This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Who were the T@ rkikas? The Place of Polemic ´ am in S . kara’s Br . had@ran . yakopanis . adbh@ s . ya
Jacqueline G. Suthren Hirst*
University of Manchester *Corresponding author: firstname.lastname@example.org
Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11, 2013
´ am Abstract: Like other Indian commentators, the great Advaitin S . kara (eighth century CE) engages throughout his works with ‘ﬁctive opponents’ and their ideas, considering their views, subjecting them to criticism and establishing his ﬁnal position in response to them. Normally he does this with politeness if with vigour. However, in his commentary on the voluminous Br . had@ran . yaka Upanis . ad, there is one set of opponents whom he treats rather differently, subjecting them to invective at every turn. It seems, at ﬁrst sight, that they are the t@rkikas (logicians). This gives us a puzzle. The most obvious reference of the term ‘t@rkika’ is to members of the Ny@ya school, which specialised in forms of argument and pram@n . a theory. Indeed, some translators and commentators ´ am assume that this is who S . kara has in mind here. But this is not how ´ am he normally treats Naiy@yikas. In this article, I subject S . kara’s texts to close reading to try to discover who these elusive people might be, using clues from register theory to help develop my argument. I suggest a particular identiﬁcation for them which helps us to understand the ´ am context in which S . kara was teaching, a context in which rivalries between ritualist brahmins and growing devotional movements may well have affected the way he was trying to position his Advaitin tradition.
Introduction1 ´ am Throughout his commentaries and free-standing works, S . kara, the great Advaita Ved@ntin thinker (eighth century A.D.), like his counterparts in other schools, engages with those whom we may call ‘ﬁctive opponents’.2 In the majority ´ am of his writings, S . kara conducts these disputations in a moderate and balanced way. He does not spare rigorous criticism, points out logical fallacy with glee and constantly upholds the primacy of the Advaitin ﬁnal position. Nonetheless, his language remains polite. There are some exceptions, but they are fairly rare.3
ß The Author 2011. Oxford University Press and The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email email@example.com
Jacqueline G. Suthren Hirst
However, in his Br . had@ran . yaka Upanis . ad commentary, there is one lot of people who come in for very different treatment. These are, apparently, the t@rkikas (‘logicians’). Intermittently, they are treated with startling invective which is ´ am quite uncharacteristic of S . kara’s normal style. This immediately raises the question, ‘Why?’ By drawing clues from socio-linguistic register theory and examining ´ am S . kara’s varying uses of the term ‘t@rkika’, I will seek to identify these people and ´ am hence suggest why S . kara deals with them as he does. First, though, we need to look at what he actually says.
Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11, 2013
Br . had@ ran . yakopanis . adbh@ s . ya 2.1.20 ´ am S . kara’s extensive commentary on the ‘Great Forest Upanis . ad’ is one of his major works. This particular passage is a dispute on an issue which is at the heart of his Advaita: the upholding of the oneness of brahman and the rejection of any notion of real difference between individual perceivers. Throughout his ´ am commentaries, S . kara engages with objections to this position, with vigour, but normally without vitriole. Here it is different. The ﬁctive opponent produces a whole string of objections, starting with the view that the Advaitin standpoint is contradicted by all the valid methods of gaining knowledge, including perception. ´ am Rather than simply responding to each in turn in a measured way, S . kara intersperses insults at each stage of his counter-argument, such as it is. To appreciate their cumulative force, we shall look at the passage at some length and then ´ am attempt to clarify the target of S . kara’s ire. ´ am At the outset of the section, S . kara introduces these people as pan d itam many @ h , ‘those who think of themselves as learned or wise’, indicating .. . . immediately that he does not hold them in very high esteem:
Then certain people who think of themselves as learned, carried away by their own ideas, think that the whole pram@n . a is mutually contradictory; thus they urge that even perception and so on contradict the oneness of brahman.4
In response to this, these opponents are allowed to bring forward the argument that perception of multiple sounds, inference from differences in karmic results (implying multiple selves), and the differences encoded in direct Vedic injunctions all contradict the Advaitin notion of oneness or non-difference. That is, in the opponents’ view, the three main pram@n . as recognised by Advaita as methods of acquiring valid knowledge—perception, inference and the verbal testimony of ´ am ´ruti—all oppose an Advaitin interpretation. In response to this, S s . kara comments:
They have minds deﬁled by appalling logic, are offspring of degraded marriages amongst the brahmin and other castes, pitiable, their ideas from a tradition cut off from the meaning of the Vedic text (@gam@rtha). How is this?5
mind etc] is other than the self. the skill in inference shown by these bulls of logicians. However. lacking only a tail and horns! For how should the fool who doesn’t even know himself know what is different or non-different from it? What then will he infer? Or on what grounds?7 ´ am S . that (scriptural) instruction is intended to give such knowledge.10 . not to be understood by the small-minded. inferred. but by many others throughout his works. adic teaching on non-duality has no point. they can assert this position as much as they like. S kara returns to a familiar objection which is raised. to demonstrate the grounds for difference in the self. “By whom are differences inferred?” Then if they say. opponents. in S .9 not to be entered by those kings of rogues and hirelings among “logicians”. kara parries. then there is no-one other than brahman to receive the teaching and ´ am therefore Upanis . then he may perceive the grounds for difference in the self [i. S . kara deals with this in his normal way accepting that there is indeed no place for such teaching once non-dual realisation has dawned. 2013 After laying out the problems with the pattern of inference which they will ´ am produce. by suggesting that they will be reduced to silence by his further questions: They should be asked.oxfordjournals. supporting his position with quotations from the Kat .” if they are questioned again. S .56 ´ am S . not only by these . the opponent] sees the grounds for difference in the ether [which is quite undifferentiated]. “Who are you who are skilled in inference?” what then?6 Downloaded from http://jhs. and spoken of in Vedic injunctions. who assert that distinction [of body. kara’s ‘logicians’? When the opponents expand on their position by arguing that differences are due to the different perceivers of sound and different agents of merit and demerit ´ am being connected with different bodies. organs. ´ am Finally. kara’s view. kara does then adduce his normal argument that it is superimposed name and form that account for the differences which are perceived. If brahman is the only reality. S . For it is not possible for even hundreds of logicians. kara warms to his theme: O. ha Upanis ad ( Ka Up ) on the difﬁculty of knowing: . “By all we who are skilled in inference. the opponent included. but they will ´ am never be able to produce a convincing argument to support it. never]. ´ am S . kara concludes.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. nor by those who are without the grace of scriptural teaching and a teacher.e. Therefore this is a secure fortress.e. to assume it is useless before this point would contradict the shared view of all those who accept the self. But he does not maintain an even tone for long: When he [i.8 In other words.
a.oxfordjournals. kara does not take kindly to these people. wrangling simply to criticise and condemn the opponent’s case. Further. 112). that is.12 What though is the signiﬁcance of S . but I suggest that abnormal use in particular may provide us with clues to actual social relations between different parties. The more distant the person addressed. We certainly need to exercise due care because of the inﬂuence of other factors such as rhetorical conventions.Jacqueline G. and ‘kings among rogues and hirelings’.13 ´ am The extent to which S . for example. as’. including Indian philosophical polemics.50 on when it is appropriate to employ jalpa (arguments employing checks and pointing out faults) and vitan . kara’s discussions with his ﬁctive opponents mirror historical discussions with real persons is a very moot point. p. Leckie-Tarry 1995). was part of the normal repertoire of Indian dialectics (Solomon 1976. familiarity–social distance. as we shall see below. parity–unequal power and so on. V@caspati is discussing Ny@ya-s+tra 4. but has he just lost the plot? Or is there another explanation for this apparently extraordinary outburst? And. but perhaps also a threat to the power of ´ am S .2.D. 2013 . is it possible to identify who these people were? ‘It’s not what you say. the more formal and polite the register likely to be employed (Eggins 1994. ‘bulls of logicians though without 16 a tail and horns’. ´ ra (ninth century A. a (wrangling. the use of pejorative language is quite widespread amongst the proponents of a variety of philosophical schools as Verpoorten’s catalogue of terms indicates (Verpoorten 2002). where we are unable to recover the actual speech patterns. The converse is also the case. with ‘minds deﬁled by bad logic’.11 It is also the case that it is not clear what the norms of ‘polite’ interchange in such contexts might be assumed to be.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. it might be reasonable to suppose that those whom he addresses as ‘the scum of the 14 15 br@hman . as noted above) as a protection for one’s own considered position on the nature Downloaded from http://jhs. kara’s invective against the t@rkikas at this particular juncture? Here socio-linguistic register theory may provide a clue. It may be that we can apply these points to the constructed speech usage of historical writings. vitan .d . whichever is the case.17 had actually got under his skin to more than a little extent! His conspicuous lack of politeness might indicate a lack of social distance.) might lend credence A passage from V@caspati Mis to such a view in the light of contemporary ideas about proper forms of debate.d . the greater the power they actually or potentially exert over the speaker. Suthren Hirst 57 ´ am It is clear then that S . However. for example. though many authors eschew it completely. kara’s Advaitin group from those trying to present themselves as more than equals. it’s the way you say it!’ Now it is certainly the case that. bad logic (kutarka) or useless logicians (kut@rkikas) were often the ´ am butt of criticism. Such theory holds that we can analyse different kinds of speech patterns along spectra of. especially where.
