[Advaita-l] Modern science and Vedanta.
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Thu Jul 21 03:25:15 CDT 2011
Sri: Subrahmanian V: It looks like while Shankara is emphasizing the
> 'time', a particular session
> of meditation of this yogi, MS is looking at the very proficiency the mind
> has attained owing to constant practice of Yoga. This is my understanding.
> Would anyone explain the above and say if Shankara's commentary truly
> deserves this criticism of MS? Am I right in saying that MS has addressed
> his criticism against Shankara's commentary only?
> RV: On the face of it, it looks like MS is criticizing Sankara's
> translation. In fact, a Hindi translator of Madhusudana apologetically says
> that the author is only differing with Sankara in linguistic expression and
> does not deviate from philosophy. However, I dont think that Madhusudana
> differs from Sankara and here is the reason why. If you the commentary of
> Ramanuja, Sridhara etc., they are take yatra to refer to a state of mind
> whereas Sankara takes it as point in time. Ananda Giri in his sub-commentary
> to Sankara talks about states of mind but also uses tasmin kale to indicate
> that it is a point in time.
> Now, the main difference in reading between Sankara and other acharyas
> including Madhusudana is that Sankara takes 6.20 as a complete sentence and
> 6.21 as another complete sentence. So, there is no defect in his taking
> yatra to mean that point in time. If any one points out a defect in
> Sankara's usage, they have to do it with reference to Panini not
> arbitrarily. (There are some scholars who have pointed out
> grammatical mistakes in the works of Gitacharya and Sankaracharya but dont
> have time to discuss their arguments because my research is focussed on
> bhakti in advaita). But most other acharyas including Madhusudana reads
> this differently taking 6.20 and 6.21 as one complex sentence with four
> clauses. When you read like this, Madhusudana is obliged to explain why he
> is unable to take yatra to mean at the point in time as per the tradition,
> which is that the word tat in 6.21 will not have a relation with yatra used
> in 6.20 because it is part of the third clause alone.
Sri Vidyasankar, this is what I meant by patha bheda or difference in
reading. Without understanding your view on vedanta bhakti in depth, I
cannot comment on whether I see it exactly as you do.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list