Can anyone review this paper written by mahAmahOpAdhyAya kothimangalam varadacharya? -satyAnvEshaNa
Krishna Kashyap
This is my first post on this group.
I have worked with MahAmahOpAdhyAya KS Varadachar - Kothimangalam Varadacharya (or K.S Varadachar (KSV)) for the last 4-5 years. To my knowledge, after 75+ years of research on Vedanta and Darshanas, KSV has come up with some great insights. He is about 92 years old now.
However, I feel that his views are not understood or appreciated in the scholar community. I feel that he has introduced very innovative ideas which sort of unify the apparently divergent views of Tri-mathas of - Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya, which are probably fundamental views on vedanta. Other systems of Vedanta are sort of derivative from these basic ideas, since one is Bheda (Difference), other is Abheda- (Non-Difference), and the view of Sri Ramanujacharya is VisitAdvaita-Qualified Monism (which needs a lot of explanation, since it is not easily understood).
A group of people helped me in this translation of "SatyAnvEshana" paper written in Sanskrit to English. I have attached the english version. I can send the sanskrit original to anyone who wants it. I request people to read this paper and kindly write a review of it. It took us a couple of years to write this translation, since we wanted to write it only after properly understanding the different views and debating them to the extent of our knowledge with its author KS Varadachar. K.S Varadachar lives in Mysore, Karnataka.
Thanks.
Regards,
Krishna Kashyap
Krishna Kashyap
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Dr. T. Ganesan
This is also the case with the 3 volume book "The Brahmasutra-s and their principal commentaries" by BNK Sharma (Published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai between 1971-78) which purports to undertake a critical study of the three commentaries of--Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva, but which ends up with the usual proclaiming that Madhva's interpretation alone is the logical and correct one in all the adhikaraNa-s.
That apart, is such a "unity" logically possible ? !!!
For, Sankara stands apart among all these commentators as the champion of "निर्विशेषब्रह्म" as the supreme reality whereas all others do not hold such a view at all.
Ganesan
On 25-02-2014 02:55, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः wrote:
Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)
Namaste
Sharing my personal opinion,
1. Prof. / MM KSV’s work should be reviewed from a broader perspective and mind set. Unless one goes through the complete writing he has made in his wonderful work Satyaanveshana in Samskrutham and sees the overall logic, the original contribution of the work and value of it can not be understood.
2. KSV is impartially appreciative and equally critically of all three Vedantacharya systems and practices. His tuning is more aligned to the unified approach provided by Sri Rangapriya Deshika Swamigal (aka HSV) and Sri Ranga Mahaguru, who had made great inroads in the practical understanding of Yoga-Sadhana and also trained several students for practice.
Prof. KSV ‘s respect for Advaita schools is no less in relation to his respect for Vishistaadvaita / Vaishnava traditions. His writings are a result of personal deep deliberation and scholarship over a period of years.
3. Each reviewer has the personal privilege of looking at the given resource from different perspectives and have the review articulation. During my personal interactions with KSV I have found him to be extremely open, soft in guiding, critical in matters of scholarship and impartial. His personal preference to stay with Sri Vaishnava practices as a practicing family tradition does not seem to influence his scholarly critiquing of the SriVaishnava positions and practices ! That is the quality of a great teacher and researcher.
Regards
BVK Sastry
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3705/7122 - Release Date: 02/24/14
Rakesh Das
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
राकेश दाशः
Asst. Professor
Dept. of Sanskrit Studies
Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University
Belur Math Howrah.
वंशीविभूषितकरान्नवनीरदाभात्
पीताम्बरादरुणबिम्बफलाधरोष्ठात्।
पूर्णेन्दुसुन्दरमुखादरविन्दनेत्रात्
कृष्णात्परं किमपि तत्त्वमहं न जाने।।
भारत माता की जय
Dr. T. Ganesan
May be. But, it is not obligatory or logical to hold that a sadhaka has to pass through all these 3 or more states.
Further, what is the highest realisation that one reaches after passing through these states ? For Sri Ramakrishna it is Maa Kaali and none else.
As Sri Ramakrishna himself and many others including Svami Vivekananda hold, the non-duality (Advaita of the type propagated by Samkara ) is considered to be the highest one whereas the other views are the lower ones, like steps--सोपानक्रम , revealing a sort of condescending attitude to 'accommodate' the other views.
