[Advaita-l] Madhusudana Saraswati

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

If you stop your discussion with me all the better. No compulsion at all. I will prefer to say good-riddance in that case..However please do not run away 
just like that. First admit that you are wrong in your imagination that 
Advaitasiddhi was written before  Bhagavad-bhakti-rasayana. Your claim 
has been blasted and shown  to be fake. 


Further please do not try to be smart. I did not repeat what you wrote about Nelson. If you have the guts pl;ease show by quoting side by side what your wrote as Nelson's view  vis-a-vis what I wrote as Nelson's views. 


I am not ashamed to say that I did initially think that MS might not have not  understood Advaita properly before his (MS's) writing the Bhakti-rasayana, till I read the Advaita-kalpa-latika and thge comments of Prof. Karmarkar.  Any intelligent person reading my last few mails carefully will see this clearly. 


Now as regards your questions:


Firstly prove that MS was not affected by the Gudiya school.

Secondly prove that MS's original name was not Kamalajanayana. As regards whether the word "muni"  implied sanyashi or not and how could MS continue to use his name Madhusudana if he became a sanyashi before writing the Advaita-siddhi.  You can take it up with Anand Hublji as it was he who brought in the argument that MS became a Sanyashi and used the word "Muni" to indicate that. I did not find fault with Hubliji on that count as his conclusion was correct though I may not agree with him on equating muni with sanyashi.  


Thirdly the point was regarding whether Advaita-siddhi preceded Bhagavad-bhakti-rasayana (BBR) or succeeded BBR. Don't try to disown your own statements now. There is absloutely no doubt that Bhagavad-bhakti-rasayana preceded Advaita siddhi.  Prof. Sanjukta Gupta could not be sure as she too was probably confounded by MS's advaita works before and after Bhagavad-bhakti-rasayana.

________________________________
 From: "rajaramvenk at gmail.com" <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l]  Madhusudana Saraswati
 
You first said that Madhusudana did not understand advaitam initially. Now you are giving a new theory. You just quoted my post on Prof. Nelson.

I will continue the discussion after you 

1. Show concrete literary evidence of influenced by gaudiya vaishnavam or even prove that he had read Rupa, Sanatana or Jiva
2. Agree that his works are signed Madhusudana and no room to say that he was not a sannyasi when he wrote some of his works or offer a logical defense of your position


Prof. Sanjukta does say that GDD refers to Advaita Siddhi. 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:22:20 
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Reply-To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>,
    A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
    <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: [Advaita-l]  Madhusudana Saraswati




----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
To: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Madhusudana Saraswati


Dear Sri Rajaram,

Truly speaking, you should not be glad at all  as I stick to my view that Advaita-siddhi was written after the Bhakti-rasayana, unlike you claimed. You have not been able to admit the facts. It appears that historically Madhusudana Saraswati (MS) was an advaitin inherently. Lord Krishna said that a yogi is born in a family of the yogis so as to be able to continue his work of the earlier birth. So also MS could have been an advaitin in the beginning before his dilly-dallying with the Bhaktimargis of the Chaitanya-school. But that dilly-dallying did not last long. MS read the Sankara-bhashya and came back to the advaita-fold with a vengeance and later on went to contest the Dvaita school with his Advaita-siddhi.

As regards how a Krishna-bhakta or a Shiva-bhakta can be an Advaitin, can be understood only by an 
advaitin. Adi Sankaracharya was no less Krishna-bhakta than MS or 
Shiva-bhakta than any other Shiva-bhakta. It appears you have not read 
the bhakti works of Adi s
Sankaracharya.

You are really not aware of the views of Prof. Sanjukta Gupta. Prof. Gupta  said that as far as she knows Bhakti-rasayana was written earlier than the 
commentary on Bhagavadgita but she really does not know where Advaitasiddhi stands qua Bhaktirasayana or 
Bhagavadgita commentary. You can contact Prof Sanjukta Gupta if you want to check it out. On this point I support the views of the other scholars like Nelson (I quoted earlier) as well as the views of Ramajna Pandeya. I also like the reasoning advanced by Anand Hubliji. 

