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

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

Why does the world exist? What purpose does it serve? An Indian Perspective

  When we talk about purpose we mean an activity that has a beginning and an end and a finite number of steps in between in and through which a task can be accomplished. So when we ask about the purpose or reason for the existence of the world we mean to inquire about why the world began to exist and when and how that purpose can be fulfilled which would be the end of history or the universe as such. There cannot be such a thing as an eternal task which we can see in Sisyphus’s story would render all activity pointless. There is also another sense of purpose in the sense of an immanent end which is not incompatible with eternity of the world. I shall elaborate that both these senses of purposefulness are rejected by Indian philosophers and then I shall explain in what sense liberation (moksha) is the purpose of our existence and the ultimate human good. Advaita Vedanta believes that the world is an appearance of the true ultimate reality Brahman. We have been trapped in the univers...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Difference Between Advaita Vedanta And Madhyamika Buddhism

  For Advaita Vedanta but not for Madhyamika, everything except Brahman is unreal. Why is it unreal? Because they lack a self or an essence. What lacks an essence has no genuine identity, because what is dependent on another cannot also be identical with itself. A chariot, for instance, is nothing over and above its parts arranged in a certain way. It has no essence, no existence that is not dependent on the parts. It has no existence outside of human conventions that treat these myriad parts as a single entity. These conventions have no foundation in reality, and everything is a conglomeration of parts to which we ascribe an essence. For Advaita Vedanta, everything different from the self or anything that is or can be an object of the self is unreal. The Self is something that necessarily exists and is unnegatable, while the existence of the world is transitory and is negated in Brahman-realization, like dreams are sublated upon waking up. Why does the world appear to us if it is ...
Post a Comment
Read more