[Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara

[Kalyan]

//
 I don't agree. 
 Vaishnavism and  and Shaivism had a long independent 
 history.  One of the arguments that
 Shankaracharya makes in the 
 chaturvyuhadhikarana is that the pancharatra
 agamas are non-Vedic 
 therefore
 non-authoritative.  At some later point there was an effort//


I am not sure what and why you are disagreeing with. You yourself mentioned that completely dualistic schools of vedanta are relatively new, to which I just expressed my agreement. Now you want to argue that they are not new? What is the reason for the sudden change of heart? 


Also, there is some contradiction in your statements. You want to argue that pashupatha and pancaratra are unvedic and yet argue that early vaishnavism and shaivism were vedic? You need to clarify.


//
Somewhat anyway. If we
 restrict Samkhya to 
 Ishvarakrishna then yes
 it is non-theistic but theistic samkhya can be 
 found in the bhagavadgita, mokshadharma and
 elsewhere in itihasa/puranas. 
 And what is
 Yoga if not Samkhya + Ishvara?//


The theism of samkhya and yoga is quite different from the highly devotional theism of later vedantic schools.
 

 //However it should be conceded that the Samkhya
 concept of Ishvara is not 
 acceptable to
 Vedantins of any stripe.//


This is interesting. You want to argue that theistic samkhya is found in BG and Mahabharata and yet you want to say that it is unacceptable to vedantins. So, your statements lead to the conclusion that BG and Mahabharata are anti-vedantic!


Regards
Kalyan

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 9/28/17, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara
 To: "Kalyan" <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017, 4:20 AM
 
 Sorry for the late reply.
 
 On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Kalyan
 via Advaita-l wrote:
 
 >
 > I agree. Strict
 dualism in vedAnta is relatively new. One of the views 
 > floating around here is that post-advaitic
 rival vedAntic schools were 
 > caused by
 the difference in the views among the advaitins. I don't
 know 
 > how far this is true.
 
 I don't agree. 
 Vaishnavism and  and Shaivism had a long independent 
 history.  One of the arguments that
 Shankaracharya makes in the 
 chaturvyuhadhikarana is that the pancharatra
 agamas are non-Vedic 
 therefore
 non-authoritative.  At some later point there was an effort
 made 
 to align themselves with Vedanta. 
 For instance it is Yamuna the 
 predecessor
 of Ramanuja who attempts to make the case that pancharatra
 
 agamas are Vedic (i.e. Vedantic.)
 
 >
 > The way I see it, the
 advent of these new rival vedAntic schools is 
 > probably due to a theistic reaction to the
 perceived non-theism of 
 > advaita.
 Neither sAmkhya nor early bhedAbheda were theistic. The new
 
 > vedAntic schools came to fill in the
 theistic gap.
 >
 
 Again I disagree.  Somewhat anyway. If we
 restrict Samkhya to 
 Ishvarakrishna then yes
 it is non-theistic but theistic samkhya can be 
 found in the bhagavadgita, mokshadharma and
 elsewhere in itihasa/puranas. 
 And what is
 Yoga if not Samkhya + Ishvara?
 
 However it should be conceded that the Samkhya
 concept of Ishvara is not 
 acceptable to
 Vedantins of any stripe.
 
 
 
 -- 
 Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>