Twentieth Century Controversy between Advaita and ViidvaitaBy twentieth century the living systems of Indian philosophy were reduced to Navyanyaya, Yoga and Schools of Vedanta. The yoga system is integrated [to an extent] with Vedanta. From its beginning all Indian philosophers cared to master Navyanyya and it is living through them without any independent contribution. The boom of Indology during colonial period brought out the printed editions of classics of Indian philosophy, literature and other branches of study that the Europeans found relevant. This new interest in the traditional stock of knowledge simultaneously stimulated the emergence of Sanskrit literature in classical lines. We can find the ripples of this all over India. There were attempts to produce new commentaries, mahkvyas and other literature in Sanskrit language: an important event that mapped in the history of Sanskrit literature after the development of regional languages. The Vedanta systems were closely connected to some sects and groups were continuing their influence. The important players were advaitavedanta, viidvaita and Dvaita systems of Vedanta. Among these systems advaitavedanta exercised its influence through the monasteries established by ankaracrya. Above all the conservative Brahmins who were smrtas upheld ankara Vedanta as their ideology. Viidvaita and Dvaita gave importance to bhakti than knowledge found followers among all sects and to an extent [un-knowingly and un-expectedly] become the cause the social movements in India. The cults of Vishnu, Narayana, Krishna, Rama etc. were existing even before the advent of advaitavedanta. The attack of Vedic systems on the concept of God forced them to develop a God-Centric philosophy which resulted in the origin of Viidvaita. The differences with Viidvaita on epistemological as well as ontological issues lead to the development of Dvaita. The prime cause was that Viidvaita could not challenge advaitavedanta since it also believes in non-duality.The controversy between advaitins and Dvaitins received the attention of scholars from the beginning. The challenges forwarded by Madhva were further developed by Jayatrtha which found its culmination in Vysatrtha. His Nyymta was a classic in the Dvaita advaita controversy that the philosophical activity of the succeeding centuries were depended on this work. This heavy scholastic activity pushed the original arguments and challenges that viidvaitins like Rmnuja developed to the backyard or purposefully forget. The new situation, the colonial interest on Indian knowledge systems, stimulated traditional scholars to look in to the situation once more. Though the controversy between advaitins and viidvaitins were running on a low pace since Rmnuja it found a new momentum in the last decades of 19th century which continued to the 20th century. This movement centered around four traditional scholars, namely, Vasudev astri Abhyankar, Rmaryakvi, N.S.Anantakrishna astri and Virarghavcrya. The first three were advaita vedantins. Vrarghavcarya joined this movement from Viidvaita and refuted the arguments of the trio. This paper attempts an introspection to the nature of controversy between advaita and Viidvaita. Origin of ControversyThe controversy between advaitins and viidvaitas commences with ankaras arguments against personal god in his Brahma sutra bhya. He rejected the views of God shared by Nyya, Pcartra and Pupata systems. Further he had challenged the authority of gamas. ankara attracted quick reaction. His arguments against vaieikas also contributed to the controversy. The first among his critics was Bhskarcrya. He developed some arguments against the avidya concept of advaitavedanta. The history of Viidvaita commences with Ranganthamuni, who is believed to have written two books; Yogarahasya and Nyyatattva. Unfortunately these works are not available. Ranganthamuni was the first crya who tried to develop a philosophy following the Alwars. All its prominent preceptors of Viidvaita tried to refute Advaita.Ymuncrya (916-1041) ADYmuncrya, the grand child of Nthamuni wrote Siddhitraya, Gitrthasamgraha and gamaprmnya. He is considered as the first systematic author of Viidvaita. Ymuncrya in his works controverted with the Advaitins. He tried to get his system admitted by tradition. He wrote gamaprmya with a view to overcome the criticism of the Advaitins that the Pacartra lacks Vedic authority. Siddhitraya, a collection of three independent works, viz., tmasiddhi, Samvidsiddhi and varasiddhi, he attacked the Advaita doctrines. In tmasiddhi he refutes the Advaita doctrine of self. Samvidsiddhi examines the tenability of the views of Vimukttman depicted in Iasiddhi. varasiddhi establishes the Supremacy of Lord Nryaa. Gtrthasamgraha is an exposition of the meaning of Bhagavad-Gita in thirty six verses. It deals with the nature of Prakti, Purua and Puruottama. It also promotes the need for bhakti and prapatti for moksa(Srinivasachari 