|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 30, 2020 13:13:48 GMT -6
I thought I would report on this project. I am working on it regularly and am on para 20 at present. I will post my efforts when I reach para 21, which is about a third of the way through the text. It is very interesting. I am benefiting quite a lot from Sitanatha Goswami's edition of the text published by Jadavpur University. It includes the comm. of Baladeva and notes by Goswamiji which include passages from Radhamohana Gosvami's comm. as well. Sitanath Goswami was one of those rare members of the CV tradition who knew well Sankaracarya's major works too. He was a student of one of the great scholars of Sankarite Advaita Vedanta of the 20th century, Dr. Yogendranath Tarka-samkhya-Vedantatirtha D.Litt. In his notes Goswamiji points out many differences and agreements between Sankara and Sri Jiva. I will add those comments to the footnotes of this translation and add additional supporting materials whenever I can. For instance, Goswamiji has written an interesting note on the reference to अश्व-शिरा (horse-head) in one of the Puranas' descriptions of the Bhagavata Purana in para. 20. That turns out to be a reference to an ancient tradition that is described in the शतपथ ब्राह्मण (Satapatha Brahmana) and points beyond to a hymn in the Rg Veda (1.117.22). Goswamiji leaves those references untranslated. I will translate them. Also he refers to an account of the story of Dadhici given in Sankara's comm. on the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad (2.5.16). I will give that account, too. For now, though I am just reading the text and translating it. It is too bad that Sitanatha Goswami did not do the rest of the sandarbhas. Those were done by one of my teachers Dr. Chinmayee Chatterjee. Dr Chatterjee was a great scholar, but she was not as learned as Goswamiji in Advaita Vedanta or in the CV tradition. Though I honor and respect her as one of my gurus, I have noticed that her editions of the texts frequently have typos and do not include any of the commentaries except an occasional summary of Sri Jiva's Sarva-samvadini. There are also no line-by-line notes. This severely limits their usefulness. Anyway, they are complete editions and her summary of the परमात्म-सन्दर्भ (Paramatma-sandarbha) is actually pretty good. She unfortunately did not give summaries of the other Sandarbhas, however. One of the finest editions of the Tattva-sandarbha it turns out is the edition by Nityasvarupa Brahmacari published in 433 Caitanyabda (1919). The good news is that this edition is available on archive.org in Bengali script.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 24, 2020 12:54:32 GMT -6
Still working on this. It is a challenging text. The whole question of the Bhagavata's relationship to the Gayatri seems to be connected to whether Caitanya Vaisnavas who are brahmanas can still recite it. If it is all about Krsna and not about the Sun (Savitr) then yes, CV brahmanas can recite it and not be going against their bhakti for Krsna. The idea that the Bhagavata is a commentary on the Gayatri is more than a bit forced. The only word from the Gayatri that makes it into the Bhagavata is dhImahi. That appears twice. Once in the first verse and once at the end in one of the last verses. That seems like a very thin thread to be tugging on. The other huge leap is the assumption that the Gayatri is the essence of the Vedas considering how many topics, gods, and sages there are in the Vedas. I guess people really need concise summaries when faced with vast works like the Vedas. They want to be connected to them, to be "Vedic", but God don't expect them read them all. Let's have the 24 syllable version, please. Anyway, bhargas (भर्गस्) is Brahman, dhiyas (धियस्) are the breaths or senses and Savitr (सवितृ) is, of course, Krsna. The essence of the Veda? "Let us meditate on Krsna's radiance (beauty) and may it stimulate our senses." Bas!