But definitely the individual acharya-s (Ramanuja and Madhva) of the other systems do not hold such a view. According to each one of them the system propagated by him leads to the highest realisation.
Ganesan
On 25-02-2014 11:02, Rakesh Das wrote:
There may be an answer in the views of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. He states that these three doctrines though apparently contradictory to each other are not actually. In the way of Sadhana, the Sadhaka experiences all these three states i.e. he has to pass through these three states to complete his sadhana.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> wrote:
This is also the case with the 3 volume book "The Brahmasutra-s and their principal commentaries" by BNK Sharma (Published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai between 1971-78) which purports to undertake a critical study of the three commentaries of--Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva, but which ends up with the usual proclaiming that Madhva's interpretation alone is the logical and correct one in all the adhikaraNa-s.
That apart, is such a "unity" logically possible ? !!!
For, Sankara stands apart among all these commentators as the champion of "निर्विशेषब्रह्म" as the supreme reality whereas all others do not hold such a view at all.
Ganesan
On 25-02-2014 02:55, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः wrote:
I have tried to read this work and I can say that he is partial to vishiShTAsvaita-matam and his efforts don't appear to unify three mata-s.
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
www.lalitaalaalitah.com
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have shared the original sanskrit version here since I could not upload it.
Regards
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:58:18 AM UTC-8, Krishna Kashyap wrote:This is my first post on this group.
I have worked with MahAmahOpAdhyAya KS Varadachar - Kothimangalam Varadacharya (or K.S Varadachar (KSV)) for the last 4-5 years. To my knowledge, after 75+ years of research on Vedanta and Darshanas, KSV has come up with some great insights. He is about 92 years old now.
However, I feel that his views are not understood or appreciated in the scholar community. I feel that he has introduced very innovative ideas which sort of unify the apparently divergent views of Tri-mathas of - Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya, which are probably fundamental views on vedanta. Other systems of Vedanta are sort of derivative from these basic ideas, since one is Bheda (Difference), other is Abheda- (Non-Difference), and the view of Sri Ramanujacharya is VisitAdvaita-Qualified Monism (which needs a lot of explanation, since it is not easily understood).
A group of people helped me in this translation of "SatyAnvEshana" paper written in Sanskrit to English. I have attached the english version. I can send the sanskrit original to anyone who wants it. I request people to read this paper and kindly write a review of it. It took us a couple of years to write this translation, since we wanted to write it only after properly understanding the different views and debating them to the extent of our knowledge with its author KS Varadachar. K.S Varadachar lives in Mysore, Karnataka.
Thanks.
Regards,
Krishna Kashyap
इत्थं सश्रद्धं निवेदयतिRakesh Das
राकेश दाशः
Asst. Professor
Dept. of Sanskrit Studies
Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University
Belur Math Howrah.
वंशीविभूषितकरान्नवनीरदाभात्
पीताम्बरादरुणबिम्बफलाधरोष्ठात्।
पूर्णेन्दुसुन्दरमुखादरविन्दनेत्रात्
कृष्णात्परं किमपि तत्त्वमहं न जाने।।
भारत माता की जय
--
Dr. T. Ganesan
KSV is impartially appreciative and equally critically of all three Vedantacharya systems and practices. His tuning is more aligned to the unified approach provided by Sri Rangapriya Deshika Swamigal (aka HSV) and Sri Ranga Mahaguru, who had made great inroads in the practical understanding of Yoga-Sadhana and also trained several students for practice.
Yoga and other related practices being the basics, each school modifies the practices and even the outlook on Yoga topics to suit its highest goal.
This is much clearer and more evident in the systems based on Agama-s/Tantra-s.
That said, it is to be seen to which system of Yoga-saadhanaa KSV has trained his students for practice.
Ganesan
On 25-02-2014 11:29, Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop) wrote:
Namaste
Sharing my personal opinion,
1. Prof. / MM KSV’s work should be reviewed from a broader perspective and mind set. Unless one goes through the complete writing he has made in his wonderful work Satyaanveshana in Samskrutham and sees the overall logic, the original contribution of the work and value of it can not be understood.
Prof. KSV ‘s respect for Advaita schools is no less in relation to his respect for Vishistaadvaita / Vaishnava traditions. His writings are a result of personal deep deliberation and scholarship over a period of years.
