Interesting comment by Udayanacharya

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

In the Atmatattvaviveka, Udayanacharya, a pre Shankara naiyyAyika, says this, while arguing against the Buddhist -

न ग्राह्यभेदमवधूय धियोऽस्ति वृत्तिस्तद्बाधने बलिनि वेदनये जयश्रीः । 

नोचेदनित्यमिदमीदृशमेव विश्वं तथ्यं तथागतमतस्य तु कोऽवकाशः ॥

The difference that is cognised between objects is not possible without there being differences in the objects themselves. Without objects, there can be no subject-object relationship between cognitions and objects. If that difference is sublated, it is a victory for Vedic system (which holds that all that exists is Brahman alone, via statements such as ekamevAdvitIyam etc), not the Buddhists'.

If it is held that those Vedic statements have a different meaning, then this world, being non permanent, is real, and has to be accepted as-is. In either scenario, what scope is there for the Buddha's view?

Here we have a pre Shankaran, non advaitin, who argues that the position of the world being mithyA, there being no difference whatsoever, etc is the true import of the Veda (veda-naya). 

That this is the true Upanishadic system, and not something that Shankaracharya invented, can be discerned by statements such as these -  made by philosophers that predate him, belonging to non-advaita schools, and having no bias towards advaita.

Secondly, Udayanacharya is saying that if the Buddhist holds the world to be mithyA, and the upaniShad holds the world to be mithyA, it is the Buddhist who has borrowed from the Veda, and not the other way around. Sometimes, we see a charge leveled against advaita that in arguing for the world's mithyAtva, we are veering into vijnAnavAda territory. Not so, says Udayanacharya - if the advaitin holds the world to be mithyA and it turns out to be correct, it is a victory for his vedic system, and not the Buddhist.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Kalyan]

Dear Sri Venkatraghavan gaaru,  Namaskaaram

An internet search shows that Udayanacharya belongs to 10th - 11th Century CE, which would be post-Shankaran.

Do you have a reason to say he is pre-Shankaran? Kindly clarify.

Best Regards

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Kalyan ji,

I based it on a speech by Mahaperiyava, HH Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Mahaswamigal, as memorialised in Deivathin Kural wherein he said that Udayanacharya and Kumarila Bhatta had come before Shankara. 

He had said - "Thus, Udayanacharya’s 

attack on the atheistic aspect of Buddhism and Kumarila’s con- 

demnation of the negation of Vedic rituals by Buddhism were 

largely instrumental in preventing Buddhism in making any head- 

way. Sankara who came later had therefore no need to deal with 

the negative aspects of Buddhism in great depth. He confined 

himself to exposing the faults which were also found in the beliefs 

the Buddhists propagated."

I haven't independently verified the respective timelines of the two Acharyas.

Source - 

https://archive.org/stream/the-vedas-sri-chandra-shekharendra-saraswati-compressed-optimized/the%20vedas%20sri%20chandra%20shekharendra%20saraswati%20compressed_Optimized_djvu.txt

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/2f93f3c1-43c1-4638-b723-3813cce1d107n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

If I am right there is drastic difference between kAnchi and Srinigeri mutt with regard to shankara’s time.  kAnchi I think is of the opinion that bhAshyakAra (Adishankara) belongs to 5^th century whereas 8^th Century as per Sringeri.  And if Udayanacharya is prior to shankara, why shankara not mentioned his name but mentioned the advaitins like audulomi, ashmaraatya, kAshakrutsna etc.  And kAnchi mutt believes in 5 different shankara-s at different periods and Adi shankara is oldest among them 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Venkatraghavan S
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2024 2:54 PM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Interesting comment by Udayanacharya

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnpMQDvex0M9OR3ee%3DSfxgbRSD6eEnUU9oLQMiXR7zN4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

In fact, someone mentioned that Udayanacharya wrote a commentary to a nyAya work by Vachaspati Mishra. 

In addition to the Kanchi Paramacharya's talk, which I had read several years ago, I also recall the reference to various anumAna-s for Ishvara's existence in the janmAdyadhikaraNam of the brahmasUtra - however, the bhAshyakAra, as is his usual style, does not specify the names of the tArkika-s who had made such anumAna-s. 

