[Advaita-l] Patanjali Yoga Sutra. I.3
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Fri May 8 22:35:58 CDT 2009
And how do you know that I have not read the Sankhya Karikas? As a matter of fact, I have - many times - along with Vacaspatis taattvakamudI.
Did I say that you have not read Sankhyakarika? Many many people have read the Sankhyakarika through the centuries and do you think that everybody understood it to the same level. Further it appears that you have not read the Gaudapada's commentary carefully, if read at all, where you would have observed what I wrote. Further Vacaspati is not the last word in Sankhya. For example, Vacaspati's list of 60 topics of Sankhya differs from the list of 60 topics of Sankhya given in the Ahirbuddhnya Tantra.
To anybody who has read Gaudapada's commentary carefully will observe that one verse got deleted between the times of Gaudapada and Vacaspati. To me it appears that Vacaspati himself could have had omitted one verse as he does not mention about the missing verse. Tilak had compared the extant Sankhyakarika with the Chinese translation of Sankhyakarika by Paramartha too before writing his paper on the missing verse of the Sankhyakarika. I am sure you have not read the paper of Tilak on it. Why Dr. Radhakrishmna alone? Anybody who reads the Gaudapada's work on the Sankhyakarika should observe the anomaly.
I do not think that the Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Purva Mimansa and Uttara Mimansa as six different philosophies like the Western scholars and some Indian scholars too look at them. To me they are at different levels of understanding and I take that the word 'Darshana' itself means the perspectives (at different levels) and not six different competing philosophies. Nyaya and Vaisheshika are at the beginning of the philosophical enquiry and the Advaita interpretation of the Uttara Mimansa is at the highest level. You can very well think differently and let us agree to disagree in our views. Vedavyasa considered Kapila, the founder of the Sankhya, to be an Avatara of Vishnu. We consider Lord Krishna and Lord Dattatreya as Avataras. Though I have the highest regard for Adi Sankaracharya I cannot imagine that Kapila's Sankhya is faulty and I have no quarrel if you think it is faulty.
Whether it is spiritual matters and mundane matters even all the spiritual authorities do not think alike. We do not have the Adi Sankara's date, agreed upon unanimously by all till today. I believe that the statement that Adi Sankara was born in a Nandan year is correct but you may not believe it to be so.
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
--- On Fri, 5/8/09, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Patanjali Yoga Sutra. I.3
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 2:25 PM
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya
<sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please read the brahma-sUtra-bhAshya where it is clear that Sankara
> refutes Sankhya and yoga. It does not matter what your perception of
> these are, but as per Sankara there are problems with both.
> Your comments are hasty. If you have read my letter properly you would have realized that Sankhyakarika, if taken as a complete statement of Sankhya, calls for refutation. Sankhya as it stands is a lower level text than the Vedanta and was criticised by Vedantin. Sankhya has been treated holistically by Svetasvatara upanishad and that does not call for refutation. Sankhya combined with Yoga and with subsequent treatment of Brahman, as treated holistically by Lord Krishna, also does not invite refutation from Advaitin. To my knowledge Adi Sankaracharya did not criticize the Svetasvatara Upanishad nor the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita.
And how do you know that I have not read the Sankhya Karikas? As a
matter of fact, I have - many times - along with Vacaspatis
> It is perfectly alright if you do not have time and inclination to read that Sankhyakarika could have lost a verse but people like Dr. S. Radhakrishnan found it to be a matter of concern. It could also be that the verse was not deleted at the time of Adi Sankaracharya. The Brahmasutrabhashya itself says that the views are not of Badarayana alone and further as regards the Bhashya how are you absolutely certain that what we have today was written by Adi Sankaracharya and nobody has added anything to it or deleted anything from it.
> Please also tell us when and from which last writer, according to you, that the traditional writing ended, so that all the subsequent writings can be relegated to non- traditional category or rather uncalled for. This statement will be certainly stop any new discussion.
> You also said
> All that meant was he could write a bhAshya on something without
> necessarily agreeing with it.
> This is a fantastic statement and I must salute you for this.
For any list members who found my statement about bhAshyas difficult
to understand, please consider the case of Vacaspati who wrote
excellent bhAshyas on all topics such as nyAya, sAnkhya, yoga, pUrva
mImA.msA and vedAnta. His tAtparyaTIkA is considered as an authority
by later nyAya writers, just as his bhAmatI is by vedAntins. Hopefully
it is clear that these two are distinct schools. Unless he was
suffering from an acute case of schizophrenia he couldn't be an
adherent of all these schools. Why - even today in Sringeri eminent
vidvAns and the jagadguru himself participate in discussions/sadas
assuming the viewpoint of nyAya sometimes advancing novel solutions to
problems. If you didn't know better, you would think everyone there
was a naiyAyika.
In any case, I don't think it's profitable to participate further in
any discussion where Radhakrishnan, of all people, is quoted as an
"authority" on advaita.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list