anat . as all the key features of his exegetic practice (Suthren Hirst 2005). in turn. aya Upanis . ´ am intellectual. that cognition is separate from the cogniser. kara’s in the pejorative passages also have Upanis . 119). in Upanis . shares elements ´ am with S kara’s and suggests an assonantal repertoire for scolding scoundrels. I suggest that real adversaries were likewise the threat for S . ´ am Other phrases of S . kara.oxfordjournals. ´ am n. p. 2013 Naiy@yikas The ﬁrst and most obvious solution is that these people who employed tarka. for one’s own gain. the Logicians. this does seem to be how he uses the term ‘t@rkika’. where the target is false ascetics. for example. 262). While what might strike us as emotional polemic could then be merely Upanis .19 Nevertheless. respect. abhat . ye c@nye ha c@t ˙ g@vat@rinah . kara designates it elsewhere. kara’s works. dancers. in Thousand Teachings Prose Chapter 2. adic resonances as we shall see below and this might indicate that he is grounding this.21 The phrase in Sanskrit. adic practice in this kind of condemnation of those who distorted the correct understanding of the self. ar@ja-).23 In some places in S .org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. with its delightful vowel play and semi-rhymes (t@rkikac@t .58 ´ am S . as stated in Ny@ya works them26 ´ am selves and as S . kara saw himself to be following Upanis . Two of the three main English .22 . kara’s ‘logicians’? of things. 460. ritual and ethical grounds. or ‘the art of philosophical argumentation’ (Alston 1989b. par excellence. this in itself might indicate a repertoire of language which could be drawn on in those instances where rebutting those who seek their own prestige is deemed to warrant it. ´ am It may also be the case that S . Amongst those implicated in spreading ‘the net of delusion’ are ‘others who are vagabonds.20 his reference to the ‘kings of rogues and hirelings among logicians’. adic patternings. who needed to be declaimed inferior on social. It seems he has in mind real adversaries from whom he must distinguish his apparently similar ideas (Roebuck 2000.8. p. or fame (Solomon 1976. or fame. when recourse to argument was insufﬁcient. the fact that he discusses this indicates that such motives were not unknown. abhat .25 is both at odds with Advaita and consonant with the Ny@ya position.18 V@caspati emphasises that this should be only to protect knowledge and not. adic allusion. who have gone forth yet appear on the stage’. were followers of ´ am the Ny@ya school. 147). and whom S . ad 7. p. In the Maitr@yan . the no-self doctrine in the frame. aya passage above. is evocative of a verse in the Maitr@yan . the view ascribed to the t@rkikas’ system. apravrajitaran . Who then were these people. respect. Downloaded from http://jhs.24 Here. ajat . the Upanis adic composer quotes a verse that speciﬁcally puts Buddhist advocates of . . kara more than once refers to as t@rkikas? I shall suggest four possible responses. mercenaries. wearers of matted locks. His view is that such a metaphorical ‘thorn hedge’ is permissible when dealing with a rude opponent who thinks his own position is superior or who is seeking gain. As Valerie Roebuck has pointed out.
he is at pains to show that his Advaita is in conformity with both Ny@ya’s aims (of removing mithy@jn ˜ @na. a-) and that proper form is the Ny@ya system. ‘even if six forms of reasoning (s . Up Bh).29 Despite the translators’ assumptions. If then we ´ am look at what S . and Ny @ ya.sya (Br . So even if he does use ‘t@rkika’ to mean ‘Naiy@yika’ in some places. those not grounded in the Veda. Of these. Jagadananda explicitly identifying ‘the argumentative philosophy’ with ‘the philosophy of the Naiy@yikas’. that is. the second. In this. katarka. Suthren Hirst 59 translators assume a Ny@ya opponent. s . Reason based on the Veda is. kara’s normal mode of critiquing Ny@ya is one of polite refutation. S .org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. covering ‘reasoners’ of any school. The ´ es Vais .2. kara has to say more generally about tarka. the proper form of tarka is that which protects the ´ am Veda (vedapr@m@n . would not be incompatible with an outlook like Jayanta’s.Jacqueline G. The ﬁrst occurs in the BSBh section refuting the view that the Lord is the efﬁcient cause of the cosmos ´ am only. while various forms of tarka are commonly recognised. kara makes it clear that this Downloaded from http://jhs. khya. not least in the way he labels other schools and opponents. at . adbh@. not least because the Veda itself employs anum@na. Vais ika. though each sees his own school as the key to proper Vedic positioning.). ikas are said simply to follow Ny@ya. kara’s invective in the Br . this may give us a clue to another possible usage of the related ‘t@rkika’. In 2. as here and indeed within the Br .oxfordjournals. could simply be someone who pursues argument without (proper) Vedic grounding.31 Such a use could ﬁnd support in the discussion of tarka in a passage from Jayanta Bhat ˜ jara (second half of the ninth century A. t@rky@): S@m .t . had@ran . BSBh 2. however. ´ am I am dubious that it is the Naiy@yika simpliciter who is the target of S . yakopanis . kara) and with its ground rules for inductive inference or rhetorically persuasive argument yielding valid cognition. Buddhist. Dry reason. the ﬁrst arguable.27 ´ am However.37. For S . not its material cause as well. is to be rejected since it leads to endless contradiction. a’s Ny@yaman the Naiy@yika Jayanta considers a set of six forms of tarka (s . clear. if apparently criticised. hence justifying its use elsewhere. the ﬁrst four are dismissed . equivalent to avidy@ for 28 ´ am S . this [Ny@yas+tra] ´@stra alone is referred to in the words ‘tarka’ (reasoning) and ‘ny@yavistara’ (the full s extent of logic. yaraks .1. and in particular. ‘So’. concludes Jayanta. C@rv@ka. All independent reasoners ´ am S . in several places in his works.32 Jayanta thus holds that.D. then. kara is prone to using terms in a variety of different ways as well as to using several terms to refer to the same object. as unable to protect the authority of the Veda or as directly opposed to it. had@ran . 2013 . t@rky@) are well-known among the people. if criticised. kara to use ‘t@rkika’ as a general term. this does not rule out varying applications in other contexts. reasoning independent of the Veda. ´ es Jain.11 makes his view very ´us clear. kara which might be held to support such a view.33 ´ am I shall consider two passages from S . at . in my view. Moreover. yaka commentary itself. . Ny@ya system).30 A t@rkika. S . to be recommended.
1. It might indicate that ‘from this point on’ we would get reasons why a position different from S@m . let us . khya-Yoga’s. and others. khya-Yogins. ikas. ya 6. ´ vara S particular misconstruction is common to S@m .3. . M@hes 34 ´ es Vais . ‘other t@rkikas’.2. ´ am A member of any school which. gives yet further reasons refuting the general position. kara get so wild with a huge mishmash of non-Veda-complying reasoners with widely differing positions not only from his own but from one another’s also? Register theory would make this seem implausible.2. indicates that ´ am S . khyans for their views on the real transformation of the cause.39. and the existence of pradh@na as a substance separate from purus . had@ran .39-41 ﬁts a Ny@ya position.37 that is. For why would S . based on reasoning independent of the Veda’.20! But before we spring to this assumption.2.36 So itas moreover’ there are some more reasons why this generally unsatisfactory position ´ am of independent reasoners cannot be supported. does this could then be called a t@rkika. It would make no grammatical sense to suggest another change of opponent to the ‘t@rkikas’ from this point on. he shows why the S@m . a: ‘Being in the sphere of ideas fashioned by other t@rkikas. Here then ‘t@rkika’ is used in the sense of ‘any who hold (mutually contradicting) views which fall outside the Veda’.38. is also unsupportable. kara categorises the S@m . clearly. meaning ‘outside the Veda’. khyans themselves as part of the wider collection of t@rkikas. In 2. khya-Yogins’ views cannot be supported and comments that the same grounds apply to other constructions of the Lord which are vedab@hya. the ‘other t@rkikas’ are those opposed to the ´ am S@m .’ Here. then. one group with whom the ‘others’ are contrasted.oxfordjournals.38 I suggest. according to S .org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. A particular group who got under his skin? ´ am Now it might be that S . in S .39 continues: itas ´ ca) the [view] rather ugly and literal manner for the moment: ‘And from this (itas of the Lord as constructed by the t@rkikas is unsupportable’.41. ´nopanis This is supported by Pras . ´ The crux of the matter is the weight which should be placed on the phrase ‘itas ca’. The context is a discussion about ´ am the nature of causality. kara uses the identical phrase at the beginning of 2. khyans. they lead each other astray and end up mutually contradicting one another. since this transition would already have been made two s+tras before in 2. yaka context.2. that here is an example where ‘t@rkika’ means ‘a person who pursues a view held to be outside the Veda. with S kara engaging in a sharp critique of S@m . that of the t@rkikas. But such a meaning does not seem to make sense in our ´ am Br . kara. but not all ´ ca could simply mean ‘and the data in 2. kara’s ‘logicians’? ´ aivas. This ﬁts with the fact that S . Yet this phrase. they are torn apart. Just as the other t@rkikas are 39 by the S@m . which I translate in a 2. 2013 . kara’s view. kara was just having a bad day when he was composing his commentary on Br Up 2.35 Then ´ c@nupapattis t@rkikaparikalpitasyes ´varasya.60 ´ am S . khyans. adbh@s .2. Downloaded from http://jhs. This might suggest a view that by ‘t@rkikas’ he now means ‘Naiy@yikas’. that is.
I turn to my ﬁnal—and most contentious—suggestion. I do suggest it may give us a clue as to where to move next. because of their views and challenge to his social position. then. What is striking about this is the similarity it holds to the arguments that the ´ ravais ´ is S . The ﬁrst comes in the initial main batch of insults when they are described as having minds deﬁled by appalling logic (kutarkad+. that ´ am these are people from a speciﬁc samprad@ya. as the main pram@n . the Advaitin has no pram@n . However. perhaps because it contains statements on both difference and unity (not.n . a. almost certainly a metaphorical though possibly also a ´ am literal slur. Initially. kara’s ire. This would be incensing enough. a collective term for all the methods of valid cognition. namely that ´ am S . of course. Ganeri 2001). Suthren Hirst 61 consider another possibility.sya maybe 400 years later and which he. have really got under his skin for some reason. . a left. karan@h . Perhaps the target of his invective in this passage is a particular group of people who. kara asserts that their ideas come from a samprad@ya cut off from the meaning of the @gamas. 2013 .d . In other words. .sit@ntah . S . sakas that pram@n a s are applicable in their own spheres and that therefore the Upanis . It is not only an attempt to cut Advaita off from rational discussion with other schools. on identity alone as the Advaitin contends). kara is dealing here with a Vais . The problem here is that these opponents think the whole pram@n . To explicate my view. picks up from earlier his S ´ am critics. The ﬂashpoint for S kara is their view on . testiﬁes against the Advaitin position. but it is also an attempt to deny that Advaita can even interpret the Vedic text. am itaretara´ am viruddham). and Vedic testimony all contradict the idea of the oneness of brahman. @divarn . adic teaching on the oneness of brahman is not in contradiction with the ritual injunctions of the karmak@n . S kara has just been arguing against the P + rvam a m @ m . al support for one’s own position was a fundamental part of rhetorical strategies of debate (Solomon 1976. kara goes on to show that these opponents think that sense perception.a for knowledge of brahman. a is mutually self-contradictory (sarvam . pram@n a or methods of gaining valid cognition. However. We need to ask what else there is about these people which might give us any further clues to their identity ´ am and hence to S . it might seem that here we have opponents who are returning to the attack and suggesting that the Veda.40 S . kara. ´ am This leads us to the second clue. not least because its position cannot properly take account of the injunctions which require separate selves to enjoy the various results of different ritual actions and goals. . I suggest rather. a. will deploy against the Advaitin in ´ rabh@. Downloaded from http://jhs.Jacqueline G. Now it is clearly not the case that S . ava Vis . whose views are anathema to S . inference. After slagging off the parentage of these people as br@hman . Establishing correct epistemologic.t . ). Veda (@gam@rthavicchinnasamprad@yabuddhayah . the whole pram@n . ). kara can anticipate this debate. R@m@nuja. @dvaita Ved@ntin. Now it would be possible to read this compound as referring to those with ideas from all samprad@yas which are outside the Veda. would be rendered self-contradictory on the Advaitin view. ava Ved@ntin rival.n . ´ am ultimately.oxfordjournals. @pasad@h . though. that is. pram@n . I suggest that there are at least two clues.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11.
