Le 9 avr. 2020 à 13:32, Hartmut Buescher via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> a écrit :

Christian Bouy (Gauḍapāda – L’Āgamaśāstra, p. 247), in his commentary on GK IV.40,

had pointed out that, apparently distinguishing between a good and a bad version

of māyāvāda,

          “Gauḍapāda écarte ici, selon Anubhūtisvarūpa, la vue des « mauvais partisans

          de la doctrine de la māyā » (ku-māyāvādin). Selon ces māyāvādin, « de l’ignorance,

          qui est proprement insubstantielle, naît l’effet, [lui aussi] proprement insubstantial »    

          (avastuna evājñānād avastv eva kāryaṃ jāyata iti). Explication voisine chez

          Ānandagiri. [...] Des Vedāntin, en tout cas, si l’on s’en remet au témoignage

          de l’auteur de la Śrutaprakāśikā  (une explication du Śrībhāṣya de Rāmānuja),

          ont enseigné le māyāvāda avant l’époque de Śaṃkara.”

 

In fact, already Bhāskara (to whom Aleksandar Uskokov had referred) – cf. also

Paul Hacker, Vivarta, p. 17, n. 1) – had identified them as māhāyānikabauddhas

(I.4.25: māhāyānikabauddhagāthitaṃ māyāvādaṃ; Brahmasūtrabhāṣam, Chowkhamba

ed., p. 85).

 

Hacker’s Vivarta appeared three years later (1953) than his “Eigentümlichkeiten der

Lehre und Terminologie Śaṅkaras” and may be said to be even more useful on this

particular topic. Just to quote a single summarizing passage from this work (p. 51):

          “Im frühen brahmanischen Illusionismus verwandte der stark buddhistisch

          beeinflußte Gauḍapāda nur māyā, Sureśvara in der Naiṣkarmyasiddhi nur avidyā

          nebst Synonymen, Śaṅkara im Brahmasūtra-Kommentar beide, doch avidyā

          fünfmal so oft wie māyā. Mit Padmapāda beginnt zunächst eine Tendenz

          beide Begriffe zu identifizieren. Ihr Inhalt ist im frühen Advaitavāda nicht nur

          vom Buddhismus, sondern offenbar auch vom Viṣṇuismus her bestimmt.“

 

Kind regards, Hartmut

 

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:33 AM Eltschinger, Vincent via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

māyāvāda indeed does not to belong to the many vādas 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).

See Hacker’s short but illuminating remarks in his groundbreaking “Eigentümlichkeiten der Lehre und Terminologie Śaṅkaras: Avidyā, Nāmarūpa, Māyā, Īśvara” (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 100, 1950, 246-286), pp. 268 ff.

With kind regards,

Vincent

Vincent Eltschinger, korrespondierendes Mitglied der OeAW
Directeur d'études
École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des sciences religieuses
Patios Saint-Jacques, 4-14 rue Ferrus - 75014 Paris
vincent.eltschinger@ephe.sorbonne.fr
0033 1 56 61 17 34 / 0033 7 85 86 84 05

---

Von: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> im Auftrag von Uskokov, Aleksandar via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. April 2020 02:00:48
An: Dean Michael Anderson; Indology List; Harsha Dehejia; Madhav Deshpande
Betreff: Re: [INDOLOGY] Mayavada (was Lines to an Advaitin)

 

Dear Dean,

The term was used first, for all we know, by Bhaskara, in a pejorative sense. Hajime Nakamura’s first volume of his History of Early Vedanta Philosophy is a good source on this. 

Best wishes,

Aleksandar 

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of Dean Michael Anderson via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 7:38:14 PM
To: Indology List <indology@list.indology.info>; Harsha Dehejia <harshadehejia@hotmail.com>; Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh@umich.edu>
Subject: [INDOLOGY] Mayavada (was Lines to an Advaitin)

 

I notice that this post uses the term 'mayavada' in referring to Advaitins. This is appropriate in this context I suppose because it is offering an alternative perspective to Advaita.

But some of the Advaitins I have spoken to say that that is a term coined by their opponents and that it is inaccurate, even if it has been adopted by some ill-informed Advaitins to refer to themselves and become part of the popular speech. These Advaitins say that the emphasis should be on 'avidya' or 'mithya' rather than 'maya'.

I wonder if anyone has any comments about this or could point me to some publications that discuss it.

Note: I am interested in the scholarly discussion of these terms and the associated concepts, not in a discussion about which is the supreme realization. :-)

Best,

Dean

Harsha Dehejia via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

Friends:Inspired by Madhav Deshpande and with a long history of my polite confrontations with Advaitins I propose to write 100 lines.I am a staunch Krishna rasika. Writing in English deprives my lines of the majesty of Sanskrit. However what English lacks in the melody and rhythms of Sanskrit it will hopefully make up in its rasa.Wait O! Advaitin, before I accept your mayavadaLet me tarry a bit and enjoy the lotus face of Krishna.Kind regards,HarshaProf. Harsha V. Dehejia

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistinfo.indology.info%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cchristophe.vielle%40uclouvain.be%7C2c7e11cfdadd47f6ea3408d7dc79c8dd%7C7ab090d4fa2e4ecfbc7c4127b4d582ec%7C0%7C0%7C637220287925404068&amp;sdata=876jTiV7dUxslLTm0qcNqV%2F7Sgwgnysc9eXZ1qHSy%2Bo%3D&amp;reserved=0 (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)