514).Rmnuja (1017 1137)Rmnuja followed Yamunacarya in all respect. Following the instruction of Ymuna he wrote a commentary on Brahma sutras- rbhya, in which he attacked the Advaitins. He collected Advaita tenets in laghuprvapaka and mahprvapaka and refuted them in Laghusiddhnta and Mahasiddhnta. Like Bhskara, Rmnuja also concentrated on the concept of avidya. He tried to prove the un-tenability of avidya by formulating the classical sapta anupapatti. Rmnuja wrote a commentary on Bhagavad-Gita which is not polemic. His Vedrthasamgraha is an attempt to prove that scriptures advocate the philosophy of Viidvaita. In it, he attacked Advaitins and equates the sat of the Upaniads with Brahman, and Brahman is equated with Nryaa. He never wrote a separate commentary on the Upaniads. Rmnuja has some more works to his credit, but they are not polemical. Rmnuja criticized the view of advaitins up to Vimukttman. Following Rmnuja, Nryacarya in his Ntimla criticized Advaitins. Mahcrya wrote Vedntavijaya to refute the Advaitins.Sudaranasri Sudaranasri is well known in viiadvaita circles as the commentator of rbhya. He lived between the latter half of 13th century and first quarter of 14th century. His sub-commentary on rbhya- rutaprakika is important as bhmati to advavaitavedanta. He expands the arguments of Rmnuja. Vedntadeika (1268-1369) Between Rmnuja and Vedntadeika, there was only Sudaranasri who contributed materials to Visitadvaita dialectics against the Advaitins. Through his works Deika tried to consolidate the system of visishtadvaita. This endeavor gave him a position next to Rmnuja in the system. His atadi is the first work in the whole history of any Vedanta that tried to gather the inherent contradictions of advaitaventa and to refute them. This work was the model before Vysatrtha. Advaitins never tried to refute or attack Viidvaitins. Instead they continuously attacked nyaya-vaiseshika systems who were strong dualists. Viidvaitins and other dualist theist systems of Vedanta had borrowed heavily from Nyya-Vaieika to formulate their ontology and epistemology. There were many minor works that controverted with advaitavedanta. Their individual contribution is rather inferior compared to the works of Rmnuja and Vedntadeika. Mahchrya wrote caamruta, a commentary on the atadi of Vedntadeika and vedntavijaya, a voluminous work, to refute rival systems. Vedntavijaya mangaladpika, an abridged exposition of the Vedntavijaya of Mahcrya, is a true dialectical work of Sudaranaguru. This work closely follows the atadi. Tirodhnnupapatti is an anonymous work that criticizes the Advaita view that avidya veils Brahman(Krishnamacharya 236). Pucchabrahmavdanirsa is also an anonymous work which criticizes the Advaita view that Brahman described in taittiriyopaniad as nandapuccha and not as nanda. Pratijvdrtha is a refutation of the Advaitic interpretation of Chandogya VI.I. Its authorship is also unknown(Krishnamacharya 324). Prapacamithytvnumnakhadana is refutation of the Advaita inference on the falsity of inference(327). There are many works of the same name(32829). Pramnupapatti points out that pramas of the Advaitins have no validity on account as advaitins admitted ignorance(331). Brahmjnanirsa(350), Bhedasamarthana(355), Mokakraatvda(361), Lakanupapatti(381), Vyvahrika satyatvakhadana(409), Vyvahrikasatyatvakhandanasra(409) etc(409) are some other works which controvert the views of the Advaitins.The Reaction of AdvaitinsThe silence of the Advaitins against the challenge of Viidvaitins is difficult to comprehend. Though Advaitins gave due respect to the criticism of the Dvaitins and were vigilant to answer them, they spared the Viidvaitins. Some scholars suggest that though the Advaitins never considered the Viidvaitins separately all the post Rmnuja Advaita works contain answers to the criticisms of the Viidvaitins. Here, an observation made by S. Dasgupta is relevant. According to him, the Viidvaitins were reluctant to adopt the methodology of the new in their school of logic, which was the current trend in philosophy. According to Dasgupta, Viidvaita never has a polemist like Madhusudana Sarasvati in Advaita Vedanta and Vysatrtha in Dvaita(Dasgupta 11112). The attempts to meet the challenges of Viidvaitins were rare until 17th century. The ontology and logic of all Vaishnava sects were directly influenced by the nyaya-vaiseshika systems advaitins tried to refute nyya-vaieika systems. As a result there a series of books which controvert with each other on the concept of difference. Bhedaratnam of ankaramira, Bhedasiddhi of Vivanthapacnana, advaitaratna of Mallanrdhycrya, Bhedadhikkra and advaitadpika of Nsimhcrya, and advaitaratnarakaam of Madhusdanasarasvati are few books in this series. As the name suggest Bhedaratna and Bhedasiddhi ware written to establish the existence of difference as areal category, which is part of reaction to the controversy started with ankaras criticism of Nyya-vaieika. Advaitins like Srharsha, Chitsukha, Nsimhrama, nandajna, nandabodhabharaka etc. severely criticized the doctrines of Nyya and Vieika. Before 20th century, the known response to visishtadvaita criticism was from Krananda Sarasvati who had lived during the period between 1600-and1700 AD(Thangaswami 292). His Siddhnta Siddhjana is a sub-commentary on nkarabhya on Brahma sutra. But the protion discussing the first aphorism alone is now available. The commentary, Ratnatlika by Bhskara Dikita and the criticism of Siddhjana by Campakecrya in his Vedntakaakoddhra also discuss the portion up to this(292).This book attempts to answer the defects shown by Rmnuja in rbhya. Ayyanna Disksita is the author of Vysattparyaniraya which is considered as a refutation of atadai. He is believed to have lived between A.D. 1700 and 1800(Thangaswami 262). Svmi astri (1750-1825) was a scholar in the tradition of Appayya Dikita. He wrote rbhsyadaam(416). There were works like Tatvacandrika of Ummaheswara, the Viidvaita daasrasangraha of Brahmadevapaita, the Viidvaitabhajanam, etc. But these attempts up to 19th century could not attract neither the attention of Viidvaitins or advaitins or these were partially successful in the task(Datta). As stated earlier twentieth century scholars tried to answer the challenges of Viidvaitins. This was by three traditional scholars Abhyankar, Ramayrayakavi and Anantakrishna astri. Vasudeva astri Abhyankar (1850- 1920)Abhyankar is the author and editor of many well-known books. He edited Sarvadaranasamgraha, Sidhntabindu, Mimmsnyyapraka, rbhya etc., with scholarly commentaries. He wrote, Advaitamoda to refute the criticisms of rbhya and its criticisms on Advaita. Advaitamoda is divided into four chapters. The first chapter summarizes the advaita position. Second chapter is given to illustrate the visishtadvaita tenets. This chapter also gives a table that illustrate the difference between advaita and Viidvaita. The third chapter is Viidvaita matnupapatti. It answers the objections raised in the rbhya 1-1-1. Topics like mya, moksha, jvanmukti, the difference of both mmmsas, bhakti, jiva and vara, the nirguatva of atman, nirvikalpaka pratyksha, the difficulty in establishing difference, mithyatva, the self-luminance of anubhuti and its eternity, the non-duality of Brahman, the examination of the meaning of scriptures etc., were discussed in detail. He concludes that the intention of Bdaryaa is nirviea advaita.The fourth chapter, avidyopapatti, is used to establish the tenability of avidya. It focuses on the seven defects put forth by Rmnuja. Abhyankar here comments that (Comans 573) He concludes the book saying that (Comans 606)Ramarayakavi (Rama Rao) 1875 to 1914 Ramarayakavi was also known as Aparaankara. He lived in Pamidipadu in Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh. His parents were Mohan Rao and Hanumamba(Datta). He was a prolific writer and have about 140 works to his credit(Datta). He was a viidvaitin converted to advaita ideology after reading the pacadai of Vidyraya. The influence of Vidyraya is visible in his views also. Like ankaracharya he too wrote stotras, prakaranas, polemic works, and explanatory treatises. Vedarthasamgraha is a prakarana of advaitavedanta while Brahma sutra Chatusutrivichara is an explanatory work. Though this work is not polemic, it explores all the possible meanings of the sutras from the advaita point of view presupposing all possible challenges. He puts forth more than one hundred alternatives as the meaning of atah in athatobrahmajijnasa. Sri ankaraankarabhyavimara is an attempt to refute the criticisms leveled against advaitavedanta by Rmnuja in his rbhya. This book successfully answers the defects discussed in the laghusiddhnta and mahsiddhnta portions, which contain the majority of Rmnujas arguments against advaitavedanta, of rbhya. The work needs more academic discussion to bring out his real contribution. N.S. Ananthakrishna astri [Advaitnanda Sarasvati] 1886-1967N.S.Anantakrishna astri was a scholar belonging to the Nrani village of Palakkad. His father was Subramania Vadyar and mother Laxmi. After his studies he joined Sanskrit college tirupati in 1911 as first assistant. In 1917 he was appointed as the professor of Sanskrit at Calcatta University. He served there until 1947. In 1948 he joined bharatiya vidyabhavan as the principal of gitavidyalaya and Vacaspatya course. In 1961 he received presidents gold medel for Sanskrit scholars (Sundaram, An Intellect with Rare Insight). He passed away on 15th November 1964. He entered patsamnyasa before his death and received the name advaitananda. (He entered samnysa by 11.10 and died by 12.20)(Sundaram, Mahamahopadyaya Noorni Ananthakrishna Shastri (1886-1964))Though there were some authors none of them are a match to astri. Like Ramarayakavi astri too devoted his whole life to controvert with Viidvaitins and Dvaitins. Yet he is remembered as a champion in Advaita Viidvaita