Vedantic Discourses and Frameworks 1 - Why 3 'Main' Schools ?

[Guest guest]

Dear Devotees,

 

Hare Krishna.

Please accept my humble obeisances.

All Glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

I have always had several doubts about the frameworks

and discourses adopted to understand Vedanta. There

are several assumptions taken as automatic givens by

many when approaching this subject matter: -

 

One issue that often appears in many publications and

website entries is this notion of '3 MAIN Schools of

Vedanta'. My questions in this regard are as follows:

-

 

1. What is exactly meant by this term 'MAIN' ?

 

2. Why use the word 'MAIN' ?

 

3. Is this usage of the word indicative of other

schools being 'MINOR' ?

 

4. Are these 2 words used in the sense of the

completeness of sources, exhaustiveness of

presentation or merely the size and popularity of the

number of followers or practitioners ?

 

5. Are Advaita, Visishtadvaita and Dvaita merely

described as 'MAIN' because they hold the 3 clearly

visible and significantly distinct positions on

brahma-jiva-jagat sambandha whereas the other schools

position themselves in-between one of these 3

positions ?

 

6. Could the idea of 'MAIN' be used because these 3

schools have been the ones which have engaged in

polemical debates with one another within a common

vedantic social setting for many centuries whereas the

other schools did not significantly involve themselves

thus in a prolonged and rigorous manner having

developed in slightly different geographical and

cultural settings within Bharatavarsha ?

 

Sometimes, I tend to find that the frameworks adopted

for study are taken as automatic givens that are so

readily accepted as correct and true. But very often,

I tend to view frameworks as merely attempts to show

one-upmanship, especially when the scholars positing

the framework have their affiliations within the

advertised labels while the positions they attack are

cast as the 'other' and hence miniscule and

peripheral.

This is also relevant in understanding why the

Achintya bedha abedha Vedantic system of our

sampradaya is seen as minor. It is perhaps time that

we debunk common but faulty notions of certain

discourses and frameworks before we even start

approaching the study of the various darshanas

vis-a-vis one another. Thwy are not even shastric to

begin with and are merely external impositions that

become rigid rules over time as a result of

perpetration.

 

Can anyone shed some light in this regard ?

 

 

ys

r. jai simman

jakarta, indonesia .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All your favorites on one personal page – Try My

 

[Guest guest]

pranams,

 

I am not sure of the reason but jus a guess ..

 

when it comes to establishing a philosophy/comparing two.. probably the main 3

schools are having common books(Prasthanatrayam ) on which their founders have

commented like brahma sutra, Bhagavad gita , one more(upanishads/visnu

sahasranama etc)

 

i doubt if other sampradaya acharyas like nimbarka/rudra have commented on BG

etc.

 

 

 

However even in attempting to do a comparative study of ramanuja and madwa i

found it diffifult wrt Brahman sutra since both seem to differ even with the way

they split sutra and comment on them.

 

or with the case of BG i founf madhwa uses prakrti to denote lakshmi..so it was

kinda difficult to do a comparitive study on verse to verse basis

 

Please correct me if i am wrong

 

Thanx

 

 

 

 

Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

 

 

[Guest guest]

I really cannot explain why some people (most people actually) have

such a myopic view of Vedaanta.

 

I asked this very question on the Vadavali list, and the answer given

to me by the moderator was that only these three schools have given

the orignal commentaries, while other schools have commentaries that

are merely permutations of these three. Needless to say, I doubt very

much that the person who gave this answer actually read any

commentary by Baladeva et. al. It seems to be more of a prejudice

that the ideas of Raamaanuja, Madhva, and Shankara are the originals,

while others have simply borrowed from them. Actually, I am pretty

sure Vishnuswami predates Madhva.

