Template talk:Subschools of Vedanta

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Template:Subschools of Vedanta

Hi Joshua, Thanks for your updates on the template. It seems to me that Neo-vedanta of Vivekananda is a type of Advaita. Look at 3rd paragraph of Sooklal in p34. Also, by Radhakhrishnan, did you mean Ramakrishna? Chaipau (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chapeau. Neo-Advaita gives prominence to Advaita, yet it gives its own intepretation. See Rambachan, Anatanand (1994), The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas, University of Hawaii Press. Sooklal:

By the Neo-Vedanta of Swami Vivekananda is meant the NewVedanta as distinguished from the old traditional Vedanta developed by Sankaracharya (c. 788-820 AD). SanJcara's Vedanta is known as Advaita or non-dualism, pure and simple. Hence it is sometimes referred to as Keva[a-Advaita or unqualified monism. It may also be called abstract monism in so far as Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is, according to it, devoid of all qualities and distinctions, nirguna and nirvisesa. According to Rathna Reddy (1984 : 18-19), Neo-Vedantism is a re-establishment and re-statement, reconstruction and revaluation, reorientation and reinterpretation of the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara with modern arguments, in modern language, suited to modern man, adjusting itself with all the modern challenges.
The Neo-Vedanta is also Advaitic inasmuch as it holds that Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is one without a second, elwmevadvitiyam. But as distinguished from the traditional Advaita of Sankara, it is a synthetic Vedanta which reconciles Dvaita or dualism and Advaita or non-dualism and also other theories of reality. In this sense it may also be called concrete monism in so far as it holds that Brahman is both qualified, sag una and qualityless, nirguna (Chatterjee, 1963 : 260).(Sooklal 1993 p.33)

And by Radhakrishnan, I definately mean Radhakrishnan. Rinehart:

The hegemony of neo-Vedanta was achieved by a long, circuitous, and ultimately international pathway. That pathway featured local attempts by colonized intellectuals to defend Hindu culture from Eurocentric and Christian denunciation; with time it featured the attempt to transform the previously embattled worldview of Vedanta into a kind of aggressive missionary message. In figures such as Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan we witness Vedanta traveling to the West, were it nourished the spiritual hunger of Europeans and Americans in the early decades of the twentieth century (a hunger with its own fascinating history). During its sojourn in the West, Vedanta was in turn nourished with both financial support and the increased intellectual prestige that came from being associated with the like sof Aldous Huxley and Christopher Isherwood. Some would argus that it was, in fact, this refashioning of Vedanta in the West that allowed it to assume a veneer of genuine "Indianness" that it might not otherwise have had. Returning to India under the banner of India's spiritual wisdom, Vedanta could be compared to pizza - an "authentic" Italian meal created in America (bharati 1970). Thus Vedanta's international prestige helped further cement its position of cultural leadership in India. (Rinehart 2004 p.199-200)

Rinehart:

Though neo-Hindu authors prefer the idiom of tolerance to that of inclusivism, it is clear that what is advocated is less a secular view of toleration than a theological scheme for subsuming religious difference under the aegis of of Vedantic truth. Thus Radhakrishnan's view of experience as the core of religious truth effectively leads to harmony only when and if other relgions are willing to assume a position under the umbrella of Vedanta. We might even say that the theme of neo-Hindu tolerance provided the Hindu not simply with a means to claiming the right to stand alongside the other world religions, but with a strategy for promoting Hinduism as the ultimate form of religion itself. (Rinehart 2004 p.196-197)