As Udayanacharya is well known as the tArkika who had provided several anumAna-s for Ishvara's existence in the nyAyakusumAnjali and other works, I had put two and two together and assumed that the bhAShyakAra was in fact referring to Udayana there.

Because I had thought the Paramacharya had so, it didnt occur to me to have checked the prevalent views on the historicity of Udayana before posting. It is possible that I may have erred in my inference, and for that, I do apologise.  

However, the point remains that an eminent ancient tArkika holds that advaita is the veda-naya and jaganmithyAtva is not a concept borrowed from Buddhism, rather it is revealed in the Vedas themselves.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581AEFC72ECAEEAEB7EBD5584502%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 4:12 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

However, the point remains that an eminent ancient tArkika holds that advaita is the veda-naya and jaganmithyAtva is not a concept borrowed from Buddhism, rather it is revealed in the Vedas themselves.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

Yes, the point is well stated. That an eminent ancient Naiyayika has said this is what matters. In the book 'Sridakshinamurtistotram Vol 1, page 614 - 615 we have the topic 'Nyaya Vaisheshika' under the sub topic 'Other schools pointers to Brahmavidya'.  Excerpts from that book are copied here:


(b) Nyaya and Vaiseshika

Since, just as in the case of the Sankhyas etc, even according to the schools of Nyaya, Vaišesika etc., liberation results from knowledge, and from the standpoint of the liberated, the world characterised as non-Self does not exist apart from the individual, they too must necessarily admit, like the Sankhyas etc, the non-duality of Self and the illusory nature of the world. Liberation being coveted as more beneficial than the positions of Brahma, Indra etc, greatest happiness is in liberation though not explicitly stated as such They speak of the non-existence of knowledge as well in liberation, in this sense that there is no knowledge whatsoever of anything that is different from Atman like the mind, senses, body, objects etc, of the world. Consciousness that is Atman is absolutely nirvikalpaka 1.c., It has no objective characteristics and hence there is no knowledge categorised as a quality in their system That liberation ensues from right knowledge which dispels the illusory knowledge is expressed by their own sutras
तत्त्वज्ञानान्निःश्रेयसाधिगम । दुःखजन्मप्रवृत्तिदोष मिथ्याज्ञानानामुत्त- रोत्तरापाये तदनन्तरापायादपवर्गः । ( 1-1-2)
[Liberation results from the removal of the illusory knowledge, which in turn, results in the successive removal of defects (like attachment, repulsion etc.,), activity, birth and misery.]

Śri Udayanācārya, the great logician, when dealing with the Buddhist logicians points out the discrepancy in their sunyavada by such statements as-

न ग्रामेदवधूय धियोऽस्ति वृत्तिः ।
तद्वाधके बलिनि वेदनये जयश्रीः || 

[Without an external object, there can be no knowledge relating to it Thumping victory crowns only the impregnable Vedantic set-up which alone shows that the external world is sublated only on the dawn of the knowledge of the Substratum.] and -

प्रविश वाऽनिर्वचनीयख्यातिकुक्षिम् तिष्ठ वा मतिकर्दममपहाय ।

[Enter the fold of the anırvacaniyakhyati of the Vedantins or remain quiet by cleansing your mind of your untenable speculations.]

That his anxiety is particularly in saving people from atheism and in providing the ground for taking eventually to the Vedantic discipline, is made clear by the above statements as also by the statement— किमार्द्र कवणिजो वहित्रचिन्तया १ [What has a ginger-trader to do with a sea-going vessel ?] when comparing his own system with Vedanta. Even the great logicians Gangeśopādhyāya and Raghunathabhaṭṭācārya have made clear in the invocations respectively in their compositions that their sole purport is in Brahman of the Vedanta, which, though by Itself transcends the three gunas, appears to be associated with them because of upadhi and which is secondless, impartite Bliss and Consciousness-

