[Advaita-l] Re: yoga and vedanta
anandhudli at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 28 11:32:17 CDT 2005
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com wrote:
>Yes, you may be right prabhuji. If possible, kindly let us know which are
>the points have been >elaborated by Sri madhusUdana from shankara
>siddhAnta?? Which are the points omitted by >shankara but pointed out by
First, it is important to note that Shankara did not start something called
shankara siddhAnta. He only formalized the interpretation of what was taught
by the shruti and which we know as advaita. Coming to madhusUdana, he has
defended, for example, the vivaraNa school interpretations of mithyAtva. In
doing so, he was only elaborating, using logic, on the definitions given by
the school. This elaboration was made necessary because of the challenge by
nyAyAmR^ita which adopted a different (logical) approach to criticize
advaita. There was no "ready-made" response available. If the challenge had
been thrown earlier, say shortly after PrakAshAtman, the VivaraNAchArya,
perhaps someone other than madhusUdana would have responded in a fashion
similar to madhusUdana (although I admit that person would necessarily have
been a genius like madhusUdana.) And vivaraNa is itself based on the
shruti, if not directly on shankara's interpretation of the shruti. For
example, the vivaraNa definition "pratipannopAdhau
traikAlikanishhedhapratiyogitvaM vA mithyAtvam.h" is based on the shruti
statement "neha nAnAsti kiJNchana" per the GauDabrahmAnandI.
When I said a subsequent AchArya may write on points that were not addressed
by the previous AchArya, what I meant was that the previous AchArya may not
have felt the necessity of addressing those points simply because there was
no opponent school that required him to do so.
madhusUdana's explanation of various concepts is new in this sense and you
will not find such explanations in Shankara's works.
>Kindly bear with my ignorance & clarify...if the path of realization has
>multiple directions & in that >advaita is only *a* right method..why
>shankara emphasized on *the* right method of Atmaikatva >jnAna & the
>importance of teachings of saMpradAya though other schools ultimately one
>way or the other admitting non-dual state??
I think the verse I quoted was misunderstood. The vArtikakAra is *not*
saying any approach is as good as advaita. He is saying any advaitic
approach, that holds the identity of Brahman and jIva, is good. And, since
he is a firm adherent of the shruti, it follows he is saying that this
advaitic approach has to be shruti based.
>>Perhaps, the only so-called "difference" between Madhusudana and Shankara
>>is the emphasis of >>the former on bhakti, as described in the
>that might not be the case IMHO prabhuji.
Shankara's main thrust is definitely that jnAna alone is needed for
liberation. He makes this clear quite early (2.10-11) in the gItA bhAShya -
tasmAt.h gItAshAstre kevalAt.h eva tattvajnAnAt.h mokShaprAptiH. See
madhusUdana's commentary on 12.5-7, for example, to note how he emphatic he
is about bhakti.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list