Shankara Jayatheertha | Advaita Vedanta | Brahman

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 4
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report



Views: 8 | Pages: 4

Extension: DOCX | Download: 0

Related documents
Shankara Jayatheertha
   श   रग    भय नम Shankara and JayatirthaWhile Shankaracharya does not need any introduction, for the sake of many, Sri Jayatirtha needs a brief introduction. Sri Madhvacharya’s seminal commentaries have been elucidated by Sri Jayatirtha, popularly known in the Madhva tradition as ‘Teekchrya’.!n the se uel is taken up a short study of a commentarial passa#e each of Shankara and Jayatirtha for a comparative purpose. Shankara BhAShya passage: !n the $hando#ya %panishad $hapter & is the ‘sadvidy’ where occurs the dialo#ue between %ddlaka, the father'Teacher and Shvetaketu, the son'disciple. The %panishad, at the outset, presents three e(amples, of the clay'clay products, #old'#old ornaments and iron'iron implements, to enable understandin# the primary teachin#) ‘knowin# the all throu#h knowin# the one’ or  एकवजन न सवजनम   . The ultimate purpose of this knowled#e, vi*+*aanam, is liberation from the i#norance, a*+*aana'born samsara. The Shruti passa#e relevant for our purpose is)  यथ सयकन म    वतणड    न स म    !मय  वज# $य#   ,  %र&'  वकर नम( य  म     व)कतय  सतयम    &.-./00 1 #ood lookin# one, as by knowin# a lump of clay, all thin#s made of clay become known) ll transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only. $lay as such is the reality. 2ere it is to be noted that Shankara has commented)  एकन म    वतणड    न     *+शरव,कर'&   -  #न वज#न     सम!यव.कर/# म    !मय  वज#  $य#    ' This crucial passa#e of Shankara is overlooked by his critics. 2ere Shankara says) the lump of clay is itself an effect3 it is made of the material clay. So, first one has to know that the lump itself is havin# the clay as its material cause. This clay'lump is the cause of the pot, saucer, etc. 1nce this knowled#e is there, one can e(tend it to anythin# made of clay and determine that ‘all products of clay are only clay substantially.’ So is the case with the #old'nu##et. The nu##et itself is to be known as an effect of #old. The %panishad uses the word ‘pinda’, ‘ma4i’ etc. to enable us to appreciate these materials as the cause of ob*ects that are made with them. 5or, it is impossible for anyone to observe ‘clay’ or ‘#old’ without any form, it their natural form. #ain, we are left with no choice in usin# the word ‘form. These have to be encountered only in some ‘form’. nd a ‘lump’ or ‘ma4i’ is one such form. With this startin# point the %panishad proceeds with the analo#y. Shankara’s comment shown above has all this e(planation embedded in it. / !f anyone misses this point, the e(amples become incomprehensible. 4ot bein# able to appreciate this, the non'advaitins have missed the whole purport of the %panishad and ended up #ivin# inappropriate and inconsistent meanin#s to the analo#ies.00  The Shankara 6hashya portion, relevant for the present purpose, of this passa#e is)  ग01न  मज#  शर      नम  क0 ,  न वकर नम 2व$# रमथ#  ,  म    व)कतय #    म    व)क सतय  2व$# 3 00 !t is only a name dependent merely on speech. part from that/ there is no substance called transformation. !n reality clay as such is the thin# that/ truly e(ists.00 Jayatirtha’s TeekA passage 2ere is a passa#e from Sri Jayatirtha’s #loss TattvaprakAshikA  to the 6rahmasutra 6hashya of Madhva)Sutra) -.-.7) Janmdyasya yata2 ) !n his commentary to this very second sutra, Madhva uotes a 8#.Mantra) ‘chaturbhi2 saakam navatim cha naamabhi2 chakram na v8ttam..8#.samhit -.-99.&/.’ Jayatirtha comments on this uote )00chaturbhiriti) ' sa b8hacchareero m%lar%p! chaturbhi2 vsudevdinmabhi2 nAmamAtraiH svarUpabhedashUnyaiH   ..00The meanin# of Jaytirtha’s passa#e is) ‘2e, the 1ne that ori#inates, is of a hu#e form, with four names of ‘:sudeva’, etc. which are mere names and are devoid of essential difference. ’The four names referred to could be)  स    , ,  स  क4' , 5वन6 and     र7   न . We #et these names from the commentary of Shankara to the 6rahma sutra  8त9यस &#    7.7.7/ where the ‘bh#avata’ school is taken up for refutation. The relevant portion is)  ##   र &ग# म!य!# – &गन क स    , वनर:/नजन$; रमथ#9 ,  स     %#   (   <तमन     रव&=य    रव#व>?# स    , @य   -  A; '  ,  स  क4 '@य   -  A;'  ,     र7   न@य   -  A;'  , 5वन6@य   -  A;' % 3 स    ,  नम रमतम 8Bय# 3 स  क4' नम / 3    र7   न नम मन 3 5वन6 नमA कर 3 The entire adhikara4a in this section deals with this school and 6ha#avatpada has shown several defects in the tenets of this school and ultimately how this school is not in complete accordance with the :edic teachin#. 6e that as it may, what is noteworthy here is Sri Jayatirtha’s comment on this 8# :edic mantra. 2e says -/ the four entities ‘:aasudeva’, etc. are mere names,  नमम#   र ... and 7/ the four entities have no essential differences from each other,  $;& ,श   -  !