[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Works of Sri Vidyashankara

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 3 00:23:32 CST 2017


Dear Subbuji,

There is a paper by Gopala Aiyengar on the work of Bhaskara.

Regards,
Sunil KB
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 1/2/17, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Works of Sri Vidyashankara
 To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Date: Monday, January 2, 2017, 10:18 PM
 
 
 
 On Tue,
 Jan 3, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya via Advaita-l
 <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 wrote:
 Dear
 Venkatraghavanji,
 
 
 
 Good you could get the paper. I however agree with Prof.
 Karmarkar. Further it appears to me that the  the
 Bhagavadgita-bhashya was written by the great scholar Sri
 Shankara (Nava-Sankara, whom many advaitins consider as an
 incarnation of Adi Shankara). Shakara (also called
 Nava-Shankara or Abhinava Shankara)  lived in the 8th/9th
 century CE and he refuted the Bhagavadgita-bhshya of
 Bhaskar, who lived in the 8th century CE.
 
 
 Dear
 Sunil ji,
 Where is the
 proof for this last assertion? Is that advaita bhashya
 available now or is it cited by anyone? On the other hand,
 we have just seen from Gopalaswamy's paper that Bhaskara
 critiqued the Advaita Gita bhashya. 
 regardssubbu
  
 
 
 Regards,
 
 Sunil K. BHattacharjya
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ------------------------------ --------------
 
 On Mon, 1/2/17, Venkatraghavan S
 via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 vedanta.org> wrote:
 
 
 
  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Works of Sri
 Vidyashankara
 
  To: "A discussion group for Advaita
 Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 vedanta.org>
 
  Date: Monday, January 2, 2017, 3:56 PM
 
 
 
  Dear all,
 
  Firstly, here is wishing everyone a very happy new
 year.
 
 
 
  Good news. I have managed to find the ABORI edition
 where
 
  Prof. Karmarkar's
 
  paper on the authorship of the Gita was published. Here
 is
 
  the link
 
  http://www.dli.ernet.in/
 handle/2015/97593
 
 
 
  I was initially reluctant from sharing my thoughts on
 the
 
  paper with the
 
  group as I am in no way to qualified to question the
 erudite
 
  Professor, but
 
  I am doing so having consulted with some esteemed list
 
  members, who thought
 
  this may be of interest to a broader group. At the outset,
 I
 
  want to
 
  clarify that no disrespect whatsoever is intended to
 the
 
  Professor or his
 
  learning.
 
 
 
  Having read the paper, I am sorry to say that I do not
 find
 
  the objections
 
  to Shankara's authorship of the gIta bhAshya
 convincing at
 
  all. I have
 
  tried to present the summary conclusions of Prof.
 Karmarkar
 
  and my replies
 
  below.
 
 
 
  1) One of Prof. Karmarkar's objections is that in
 the
 
  introductory portion
 
  of the Gita bhAshya, the whole description of Ishvara
 as
 
  NArAyaNa, VishNu,
 
  etc., the reference to the six-fold jnAna-aishvarya
 shakti
 
  of Ishvara and
 
  vaishNavIm svAm mAyAm,  do not appear quite in line
 
  with Shankara as an
 
  advaitin. The passage, he says, looks more apt in the
 mouth
 
  of a
 
  Vaishnavite or some follower of the Bhakti school
 proper.
 
 
 
  This does not seem to take into account the practice of
 
  advaita vedAnta at
 
  all - bhakti is very much accepted within the sphere of
 
  advaita practice
 
  and is viewed as a means for chitta shuddhi which is a
 
  necessary
 
  pre-requisite for the gain of advaita jnAna. The
 
  acknowledgment of Vishnu
 
  as Bhagavan occurs in the Brahma sUtra bhAshya itself.
 
