[INDOLOGY] Mayavada (was Lines to an Advaitin)
buescherhartmut at gmail.com
Fri Apr 10 10:59:52 UTC 2020
Probably, if somebody explicitly provides references to the sources of
quotations, everybody can understand these. Nobody denied Śaṅkarācārya's
employment/interpretation of the term *māyā* as such (to the contrary).
Mayeda’s old investigations of various works ascribed to Śaṅkara being
yet given that authorship studies often initiate, rather than conclude, the
issue, I’d rather be interested in learning about more recent studies
the authorship of the *Gauḍapādīyabhāṣya* particularly with a focus on how
significant technical terms were understood by respectively Gauḍapāda and
the author of this *B**hāṣya*. That is, beyond Bouy’s unfortunately in some
somewhat problematic Gauḍapāda monograph that has received an excellent
by J. Hanneder (Indo-Iranian Journal 46 : 161-165), who had to
“To follow Śaṅkara in sensitive interpretational details is philologically
historically inadmissible and B’s treatment of Gauḍapāda’s work is in this
a step back to the outdated interpretation of Karmarkar”.
The mere differences of understanding technical terms and philosophical
between Gauḍapāda and the Bhāṣyakāra would, however, not necessarily serve
reject Śaṅkarācārya’s authorship of this *B**hāṣya* (but then rather throw
light on Śaṅkara’s hermeneutical relationship to his, traditionally
Guru). Ironically somebody might even assert that twisting the meaning of
in texts Śaṅkara comments upon is actually part of his philosophical
e.g., refer to V. S. Ghate’s study of the BSBh, often taken as the
reference work for
evaluating the authorship of other works ascribed to Śaṅkara.
Ghate (*The Vedānta. A Study of the Brahma-sūtras with the Bhāṣyas of
*Rāmānuja, Nimbārka, Madhva and Vallabha*, Poona, 3rd ed. 1981: 162)
“Thus we are quite justified in arriving at the conclusion that Śaṁkara’s
is out of count so far as the sūtras are concerned, whatever be its value
Apparently, Nagaraj Paturi had personal reasons for not at all addressing
to him; no need to pursue this issue. If I remember correctly, even Hacker
colophons, while deviating from his own proper principles of investigation)
the traditional view (particularly in Śṛṅgeri, cf. hereto Peter
*Spannungsfeld von aktivem Leben und Entsagung. Eine Studie zu **Śaṅkar**as
*der Bhagavadgītā*. Aachen 2002: 99) of ascribing the authorship of the
to Śaṅkara. Otherwise, among others (as referred to), Śrī
of Holenarsipur, who considered such an ascription as naïve (
his *Vedanta-Prakriya Pratyabhijna*, Holenarsipur 1964: 13), providing good
and argued for ascribing that work to Śrī Śaṅkarānanda.
Kind regards, Hartmut
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:22 AM David and Nancy Reigle via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
> Of course, the references that Prof. Paturi gave to Śaṅkarācārya's
> etymological interpretations of the word māyā, drawn from his father's
> commentary on the *Vivekacūḍāmaṇi*, do not come from the *Vivekacūḍāmaṇi*.
> They come from Śaṅkarācārya's commentary on the *Bhagavadgītā*, chapter
> 15, verse 16, and from Śaṅkarācārya's commentary on the *Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad*
> and Gauḍapāda's *Kārikā*, chapter 3, verse 24. Both of these commentaries
> are regarded by scholars such as Sengaku Mayeda as being by the same Śaṅkar
> ācārya who is the author of the *Brahmasūtrabhāṣya*.
> "The Authenticity of the Bhagavadgītābhāṣya Ascribed to Śaṅkara," *Wiener
> Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens*, vol. 9, 1965, pp. 155-197.
> "On the Author of the Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad- and the Gauḍapādīya-bhāṣya," *Adyar
> Library Bulletin*, vols. 31-32, 1967-68, pp. 73-94.
> Best regards,
> David Reigle
> Colorado, U.S.A.
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:21 PM Hartmut Buescher via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>> But what, dear Nagaraj Paturi, has the *Vivekacūḍāmaṇi* to do with
>> the author of *Brahmasūtrabhāṣya*?
>> Better hesitate, investigate and be careful with your reply.
>> Best wishes, Hartmut
>> PS: Not to speak of contemporary, trans-national scholarship, but has
>> respected father not been acquainted with (or perhaps rejected) the
>> of Śrī Saccidānandendrasarasvatī of Holenarsipur?
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:00 PM Nagaraj Paturi via INDOLOGY <
>> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>>> > *māyāvāda* indeed does not to belong to the many *vāda*s alluded to
>>> by Śaṅkara himself, and especially
>>> to those by which he refers to his own teaching (*veda-*, *vedānta-*,
>>> *brahma-*, *ātma-vāda*). As pointed out by Paul Hacker,
>>> Śaṅkara has no specific theory of *māyā* (at least in the
>>> *Brahmasūtrabhāṣya*), but mostly uses the term in similes (much like
>>> the Buddhists).
>>> --- Not to contradict the view " Śaṅkara has no specific theory of *māyā"
>>> , *but just to remember occasions where he gives meaning of the word,
>>> resorting to his favourite etymological approach, picking up from my father
>>> (Sitaramanjaneyulu Paturi)'s notes to his Telugu commentary on Viveka
>>> अक्षरः - भगवन्मायाशक्तिः - क्षराख्यस्य ( वैराजस्य ) पुरुषस्य
>>> उत्पत्तिबीजम् - अनेक्संसारिजन्तुकामकर्मादिसंस्काराश्रयः ( गीताभाष्य -15
>>> अध्यायः )
>>> मायाभिः - इंद्रियप्रज्ञाभिः - अविद्यारूपाभिः ( भाष्य गौडपादकारिका -
>>> अद्वैतप्रकरण कारिका 2)
>>> He seems to have taken माङ् - माने as the dhaatu for माया . In words
>>> such as निर्माण it has meanings related to उत्पत्तिबीजम् , कर्मादि . as
>>> in गीताभाष्य above.
>>> In words such as प्रमाण, it has meanings related to प्रज्ञा , विद्या
>>> as in गौडपादकारिकाभाष्य above.
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INDOLOGY