svenkat wrote:Carlji,
I found your post pretty confusing.
Dear
svenkat ji, there is a lot more in common between Advaitism and Vaishnava Vedanta than you think. I am about to leave for a few days. Perhaps when I'm back I will respond in some detail, and I think you will be pleasantly surprised. The problem is that there are a lot of false stereotypes and misrepresentations about Vaishnavism. Below are a few basic clarifications off the bat. Wishing you a happy and auspicious New Year!
svenkat wrote:2)You also said that there were four vaishnava vedanta sampradayas originally and implied clearly that these were the only interpreatations of vedanta extant in ancient times.Thats clearly not the understanding of Advaitins.
How did I imply that? I clearly said in a previous post that Acharya Madhva himself enumerates at least 21 previous commentaries of Vedanta. The point of mentioning those 4 broad sampradayas was that all commentaries roughly fall into one or the other of those 4 buckets. You will notice one of them is called shuddha-
advaita (pure monism), too. The fact that Vaishnavas consider all four of them to be bona fide "Vaishnava" should give Advaitins pause to think and re-consider their knee-jerk ideas about "Vaishnavism".
svenkat wrote:4)Regarding taaratamyaNor does Advaita privilege Bhakthi over Jnana.
And neither does "Vaishnavism". Madhva says that the path is of "jnAna-pUrNa bhakti" - bhakti full of jnAna. But bhakti is the very substance of jnAna, as all sources including the Bhagavad Gita say. One must understand bhakti not just as a process, but as a substance. Then it becomes clear why it is privileged, and anyone who does not accept and
affirm that privileged status is off the mark, I'm afraid. The Veda is a book of love.
svenkat wrote:I was clarifying that Advaitins do understand the worship of Vishnu alone as Brahman, for it is part of Vedantic tradition of Iswara Upaasana though they cannot accept the exclusiveness of Vaishnavas. I have to walk a tight rope here,because orthodox vedantins recogonise the majestic rupas resident in Kshirasagara or Vaikunta,as manifestations of Iswara to bless His Devotees.
We must discuss this fine-tuned "exclusivity" when I get back. You are right in feeling that you are walking a tight-rope.
If you read Bhishma's last words at Kurukshetra on the bed of arrows, you will notice that when asked to define bhakti he declares that uniqueness and exclusivity are an essential part of it! This is because uniqueness and exclusivity are part of the Absolute Truth. So we can focus on this when we continue our conversation.
svenkat wrote:Just as vaishnavas have reasons for believing 'Vishnu-Narayana' is Supreme,the orthodox advaita vedantins have excellent scriptural support for believing that Brahman is beyond names and forms.
This is where you are confusing and artificially separating terms. Vishnu and Brahman are both monickers for the same epistemic purpose. They are not just names of distinct entities, but rather
placeholders for epistemic scopes, as well as the optimal point of view in any scope. You can see in Adi Shankara's Upanishad commentaries that the word "Brahman" indicates different aspects in different places, as well as his repeated emphasis on "vishnum paramam padam". In the RigVeda, Taratamya is discussed, and it is also discussed in the 2nd adhyaya of the Mahabharata. In the RigVeda, Agni deva is the "lowest" and Vishnu (the all-pervading) is the "highest" in that hierarchy of devas, but on the transcendental platform all of them are non-different. Now the rest of the kshirodaka-shayi Vishnu, etc are all particularizations of that One Vishnu-tattva. And other tattvas are
evolutes of this one independent tattva. The only exception is Shiva-tattva which is more complex and mysterious in its relationship with Vishnu-tattva.
svenkat wrote:1) You said that Shankara claimed to be from 'Rudra vaishnava' sampradaya. Sri Sankara never made any such claim nor do I know of any orthodox advaitins claiming that.This claim is coming from outside the sampradaya.I repeat,we must not misrepresent the positions.
But you did agree on the point of his kula-devata and his background. You see the "Vaishnava" communal lineage was not always called so, but has variously called itself Saatvata, Bhaagavata, etc in previous times to differentiate themselves from other heterodoxies. It was also the dominant orthodoxy. Adi Shankara was from that communal background, and initially he made it clear he was speaking on behalf of it, as the earlier works that can be attributed to him show. Now what remains for us is to decide what "Vaishnava" really means!
It was not my intention. However, for further contemplation, it might be worthwhile for open-minded neo-Advaitins to research the case for ontological adhyatmika hierarchy (taaratamya) and specific terminologies in Veda, where one represents a higher hypostasis than the other, though all Names and Forms are transcendental and equal on the adhivishnu platform.
It reminded me of certain acharyas who said that the words of scripture are "like a finger pointing to a branch that points to the moon."
