Subbuji's Post on Shankara and Jayatirtha - Testing

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I am forwarding this post from Subbuji which contains Sanskrit scripts. It is likely that the message may not appear the way it is intented. As a safeguard, a pdf attachment is also included.

 

Enjoy!

 

Ram Chandran

----- Forwarded Message ----V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_vRam Chandran <ramvchandranMon, April 5, 2010 2:37:10 AMRe: Test posting for format display

 

शà¥à¤°à¥€à¤—à¥à¤°à¥à¤­à¥à¤¯à¥‹ नमः

Shankara and Jayatirtha

While Shankaracharya does not need any introduction, for the sake of many Advaitins, Sri Jayatirtha needs a brief introduction. Sri Madhvacharya’s seminal commentaries have been elucidated by Sri Jayatirtha, popularly known in the Madhva tradition as ‘TeekAchArya’.

In the sequel is taken up a short study of a commentarial passage each of Shankara and Jayatirtha for a comparative purpose.

 

Shankara BhAShya passage:

In the Chandogya Upanishad Chapter 6 is the ‘sadvidyA’ where occurs the dialogue between UddAlaka, the father-Teacher and Shvetaketu, the son-disciple. The Upanishad, at the outset, presents three examples, of the clay-clay products, gold-gold ornaments and iron-iron implements, to enable understanding the primary teaching: ‘knowing the all through knowing the one’ or à¤à¤•à¤µà¤¿à¤œà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¨à¥‡à¤¨ सरà¥à¤µà¤µà¤¿à¤œà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¨à¤®à¥. The ultimate purpose of this knowledge, vij~jaanam, is liberation from the ignorance, aj~jaana-born samsara. The Shruti passage relevant for our purpose is:

यथा सोमà¥à¤¯à¥ˆà¤•à¥‡à¤¨ मृतà¥à¤ªà¤¿à¤£à¥à¤¡à¥‡à¤¨ सरà¥à¤µà¤‚ मृनà¥à¤®à¤¯à¤‚ विजà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¤à¤‚ सà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¤à¥, वाचारमà¥à¤­à¤£à¤‚ विकारो नामधेयं मृतà¥à¤¤à¤¿à¤•à¥‡à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¥‡à¤µ सतà¥à¤¯à¤®à¥ (6.1.4)

// O good looking one, as by knowing a lump of clay, all things made of clay become known: All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only. Clay as such is the reality. (Here it is to be noted that Shankara has commented: à¤à¤•à¥‡à¤¨ मृतà¥à¤ªà¤¿à¤£à¥à¤¡à¥‡à¤¨ घटशरावादिकारणभूतेन विजà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¤à¥‡à¤¨ सरà¥à¤µà¤®à¤¨à¥à¤¯à¤¦à¥à¤µà¤¿à¤•à¤¾à¤°à¤œà¤¾à¤¤à¤‚ मृनà¥à¤®à¤¯à¤‚ विजà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¤à¤‚ सà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¤à¥ - This crucial passage of Shankara is overlooked by his critics. Here Shankara says: the lump of clay is itself an effect;

it is made of the material clay. So, first one has to know that the lump itself is having the clay as its material cause. This clay-lump is the cause of the pot, saucer, etc. Once this knowledge is there, one can extend it to anything made of clay and determine that ‘all products of clay are only clay substantially.’ So is the case with the gold-nugget. The nugget itself is to be known as an effect of gold. The Upanishad uses the word ‘pinda’, ‘maNi’ etc. to enable us to appreciate these materials as the cause of objects that are made with them. For, it is impossible for anyone to observe ‘clay’ or ‘gold’ without any form, it their natural form. Again, we are left with

no choice in using the word ‘form. These have to be encountered only in some ‘form’. And a ‘lump’ or ‘maNi’ is one such form. With this starting point the Upanishad proceeds with the analogy. Shankara’s comment shown above has all this explanation embedded in it. ) If anyone misses this point, the examples become incomprehensible. Not being able to appreciate this, the non-advaitins have missed the whole purport of the Upanishad and ended up giving inappropriate and inconsistent meanings to the analogies.//