गुणातीतोऽपीशस्त्रिगुणसचिव: । and अखण्डानन्द वोधाय पूर्णाय परमात्मने ||

Likewise, that the purport of Annambhatta, the author of the Tarkasangrahadipikā is also in Vedanta, is indicated by his choice of the Mahāvākya ‘That thou art' to exemplify the Jahadajahallakṣaṇā and his concluding statement in the Dipika that the purpose of the Tarkasangraha is in aiding manana i.e., contemplation on what is learnt from Śruti i.e., śravana, as per the Śruti- आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः ।
(Br. U. 2-4-5)

It is worth studying the other pages in that book where similar views of eminent authors of other darshanas on Vedanta are cited.  The book can be accessed here:  https://archive.org/details/SridaksinamurtistotramVolIByD.S.Subbaramaiya  

Read from page 611 onwards.  

warm regards

subbu

[V Subrahmanian]

A correction in the verse cited:

न ग्रामेदवधूय     should read: न ग्राह्यभेदमवधूय...  

(It occurred due to the 'convert image to word' facility, a very useful tool: https://www.imagetotext.info/) 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

Thanks for this. Some of the quotes from the SriDakshinamurtistotram book whose extracts you pasted below, reminded me of a particular section from the laghuchandrikA (the end of the chapter on mithyAtva mithyAtva) -

There, Sri gauDa brahmAnanda quotes a passage from the bauddhAdhikAra of Udayana containing the प्रविश वा अनिर्वचनीयख्यातिकुक्षिं, तिष्ठ वा मतिकर्दममपहाय and किमार्द्रकवणिजो वहित्रचिन्तया quotes referred to in your email below.

Pasting it here, as it builds on the  subject of a non-advaitin's understanding and respect for advaita.

If you read the text, Udayana is saying that the Buddhist must necessarily concede that his shUnya has to be self evident, and if it is self evident, he has entered the path of Vedanta (स्वतः सिद्धा चेदायातोऽसि मार्गेण).

Further, there has to be some relationship between shUnyatva, which is of the nature of experience, and the world. What is it? If it is said that the relationship is that because of which the world is revealed, such a relationship cannot be real. However, due to ignorance, there can be a subject object relationship between the two(तथापि प्रपञ्चशून्यस्यानुभवमात्रस्य प्रपञ्चेन कः संबन्धः ? येनायं प्रकाशत इति चेत्, वस्तुतो न कश्चित् संवृत्या तु गगनगन्धर्वनगरयोराधाराधेयभाव इव विषयविषयिभावः)

If that is the case, one is accepting the anirvachanIya khyAti of the advaitins. If one is unwilling to accept it, all one is left with is the reality of external objects as stated by naiyyAyikas like him. तस्मादनुभवव्यवस्थितावनात्मापि स्फुरतीत्यवर्जनीयमिति प्रविश वा अनिर्वचनीयख्यातिकुक्षिं, तिष्ठ वा मतिकर्दममपहाय न्यायानुसारेण नीलादीनां पारमार्थिकत्वे

He concludes with a rhetorical flourish saying - be that as it may, why should the ginger seller concern himself with a vast export ship? (ie there is no possibility for him to even thinking of a vast trade enterprise, when he is trying to make his daily living) - तदास्तां तावत्, किमार्द्रकवणिजो वहित्रचिन्तयेति.

Essentially he is saying that when he is dealing with mundane things like setting right a dvaita system, talking of a deep topic like advaita is not only beyond the scope of what he is seeking to achieve, it also undermines his immediate task at hand, showing the deep respect that Udayana had for advaita.

The laghuchandrikA text quoting from the Atmatattvaviveka and its commentary by brahmAnanda is pasted below for reference (the image to text converter is brilliant!) -

