[Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara

[Kalyan]

I am not sure what you are trying to say below, except mostly merely repeating what you have already said earlier. Yes, Shankara has not said he is refuting other BS bhashyas, but it is not necessary to be explicit. He nevertheless refutes BhartRprapancha, an earlier commentator on atleast some upanishads and BS. This is sufficient to show that there were other vedAntic schools even before Shankara, irrespective of whether or not Shankara acknowledges them explicitly or no matter what Shankara says about being the sole representative of the upanishads.


>From my side, this discussion ends, unless Sri Bhaskarji, the originator of the thread, brings up some fresh points to the table.


Regards
Kalyan


--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 9/17/17, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of shankara
 To: "Kalyan" <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
 Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Date: Sunday, September 17, 2017, 9:49 AM
 
 
 
 On Sun,
 Sep 17, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
 wrote:
  //I have cited a
 Taittiriya Bhashya passage of Shankara where he declares
 that he, the monist, is the lone representative of the
 Vedanata and is faced with a number of non-monists who are
 outside the Vedanta. The subcommentator in the Br.Up.bhasya
 (if I remember right) has identified a purvapaksha as
 Bhartruprapanchamatam.//
 
 
 
 But we know that Bhartrprapancha was also a vedAntin.
 Shankara's claim is typical of all schools. Every school
 thinks that it is the true vedAntic school. Viewed in this
 light, Shankara's claim does not provide us any
 historical information about existence of other vedAntic
 schools at his time. But his criticism of earlier
 commentators shows that such schools existed.
 
 There is a difference. Shankara has
 not claimed that he is refuting pre-existing Bhāṣyas on
 the Brahmasutra as others have done. All that he is claiming
 is that the monist is the only representative of the
 Upanishadic mata and all his opponents are dualists.  We
 find the proof of this in his refutation of the various
 schools such as the sankhya, yoga, vaisheshika, bauddha,
 jaina, pancharatra, pashupata, mimamsa, charvaka..  That
 gives us an idea that there were no Vedantic schools that
 Shankara was opposed to. And from his statement in the
 Br.Up. bhashya we know that all those who swore by the
 Upanishads were unanimous on the jiva-brahma identity, even
 though there might have been differences on particular
 points. None of the above listed schools based their
 doctrines on the upanishads. That is why they have been
 included in the smritii section. 
 On the contrary, for instance, the
 Madhvas claim that theirs is the siddhanta that has refuted
 all, some 20 plus, pre-existing Vedantic bhāṣyas, and
 rests unopposed. It would be interesting to verify if
 Madhva, or even Ramanuja, has cited the various 20 plus or
 as the case may be, doctrines by name or otherwise,
 including the ones that existed prior to Shankara, and
 refuted them.  We find Shankara referring to thoughts like
 the bheda-abheda, jnana karma samucchaya, and refuting
 them.  If we find the other two commentators citing such
 specific doctrines of pre-Shankara period, then that would
 give us a certain idea of the pre-Shankaran vedantic
 schools.  In fact the Tanka, Dramida (Dravida), Brahmanandi
 that the Ramanuja bhashya is said to name as his
 purvacharyas, are admitted to be Advaitins by the Shankaran
 followers. In the Thangaswamy book that gives a list of
 ancient Advaitins many of these names appear.  Anandagiri
 too in a subcommentary of Shankara's quote ‘सिद्धं
 तु निवर्तकत्वात्’
 इत्यागमविदां सूत्रम्
 ॥  in the Mandukya karika 2.32 bhashya, says that
 Shankara is citing the support from
 Dravidacharya. 
 regardssubbu
 
      
  
 
 
 //In the Thangaswami research work on Advaita Vedanta
 literature, on p.191, on Upavarsha it is stated that the
 view of the Vishistadvaitins identifying Upavarsha with
 Bodhayana is incorrect.He considers Upavarsha as a
 vrittikara that Shankara alludes to.//
 
 
 
 
 
 Ok. I myself am not sure if this identification is
 correct.
 
 
 
 
 
  //In this book Bhartrpraoancha is stated to be a
 bhedābhedavādin but not as an author of a vritti on the
 Brahmasutra.//
 
 
 
 
 
 Narayana Panditacharya, the biographer of Madhva counts
 BhartRprapancha as a commentator on the brahmasutras.
 
 
 
 
 
 Regards
 
 Kalyan
 
 
 
 ------------------------------ --------------
 
 On Sun, 9/17/17, V
 Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
 
 
  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] vedAntins at the time of
 shankara
 
  To: "Kalyan" <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
 
  Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
 <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 vedanta.org>
 
  Date: Sunday, September 17, 2017, 3:56 AM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  On Sat,
 
  Sep 16, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
 
  wrote:
 
  Vishishthadvaitins hold
 
  that Bodhayana is the same as Upavarsha, that Shankara
 
  refers to. Both Shankara and Bhaskara hold Upavarsha in
 high
 
  esteem, even though their schools are different, so it
 
  cannot be claimed for certain that Upavarsha was an
 
  advaitin.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Narayana Panditacharya, the biographer of Madhva, refers
 to
 
  a vrittikAra as one of the commentators on BS. Bodhayana
 or
 
  Upavarsha (whether or not they are the same person) could
 be
 
  this vrittikAra.
 
 
 
  Here is a study on the
 
  Bodhayana-Upavarsha topic:
 
  https://sreenivasaraos.com/
 category/bodhayana-upavarsha/
 
  Nothing final arises from the
 
  study.
 
  Another
 
  article:  http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/
 blog/post/2008/01/who-was- upavarsa-2.htm
 
     which is however missing now.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  //The schools that  Shankara refutes in the second
 
  chapter of BSB are all  non-Vedantic//
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  This does not prove anything. Bhartrprapancha, a
 
  bhedAbhedavAdin, has written a commentary on BS
 (according
 
  to Narayana Panditacharya) and I dont remember that he
 is
 
  refuted by Shankara in the second chapter.  Just because
 no
 
  other vedantic school was refuted by Shankara in the
 2nd
 
  chapter, it does not mean that there was no other
 vedantic
 
  school at the time of Shankara.
 
 
 
  In BSB 2.1.14 a certain bhedābheda
 
  vāda is refuted. The identity of jiva-Brahman is
 admitted
 
  by that vādin in the mokṣa state but not in the
 bandha
 
  state. In that school both bheda in bandha and abheda
 in
 
  moksha are absolute. In the 2.2 of BSB however, the
 schools
 
  refuted are all non-vedantic. I have cited a Taittiriya
 
  Bhashya passage of Shankara where he declares that he,
 the
 
  monist, is the lone representative of the Vedanata and
 is
 
  faced with a number of non-monists who are outside the
 
  Vedanta.  The subcommentator in the Br.Up.bhasya (if I
 
  remember right) has identified a purvapaksha as
 
  Bhartruprapanchamatam.   
 
  In the Thangaswami research work on
 
  Advaita Vedanta literature, on p.191, on Upavarsha it
 is
 
  stated that the view of the Vishistadvaitins
 identifying
 
  Upavarsha with Bodhayana is incorrect. He considers
 
  Upavarsha as a vrittikara that Shankara alludes to. In
 this
 
  book Bhartrpraoancha is stated to be a bhedābhedavādin
 but
 
  not as an author of a vritti on the Brahmasutra. He is
 
  believed to have written commentaries on Br.up. and
 
  Kathopanishat. Shankara alludes to him as
 
  'aupanishadmmanyaḥ', a derogatory term to
 mean:
 
  one who thinks he is a follower of the
 
  Upanishad.
 
  regardssubbu
 
 
 
 
 
  Regards
 
 
 
  Kalyan