V Subrahmanian
- The Acharya (KSV) says on page 5 that Shankara has not cited even a single shruti passage in the 'adhyAsa bhAShyam' [preamble to Shankara's Brahmasutrabhashya]. Actually there is one passage 'brAhmaNo yajeta' in that document which appears to be a shruti passage: Sanskrit commentary to Bh.gitA 2.22 by Sri Neelkantha
ननु 'ब्राह्मणो यजेत','जातपुत्रः कृष्णकेशोऽग्नीनादधीत' इति आत्मानं वयोवर्णादिविशेषणवन्तमेवाधिकृत्य कर्मविधयः प्रवर्तन्ते तेन नीलादुत्पलमिव देहादन्य आत्मावधारयितुं न शक्यत इत्याशङ्क्याह -- वासांसीति। Also in the bhATTadIpikA http://shiva.iiit.ac.in/SabdaSaarasvataSarvasvam/index.php/Mimamsa:Bhattadipika-4"यदि 'ब्राह्मणो यजेते" त्यादिश्रुतैर्वाक्यैः ब्राह्मणकर्तृत्वस्य विधानात्कर्तुश्च From this document in the URL we understand that this vAkyam is taken as the 'viShayavAkyam' in the original mImAmsA work/s. Shankara has cited this vAkyam in the adhyAsa bhAShyam.
The Acharya says that 'pariNAmavAda is the one admissible by 'knowers' (jnAni-ns) and 'vivartavAda' is advocated by ajnAni-s'. Such a view is certainly not a correct representation of Advaita doctrine, even if the Acharya wants to end up arriving at a samanvaya of the three schools. For, in the famous Advaitic work
विवर्तवादस्य पूर्वभूमिः वेदान्तवादे परिणामवादः ।
व्यवस्थितेऽस्मिन् परिणामवादे स्वयं समायाति विवर्तवादः ॥
SankshepashAreeraka. 2.61
[The doctrine of transformation (sAnkhya) is the one that just precedes the doctrine of transfiguration (vivarta) of the Vedanta. Once the former is well grasped, the latter falls in place by itself.]
The Ratnaprabha for BSB of Shankara (2.1.14) at the end quotes a verse in this connection: कृपणधीः परिणाममुदीक्षते क्षयितकल्मषधीस्तु विवर्तताम् (source not provided). [‘The unprepared aspirant understands only the ‘creation, transformation’ scheme whereas the one who has purified his mind of all dross is able to appreciate the ‘transfiguration’ vivarta of Atman/Brahman as appearing as the world and jIva-s.’]- In shankara's prasthAnatraya bhAShya-s themselves one can see a lot of explicit evidence for his adhering to the vivartavAda. For example: 1. त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि 'विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते' इति मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः।। in Bh. Gitaa BhAShyam 2.16 or when He concludes. In the famous tadaikShata' of the chandogya regarding Brahman's sankalpa to create the universe, shankara says: 6.2.3: तत्सत् ऐक्षत ईक्षां दर्शनं कृतवत् । ....इदं तु चेतनं ईक्षितृत्वात् । तत्कथमैक्षत इत्याह - बहु प्रभूतं स्यां भवेयं प्रजायेय प्रकर्षेणोत्पद्येय । यथा मृद्घटाद्याकारेण यथा वा रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेणबुद्धिपरिकल्पितेन । ....एवम् ईक्षित्वा तत्तेजोऽसृजत तेजः सृष्टवत् ।
- In the document the Acharya says: 'How many advaitins are aware that Shankara never said that the jagat is mithyA? ' One can easily see that such is not the view of both the lay and the laity with regard to Advaita and Shankara's works/views.
- Then there is the other charge that 'Shankara's followers did not understand Shankara' See p.5.
- This paragraph on p.5 appears contradictory to the avowed 'samanvaya' of the three matha-s:
The Acharya says in some places that he has substantiated in the main book what he says in the document. In any case what one opines after reading the above document is what I have stated above.
