on zankara's date

[nanda chandran]

>Is Manikkavacakar talking about Jayaraasi of the 8th century?
>Jayarasibhatta is partial towards madhyamika while harsh on others
>(Eli Franco's thesis). The south had many "Middle Way" teachers,
>did Jayarasi learn it there? Does the TiruvAcakam refer to
>MaNDana as the mayavadim like later Kashmir Shaivaites?

I've read a section of the Tattvopaplavasimha, where JayarAshi while
refuting the tenets of various schools, also discusses the Atman theory of
VedAnta. But the only problem is that the VedAnta discussed is not Advaitam
- seems closer to the bheda-bheda variety. That itself seems to be strange,
since JayarAshi's date is post-Shankaran and pre-RAmAnujan. Could anybody
clarify whether he discusses Advaitam anywhere else in the work?

The reason for JayarAshi to be partial towards the MAdhyamikas may be that
they too like him denied the ultimate validity of empirical knowledge. But
they are not alone in this - for Advaitam too denies it.

But then NAgArjuna unlike the Advaitins doesn't speculate - he stops where
reason stops. This plus the fact that the LOkAyatas were traditionally
anti-Vedic might have brought the MAdhyamikas closer to the LOkAyata
dialectician than the Advaitins.

I doubt if the "hurricane" refered to by MAnikkavAchagar is Mandana. It has
to be Shankara for legends describe him travelling the length and breath of
the land, challenging philosophers of rival schools and defeating them. He
is not very tolerant about views that contradict the shruti. Plus the fact
is that, the AchArya's works reveal a passion for dialectic and debate and
also a missionary zeal to set the house right with absolute confidence in
his philosophy.

Hurricane? An apt description.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com