 

Admittedly, it is more likely the case that these tree schools

acquired such a status because of their larger followings. I don't

know how much Vedaanta is emphasized in other traditions, and thus

they may have failed to attain a recognizable status as a Vedaanta

school based on fewer followers and fewer heirs to their respective

Vedaanta traditions. Of course, something is Vedaanta if it deals

with Vedaanta-suutra. But if people do not uphold the Vedaanta

tradition of their sampradaaya, it will never be recognized as such.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

My added comments: -

 

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

>

> I really cannot explain why some people (most people actually) have

> such a myopic view of Vedaanta. I asked this very question on the

Vadavali list, and the answer given to me by the moderator was that

only these three schools have given the orignal commentaries, while

other schools have commentaries that are merely permutations of these

three. Needless to say, I doubt very much that the person who gave

this answer actually read any commentary by Baladeva et. al. It seems

to be more of a prejudice that the ideas of Raamaanuja, Madhva, and

Shankara are the originals, while others have simply borrowed from

them. Actually, I am pretty sure Vishnuswami predates Madhva.

 

RJS: Vishnuswami as per our sampradaya's presentation, predates

Ramanuja, Madhva and even Shankara. I think Srila Prabhupada's

purports on the 4 sampradayas has some evidence for this. The folio

may have this. I remember reading about Vishnuswami in the purports

and he was preaching in Pandya desha much before Shankara. Srila

Prabhupada even indicates that deviation in his line resulted in

Vishnu Sarvottamatva being replaced by Shiva Sarvottamatva by a later

personality called Shivaswami. Perhaps, this was how Saiva Siddhanta

became prominent in South India?

 

What exactly does the Vadavali moderator mean by 'original' ?

Shankara is influenced by earlier personalities like Gaudapada.

Ramanuja is accepted to have revived the views propounded by

Bodhayana. In fact, he himself indicates at the start of the Sri

Bhasya that he is merely simplifying the earlier lcommentary of this

personality. I can't remember the verse off-hand but I heard in from

one of Sri Velukkudi Krishnan's UpanyAsams where he cited one of the

early Sri Bhasya introductory verses. So I don't find any sense of

accuracy at all in this word 'original'. In fact, the culture of

acharyas is that they will always posit something unoriginal and

authentic at that time and merely present themselves of revivers or

developers of those ideas. That is the culture of acharyopasanam.

 

Furthermore,even if we are to accept the notion of originality, why

must something be necessarily 'original' to have a higher acclaim ?

The culture of an acharya is that he does not necessarily have the

need to posit something new just to prove one-upmanship and a new

sampradaya. Everyone's realisations are certainly influenced by

earlier personalities. While they may not agree on certain points,

they may agree on others. Why then should they necessarily differ and

present a metta-narrative just to show they are on par with their

predecessors. This seems more of an attempt at ego-boosting than one

based on sharing one's sincere realisations or adding on to the

previous ones by others. If an acharya accepts some of Ramanuja's

ideas and not others or feels them incomplete while supporting Madhva

on other grounds, he may then posit a framework that may provide a

middle ground. That does not mean he is copying. His is a 3rd

position on the matter. If ideas of Advaita, Visishtadvaita and

Dvaita exist in the shruti shastras, then ideas of DvaitAdvaita,

AchintyabedhaAbedha, etc. also exist as has been cited and

interpreted by the other schools. Who is to say one is main and the

other is minor ? I find this very strange. For all the demand for

shruti and nyAya pramana in Vedantic study, i find this whole

reasoning completely unpramanic ! Unless anyone can provide a shastra

pramana for one-upmanship, neutral scholarship should make it clear

that there can be no sense of superiority or majoritarian claim.

 

Further, we need to also question this claim that Vedanta must only

be based on the prasthana traya framework of the Shankara, Ramanuja

and Madhva schools and that no other types with equally pregnant

shruti pramana features should be accepted. Certainly the prasthana

traya is vital. But if any acharya can solidly show how Vedanta is

posited via another framework, then why should that be opposed ? I

find this whole case merely a criticism on the part of scholars who

struggle to handle alternative discourses which have a different

approach to the study of Vedanta. They find it difficult to compare

and contrast and faultfind. Hence, their final claim is that such a

school is untenable. But where is there the shastric pramana that any

other approach is untenable? There is no pramana scripturally. The

only evidence is the historical development of Vedantic polemics but

that is historical and not a matter of scriptural axiomatics.

