[Y-Indology] schools of Vedanta

[Guest guest]

Friends:

 

Why don't you consider Kashmir Shaivism as Vedanta?

Abhinava Gupta, the high priest of Kashmir Shaivism, was a Shaivite.

 

Harsha Dehejia

[Guest guest]

"Harsha V. Dehejia" <hdehejia wrote:

Friends:

 

Why don't you consider Kashmir Shaivism as Vedanta?

Abhinava Gupta, the high priest of Kashmir Shaivism, was a Shaivite.

 

Harsha Dehejia

 

dear mr harsha,

 

the saivism of kashmira cannot be considered as vedanta as this is a branch of

shaivite system and not vedantism.the Acharya "abhinava gupta was an authority

of this branch saivismis.He was the peson who chalanged acharya shankar and his

system of vedanta,later he committed the shashtrarth also with acharya shanker

to prove the superiority of kashmira shaivite system over the system of

"vedanta"as followed and defined by shankar.But after some time he could not

stood in front of Acharya,he was defeated and become desciple of acharya shankar

..He was not the only one,but there were many other persons supposed to the

authority of indian philosophy like meemansaa,yoga,sankhya etc..,who were

defeated by acharya shankar.

 

these are the historical incidents and available in the ancient vedantic

history.

 

 

spsharma

indology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

akka_108 <akka_108 wrote:

Is wonder whether there are philosophical schools of Vedanta developed by

Shaivas or Shaktas.

As far as I know all philosophical traditions other than Advaita were developed

by Vaishnavas:

 

Visisthadvaita by Ramanujy

Dvaita-Advaita by Nimbarka

Dvaita by Madhva

Suddha-Advaita by Vallabha

Achintya-Bheda Bheda by Chaitanya

 

Or am I wrong and one of them was a Shaiva?

I think not.

dear mr aka_108,

 

the system of vedanta is one among the six systems of philosophy based on

vedas,the others along with their creaters were as follows:-

 

NAMNE CREATEDBY

 

1 sankhya darshan= sage kapila ;

 

2 yoga darshan= sage patanjali;

 

3 meemansa darshan=sage jaiminy;

 

4 vedanta darshan= sage vyasa ;

 

5 Nyaya darshan= sage GOUTAM ;

 

6 Veshaishika darshan= sage KANNADA;

 

these systems were later on defined by their followers ,who were followers of

shaivite orVaishnavite theories;the nimbark and madhava were the later on gurus

and not the creaters of fundamental philosophies;the priciples of

vaishnavism,shaivism and shaktism were later on developped,keeping shiva/or

shakti as supreme .They have nothing to do with the original vedant philosophy.?

spsharma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

indology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Do you know the technical name of the Kashmir Shaivaism philosophical system?

 

"Harsha V. Dehejia" <hdehejia wrote:Friends:

 

Why don't you consider Kashmir Shaivism as Vedanta?

Abhinava Gupta, the high priest of Kashmir Shaivism, was a Shaivite.

 

Harsha Dehejia

 

 

indology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Friends:

 

Vednata really means everything that came after the Vedas starting with the

Upanishads. It also mean any system that uphold the Idealistic stance of the

Upanishads, nakely the primay of nirguna brahman. Kashmir Shaivism qualifies

to be called Vedanta on these premises.

 

Abhinavagupta never conceded defeat to Shankara's system of Advaita Vedanta.

His voluminous writing in Tantraloka attest to that.

 

Regards.

 

Harsha V. Dehejia

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

In order to maintain some terminological exactitude, I

suggest that a philosophical system can be described

as Vedanta only if it commits itself to the eplanation

of the prasthaanatraya consisiting of Brahmasutra,

gita and the Upanisads.

 

=====

Dr.C.Rajendran

Professor of Sanskrit

University of Calicut

Calicut University P.O

Kerala 673 635 Phone: 0494-2401144

Residential address:28/1097,Rajadhani Kumaran Nair Road,

Chevayur, Calicut Kerala 673 017 Phone: 0495-2354 624

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I would agree with the suggestion a school be called Vedantic if it confirms

to the principles of prashnatatrayi. Does it mean however that the champions

of the school (eg Abhinavagupta) should have commented on all the three

foundational texts of vedanta?

 

Regards.

 

Harsha Dehejia

[Guest guest]

Dear friend,

I think that Abhinava would have commented on

Prasthatraya if he really wanted the apellation of

Vedanta for his system.Vedanta is in fact a

hermaneutic endeavour to make out some sense from

these foundational texts.

 

=====

Dr.C.Rajendran

Professor of Sanskrit

University of Calicut

Calicut University P.O

Kerala 673 635 Phone: 0494-2401144

Residential address:28/1097,Rajadhani Kumaran Nair Road,

Chevayur, Calicut Kerala 673 017 Phone: 0495-2354 624

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

BTW I don't think that either Raamaanuja or Madhva commented on the

Upanishads.

 

INDOLOGY, "Harsha V. Dehejia" <hdehejia@c...>

wrote:

> I would agree with the suggestion a school be called Vedantic if it

confirms

> to the principles of prashnatatrayi. Does it mean however that the

champions

> of the school (eg Abhinavagupta) should have commented on all the

three

> foundational texts of vedanta?

>

> Regards.

>

> Harsha Dehejia

[Guest guest]

Madhvacharya commented on all the major Upanishads, on the Gita and

on Brahmasutras. Ramanuja commented on the Gita and on the

Brahmasutras and also composed treatises such as 'Vedarthasamgraha'

which present his understanding of the Upanishads and other texts.

Vishal

 

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> BTW I don't think that either Raamaanuja or Madhva commented on the

> Upanishads.

>

> INDOLOGY, "Harsha V. Dehejia"

<hdehejia@c...>

> wrote:

> > I would agree with the suggestion a school be called Vedantic if

it

> confirms

> > to the principles of prashnatatrayi. Does it mean however that

the

> champions

> > of the school (eg Abhinavagupta) should have commented on all the

> three

> > foundational texts of vedanta?

> >

> > Regards.

> >

> > Harsha Dehejia

[Guest guest]

Yes I do agree that in his time Abhinava wound not have wanted to be counted

as a Vednatin. However I do feel that in our time any philosophical system

that upholds the nirguna brahman, and does not refute the validity of the

Vedas, should be considered Vedantic. Vivekananda is considered by some to

be a neo-Vedantin. Strictly speaking, oing by the prasathana trayi, this

should not be allowed.

 

Regards.

 

Harsha V. Dehejia

Professor of Hindu Studies, College of Humanities

CArleton University, Ottawa, ON. Canada.

[Guest guest]

> BTW I don't think that either Raamaanuja or Madhva commented on the

> Upanishads.

 

An anonymous mail, probably from a learned dvaitin, sought to correct

my ignorant remark above :

 

Sri Madhva has authored the following:

Îshâvâsya Upanishad Bhâshya

Kena or TaLavakâra Upanishad Bhâshya

KaThopanishad Bhâshya

MuNDaka Upanishad Bhâshya

Satprashna Upanishad Bhâshya

Mânduukya Upanishad Bhâshya

Aitareya Upanishad Bhâshya

Taittiriya Upanishad Bhâshya

BrhadâraNyaka Upanishad Bhâshya

Chhândogya Upanishad Bhâshya