|
|
|
|
Post by narottamadasa on Aug 3, 2020 12:12:26 GMT -6
Still working on this. It is a challenging text. The whole question of the Bhagavata's relationship to the Gayatri seems to be connected to whether Caitanya Vaisnavas who are brahmanas can still recite it. If it is all about Krsna and not about the Sun (Savitr) then yes, CV brahmanas can recite it and not be going against their bhakti for Krsna. The idea that the Bhagavata is a commentary on the Gayatri is more than a bit forced. The only word from the Gayatri that makes it into the Bhagavata is dhImahi. That appears twice. Once in the first verse and once at the end in one of the last verses. That seems like a very thin thread to be tugging on. The other huge leap is the assumption that the Gayatri is the essence of the Vedas considering how many topics, gods, and sages there are in the Vedas. I guess people really need concise summaries when faced with vast works like the Vedas. They want to be connected to them, to be "Vedic", but God don't expect them read them all. Let's have the 24 syllable version, please. Anyway, bhargas (भर्गस्) is Brahman, dhiyas (धियस्) are the breaths or senses and Savitr (सवितृ) is, of course, Krsna. The essence of the Veda? "Let us meditate on Krsna's radiance (beauty) and may it stimulate our senses." Bas! हे आचार्य नमोऽस्तु ते We are looking forward to the final version of your translation. Here is a passage from परमात्मा सन्दर्भ related to the similar topic: तथा गायत्र्य्-अर्थो’पि स्पष्टः । तत्र जन्माद्य् अस्य यतः इति प्रणवार्थः, सृष्ट्य्-आदि-शक्तिमत्त्व-वाचित्वात् । तद् एवम् एवाग्नि-पुराणे गायत्री-व्याख्याने प्रोक्तम्—तज्-ज्योतिर् भगवान् विष्णुर् जगज्-जन्मादि-कारणम् इति । यत्र त्रि-सर्गोऽमृषा इति व्याहृति-त्रयार्थः, उभयत्रापि लोक-त्रयस्य तद्-अनन्यत्वेन विवक्षितत्वात् । स्वराड् इति सवितृ-प्रकाशक-परम-तेजो-वाचि । तेने ब्रह्म हृदा इति बुद्धि-प्रवृत्ति-प्रेरणा प्रार्थना सूचिता । तद् एव कृपया स्व-ध्यानायास्माकं बुद्धि-वृत्तीः प्रेरयताद् इति भावः । एवम् एवोक्तं गायत्र्या च समारम्भः१ इति । तच् च तेजस् तत्र अन्तस् तद्-धर्मोपदेशात् [वे.सू. १.१.१०] इत्य्-आदिना सम्प्रतिपन्नं यन्-मूर्तं तद्-आद्य्-अनन्त-मूर्तिमद् एव ध्येयम् इति । तत्र चाग्नि-पुराण-क्रमस्थ-वचनानि२— एवं सन्ध्या-विधिं कृत्वा गायत्रीं च जपेत् स्मरेत् । गायत्र्य्-उक्थानि शास्त्राणि भर्गं प्राणांस् तथैव च ॥ ततः स्मृतेयं गायत्री सावित्री यत एव च । प्रकाशिनी सा सवितुर् वाग्-रूपत्वात् सरस्वती ॥ तज् ज्योतिः परमं ब्रह्म भर्गस् तेजो यतः स्मृतः । भर्गः स्यात् भ्राजत इति बहुलं छन्दसीरितम् ॥ वरेण्यं सर्व-तेजोभ्यः श्रेष्ठं वै परमं परम् । स्वर्गापवर्ग-कामैर् वा वरणीयं सदैव हि ॥ वृणोतेर् वरणार्थत्वात् जाग्रत्-स्वप्नादि-वर्जितम् । नित्यं शुद्धं बुद्धम् एकं नित्यं भर्गम् अधीश्वरम् ॥ अहं ब्रह्म परं ज्योतिर् ध्यायेम हि विमुक्तये । तज् ज्योतिर् भगवान् विष्णुर् जगज्-जन्मादि-कारणम् ॥ शिवं केचित् पठन्ति स्म शक्ति-रूपं पठन्ति च । केचित् सूर्यं केचिद् अग्निं दैवतान्य् अग्नि-होत्रिणः ॥ अग्न्य्-आदि-रूपी विष्णुर् हि वेदादौ ब्रह्म गीयते । तत् पदं परमं विष्णोर् देवस्य सवितुः स्मृतम् ॥ दधातेर् वा धीमहीति मनसा धारयेमहि । नो’स्माकं यच् च भर्गस् तत् सर्वेषां प्राणिनां धियः ॥ चोदयात् प्रेरयाद् बुद्धिं भोक्तॄणां सर्व-कर्मसु । दृष्टादृष्ट-विपाकेषु विष्णुः सूर्याग्नि-रूप-भाक् ॥ ईश्वर-प्रेरितो गच्छेत् स्वर्गं वा श्वभ्रम् एव वा । ईशावास्यम् इदं सर्वं महद्-आदि-जगद् धरिः ॥ स्वर्गाद्यैः क्रीडते देवो यो हंसः पुरुषः प्रभुः । ध्यानेन पुरुषो’यं च द्रष्टव्यः सूर्य-मण्डले ॥ सत्यं सदा-शिवं ब्रह्म विष्णोर् यत् परमं पदम् । देवस्य सवितुर् देवो वरेण्यं हि तुरीयकम् ॥ यो’साव् आदित्य-पुरुषः सो’साव् अहम् अनुत्तमम् । जनानां शुभ-कर्मादीन् प्रवर्तयति यः सदा ॥ इत्य् आदि । यत्राधिकृत्य गायत्रीं वर्ण्यते धर्म-विस्तरः । वृत्रासुर-वधोत्सिक्तं तद् भागवतम् उच्यते ॥ इत्य् आदीनि च । तस्माद् भर्ग-ब्रह्म-परा-विष्णु-भगवच्-छब्दाभिन्न-वर्णतया तत्र तत्र निर्दिष्टा अपि भगवत्-प्रतिपादका एव ज्ञेयाः । मध्ये मध्ये त्व् अहंग्रहोपासना-निर्देशस् तत्-साम्य इव लब्धे हि तद्-उपासना-योग्यता भवतीति । जय श्री राधे श्याम! |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 14, 2020 19:08:55 GMT -6
I mentioned in my last post on the Nitai's World thread that the Tattva-sandarbha is basically in two parts: the Pramana-khanda (paras. 1-28) and the Prameya-khanda (paras. 29-63). I thought that it would be interesting to list the Prameyas that Sri Jiva includes in his brief survey of the "truths" arrived at by means of the Pramanas he supports in the first half of the book. This is perhaps the earliest attempt to summarize the philosophical teachings of the CV tradition. There are several later attempts such as Radhadamodara Goswamis's Vedanta-syamantaka and his disciple Baladeva's Prameya-ratnavali. Perhaps the latest is the Dasa-mula-rasam by Vipina-vihari Goswami at the end of the 19th century. I thought having Sri Jiva's prameyas available would perhaps throw some light on the later efforts to systematize the teachings.
The backbone of this list comes from Sitanath Goswami's introduction (xix-xx) to his edition of the Tattva-sandarbha which I have been mainly working from in making my translation:
1. The extraordinary power of bhakti in ending maya's control over the jiva (para 31)
2. The jiva and isvara are different (para 32)
3. The jiva is both consciousness and conscious (para 32)
4. The jiva is not atman delimited by upadhi (a limiting adjunct) and thus liberated by the destruction of that limitation (para 32)
5. Maya has two functions: concealment and distortion (para 32)
6. Bhagavan shows special favor toward maya (para 33)
7. There are five cardinal realities of Vaisnavism: Isvara, jiva, prakrti, kala, and karman (actually these seem to come from Baladeva's commentary on para 34. They form the basis of Radhadamodara's Vedanta-syamantaka)
8. Sri Jiva rejects the Advaita theories of limitation (परिच्छेदवाद) and reflection (प्रतिबिम्बवाद) (paras. 36-42)
9. Bhagavan has inconceivable powers (para 43)
10. The fruit of reading the TS is attainment of Bhagavan and love for him (para. 45)
11. The means of attaining Bhagavan is sadhanabhakti and knowledge depends on bhakti (para. 46)
12. The real meaning of advaya in jnanam advayam (Bhag. 1.2.11) is "without a second" and refers to Reality (tattva). (para 51)
13. Knowledge is not transcient (para 52)
14. Body and self are different (para 53-55)
15. An explanation of the terms sarga, visarga, etc. [the ten characteristics of a Purana] (paras 56-57)
16. Sri Krsna is the ultimate abode (ground?) of all entities (paras 58-63)
There you have the whole set of Sri Jiva's prameyas or proven truths based on his fundamental pramana (the Bhagavata Purana).