--
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
"दर्शनकृतां हि विवादो न मात्सर्येण वाङ्मात्रेण वा ; किन्तु तत्त्वाभिमानादेव ।
- इति खण्डनखण्डखाद्यकारः ।
एतेन - रामानुजादीनामद्वैतरहस्यादिज्ञानवत्त्वेऽपि द्वैतोपदेशो मन्देषु
कृपयेति वदन्तः - परास्ताः । न हि - तेषां परीक्षकत्वे कृपावशेन मिथ्याभिनिवेशः
सम्भवति । न वा - मन्दानामेव द्वैतमार्गे प्रवेश इति नियमः ।
रामानुजादीनामुदाहरणेन शमदमादिवतामपि तत्र प्रवृत्तिदर्शनात् । तथा च
, मन्दोपकारित्वेऽपि उत्तमपातहेतुत्वेन कृपैषा प्रत्यवायकारिणी स्यात् तेषामाचार्य्याणाम् । अत
एव , रामानुजादीनां द्वैतेऽभिनिवेशस्तत्र सत्यत्वबुद्ध्यैव इत्येवोचितम् ।"
- ललिलालालितः ।
- इति कदाचिन्मया लिखितं कुत्रचित् ।
इदं तु यद्यपि तेषामद्वैतिनामेवाधुनिकानां निरासाय येऽपरीक्ष्यैव तत्त्वं 'सर्व्वेषामेव रामानुजमध्वादीनामद्वैततत्त्वज्ञानमासीत् , विशिष्टाद्वैतद्वैतादिप्रतिपादनं च मन्दानामद्वैतानधिकारिणां कृते एव' - इति प्रतिपन्नाः ।
तथैव सत्यान्वेषणकारस्य रीतिः 'सर्व्वेषां शङ्करमध्वादीनां विशिष्टाद्वैते एव तात्पर्य्यम् , अद्वैतद्वैतप्रतिपादनं तु प्रयोजनविशेषमुद्दिश्य' - इति निरसनीया ।
तथैव गणेशनमहाभागैर्दूषितस्य द्वैतिनः कस्यचित् शर्म्मणः खण्डनम् ।
रामकृष्णस्य त्वदार्शनिकत्वादेवापरीक्ष्य यत्किमपि प्रतिपादयतः हेयता ।
एकैव रीतिः सम्भवति दर्शनानामेकीकरणाय या आधुनिकैः मतमात्रे आग्रहरहितैः आद्रियते । सा तु 'सर्व्वाणि मतानि तुच्छानि कल्पितप्रतिपादनपराणि अप्रमाणानि' - इति ।
'दर्शनैः प्रतिपादनीयं तत्त्वं यथार्थम्' - इति मत्त्वा तु सर्व्वेषां मतानामेकीकरणं न सम्भवति यथा सूचितं प्रश्नद्वारा गणेशनविदुषा ।
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
Namaste
Sharing my personal opinion,
1. Prof. / MM KSV’s work should be reviewed from a broader perspective and mind set. Unless one goes through the complete writing he has made in his wonderful work Satyaanveshana in Samskrutham and sees the overall logic, the original contribution of the work and value of it can not be understood.
2. KSV is impartially appreciative and equally critically of all three Vedantacharya systems and practices. His tuning is more aligned to the unified approach provided by Sri Rangapriya Deshika Swamigal (aka HSV) and Sri Ranga Mahaguru, who had made great inroads in the practical understanding of Yoga-Sadhana and also trained several students for practice.
Prof. KSV ‘s respect for Advaita schools is no less in relation to his respect for Vishistaadvaita / Vaishnava traditions. His writings are a result of personal deep deliberation and scholarship over a period of years.
3. Each reviewer has the personal privilege of looking at the given resource from different perspectives and have the review articulation. During my personal interactions with KSV I have found him to be extremely open, soft in guiding, critical in matters of scholarship and impartial. His personal preference to stay with Sri Vaishnava practices as a practicing family tradition does not seem to influence his scholarly critiquing of the SriVaishnava positions and practices ! That is the quality of a great teacher and researcher.
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
There may be an answer in the views of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. He states that these three doctrines though apparently contradictory to each other are not actually.
In the way of Sadhana, the Sadhaka experiences all these three states i.e. he has to pass through these three states to complete his sadhana.
