Aurobindo about Advaita

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Edwin Bryant <ebryant at FAS.HARVARD.EDU> wrote:

> > I agree that sha.nkara's system has been studied
disproportionately
> > more than the other systems. However, I think the early British
had an
> > important reason for studying sha.nkara more than others. The
systems
> > of Ramanuja and Madhva are more or less restricted to Tamil Nadu
and
> > Karnataka respectively (with some small strongholds elsewhere).
>
> Yes, but they had significant influence on other,
> visistha/dvaitadvaita/bhedabheda/suddhadvaita type ontological
expressions
> such as those that surfaced in the Bengal/Vrindavan Gaudiya school

Certainly, all schools influenced each other. My point was that the
Westerners would have seen more advaitins among scholars, and that too
spread out all over India. Surely, that would have played at least
some role in the British paying more attention to the advaita school?
Hacker's pioneering studies of advaita were not based on political
considerations. He made it quite clear that he wanted to study the
system in order to more efficiently proselytise Indians, or "dialog"
as he calls it. Obviously, it would make more sense to study the
system of the person who found the most acceptance among Indians.

Rama