Bibliographic record: Satsandarbha by Sri Jiva Gosvamin, vol. 1, Part II, Tattvasandarbha, ed. Dr. Sitanath Goswami, MA, D, Phil., Vedanta-Vyakaranatirtha. Calcutta: Jadavpur University, 1967.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 16, 2020 1:15:15 GMT -6
Apparently, all of these prameya are derived from just three verses of the Bhagavata, 1.7.4-6:
भक्तियोगेन मनसि सम्यक् प्रणिहितेऽमले।
अपश्यत् पुरुषं पूर्णं मायां च तदपाश्रयाम्।।
In his [Vyasa's] pure, fully focused mind
through the discipline of bhakti
he saw the perfect person and
the maya which depends on him,
यया सम्मोहितो जीव आत्मानं त्रिगुणात्मकम्।
परोऽपि मनुतेऽनर्थं तत्कृतं चाभिपद्यते।।
The jiva, deluded by which [maya],
thinks itself made of the three strands
though it is beyond them and thus
encounters troubles caused by that.
अनर्थोपशमं साक्षाद्भक्तियोगमधोक्षजे।
लोकस्याजानतो व्यासश्चक्रे सात्वतसंहिताम्।।
For persons who do not know that
the discipline of bhakti for
Adhoksaja brings an end to
those troubles, Vyasa wrote the
Satvata collection of hymns [the Bhagavata].
Can you find some of them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 17, 2020 15:24:12 GMT -6
Here is a translation of Sridhara's commentary on the last verse of these three. This has markup in it because i am thinking of using this passage somewhere else, perhaps in the introduction of the TS.
According to Śrīdhara Svamin, these three verses give in brief the
meaning of the whole {\it Bhāgavata Purāṇa}. Here is his commentary on
verse 6 (1.7.6):
Thus, by these three verses the meaning of the {\it Bhāgavata} is
revealed in brief. This is what is said: the Lord, by his power of
knowledge, is the controller of māyā, his true form of the highest
bliss is always manifest, and he is all-knowing and possesses all
powers. The being being or {\it jīva} is deluded by his {\it māyā},
his true form has disappeared, his qualities are the opposite of the
Lord's. And by knowledge attained by {\it bhakti} for the Lord the
jīva is liberated. That is stated by Viṣṇusvāmin:
\begin{verse}
The Lord is pleasure (hlAdinI) embraced by\\
consciousness (samvit)—being, knowledge, bliss.\\
Living beings are covered by\\
their own ignorance, mines of pain.
\end{verse}
And also:
\begin{verse}
He is Lord who controls māyā;\\
he is jīva whom she torments.\\
His highest bliss is visible;\\
his suffering is visible.\\
To him, this Nṛhari,\footnote{Nṛhari=Man-God.} we bow\\
through whose māyā this one\footnote{the jīva} abides\\
feeling sorrow and fear produced\\
by duality arising\\
from not seeing one's own true self.
\end{verse}
This passage from Sridhara is included in Sitanath Goswami's notes on the TS, p. 67,
|
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 18, 2020 11:02:03 GMT -6
Apparently, all of these prameya are derived from just three verses of the Bhagavata, 1.7.4-6: भक्तियोगेन मनसि सम्यक् प्रणिहितेऽमले।
अपश्यत् पुरुषं पूर्णं मायां च तदपाश्रयाम्।।
In his [Vyasa's] pure, fully focused mind through the discipline of bhakti he saw the perfect person and the maya which depends on him, यया सम्मोहितो जीव आत्मानं त्रिगुणात्मकम्।
परोऽपि मनुतेऽनर्थं तत्कृतं चाभिपद्यते।।
The jiva, deluded by which [maya], thinks itself made of the three strands though it is beyond them and thus encounters troubles caused by that. अनर्थोपशमं साक्षाद्भक्तियोगमधोक्षजे।
लोकस्याजानतो व्यासश्चक्रे सात्वतसंहिताम्।। For persons who do not know that the discipline of bhakti for Adhoksaja brings an end to those troubles, Vyasa wrote the Satvata collection of hymns [the Bhagavata]. Can you find some of them? I’m not sure I understand some of the points in the list. But I’ll give it a try, hoping you can clarify those for me. Trying to follow the same order given in the list: BhP 1.7.6 mentions that the discipline of Bhakti brings an end to the troubles caused by the jiva’s identification with the three strands as a result of being deluded by Maya. This Maya is seen by Vyasa as depending on Isvara in 1.7.4, and in 1.7.6 Bhakti for him is indicated as the way of overcoming delusion for the Jiva. That Adhoksaja does not fall under the influence of Maya and the three strands but is beyond them, that these depend on him, and that the jivas can overcome such influence by resorting to him through Bhakti, I believe corroborates the difference of Isvara and Jiva from point 2. The jivas have some form of self awareness or conciousness and are therefore not “dull” or part of the three strands as implied in verse 1.7.5, as well as in verse 1.7.6 by the fact that they can engage in the discipline of Bhakti which entails both action and knowledge, so if they are not creations of Maya or Prakriti and are also both different from and dependent on Isvara an exclusive or different category for them has to be posited, I