Dr. T. Ganesan
Ganesan
--
Nityanand Misra
More "criticisms", "diasgreements" or "dismissals" than "reviews" here. :) I have not read the work (in fact none of Acharya's works except the Amrtakataka commentary on VR edited by him), but does the respected Acharya himself state that his work attempts to unify three systems, or is it the interpretation of Sh. Krishna Kashyap ("I feel that he has introduced very innovative ideas which sort of unify ..")?
I know of one work which is an atttempt at showing Samanvaya of not only the three schools mentioned below (Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita) but also other Vedānta schools (Bhāskara's Bhedābheda, Nimbārka's Dvaitādvaita, Vallabha's Śuddhadvaita (Puṣṭimārga), and Acintyabhedābheda (of six Gosvāmins of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava school), and the five other schools of Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika and Mīmāṁsā. The essay is titled Ṣaḍdarśanasamanvaya, is in Hindi and runs into a good 50-60 pages. It is the introduction to the book पातञ्जलयोगप्रदीप (Gita Press 2007, ISBN 8129300117).
Krishna Kashyap
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/8PP6g1jsUMU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Krishna Kashyap
It seems like for this very same purpose, a great expert in different schools of philosophical thought (darsanas) and a great thinker, Srimad Abhinava Ranganatha Parakala Swamy was born on this earth. He never valued unnecessary protocols and supported only the truth rather than the personalities or the tradition (sampradaya) they belonged to. He used to often say openly in front of several people: “I will not agree if someone says Bhagavad rAmAnuja is the only avatAra purusa (divine saint who has descended here to preach the ultimate truth)!”. He strongly believed that even though various later writers explained different philosophical works in different ways, the original pioneers in different systems of philosophy are all great saints. Depending on the level of maturity of the aspirants around them, and based on the times and places they belonged to, these saints had to use different words and strategies to teach people. However, many later writers who explained the works of these pioneering founder AchAryas, probably could not extricate themselves from their own preconceived opinions and turned these philosophies upside down by focusing too much on the words.
In essence, the work started by Sri SankarAchArya was completed by Bhagavad rAmAnuja.
When I was trying very hard to digest the meanings of the teachings without paying attention to symbolisms, by contemplating on these for a long time, I had the grace of the all knowing bhagavan Sri Ranga Maha Guru (Sri Ranga-vishnu), of Hedathale, due to whose causeless mercy, all the doubts within me melted away just like how fog disappears in the sunlight. Several times, Bhagawan Sri Rangaguru clearly told that “If Sri Ramanujacharya was born at the time of Sri SankarAchArya, he would also have followed the methodology of Sri SankarAchArya. Similarly, if Sri SankarAchArya had taken birth at the time of Sri Ramanujacharya, he would have followed the path of Srimad Ramanujacharya. There is no doubt that their hearts are one and the same. The difference in the usage of words and style of language are consistent with their times and is unavoidable”.
"
an.nar...@yahoo.co.in
Dr. T. Ganesan
I know of one work which is an atttempt at showing Samanvaya of not only the three schools mentioned below (Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita) but also other Vedānta schools (Bhāskara's Bhedābheda, Nimbārka's Dvaitādvaita, Vallabha's Śuddhadvaita (Puṣṭimārga), and Acintyabhedābheda (of six Gosvāmins of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava school), and the five other schools of Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika and Mīmāṁsā. The essay is titled Ṣaḍdarśanasamanvaya, is in Hindi and runs into a good 50-60 pages.
If that supposed Samanvaya did exist, why then, was it missed by the AcArya-s of these systems and by the succeeding teachers?
Taking the example of Bhaskara who commented on the Brahmasuutra-s and followed Samkara within a century, he fully refutes Samkara's interpretationa and finally calls him 'Pracchannabauddha' . This single word fully represents how Samkara's interpretations were viewed among the contemporary VedAnta teachers. That means according to Bhaskara, Samkara's interpretation would lead only to Buddhist Nihilism which Buddhist view is the perceived common opponent and to refute whose views all the AcArya-s have embarked upon writing commentaries on the BrahmasUtra-s. Here Bhaskara does not say that Samkara's interpretation is one way and his own interpretation, another one. For him, Samkara's view is absolutely untenable and should be refuted completely. In such a glaring situation, how can one attempt to find a Samanvaya, say, of these two systems ? The same is the case with other AcArya-s also.
