Skip to main content

Overview of the Advaita-Dvaita Debate Literature

Madhusudana Sarawati’s Advaita Siddhi is a polemical work - a reply to Vyasatirtha’s Nyaya-amrita who belonged to Dvaita School of Vedanta. Both works show a high level of dialectical skill and take advantage of advancement in study of logic due to Navya-Nyaya School.

Madhusudana Saraswati also wrote Advaita-ratna-rakshanam a polemical work in reply to both Dvaitins and Nyaya philosopher specially Shankara Mishra’s Bhedaratna.

The Advaita - Dvaita debate does not end with Advaita Siddhi. Ramacharya wrote Nyaya-amrita-tarangini criticizing Advaita Siddhi. Nyaya-amrita-kantakoddhara of Anandbhattaraka was another counter-attack on Advaita Siddhi.

Madhusudnana’s disciple Balabhadra wrote a commentary on Advaita Siddhi called simply Vyakhya. Like Vijayandra-tirtha’s commentary Amoda on Nyaya-amrita it is not a reply to any other polemical work.

Brahmananda’s Guruchandrika was a reply to Tarangini and Kantakoddhara. Gauda Brahmananda was a very famous logician and in Advaita tradition it is famous that Advaita tradition begins with Gauda (Gaudapada) and ends with Gauda (Gauda Brahmananda). The abridged version of Guruchandrika is called Laghuchandrika. In the 19th Century Panchpagesha Shastri commented on this work - it is called Bhavapraksha which has another commentary on it called Tippana by V.Subramaniya Shastri. Brahmananda’s Nyayaratnavali is a commentary on Madhusudana’s Siddhanta Bindu.

From Dvaita’s side Vanamali Mishra wrote two polemical works in reply to Brahmananda - Nyaya-amrita-tarangini-saurabha and nyaya-amrita-saugandhya. From Advaita’s side Vitthalesha’s commentary on Guruchandrika is considered the final work after which the debate ended - in whose favor is debatable. But according to a modern dvaitin - R Nagaraja Sharma - in his book - Reign Of Realism In Indian Philosophy Vitthalesha’s work consists of no reply to Vanamali Mishra. However in 20th century a famous advaitin N.S. Anantakrishna Shastri did write a work to criticize Vanamali Mishra in his Saugandhya Vimarsha.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SCHOOLS OF INDIAN THOUGHT - PART 2 - NYAYA EPISTEMOLOGY

  I. JNANA Jnana is usually translated as cognition. Cognition is the only thing that has intentionality or the property of being directed at the world. It reveals objects in the world towards which goal directed action can be initiated. It is of the nature of illumination like a lamp and generates awareness in the subject of is objects. It is always used in an episodic sense and never in a dispositional sense. The later job is done by samskaras. Jnana is used to connote mental states like perception, memory, introspection, assumption, doubt, belief etc. Jnana is divided into anubhava and smriti. Anubhava is of the nature of presentation of its object while smriti is recollection of a previous experience. Anubhava of an object makes an impression in the mind of the subject and is stored there. When it is revived due to diverse factors it leads to memory of its object. So anubhava is presentational, of the form ‘I experience an object’, while memory is derivative on anubhava for i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Schools of Indian Thought - Part 5 - Advaita Vedanta - The Empirical Self

In Advaita Vedanta there are two I’s, the empircal self and the transcendental self or the ego (aham) and the Atman. The former is a modification of antahkarana and appears as a moral and rational agent (karta) due to possessing the reflection of the pure consciousness within Antahkarana. So what is illusory is the apparent identity of the empirical self and the Atman. The nature of this identity is this, the properties of one appear within the other, like red color is taken to be a property of a crystal because the color gets reflected within it. Now for Advaita Vedanta any illusion always contains two parts - a real one and an illusory one. The real one in this case is the Atman, without some reality no illusion can occur because an illusion is not anything else but taking something not-real to be real. When we break it up, it would always contain a real and an unreal component. Coming to the consciousness that sublates the illusion when one realizes the difference between the real a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ramanuja and Nimbarka

  The primary question for any Vedanta philosophy is what is the relation between Brahman and the world and Brahman and the individual souls. Nimbarka takes this relation to be one of identity and difference. He gives the analogy of a coiled snake and of sun and its rays. Brahman is both immanent and transcendent; the souls and matter are really just the different manifest states of the one Brahman. The concern with such a philosophy is to show that the immanence of Brahman does not compromise its unity and the impurities that accrue to the soul and matter do not thereby affect Brahman. Ramanuja believes that this is not possible in the Bheda-Abheda system (his criticisms of Bhaskara would with certain modifications apply also to Nimbarka). The reason is identity and difference cannot be affirmed simultaneously of the same object. Identity is an absolute relation or in the logical terminology of Nyaya it is a locus pervading relation. In terms of Modern Logic identity is a reflexiv...
Post a Comment
Read more