Till you stop jumbling up the chronological issues you will not understand the advaitins and their works. 


Hope this clarifies.

Sunil KB



________________________________


Dear Sri Sunil, 


 
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear friends,
>
>May I present before you some aspects of Madhusudana Saraswati's scholarship on Advaita. This appears to show that he had inherent intimacy with Advaita from the very beginning, even though he passed through the influence of the Chaitanya school.
>
>
Rajaram: I really glad to note that you have revised your views about Madusudana from one who did not understand Advaita in the beginning to one who had inherent intimacy with Advaita from the very beginning. It is laudable to revise views in the face of facts. However, you continue stick to the popular myth that he was influenced by Gaudiya Vaishnavam. This view amongst scholars is based on stories not any literary evidence. The best evidence is that his scheme of bhakti in BhR is preceded by a similar one Rupa Gosvami's. However, there are fundamental differences. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, the notion of rasa schemes is present in not only Alankara Sastras but also in Sridhara Swami's, Muktiphala etc. 
 
It is known that Madhusudana Saraswati wrote Vedanta- kalpa-latika before Bhakt- rasayana, which in turn was written before his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, which in turn was written before his Advaita siddhi. 
 
Rajaram: According to Prof. Sanjukta Gupta (rf. The Philosophy of Madhusudana Introduction) both Gudartha Dipika and Advaita Ratna Rakshana refer to Advaita Siddhi, which suggest that they came later than the Advaita Siddhi. Even in Advaita Siddhi, he says in the midst of polemics, "I know no reality higher than Lord Krishna". So, there is no way to separate Madhusudana from his philosophical conviction in Advaita and his concept of Bhakti to Lord Krishna. 
 
It is also interesting to note that in the preface to the "Vedanta-kalpa-latika" of Madhusudana Saraswati, which has been edited with an Introduction, English  translation and Appendices by late Professor R.D. Karmarkar, the editor (Prof. Karmarkar) writes as follows:
Quote

The Vedantakalpalatika by Madhusudana Saraswati is a well-known Sanskrit manual embracing all important topics relating to Vedanta philosophy. It is most probably the first work written by the author, who all the same thinks highly of it, as is clear from the ambitious title bestowed upon it. The aim of the writer is to show how the non-Advaita philosophic doctrines fail to give a true evaluation of the ultimate reality, which must be admitted to be Nirvisesa and nirdharmaka, of one is to do proper justice to both Sruti and Tarka.
Unquote

Rajaram: According to Dr. Sanjukta Gupta, Samkshepa Sarirka Sara Sangraha was written first because this work has no reference to any other work and possesses none of his particular views. Now, it is important to note that Sarvajnatma Muni accepts Eka Jiva Vada where liberation is only an artha-vada. Madhsudana also accepts eka jiva vada and it is very useful to his theory that bhakti rasa is eternal. As the particular jiva is not actually liberated though it is one with Ishwara, it is possible for it to re-appear by Ishwara sankalpa (e.g. Nara-Narayana as KrishnArjuna). . 

That  Madhudana Saraswati's wrote the Advaita-siddhi after he wrote his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita has been reported by Ramajna Pandeya. This is also indicated in the following comment of Anand Hubliji.

Quote

In the advaita siddhi, we find that Madhusudana has described himself as "shraddhAdhanena muninA madhusUdanena", where the word "muni" indicates that he was a sannyAsin when he wrote the work. But we do not find a similar description in the gUDhArtha
dIpikA which makes it plausible that he was not yet a sannyAsin when wrote it.

Unquote

Rajaram: He refers to himself as Madhusudana in other works. So, he was a sannyasi earlier also. This theory is not plausible. 
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ 
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita 

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l 

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org