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

Leibniz And Locke

  In NE 290, Leibniz objects that there is no precise way to determine what a particular is, for him a particular is at once an individual thing and connected to a whole series of monads which connexion is essential to being a particular. Hence he says in order to understand a particular entity we will have to understand an entire infinity (since all attributes are essential to a substance and given its connexion of harmony with infinite monads, by Identity of Indiscernibles this result follows). Here we should note that Locke believes that we know a particular Idea by the testimony of our consciousness but Leibniz too believes that senses bear testimony to a system of particulars whose harmony we find in the thinking subject. Leibniz further says that abstraction proceeds from species to genera and not from individuals to species. So the question comes down to this: a) Can there be a particular without species? and b) Can a particular be known without knowing the species it belong...
Post a Comment
Read more

Moving Beyond The Right Wing - Left Wing Dichotomy

Moving Beyond The Right Wing — Left Wing Dichotomy I would like to make the argument that the right-left dichotomy is a false one and that they share many things in common and so we need to get past them both. Overtly, the difference of right and left consists in this — the right believes that history of a particular group of people is special and determines the identity and the values of that group of people and this history cannot be overturned. They agree with enlightenment that reason cannot ground religion and tradition, we cannot prove many things that are nevertheless still valuable to us and so reason is not sovereign. Some things have a sentimental value and they are not the less if no proof of them is forthcoming. The split between right and left can be traced back to the period of enlightenment when Pascal reacted against Descartes’s rationalism by arguing that religion is grounded in the ‘heart’ and not in reason. Pietism inspired by this line of thought emphasizes personal...
Post a Comment
Read more