Anything old and time-rooted cannot automatically be vested with

exclusive authority in determining correctness. Hence, for a body of

scholars who stress so much on shastra pramana, we have yet to see

any primary evidence for debunking alternative frameworks in the

study of Vedanta, what to speak of proving the validity of their own

approach along strictly shastric proofs. Sampradayic interpretive

proofs need to be based on neutral shruti pramana if the claim needs

to be deemed as a truly bona fide and acceptable pramana.

 

Certainly, Ramanuja and Madhva adopted the framework that Shankara

generally adopted since they had the defeating of the latter's ideas

as a vital part of their agenda. Yet, they too had their unique add-

ons to the pramana corpus via the inclusion of Dravida Vedanta and

Srimad Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, respectively. One must engage in a

framework similar to the opponent's to effectively and exhaustively

defeat an earlier one. But the later acharyas like vallabha and

baladeva may be agreeing considerably to the refutations posited by

their Vaishnava predecessors. Why then should they take up the same

matter and couch it in a COMPLETELY 'original' framework just to show

themselves as new and equally potent and scholarly authorities ? They

may have merely desired to complete certain ideas and provide

differences of views where they deemed it necessary. This should not

make their bhasyas any less or 'minor'. Why should the permutations

be seen as those of the 'MAIN' bhasyas ? They are permutations of the

brahma-jagat-jiva relationships in the shruti vakhyas in as much as

Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva have provided theirs. While these three

have opposed one another on many grounds, there are also

commonalities in certain basic areas, in terms of defeating non-Vedic

systems. Are we then to say that each of them had a permutation of

the other's ideas ? This adoption and rejection and synthesis

approach of the conventional framework seems to be too streamlined in

terms of causality and influence in determining the flow of ideas

amongst the various bhasyakaras.

 

 

> Admittedly, it is more likely the case that these tree schools

> acquired such a status because of their larger followings. I don't

> know how much Vedaanta is emphasized in other traditions, and thus

> they may have failed to attain a recognizable status as a Vedaanta

> school based on fewer followers and fewer heirs to their respective

> Vedaanta traditions. Of course, something is Vedaanta if it deals

> with Vedaanta-suutra. But if people do not uphold the Vedaanta

> tradition of their sampradaaya, it will never be recognized as such.

 

RJS: Perhaps Vedanta is emphasised in other traditions, but possibly

not in the same framework. The others may have adopted other

frameworks, eg. Sandarbhas of Jiva Goswami, etc. to present the same

points. It is the orthodox framework itself that may need proof to be

deemed as axiomatic and exclusively bona fide. But I also heard H.G.

Radhika Ramana Prabhu's presentation on the sandarbhas at the

www.iskcon.com website. He has done his Phd on the Sandarbhas. He

says that there was an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism during the

15th and 16th Bhakti period where 'grantha' was seen by many

as 'grantha' or rope-tying or curtailing of devotion by dry arguments

and too much intellectual dryness. Jiva Goswami therefore used the

Srimad Bhagavatam as a suitable vehicle to present Gaudiya Vedanta

since it had aspects of personal devotion and Upanishadic wisdom

built into it. This was his method of reconciliation in solving both

the presence of intellectual apathy and future criticisms of a

deficiency in scriptural authority for the validity of our sampradaya

siddhanta.

 

But it still remains a puzzle to me how out of the 10 Upanishadic

commentaries of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana, only the ones on Isha

and Gopala Tapani are extant today. We also have the Govinda Bhasya

and the Vedanta Shyamantaka. The others have become 'lost'. This is

very strange for a sampradaya that is relatively new and which has

otherwise done amicably in preserving the other works of its

acharyas. Earlier Sampradayas such as the Ramanujas and Madhvas have

meticulously preserved their respective tikas and tippanis on their

primary preceptors' Vedantic works. Furthermore, their training

methods involve rigorous study of these works, together with the 6

limbs of the Vedaanga. Perhaps the fault lies with our own

sampradaya's inattention to our acharyas' shruti shastra contribution

as compared to their smrti commentaries and kavyas. This could

perhaps have cost our Gaudiya line a good standing in the Vedantic

circle. We have lost so many of the works of our principal Gaudiya

Vedantacharya unless by the Lord's inspiration we can re-discover the

manuscripts in the future. Also, no tikas or tippanis have been

written by later acharyas after Baladeva on his Govinda bhasya to

handle opposing views etc. Nevertheless, time is still moving and the

sampradaya has gone worldwide. Perhaps it is time now for a scholar

to take up the task. It is not that only antiquity has validity. Even

as we write now, history and development are still unfolding.

 

 

ys

r. jai simman

jakarta, indonesia .

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna Jai simman pr.,

 

Thanks for a nice analysis. And, for bringing up this topic. I'm not as

knowledgeable as you are, but would like to share a few thoughts.

 

First of all, I feel it is the propoganda of academic scholars and the three

schools themselves, that later Vaishnavism (of Vallbhacharya, Nimbarkacharya,

and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu) has undesirable elements of erotic thoughts in the

philoshophy that must be treated with caution. For example, in his book,

Vaishnavism, Shavism, and Other Minor Religious thoughts, R.G. Bhandarkar notes

in Pg.86-87 under section entitled, "Debasement of Vaishnavism" after his

discussions of Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya, that

 

"The worship of Radha , more prominently even than that of Krishna, has given

rise to a sect, the members of which assume the garb of women with all their

ordinary manners and affect to be subject even to their monthly sickness...

 

Though the Vaishnava systems of Nimbarka, Vallabha and Chaitanya are based on

the fourth element of Vaishnavism that we have pointed out in a preceding

section, still that element has undergone an important modification. Before,

Krishna was a person who had amorous dalliances with the Gopis generally. But,

now Krishna had a definite consort in Radha, who had a large number of female

companions, who were probably the original Gopis. She is indissolubly united

with him in the creed of the worshippers.This Radha is not by name in the

Harivamsa,Visnu-Purana and the Bhagavata. In the last, however, among the

cowherdesses engaged in Krishna's amorous sports in Vrindavan on an autumnal

moonlight night, there was one with whom the youthgul god carried on his

dalliance further, after he had become invisible to the rest. This woman became

proud of Krishna's special attachment for her, whereupon the god disappeared

from her also. Here was contained a suggestion which probably led to the

creation of Radha in later times. In the aprocryphal Naradapancaratra Samhita,

as mentioned before, the one single lord is represented to have become two, one

a woman and other a man, who was he himself. He then had amorous intercourse

with her.The woman was Radha. In the Brahmavaivarta-Purana she has been made to

spring from the primordial body of Krishna, forming its left side, and is

eternally associated with him in his amorous sports in this world as well as the

world of cows (Goloka). The name of Rukmini occurs in the ordinary forms of

Krsnaism, but in the systems named above it is entirely absent. The introduction

of Radha's nameand her elevation to a higher position even than Krishna's

operated as a DEGRADING ELEMENT [emphasis mine] in Vaishnavism, not only because

she was a woman, but also because she was originally a mistress of the cowherd

god,and her amorous dealings were of an overt character."

 

So, this analysis by Bhandarkar, I feel represents the view of scholars in

general, and has contributed to the isolation of the later schools of Vedanta

from the three schools.