य .We can understand these two features with the analo#y provided by the $hando#ya %panishad) The various clay'products namely pot, *ar, saucer, etc. are essentially non different from their material cause clay and also essentially non'different from each other, all of them bein# essentially clay alone. lso, conse uently, they are not any real entities3 they are mere  names,  %र&'  वकर नम( य  म     व)कतय  सतयम    &.-./. ccordin#ly, as per Jayatirtha, the four vy%ha's ‘vsudeva’, etc. are non'different from the  रस    , , the Supreme $ause, :sudeva 6rahman/3 they are mere  names3  नमम#   र . lso, the four entities are devoid of any essential differences3  $;& ,श   -  !य , *ust like the clay products are devoid of any essential differences. ;ven as the clay pot, the *ar and the saucer are essentially clay alone, so too the four entities ‘:sudeva’, ‘Sanka8Sha4a’, etc. are essentially their real svar%pam) <ara'vsudeva2. 2avin# presented the two passa#es, one of Sri Shankara and the other of Sri Jayatirtha, we find these common features between them)  = The ‘  %र&'श   व#  ’ does not have the word ‘  म#   रम   ’ in it.= The 8#.:edic passa#e does not have the word ‘  म#   रम   ’ in it.= Shankara finds it fit to use the word ‘maatram’, which means mere to effectively brin# out the purport of the Shruti passa#e.= Jayatirtha finds it fit to use the word ‘maatram’, which means mere to effectively brin# out the purport of the Shruti passa#e.= The $hando#ya passa#e has the dvaitic purport that is brou#ht out by Shankara.= The 8# :edic passa#e has the dvaitic purport that is brou#ht out by Jayatirtha.= The Shnkaran commentary, on the stren#th of the Shruti words  म    व)कतय  सतयम     implies that the clay'products are devoid of any essential differences.= Jayatirtha’s comment brin#s out explicitly, by the words  $;& ,श   -  !य that the entities ‘:aasudeva, etc.’are devoid of any essential differences.= !n the Shnkaran passa#e the two essential features are) -.The clay'products are mere  names. nd,7. They are devoid of svar%pa bh;da.= !n the scheme of Jayatirtha, too, the two essential features are) -. ‘vsudeva’, etc. are mere  names.  nd 7. They are devoid of svar%pa bheda.!t would be pertinent to note that the purport of what Sri Jayatirtha has said is already available in the 6rahmasutra 6hashya of Shankara for the sutras) 7.7.7, >,  ? 9.5or instance, in the bhashyam for 7.7. Shankara says)  न % :%र#   रवस6व!#व& स    ,व,>कव$मन   सC4     जनDयव,#र#यक    # कवD%E    ,Fभय    गय# 3 स    , ए वA सC @य   -  A वनवश4  G>य!# 3 न%# &गH@य   -  A %#   स  Iययमव#>?    रन   ,  1   रJव,$#1य!#$य सम$#$य  /ग# &गH@य   -  Aतगम#   3 006ut the followers of the <a ñcharaa tra do not acknowled#e any difference founded on superiority of knowled#e, power, ?c. between :@sudeva and the other Aords, but simply say that they all are forms of :@sudeva, without any special distinctions. The forms of :@sudeva cannot properly be limited to four, as the whole world, from 6rahman down to a blade of #rass, is understood to be a manifestation of the supreme 6ein#.001ne can easily see how the above passa#e reflects the purport of Sri Jayatirtha’s commentary. nd also the clay'clay products e(ample of the $hando#ya %panishad so strikin#ly e(plains the purport of Jayatirtha’s words) ‘maatrai2’ and ‘svar%pabheda'sh%nyai2’. The translation for the entire adhikara4a coverin# the above sub*ect is available here)  5or a discernin# reader it would have become obvious by now that while Sri Jayatirtha is talkin# pure  dvaita in the realm of 6rahman, Shankara is demonstratin#, throu#h the $hando#ya Shruti, the dvaita of 6rahman, as non'different from the universe, that is the effect, product, a vivarta, of 6rahman. The lo#ic underlyin# the stand of both Jayatirtha and Shankara is the same)  नमम#   रतम    ,  $;& ,श   -  !यतम   . !n other words, the multiplicity is mere name alone3 in substance there are no multiple effects. nd, within, between, across the ‘apparent’ effects, there is no difference in substance, svar%pa. !n Jayatirtha’s words this  $;& ,श   -  !यतम    is applicable to 6rahman’s, <aravsudeva’s four manifestations. !n Shankara’s scheme this  $;& ,श   -  !यतम    is applicable to the entire universe that is 6rahman’s manifestation3 not *ust the four. Thus, the lo#ic is the same for both Jayatirtha’s and Shankara’s assertions throu#h the common word  म#   रम   ‘ mere’ that they have used. !n plain words, for Bvaitins it is dvaita only with re#ard to 6rahman   1   रJव' म#   र  5.    #म    /3 for dvaitins it is  dvaita irrespective of 6rahman or the world   सथव 5.    #म   /. To further elucidate, for Bvaitins there is a real difference between 6rahman and the world3 for dvaitins the world is 6rahman only in the absolute terms. The si#nificance of Jayatirtha’s use of the word  म#   र to brin# out the dvaitic nature of 6rahman could be better appreciated in the back#round of the Bvaita school faultin# Shankara for ‘introducin#’ the word  म#   रम    in the commentary in order to ‘somehow’ #ive the  %र&'श   व# an advaitic import.  श   रसHग    %र'रव!,'म$#   
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks