Re: Question re: Gaudapada Karikas.
From the Bhakti List Archives
• September 11, 1996
I am grateful for the responses from Drs. Krishna Kalale and Sadagopan, on my query re: Mandukya upanishad. Just a few comments on the issue. I apologize for the rather technical nature of what follows. On 11 Sep 1996, Sri V. Sadagopan wrote: > 1. Sesvaramimasa : Here Swami Desikan's > focus has been described as the defense of > Mimaamsa as "Ekasastra" , a single science > made up of Purvamimaamsa of Jaimini and > Uttaramimaamsa (Vedaantha), the elaboration > of Brahma Sutras of Badarayana . The Acharya > maintains that Purvamimaamsa is in harmony with the > Bramasutras and not in opposition . Swami continues and > states that Jaimini acccepted Isvara as the Universal Lord. > It is not clear that we might find help on the > question of Sri Vidyasankar from here. I thought as much. The question about the Karikas is probably too specific. However, let me clarify a little bit. As I understand Purva Mimamsa, the classification of Vedic texts into categories like vidhi, mantra, brahmana and arthavada is a prime concern of Jaimini's Sutras. Under this classification, it is probably not very problematic to club the Mandukya upanishad and the Karikas together, as arthavada. The Purva Mimamsa school is generally willing to tolerate some non-Sruti character in the arthavada portions. Only the mantra portions and some of the brahmanas are strictly considered to be Sruti, hence non-authored. However, the advaita school rejects the contention that the upanishads are just arthavada. Some portions within an upanishad may be described as arthavada in the commentaries, but the upanishads as a whole are thought to be more than arthavada. This view upholds the Sruti (non-authored) character of the upanishads. I am under the impression that the Sruti nature of the upanishads is upheld by all schools of vedAnta. In this context, the question whether part of the kArikAs are included under Sruti or not, is just a particular instance of a broader issue. The advaita school handles the Sruti nature of the upanishads by suggesting a two-fold division between karma-kanda and jnana-kanda in the Vedic texts. This also allows the application of Jaimini's Sutras primarily to the karma-kanda oriented view, and Badarayana's Sutras to the jnana-kanda oriented view. If both these sets of Sutras are viewed as parts of the same whole, as in Visishtadvaita, it is not clear to me what the implications are, with respect to the status of the upanishads as arthavada (possibly authored by human beings) or as not arthavada (non-authored). Unlike the more involved philosophical concepts, this is a more basic issue of textual analysis. There has to be agreement among Vedanta schools, as regards the basic character of the source texts, because of the sUtras, "tat tu samanvayAt" and "SAstra-yoNitvAt". Hence my question whether Sri Desika goes into this at all, and what his analysis would mean for the Karikas of the Mandukya upanishad. > > 2.The Book by Sri S.S. Raghavachar (Sri Ramanuja on Upanishads) > might be a good source to go over the author's > view on the place of Mandukya Upanishad & Sri Bhashyam. > > The author starts off with a reference to the dubious nature of > Mandukya Upanishad to begin with.He > is referring to the genuine and ancient > aspect of this Upanishad in comparison to > the other Upanishads.He also mentions I hesitate to take a "fundamentalist" view on the relative ancientness of some upanishads over others, but it must be remembered that the attribution of specific ages to the upanishads is quite foreign to the vedAnta and mImAmsA traditions. At least with respect to the principal upanishads that are quoted by the earliest commentators, the idea that some are more ancient than the others is not entertained by any of the Acharyas. >From the point of view of critical scholarship, the question of age might be of some interest. However, such scholarship presumes that all the upanishads, as also all the samhitA portions of the vedas, were written down specifically at some point of time by one or more human authors. Such a view is completely rejected in both Vedanta and Mimamsa. The Sruti, being unauthored, is strictly held to be beyond time. Now, if the Mandukya upanishad is granted the status of Sruti, the question of its age, as compared to say, that of the Brhadaranyaka upanishad should be superfluous, at least to the vedAntins. Accepting relative age of different portions of the vedas requires adjustments or reinterpretations of other aspects of the philosophical school also. Again, the demarcation between upanishad and kArikA becomes an issue, because it is definitely known that gauDapAda is a historical personality, who lived during a specific period in time. > that Adi Sankara does not quote directly from it in any > of his Bhashya granthas. However, there is a commentary on the Mandukya upanishad itself by Adi Sankara, where the upanishad proper and the kArikAs are identified as distinct. Now, it may be doubted whether this bhAshya is genuinely Sankara's or not, but quite a few scholars are inclined to say that it is a genuine composition of Sankara's. Still, we also have to take into account that post-Sankaran advaita writers, including Anandagiri, specifically identify all the Karikas as having been written by Gaudapada, and we may take it that they have just put in writing the traditional view of the advaita school, that was passed on in oral teaching. > He points out that Adi Sankara and Sureswara > quote from the Karikas , an elaboration of > the Upanishad.He refers to the one passage > from Karika (I.16) being quoted by Sri Ramanuja. > Adi Sankara's handling of Karikas and > Upanishad as a whole is referred to. I presume Sri Raghavachar says this on the basis of statements made by Paul Deussen. This idea, that Adi Sankara treats the Upanishad and Karika as a whole, has since been discredited. In the Brahma Sutra Bhashya, only the Karikas are quoted, not the upanishad itself. Whenever the Karika is quoted, both Sankara and Suresvara refer to "Sampradaya-vit" or to the name Gauda in one form or the other. And in Sankara's commentary on the Upanishad and Karikas, the respective portions are clearly separated from each other. So it is quite mistaken to say that the Upanishad and Karikas are treated as a whole by Sankara. > Further, > Kuranarayana Muni's acceptance of part of the > Karikas as inclusions in the text of the Upanishad > is close to the position of Madhva-commentator on > this Upanishad-where he takes some of the Karikas > as part of the Upanishad. In summary , the boundaries betwen > the Upanishad and the Karikas are uncertain. > Yes, it certainly is intriguing that the first book of the Karikas is always found closely associated with the text of the upanishad. There is no confusion about the other three books, as they are accepted on all hands to be Gaudapada's work. However, note that the very name "Karika" implies that it is an exposition on some pre-existing thing. That is what makes this question so interesting. The dvaita school's inclusion of 27 verses as Sruti seems quite arbitrary to me. There are 29 verses in the first book of the Karikas, and sure enough, the last two verses mention the absence of all duality. Separating the first 27 verses from the last two verses of the same section of the Karikas does not appear to be justified. Namo Narayanaya, S. Vidyasankar
- Next message: Vijay Srinivasan: "Ramayanam"
- Previous message: Krishna Kalale: "Re: Question re: Gaudapada Karikas."
- Maybe in reply to: Vidyasankar Sundaresan: "Question re: Gaudapada Karikas."
- Next in thread: Vidyasankar Sundaresan: "Re: Question re: Gaudapada Karikas."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]