controversy. This twentieth century scholar wrote voluminous works on Advaita Vedanta and brought out edited volumes of Advaita works with scholarly introductions. Yet his masterpiece is atabhai. This book attacks the atadi of Vedntadeika. atadi has been left unanswered by advaitins and it inspired all who want to criticize advaitavedanta. There is a view that atadi, as the name imply contain one hundred defects of advaitavedanta. At present it have only sixty six topics. The rest were lost. astri here comments that the term ata is used in the sense of many. In atabhi astri rejects sixty four topics and lives two topics as they were not directly connected with advaitavedanta. atabhi has another sense as it refers to the village of astri Nrai. Advaita tatvauddhi, advaitadipika, advaita tatvasudha etc. try to answer the criticisms that followed atabhi. Its a fact that atabhi made a lasting impact and thus contributed to the development of philosophical activity which was dormant for some centuries. Except Ramaryakavi, the other two scholars were part of formal higher education system and had greater opening to their contemporary academic community. Being expensive Ramarayakavi was reluctant to publish his books for it. The case of Abhyankar and astri were different. Abhyankar had close association with Bhandarkar Oriental research institute and he was a member of it from the beginning. Michel Comans makes a mistaken reference about the book Advaitamoda which according to him is the first work that directly controverted with Viidvaitins(Comans xiii). Advaitamoda was first published in 1918. Ramarayakvi Died in 1914. There for Sri ankarankarabhya vimara precedes advaitmoda. Comparing with the works of astri and Ramarayakavi Abhyankars advaitamada is inferior in some respects. Abhyankar maintains a balance in his arguments while Kavi and astri vigorously attack viidvaita. The approach of Abhyankar is academic in sprit. But Kavi and astri reacts as true followers of advaitavedanta. Abhyankars had published a critical edition of rbhya with his own sub commentary. The advaitamoda was his attempt to silence his critics who criticized that he had given his heart to viidvaita. Yet philosophically the works of Kavi and astri enjoy prime position in all respects.The metaphysics and epistemology of viidvaita is developed out of the dualist tradition in Indian thought. Mmmsakas, Nayyyikas and Vaieikas are the strong members of this dualist tradition. Mmmsakas have their own approach towards material world and its composition. Further they developed exegetic tools for interpreting scripture. The Prbhkara and Bha schools differences in their views also. The Nyya Vaieika tradition developed totally different ideas about universe, self and other categories. But these two systems are not God centric and they do not have a theology. Visishtadvaitins and dvaitins integrated the dualism of nyaya- vaiseshika and mimamsa with their strong theology. As this theology and ontology have their roots on dualist epistemology and ontology andvatins like Sankara, Sriharsha, chitsukha, anandabodha, anandajna directed their attention on Nyaya Vaiseshika. So far the controversy between advaitins and mimamsakas not properly attended. Same is the case in nyaya vaisesika too. As madhusoodana sarasvati attempted to answer Vyasatirtha in his Advaitasiddhi a dialectical dual that remembered the controversy between idealist Buddhists and Nayyayikas, has been commenced. Such an involvement is absent in the case of visishtadvaita. The responses of the 20th century trio answers the questions posed by opponents but they are mere extensive explanations of the arguments of earlier scholars. Yet they need more academic attention. Works CitedComans, Michael. Advaitamoda by Vasudevsastri Abhyankar: A Study of Advaita and Visistadvaita. Australian National university, 1986. Print.Dasgupta, Surendranath. History of Indian Philosphy. Vol. 3. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas Pvt. Ltd, 1981. Print. 5 vols.Datta, K.S.R. A New Star in the Advaitic Galaxy. A New Star in the Advaitic Galaxy. html. N. p., 20 Apr. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. http://yabaluri.org/TRIVENI/CDWEB/anewstarintheadvaiticgalaxyapr79.htm.Krishnamacharya, V. Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS. X. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1966. Print.Srinivasachari, P. N., ,. The Philosophy of Visstadvaita. Adyar [Madras: Adyar Library, 1946. Print.Sundaram, V. An Intellect with Rare Insight. The hindu. N. p., 7 July 2000. Web. 1 Dec. 2013. http://www.hindu.com/2000/07/07/stories/13070781.htm.---. Ennapadam Bhagavati. A Sanskrit Scholar Par Excellence 5 Feb. 2010. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. http://ennapadambhagavati.blogspot.in/2010/02/sanskrit-scholar-par-excellence-29-6.html.Thangaswami, R. Advaita-Vedanta literature: a bibliographical survey. [Madras]: University of Madras, 1980. Print.