The samanvaya or philosophical reconciliation done by Advaitins or Radical Non-dualists, rather, dilutes the core tenets of those philosophical systems which Advaitins endeavour to reconcile. Philosophically, even the mutually varying doctrines of various Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas differ to such an extent that the Viśiṣṭādvaita of Rāmānujācārya has been criticized by the Dvaita of Madhvācārya.
Though, the common aspect between all the Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas is the sevya-sevaka relationship between the jīva and para-brahma. This common aspect can be the only samanvaya between the Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas having differing doctrines.
As far as samanvaya between the Advaitins (Śaṅkarites) and the Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas can only be till the concepts of Veda-svataḥ-prāmāṇya or the self-illuminating nature of Vedas as discussed in Pūrva-mīmāṁsā-darśanam. Otherwise, from the very beginning of the Uttara-mīmāṁsā-darśanam (Vedānta), the Advaitin views seriously differ from the Vaiṣṇava interpretations.
Hence, ‘ekaṁ sad viprā bahudhā vadanti’ or that ‘only one absolute reality has been differently discussed by varying schools’ – has to be understood in a very intricated way. Because, the Vaiṣṇava schools on Vedānta, unanimously, allege the pervasion of Māyāvādism and Pracchanna-bauddhattva (covered Buddhism) within the tenets propounded by Advaita Vedānta.
As far as the reconciliation of Vaiṣṇava schools with the other schools like Śaiva, Śākta etc. is concerned, a huge gap of ideology exists. Because, whereas, the latter considered devatās/devīs other than Śrī Viṣṇu (Rāma, Kṛṣṇa etc. included in viṣṇu-tattva) to be supreme, the former accept the unquestionable sole supremacy of Viṣṇu.
Though, the devatās other than Viṣṇu have been considered Viṣṇu’s vibhūtis by the Vaiṣṇava schools, such treatment of ‘vibhūtis’ is unacceptable to the Śaiva, Śākta etc. schools. Even the Advaitin interpretation that all the six devas in the Śaṇmatopāsanā (hexagonal principle of worship) are just ‘pratīkas’ or ‘provisional representations’ of the Non-specified Absolute (nirviśeṣa-brahma) is unacceptable to both the Vaiṣṇava schools and the others like Śaiva, Śākta etc. because, except for Advaitins, all these other schools consider their iṣṭa-devatās to be saviśeṣa-brahma (Specified Absolute) and not just representatives of the Absolute.
Even the ‘yānti deva-vratā devān pitṛ yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ / bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā yānti mad-yājino ‘pi mām //” verse of Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā denies the theory that the destination of all worshippers is same. If the Advaitins argue that when a particular devatā is eulogized as supreme in any Vedic/Purāṇic/Āgamic text, it is merely done to prefix a worshiper’s faith into that deity and that such statements emphasizing a particular devatā as supreme to other devas should not be taken in ultimate sense and that such statements are only forming exaggeration or ‘artha-vāda’ – such interpretation is not accepted either by the Śaiva, Śākta, Gāṇapatya, Saura, Skānda and Vaiṣṇava schools. Only accepted by the Smārtta (ṣaṇ-matopāsaka/pañcopāsaka) school of the Śaṅkarite Advaitins.
Vaiṣṇava schools have solid evidences taken from the Āgamas, Purāṇas and śrutis (Vedas) to that extent which clearly establish the ‘inferior’ nature of the scriptures which propound the supremacy of devas other than Viṣṇus – whilst such evidences are not possessed by the non-Vaiṣṇavas schools – a topic greatly discussed in the sub-commentaries on the Mādhva-bhāṣyam on Brahma-sūtra 1.1.1.
So, eventually, no ultimate reconciliation or ‘ātyantika-samanvaya’ exists here (what exists is only the ‘āpekṣika-samanvaya’ or the relative reconciliation up to some extent/degree) – other than to confute the theories of opposing schools and to establish one’s own school as the greatest.
Conclusion – This was the reason why none of the great sampradāya-pravarttaka-ācāryas of varying schools and sects never tried to do reconcile the tenets of opposing schools – but, rather chose to confute their contradictory beliefs with one’s own. Only, some modern scholars coming in these classical sects have been infected by this ‘reconciling’ disease which they try to do by hook or crook by dismantling the fundamental beliefs of the schools they try to reconcile.
Note – The Brahma-sūtra concept of ‘samanvaya’ (‘tat tu samanvayāt’ – Brahma-sūtra) is different from the ‘samanvaya’ talked about in our article because, the former (Brahma-sutra) concept implies considering all names such as ‘ākāśa’, ‘prāṇa’, ‘jyoti’ etc. as ascribing to the Supreme Absolute Reality or Parabrahma. On this samanvaya, all the various schools of Vedānta agree. But, when it comes to define as to Who is that Para-brahma and what is the relation of jīvas and jagat with that Parabrahma, the differences come in the form of Dvaita, Advaita etc. and the Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava etc. These differences cannot be reconciled otherwise, oxymoron will be created.
The only way to reconcile these mutually opposing doctrines is if they are to loose or make extinct their peculiar philosophies particular to them. If this happens, because these doctrines have lost their peculiarities in beforehand to their so-called superficial reconciliation, such reconciliation will be none other than the harmonization (reconciliation) of uniform doctrines. Uniform or monotonous because they have lost their particular special aspects. But, if they have turned uniform, then no need of reconciliation as all speak only common tenets without any peculiarity! In this way, reconciliation will become useless. Reconciliation is fruitful/relevant only when differing doctrines are reconciled keeping intact their peculiarities – which is not possible. Neither ‘sunda-upasunda-nyāya’ (logic or analogy of mutual animosity within family members) nor the ‘sopāna-āroha-nyāya’ (logic or analogy of sequential relevance and progress) will be applicable (if non-Vaiṣṇava schools try to misuse this logic to establish their conclusions as supreme).
The former analogy (sunda-upasunda-nyāya) is inapplicable (employed by Advaitins like KarapātrīSvāmī and Vidyāraṇya Svāmī for doing superficial samanvaya between different schools) because Sunda and Upasunda were twin demons having equal strength and fought for the celestial nymph Tilottamā. Whilst, according to the ripened fruit of all Vedic literature viz., Śrīmad-bhāgavatam, all doctrines not accepting supremacy of Śrī Hari are not to be considered on par with the Sāttvata/Bhāgavata/Pāñcarātra/Vaikhānasa/Vaiṣṇava/Ekāyana Vedic (all synonymous terms) ideology. Proof is ŚBMP 1.2.24 (‘pārthivād dāruṇo dhūmas tasmād agnis trayīmayaḥ / tamas tu rajas tasmāt sattvaṁ yad brahma-darśanam //’) which (the whole passage earlier to and after this verse should be taken into account) clearly states Śrī Viṣṇu and worshippers are highest among all other various modes of worship. (Kūrma-purāṇa 2.43.49 & Matsya-purāṇa 53.68-69 + Garuḍa-purāṇa 3.1.52 + Padma-purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa 236.19 – all these evidences clearly suggest that apart from the sāttvika-6 purāṇas and Śrīmad-bhāgavatam which is, actually, nigruṇa or transcendental – all other rājasika and tāmasika category of scriptures and their views are inferior due to hierarchical gradation or tāratamya) Hence, when equal strength is not present between the Vaiṣṇava theology and those non-Vaiṣṇava ones, the ‘sunda-upasunda-nyāya’ cannot be applied.
The latter analogy (‘sopāna-āroha-nyāya’) cannot be applied (we are talking about how the Advaitins apply this logic and not about how Vaiṣṇava schools apply it) to support Advaita and Smārtta views – as well. Why? Because, if ‘sopāna-āroha-nyāya’ is justly applied, then Śrīmad-bhāgavatam stands out as the sole most uncontaminated evidence and both the Kevala-advaita-vāda and the pañcopāsanā of Smārttism – loose their momentum against the Bhāgavata-siddhānta. Therefore, ‘sopāna-āroha-nyāya’ can only be applied if Vaiṣṇava/Bhāgavata-siddhānta is to be established as supreme and not otherwise. The Tattva-sandarbha of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmipāda clarifies all these misconceptions. This is the very reason why founders of non-Vaiṣṇava schools like Bhagavatpāda Ādya-śaṅkarācārya never touched or cited Śrīmad-bhāgavatam in any of their classical works!
Link — https://goo.gl/xFJz17
— Sanātana-dharmāntargata Caitanya-gauḍīya-vaīsṇava-sampradāyī Acintya-bhedābheda-vādi-vedānta-dhurandhara Advaita-parivāra-daikṣa-paramparāgata Mahāmahopādhāya Kavi-tārkika-siṁha Bhakti-rasa-vedānta-pīṭhādhīśvara Ācārya Śrī Rādhākṛṣṇadeva Munīndravarya Āmnāya-vācaspati Gurupāda