[Advaita-l] Re: Questions on Isavasya
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Sat Aug 5 10:01:59 CDT 2006
Dear Sri Reddy,
I am afraid you are being taken in a bit by your dvaitin friend. Whether
this person is merely quoting from some source like BNK Sharma's books or
whether he is personally analyzing the bhAshyas, I would suggest the
following. When discussing with dvaitins, be aware that their logical
technique is adept at leading the other side into logical traps.
For example, what was,
"If the above hypothesis was true that shaN^kara gave more weight to
particular parts of the upaniShats, then isn't that the wrong approach?"
in one post, gives way to,
"... would that not automatically undermine shaN^kara's claim that not all
of GYAna kAnDa should be given equal importance?"
in another post. In other words, what was originally a hypothesis about
Sankara's method has somehow morphed into something that Sankara himself
claims! Without your being aware of it, the dvaitin's criticism that
advaitins do not give equal importance to all of the jnAna kANDa has become
an advaita "claim" that not all of the jnAna kANDa needs to be given equal
In an earlier mail, I have already touched upon how it is not an issue of
equal literal importance to every word in the upanishads, but one of
extracting a consistent interpretation of all of the jnAna kANDa. This means
that we take each text not in isolation but against the background of all
the other relevant texts. The brahmasUtra provides the traditional framework
in which we interpret all the upanishad statements, by taking one vishaya
vAkya (topic under discussion) at a time.
In this mail, let me address a couple of the questions you have asked about
the ISAvAsya bhAshya and take up the rest in follow-up posts.
"-- Are there any vArttikas on the IshAvAsya bhAShya btw?"
No, but there are vRtti-s and TIkA-s, e.g. the one by Anandagiri, on this
"-- The bhAShya does not have a mangalAcharaNa shlOka. Was this normal? Do
all the other bhAShyas of shaN^kara have mangalAcharaNas? Could it be
possible that the bhAShya was not originally written by shaN^kara (Is there
any section of advaitins who believe this)?"
Again, the answer would be, NO.
This debate about whether such and such a bhAshya was originally written by
Sankara bhagavatpAda can be a completely separate discussion altogether, so
let's not go into it right now. Let me just say that these sorts of reasons
to doubt authorship are really among the flimsiest. As for comparing the
various bhAshyas and categorizing one as inferior with respect to the
others, well, I would like to know the level of competence of the person
making that judgment call.
In fact, brahmasUtra bhAshya does not have any Sloka, bhagavadgItA bhAshya
quotes an older Sloka, taittirIya bhAshya has original Slokas and
bRhadAraNyaka bhAshya has one prose line as mangalAcaraNa. As you can see,
there is a good amount of stylistic variation within four primary bhAshyas
that have to be accepted as authentic, even by the most skeptical critic.
More in subsequent posts,
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list