Bhamati vs. Vivarna

[Guest guest]

praNAms Advaitins,

 

Prof. Bina Gupta's has written a book named

" Perceiving in Advaita Vedanta " . This book has a

translation of Dharmaraja-Adhvarindra's

Vedantaparibhasha. In many recent conversations,

scholars of this group have been referring to this

book, and usually as just VP.

 

The introduction of Prof. Gupta's book (p. 102-103)

has a tabular comparison of Bhamati and Vivarna, the two

prevalant schools of (post Shankaran) Advaitic thought.

The former was Vachaspathi Mishra's philosophy and

the latter, of Padmapada (and Sureshwara). Prof. Gupta

indicates that the table itself has been taken from Shri.

Anantakrishna Sastri's classic translation of Shri Adi

Shankara's Brahmasutra commentary. This latter book

of Shri Sastri, seems to be out of print and not easily

available.

 

Here, I am reproducing the table so that beginning

students of Advaita-philosophy (like me) can get an idea

of how the post-Shankara schools differ to each other in

many aspects. Any errors (in transliteration, or otherwise)

are entirely mine. The names of Bhamati and Vivarna have

been abbreviated as B and V resply.

 

<begin excerpt>

 

[...]

Anantakrishna Sastri, in the introduction to his

commentary on Brahmasutras, provides a (more)

detailed listing of the differences between the two

[bhamati and Vivarna]. I [Prof. Gupta] quote them

here in full because it is the most comprehensive account

to date of the differences between the two traditions

and also because of the unhappy circumstance that the

edition from which this has been taken is extremely

difficult to obtain. Anantakrishna Sastri notices sixteen

important points of divergence and similarity:

 

 

1.

B. Jiva (individual self) -- locus of both

cosmic and individual avidya.

V. a. cosmic avidya (Maya) in Brahman;

b. individual nescience has for its basis Jiva.

 

2.

B. Avidya is different in different jivas. Avidyas

are therefore many and not one.

V. a. Cosmic avidya (Maya) is one.

b. Individual avidyas are manifold.

 

3.

B. Avidya has for its object Brahman.

V. The same.

 

4.

B. Avidya is only the efficient cause

(nimmitta-sahakari) in the capacity of being a

fault.

V. Avidya is the efficient cause in the capacity

of a fault and is also the material cause.

 

5.

B. Avidya possesses the power of vieling

(avarna shakti) alone.

V. It possesses a two fold function

(a) veiling (avarna) and (b) projection (vikshepa).

 

6.

B. Brahman alone is the appearing or illusory cause

(vivartopadana).

V. Brahman and Maya both are material causes:

(i) Brahman is the illusory or apparent cause;

(ii) Maya is the really transforming material cause.

 

7.

B. Perception is only mental (manasa) not verbal (sabda).

V. Perception is both mental and verbal.

 

8.

B. Mind (manas) is also an organ or sense (indriya).

V. Mind is not an organ.

 

9.

B. Deep meditation (nidhidhyasana) is factor in

spiritual realization, while study (sravana) and

deliberation (manana) are subsidaries.

V. Sravana (study) is the main factor in realization,

manana and nidhidhyasana are auxillaries.

 

10.

B. Only the associated absolute (upahita brahman)

is the object of Vedantic knowledge and not

*pure* consciousness.

V. Pure consciousness (suddha brahman) also comes

within the scope of Vedantic knowledge.

 

11.

B. Pure consciousness is neither the object of

mental mode (vritti) nor of the reflected

consciousness (phala chaitanya).

V. Pure consciousness is the object of mental

modification (akhandakara-vritti)

 

12.

B. Knowledge is a form of mental action, but

does not come under the scope of injunction.

V. Knowledge is not a mental action and does not

come under the jurisdiction of Vedic injunction.

 

13.

B. There is no injunction in the act of study

(sravana) in the Upanishadic text -- Srotavyo

and so on.

V. There is restricting injunction (niyama-viddhi)

in the srotavyo text.

 

14.

B. Even the sense organs, superimposed as they

are on the witnessing self (sakshin) are perceptible.

V. Only the characteristics (dharma) of the sense

organs are imposed on the witnessing self (sakshin)

and as such they are perceptible.

 

15.

B. No mental modification is admitted in things

directly illumined by the sakshin.

V. Mental modification exists in such cases also;

but mind modifications are not generated by

any means of correct knowledge (pramana).

 

16.

B. Ishvara is the consciousness limited by a

totality (samasti) limitations; while jiva

is consciousness with individual limitations

(vyasti).

V. Ishvara [God] is the prototypal consciousness

(bimbachaitanya), while Jiva is reflected

consciousness (pratibimba) an not limited by

(avichinna).

 

<end excerpt>

 

The book that that is being referred to here is:

" Shankara, Brahmasutra-Bhashyam " , ed. Anantakrishna

Sastri, Calcutta Sanskrit series, vol.1, part 3 (Calcutta:

the metropolitan printing and pubishing House, Ltd.

