[Advaita-l] Sankhya and Yoga can give Moksha?
Jaldhar H. Vyas
jaldhar at braincells.com
Wed May 16 00:36:57 CDT 2012
On Sun, 6 May 2012, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:
> I heard from Dr. Gerald J. Larson. He says that the best current
> discussion may be found in his volume, "Samkhya: A Dualist Tradition in
> Indian Philosophy," Volume 4, Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies.
As luck would have it I have this book. Here is an excerpt from
the entry on jayamanagala written by Ram Shankar Bhattacharya.
"The date and authorship of this commentary is unknown. It contains a
good deal of material, however, from the commentaries already dealt with
(namely, Paramartha's Chinese version, the samkhyavrtti,
samkhyasaptativrtti, and Gaudapadas bhashya.)"
"Gopinath Kaviraj, in his introduction to the printed edition of
jayamangala by H. Sharma, suggests that the author of the jayamangala may
be the same as the author of two other texts (also called jayamangala,)
namely, tha kamandakanitisara and the kama sutra. Moreover on the basis
of the benedictory verse of Jayamangala which includes the expression
'lokottaravadinam pranamya munim' Kaviraj concludes the author was a
Buddhist. In a later article, however, entitled 'Literary Gleanings
Jayamangala' Kaviraj offers yet another suggestion. He argues that the
author of all of these commentaries called Jayamangala is a certain
Shankararya of the Payyur family who lived some time in the 14th
century. The name Shankararya became somewhat garbled in the process of
manuscript transmission and, therefore, comes to appear in the colophon of
our extant version of the jayamangala as Shankaracharya (the great
Vedantin.) Moreover, argues Kaviraj, this Shankararya of the 14th century
is very possibly also the author of the yogasutrabhashyavivarana, a text
that is also wrongly attributed (according to Gopinath Kaviraj) to the
 There is a version of the Samkhyakarikas with commentary in the
Mahayana Tripithaka. It was translated into Chinese by one Paramartha in
567-569 AD. The commentary is said in some traditions to be by the great
Buddhist scholar Vasubandhu while others say he wrote a refutation not a
commentary. Regardless, that the Buddhists considered it important enough
to include in their scriptures is telling don't you think?
As the sanskrit original is lost, the extant version we have today is
reconstructed from this Chinese version. The Chinese name retranslated
into Sanskrit is Suvarnasaptati ("70 golden verses.") This Suvarnasaptati
and the other commentaries mentioned above show signs of being variants of
one original commentary now lost.
 Quarterly Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society (October
 Of Keralite Nambudiri Brahmanas.
On Fri, 11 May 2012, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:
> This could be also the reason why some people think that following this
> exposure of Sankara to the Kusumastra-shastra he wrote a commentary
> called "Jayamangala" on the Kamasutra and also wrote another book on
Interestingly in light of the information above, the name of the author
of the Jayamangala tika on kama sutra in the edition I have is
clearly said to be Yashodhar.
I don't see how he could be confused with Shankaracharya nor have I heard
of any traditions suggesting they were one and the same. However Amaru or
Amaruka the author of the collection of erotic/romantic poems called
Amarushataka is said to be the Kashmiri king whose body was taken over.
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list