As some of you might be knowing, the renowned Sri Vaishnava acharya, Ramanujacharya before becoming a Sri Vaishnava, was a disciple of a Vaishnavite named Yadava Prakasha who propounded the Svabhavika Bhedabheda philosophy and even wrote a commentary on the Vedanta Sutras based on it (which unfortunately, is lost). Ramanuja is known to have had frequent disagreements with him whenever Yadava Prakasha used to teach his philosophy to his students. One of the famous disagreements between the two were on Adi Shankaracharya's interpretation of a verse in Chandogya Upanishad where Shankara compared the colour of Ishwara's eyes with a monkey's nates:

tasya yathā kapyāsaṃ puṇḍarīkamevamakṣiṇī tasyoditi nāma sa eṣa sarvebhyaḥ pāpmabhya udita udeti ha vai sarvebhyaḥ pāpmabhyo ya evaṃ veda ॥

English Translation: Whose eyes are like blue lotus's, his name is ut, for he has risen (udita) above all evil. He also who knows this, rises above all evil.

Adi Shankaracharya's commentary: "Kapyasa" is the "asa", seat, of the "Kapi", monkey; the term "asa" being derived from the root "asa", to sit, with the ghan affix. The term "Kapyasa" therefore stands for the part of the monkey's back on which it sits; so that when the lotus is spoken of as "Kapyasa", "monkey-seat", what is meant is that it is extremely bright (and red); so the eyes of the Solar Person also are bright red. Inasmuch as the Simile is an indirect one, - the lotus being likened to the monkey's seat, and the eyes being likened to the lotus, - it cannot be regarded as incompatible with the dignity of the subject.

You can read about the relationship between Yadava Prakasha and Ramanujacharya in detail here.

Now, before coming to my question, let me explain the basics of Yadava Prakasha's Svabhavika Bhedabheda Vedanta philosophy. According to Yadava Prakasha, the Jivatma is simultaneously both the same and different from Paramatma, and that this simultaneous sameness and difference is natural, not the product of an artificial constraint like Bhaskara's philosophy of Aupadhika Bhedabheda. Yadava Prakasha like most commentators holds the world as to be real and the Supreme Brahman to be Vishnu only and no other deity. Svabhavika Bhedabheda Vedanta philosophy like most other Vedanta philosophies does not subscribe to an impersonal Brahman. Moreover, moksha according to Yadava Prakasha simply means the attainment of Vaikuntha.

Now, as I have described in the earlier part of my question, Ramanuja had got into an argument with Yadava Prakasha on the Shankara's interpretation of a verse in the Chandogya Upanishad, my question is why did Yadava Prakasha teach the Chandogya Upanishad along with Adi Shankaracharya's commentary? Is Shankara's Advaita Vedanta philosophy similar to Yadava Prakasha's Svabhavika Bhedabheda Vedanta philosophy? From whatever I have gathered about Svabhavika Bhedabheda Vedanta philosophy, I haven't found anything similar to Shankara's philosophy. On the contrary, I find the two philosophies at opposite poles. What are the similarities between Advaita Vedanta and Svabhavika Bhedabheda Vedanta philosophies?

  • 1
    As you told that Yadava Prakasha' commentary on Brahma Sutras is lost, I think it would be very difficult to predict what Svabhavaika Bhedabheda preaches.
    – Pandya
    Commented Mar 31, 2018 at 14:47


You must log in to answer this question.