1941.), 9-10.

 

 

praNAms to Shri Adi Shankara, the vast ocean of

knowledge from which all rivers and rivulets draw their

knowledge from.

 

praNAms to all Advaitins,

 

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Ramakrishna ji,

 

I sincerely appreciate your concern to elucidate essential and

crucial points regarding prakriya bhedas in Advaita Vedanta with

reference to Bhamati and Vivarana Sampradayins for the beginner's

benefit. With due respect to Prof Bina gupta's scholarship, I am

still not sure about her translation of Ananta Krishna Sastri's

commentary on Vedanta Paribhasa, since my reading (as instructed by

my gurus) on the same text seems to differ. Generally traditional

scholars and Academicians do not to Shri Anantakrshna

Sastri's commentary on Vedanta Paribhasa, since the author is known

for his prejudice against Bhamati tradition. Serious students of

Vedanta usually follow Vedanta Sikhamani by Ramakrsna Adhvarin (son

of Dharma Raja Adhvarin) or Paribhasa vyakhya by Pancanana

Bhattacarya (Latter is more lucid for better understanding of the

main text).

 

Now as a supplement to what you have presented with, regarding

Bhamati and Vivarana opinions, I would like to add few more points

on the issue. Late.Dr Thangasami Sharma, former Professor of

Sanskrit, University of Madras, in one of his books consolidates

some pivotal differences between Bhamati and Vivarana traditions as

follows.

 

B: Karma is useful for giving rise to the desire to know the self.

V: Karma is (indirectly) responsible for the rise of knowledge of

the Self.

 

B: Realization of Brahman arises through instrument of mind

V: The direct knowledge of Brahman arises from the mere Upanishadic

text

 

B: There is no injunction in the Vedic text `Atman should be

realized' for that purpose it should be heard, reflected and

meditated upon

V: in the text Atman should be realized etc there is restrictive

injunction

 

B: Contemplation is the principal factor of vedantic study and

reflection is its subsidiary factor.

V: Vedantic study is the principal factor and contemplation

reflection are all-subsidiary to it.

 

B: Jiva is consciousness that is limited by ajnana and Iswara is the

consciousness that transcends the limiting adjunsts

V: Jiva is the reflected image of Brahman in avidya, mind etc

 

B: the locus and the content of avidya is different

V: locus and content of Avidya is the same

 

B: the primal nescience is manifold

V: Primal nescience is one only

 

B: it is only Upahita Brahman that is conditioned by the vrtti that

is the content of the direct knowledge of Brahman

V: the content of direct knowledge of Brahman is pure Brahman

 

B: the first factor in the four fold aid (sadhana catustaya) is the

discrimination between sat and asat

V: The first factor in the four-fold aid is discrimination between

eternal and non-eternal.

 

B: The injunctive text `One's own recension of Veda must be studies'

has for its fruit the knowledge of meaning of Veda

V: The injunctive text `One's own recension of the Veda must be

studies has for its fruit the learning if Veda by rote.

 

B: the world creation is explained by adapting the theory of

triplication -Trvrtkarana

V: the world creation is explained by adapting the theory of

quintuplication – Pancikarana

 

B: the omniscience of Brahman is derived from the essential nature

of Brahman

V: the omniscience of Brahman is derived from the modes of Avidya

 

B: the mind is a sense organ

V: mind is not a sense organ

 

B: Avidya is located in Jiva

V: Avidya is located in Brahman

 

The above-mentioned points are some of the main metaphysical

differences between the two traditions. I personally to

the Bhamati Parampara. Vacaspati Misra is a proficient writer in all

sad-darsanas and hence known to be `Sarva Tantra Svatantra' who

directly incorporated actual teachings of Bagavad Pada.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

--- Ramakrishna Upadrasta <ramakrsn

 

 

> Prof. Bina Gupta's has written a book named

> " Perceiving in Advaita Vedanta " . This book has a

> translation of Dharmaraja-Adhvarindra's

> Vedantaparibhasha. In many recent conversations,

> scholars of this group have been referring to this

> book, and usually as just VP.

 

Ramakrishna ji - PraNAms.

 

I see Shree Devanathanji has already pointed out. I

did study (should be more appropriate to say try to

study) Prof. Bina Gupta's book on " Perception in

Advaita Vedanta " . It is not a translation of

Vedantaparibhaasha of Dharmaraja Advarin. More based

on the commentary of Ananta Krishna Sastry's book -

which is also a commentary on the VP. Prof. Gupta's

book - I think it is her thesis, is also very

difficult to follow.

 

Discussion on the Bhamati and Vivarana is interesting.

I must say I am favorably biased towards Vivarana

based on what I understand. The last clause is very

important.

 

I would however request Shree Devanathanji to explain

to us why Bhamati School is better highlighting the

differences. I thought the major difference is in

terms of roles of shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyaasana.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda