There are so many views about Indian scriptures and what that BOIR [Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona] scholar shared is one of the views. But when we listen to various views we get new information which we never heard before. For example I never knew why only ten Upanishads are called ‘Principle Upanishads’. But this woman said that as Sankara wrote commentaries to them they were called ‘Principle Upanishads’. It is interesting to note that though that lady said that those ten Upanishads to which Sankara wrote commentaries were called PRINCIPLE UPANISHADS, when Dr. Radhakrishnan wrote his commentaries he included another eight Upanishads [total 18 Upanishads] and the title of the book is ‘The Principle Upanishads’. So we can see here that while that lady says that as Sankara wrote commentaries to ten Upanishads they were called Principle Upanishads. But later other Upanishads were also included under the title ‘Principle Upanishads’ which that lady failed to mention. This is the basic problem when one gives basic introduction to any religious literature.
However one should understand that the major Upanishad come closer to advaita though other acharyas also tried to read their own philosophies in them. If I remember correctly Ramanuja never wrote commentary to any Upanishad because he cannot get much support for his philosophy of Vishishtadvaita in them. That is why he wrote Sri Bhyasya for Brahma-Sutra to establish his philosophy. Though Prof. M. Hiriyanna describes Vedartha-sangraha written by Ramanuja as “an independent treatise explaining in a masterly way his philosophic position, and pointing out the basis for it in the Upanishads” (The Essentials of Indian Philosophy, p. 176) I am not sure whether this is any commentary on Upanishads because if I understood Prof Hiriyanna correctly Ramanuja wrote this work to explain his philosophic position quoting from Upanishads. Because Prof. S.K. Ramachandra Rao [Head of the department of Psychology All-India Institute of Mental Health Bangalore] in his book, ‘DEVELOPMENT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL THOUGHT IN INDIA’ [Mysore, Kavyalaya Publishers, 1962, p. 134] says, ‘It is curious that Ramanuja did not comment upon the Upanisads: and this was done by Ranga-ramanuja in the eighteenth century as acceptable to the Ramanujiya school’.
This point is further endorsed by Lot who says:
…It is interesting to find that the content of his largest systematic work that isnot a commentary, the Vedartha-Samgraha, lies somewhere between that of Sri-Bhasya and Gita-Bhasya in this respect. In the case of a commentary the important question is to what extent he has been loyal to the text he comments on. In the case of a more systematic work the criterion should be to what extent he has established a convincing system which is at the same time in line with basic Vedantic principles….[italics added]—Eric Lott, Vedantic Approaches to God, London, The Macmillan Press Ltd. 1980, p. 131. @
Upanishads though not root of all Indian philosophy; still one can say that they laid the foundation on which later so many philosophies were developed. Particularly they are the root of Vedanta philosophies in which Sankara initiated the advaita Vedanta. Though later other acharyas like Ramanuja, Nimbarka etc., developed different kind of Vedantic philosophic they cannot ignore the word ‘advaita’ which Sankara used. For example Ramanuja has to agree that Vedanta talks about advaita but it is only a qualified [vishisht] advaita. So we may not agree with Sankara’s interpretation of Upanishads still no one can easily set him aside as he initiated the thought first in one sense.
I didn’t listen very carefully that video [Upnishads—The Essence of Vedic Philosophy https://youtu.be/HmTyhLnVdQ8]. However I am not sure whether that lady said that the entire Upanishads reacted against ritual. Because I think she also mentioned several sectarian Upanishads in which rituals are also part of those sampradayas. I have also needs to point out that when Upanishads reacted against ‘rituals’ it is mostly the ‘vedic rituals’ in the form of yajnas and not completely all kinds of rituals which remain part of every sampradaya. No acharya whoever promoted any kind of philosophy can oppose entire ritual. For example in Ramanuja tradition rituals are integral part of his system. So we need to keep in mind when we say that Upanishads rejected rituals, it means yajnas and not all kinds of ritual.
As that lady was answering the question she has to mention first about the Upanishads as completely different kind of text from Samhitas, Brahmanas and Aranyakas but later has to point out that strictly speaking there are several Upanishads which remain part of Aranyaka but later separated as separate Upanishad.
