INTRODUCTION
Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati is generally recognized as a great scholar of Advaita of the sixteenth-seventeenth century. He is known as the second coming of Sri Adi Sankara or as a scholar as great as Sankara or someone even greater, depending on whom you talk to. He is credited popularly with establishing Advaita on a firm footing through Advaita Siddhi, a response to Nyayamrta of Vyasatirtha, a claim obviously denied by the Dvaitins. He was skilled in grammar and logic (Navya Nyaya).
But he is interesting to us because he is a great devotee of Krishna. He wrote Sribhagavad-bhakti-rasayana, the medicine of Krishna Bhakti.
Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati is generally recognized as a great scholar of Advaita of the sixteenth-seventeenth century. He is known as the second coming of Sri Adi Sankara or as a scholar as great as Sankara or someone even greater, depending on whom you talk to. He is credited popularly with establishing Advaita on a firm footing through Advaita Siddhi, a response to Nyayamrta of Vyasatirtha, a claim obviously denied by the Dvaitins. He was skilled in grammar and logic (Navya Nyaya).
But he is interesting to us because he is a great devotee of Krishna. He wrote Sribhagavad-bhakti-rasayana, the medicine of Krishna Bhakti.
Sri Lance E Nelson who studied his work says that Sri Madhusudana explains three ideas
1. Bhakti is Krishna (Bhagavan) who appears in the devotional mind of the bhakta
2. Since Krishna is supreme bliss, Bhakti is also supreme bliss
3. Bhakti includes knowledge of the self and is a more blissful experience than even moksha
The third idea is particularly controversial and has led some modern Advaitins to suggest that the Bhakti Rasayana was written under influence of Gaudiya sampradaya, while Sri Madhusudana's final views must be found in works like Advaita Siddhi. This is a suggestion of convenience to assert the superiority of Advaita, and has no value or basis. It is equally possible to invert the suggestion and say that after years of studying and arguing Advaita, Sri Madhusudana finally settled for Bhakti. It would be very difficult to judge which was earlier and adherents of various beliefs might pick the story that suits them.
It is the least of our troubles that we must decide which work was initial and which final. We are bhaktas and we shall enjoy the sections where bhakti is discussed. However, it must not be missed that both Sri Sankara and Sri Madhusudana have a special liking for Vaishnavism which is evident from their scholarly works. This Vaishnava inclination of Advaita acharyas has been overshadowed, especially in the case of Sri Sankara, by attributing books of hymns praising other demigods to them or by taking a distorted view of Advaita, which unfortunately has become the face of neo-advaita today. Again, none of these is our trouble. It is up to the Advaitins to decide how honestly they follow the footsteps of their Acharyas, and judging the extent of their adherence is none of my business.
Let us take a peek into SriBhagavad-Bhakti-Rasayana ...
While advaitins are enjoying the nectar of bhakti by imbibing maturity of thought from their acharayas, iskconites are stuck in God-demigod fantasy. Like parrots they repeat whatever superficially little they are told about other schools of thought, with absolutely no idea about how naive they make themselves look.
ReplyDeleteThe use of self satisfying terms like 'neo advaita' shows how clueless they are about what is actually happening. The blog would have been beautiful without the last paragraph of the introduction.