ava Ved@ntin rival ´ am It is not only in Br . adam .45 However. and patch up a view which is incoherent from the outset because of its faulty interpretation of the Upanis . then goes on to speak of that of which they say. actions. and S@m .n . then turns to a longer refutation of the ‘concoction’ (prakriy@) of ‘those who think of themselves as followers of the Upanis . many@h . kara appears to lose his cool. for his own. and so on to become the individual self as agent. adam . itam . the gross and subtle and so on. along with Ny@ya and Vais Vijn .org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. ’ and echoing in turn Mun . in which the Upanis ad refers to the gross and the . ads and the contradiction with all proper reasoning (ny@ya). ). then the S@m . ad 1. kara shows at length. S . Up 2. Up Bh 2. Br . ‘No. They are said to be those who hold that there . perchance. based on the recognised Ny@ya school of reasoning.d . remarks in a similar vein surface periodically. The ´ am ingredients for this. ‘may there be love not hate between us.2. many@h .e. subtle. Yet if. He lists and rejects what he considers the nihilist views of the Buddhist 41 ´ es ˜ @nav@da. they have got it ´ am right. ´ am S kara portrays these opponents as vacillating.’ the real of real (satyasya satyam).oxfordjournals. That the irony is followed through to the end is ´ am seen in S kara’s comment: . kara uses the term ‘ny@ya’ on purpose here to claim proper reasoning. pradh@na in S@m . They see all this as very pleasant43 as their construction is in conformity with the logicians. adic misinterpretations ´ es and miscellaneous views drawn from various firstname.lastname@example.org is the famous neti neti passage. They do not see the proper view of the Upanis .20 that S . These latter views are used because these so-called Upanis . kara must clear out of the way several misconceptions about the entities that there are in the universe. ads. there is the evocative phrase ‘aupanis . ikas’ view that the Supreme Self takes on body. aka Upanis .3. it is laced with constant irony. kara’s ‘logicians’? A Vais . are Upanis . S . ´ am Before dealing with neti neti. khyan view that ignorance (avidy@) is actually a quality of the non-self (i. kara concludes.8. khyans’ and so adopt the Vais . we need to return to the content of the position of these opponents before trying to reveal who they are. ’.44 Downloaded from http://jhs. ads’ (aupanis . First.1. ﬁrst the Vais . khyan terms). identical in form to the earlier 42 ‘pan . ikas.62 ´ am S . Then there is the insinuation that the system these people put together is simply a hotchpotch. many@h . His opponents cannot rescue their incorrect interpretation of the Upanis . ika.’ perhaps another small clue that an actual social relationship rather than just a textual quarrel is at stake here.d . picking and choosing to try . 2013 ´ am It seems more than likely that S . While the tone is not nearly as extreme as in the earlier passage. no. ads. adic exponents ´ es ﬁrst ‘tremble from fear of being [thought] S@m . khyans. But then they swing back to the S@m . Elsewhere in the same commentary. S . ads by aligning themselves with unfavourably regarded t@rkikas on a pick and mix basis. and linked with the Upanis . khya views.
4. but says of the term pur@n ah : ‘“ancient”. despite often being seen as a . Moreover. Champakalakshmi 1996. So it is possible that both these passages are engaging with an opponent from an earlier Vais .3. a as the Supreme Self. kara for pupils from similar Vais .org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11.n . the individual self is the one who controls the body and sense organs for its own use. ad commentary. . 116. kara was working was one of rising devotion in South ´ India to both Vis n u and S iva. quoted by the Upanis ad itself. or to views like those of the vr .8.t . yakopanis . Vais . ava sects were trying to position themselves Downloaded from http://jhs. ´ am S . They also of course share some ´ es similarities with Ny@ya–Vais . these ´ is ideas are strikingly reminiscent of the Vis . ´ruti.6) is a reference to Bhartr .. sanctions Bh@gavata devotional practices as helping worshippers to focus exclu48 sively on N@r@yan . prapan sor of Bh@skara. not modern. ika views.Jacqueline G. Once again. had@ran . Naiy@yikas and Vais . ´ es major schools of the time (Suthren Hirst 1993). long and .. . ava backgrounds. @dvaita Ved@ntin scheme which the ´ Sravais . ava Ved@ntin school. in various contexts. kara was also clearly working at a time when there was intense competition between brahmins attracted to these new devotional movements and brahmins defending a ritualist position (Biardeau 1969. will use 400 years later.. ava background to draw pupils through it to Advaitin realisation (Suthren Hirst 2005.2. ´ am The period in which S . I have argued that he uses this Vais . and the non-conscious gross and subtle elements.37 hints. ika. ikas were ´ aiva groups. as S ´ am often linked with different S kara’s refutation of the Lord as . pp. He speciﬁcally . 2013 . ´ aiva. existing from ancient times . selves and world similar to ´ am ´ es those being developed in Ny@ya–Vais . ava. and whom some . S .oxfordjournals. ?nandagiri assumes that ‘those who think themselves followers of the ˜ ca. whom S kara mentions. like the ill-conceived path because it is revealed by the eternal s originating in the thought of the logicians’.n . 129–137).n . whose works are not extant. ttik@ra. scholars have argued had Vais n ava sympathies by contrast with what they . ‘the subtle. and was in competition with S . ava context provided an important source of pupils for him. p. he was clearly more familiar with a Vais S n ava background. Explaining the phrase. ´ am efﬁcient cause in BSBh 2.n . ´ am ancient way’. ´ am In his sub-commentary on S . Piantelli 1974). As for S kara. Suthren Hirst 63 ´i): the Supreme Self.g. I have discussed elsewhere how this affected all the . which was drawing on understandings of ultimate reality. ads’ (2. ´ am ´ assume to be S kara’s S aiva Advaita (e. R@email@example.com .47 So we may have here a reference to a variation on bhed@firstname.lastname@example.org . kara’s day might ﬁnd some circumstantial support in his gloss on Br Up 4. the bhed@bhedav@din predecesUpanis . the past and present actions are three categories of being (r@s and experiences of the person together with the conscious individual self. Since he appears to go to some trouble to do this. Moreover. 144).46 Is this possibly an allusion to the group in whom we are interested? We need to look further at the contemporary picture. That this school may have been ´ am relatively new on the scene in S . kara gives brief glosses to the other terms. kara’s Br . it would suggest that such a Vais . the earlier ´ am commentator on the Brahmas+tras. .
the Gat@. At the end of his teaching to G@rgya about the self. kara’s commentary on Br . implication at the S@m khyans and M a m @ m sakas but most importantly sets up a . s@rin). Various ways of reconciling the relation of the individual to the supreme are then suggested and rejected. as is well known.52 In so doing. ﬁre and sparks. S . but possibly also for competition over pupils if not for patronage as well. ava background on which ´ am S . kara’s initial commentary follows a line familiar from many Brahmas+tra passages: the ﬁrst opponent holds that by ‘self’ (@tman) is meant the individual self which transmigrates 55 (sam . as I shall argue. avas ´ am Throughout his writings. and cf. ava background. 2013 .6. This allows S kara a sideswipe both at Buddhists and by . Sheridan 1986). when viewed from such a perspective.20.n . sakas on this front. to see what light they can shed on the identity of those sideswiped as ‘t@rkikas’. Ved@ntin opponent who. In addition to opposing the P+rvamam@m . s@rin which is the cause of the whole universe but that the individual self could not properly be identiﬁed Downloaded from http://jhs.. ad (secret name) is identiﬁed as satyasya satyam. including the notion that the sam . I suggest. not the supreme self which transcends sam . Between vaidikas and vais . popular devotion and brahminical authority (Colas _dz _owicz 2003). the stage is set for an intellectual clash. Up ´ atru makes the 2. Dyczkowski 51 1990 . the ritualist exegetes in their own sphere. is one in which it makes sense that a group which might threaten one’s own power base could be one which provoked outbursts of ire. given the Vais . he is quite clear that ritual action cannot lead to liberation. S . the advocates of jn ˜ @nakarmasamuccaya. using a battery of Upanis adic quotations plus one from .n . s@rin). and the self and all beings which emanate from it. kara is careful to position Advaita as a Mam@m . ´ am This is conﬁrmed by the overall context of S . kara’s ‘logicians’? in relation to Vedic rituals.64 ´ am S .oxfordjournals. It would therefore not be surprising if. saka school. s@ra (asam .d .org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. ava views (Danielson 1980. who were positioning themselves differently in this debate.n . he was engaged in negotiating a position within similar parameters. he leaves space for P+rvamam@m . s@rin is the asam . he also argues strenuously against Ved@ntins who sought to combine ritual action or meditation with knowledge. its ´ am upanis . He does not wish to challenge . As in the neti neti passage in 2.3. seeks to demonstrate not only that it is the asam .53 If. However. s@rin in a ´ am different state (avasth@). kara draws. .n . and indeed wishes to beneﬁt from being associated with those who now present themselves as guardians of correct behaviour in the socio-ritual sphere (cf. a) from that dealing with knowledge (jn ˜ @nak@n d a ). Czerniak-Droz 50 understanding of Ved@nta to Vais . Aj@tas famous comparison between the spider and thread.1. We need therefore to relook at his commentaries. and to the context of the passages of invective in particular. Wezler 2004).49 while Advaita authors were relating their 1995. (some of) these were also teachers who were likely to appeal to those from a Vais .54 Such a context. s@ by separating the section of the Veda dealing with ritual action (karmak@n .
Bearing in mind the similarities with later Vais . ads. the vidhis . since the individual as modiﬁcation needs to learn the truth of ‘I am brahman’. Suthren Hirst 65 with that ruler of the universe. not contradicting each ´@stra (Vedic injunctions) and the Upanis other. the proper relationship of the individual to the Supreme is one of worship using the gamut of offerings found in popular ´ am ´as@hasra Gadyabandha. kara’s contemporary milieu. it seems. S kara’s response makes it clear that.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. given the Advaitin interpretation. sa-related responses prioritising the karmak@n . has neatly positioned himself between the brahmin ritualists and followers of popular devotion. ads teaching the oneness of brahman each operate as valid means of knowledge in their own sphere like the ear. rituals have their place for those whose goals are of such a kind.Jacqueline G. S .e. though for the one who seeks knowledge of the oneness of brahman they have no place. as cannot give knowledge of an undifferenced brahman.4. while rejecting a key Ved@ntin opponent in the shape of the bhed@bhedav@din. it seems. kara’s Upades i. Rather.d . as deriving from it. . dealt with the bhed@bhedav@din with his customary repertoire of appropriate reasoned responses. kara summarises this discussion thus: Therefore it is not possible to consider the individual self as a part or a modi´akti) or anything else when it is particularly understood to ﬁcation or a power (s be indivisible. Up 1. So it is signiﬁcant that at this point he launches into the polemical outburst which is our main concern.n . Advaitin view.oxfordjournals.57 Downloaded from http://jhs. ti quotations. by the story of the prince and the fowler told by ‘those who know the proper tradition’ (sam . devotion. since. ´ am This position is refuted by S . that differenced pram@n . since it is a modiﬁcation of it. and proposes a variety of P+rvamam@m .10). kara with a series of moderately expressed argu´ruti and smr ments supported by s . the Advaitin position is presented in direct response to the view that devotion entails the difference between worshipper and the Lord worshipped. This satisﬁes both the need to recognise the relative status of the two (as the worshipper requires) and the need for the teaching (as stated in the Upanis .56 Here. prad@yavidah . The next section pursues the issue of why the individual self is then mentioned at all. ) and by the ´ am ‘correct’ interpretation of the ﬁre and sparks example. a of the Veda and ´ am the importance of ritual action. as in Thousand Teachings (S . Perhaps here we catch a glimpse of ´ am S . 2013 He has.25–26).58 ´ am S . kara. This allows for harmonious co-existence. speciﬁcally Br . Thousand Teachings Prose Section (Upad G) 1. This Advaitin response though engenders the standard question: Of what need is there then for scriptural teaching if the self simply is the Supreme (and so would be known as such)? The ﬁrst solution proposed comes from the bhed@bhedav@din who argues that the self is both identical to the Supreme. in his . and different from the Supreme. ava Ved@ntin critiques of Advaita we have already noted.
6). part of Kr .org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11.n .2. ´ am The ﬁrst is found in the series of quotations with which S . ‘one of us’. so these passages would be designed to contradict such a view.20 are not t@rkikas who completely rejected Vedic authority and were arguing about the contradictory nature of the pram@n . it ´a Up 5). It also ignores the implied allusions to the need for a speciﬁcally Advaitin teacher of the Upanis . a explain that people with little understanding (m+d habuddhi ) think that he is within them. The ﬁrst group comprises three quotations from the Kat . in the Gat@’s context of worshipping Kr .n . kara points out that the self seems to be far away since ‘it is unattainable by the ignorant even in hundreds of millions of years’. in a chapter which is about proper ways of ´ am worshipping Kr . if these are opponents trying Downloaded from http://jhs. such as ´ am ´a commentary. in the sense of being contained . ava-related Advaita. Two further clues may conﬁrm this.n . is knowable only by the wise person with a subtle intellect.s . ha commentary on 1. those mantras that reveal the ultimate as having contradictory attributes: ‘It moves. it does not seem implausible that here we have a group which is threatening to disturb the nicely ´ am balanced place in the contemporary milieu which S .n . it is near’ (` s impossible to understand without a teacher.s .21. it may . by the small-minded or stupid. which he rather transcends and grounds. a.s . In the Kat . kara rounds off his dismissal of ‘those who think themselves wise’. S .’61 In the ` s . They are put forward to support his contention that the understanding of brahman cannot be penetrated by those ‘kings of rogues and hirelings of logicians’. kara’s explanation. ads.66 ´ am S .4. But this ignores both the question of the tone of this passage and the fact that these are the opponents who are treated at its culmination. kara simply introduces it as ‘in the Gat@’: ‘All beings are established in Me’ (Bhagavadgat@ 9. if we look at S kara’s commentaries on these verses ad loc. but it is less clear how the third ´ am quotation ﬁts in. within the manifested world. Up Bh 2.60 This knowledge is not for the shallow or small-minded outside the correct teaching tradition. not be coincidental that in each place they are associated with references to those who do not or cannot understand. kara is negotiating for his 59 Vais . ad all of which are clearly designed to show how difﬁcult it is to know the ultimate. kara’s ‘logicians’? and given the connection with the passage in Br . it is clear that his opponents at the end of Br . a. according to S . It is possible that they are Naiy@yikas who held that it was possible to argue independently for the nature of the self. and all emphasising the importance of being taught by an Advaitin teacher whose understanding is correct. a’s teaching to Arjuna.1. it is far. The quotations seem at ﬁrst sight a rather odd collection. so derived. kara has Kr . S . S . ´ am The second quotation exempliﬁes. We might surmise that this makes it moves not. . ha Upanis . and without the grace of scripture and teacher.3.oxfordjournals.s . ‘This self . 2013 .62 In the Gat@ commentary on 9. Up Bh 2. and for correct understanding of the ultimate. However. S ourselves.n . the last of these speciﬁcally rejecting the use of tarka.6. ´ am S kara explains that the contradictory attributes make the self hard to know: . . kara’s second quotation. as for the sake of it. ´ am However. Given the range of these references. and the need for the teacher or Advaitin in´ am terpreter.
a view Sures then accuses them of expressing in S@m khyan terms. the supreme deity of the Bh@gavatas generally. ika in the way they explain the nature of the supreme self and its relation to the individual self and agent. yet needs to be refuted in the context of questions about worship. Suthren Hirst 67 ´ es to bolster.n . so ignorance affects only that ´ vara part of the supreme self which is modiﬁed as the individual (123). 2013 Just as barren land only affects part of the earth. kara’s opponent. It is the second clue which may clinch their Vais . . ´akti need not be read as implying a proper noun. Yet this is still not to establish that such a group would have had to have Vais .20 a position whose intellectual view of how to reconcile the oneness of brahman with the apparent multiplicity of selves is different from the standard bhed@bhedav@da view (which was rejected earlier in 2. that is. as ‘the dark power’. to make an attempt by S .6. with Ny@ya–Vais .e.1. ritual action. Then comes what may be the telltale sign: The power of Kr . ah .20 for making sense of the relation of individual self to supreme. a which is moreover ignorance does indeed arise from the highest. clearly a Ved@ntin group) in 2.63 They explain this by saying that one part of the ultimate without qualities (nirgun . ika ontology. It could just mean Now kr .3. ‘those who think they know the Upanis ads’ in Br Up Bh 2. and correct Vedic interpretation. we have here at the end of Br . devotion. ika ideas in explaining that the individual self (vijn enjoyer which is bound and released. many@h . kara in Br . They resort to ´ es Vais ˜ @n@tman) is the agent and . but interpreting this phrase metaphorically would seem to load it with inappropriate cultural resonances. ava recruits. 64 This is what appears as that which has qualities (sagun . ´ am ´akti was one of the concepts speciﬁcally rejected by S Moreover. as understood by Sures sense of the knotty problem of avidy@ within some kind of Vais . a newly fashioned Ved@ntin position which seeks to include ritual action. this looks like ´ am ´ vara at least. Up Bh 2. It comes in ´ vara’s verse commentary based on Br Sures . ah . though their note is not at all clear. ) becomes externalised through action. a’. . showing their confusion .6. Having modiﬁed a part of the supreme self it remains in the individual self. Possibly this is a parvenu Ved@ntin opponent implicitly aligned with the aupanis .n .6. khya and elements of Vais . Up Bh 2. kara makes that this group vacillates between picking up elem´ es ents of S@m . a. we can both appreciate the signiﬁcance of these allusions and see why those criticised need to be manoeuvred out of the ring.20). ava framework. Given the general . One way of doing this is to show their tendentious use of tarka. (124). like that of those criticised for thinking they know the Upanis .n .sn .s .n .s .n . He has been presenting ´ am the argument S . ads (i. .3. ava leanings.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11.1. Jog and Hino certainly read this as ‘the 66 power of (Lord) Kr . ).65 Downloaded from http://jhs.n .s . the agent and enjoyer just mentioned. and knowledge in its appeal to potential Vais . s . ava identity.n . Up Bh 2.oxfordjournals.3.Jacqueline G.1.. If this is indeed a reference to Kr . minimally. It seems then that. adam . whose views on ontology seem broadly compatible.
it might justify his use of vitan . in his opinion. it may be better able to bridge the divide between so-called bhakti and ritualist brahmin claims than Advaita. mixed varn . ´ am in S . as and difference. plus its view on the pram@n . if his insult on apasada is meant literally. I suggest. M@hes others. especially where the views expressed can clearly be aligned with Ny@ya. adic but in S . It is a school which may indeed have links with the Vais . I ´ am argue that it is possible that those to whom S . starting to develop. it may be a direct competitor with S . khya-Yoga. The school which gets under his skin in the Br . a and worse in terms of the rhetorical conventions of his day. pushing ´ am itself forward as a coherent path in the marketplace of S . ad commentary ´ am is one which thinks it is Upanis . It is one which tries to use the views of various t@rkika schools. whether or not it is actually the case. kara’s ‘logicians’? ´ vara’s remarks.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. In these senses. the term ‘t@rkika’ designates a broad alliance ´ am of groups which S .d . Vais . ´ am If S . if it has dubious caste links in the context of a group that presents itself as Vedic. ava links. And it is just possible. it is correct to equate ‘t@rkika’ with ‘Naiy@yika’.n . Conclusion Downloaded from http://jhs. ikas. views on the self. had@ran . kara who is keen to ´ramapresent the proper path (sanm@rga) as being in conformity with varn . kara.n . who appears to draw his pupils from such a background himself. that this is a group whose inclusion of non-twice-born. kara’s day.68 ´ am S . @dvaita centuries later. ´ ravais and authority which R@m@nuja will later capitalise on as he builds his S . 2013 We come back then to the question with which we started: Who were the t@rkikas? ´ am My conclusion is this. ´ am whom S . Because ´ am of its Vais . Its understanding of the Supreme Self. @s dharma. yaka Upanis . are akin to views which will be ´ is developed in Vis . kara seeks to manoeuvre out of competition. explicitly includes S@m . kara’s view is cut off from correct interpretation. kara’s view. . Because of its attitude to ritual prescriptions. or are aligned with those who develop such positions. then. Just possibly. but is unable to employ inference correctly. ava Ved@ntin group.68 He is at least content to smear this group with an insult suggesting this possibility. this is plausibly a Vais context and Sures .n . Its exponents are sarcastically referred to as t@rkikas. and ´ es ´ vara S this sense. it would chal´ am lenge brahminical authority in a way unacceptable to S .oxfordjournals. kara’s writings.67 ‘T@rkika’. a adherents undermines proper brahminical authority. in ´ aivas.t . kara sees as basing themselves on reasoning alone or on fallacious interpretations. In places in S . individual agent and non-conscious elements. including Ny@ya. . kara refers with such eviscerating polemic may indeed be Vais n ava Ved @ ntin rivals.n . In other places. which therefore fall outside the Veda. ava synthesis. ava Ved@nta of earlier generations and is. on the basis of other schools. kara sees this group as seeking its own gain and prestige.. action.
) 1980. Available from Muktabodha Indological Research Institute Library website: http://www. London: Shanti Sadan. Suthren Hirst Abbreviations Upad G Ka Up GKBh Br . S . yav@rttika ´ am S . Delhi: Oxford University Press.. Up Bh V@rt BSBh 69 ´ am ´as@hasra Gadyabandha. pp. 2003. 1978. With a New Translation of Haribhadra’s Yogadr . S .S. Tradition. G. @nanda Sanskrit University. R. S. ‘S ´ Br Up Bh. kara’s Brahmas+trabh@sya Downloaded from http://jhs. S . G. 00 Dezso . Paris: E ¸ aise de l’Extre ´ an ˙ kara and the Buddhists. pp. A. ya ´ am S . kara on Rival Views.org/excerpts/ CSLMuchAdoAnnotation. ana Mis ´ cole Franc ˆ me-Orient. (trans. & trans. kara (BhGBh). Chapple. . Vol. ya ´ vara’s metric Br Sures . See S ..’ In: Reinich. ha Upanis . 5.muktabodhalib.s . R. ad ´ am S . Stern. C.pdf [date last accessed 1 February 2007]. p+rn .org/excerpts/ CSLMuchAdoAbstractIntroCriticalText. adbh@s . Up Bh. C. yat .’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 6: 405–13. London: Shanti Sadan.. S. Colas. pp. M. (ed. @rtha. P@n Czerniak-Droz ˜ car@tra Scripture in the Process of Change: A Study of the Paramasam .t .) 1990. i.. 1995. (trans. 229–70.n ... had@ran . had@ran . kara’s Br . . ´ am Alston. Champakalakshmi. K. See Subrahmanya Shastri. Much Ado about Religion. 2005. (ed.pdf [date last accessed 15 January 2007].) 2004a. 2006.’ In: Champakalakshmi. Varanasi: Sam . ‘The C@rv@kas and the Vedic tradition. (ed. ‘From devotion and dissent to dominance: the bhakti of the Tamil ?4 v@rs and N@yan@rs. yakopanis . A.. J.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. M. had@ran .) 2004b. adbh@s . La Philosophie de Man .t . Bronkhorst.’ Paper presented at the 13th World Sanskrit Conference. M.. Gopal. Albany: State University of New York Press. ap@dayak@rikabh@s . kara on Discipleship. Vol. Reconciling Yogas: Haribhadra’s Collection of Views on Yoga. Br . ‘Cultes et courants du Vishnuisme en Inde du Sud: Quelques observations a partir des textes. by Bhat . hit@. H. 2003. vitprak@s introduction. A. ´ra vue a ` Partir de la Brahmasiddhi. The Sam . J. 1989a. kara. See S . a: The Essence of Supreme Truth (Param@rthas@ra).. 4. Biardeau. isamuccaya by Christopher Key Chapple and John Thomas Casey.claysanskritlibrary.t .d . a Jayanta. a Jayanta. kara’s Gaud ..G. edited with English Dyczkowski. & trans. ‘History of Vais . Much Ado about Religion. adbh@s . & trans. Oxford: Blackwell. ava traditions: an esquisse. Leiden: Brill. (eds).-L.. Biderman.. Edinburgh.Jacqueline G. ?dis .) 1990. by Bhat . G. 1989b. ` Colas. ´ am BhGBh. ´ am ´ am Alston.’ In: Flood. 00 Dezso . from the full annotation available from: http://www. Up Bh Br . J. The Thousand Teachings of S . (ed). ?nandagiri. Thousand Teachings Prose Section S . Full introduction and critical text available from: http://www. kara Source Book. ´ am BSBh. 111–38.e. 2013 References ´ am ´ am Alston. ´es Danielson. kara Source Book. (ed. M. yakaupanis . . Les Ruses du Salut: Religion et Politiques dans le Monde Indien. (eds). London: Shanti Sadan. The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. J. C. aka. See S am kara Br . 1996. Vienna: The De Nobili Research Library..pdf [date last accessed 1 February 2007]. yakopanis . kara (BSBh). _ dz _owicz. Sanskrit text with translation and notes. ´a by V@manadatta. Notes. 135–63. Paris: Collection Purus .claysanskritlibrary. S .oxfordjournals.org/SECURE/DYCZKOWSKI/SAMVITPRAKASHA/PDF/PDF. Dissent and Ideology: Essays in Honour of Romila Thapar. H.) 1969. kara Upades Kat .
d . J. Krasser.. . Ten principal Upanis . Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (reprinted 1987). hit@s. 2002. S. (ed.’ ¨r die Kunde Su ¨dasiens 44: 101–34. 2004. ya. kara (BSBh).. The Br . K. ´ am GKBh. Advaita Ved@nta. ads. S ´ rimat-S ´ @n with the Commentaries S ˙ karabh@shya with ?nandagiri etc. ‘Bhagavadgat@bh@s .. adah . Hudson. ap@dayak@rikabh@s . H. . kara GKBh. (trans. yam with the commentaries: Bh@s . See S . Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan. 1. London: Pinter Publishers. Y. (ed). ‘Pre-S History of Science.. reprinted (1996). P. part 2.oeaw. Brown. L. A. Gonda.’ In: Harper. Wiener Zeitschrift fu Roebuck. Sures .. S. Language and Context: A Functional Linguistic Theory of Register. Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math. . ad with the Commentary of ´ an S ˙ kar@c@rya.. (trans. ads with S . kara and his Pupils. ´ an Gambhirananda.’ In: Pansikar. ¨ nf Zeiten (pan ˜ ca k@las) in den a ¨ ltesten P@n ˜ car@tra-Sam Rastelli. Jagadananda. ‘Br . Works of . (trans.) 2000. kara (GKBh). Translated into English with explanatory notes. ‘Die fu . had@ran . K. Ny@yanirn V@caspatimis . Institut fu ¨ r Kultur.. ‘Brahmas+trabh@sya. 2000.) 1979. Philosophy in Classical India. ‘The shift from agonistic to non-agonistic debate in early Ny@ya. W. 1977..’ See ‘M@n . pp.. Hino. L. ˜ car@tra ?gama.’ In ´ @n ´@didas ´opanis ´@n `s ˙ karabh@s ˙ karabh@s . S.. New Delhi: Penguin Books. R. ´ is ´vara’s V@rtika on S ´u and M+rt@m+rta Br@hman Jog. Introduction to Systematic Functional Linguistics.) 1972. 2010. L. The Roots of Tantra. K. (trans. The Upanis . II. had@ran .) 1996. a. (ed). Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Advaita Ved@nta up to S .) 1981. Kang. Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization. ‘Are Buddhist pram@n . S. S. M. . ´ am S . Brahmas+tra´ @n S ˙ karabh@s . Bh@mata of ´ra. Ganeri. 1964a. ´ ramadbhagavadgat@ ´ am S . adbh@s . Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. A Thousand Teachings: in Two Parts – Prose and Poetry of Sra Sankar@ch@rya. (trans. 1. Albany: State University of New York Press. ‘Gaud . 2001. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1964b. kara (BhGBh). A Thousand Teachings: The Upades ˙ kara. ´ an ´as@hasra of S Mayeda.’ In: Balasubramanian. ads with the Commentary of S Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.. kara’s ‘logicians’? Eggins.at/Mat/Krasser2004_Buddh_ Pramanavadins. (ed). (trans. ´ am Potter. Leckie-Tarry.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. Vol. Madhavananda. D. 1992.) 1975.) 1997. S ´ am S . 1994. ya. 1974.’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 38: 75–95. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. adah . New Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations. av@dins non-Buddhistic? Dign@ga and Dharmakarti on the impact of logic and epistemology on emancipation. S. ya. aya of ?nandagiri. .’ In: ` s . ‘An inquiry into the deﬁnition of tarka in Ny@ya tradition and its connotation of negative speculation.. Hino.L. 1995. 2004. Nicholson. yaratnaprabh@ of Govind@nanda.. Eight Upanis ˙ kar@c@ya. s Downloaded from http://jhs..sya. ‘Early evidence of the P@n (eds). Sures . V.’ Indologica Taurinensia 2: 259–78.’ Hrrin 11: 129–46 Available ¨ sterreichische Akademie des Wissenschaften. Vol. Pandey.. (5th edn) Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama. S. yayut@h . 1980.und from O Geistesgeschichte Asiens website: http://ikga. (trans.. 133–67.pdf [date last accessed 17 January 2007]. London & New York: Routledge. Up Bh). . a.. Ten principal Upanis .70 ´ am S .’ In: Shastri. +kyopanis . S. Medieval Religious Literature in Sanskrit. ads with S ´ an ˙ kar@c@rya in original Sanskrit.. pp.oxfordjournals.. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 2010. P. Princeton. London: Pinter Publishers. ya. K. yaka Upanis . Vol. M. J.) 1941.’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 38: 1–23. Piantelli. S.. ´ an ˙ kara Advaita. kara (Br ´ @n ´ @n s ˙ karabh@s ˙ karabh@. H. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ´ am ´@didas ´opanis S . 2013 . S. yakopanis . H. J. ´vara’s V@rtika on Aj@tas ´atru Br@hman Jog. R. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. yayut@h . ‘Kramamukti: a few notes. 3–28. at.
at ?nandagiry@c@ryaviracitat . G.. 1990. . pp. ‘Br Sures . yakopanis .. iddhi iti tannir@karan .. kara’s Advaita Ved@nta: A Way of Teaching.) 1962.. ad: A Critical Essay. @ya n@darah . Searle-Chatterjee. 2005.sit@..7).3. yakopanis . N. A. 3 For example.’ Journal of Indian Philosophy Wezler. 2004. A.. In the Gaud . Richmond: Curzon Press. yavibh+. kara Upad.2. S. Upades Sheridan. iya Upanis . S . G. 1993. Downloaded from http://jhs. 101–22.. The Self’s Awareness of Itself: Bhat . Gujarat Vidya Sabha. ´ @stras. S. kara (mis)represents in order to show the truth of his Advaitin position. kara engaged in debate or actual opponents from earlier writ´ am ings. D. 2006. ya (BSBh) 2. ‘Who are the others? Three moments in Sanskrit-based practice.’ Indologica Taurinensia 28: 267–79. B. Language and Power. Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press. G. E.. Suthren Hirst. Br ˙ ka. S. avipratis .’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 18: 113–50. (ed). akopetas rabhagavatp@dapran .t .32). Vienna: Publications of the de Nobili Research Library 32. ´ am Suthren Hirst. Religion. G. 1976. ´ramacchan Shastri. 2 Some of these always unnamed opponents may well have been actual historical ´ am ﬁgures whom S . London: Routledge. The Advaitic Theism of the Bh@gavata Pur@na. I am grateful to the participants for the discussion which ensued and to the anonymous readers for this Journal. Mount Abu: Mahesh Research Institute. P. kara (Upad). M. ´ joratives dans le De ´ bat Philosophique en Verpoorten. See S . but they also function as mouthpieces whose views S . The Maitr@yan . Indian Dialectics: Methods of Philosophical Discussion.sya (Br . Suthren Hirst 71 ´ an Works of S ˙ kar@c@rya in original Sanskrit. ‘The place of teaching techniques in S . J. see Biderman (1978). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ‘Quelques Tournures Pe Sanskrit. But such strong wording is an exception to the rule. a). Vol. ´ am ´ as@hasra (Thousand Teachings). ´ am Upad. yav@rttika. kara also accuses the Buddha of being ﬁlled with hatred since he gave three contradictory teachings to his followers (Brahmas+trabh@s . J. A. ´ an ˙ kara’s Ved@nta. had@ran . 2013 Notes 1 An earlier version of this article was presented to the Philosophy panel of the 13th World Sanskrit Conference held in Edinburgh in July 2006. Solomon. pp.. Vol. On the signiﬁcance of this refusal. ´ am Suthren Hirst. 1.’ In: Mayeda.’ See Jog and Hino. ya (GKBh).’ In: Werner. he refuses to engage with the Madhyamaka Buddhists on the grounds that. London: Routledge Curzon. ha’s Arguments Against the Buddhist Doctrine of No-self. ˜ @nav@da Buddhists of being extremely bold compared with the he accuses the Vijn ‘other dualists’ and follows Gaud . K. S . ‘Dharma in the Veda and the Dharmas 32: 629–54. if they do not recognise any of the accepted valid means of knowledge ´+nyav@dipaks (pram@n . it is impossible to enter into debate with them: s . atabh@s . as tu sarvapram@n . adbh@s . ´ am S . Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (reprinted 1987). adbh@. had@ran . J. had@ran . (ed. Ahmedabad: B. M.Jacqueline G. ‘Upades ´as@hasra. Institute of Learning and Research. J. The Hague: Mouton. ap@dayak@rikabh@s . 1973.’ In: Green. (ed. Watson.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. ap@da in accusing them of seeing birds’ footprints . J. 1. J. kara’s theology.. van Buitenen. 2002. 113–50. 2008. (ed).ta R@makan .J. (eds). Suthren Hirst. kriyate (Br . ‘The place of bhakti in S Love Divine: Studies in Bhakti and Devotional Mysticism.oxfordjournals.) 1986. ´ vara. yakopanis . Up Bh) 4. 1986.
but this does not amount to the kind of personal insult he uses in the passage under examination. itam . Its alternative spelling. it@ntah . ha (Watson 2006.19–21). am abhyupagacchadbhis t@rkikas ´ayitum ´akyate (p. Up Bh 2. ‘‘philosophy’’ and sophistry’ (Nicholson 2010. pratyaks Kum@rila’s S .D. (p. ´alam ´itam apucchas ´r aho anum@nakaus ˙ gais t@rkikabalavardaih . 76). sakas and t@rkikas who follow the everyday grounds for inference given in the Veda itself for the ‘I’ notion.5–7) ‘Balavarda’ means ‘bull’ or ‘ox’. 743 ll.20.10–12). ais . against an unspeciﬁed target. s Also a reference to the self as the ‘fearless’. ´ aiva Saiddh@ntika Sadyojyotis (seventh/early eighth century A. ika. his examples do need scrutinising in context carefully. pp. ´ am Note that in his introduction to this commentary. Verpoorten’s examples include ´ es uses from Buddhist. . ke y+yam anum@nakus ´al@ ity evam anum@nakus pr s t @ n @ m kim uttaram . Walter Slaje for this reference. m+d . kara’s ‘logicians’? in the sky.o ´ m a m @m s @ s t @ rkik @ s ca ahampratyayalin ˙ g @ ni ca vaidik @ ny eva svamatiprabhav @ n a . kara castigates Mam@m . dars . am itaretaraviruddham .22–23). labheta sah .t . @divarn . yo hy @tm@nam eva na j@n@ti sa katham . isamuccaya 86–7.t . ar@japraves ´@stragurupras@darahitais ´ ca (p.72 ´ am S . tath@ pratyaks @ divirodham api codayanti brahmaikatve (Br . which is difﬁcult to enter. 8 (2002.16–7).D. n. 111–14).g. pas . He notes that his list is by no means exhaustive. . While he himself notes that some of his terms may be used in other contexts without polemical intent. avyah . has tadgatam . 744 p. However. the tensions and ambiguities between philosophical reasoning and scholastic rivalry. S . durgam idam alpabuddhyagamyam . bhinn@h . manyante. . whose attack on kutarka. atha yadi br+yah .. atrocyate – te tu kutarkad+s . it is not clear that all the passages he selects are pejorative in a strict sense. 743 . abhat . p. 22).g. between logic and rhetoric. 608. v@ j@nay@t? tatra kim anuminoti? kena v@ lin ˙ gena? (p. Compare moreover Nicholson’s comment: ‘The development of early Ny@ya displays.ll. p. immediately follows his sharp critique of what Chapple identiﬁes as practices of ‘Tantric. kecit svacittavas . his reference to ´ lokav@rtika. He then elaborates that those who regard even their own viewpoint as empty (Madhyamakas) are even bolder and want to grasp the sky in their clenched ﬁst (GKBh 4. .1. . as ´asya bhedalin ´yati tad@ @tmano ‘pi bhedalin yad@k@s ˙ gam ˙ gam . karan .744. kair anumayanta iti pras . na hy ´es ´atair api bhedalin @tmanah ˙ gam @tmano . ll. bhedam abhedam . Also the Jain Haribhadra (eighth century A. ´@t sarvam tatra pan . @pasad@ anukampanay@ @gam@rthavicchinnasamprad@yabuddhaya iti.21–3).n . Up ´italaukikalin ´es ´ ca tadanus@rin Bh intro @gamena tv @tm@stitve ‘vagate vedapradars ˙ gavis .64). e. Jain. Ny@ya. ll. dars . .t . .28). Yoga. Mam@m . Br . @ br@hman .) and See e. . ll.oxfordjournals. and grammarian commentators. . the cut-up sacriﬁcial victim. 744 ll. 275. ‘balivardha’. many@h . Vais . . the S his tenth century commentator R@makan . . s@.d . or Kula. 743. an important and a fairly new rival school’ (2003.8–9). The Madhyamaka Buddhist Candrakarti ˙ n@ga for his use of tarka and mentions criticised the Yog@c@ra Buddhist Din 4 5 6 Downloaded from http://jhs. p.) Yogadr . kalpayanto vadanti pratyaks . perhaps even more clearly than the history of Western philosophy. a. suggests a smearing wordplay here.s . p. but think that such inferences come from their own ideas. ´yam abhayam tasm@t t@rkikac@t . sarvair asm@bhir ´alair iti. parato vis . s I am grateful to Prof. ll.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. katham? (p. pram@n . 2013 7 8 9 10 11 12 . ti ´ c@numeyas ´ c@tmeti (p.
00 Cited in Dezso . Literally. . cited in Solomon (1976. a Ny@yaman jalpavitan . ah . While an argument could be made that it is safer to insult opponents from the long-gone past. . na tu t@rkikasamaya iv@nyopalabhdir anya upalabdh@ ca. kutarkad+s .d . . S @ m . 668. .san . 2004b. however. See also Kang (2010) on possible core meanings of the term ‘tarka’ which might explain both widespread pejorative attitudes to tarka and the tendency of some later Naiy@yikas to describe it (positively) as a characteristic of their own method.Jacqueline G.B. It may not be coincidental that also mentioned are ‘others who by false logic (vr . 218). Ny @yav@rttikat@tparyat . and Mam@m . .4–6: . 119). for example. ak@. dayasthatattvajn . th@tarka--). note on Bhat . S . even the wise who have subdued their passions may ﬁnd it suitable to use wrangling dispute and destructive criticism in order to protect the knowledge of reality which exists in the heart of the tender-minded. Oral comment. jugglery and conjuring seek to ﬁnd status among those who know the Vedas (vaidikes . examples.27. e tu dus . tr@syam@na´v@sanena taddhr saralamatisam@s ˜ @nasamraks . Research Seminar.. kara is dealing with contemporary opponents here. ´ this does not seem to be typical of Sam . p.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. kara’s treatment of S@rv@stiv@da).. This would be true if there were a distinction between perception . ´. This is the view taken by Potter (1981.79: Downloaded from http://jhs. Translation from Roebuck (2000. 28 February 2007.20. especially in a genre which recycles earlier critiques of the oppon´ am ents under discussion (consider. Vais es ikas. p. 141). Cf. . nityopalabdhim@tra eva hy upalabdh@. 192) and Alston (1989a. Suthren Hirst 73 13 14 15 16 17 18 ˙ n@ga’s opponents in his kut@rkikas. Upad G 2. tad etad vidy@p@lan@rtham na l @ bhap + j @ khy @ tyartham iti . . 1962. p. as’: br@hman @ divarn @ pasad @ h . as and other varn . as we shall see below. for example.t . ‘children of degraded marriages amongst the br@hman . through fortifying them when they are frightened by the noisy arrogance of deceitful objections concocted by a vicious logician.rn apucchas ˙ gais t@rkikabalavardaih . @h . p. @ya kvacid avasare vatar@gasy@py upayujyete | On some occasions. 2013 19 20 21 22 23 24 ´es satyam evam . whom Krasser identiﬁes as Din ´ Pram@n asamuccayavr tti : Naiy @ yikas. which he does insult are those which were still a threat in his day). ambarasam . p. 460). ar@ja-.A. an . p. khyans. u paristh@tum icchanti)’. . abhat . ´ am There are also circumstantial clues that S . t@rkikac@t . p. Jayanta Bhat ˜ jara 1. van Buitenen. ad+. @d . University of Manchester. aya text from J.t . ambara 1. This colourful phrase is Swami Madhavananda’s (1975. kara’s approach (the Buddhist schools.t .oxfordjournals. a Jayanta’s ?gamad . Maitr@yan . yady upalabdhyupalabdhror vis .118. it@ntah . p. at@rkikoparacitakapat . karan . 186). sakas (2004.
1.2). atam .sat . a. p. activity. Alston translates t@rkikasamaya as ‘the doctrine of the Logicians’.1. s@m . that any of these might be logicians’ views (Mayeda 1979.’ i. t@rkikapaks . establish through hundreds of reasons that there is no such thing as one who does not transmigrate [i. 2004a: xvii. n. . s@ views of perception. 51. Vol. am utt@payati ‘tatreti’. defects and false cognition. . implying. janat@su prasiddh@y@m api . 32 Ny@yaman ˜ jara. cited in Dezso eva tarkany@yavistaras .74 ´ am S .4.’ See also BSBh 2. dravyasya gun . t@rky@m . aka as a Ny@yanirn . this removes activity. p. ‘Thus it is said by the Naiy@yikas: The thesis [established] by the statement of the reason is the restated conclusion. 8f evety evam asy@m . ttidos . Br . For the perceiver is simply eternal perception. Up Bh 2. pp. . kara’s ‘logicians’? and perceiver.e.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. sakas. iti. hitam .20: ..2.m . 76–80). title normally given to his sub-commentary on the Brahmas+trabhas .’ (1975. 217) and Jog and Hino. khya and Yoga. ´ am 28 In BSBh 1. khya´ m a m @m sak @ dayo ‘sam s @ rin o bh @ vam yuktis ataih pratip @ dayanti . the capital letter indicating his view (Alston 1990. 67).23 on Ny@ya and Vais .1. . 218). n. Mayeda translates ‘doctrine of the logicians’. by getting rid of false cognition. aka on Br .e. birth. and Buddhist and Mam@m . S@m .1.).2. 2013 .g. 1. S . .18. tath@ca ny@yavidah . ‘Nevertheless.37 quoting Ny@yas+tra 1. aya. however. adic quotations to support his notion that liberation occurs simply through the removal of avidy@: yath@c@ryapran . 30 See Suthren Hirst (1990.1. . . 2005. 250. ´ es 26 e. . ‘Just like the verse spoken by the teacher supported by reasoning/Ny@ya: Liberation comes from the successive removal of suffering. ´ @t 29 Br . p. kara’s Br .39 tath@ naiy@yikair uktam – hetvapades pratijn ˜ @yah punarvacanam nigamanam iti . idam 00 ´abd@bhy@m ´@stram uktam. 31 This may be the force of ?nandagiri’s identiﬁcation of the Br . This edition labels ?nandagiri’s t . . each one removing the one before it. though he may have had a more speciﬁc group in mind ´ @straprak@s ´ika. defects are removed. . . Up Bh 2. Up Bh 2.) Two translations follow his identiﬁcation: Madhavananda. like S@m .1. p.20 who remarks: Moreover those who know the proper means of reasoning. ika. Up Bh 4. a supreme self not subject to rebirth]. kara quotes Ny@yas+tra 1. Up Bh section as the t@rkikapaks . s 33 Jayanta’s view that being qualiﬁed to use logic was commonly recognised in a range of schools is shown by the advocate of a prima facie (rejected) view earlier in ´ am S . . ika view. ny@yopabr . 172. . 25 As an attribute of a substance: . ya. after giving a string of Upanis . p. Up Bh 2.29). a iti (Br . 1997.3. khyans and Mam@m . p.15. khajanmapravr . so suffering is removed and with it comes liberation. It is not (the case that) perception is one thing and the perceiver another. which in turn removes birth. ‘Verses 588–591 state the view of the T@rkikas “logicians” who are opposed to the Ved@nta’ (editors’ heading.20). in Subrahmanya Shastri (ed. amithy@jn ˜ @n@n@m uttarottaropaye tadanantar@p@y@d apavargah . as in the system of the logicians.5 intro quoting Ny@yas+tra 1. but not stating. 27 Jagadananda (1941. l. certain self-styled wise men (the logicians). s+tram – duh . t (S .1. . p. 1986. Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals. and his note gives explanations of ´ es the differing Ny@ya and Vais .
org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. s@m . tathetare t@rkik@h . ava Sanskrit texts was the status of the adhik@rin. . Roger Ballard. which is outside the Veda. But the M@hes ´ es Vais ikas and so on .1. . The later Sanatkum@rasam hit @ extended this further to include some mixed varn . for initiating a suggestion of this kind. khya. . who was properly qualiﬁed to be accepted both as an uninitiated lay follower of a particular movement and as an initiate. . Some insofar as they construct it taking refuge in ´ aivas] think. kara in BSBh 1. The P@n ´ramaJay@khyasam .3 .20 below.41 itas 38 It is. ´ik@h 41 vijn ˜ @nav@dino vain@s . . tabuddhivis . ika—who hold . cf. retains pradh@na terminology normally associated with S@m . . as Therefore the S@m . . ´var@s tu manyante . which on this reading should just be against S@m . .11 whose reference to t@rkikas as those unable to ´ am establish the nature of the self from inference alone links back to S .2. @s ´+dras (who are excluded from Vedic study and dharma. possible that there was some corruption or miscopying of the text involved here.39f. which on this view should just be against Ny@ya. ´varakalpan@. ava groups into varn . . . . khya-Yoga refers to the Lord as a special kind of soul—a Ny@ya view.Jacqueline G. Moreover the ´ vara [S S@m . which is primarily addressed to its own private ritual-conducting brahmins. santo vihanyante. 2.a groups and s+tas.37 . ´ c@nupapattis t@rkikaparikalpitasyes ´varasya. kara’s critique ´ es of S@m . hit@ (c. . while ﬁercely opposing professionvarious Vais . Naiy@yika and Vais . incorporates ´ramadharma. vedab@hyes . tath@ vais ´es kalpayanti . 2.38. ika notions in GKBh 3.n . @s ˜ car@tra al temple cults regarded as of mixed varn . has multiple forms. I am grateful to my former colleague.D. Br . This would have represented encroachment upon the sole brahmin authority of those who saw themselves as ‘properly’ Vedic teachers and provide a further reason why those who might align themselves ´ am with such a position provoked S .2. cf.) accepted all those who adhered to varn . One of the issues which preoccupied South Indian Vais . khyayogins’ construction of the Lord is not supportable.’nyat@rkikakr . South Indian Vaikh@nasasm@rtas+tra. And this construction of the Lord. 2013 BSBh 2. . . khyan and Vais . 40 See further below.2.3. .. . . the pressure to do so may well have been there earlier. kara to such ire. 35 Downloaded from http://jhs. evam any@sv api vedab@hy@sv tasm@d anupapann@ s@m . khyayogavyap@s . m@hes ik @ dayo ‘pi .2. —for whom the self is nothing other than the changing ´ es impressions which are like magic or a mirage.41 on the Lord’s omniscience could easily ﬁt a Ny@ya position. ay@h . BSBh 2.e. However.oxfordjournals. kecit t@vat s@m ´ray@h s@ ceyam . ´nopanis 39 Pras . . speciﬁcally including s ´ am hence from the normal teaching of Advaita by S . adbh@s . khya-Yoga . Suthren Hirst 34 75 ´varakalpan@nekaprak@ra. . .D. of course. . Up Bh 2.2.38 36 2.600–850 A. i.2. The fourth century A.5. khyaih . GKBh 3. It is the same with reference to the other constructions of the Lord which are outside the Veda . low-caste bards (Colas 1995). ya 6. 37 BSBh 2.n . a and outside this system.34-38). khyayogin@m as ´varaskalpan@su.
