ramanuja, but not idealistic monism (Nirvisesha

Advaita) of Sankara. He has also set aside the view of Dwaita that

there is gradation of bliss in the state of liberation

It may be observed in this connection that there is still no final

word about the philosophy taught in the Upanishads, Brahmasutra and

the Gita, which are collectively known as the Prasthanatraya. Debates

are still going on between the traditional votaries of Advaita,

Visishtadvaita and Dwaita about the actual philosophy taught in these

texts and about the interpretation of some crucial passages and even

words. To hold the view that only one Bhasyakara is right and to

brand others as wrong is rather uncharitable because each commentator

had behind him, an unbroken, long, strong tradition. If Truth may be

compared to a multi-faceted diamond, then each face of it must be

admitted to be dazzling in its own light and right.

The author is to be congratulated for this highly commendable

composition.

M. NARASIMHACHARY