किंचोदयनाचार्याणां वेदान्तदर्शन एव महती श्रद्धा, बौद्धाधिकार एव हि सर्वदर्शनानि निराकृत्य वेदान्तदर्शनमेव पुरस्कृतं तैः । तथाहि - तत्रोक्तम्- 'अस्तु तर्हि शून्यतैव परमनिर्वाणमिति चेन्न । सा हि यद्यसिद्धा, कथं तदवशेषं विश्वं ? परतश्चेत् सिद्धा, परोऽप्युपगन्तव्यः स च परो यदि संवृतिरेव, विश्वशून्यतयोर्न कश्चिद्विशेषः, कथं तदप्यवशिष्येत ? असंवृतिश्चेत् परः परत एव सिद्धा; अनवस्था । स्वयमसिद्धा चेत् कथं शून्यत्वमपि साधयेत् । स्वतः सिद्धा चेदायातोऽसि मार्गेण । तथाहि - स्वतः सिद्धतया तदनुभवरूपं शून्यत्वादेव न तस्य कालावच्छेद इति नित्यम् । अतएव न तस्य देशावच्छेद इति व्यापकम् । अतएव निर्धर्मकमिति विचारास्पृष्टम् ; तस्य धर्मधर्मिभावमुपादाय प्रवृत्तेः । अतएव तस्य विशेषाभाव इत्यद्वैतम् । प्रपञ्चस्यापारमार्थिकत्वादेव निष्प्रतियोगिकमिति विधिरूपम् | अविचारितप्रपञ्चाक्षेपातु शून्यमिति व्यवहारः । तथापि प्रपञ्चशून्यस्यानुभवमात्रस्य प्रपञ्चेन कः संबन्धः ? येनायं प्रकाशत इति चेत्, वस्तुतो न कश्चित् संवृत्या तु गगनगन्धर्वनगरयोराधाराधेयभाव इव विषयविषयिभावः । स च यथा नैयायिकैः समर्थयिष्यते तथैव वेद्यनिष्टस्त्वसावस्मिन् दर्शन इति विशेषः । अविद्यैव हि तथा तथा विवर्तते, यथानुभवीयतया व्यवह्रियते तत्तन्मायोपनीतोपाधिभेदाच्चानुभूतिरपि भिन्नेव व्यवहारपथमवतरति, गगनमिव स्वप्नदृष्टघटकटाहकोटरकुटीकोटिभिः । तदास्तां तावत्, किमार्द्रकवणिजो वहित्रचिन्तयेति । तस्मादनुभवव्यवस्थितावनात्मापि स्फुरतीत्यवर्जनीयमिति प्रविश वा अनिर्वचनीयख्यातिकुक्षिं, तिष्ठ वा मतिकर्दममपहाय न्यायानुसारेण नीलादीनां पारमार्थिकत्वे' इत्यादि ॥

 

उक्तवाक्यानां संक्षेपेण व्याख्यानम् । संवृतिः भ्रमः । शून्यत्वात् असङ्गत्वात् । तस्य विचारस्य । निष्प्रतियोगिकं प्रपञ्चप्रतियोगिकत्वस्य स्वनिष्ठस्य मिथ्यात्वेन तच्छून्यम् । विधिरूपं निर्विकल्पकधी- वेद्यम् । अविचारितप्रपञ्चाक्षेपात् यतः प्रपञ्चो विचारासहः, अतस्तस्य श्रुत्यादिना निषेधः । प्रकाशते प्रकाश संबद्धः । संवृत्या अविद्यया । विषयविषयिभावः विषयिप्रतियोगिकं विषयत्वं नैयायिकैः मादृशैः । समर्थयिष्यते प्रकाशस्य सतः तदीयतामात्र निबन्धनः स्वभावविशेषो विषयतेत्यादिना निरूपयिष्यते । तथा तादृशः । तार्किकमते तादात्म्यान्यसंबन्धरूपोऽपि वेदान्तिदर्शने तादात्म्यरूपस्तार्किकसंमतविषयतात्वविशेष्यतात्वादिविशेषयुक्त इति भावः । वेद्यनिष्ठः वस्तुनिष्ठः, नतु वित्तिनिष्टः । परस्पराध्यासानुरोधात् वित्तितादात्म्यस्य वित्तिभिन्नेष्वेव कल्पितत्वात्, वित्तेः स्वप्रकाशत्वेन वित्तिविषयत्वासंभवाच्च वित्तेस्तादात्म्यरूपा विषयतापि वित्तिभिन्नेष्वेव नतु वित्ताविति भावः । अस्मिन्दर्शने वेदान्तिदर्शने । तत्तन्मायेति । मूलाविद्या पल्लवाविद्येत्यर्थः । मायोपनीत तत्तदुपाधीनां भेदादिति वा योजना बोध्या । वहित्रेति । महानौकेत्यर्थः । यथा शूर्पादिपात्रे आर्द्रकाणि स्थापयित्वा विक्रीणतो वणिजो वहित्रमनुपयुक्तम्, प्रत्युत कार्यविरोधि, समुद्रगतवहित्रस्थस्यार्द्रकस्य तद्ग्राहकसकलसाधारणजनैर्दृष्टत्वाभावात् । तथा द्वैतमतमेव परिष्कुर्वतो मम वेदान्तदर्शनमनुपयुक्तम् । द्वैतमतविरोधि च, द्वैतखण्डनयुक्तीनां मिथ्यात्व ग्राहकमानस्य च तत्र पुरस्कारात्, तथापि वहित्रमिव वेदान्तदर्शनं पुरुषधौरेयस्य परमप्रयोजनं साधयत्येवेति वेदान्तदर्शने तदन्यसर्वदर्शनेभ्य उत्कर्षः आचार्याभिप्रेत इति ॥

