Dear Akalendu Das,
Thank you for your response.
Unless I am mistaken, the figures you name are all either post-11th century, or - like Mandana and Suresvara - directly connected with Sankara's tradition. And I think all those you mention are in any case Vedantins.
What I was asking about, however, concerned responses to Sankara from representatives of other schools of thought.
These seem striking by their absence.
with best regards,
Matthew Kapstein
Directeur
d'études, émérite
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris
Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago
Dr.Kapstein.
The period which you referred i.e.9th-11th Century is significant indeed.This was the span of time which produced hordes of philosophers who were Post Sankara and deviated from Sankara's philosophy, in the form of Ramanuja,Maddhacharya, Nimbarka, Ballabhacharya
etc.This has been beautifully elucidated by Madhavacharya in SarvaDarshanSamgraha.The philosophy they preached was either qualified Monism or Dualism.On the other hand, we also had Mandana Misra, Sureshwaracharya, Vimuktatmana and Madhusudan Saraswati, who
strengthened the foundation of Absolute Monism, as laid down by Sankara.
However,the earliest Philosopher who was a critic of Sankara philosophy was Bhaskara in the 9th Century about whom not much is known.
Can anybody may kindly throw some light on Bhaskara's philosophy and his deviation from that of Sankara's?
Alakendu Das.
Sent from RediffmailNG on Android
From: Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 13:24:37 GMT+0530
To: Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh@umich.edu>, Mrinal Kaul <mrinalkaul81@gmail.com>, Indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Question
Dear friends,
Your discussion calls to mind a somewhat broader question: what do we know of the reception of Śańkaravedānta beyond that tradition itself, particularly during the 9th-11th centuries? The
absence of engagement, positive or negative, by others seems puzzling, no?
I will be most interested if you know of any work on this.
Thanks in advance,
Matthew
From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 3:39:23 AM
To: Mrinal Kaul <mrinalkaul81@gmail.com>; Indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Question
Thanks, Mrinal, for this clarification. This question came up because we have recently joined a Marathi discussion group, where we are reading the अमृतानुभव, a philosophical work of ज्ञानेश्वर, and the person who is leading the discussion is
mixing up the Śāṅkara Advaita with Kashmiri Śaivism. However, it seems to me that Jñāneśvara's own work, along with his more well known commentary on the Bhagavadgītā, the Jñāneśvarī alias Bhāvārthadīpikā, are syncretic works. Jñāneśvara's guru is his own
elder brother Nivr̥ttinātha belonging to the Nātha tradition. So it appears that a brand of Kashmir Śaivism percolated into Maharashtra through the Nātha tradition and it got syncretized with Śāṅkara Advaita and Bhakti traditions. I am myself just at the
beginning stages of sorting all this out, and I would appreciate any suggestions. With best wishes,
Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies
[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:16 PM Mrinal Kaul <mrinalkaul81@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Prof Deshpande,
This is a problematic question. Śaṅkara is completely unknown to the authors of non-dual Śaivism or even the dual Śiddhānta Śaivism. In fact Utpala and Abhinava are using the
'advaita' of Bhartṛhari to encounter the 'advaita' of Vijñānavāda Buddhists to establish their own 'advaita' point. So Vedānta at large and particularly Śaṅkara is nowhere in the picture. There is a very nice preface written by Prof Ambikadatta Sharma to the
book of Prof Navjivan Rastogi titled 'Abhinavagupta kā tantrāgamīya dharma-darśana' (2013) where he philosophically engages with this question mentioning why historically speaking Śaṅkara does not become important in the case of Śaiva schools of Kashmir, both
dual or non-dual.
Having said that, there certainly are references here and there to
śāntabrahmavādins, but mostly they are passing references. Vedāntins have never been important for Śaivas. However, I do think there should be a study that clearly reflects upon the two non-dual positions. I am saying this because I have myself seen
in my own teaching practice that how easy is it to slip into the shoe of Śaṅkar's advaita when one is teaching Abhinava, for instance. I am trying to work on something. Let us see if I can finish it sooner than later.
Best wishes.
Mrinal
------
Mrinal Kaul, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor - Manipal Centre for Humanities (MCH)
Coordinator - Centre for Religious Studies (CRS)
Dr TMA Pai Planetarium Complex
Alevoor Road, Manipal (Udupi) 576 104
Karnataka, INDIA
Tel +91-820-29-23567 Extn: 23567
https://mrinalkaul.academia.edu/
email: mrinal.kaul@stx.oxon.org
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 22:07, Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Can someone give me textual references for the refutation of the Shankara Advaita in works on Kashmir Shaivism? Thanks.
Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies
[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)