The Shankara Bhashya portion, relevant for the present purpose, of this passage is:

वागालमà¥à¤¬à¤¨à¤®à¤¾à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ नामैव केवलं, न विकारो नाम वसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤¸à¥à¤¤à¤¿ परमारà¥à¤¥à¤¤à¥‹, मृतà¥à¤¤à¤¿à¤•à¥‡à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¥‡à¤µ तॠमृतà¥à¤¤à¤¿à¤•à¥ˆà¤µ सतà¥à¤¯à¤‚ वसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤¸à¥à¤¤à¤¿ ।

// It is only a name dependent merely on speech. (Apart from that) there is no substance called transformation. In reality clay as such (is the thing that) truly exists.//

 

Jayatirtha’s TeekA passage

Here is a passage from Sri Jayatirtha’s gloss TattvaprakAshikA to the Brahmasutra Bhashya of Madhva:Sutra: 1.1.2: JanmAdyasya yataH : In his commentary to this very second sutra, Madhva quotes a Rg.Mantra: ‘chaturbhiH saakam navatim cha naamabhiH chakram na vRttam..(Rg.samhitA 1.155.6).’ Jayatirtha comments on this quote : //chaturbhiriti: - sa bRhacchareero mUlarUpI chaturbhiH vAsudevAdinAmabhiH nAmamAtraiH svarUpabhedashUnyaiH ..//

 

The meaning of Jaytirtha’s passage is: ‘He, the One that originates, is of a huge form, with four names of ‘VAsudeva’, etc. which are mere names and are devoid of essential difference.’

The four names referred to could be: वासà¥à¤¦à¥‡à¤µà¤ƒ, संकरà¥à¤·à¤£à¤ƒ, अनिरà¥à¤¦à¥à¤§à¤ƒ and पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤¯à¥à¤®à¥à¤¨à¤ƒ. We get these names from the commentary of Shankara to the Brahma sutra उतà¥à¤ªà¤¤à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¤¸à¤‚भवातॠ(2.2.42) where the ‘bhAgavata’ school is taken up for refutation. The relevant portion is:

ततà¥à¤° भागवता मनà¥à¤¯à¤¨à¥à¤¤à¥‡ – भगवानेवैको वासà¥à¤¦à¥‡à¤µà¥‹ निरञà¥à¤œà¤¨à¤œà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¨à¤¸à¥à¤µà¤°à¥‚पः परमारà¥à¤¥à¤¤à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚, स चतà¥à¤°à¥à¤§à¤¾ आतà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤¨à¤‚ पà¥à¤°à¤µà¤¿à¤­à¤œà¥à¤¯ पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤·à¥à¤ à¤¿à¤¤à¥‹ वासà¥à¤¦à¥‡à¤µà¤µà¥à¤¯à¥‚हरूपेण, संकरà¥à¤·à¤£à¤µà¥à¤¯à¥‚हरूपेण, पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤¯à¥à¤®à¥à¤¨à¤µà¥à¤¯à¥‚हरूपेण, अनिरà¥à¤¦à¥à¤§à¤µà¥à¤¯à¥‚हरूपेण च । वासà¥à¤¦à¥‡à¤µà¥‹ नाम परमातà¥à¤®à¤¾ उचà¥à¤¯à¤¤à¥‡ । संकरà¥à¤·à¤£à¥‹ नाम जीवः । पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¥à¤¯à¥à¤®à¥à¤¨à¥‹ नाम मनः । अनिरà¥à¤¦à¥à¤§à¥‹

नामाहंकारः ।

The entire adhikaraNa in this section deals with this school and Bhagavatpada has shown several defects in the tenets of this school and ultimately how this school is not in complete accordance with the Vedic teaching.

Be that as it may, what is noteworthy here is Sri Jayatirtha’s comment on this Rg Vedic mantra. He says (1) the four entities ‘Vaasudeva’, etc. are mere names, नाममातà¥à¤°à¥ˆà¤ƒ... and (2) the four entities have no essential differences from each other, सà¥à¤µà¤°à¥‚पभेदशूनà¥à¤¯à¥ˆà¤ƒ.

