User:Amitrochates/Hindu philosophy table

This page was previously used to create content for the article on Hindu philosophy. That version is still available here.

Biography
Outcaste Brahmin — Dallmayr

Further Description of Works — Dewy

Metaphysics
Dnyaneshwar distinguishes his philosophy from the essentialist metaphysics of the Vedanta school and the anti–essentialism of the extreme shunyavada (doctrine of emptiness) of Madhyamaka school of Buddhism. Dnyaneshwar considers the traditional essentialist designation of being as Sat-Chit-Ananda (existence–consciousness–bliss) in Vedanta as a way of shielding being from the opposite interpretation, that being is nonexistence, unconscious and full of pain. The terms, either individually or in combination, are coherent only because of they refer to and counter their opposites. However, according to Dnyaneshwar, the experience of being itself will make them "vanish like the clouds that shower rain or like the streams that flow into the sea or like paths that reach their goal".

After establishing the limitations of affirming essences in being, Dnyaneshwar refutes anti–essentialism or radical negativism of shunyavad. He disapproves of statements such as "being exists or not exists" because they allow for the possibility of the non–existence of being. Dnyaneshwar argues, "if the situation is such that nothing at all exists, who knows that there is nothing". He illustrates his argument with the following example— "if the extinguisher of light is extinguished with light who knows that there is no light". Dnyaneshwar's philosophy, thus, guards against ascription of nothingness or emptiness to being.

Dnayneshwar’s answer to the ontic–ontological difference, the question of how the being relates to the world, differs from that of Samkhya and Advaita Vedanta schools. Samkhya proposes the existence of two eternal realities constantly at odds with each other- the purusha (spectator or spirit) and the prakriti (material energy); while Advaita Vedanta believes the world to be illusory or a lesser reality (Mayavada) compared to the ultimate reality of brahman. Dnayneshwar instead propounds that the world proceeds from the divine union of Shiva and Shakt which, he says, are "neither completely identical not completely different". Bahirat believes Shiva and Shakti, in Dnyaneshwar's philosophy, refer to the self–existent reality or pure knowledge and its self-awareness. Dnyaneshwar holds the world to be an emanation of Shiva and Shakti's divine love. Therefore, the relationship between being and the world becomes similar to the relationship between parents and their children. This doctrine is linked by the theory of sphurtivada or chidvilas. It follows from the theory that the objects of the world have a more real existence, than in Advaita, and are imbued with divine love. Liberation therefore, consists in realisation of this relationship. Dnyaneshwar writes that, in liberation “God and devotee” become one.

Dnyaneshwar disagrees with Advaita's doctrine of mayavada because any real bifurcation between ignorance and knowledge would be contradictory. Positing the existence of an illusory world outside of a true ultimate reality would limit the degree to which such an ultimate reality could said to be true, while positing the existence of ignorance outside knowledge brings into question hoow such an ignorance be known. Dallamayer writes that Dnyaneshwar “restores dignity and integrity to ordinary life experience”.

Bahirat (Metaphysics), Dallmayr (use google page no's), Prasad

Reception and legacy
Bal Gangadhar Tilak thought hiighly of Dnyaneshwari because it challenged Shankara's renunciatory tradition by considering the material world to be an natural expression of reality instead of an illusion.

Hindu article

Richard King (Book Review)
Journal: Journal of the American Academy of Religion Book: Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism: The Mahayana Context of the Gaudapadiya-karika. By Richard King. SUNY Press, 1995. Review: "King argues that the Gaudapadiya-kdrika can only be correctly understood in the context of Mahayana terms and concepts. This, he argues, is due to the fact that Gaudapada formulated his philosophy as a response to the prevailing Buddhist paradigms and not because he, himself, was a Buddhist. King's thesis is convincing when one observes that the Gaudapadiya-karika often uses Buddhist terminology and is structured on Mahayana philosophical paradigms."

"Chapter two is an investigation into the Upanijadic heritage of the Gaudapddlya-karika... King makes note of the Upanishadic Brahman Idtman, the four states of experience (waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and the fourth), the absolutism found in the Bhagavadgita, and the concept of Brahman found in the Brahmasutras. King's purpose... is to highlight the fact that the heritage of the Gaudapddiya-karika... Vedantic roots... unlike Mahayana Buddhism, Advaita accepts a doctrine of absolutism."