Then, why is there so much variation and disagreement even among the VaishNava VedAnta AcArya-s beginning from Ramanuja, etc. ??
I would suggest to a prospective samanvaya seeker first of all to make an attempt to find the 'samanvaya' among these VaishNava commentators on the BrahmasUtra-s !!!
Ganesan
Dr. T. Ganesan
Several times, Bhagawan Sri Rangaguru clearly told that “If Sri Ramanujacharya was born at the time of Sri SankarAchArya, he would also have followed the methodology of Sri SankarAchArya. Similarly, if Sri SankarAchArya had taken birth at the time of Sri Ramanujacharya, he would have followed the path of Srimad Ramanujacharya. There is no doubt that their hearts are one and the same. The difference in the usage of words and style of language are consistent with their times and is unavoidable”.
If for argument's sake there is no doubt that their hearts are one and the same, then why a long criticism of Advaita in the form of LaghupuurvapakSha and still longer Saptavidha anupapatti in the Sribhaashya ???
As I had said earlier, the basic concept of निर्विशेषब्रह्म and जगन्मिथ्यात्व of Advaita can never be accepted by any other Vedanta teacher, and when these fundamental concepts held by Advaita Vedanta are so much disputed by all others, how can there be a 'matasamanvaya' among these systems.
It is only an exercise in futility.
Ganesan
On 27-02-2014 08:41, Krishna Kashyap wrote:
V Subrahmanian
// ननु, कपिलकणादगौतमपतञ्जलिजैमिनिभिः सर्वज्ञैरेव द्वैततन्त्राणां प्रणीतत्वेन भूयोनुग्रहन्यायेनतदभिमतार्थस्यैव ग्राह्यत्वेन कथं व्यासमात्राभिमतकेवलाद्वैताभ्युपगमो युक्तः? न ’शतमप्यन्धानां न पश्यति’ इति न्यायेन तेषां भ्रान्तिः कल्प्यत इति वाच्यम् । सर्वज्ञानां कपिलादिमहर्षीणां भ्रान्तिकल्पनस्यानुचितत्वादिति चेत्, न; प्रकृतिपरमाण्वादिभिन्निभिन्नजगत्कारणवादिनां कपिलकाणादादीनां परस्परविरुद्धतन्त्रप्रवर्तकतया ऐकमत्याभावेन भूयोनुग्रहन्यायानवतारात् । अत एवोक्तमभियुक्तैः -
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Ganesh R
ganesh
Nityanand Misra
On Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:58:59 PM UTC+8, Ganesan wrote:
I know of one work which is an atttempt at showing Samanvaya of not only the three schools mentioned below (Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita) but also other Vedānta schools (Bhāskara's Bhedābheda, Nimbārka's Dvaitādvaita, Vallabha's Śuddhadvaita (Puṣṭimārga), and Acintyabhedābheda (of six Gosvāmins of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava school), and the five other schools of Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika and Mīmāṁsā. The essay is titled Ṣaḍdarśanasamanvaya, is in Hindi and runs into a good 50-60 pages.
It at all there is Samanvaya among all these long list of systems (which attempt appears to be bizarre, in the first place), it can be that all these systems are Astika--they accept the authority of the Veda-s--and nothing else.
Are we judging an essay by its title (something like judging a book by its cover)? Ṣaḍdarśanasamanvaya by Omānanda Tīrtha is a view like any other view. One may agree or disagree with him, just like one may agree or disagree with any Vedānta school. A strong believer in any of the Vedānta schools would disagree with him because his position contradicts that of all schools, but that does not make his work any less worthy than their views.
Even though I personally do not agree with some of the author's conclusions, but I still say it is a very good work, replete with citations from Vedas and Darśana works. I would recommend one reads it rather than dismiss it altogether. He talks about different Vedānta schools from the perspectives of Heya, Heyahetu, Hāna and Hānopāya (as defined in the Sāṁkhya-Yoga tradition), and arrives at some insights and conclusions. He does not claim all Vedānta schools as Tuccha or Aprāmāṇika as Cidghanānada Purī suggests. Ṣaḍdarśanasamanvaya is critical and appreciative of aspects in all Vedānta schools, and his view may indeed have takers outside the Vedānta schools, especially in the Sāṁkhya-Yoga tradition.
In such a glaring situation, how can one attempt to find a Samanvaya, say, of these two systems ?