think this is why they are said to be conscious and part of Isvara’s consciousness aspect, and I suppose this would relate to point 3. I’m not sure what point 4 refers to, can you elaborate more on this? In verse 1.7.4, Vyasa engaged and focused his mind through Bhakti to be able to see both Isvara and his Maya, and in verse 5 this Maya deludes the jivas who can potentially see and know Isvara as well once freed from the influence of this delusion which prevents them from recognizing him and themselves aside from the three strands. Doesn’t this indicate that double function of Maya, concealing Isvara and the jiva’s identity, and distorting the perception of the latter? How does Isvara show a special favor on Maya? I’m not sure I understand this, it contributes to the unfoldment of his lila but I don’t think that’s what point 6 is referring to. The five cardinal truths: verse 1.7.5 mentioned Jivas, do the three strands stand for prakriti? Isvara is mentioned both in verse 4 and 6. Time is experienced as the progressive unfoldment of the manifested world by the three strands, the cycles of creation and destruction, the passing through samsara and the process of attaining liberation by the Jiva. Action is the outcome of the jiva’s identification with the three strands and the troubles they encounter resulting from that. Number 8 escapes me, I’m not familiar with these theories and my knowledge of Sankarite and general Vedanta is extremely poor. Everything that’s been said already would mean Isvara is the ground for all that exists, and yet he is not limited by it, he is the knower of all at all times, the subject to be known, knowledge itself and the ability to know him, but being infinite in nature there’s no possibility of exhausting that. What is implied in verses 1.7.4 and 1.7.6 about the Bhagavata, and the relation between the TS and that book, could perhaps exolain number 10. Knowledge about Bhagavan is acquired through the discipline of Bhakti as seen in 1.7.4 and 1.7.6, since this knowledge about the trascendental Isvara is also eternal, it is not created by any practice or discipline, the word “Bhakti” is necessary to convey the fact that this knowledge and the practices engaged to acquire it depend on Bhakti. I relate this to points 11, 12 and 13. Number 14 seems to me very close to number 1, the body is the result of the combination of the strands while the self would be another word for the Jiva, who is trascendental to these according to verse 1.7.5. That Isvara is the ultimate abode for the jivas I would say is the idea that 1.7.6 conveys, and this Isvara is identified with Krsna in 1.3.28 (BBT ed.). I have left out number 15 since I’m not familiar with those concepts either and don’t really understand what that point refers to. Evidently there’s a lot of interpretation, inferences and probably omissions that I’ve done to make the connections, and in many places I probably missed the point, so I apologize for that. Anyway, this is the best I could do with my current understanding, but I figure this is enough to get corrections and further clarification on the doubts i’ve presented from you and the other members here, which I would appreciate. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 20, 2020 14:30:36 GMT -6
Apparently, all of these prameya are derived from just three verses of the Bhagavata, 1.7.4-6: भक्तियोगेन मनसि सम्यक् प्रणिहितेऽमले।
अपश्यत् पुरुषं पूर्णं मायां च तदपाश्रयाम्।।
In his [Vyasa's] pure, fully focused mind through the discipline of bhakti he saw the perfect person and the maya which depends on him, यया सम्मोहितो जीव आत्मानं त्रिगुणात्मकम्।
परोऽपि मनुतेऽनर्थं तत्कृतं चाभिपद्यते।।
The jiva, deluded by which [maya], thinks itself made of the three strands though it is beyond them and thus encounters troubles caused by that. अनर्थोपशमं साक्षाद्भक्तियोगमधोक्षजे।
लोकस्याजानतो व्यासश्चक्रे सात्वतसंहिताम्।। For persons who do not know that the discipline of bhakti for Adhoksaja brings an end to those troubles, Vyasa wrote the Satvata collection of hymns [the Bhagavata]. Can you find some of them? Excellent job, Eduardo. You got most of the connections. Yes, there are some points that are more obvious than others. The more straightforward points you hit right on the head. The less obvious ones require have some understanding of Sankara's views, or at least Sankara's views as understood by Sri Jiva. Those two are sometimes not the same. For instance, Sri Jiva's belief that Adi Sankara wrote the Govindastaka is mistaken. It is not among the works that Adi Sankara wrote according to modern scholarship. It may have been written by a later Sankaracarya, head of one of the Maths Adi Sankara is supposed to have founded (that common feature of Sankara's biography also