We can understand these two features with the analogy provided by the Chandogya Upanishad: The various clay-products namely pot, jar, saucer, etc. are essentially non different from their material cause clay and also essentially non-different from each other, all of them being essentially clay alone. Also, consequently, they are not any real entities; they are mere names, वाचारमà¥à¤­à¤£à¤‚ विकारो नामधेयं मृतà¥à¤¤à¤¿à¤•à¥‡à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¥‡à¤µ सतà¥à¤¯à¤®à¥ (6.1.4). Accordingly, as per Jayatirtha, the four vyUha-s ‘vAsudeva’, etc. are non-different from the परवासà¥à¤¦à¥‡à¤µà¤ƒ,

the Supreme Cause, VAsudeva (Brahman); they are mere names; नाममातà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ƒ. Also, the four entities are devoid of any essential differences; सà¥à¤µà¤°à¥‚पभेदशूनà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤ƒ, just like the clay products are devoid of any essential differences. Even as the clay pot, the jar and the saucer are essentially clay alone, so too the four entities ‘VAsudeva’, ‘SankaRShaNa’, etc. are essentially their real svarUpam: Para-vAsudevaH.

Having presented the two passages, one of Sri Shankara and the other of Sri Jayatirtha, we find these common features between them:

· The ‘वाचारमà¥à¤­à¤£à¤¶à¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¤¿â€™ does not have the word ‘मातà¥à¤°à¤®à¥â€™ in it.

· The Rg.Vedic passage does not have the word ‘मातà¥à¤°à¤®à¥â€™ in it.

· Shankara finds it fit to use the word ‘maatram’, which means mere to effectively bring out the purport of the Shruti passage.

· Jayatirtha finds it fit to use the word ‘maatram’, which means mere to effectively bring out the purport of the Shruti passage.

· The Chandogya passage has the Advaitic purport that is brought out by Shankara.

· The Rg Vedic passage has the Advaitic purport that is brought out by Jayatirtha.

· The ShAnkaran commentary, on the strength of the Shruti words मृतà¥à¤¤à¤¿à¤•à¥‡à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¥‡à¤µ सतà¥à¤¯à¤®à¥ implies that the clay-products are devoid of any essential differences.

· Jayatirtha’s comment brings out explicitly, by the words सà¥à¤µà¤°à¥‚पभेदशूनà¥à¤¯à¥ˆà¤ƒ that the entities ‘Vaasudeva, etc.’ are devoid of any essential differences.

· In the ShAnkaran passage the two essential features are: 1.The clay-products are mere names. And, 2. They are devoid of svarUpa bhEda.

· In the scheme of Jayatirtha, too, the two essential features are: 1. ‘vAsudeva’, etc. are mere names. And 2. They are devoid of svarUpa bheda.

It would be pertinent to note that the purport of what Sri Jayatirtha has said is already available in the Brahmasutra Bhashya of Shankara for the sutras: 2.2.42, 43, 44 & 45.For instance, in the bhashyam for 2.2.44 Shankara says:

न च पञà¥à¤šà¤°à¤¾à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤¸à¤¿à¤¦à¥à¤§à¤¾à¤¨à¥à¤¤à¤¿à¤­à¤¿à¤ƒ वासà¥à¤¦à¥‡à¤µà¤¾à¤¦à¤¿à¤·à¥à¤µà¥‡à¤•à¤¸à¥à¤®à¤¿à¤¨à¥ सरà¥à¤µà¥‡à¤·à¥ वा जà¥à¤žà¤¾à¤¨à¥ˆà¤¶à¥à¤µà¤°à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¦à¤¿à¤¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤à¤®à¥à¤¯à¤•à¥ƒà¤¤à¤ƒ कशà¥à¤šà¤¿à¤¦à¥à¤­à¥‡à¤¦à¥‹à¤½à¤­à¥à¤¯à¥à¤ªà¤—मà¥à¤¯à¤¤à¥‡ । वासà¥à¤¦à¥‡à¤µà¤¾ à¤à¤µ हि सरà¥à¤µà¥‡ वà¥à¤¯à¥‚हा निरà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¶à¥‡à¤·à¤¾ इषà¥à¤¯à¤¨à¥à¤¤à¥‡ । नचैते भगवदà¥à¤µà¥à¤¯à¥‚हाः चतà¥à¤ƒà¤¸à¤‚खà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾à¤®à¥‡à¤µà¤¾à¤µà¤¤à¤¿à¤·à¥à¤ à¥‡à¤°à¤¨à¥, बà¥à¤°à¤¹à¥à¤®à¤¾à¤¦à¤¿à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¤®à¥à¤¬à¤ªà¤°à¥à¤¯à¤¨à¥à¤¤à¤¸à¥à¤¯ समसà¥à¤¤à¤¸à¥à¤¯à¥ˆà¤µ जगतो भगवदà¥à¤µà¥à¤¯à¥‚हतà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤µà¤—मातॠ।