Interesting to note: Radhakrishnan was a

Smarta, the branch of Brahmins who give special reference to Shankara, and who see the various gods as manifesttaions of the One. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Please note that Advaita is not synonymous with Sankara. The diagram shows the Bhedabheda class of philosophies as Advaitic too, besides Shankara's philosophy. Ramanuja's philosophy is called Visishta-Advaita, just as Shankara's is called Kevala-Advaita. All the Bhedabheda class of philosophies have tried to reconcile relationship of the jiva with the atman---they are same and yet different. And this is what Vivekananda did too, and should be classed under Bhedabheda. Chaipau (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think, but that's based on my own understanding, not on sources, that Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan are closer to Bhedabheda than to Advaita, despite their 'public adherence' to Advaita. That's revolutionary to state, isn't it? But since I don't know of sources underscoring such an understanding of Neo-vedanta (though Nicholson might be interpreted in that way), while I have read several sources which state that Neo-Vedanta is a novel interpretation & understanding of Hinduism, it seems saver to me to present it as a fourth stream. Would you know of sources which justify a Bhedabheda-classification? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• [1] "in the modern period Bhedābheda Vedānta has been eclipsed in popularity by neo-Vedāntic interpretations of Advaita Vedānta philosophy"
• [2] "Neo-Vedanta, as a modern form of bhedabheda"
• [3] "Neo-Vedanta is distinguished from traditional forms of Vedanta, such as Advaita, by its attitude to the text of the Veda, the sacred revelation, or primordial wisdom, (veda) of which Vedanta is the end or ultimate goal (anta). Traditional forms of Vedanta, like Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita, Behdabheda, and so on, regard the Veda much as the Abrahamic religions traditionally regard their respective scriptures: as absolute and fixed repositories of truth in terms of which other truth claims and the validity of all spiritual experiences are to be evaluted."

I guess there's more to find. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In many of these sources, I am guessing "Bhedabheda" is a short form of "

Ekasarana. Chaipau (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

What a great religion/country, with such a diversity! Thanks for the link. did you read "Unifying Hinduism" by Nicholson? He also points to those 'unifying' tendences; apparently there are more of such 'trends' in Indian history.I find it incredible, this richness of Indian culture, and this immense diversity. That's a good reason, I think, to make clear at Wikipedia that the contemporary understanding of Hinduism is dominated by Neo-Vedanta, and that there is so much more to Hinduism. NB: the first link is from Nicholson; he does not seem to imply Achintya-bhedabheda, but the larger tradition. What the Hare Krishna's mean I don't know, but you might have a point there, I guess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As far as neo-vedanta is concerned, we can ask under which box does it belong: (1) "Vedanta" (current); (2) "Advaita" or (3) "Bhedabheda"? That it does not belong in its current position can be inferred from Sooklal: "Neo-Vedantism is a re-establishment and re-statement, reconstruction and revaluation, reorientation and reinterpretation of the Advaita Vedanta of Sankara with modern arguments, in modern language, suited to modern man, adjusting itself with all the modern challenges." (Sooklal 1st paragraph). The description that neo-vedanta "reconciles" advaita and dvaita should not be construed to mean we now have a third type of philosophy because this description is not special to it. Bhedabheda philosophies too are described similarly as reconciling advaita and dvaita. Thus the question remains, whether it should be represented as a box under "Adviata" or "Bedabheda". Chaipau (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read "reinterpretation" as "a new form", as it is also meant in other sources. But I also like the Behadbheda-categorisation. How about asking some third opinions at [[4]]? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just read (again) somewhere about Vivekananda not strictly following the Vedas - no, straightly phrased: rejecting the authority of the Vedas - which is different from all the classical or orthodox schools of Vedanta, to whom the vedas are axiomic sacred truth. That might also be an argument to make a split between "classical/orthodox" and "modern/heterodox" schools. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [* Nicholson, Andrew J. (2010), Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Columbia University Press test] for a possible further modification. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please quote from Nicholson, to illustrate the point you are trying to make?

But as far as I can tell, from Sooklal, Vivekananda's neo-Advaita is basically Advaita. "Swami Vivekananda maintains that the Advaita clearly postulates one reality only, that is, Brahman; everything else is "unreal", manifested and manufactured out of Brahman by the power of Maya." (p34) Clearly, this position is untenable in Dvaita. Where he differs from Kevala-Advaita of Shankara is his acceptance of both the Saguna (a relative aspect) and Nirguna forms of Brahman. Here: "The Personal God worshipped by the bhakta is not separate or different from Brahman. All is Brahman, the One without a second; only Brahman, as unity or absolute, is too much of an abstraction to be loved and worshipped; so the bhaktll chooses the relative aspect of Brahman, that is Ishvara, the Supreme Ruler (Vivekananda, 1978 : II)." (p35) Since Vivekananda accepts both the Nirvisesa and Savisesa Brahman, Neo-Vedanta should be placed under Advaita but parallel to Kevala-Advaita. Chaipau (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the wrong link; it must be this test-version.
I have some problems with your argumentation: it's your personal interpretation of a primary source; that's