turns out to be false), or, it could have been written by some later Vaisnava bhakta in the name of Sankara to give him a different reputation. Whatever the case may be, it was clearly later than the Bhagavata and invalidates one of Sri Jiva's arguments in the TS Excellent! The prime difference between Isvara and jiva is that Isvara controls Maya and jiva is controlled by Maya. In another example Isvara is compared with the sun and the jiva with the rays of the sun. They are clearly different and yet on some level the same According to the later tradition of Sankara (I am not sure this is true of Adi Sankara himself, but it may be), the jiva is consciousness, the Seer or the Seeing, but that is all it is. It is not an agent in any way. It sees what appears to be agency in the buddhi and misidentifies with it. According to Sri Jiva the jiva is both consciousness and conscious. That is, the jiva is also an agent. The jiva is created by maya which imposes an upadhi or limiting adjunct onto consciousness. Consciousness limited by this upadhi becomes the jiva. Sri Jiva arguing from the words yayA SaMmohitaH jIvaH--the jiva deluded by whom (maya)-- implies not that maya creates the jiva, but that it deludes the already existing jiva. Thus, it is not a creation of maya, but merely under the influence of maya, i.e., a separately existing being that is merely susceptible to maya. So #4 refers to this Advaitin idea that the liberation of the jiva is accomplished by destroying that limiting adjunct, which is ignorance, with the knowledge that the jiva and atman are one. That liberation would also destroy the jiva itself because it would no longer be separated from atman by that adjunct. So jiva would become atman or brahman and cease to exist as jiva. Yes, the two functions of maya are concealment and distortion or distraction (vikSepa). These functions of maya are also accepted by the Advaitins. Concealment of one's own true nature and distraction by identification with what is not oneself, that is, the products of the three strands. Isvara shows favor to Maya by giving her shelter, tadapAzrayA, though it is a lower shelter. In para. 33 we learn that Maya is a bhakta of Isvara whose seva is creating the world, that she is clever and faithful in that and he is unable to overstep that, her devout service to him. That is his favor towards her. Nevertheless, he comes into the world and instructs the jivas how to "cheat" her influence over them. Sri Jiva cites Bhagavad-gita 7.14 दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी. I suspect that prakrti= three strands, kAla and karman = anarthas. And then of course there are Isvara and jiva. Those are the two examples the Advaitins give for how the jiva is separated from Atman or Brahman. The first is the example of the space inside a pot being separated from the vast space outside the pot. Break the pot and those spaces become one. The other is the reflections of the sun in numerous pots of water. It appears that there are many, but there is really only one. Sarga, visarga, etc. are the ten topics of a Purana. The Visnu Purana only gives five, but the Bhagavata increases them to 10: sarga (subtle creation), visarga (gross creation), sthAna (law and order), poSaNa (welfare of all), Uti (desire for karma), manvantara (the periods of the Manus), izAnukathA (stories about the Lord), nirodha (physical annihilation), mukti (liberation), and Azraya (ultimate reality or resort). These are generally assigned to the Skandhas 3 through 12 in that order, but tend to occur in different parts of the Bhagavata as well. For instance, number 10, Asraya, is assigned to Skandha 12, but it seems more proper a topic of the 10th Skandha of the Bhagavata. The 10th Skandha of the Bhagavata, however, is assigned nirodha or cessation, probably because of the many demons Krsna kills in that skandha. You've done a fine job. I hope my interlinear comments have helped fill in the gaps. If not, please ask for more clarification. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 22, 2020 23:15:34 GMT -6
I promised Malatidasi a summary of the Tattva-sandarbha and here it is. It is from a book called Jiva Goswamin by Asoke Chatterjee Sastri, pp 16-22. (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1996) I will post summaries of the other Sandarbhas in other threads, from this book and others. What I have given above from Sitanath Goswami's introduction is also a summary of the text. |
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 27, 2020 14:16:09 GMT -6