 
 
  2) Prof Karmarkar goes on to say that Shankara scarcely
 
  refers to VedavyAsa
 
  as Bhagavan and sarvajna in the Brahma sUtra bhAshya but
 the
 
  author of the
 
  gIta bhAshya does so. However, he does not provide the
 
  number of instances
 
  where VedavyAsa is referred to as sarvajna BhagavAn in
 the
 
  gIta bhAshya vs
 
  the sUtra bhAshya to prove his point - now, if the
 argument
 
  was based on
 
  the usage of the epithet in the gIta bhAshya and the
 
  scarcity of its usage
 
  in the sUtra bhAshya, then it would be important to
 justify
 
  that argument
 
  with statistics. Prof. Karmarkar fails to do so.
 
 
 
  From my search, the usage of the epithet
 "Bhagavan" when
 
  applied to
 
  VedavyAsa appears twice in the gIta bhAshya - once in
 the
 
  introduction
 
  section (which is referred to by Prof. Karmarkar) and
 once
 
  in the bhAshya
 
  for sloka 2.21 (which is not). In comparison, the number
 of
 
  occasions the
 
  sUtrakAra is referred to as BhagavAn / Bhagavata in
 sUtra
 
  bhAshya is thrice
 
  by my count (once in BS 1.1.1 when Shankara calls the
 
  sUtrakAra as
 
  "भगवान्सूत्रकारः",
 once in BS
 
  3.4.8 as "भगवतो
 बादरायणस्य"
 
  and  once in
 
  4.4.21 as "भगवान्बादरायण
 
  आचार्यः".) Prof. Karmarkar fails to
 mention
 
  the
 
  other two occurrences in the sUtra bhAshya, and says
 that
 
  Shankara
 
  uses this epithet in relation to BAdarAyaNa only once -
 in
 
  4.4.21. Even
 
  there he claims that, the use of Bhagavan is probably
 "an
 
  addition by some
 
  copyist".
 
 
 
  In fact, as we have seen, Shankara uses this epithet
 thrice
 
  in the sUtra
 
  bhAshya. One occurrence can be dismissed as the work of
 a
 
  copyist, but to
 
  explain away three instances is difficult. Therefore,
 Prof.
 
  Karmarkar's
 
  statement that "To Sankara, Upavarsa alone is
 Bhagavan
 
  proper" is unfounded
 
  my view. Shankara's reference to vedavyAsa as Bhagavan
 is
 
  not out of
 
  character, given what we see in the Brahma sUtra.
 
 
 
  3) Prof. Karmarkar further states that the description
 of
 
  Ashvattha does
 
  not tally between the gIta and KaTha bhAshyas. He says
 "the
 
  most important
 
  point, however, is that
 'अवाक्शाख:' is
 
  explained as
 
  'स्वर्गनरकतिर्यक्प्रेतादिभि:
 
  शाखाभि:' " in the KaTha bhAshyam,
 whereas the
 
  same term is explained in Gita 15.1 as
 "अध:शाखं
 
  महदहङ्कारतन्मात्रादय:
 
  शाखा
 
  इवास्यधो भवन्तीति".
 Prof.
 
  Karmarkar says "It appears there can be no
 
  justification for such variation in the interpretations,
 if
 
  both the
 
  Bhasyas were by the same author".
 
 
 
  However, in the next verse Gita 15.2, while explaining
 the
 
  line "अधश्चोर्ध्वं
 
  प्रसृतास्तस्य शाखा"
 of the
 
  sloka, the author of the gIta bhAshya gives the
 
  meaning as "अधः
 
  मनुष्यादिभ्यो यावत्
 
  स्थावरम् ऊर्ध्वं च
 
  यावत् ब्रह्मणः
 
  विश्वसृजो धाम
 
  इत्येतदन्तं", which achieves
 the same
 
  meaning as the one
 
  given for the kaTha bhAshyam. Therefore, the difference
 in
 
  variations
 
  perceived by Prof. Karmarkar is because the explanation
 of
 
  the next gIta
 
  verse is not taken into account.
 
