[Advaita-l] slokah on Vyasa - Buddhist mAdhyamikas

Siva Senani Nori sivasenani at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 28 10:47:05 CDT 2011

By the way, the reason why the sarvaSUnyavAdins are called mAdhyamikAs in 
Buddhism is this. According to them, yoga and aacaara are the requirements from 
students (compare adhIti-bodha-AcaraNa-pracaara as the four stages of learning 
in Hindu circles). By yoga they mean acquisition of knowledge from the teacher; 
and by acaara is meant the application of knowledge so acquired. The 
sarvaSUnyavAdis recieve the learning sarvam kshaNikam kshaNikam, duhkham duhkha, 
svalakshaNam svalakshaNam, SUnyam SUnyam very well and hold everything to be 
SUnyam. Therefore in terms of yoga, there are uttama adhikArins; however they do 
not explain the worldly objects such as a tree which are very much present - so 
in terms of aacaara or application, these followers are considered to be 
adhamaadhikaarins. Since they are the best in one aspect, and the worst in the 
other, overall they are called maadhyamikas - so much for the Buddhist 

By the way, the yogacaarins are the second school who hold external objects to 
be SUnya (but not internal objects) and are held as good in both acquisition and 

(All this is generally from the sarvadarSanasamgraha, the early parts of 
bauddhadarSana (the second one to be explained after caarvaakamatam)).

N. Siva Senani

----- Original Message ----
> From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
> To: Advaita List <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Sent: Fri, March 25, 2011 9:46:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] slokah on Vyasa
> > 
> > Will you please enlighten us with your bhashya on madhyamAM of Satarudriya 
> > and also the source of your reference. 
> > 
> > 
> > regs,
> > Sriram
> > 
> > Sriramji,
> > I had to reply with reference to vidyashankarji's Email on the 
> > rudra in namakam.Otherwise,Iam not concerned with satarudriya bhashya,as it 
> > out of context.
> > Regs
> > N.Srikanta.
> > 
> Dear Sri Srikanta,
> As often in exchanges with you, I seem to have to invoke enormous amounts of
> patience. So please return the favor and bear with me.
> I assume that members of this list either start with or over time acquire some 

> rudimentary knowledge of Sanskrit grammar and usage. It looks like I have to
> sacrifice my assumption in this case.
> The Sloka in question salutes the entire paramparA. The word paramparA
> is strI-linga and occurs in the accusative singular (dvitIyA vibhakti, 
> Therefore, all adjectives that refer to this paramparA are also in the same
> case, dvitIyA vibhakti, ekavacana. Thus, there is samArambhAM, paryantAM
> and madhyamAM (or madhyagAM), referring to paramparAM. There is
> absolutely no reason to distinguish between madhyama and madhyamAM
> and to assign a buddhist overtone to the second usage. It is simply, I repeat,
> simply, the strI-linga version madhyamA, which adds an anusvAra at the end
> in the ekavacana dvitIyA vibhakti. This is just as in sItA becoming sItAM, or
> latA becoming latAM, or ambikA becoming ambikAM in the analogous instances.
> yasyAH paramparAyA Arambhe sadASivas saMsthitaH, sA sadASiva-samArambhA.
> yasyAH paramparAyAH madhye SankarAcAryo 'sti, sA SankarAcArya-madhyamA.
> yasyAH paramparAyA ante 'sty asmad AcAryas, sA asmadAcArya-paryantA.
> tAM guru-paramparAM
> sadASiva-samArambhAM,
> SankarAcArya-madhyamAM,
> asmad-AcArya-paryantAM
> (aham) vande.
> That is all there is to it.
> As such, the reason I brought up the word madhyama in the rudra namakam
> is to bring your attention to precisely the same. In the namakam, rudra is 
> madhyama. rudra being puMlinga, the word madhyama becomes madhyamAya in
> the ekavacana caturthI vibhakti (dative singular). Whereas in our Sloka, the 
> paramparA being strIlinga, the word is madhyamA, which becomes madhyamAM
> in the ekavacana dvitIyA vibhakti. The context is the analogous application of
> Sanskrit grammar, in both the veda and a Sloka composed after the time of 
> SankarAcArya.
> I have heard madhyagAM used once in a while and accept it as a rare 
> It makes sense to me as referring to the paramparA that goes via 
> instead of referring to the paramparA as having Sankaracharya in the middle. 
> is all. You may have seen madhyagAM in a book, but please note that the vast
> majority have learnt it and have taught it as madhyamAM. Including my Sanskrit
> teacher, a traditional paNDita who taught at the Mumbai branch of the Sringeri
> matha. The mere presence of variant readings is nothing new. One doesn't need
> to make far-fetched interpretations in favor of or against one or the other 
> All the additional connotations you put upon these words are of your own 
> with no basis whatsoever except your own preference - whether it is the 
> Buddhist overtones in madhyamAM or whether other Acharyas have been slighted,
> or whether Sankaracharya is somehow demoted by being "in the middle". None of
> these supposed interpretations are valid in any way. You may have a personal
> preference for one or the other reading in the verse, but please do not tilt 
> windmills, as the saying goes.
> Seriously, is this much vyAkhyAna on basic vyAkaraNa really necessary on this 
> Thank you,
> Vidyasankar
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list