Reply by Chaipau

• I have only used a secondary/tertiary source (Sooklal), which you have provided. The quote from Vivekananda is from Sooklal, so I am quoting Sooklal, not Vivekananda. It is just that Vivekananda states his position very clearly. I can provide other quotes, if you want them. Here is another: "The Neo-Vedanta is also Advaitic inasmuch as it holds that Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is one without a second, ekamevadvitiyam." The ekamevadvitiyam, emphatically says there is not second, an emphatic rejection of Dvaita.
• Note that the original template was based on Sheridan's. So your insertion of Neo-vedanta is itself WP:OR. But sometimes it is OK to extend an original if we can remain true to its spirit and follow it properly.
• Sheridan used two concepts to classify the different Vedanta philosophies. Advaita-Dvaita at the top level, and Savisesa-Nirvisesa to further divided Advaita. As I mentioned above, Vivekananda himself very emphatically puts Neo-vedanta in the Advaita group. But Neo-Vedanta does not reject either Saguna or the Nirguna Brahman, but defines the Saguna Brahman as a "relational" aspect of the Nirguna Brahman. Though it leans heavily on Kevala-advaita, it is not Kevala-advaita and so is placed independently.
• To this you have added "Classical" and "Modern" Hinduism. This is not needed for the following reasons.
  • This template is about Vedanta philosophies, not Hinduism. There are many other forms of Hinduisms. For example, Shaktism is not formulated in the framework of Vedantic philosophies.
  • It was not part of Sheridan's original classification scheme.
  • Aesthetically, it makes the classification too "busy" and harder to follow.

I hope you will agree

Chaipau (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by JJ - Yeah, I see the logic. I'm somewhat more inclined to a historical classification. But following a philosophical classification, yours make sense. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad that we agree on this. And thank you for updating the template. The historical progression can be discerned from the dates that you have inserted. If you want a fuller description on how each philosophical schools reacted to one another, the ideal place would be the Vedanta page itself. Chaipau (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another nice link. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this one is really interesting: "...as is characteristic of other neo-Vedantic writers, in his commentary upon Gita 13:32-34 Sivananda slips quickly and quietly into a Vishishtadvaita ("qualified non-dualism") Vedanta interpretation" (Robert Neil Minor (1986), Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavad Gita). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure now that Neo-vedanta can be classified as bhedabheda (though I am still open to being enlightened). Here is an example: "Although in the modern period Bhedābheda Vedānta has been eclipsed in popularity by neo-Vedāntic interpretations of Advaita Vedānta philosophy, its lineage continues today among traditional scholars in Puṣṭimārga and Gaudīya Vaiṣṇava religious communities." ([5]). Thus, according to some at least, Neo-vedanta and Bhedabheda are competitive. So I would prefer to let the template stand as it is. Chaipau (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I didn't find any unambiguous source yet for this. Nicholson of course, though, is presenting an argument in favour of Bhedabheda against neo-Vedanta. Never mind; I'll let you know if I find other interesting stuff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed Bedhabheda, Avaita, Bedha, and neo-Advaita on one line, since the first three are three different stands, and neo-Advaita is a significant new development. I've also removed the terms "savisesa" and "nirvisesa", since they are not

Have added Vishishtadvaita in the first column as it is not a part of Bhedabheda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N sahi (talk • contribs) 11:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is original research (WP:SYNTHESIS). Is there a similar chart, or table or equivalent, directly in a source? There is plenty of evidence that Advaita existed pre-Gaudapada, and Gaudapada himself is generally dated to be from early 6th century. The Advaita 8th century claim is misleading. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: thank you for your comment. A previous version is available in a direct source. The version is [6] which is pretty much what is given in Sheridan's book on page 139. Chaipau (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the date to 5th-8th century. Shankara synthesized pre-existing Advaita-views; yet, to speak of an Advaita school prior to the Brahma-sutras, which have a bedhabedha-outlook, is pushing the boundaries too far. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CONSENSUS, at which point, we may retire this template. Chaipau (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Only Ekasarana dharma? I hadn't realized that. Anyway, I think that Sheridan's diagram is too limited; several schools or traditions are missing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been the case since 2016: [7]. Though I agree that the Sheridan diagram is incomplete, it is probably correct in dividing Advaita into

Abheda and putting Vishishtadvaita in Bhedabheda. What are your thoughts? Chaipau (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Joshua Jonathan:, do you think we could move forward on this? Chaipau (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: do what you think is best; I've made a copy of the template, that suffies for me. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]