[Advaita-l] Madhusudhana Saraswathi and Advaita.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Srikanta Narayanaswami <
srikanta.narayanaswami at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Pranams.This is with reference to the many postings regarding the above
> topic in this list.There is certainly a discernible element in how Bhakthi
> came to be introduced in the Advaita philosophy.As we refer the various
> stages in the Philosophy of other systems
> like,Vaisheshika,Nyaya,Mimamsa,Navya Nyaya,etc.we can see at what stage the
> element of Bhakthi was introduced in Advaita philosophy.What can be said is
> that the Advaita as it is studied and professed with the element of Bhakthi
> as we see now is certainly not Pure Advaita.This can be said as we study
> the earliest book on Advaita,Mandukyopanishad with Gaudapada
> karikas.Gaudapada has taken utmost care to present the advaita concept
> without borrowing from other systems.In the IIIrd prakarana called "The
> advaita prakarana",he says:
> "Upasanashritasya dharmasya jate Brahmani vartate!
> Pragutpatteh ajam sarve tenasau krpanah smrtah!!
> "The "dharma"(jiva-individual being) is in worship of the
> "Brahman"(Hiranyagarbha Brahman)
> But,before being born,all are Unborn,therefore it is considered to be
> miserly(krpanah)!!
>

Sir,

Sri GauDapAdAchArya in the kArikA 3.16 says:

आश्रमास्त्रिविधा हीनमध्यमोत्कृष्टदृष्टयः ।
उपासनोपदिष्टेयं तदर्थमनुकम्पया ॥ 16 ॥

The three types of adhikArins are admitted depending on their levels of
maturity.  'upAsanA' has been prescribed for the latter two (manda and
madhyama) by the Shruti compassionately with the view that these two types
rise up to the state of realizing the Truth that the highest type
accomplish.  [I have summarized the Shankarabhashyam too.]

From this it is clear that the concept of Bhakti has ever been in Vedanta.
One may look into Shankara's words too.  Shankara says: upaasanA AND karma
has been prescribed/taught in the Veda APART FROM the Advaitic Truth.

(16) — यदि हि पर वात्मा नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभाव कः परमार्थतः सन् ‘
एकमेवाद्वितीयम् ‘ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः, असदन्यत्, * किमर्थेयमुपासनोपदिष्टा* ‘
आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः ‘ ‘ य आत्मापहतपाप्मा ‘ ‘ स क्रतुं कुर्वीत ‘ ‘
आत्मेत्येवोपासीत ‘ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः, *कर्माणि चाग्निहोत्रादीनि ?* शृणु
तत्र कारणम् — आश्रमाः आश्रमिणोऽधिकृताः, वÌणन च मार्गगाः, आश्रमशब्दस्य
प्रदर्शनार्थत्वात्, त्रिविधाः। कथम् ? हीनमध्यमोत्कृष्टदृष्टयः हीना निकृष्टा
मध्यमा उत्कृष्टा च दृष्टिः दर्शनसामथ्र्यं येषां ते,
मन्दमध्यमोत्तमबुद्धिसामर्थ्योपेता इत्यर्थः। उपासना उपदिष्टा इयं तदर्थं
मन्दमध्यमदृष्ट्याश्रमाद्यर्थं कर्माणि च। न चात्मैक एववाद्वितीय इति
नश्चितोत्तमदृष्टयर्थम्। *दयालुना वेदेनानुकम्पया सन्मार्गगाः सन्तः
कथमिमामुत्तमामेकत्वदृÏष्ट प्राप्नुयुरिति,* ‘ यन्मनसा न मनुते येनाहुर्मनो
मतम्। तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ‘ ‘ तkवमसि ‘ ‘ आत्मैवेदं
सर्वम् ‘ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः॥

Also the first verse of this chapter as quoted by you is not exactly the
same as it appears in the printed versions:

उपासनाश्रितो धर्मो जाते ब्रह्मणि वर्तते ।
प्रागुत्पत्तेरजं सर्वं तेनासौ कृपणः स्मृतः ॥ 1 ॥

It is no doubt beneficial to study the Shankara bhashyam on this verse
too.  In a nutshell it says:

The upAsaka thinks that he will attain liberation by contemplating upon the
saguNa/born Brahman, after the fall of the body.  Since he has the
knowledge of only the lower, kShudra, brahman, he (the upAsaka) is
considered 'kRupaNaH', pitiable, by the knowers, Jnanis, of the Ever Unborn
Brahman (nirguNa Brahman).

We thus have these two important points:

1.  the concept of Bhakti/upAsanA is not new to the Veda/VedAnta.  It is
quite deeply enshrined there, for the benefit of the less-equipped..

2. The saguNabrahma upAsaka is considered of less worth in comparison to
the Knower of the nirguNa Brahman.

It is to be noted that Shankara or Gaudapada do not deny that the upAsaka
will be ultimately liberated.  From this 'nindA', criticism, of the upAsaka
it is to be known that Shankara's emphasis is on the effort to obtain
nirguNa brahma jnAnam.  This is called 'नहिनिन्दान्यायः’ - न हि निन्दा
निन्द्यं निन्दितुं प्रवर्तते, अपि च विधेयं स्तोतुम्’ - the criticism is not
aimed at really disparaging the one who is criticized but to extoll the
main teaching that the Shruti is giving out. The Kenopanishat says: if one
does not realize the Supreme now, in this life itself, the loss is immense:
महती विनष्टिः. We can be assured of this by seeing Shankara's and
Gaudapada's views in verse 16 where Shankara says: the Veda has prescribed
upAsana and karma out of compassion.

In fact there is evidence that even Gaudapada was a bhakta:  in the very
first verse of the fourth chapter he pays obeisance to the Lord.  The word
is not directly telling us that it is the Lord but Shankara brings out the
meaning: nArAyaNAkhyam.  So, we can see the fact of Jnanis having been
bhaktas too from this tradition. The case of Jagadguru Sri Abhinava
VidyAteertha SwaminaH is very instructive:  He had attained realization of
the Supreme निर्गुणब्रह्मन्, even before He was 20.  He was an adept in
Nirvikalpa Samadhi.  At the same time His saguNa Ishwara Bhakti was also
something unimaginable.  His iShTa devatA was Lord Narasimha.  His Guru
used to make innocent fun of Him saying: You are a VaishNava.  The Acharya
would often be seen engaged in a conversation with SharadAmbA.  He could
have the vision of these Deities at will. Someone who has had the fortune
of seeing Him and hearing His discourses will not miss this extraordinary
saguNabhakti manifestation in Him.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v