for a more detailed explanation. parames . the blessed one described in such a way. kara says ´varam tam ittham . ) (tr. aya—elsewhere S . 137–9). ´rutiprak@s ´itatv@n na t@rkikabuddhiprabhavakudr “pur@n . yoga (meditation) (Colas 2005. kara makes no clear distinction between Bh@gavatas and P@n the early history and (confused) relation of the two. am @r@dhanam ajasram ananyacittatay@bhipreyate tadapi na pratis . through having the mind focused on no other. worship). nopanis ´yanti. ´yanti.3. 215–218). . an . ablutions etc). Br ˜ jasya kalpanay@ raman . . ayam . adbh@. 184.. cf. the one whose faults are destroyed attains the blessed one . he rejects the view that brahman is to be pointed out by the so-called moon-branch teaching against a Mah@y@na Buddhist in Ch@ndogyopanis . _dz _ owicz 2003. ´ am raman . p. .1 (see Suthren Hirst 1990. . . ijy@ (sacriﬁce.76 ´ am S . For example. ” cirantano nityas . . sv@dhy@ya (textual study).’ or. pp. sarvany@yavirodham . .oxfordjournals. akles iti . ´ am Commenting on Bh@gavata beliefs and practices. and S@m khya—who identify mind with prakr ti separate from the self. an . ah .t . see Colas (2005. the ﬁve observances of the day in P@n practice: abhigamana (approaching the god. dravyasya gun . saha s@man . although apparently pleasing. bh+tam . . through morning prayer. yadapi tasya bhagavato ‘bhigaman@dilaks . . [Explaining Bh@gavata practice] After worshipping the Supreme Lord. For S . . . not just in public temple 42 43 Downloaded from http://jhs. . ˜ car@trin domestic as well as public rites. is fallacious. BSBh 2. bhavatu na me dves . . . . up@d@na (collection of materials for worship). p. bhartr ˜ capaks . see Czerniak-Droz ´ am ˜ email@example.com–12). so apThese practices were part of P@n proaching the god might take place in the domestic shrine. ah .17.6 p. [Commenting on it from an Advaitin point of view] Insofar as the perpetual worship of that blessed one. ‘ . we have no ´ am grudge against them’ (1975. In context. up@d@na. itam manyam@n@h . p. sv@dhy@ya and yoga. e.‘If moreover this is the meaning of the Veda. adam .d . they are those who rely on ritual action.e. referring to Gonda 1977. . they are welcome. kara also uses this adjective to indicate a view that. Up Bh 2.sya 8. . many@” iti (Shastri 1986. 375). bhagavantam abhigamanop@d@nejy@´ ´o bhagavantam pratipadyata sv@dhy@yayogair vars as atam is t v @ ks .s . pp. .42 ˜ car@tra The reference here is to the pan ˜ cak@la. 72. let there be love not dislike for/from me. Roebuck 2000.9–10 sarvam etat t@rkikaih . . prapan . . as Madhavananda rather nicely paraphrases. i.2. 2013 44 45 46 47 48 . . p. 753 ll. atsiddh@ntam . seen as a substance: . ll. 235. kara’s ‘logicians’? cognitions to be attributes of the self. 3. that is not forbidden. ca pas ´ cet sy@t k@mam tath@pi ved@rthas . 230–4).org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. S . am utth@payati “aupanis . pp. . This verse refers to fools who ramble about like the blind being led by the blind as those ‘wise in their own view. pas . a iti. thinking themselves learned’ (svayam dhar@h . . ijy@. kara’s presentation of Advaita as transcending bickering in GKBh. 236). is aimed at. through abhigamana. im@rgavad arv@kk@liko . p.g. for a hundred years.12. S . characterised by approaching the deity (abhigamana) and so forth. idhyate. pan . .
kara origins of this text and its purely Advaitin credentials are disputed by Pandey (2004.oxfordjournals. Suthren Hirst 77 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 worship (cf. . s . Up Bh 1. ava orientation. pp. for evidence of relations between P@n worship and royal patronage in his detailed study linking the architectural features ˜ capuram with both exoteric and esotoric of the Vaikun . the king who commissioned this temple as what Hudson describes as ‘the imperial ˜ car@tra @c@ryas as the purohitas of kings is Vis . sometimes Ek@yana.13 refers to merchants carrying gifts to the king. pp.g. 2002.Jacqueline G. a seems to have known Bh@skara (Bh@skara’s work being gen´ am erally accepted as refuting S . eta (Br . 135).1. Ch@ndogyopanis . cited in _ dz _owicz 2003. Many kings were either classiﬁed as S ˜ car@tra @c@ryas quite relevant to barbarians (mlecca [sic]). i. 2013 .4. niravayavatv´es ´ abhyupagame vis ato na s akyate (p.7.’ ´ es Danielson translates ?dis . the Vedic tradition with which P@n identiﬁed as a branch of the white Yajurveda (1990. ´a. u-house’]. Not least in Br . 5.27–p. which he takes to be a pre-550 A. @s by which they could purify any properly motivated person of any caste. 741 ll. had low ritual status yet were great builders of ?gamic temples (Hudson 2002. ya 1. an individual and not the source of all) to illustrate his teaching on the self. is a P@n ˜ car@tra text which V@manadatta’s Sam .14–15 na tu v@kyapr@m@n .4. p. Colas 1995. 5). Dyczkowski notes that it was read in tenth century Kashmir ´ am in a Vais . .). 736 l. ava Advaitin text. yadut@ikasya v@kyasy@nek@rthatvam. mainly brahmins (Rastelli 2000. they could be initiated into ?gamic rites and ´ +dras or through them be linked to Veda. Czerniak-Droz ˜ car@tra temple And see also Hudson.n . . ha Perum@l Temple at K@n ˜ car@tra theology. Downloaded from http://jhs. khya with Advaita. Once puriﬁed. The relevance of P@n found in their powerful daks . p. a ny@yo. ava monistic context (1990. e. p. Colas 2005. He does not mention the text’s clear Vais . in Br .g.D.1. his commentaries contain various examples which suggest he was familiar with court life or expects his hearers to be so. s@ criterion that a single passage can have various meanings: p.n .e. p. vitprak@s ˜ exempliﬁes ‘Vais n ava monism’ with a ‘Pratyabhijn a-like tone’ (Dyczkowski 1990. kara’s Advaita) and that it synthesises S@m . podak@n . ´ atru’s waking of a sleeping man This is on the grounds that this verse follows Aj@tas (i. for example. 740 ll. neither required by the text.n . 735 l. p. which Dyczkowski edits.D. adbh@s . The pre-S . yasamaye es e. 234–5).1 intro.4–6).20 p. Up Bh 2. @rir@dhayis .e.1.n . ´o vik@rah ´aktir v@ vijn ata ekades ˜ an@tm@ anyo veti vikalpayitum . The Guptas and Pallavas. 9). 116–19. kara is normally pictured nowadays as an ascetic sitting in the depths of a forest. GBh 3. I am grateful to Sanjukta Gupta for this reference. something that made P@n kingship.org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11.. 11–12) on the ´ es grounds that ?dis .5 refers to in-groups at the palace. a’s Param@firstname.lastname@example.org . Upad G 3.20 where he points out that there is no Mam@m . While a later Kashmiri text (between ninth and twelfth century A. avas. pp. He observes: ‘The paradigmatic Bh@gavata “slave” aspects of P@n appears to have been the ruler. tasm@t pus ˜ jalistutinamask@rabalyupah@rasv@dhy@y@dhyayanayog@dibhih .t . 219). The author identiﬁes himself as born a brahmin and as belonging to the ˜ car@tra associates itself.1). 9). ´ am While S . They were also observed only by initiated Vais . Vais . Up Bh 2. as was the case with Pallavamalla [731–96.
kara’s ‘logicians’? ´+r@n ´rotr@divat (p. Up 5. Up Bh V@rt 122).1. It is only the latter which he regards as properly Vedic. | karman . tr. khya-Yoga. for example.. ava and seeks to explain it in the same way as the logicians’ (Jog and Hino 1996. mabuddheh . 1.2. ´ vara is feeling the thought of Vais 66 ‘It appears that Sures . 56). o ’pi paraik@m .org/ at National University of Singapore on July 11. @ni s ´ruti. p. Ka Up 1. tya param@tm@m . yat kin For a logician who does not know the scriptures makes up whatever is constructed from his own mind/ideas. p@n .2. .). had@ran . . for example. 68 See. Downloaded from http://jhs. aka. 743 l. ´am vikr ˜ @n@tmani tis . @m apr@pyatv@t d+ra iva.3. kara’s gloss on Ka Up 1. See Suthren Hirst 2008. and the two Mam@m . in the way he introduces N@r@yan .t . pp.oxfordjournals. ´ am 67 Note that S . GKBh 3. s@s. 134–9). a into his explanations at points where the text does not demand it (Suthren Hirst 1993. ´ am 60 Ka Up 1.7). 2013 . 1. kara explains that. yav@rttika (Br .21. itasya vijn ´atair apy avidus 62 kin ˜ ca “tatd+re” vars . ha passages quoted.9 rejects the use of tarka. || (Sures . such knowledge is to be attained through ‘the grace of the boons’ (varapras@da-). The term does not occur in ?nandagiri’s t .s . as Gambhirananda 1972. adbh@s . S . s@ks . Up Bh V@rt) 120). 59 Which can also be seen in this commentary. sam@s . ayas .s . and Lok@yatikas (though Bronkhorst (2006) has recently argued that they were actually a Veda-regarding school). This is a reference to the story of Yama’s boons to Naciketas in the Kat . p.16. So people’s different preferences 58 svavis .9. . vijn . S . Up Bh V@rt 119). kara comments: t@rkiko hy an@gamajn ˜ ah ˜ cid eva kalpayati.n . ate || (Br . Jains. which bears this out in its own story of Praj@pati’s different are catered for by s teaching to his three groups of offspring (Br . from the point of view of the ´ruti and smr teaching based on s . . ´ 65 kr s n as aktir avidy @ pi parasm @ d eva sotthit @ | .21. is . i hi pram@n . and the so-called ´ es Veda-afﬁrming schools of Ny@ya-Vais . S@m . 12. In S .78 ´ am S . ´o bahirabhy@gatena sah 64 nirgun . where he teaches about the ultimate only ´ am after persistent enquiry on Naciketas’s part. 61 asmad@der eva s+ks ˜ eyo ‘yam @tm@ .d .2. . @dbhavatati pracaks . kara does not have a simple divide between Veda-denying schools like Buddhists. abhukcittam evam . hati || (Br .14. he explains that the boons without which realisation is impossible are ‘the most ex´ am cellent teachers’. ah .2. ti. ´ ca kart@ bhokt@ ca badhyate mucyate tath@ | 63 tatas ´ vara’s metric Br ´rit@h vijn ˜ @n@tmeti kan . @ sagun . akot . ika. svabuddhiparikalpitam . yakaupanis .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.