Well we all need to learn a lot from each other and I think this lady while answering the questions has to answer only to those specific questions as she is not giving one complete lecture in which she needs to be careful not to contradict. This is the problem when we enter any question and answer kind of learning.
Db
10-09-2021
Note
@ All the books that I have read so far on Ramanuja and his philosophy no where I found any reference supporting the point that Ramanuja wrote any commentary on any Upanishad. And Swami Adidevananda, [1956 “Sri Ramanuja on the Upanishads” S.S. Ragavachari,: Vedarthasangraha of Sri Ramanujacharya] says that this work [Vedarthasangraha], ‘takes the place of a commentary on the Upanishads’. So I think this is actually not any commentary on Upanishad in traditional sense. It is interesting note that:
As for Ramanuja, I think he is only debating against Advaita. He is trying to refute it, through his own commentary on the same text, the Brahma-sutra, giving a different interpretation. He uses a different kind of argument to establish his position against the Advaitic position, but there is nothing philosophical per se in it. There is no demolition of the purvapaksa and the establishment of siddhanta; it is just a way (p.16) of interpreting Upanisads. He says that it is more appropriate to understand them in terms of his Visistadvaita.— Dr. Rukmini , Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion (Philosophical Explorations In the Indian Bhakti Tradition), Edited by Daya Krishna, Mukund Lath & Francine E. Krishna, Indian Council of Philosophical Research 2000, New Delhi, 2000, pp.16-17
When I shared this article one person wrote me back by giving the following information. For this I gave my response below to this—db
‘…it did not sit well with me when you said Ramanuja did not write a commentary on the Upanishads. I finally got around to investigating this and found that he wrote a major work on the Upanishads but not in the traditional commentary format. From Ramanuja.org (https://ramanuja.org/sri/Web/VedarthasangrahaOverview):
Sri Ramanuja wrote nine works [Vedartha-sangraha, Sri-bhashya, Gita-bhashya, Vedanta-Dipa, Vedanta-Sara, Saranagati-gadya, Vaikuntha-gadya, Sriranga-gadya and Nityagrantha] in Sanskrit on the philosophy of Visishtadvaita. Of these, the Vedartha-sangraha occupies a unique place inasmuch as this work takes the place of a commentary on the Upanishads, though not in a conventional sense or form. The work mirrors a total vision of the Upanishads, discussing all the controversial texts in a relevant, coherent manner. It is in fact an independent exposition of the philosophy of the Upanishads. Prof. M. Hiriyanna describes it as “an independent treatise explaining in a masterly way his philosophic position, and pointing out the basis for it in the Upanishads” (The Essentials of Indian Philosophy, p. 176).
Sri-bhasya was his commentary on the Brahma Sutras. He needed to follow Shankara’s pattern of commentaries on Upanishad, Vedanta Sutras and Gita. This is not a big deal but I found it interesting. It seems odd that his vedarthasangraha is not more widely available.
Rajesh
14-09-2021
DB: Response:
The main issue here is how to Understand Sankara as BOIR looks promoting more Sankara advaitic vedanda. In this context I pointed out that Upanishads come closer to Sankara and other later acharyas has to first agree then either disagree or ‘QUALIFY’ it as Ramanuja has done. Well considering the ocean of Indian philosophy it gives room for everyone to have her own view.
Thanks. God bless you.
Db
Thanks Rick for this new information on Ramanuja. You always help me to gain new points both on Hinduism and Muktiveda. Anyhow the next lecture in this by Shastriji might help us to understand Sankara with more information about his method of interpreting Upanishads. Well again we need not agree with Shastriji but we can listen and further probe to gain more information about Upanishad and Vedanta.
The main issue here is how to Understand Sankara as BOIR looks promoting more Sankara advaitic vedanda. In this context I pointed out that Upanishads come closer to Sankara and other later acharyas has to first agree then either disagree or ‘QUALIFY’ it as Ramanuja has done. Well considering the ocean of Indian philosophy it gives room for everyone to have her own view.
Thanks. God bless you.
Db
15-09-2021
Leave a Reply