Thank you, Nitai, I appreciate it, this was very helpful, sorry for the delayed response. I’ve been reading the chapter on Sankara from “The Self in Indian Philosophy” (1994) by K.P. Sinha, and between that and your explanation I have a little more context now on these issues, although the question of whether his work is based on the latest research about Sankara's genuine texts is out of my scope. I found his survey of the different opinions within Advaita Vedanta itself very interesting, for example on the idea of the Self as sAkSin, he says that later Advaitins like dharmarAjAdhvarIndra saw it as distinct from both jIva and Atman, while Sankara himself did not make this distinction. He also says that the author of the “Kaumudi” refers to the witness-self as a special form of Izvara. He references both the theory of aveccheda-vAda and pratibimba-vAda and their common points in some detail, as well as the different views within the latter, such as that of sarvajJAtmamuni (where the bimba is brahman) and that of prakazAtmayati (where the bimba is Izvara). He also makes passing references to the AbhAsa-vAda of surezvarAcArya, and to the vivaraNa school. I’m still wondering about both mAyA and avidyA, and how these are accounted for within these traditions, this isn’t so clear to me, I’m hoping that the thread you started on Sankara recently will perhaps help me in this connection. That’s also what left me intrigued about point 6 and what you said. That seems to me to be close to the heart of our existential inquiries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 28, 2020 13:16:30 GMT -6
Thank you, Nitai, I appreciate it, this was very helpful, sorry for the delayed response. I’ve been reading the chapter on Sankara from “The Self in Indian Philosophy” (1994) by K.P. Sinha, and between that and your explanation I have a little more context now on these issues, although the question of whether his work is based on the latest research about Sankara's genuine texts is out of my scope. I found his survey of the different opinions within Advaita Vedanta itself very interesting, for example on the idea of the Self as sAkSin, he says that later Advaitins like dharmarAjAdhvarIndra saw it as distinct from both jIva and Atman, while Sankara himself did not make this distinction. He also says that the author of the “Kaumudi” refers to the witness-self as a special form of Izvara. He references both the theory of aveccheda-vAda and pratibimba-vAda and their common points in some detail, as well as the different views within the latter, such as that of sarvajJAtmamuni (where the bimba is brahman) and that of prakazAtmayati (where the bimba is Izvara). He also makes passing references to the AbhAsa-vAda of surezvarAcArya, and to the vivaraNa school. I’m still wondering about both mAyA and avidyA, and how these are accounted for within these traditions, this isn’t so clear to me, I’m hoping that the thread you started on Sankara recently will perhaps help me in this connection. That’s also what left me intrigued about point 6 and what you said. That seems to me to be close to the heart of our existential inquiries. Hacker's ground-breaking research was published in German in 1950. Essays from that were translated by Wilhelm Halbfass for his Philology and Confrontation which was published in 1995. So it is possible that Sinha did not know of it or benefit from Paul Hacker's insights. I still get sent links to essays on the philosophy of Sankara on academia.org that were published in the last few years that are ignorantly based on works that have been proven not to be by Sankara. When will these sleepy-heads wake up and stop wasting their time and ours with misrepresentations of Sankara? I think Aleksandar Uskokov at Yale does a good job of representing Sankara based on our improved understanding of what he actually wrote. You can see his academia page here, He is probably an IGMer. I don't know, but looking over his publication history he seems to have published some in the JVS (Steve Rosen). But, I guess I am also guilty of that. Anyway, the history of Advaita Vedanta is important to know, for as I say, we are part that history. We are not the acintya-bheda-tattva vada tradition. Mahaprabhu was an Advaitin brahmacari (Bharati). Another scholar who has written some interesting things on Sankara is Ivan Andrijanić from Zageb. You can see his page here.It is important to remember that this is not a German imposition on the study of Sankara. An Indian scholar led the way on this research as early as 1935. Hacker just worked out some of the details in his own research. I don't have my copy of Halbfass' book with me or I would give the name of this (South?) Indian scholar. As far as the relationship between avidyA and mAyA, that is a good question. I don't know for sure yet, but I suspect that Sankara has not mention the word mAyA in his Upadesa-sahasri. So far, he has only referred to avidyA as the the counter-negative of vidyA. Looking at the index in Mayeda's translation of the Upadesa-sahasri, the only place the word mAyA occurs is in Mayeda's introduction or in footnotes to that. It apparently doesn't appear in the text itself at all! Those who call Sankara a mayavadin should be whipped with their bead bags! |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 30, 2020 13:46:34 GMT -6