//But the followers of the Pañcharaatra do not acknowledge any difference founded on superiority of knowledge, power, & c. between Vâsudeva and the other Lords, but simply say that they all are forms of Vâsudeva, without any special distinctions. The forms of Vâsudeva cannot properly be limited to four, as the whole world, from Brahman down to a blade of grass, is understood to be a manifestation of the supreme Being.//

One can easily see how the above passage reflects the purport of Sri Jayatirtha’s commentary. And also the clay-clay products example of the Chandogya Upanishad so strikingly explains the purport of Jayatirtha’s words: ‘maatraiH’ and ‘svarUpabheda-shUnyaiH’.

The translation for the entire adhikaraNa covering the above subject is available here:

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_34218.php

For a discerning reader it would have become obvious by now that while Sri Jayatirtha is talking pure Advaita in the realm of Brahman, Shankara is demonstrating, through the Chandogya Shruti, the Advaita of Brahman, as non-different from the universe, that is the effect, product, a vivarta, of Brahman. The logic underlying the stand of both Jayatirtha and Shankara is the same: नाममातà¥à¤°à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤®à¥ , सà¥à¤µà¤°à¥‚पभेदशूनà¥à¤¯à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤®à¥. In other words, the multiplicity is mere name alone; in substance there are no multiple effects. And, within, between, across the ‘apparent’ effects, there is no difference in

substance, svarUpa. In Jayatirtha’s words this सà¥à¤µà¤°à¥‚पभेदशूनà¥à¤¯à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤®à¥ is applicable to Brahman’s, ParavAsudeva’s four manifestations. In Shankara’s scheme this सà¥à¤µà¤°à¥‚पभेदशूनà¥à¤¯à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤®à¥ is applicable to the entire universe that is Brahman’s manifestation; not just the four. Thus, the logic is the same for both Jayatirtha’s and Shankara’s assertions through the common word मातà¥à¤°à¤®à¥ ‘mere’ that they have used.

In plain words, for Dvaitins it is Advaita only with regard to Brahman (बà¥à¤°à¤¹à¥à¤®à¤£à¤¿ मातà¥à¤°à¤‚ अदà¥à¤µà¥ˆà¤¤à¤®à¥); for Advaitins it is Advaita irrespective of Brahman or the world (सरà¥à¤µà¤¥à¤¾à¤ªà¤¿ अदà¥à¤µà¥ˆà¤¤à¤®à¥‡à¤µ). To further elucidate, for Dvaitins there is a real difference between Brahman and the world; for Advaitins the world is Brahman only in the absolute terms.

The significance of Jayatirtha’s use of the word मातà¥à¤°à¥ˆà¤ƒ to bring out the Advaitic nature of Brahman could be better appreciated in the background of the Dvaita school faulting Shankara for ‘introducing’ the word मातà¥à¤°à¤®à¥ in the commentary in order to ‘somehow’ give the वाचारमà¥à¤­à¤£à¤¶à¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¤¿ an advaitic import.

शà¥à¤°à¥€à¤¸à¤¦à¥à¤—à¥à¤°à¥à¤šà¤°à¤£à¤¾à¤°à¤µà¤¿à¤¨à¥à¤¦à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤ªà¤£à¤®à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥

 

 

Namaste Dear Ram ji,My repeated attempts to post that 'test' document have failed. I am sending that file as an attachment which you may try posting on the List.Regards,subbu