[Advaita-l] What were the other vedantic schools in Sankara's time?

[Siva Senani Nori]

sarvebhyo namah 

Recently, in a different discussion, Sri Bhaskar observed that "It is a simple fact that non-advaitic *vEdAntins* (note *vEdAntins*, dont again come up with new objections holding sAnkhya-vaishEshika etc.) never referred by shankara." 

In my experience, this view is commonly held (though mistaken). More specifically many think that advaita started with Sri Sankara, viSishTAdvaita with Sri Ramanuja etc. Such a view is not correct. We have the historical record of gauDapAdakArika, and Sri Ramanuja acknowledging earlier acharyas of his tradition  (including bodhAyana, Tanka, drAviDa, guhadeva, kapardi, bharUchi - of which we will refer to bodhAyana and drAviDa later in the post). Even at the time Sri Sankara composed the bhAshya, other ** commentaries on the BrahmasUtras were known **. And, needless to say those who follow the vedAntasUtras are vedantins, by definition. Now to the references to other vedantins in Sankaracharya's sutrabhashya. 

BrahmasUta 1-3-19 establishes that identity of individual soul and Brahmn; towards the end of the BhAshya on that sUtra, SankarAchArya remarks "apare tu vAdinah pAramArthikameva jaivam rUpamiti manyante asmadIyAh ca kecit." The meaning is: "Others, amongst them some of ours (asmadIyAh) are of the opinion that the individual soul is real." Who are these other asmadIyas, who say that the soul is real, and distinct from Brahman? The 'asmadIyas' here clearly are vedantins, most likely the viSishTAdvaitins, or by whatever name they were called earlier. (Here one might note that in the Indian tradition, a fixed lable was never quite the fashion; for instance, no reference to the word "Sanskrit" is found in pre-Paninian works. Even as Buddha broke with the tradition of using 'Sanskrit' for discourse, the language was only called 'chAndasam' - vedic).

In sections 4-3-7 to 4-3-11, sage bAdari's view that individual souls are led to the lower Brahman is explained; and in 4-3-12 to 4-3-14 the contradictory view of sage jaimini that the souls are led to the highest Brahman is established. In discussing 4-3-14, the bhagavatpAda says "kecitpunah pUrvANi pUrvapakshasUtrANi bhavanti uttarANi siddhAntasUtrANi - ityetAm vyavasthAmanurudhyamAnAh paravishayA eva gatiSrutIh pratishThApayanti" (Others again, in accordance with the estabslihed principle that the earlier [sUtras] set forth the pUrvapakshin's view and that the latter, the siddhAnta, maintain that the passages about the soul's going are in the sphere of the higher knowledge.) We may note that there are "others" who hold Jaimini's view to be siddhanta, based on the order of the sUtras in the Vedanta sUtras. Clearly this is a divergence between two schools of followers of the vedanta sutras, or a difference within vedantins.

Sutras 2-2-42 to 2-2-45 refute the view of bhAgavatas. bhAgavatas are closely identified with pA~ncarAtras, with a specific reference to "SAndilya studied this SAstra [pA~ncarAtrAgama], hot having found bliss in Vedas" at the end of 2-2-45. These bhAgavatas / pA~ncarAtras are closely identified with the viSishTAdvaitins of today. Needless to say, the views condemned by Sri Sankara are held to be the siddhAnta view by Sri Ramanuja. All that we need to note here is that precursors of today's viSishTadvaitins who after centuries hold to very similar views were known at the time of the sUtrakAra himself. Is it any wonder that some might have attempted a reconciliation of bAdarAyaNa's teachings with that of the bhAgavatamata?

And then tradition holds that Sri bodhAyana wrote the vritti (technically vritti is giving the sUtra their proper intelligible sentence form) for the BrahmasUtras, and the same Acharya is mentioned by Sri Ramanuja. Some scholars say that Sri Sankar had Sri bodhAyana in mind when referring to 'other' interpreters of the BrahmasUtras. Then, in the bhAshya on Chandogya Upanishad, 3-10-4, specifically on reconciling with smritivAkyas regarding creation, the bhagavatpAda is said (by the TikAkAra, Sri Anandagiri) to have held views similar to drAviDachArya, who again is quoted by Sri Ramanuja as being of his tradition.

Thus, we see that vedAnta has a continuous tradition which seemed to have parted ways earlier than Sri Sankara's time; and that neither Sri Sankara nor Sri Ramanuja are the "inventors" or "original proponents" of the two famous sub-schools of Vedanta, though they have done most of the work to establish them.

Finally, some might question as to why I had left out discussing Sri Bhaskar's references to bhagavatpAda's comments to the contrary (about unanimity in aupanishadas or vedantins about the siddhAnta of upanishads). The short reason is that Sri Bhaskar had only airily referred to them, and does not give specific references. I reproduce the exact words of Sri Bhaskar. "Shankara says in bruhadAraNyaka Upansishad bhAshya that there is no disagreement among all the followers of the upanishads that the knowledge of the jIva-brahma yEkatva is what the main purport of all upanishads. And, shankara elsewhere in sUtra bhAshya states that all those who teach the mOksha have agreed that jnAna is the only means for that."

The long answer is that, it is a rather laboured point that though all vedantins held an unanimous view regarding the final message of upanishads, they differed in their methods and so Sri Sankara set out to prove that his means are the correct route to reach the end. In fact, the attitude of Sri Sankara is to accomodate, with alternate explanations given frequently - as in the case of the sUtra SAstrayonitvAt (1-1-3, BrahmasUtras), which is in contrast with the method of Sri MadhvAchArya, who gives only the "correct" view. Then as the above quotations show, there *WAS* disagreement amongst the asmadIyas of Sri Sankara, and those who follow the vedAnta-sUtras about the identity of the soul and Brahman, and whether the para (higher) brahman was approachable in the sense of individual souls being taken to It. Both these points are less 'means', and more like the 'end'. Finally, one always was taught that advaita accomodates all other darSanas - as stepping stones - to the
 final, mature thesis. Being an AptavAkya, this can be taken at face value and one has not come across evidence to the contrary. For the above reasons, the bhagavatpAda's comments supposedly showing the reverse were not taken up.

budhajanavidheyah
Senani


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow