[Advaita-l] Difference in the approaghes of Madhacharya and Shankaracharya
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 19 20:13:45 CDT 2016
Well, there does not appear to be any valid reason at all to use Apara vidya to explain Para-Vidya. The Upanishads constitute the Vedanta,i.e., the highest knowledge and the Lord says in the Chapter 15 of the Bhagavad Gita that he Himself is the source of the knowledge of the Vedanta. The explanation of the highest jnana by lower jnana may appear obvious to the Dvaitins but not to the advaitins including the greatest Advaitin, Adi Shankaracharya.
As to the claim about Madhva's always citing specific texts, the Brahmatarka is the greatest obstacle for anybody outside the Madhva tradition to agree to that assertion. . Dr. B.N.K.Sharama himself admitted that Madhva quoted Brahmatarka 500 times, but nobody knows from where Madhva found the Brahma tarka and when during his life-time did the Brahmatarka vanish. Not even a single disciple of Madhva had seen the Brahmatarka. That is the reason why Non-Madvhites are justified in not recognizing the Brahma-tarka.
On Fri, 8/19/16, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Difference in the approaghes of Madhacharya and Shankaracharya
To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Cc: "yahoogroups" <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, August 19, 2016, 11:07 AM
Aug 19, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya via Advaita-l
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Kindly permit me to put before you the following assessment,
given by late C.R.Krishna Rao, a staunch Dvaitin, in
pp.74-75 of his book "Madhva and Brahmatarka"
<Samkara generally restricts himself to the Upanishads
for his authorities. Madhva on the other hand draws his
quotations from the Vedas, the Upanishads, the pancharatras,
the puranas, the Mahabharataand other authritative works.
Some of the moot points have been clearly explained in the
Smriti literature, and Madhva makes free use of it.>
Krishna Rao then goes on to say " The need for
quotations from sources other than the Upanishads to
explain the Upanishadic texts seems obvious.
This clearly shows that Dvaitins prefer to explain
Para-vidya with Apara-vidya.
there is a very valid reason for this.
interpretation of shruti based on some other
shruti has to be preferred to one that is based on the
purANas. The latter has
to be preferred to one given without the aid of purANas (or
in opposition to purANas). We have multiple
statements in itihAsa and purANas to that effect:
MB Adi-parva has this position
vedo mAmayaM pratariSyati ||
There are similar verses in
many purANAs. This is the
prime reason for preferring an interpretation based on
purANas over others and
not because purANAs were authored by Sri Vedavyasa.
Similarly, the Mahabharata attributes
flawlessness to Pancharatras, so an interpretation based on
such should be
preferred to a free-flow interpretation.
Before we go to the issues
concerning purANas, let's
look at this verse from Brahma-purANa:
tribhAShAM yo na jAnAti rItInAM shatameva cha |
vyatyAsAdIn sapta bhEdAn vedAdyarthaM tu yo vadet.h |
sa yAti nirayaM ghoramanyathAj~nAnasambhavam.h ||
Though Sri Madhva says
that this verse is from axaNa shAstra, his commentator Sri
Trivikrama Pandita quotes the same from BrahmapurANa. The bhAShAs spoken of here --
guhya, samAdhi and darshana -- aren't separate
languages, but different levels
of looking at the shruti text. The same shruti text can be
used to get
knowledge at the Adhibhautika, Adhidaivika and AdhyAtmic
in a way, fixes the eligibility criteria (adhikAra) of an
characterization of puranas as apara vidya, it is not
correct. We note that the referrent
of the word 'purANA'
mentioned in the Chandogya (7.1.2), Brihadaranyaka (2.4.9)
and a host of other
vedic texts (like the Maitreyi-araNyaka, gopatha brAhmaNa)
is the set of texts
that are prevalent
Likewise with itihAsa. Thus,
what we know as itihAsa and purANa are considered allied
literature by shrutis
themselves. Thus, we can use these texts to interpret
On the counter criticism, one
can argue Shanakara in many places summons evidence (for his
position) as 'sampradAyavit' without really quoting
any such ancient/recent 'sampradAyains' and/or their
works. In contrast, Madhva always cites very specific texts
(apourusheya and/or pourusheya) as
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list