It is very much possible, by not taking the two systems completely at face value. Let's say aspects of theory A and theory B are contradictory. Somebody proposes a new theory C, which dismisses some aspects of A and some aspects of B, and adds new some aspects and says "Theory C establishes a middle ground between A and B." Adherents of theory A and B do not agree with C since it contradicts aspects of both A and B, but just that does not make theory C less authoritative than theory A or theory B, nor do the contradictions between theories A and B mean nobody can propose a new theory seeking middle ground.
Then, why is there so much variation and disagreement even among the VaishNava VedAnta AcArya-s beginning from Ramanuja, etc. ??
I would suggest to a prospective samanvaya seeker first of all to make an attempt to find the 'samanvaya' among these VaishNava commentators on the BrahmasUtra-s !!!
As with any tradition in India, there are schools and sub-schools and sub-sub-schools which contradict each other at places. This is not limited to Vaiṣṇavas only. But there does exists a Catuḥsampradāya tradition which accommodates the various Vaiṣṇava schools together, treating all of them as authentic. For more, one may refer the history and tradition of the Galta Gaddi and the coming together of four Vaiṣṇava schools in 1713 CE at Galta near Jaipur.
Hnbhat B.R.
abhiyuktatarair anyair anyathaivopapādyate // BVaky_1.34 /
V Subrahmanian
@Sri Subrahmanyan,If my memory is correct, the booklet of HH Sri Sri Pejaavar Svaami ji is titled as "tatvaanjali" while the answer to it by brahmeebhuuta Sri D.Subbaraamaiah is "tattvadarshana".
Dr. T. Ganesan
Our point of discussion/dispute( ?) is regarding the attempt for 'samanvaya' here and not about the merit or demerit of individual system.
अभियुक्ततरैरन्यैरन्यथैवोपपाद्यते||
Ganesan
Subrahmanyam Korada
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)
Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)
Namaste Prof.Korada
1. On < अन्यथैवोपपाद्यते -….. -शुष्कतर्क and the danger to व्याकरणम् , supremacy of आगम in terms of धर्माधर्मव्यवस्था…. > :
Thank you for the very clear elaboration of what is meant by ‘Vedartha –Vyakhyana/ Vedanga Vyakarana’ to traditionalists.
You have brought out the no-compromise stand of tradition from Mahabhashya onwards < आर्षे ग्रन्थे = महाभाष्ये > as a continuing tradition under ‘Darshana Shastra –Dharma Shaastra’.
To the list of <Shuka Taarkikas> many orientalist’s and post 17th century writers also can be added, who are called today’s leading ‘ interpreters and Global Researchers of Historic -Vedas’ !
2. On < लोके लोकायतीकृता > :
Surely < बुध (without गुरुद्ष्टि) in मेषराशि causes नास्तिकत्वम् > can also be interpreted as < A commercial Trader – Publishing scholar (Budha) , freed from the regulatory control of the Masters of Traditional disciplines (Guru) , will end up in ‘ Agnostic, nihilistic, destructive, historic interpretation of Vedas’ (नास्तिकत्वम् ), under the overall environment regulated by the < Government : Sun as Uccha – in Mesha, exercising Power (Kuja) - A total indication of Anti-Traditional values Governance> ! The so called ‘research writing can not be better expressed than Acharya Shankaras words < निरागमाः पुरुषोत्प्रेक्षामात्रनिबन्धनाः तर्काः अप्रतिष्ठिता भवन्ति । उत्प्रेक्षायाः निरङ्कुशत्वात् । > Surely there is no control on Utprekshaa= ‘ Madness of imagined interpretative constructions and possibilities with language grammar and text twisting in the name of ‘indology- linguistics’.
Regards
BVK Sastry
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Subrahmanyam Korada
Sent: Sunday, 02 March, 2014 6:55 AM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Can anyone review this paper written by mahAmahOpAdhyAya kothimangalam varadacharya? -satyAnvEshaNa
नमो विद्वद्भ्यः
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3705/7138 - Release Date: 03/01/14
विश्वासो वासुकेयः
I have shared the original sanskrit version here since I could not upload it.
Regards
Krishna Kashyap
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/64e240df-88c7-440b-96f1-a4891d6fc795n%40googlegroups.com.