 
 
  4) The Professor then says that the reference to
 
  जलसूर्यक दृष्टान्त in
 
  gIta
 
  bhAshya 15.7 is not relevant and that it is not in
 keeping
 
  with Shankara's
 
  tendencies, as he "usually uses  सृगजल,
 
  रज्जुसर्प and उपाधि
 
  दृष्टान्तs".
 
  However, there is an important reason why Shankara
 gives
 
  this example in
 
  this sloka. This is one of the bhAshya portions where
 
  Shankara presents
 
  both the AbhAsa vAda and avaccheda vAda as acceptable
 
  prakriyas within
 
  advaita siddhAnta. Therefore, the usage of
 
  जलसूर्यक दृष्टान्त
 should
 
  be
 
  viewed in parallel with the usage of
 
  घटाद्युपाधिपरिच्छिन्नो
 
  घटाद्याकाशः
 
  immediately afterwards, as two alternative views of the
 jIva
 
  acceptable
 
  within advaita siddhAnta. To complain that Shankara
 never
 
  uses the जलसूर्यक
 
  दृष्टान्त is failing to appreciate
 the
 
  true reason for the usage.
 
 
 
  5) Prof. Karmarkar points to sloka 13.12 's bhAshya
 that
 
  Shankara has split
 
  the word अनादिमत्परं occurring in
 the
 
  verse as अनादिमत् + परम् as
 opposed
 
  to अनादि + मत्परं which is
 Ramanuja's
 
  preference. Through this, he argues
 
  that the author of the shAnkara bhAshya did so in
 response
 
  to Ramanuja's
 
  commentary which must have preceded his. Therefore, Adi
 
  Shankara cannot
 
  have been the author of the gIta bhAshya.
 
 
 
  However, it is clear that the author of the gIta bhAshya
 is
 
  doing so in
 
  response to a commentary that is earlier than his (and
 not
 
  Ramanuja),
 
  because in the shAnkara bhAshya, the pUrvapaksha
 
  interpretation  is
 
  described as अहं
 वासुदेवाख्या
 
  परा शक्तिर्यस्य
 
  तन्मत्परमिति. The pUrvapakshi
 
  is saying by matparam, what Krishna means is "Me, the
 one
 
  endowed with the
 
  highest power called paravAsudeva shakti". Shankar
 goes out
 
  of his way to
 
  name the shakti as वासुदेवाख्या
 
  परा शक्ति.
 
 
 
  Therefore, if the shAnkara gIta bhAshya had followerd
 
  RAmAnuja's, we
 
  would expect the specific name of the shakti to be
 present
 
  in RAmAnuja's
 
  bhAshya too. However, RAmAnuja does not specifically
 call
 
  this vAsudeva
 
  shakti, he simply says अहं परो यस्य
 
  तत् मत्परं.  Therefore, this
 
  specificity must have existed in some other pAncarAtra
 
  bhAshya of the gIta
 
  that Shankara referred to when he wrote the gIta
 
  commentary.
 
 
 
  Further, vedAnta desika, in commenting on
 RAmAnuja's
 
  bhAshya, quotes
 
  Shankara's bhAshya in introducing the section where
 RAmAnuja
 
  talks about
 
  Brahman being endowed with guNas
 
  (बृहत्वगुणयोगि /
 स्वत:
 
  शरीरादिभि:
 
  परिच्छेदरहितं), with a view
 to
 
  refute Shankara's point that nirguNa Brahman
 
  is being referred to in this verse.
 
 
 
  Another point to be noted is that RAmAnuja translates
 sat
 
  and asat as kArya
 
  and kAraNa, which is the meaning that Anandagiri gives
 -
 
  which is a simpler
 
  interpretation of the sloka. Shankara could simply have
 used
 
  this meaning,
 
  instead he takes a different meaning -  sat as
 
  existence and asat as
 
  non-existence. Prof. Karmarkar states this must be from
 
  RAmAnuja's Brahma
 
  sUtra bhAshya. He does acknowledge that it may be some
 other
 
  prior bhAshya
 
  that Shankara had access to, but states there is no
 evidence
 
  of such a
 
  bhAshya.
 