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3wAiVfYo%2Bddn98E9qRRfnvXQ_8HzRhiqcSEo0LFXj7YQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste Venkat ji,

The material you provide is very interesting indeed.  My Acharya used to say:  All non-Advaitic schools (non-Vedantic schools in those ancient times) catered to the adhikarin-s who were not yet prepared for the Vedantic truth. It is not that the proponents of those schools were ignorant of the methods and the final goal of the Vedanta. We can get a taste of this from Shankara Bhagavatpada's respectful reference to Gautama Muni while citing the nyaya sutra:    तथा च आचार्यप्रणीतं न्यायोपबृंहितं सूत्रम् — ‘दुःखजन्मप्रवृत्तिदोषमिथ्याज्ञानानामुत्तरोत्तरापाये तदनन्तरापायादपवर्गः’ (न्या. सू. १ । १ । २) इति । मिथ्याज्ञानापायश्च ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानाद्भवति ।    

What is also interesting is that the concept/term 'anirvachaniyakhyati' was known in the 10th century CE. This verse must have been popular then:

आत्मख्यातिरसत्ख्यातिः अख्यातिः ख्यातिरन्यथा । 

तथा अनिर्वचनीयख्यातिः इत्येतत् ख्यातिपञ्चकम् ॥  

regards

subbu       

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnh%3D6JL8xBDgrE082kYax8ogOqL9miKfM1b6C1p%2B9%3DdXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

Yes, that is very true.

In fact it appears that the five views on adhyAsa (pancha khyAti vAda) were known even in Shankaracharya's time.

Although Shankaracharya does not explicitly use the names of the pancha khyAti-s, he does refer to various views on the subject in the adhyAsa bhAShya section. Subsequent interpretators have explained which sentences in the bhAShya correspond to which -

स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः ।

(Referring to anirvachanIya khyAti)

तं केचित् अन्यत्रान्यधर्माध्यास इति वदन्ति । (Referring to AtmakhyAti / anyathAkhyAti)

केचित्तु यत्र यदध्यासः तद्विवेकाग्रहनिबन्धनो भ्रम इति । (Referring to akhyAti)

अन्ये तु यत्र यदध्यासः तस्यैव विपरीतधर्मत्वकल्पनामाचक्षते । (Referring to asatkhyAti)

सर्वथापि त्वन्यस्यान्यधर्मकल्पनां न व्यभिचरति । (Conclusion that anirvachanIyatA must be accepted by all).

Clearly, the ideas behind the terms must have existed even at the time of the construction of the sUtras themselves, because their underlying systems are taken up for refutation by the sUtrakAra himself.

 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1UGrwz5e9bOd8QzJdqz5GfaTPjsM_3UjkAtghEr4R1dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः ।

(Referring to anirvachanIya khyAti)

 

तं केचित् अन्यत्रान्यधर्माध्यास इति वदन्ति । (Referring to AtmakhyAti / anyathAkhyAti)

 

केचित्तु यत्र यदध्यासः तद्विवेकाग्रहनिबन्धनो भ्रम इति । (Referring to akhyAti)

 

अन्ये तु यत्र यदध्यासः तस्यैव विपरीतधर्मत्वकल्पनामाचक्षते । (Referring to asatkhyAti)

 

सर्वथापि त्वन्यस्यान्यधर्मकल्पनां न व्यभिचरति । (Conclusion that anirvachanIyatA must be accepted by all).

