[Advaita-l] Gudharthadipika of Madhusudana Sarasvati

[V Subrahmanian]

An old post of mine could be revisited for some information on this:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2011-July/028254.html

Also, the Naradabhakti sutra defines bhakti as 'सा तु अस्मिन्
परमप्रेमरूपा’. This Bhakti is of the form of supreme love in/for Him.  So,
the Upanishad talks about supreme love for the Self, Atman.  This aspect is
detailed in the above post.  So whether it is the Bhagavatam or any other
work on Bhakti it cannot be divorced from the Upanishadic concept of bhakti
- love for the Self.

subrahmanian.v

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> IMO, with due respects Prof. Nelson got it wrong. Not his fault because
> many talk about incompatibility of Bhakti and Advaita. The first contention
> of these people, which includes advaitins, is that Bhakti needs two
> entities. But according to Madhusudana, the highest bhakta is one who
> realises "I am He" not one who thinks "I am His" or even "He is mine". At
> this third level, there are no two entities but there is bhakti. The second
> contention is that Ishwara, Jiva and Jagat are mithya. But for Madhusudana,
> the particular conceptions of Ishwara are vyavahara but Ishwara Himself is
> not. You dont transcend Ishwara but realise oneness with Him in His
> svarupa, when He is non-different from your own innermost Self. Bhakti is
> non-different from Ishwara and hence eternal. It is like Gaudiya Vaishnava
> position where Bhakti is considered to be Radha and non-different from
> Ishwara or Krishna.The third contention is that Brahman is not an
> experiencer and hence there can be no bhakti rasa in moksha. But Brahman is
> also not a non-experiencer. Madhusudana says that the bliss of Brahman is
> non-different from the ananda of bhakti rasa.
>
> Sringeri Acharya says that bhakti and Ishwaranugraha are required even for
> Advaita Vasana. If that is so, what level of Ishwaranugraha is required for
> advaya jnanam / uttama bhakti. All acharyas are great devotees and continue
> to be so even aftet jivan mukti. Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal said the
> acharyas have knowledge of bhakti rasas through direct experience long
> before it was codified by Madhusudana. He did not off-hand remember any
> reference to bhakti rasa in the upanishads but even if it is not it is
> implied by reference to bhakti.
>
> There is definitely a reference to bhakti rasa in Hari Vamsa known to
> Sankara.
>
> You need to do a critical study of the position of bhakti in the
> upanishads. Sri Subrahmanian, Sri Vidyasankar, Sri Jaldhar Vyas and other
> scholars on this forum may help. Sri Jaldhar Vyas seems to be aware of
> Krishna Bhakti traditions specifically. But if you get the necessary help,
> I suggest you make a trip to Sringeri to learn from the traditional
> scholars there. Or meet Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal in Chennai. Otherwise,
> your thesis may document erroneous notions such as incompatibility of
> bhakti and advaita. I dont think you will find that to be the case because
> Sridhara, the first ever commentator of Bhagavatham, was also an advaitin
> and bhakta like Madhusudana.
>