 
 
  Professor Daniel Ingalls, while remarking that
 BhAskara's
 
  commentary is
 
  vociferously, even caustically different from
 Shankara's on
 
  certain sUtras,
 
  also states that it is remarkably similar on several
 other
 
  sUtras. This
 
  leads him to conclude that there must be a vrittikAra,
 a
 
  proto-commentator
 
  which both of them have based their commentary on. This
 is
 
  in line with the
 
  traditional view too. In my view, this could be the
 same
 
  source from which
 
  RAmAnuja bases his brahma sUtra commentary too,
 explaining
 
  the similarity
 
  of language between the gIta bhAshya and RAmAnuja's
 sUtra
 
  bhAshya.
 
 
 
  6) Prof. Karmarkar also complains that the author of
 the
 
  gIta bhAshya
 
  "ignores completely the first adhyAya of the Gita
 (46
 
  slokas) and 10 slokas
 
  of the second Adhyaya" and that "this goes
 against
 
  Shankara's method of
 
  explanation" as  "in the case of the various
 section of
 
  the Upanishads
 
  where even small introductory AkhyAyikas are
 introduced". It
 
  is
 
  unthinkable, he says that Shankara could have given only
 a
 
  very inadequate
 
  and short reference to the introductory portion of the
 
  Gita.
 
 
 
  a) Firstly neither Shankara has ignored the stated
 portion
 
  nor has he
 
  omitted giving an introduction to the gIta. In fact he
 has
 
  written an
 
  upodghAta bhAshya introducing the gIta, after which he
 
  separately
 
  summarises the verses that he has not commented upon,
 to
 
  present only the
 
  message that is relevant to that topic at hand. What is
 the
 
  point in
 
  writing page upon page commenting on which Kaurava and
 
  Pandava warrior blew
 
  which conch, etc when that is completely irrelevant to
 the
 
  central message
 
  of the Gita?
 
  b) Secondly, Shankara does have form in ignoring portions
 of
 
  text that are
 
  not of much relevance. For example, in the vaitathya
 
  prakaraNa of the
 
  mANDUkya kArika, Shankara ignores kArikas 2.20 to 2.27
 in
 
  his commentary
 
  completely. Therefore, it would be incorrect to assert
 that
 
  Shankara
 
  comments on every word of every text for which he writes
 a
 
  bhAshya.
 
  c) Thirdly, the Professor remarks that some of the
 
  commentary of Shankara
 
  in the gIta bhAshya is puerile, and that he is stating
 the
 
  obvious in doing
 
  so. It appears that whatever the author of the gIta
 bhAshya
 
  does, he is
 
  damned in the eyes of the Professor. If Shankara comments
 on
 
  obvious
 
  passages where there is little room for commentary, the
 
  Professor remarks
 
  that the commentary is puerile. If Shankara then
 ignores
 
  descriptions of
 
  battle formation, names of warriors and their
 paraphernalia
 
  as irrelevant,
 
  the Professor says that Shankara is ignoring the text.
 
 
 
  7) Finally, there are a few minor nits that the
 Professor
 
  picks on, such as
 
  Shankara not using the same name for the Gita in many
 
  places, or that he
 
  does not name the devayAna / pitryAna in Chapter
 8's
 
  commentary, or that he
 
  sometimes refers to himself in the singular in the gIta
 
  bhAshya but at
 
  least in my view, these are not major flaws that would
 
  necessitate a
 
  conclusion questioning the authorship of the gIta
 itself.
 
 
 
  In light of the above, I believe that the objections of
 
  Professor
 
  Karmarkar's to Shankara's authorship are not
 very
 
  convincing.
 
 
 
  Regards,
 
  Venkatraghavan
 
  ______________________________ _________________
 
  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
 
 ______________________________ _________________
 
 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