 

Ø     Just wondering where in the last sentence ‘anirvachanIyatA’ entered!!??  My plain reading could not able to find this word.  It is just saying that an object appears as possessed of an attribute it does not really have and which belongs to another object.  If I am right bhAshyakAra does not identify these (above 3) views and as a matter of fact nowhere (anywhere in PTB if I am right) he discussed the khyAti vAda in general and paNcha khyAti or anirvachaneeya khyAti in particular.  At the best we can infer that these three variants on reality transfer were prevalent during the formation of adhyAsa bhAshya ( and it is also not clear whether bhAshyakAra keeping other khyAti related works written by some others in mind or guessing the possibilities of these variants on his own) .  He does not analyzed these theories in details nor declared any judgements on them nor it seems he intended to advocate his own theory on any of the khyAti vAda.  The anivachanIya khyAti vAda which you are reading in the above sentence is quite conspicuous by its absence I reckon atleast in this particular context.  Sorry I am just sharing my observation after seeing your observation and ‘conclusion’. 

 

Ø     And further bhAshyakAra quite often reiterate that this socalled reality transfer is common experience and not merely a assumption.  In this adhyAsa bhAshya bhAshyakAra does not give any pramANa vAkya to prove adhyAsa he strongly holds here the common experience of everyone which cannot be disputed and this is also consistent with his observation naisargikOyaM lOka vyavahArAH.  In the shukti rajata example also it is very clear that the rajata although not present in the shukti at that time, is a real thing, existing elsewhere.  It is the memory of that silver (existing elsewhere) in the person that is responsible for the cognition of silver in shukti.  This is common experience of jnAnAdhyAsa. 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

This is not my conclusion - I was only paraphrasing the bhAmati. 

ननु सन्तु नाम परीक्षकाणां विप्रतिपत्तयः, प्रकृते तु किमायातमित्यत आह - सर्वथापि त्वन्यस्यान्यधर्मकल्पनां न व्यभिचरति ।अन्यस्यान्यधर्मकल्पनानृतता, सा चानिर्वचनीयतेत्यधस्तादुपपादितम् । तेन सर्वेषामेव परीक्षकाणां मतेऽन्यस्यान्यधर्मकल्पनानिर्वचनीयतावश्यम्भाविनीत्यनिर्वचनीयता सर्वतन्त्रसिद्धान्त इत्यर्थः । 

If you think that your view is different to the commentator's interpretation, that is fine. 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658125092143D0CF39D165FF84562%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

It would be worthwhile digging into the pre-Shankaran Buddhist or Jain works if they contain the term 'anirvachaniya khyati' while refuting Vedanta. Surely to me it does not appear to be a term coined by the Bhamati.  It must have existed much earlier. Udayanacharya, who has been dated 10th CE and post Bhamati, if he is using the term anirvachaniya khyati so clearly, he must have got it in a sampradaya. 

regards

subbu  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmzr821rgg9wb_0zcJdvcbVj4%2BdgJrnDZU7kQtaUb%3D8fQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji.

Hare Krishna

 

This is not my conclusion - I was only paraphrasing the bhAmati. 

 

Ø     Is this interpretation acceptable to the paNchapAdika vivaraNa school also??  Just curious. 

 

If you think that your view is different to the commentator's interpretation, that is fine. 

 

Ø     I thought this view point of bhAmati is quite different from that of bhAshyakAra’s adhyAsa bhAshya.  Anyway I am happy to note that it is just bhAmati’s and not your conclusion. 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

The panchapAdika agrees with anirvachanIya khyAti also.

To clarify, my point was that the source of the conclusion is not me, but previous commentators - not that I disagree with such a conclusion. 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB65927C46E06D0616D3C9B18E84562%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.