Another little nugget from Sitanath Goswami's introduction to the TS:
JG has to face considerable difficulty in controverting the Advaita view since Sankaracarya, its chief exponent, rose to an extraordinary eminence. It is queer that Sankara's abstention from any commentary of BH (Bhagavata Purana) has had to be justified by JG, an opponent. This justification too is far from convincing. It is quite amusing that even JG acknowledges Sankara to be an avatara (incarnation) of Siva and he has to find out the works of Sankara where some of the contents of the BH are available. As has been said earlier, the BH is the most trusted treatise of the Vaisnavas. But the difficulty of the Vaisnavas cannot be overlooked since the traditional commentary of the BH. which is respected by all, is written by Sridharasvamin (SR), who is also an accredited Advaitin. Sridhara has often propounded the mayavada which is totally unacceptable to the Vaisnavas. So they have tried to explain away this feature of SR's commentary by holding that by having recourse to mayavada SR entraps in his fold the devout Advaitins who would not listen to anything else than Advaitavada and later converts them to the Vaisnava faith. Thus the recourse to mayavada serves merely as an alluring bait for the die-hard Advaitins.[Baladeva in his comm. on the TS is the source of this idea. I will give the text later.]
From Tattvasandarbha, ed. Sitanath Goswami, pp. xx-xxi, (Calcutta: Jadavpur University, 1967)
|
|
|
|
Post by malati on Oct 2, 2020 10:33:21 GMT -6
Thanks, Panditji Nitaidas.
|
|
|
|
Post by narottamadasa on Oct 20, 2020 11:54:24 GMT -6
What a discussion! I missed a lot since the last time I read attentively this discussion. Is there a "traditional" Vaisnava way to perceive Sankara? Or Sri Jiva is the traditional perception os Sankara vis-à-vis Gaudiya sampradaya?
I will still have to go through all the links given by Nitai Dada.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 15, 2021 16:21:10 GMT -6
I wanted to share this introduction to Sri Jiva's Tattva-sandarbha by Sitanatha Goswami. I think it is one of the best. Its only flaw is that it is too short. Nevertheless, he packs a lot into this short intro. I have referred to it before, especially with respect to the prameyas he draws out of Sri Jiva's work. This I think is one of the best editions of the Tattva-sandarbha. Goswamiji's footnotes on the text are illuminating. Those are only partly in English and so are not easy to understand fully, but they have been very helpful to me as I study and try to translate the text. One nice thing about Goswamiji's presentation is that he was fully deeply learned in the Sankara's Advaita and makes some interesting comments and presents some surprises along the way. Of course, he did not have the advantage of being aware of the work of Hacker and others in setting parameters on what was really by Sankara and what was not. Nevertheless, his strong understanding of Sankara's position make this a very illuminating treatment, this most important work for Caitanyite Vedantic theology. I also plan to present scans of some of the introductions and summaries of Goswamiji's successor in editing the Sandardhas, those of Srimati Chinmayi Chatterjee. I had the good fortune of studying with her at Yadavpur University in Kolkata and I am only now discovering how well she has summarized the texts. Unfortunately, her editions of the Bhagavat-sandarbha and the Paramatma-sandarbha are not as extensive as Goswamiji's work on the Tattva, but they are still useful for those who cannot read the original. I think she was new in the Sanskrit Department when she undertook the work. Her work on the later Sandarbhas (Krsna, Bhakti, and Priti) is much more extensive with many more footnotes and good introductions. They may even be much more critically edited, as well. The original plan for the series was to bring out critical editions of the texts, but that proved to be too difficult or too time-consuming for the younger, new editor of the series. Anyway, they are great contributions to our understanding Sri Jiva's (and originally Gopala Bhatta's) works. Keep an eye out for these scans. Since I cannot do much translating work at present and I can keep my head down while scanning, I am doing more scanning until my eye more fully recovers. You can find Sitanatha Goswami's introduction here. |
|