 

Also, even though Acharya Baladeva Vidyabhushan wrote the Govinda Bhasya, it was

more of a "reaction" to opposition from other schools, rather than self-motvated

as those of purvacharyas. This, I feel could have contributed to the notion that

the school of Chaitanya is not vedic/vedantic in the true sense of the term.

 

Further, as Surendranath Dasgupta notes in his multi-volume book on history of

Indian philosophy, Jiva Goswami and Baladeva differ in the way they explain the

philosophy of Chaitanya- while, Jiva Goswami uses the concept of acintya-sakti,

Baladeva prefers the concept of Visesa, more similar to Madhva's thoughts than

Jiva Goswami's.

 

In his book on Upanishads, Dr.Radhakrishnan, mentions Baladeva Vidyabhushan's

name, but only briefly. Similarly, Hiriyanna in his books on essentials of

Indian philosophy, discusses only Advaita and Visistadvaita, not even Dvaita,

what to speak of later schools.

 

So, as I see, the followers of Chaitanya, need to counter these in systematic

manner,

 

1) A detailed exposition of the philosophy of acintya-bhedabheda is required. We

must clearly show how this philosophy is brought out in the upanishads

 

2) We must show how Srimad-bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the

Vedanta-sutra

 

3) We must reconcile the apparent differences between Jiva Goswami and Baladeva

Vidyabhushan and show how both actually talk about the same philosophy.

 

 

4) We must strongly counter the views of scholars such as Bhandarkar as to how

Chaitanya's movement is free of the degradation he talks about, and propounds

the topmost philosophy of Rasa theology. If we can find manuscripts of Vedic

literature that talk about Srimati Radharani, that maybe useful.

 

5) We must counter the propaganda of some scholars, who in several books, claim

that Advaita (or monism) is the hidden meaning of Upanishadic thought. We should

popularise books such as those of S.M.S Chari (The philosophy of Upanishads),

who provides an alternative to this.

 

6) Wer must support the efforts of Gaudiya scholars within and outside ISKCON

that are involved in this endeavor. For example, Karl Potter is compiling an

encyclopedia on Indian philosophy, and a full volume has been dedicated to

acintya-bhedaabheda handled by Srivatsa Goswami. This shows that scholars are

finally ready to recognize the efforts of Srila Prabhupada and other Gaudiyas.

 

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_pr/i_pr_potter_frameset.htm

 

I look forward to comments of learned members. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

in your service,

 

Aravind.

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

 

 

[Guest guest]

pranams,

In continuation with this i would like to know what

actually acintya bheda Abheda mean.

I was not able to conclude much from O.B.L. Kapoor's

book on "philosophy and religion of lord chaitanya"

Are we saying by svarupa the brahman and jiva are same

and different and is inconcievable?

sri b.n.k sharma in last few pages of nyaya sudha had

raised this question.

I suppose if we say by swarup jiva and brahman are

different then it is more same as madhwa.

Basically i was able to reconcile this with analogy of

energy and energetic but would be more satisfied if a

clear cut explanation is provided.

Thanx

 

 

 

 

 

Meet the all-new My - Try it today!

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Jai Simman s/o R. Rangasamy"

<rjsimman> wrote:

 

Who is to say one is main and the

> other is minor ? I find this very strange. For all the demand for

> shruti and nyAya pramana in Vedantic study, i find this whole

> reasoning completely unpramanic ! Unless anyone can provide a

shastra

> pramana for one-upmanship, neutral scholarship should make it clear

> that there can be no sense of superiority or majoritarian claim.

 

There may indeed be a single, correct Vedantic system to which others

are subordinate. I don't think Gaudiyas claim that all are equally

valid. In theory, I would have no problem with different Vedantins

arguing out their respective positions so that all can see the

strengths and weaknesses of each.

 

On the other hand, I am less confident that such discussions can be

conclusive, when people at the start are unwilling to change their

views anyway, and when they resort to strawman arguments or

misrepresentation in order to appear as if they are the victors.