W0RLD VIEW AND THEORY
1
1
IN INDIAN
PHILOSOPHY
Edited by
Piotr Balcerowicz
Wl\RSL\W
lfiDOLOGICL\L
STUDIES
VOLUME
E
d
Piotr
i
t
o
S
r:
Balcerowicz
Wl\RSL\W
2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ...................................................... 7
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
WORLD VIEWS IN CONTENTION AND EXCHANGE
JOHANNES BRONKHORST:
Buddhist Thought Versus Brahmanical Thought ................... 21
VINCENT ELTSCHINGER:
Apocalypticism, Heresy and Philosophy .......................... 29
EMILIO GARCiA BUENDiA:
Parmenides and the Sat-kiirya-viida Doctrine of Sarilkhya ........... 87
WORLD VIEWS AND SYSTEMS
ANDREW J. NICHOLSON:
Doxography and Boundary-Formation in Late Medieval India ....... 103
LAWRENCE MCCREA:
Rationalisation and Sincerity in Mimamsii Hermeneutics . . . . . . . .... 119
TAKANORI SUZUKI:
On the Variety of Commentarial Approaches among
the Commentators of the Padartha-dharma-samgraha:
A Reconsideration of the Notion of the Gv。ゥウ・セォ@
School' ......... 137
ERNST PRETS:
A Review of the Early Nyiiya Fragments ........................ 155
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ:
When Yoga is not Yoga.
tradition and the Artha-siistra ............... 173
The nケゥ。Mvウ・セォ@
WORLD VIEWS AND PERSONS
JONARDON GANERI:
Buddhist Individuals and Inward Empathy ....................... 249
JOERG TUSKE:
sゥョエ。イォセ@
on the Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 263
JEAN-MARIE VERPOORTEN:
Some Aspects of Atman
,
According to Prabhiikara and Siilikaniitha ........................ 277
TIMOTHY LUBIN:
The Polity of the Philosopher-Bureaucrat:
Brahmanical Virtue as a Qualification for Public Office ............ 299
SHUJUN MOTEGI:
The Concept ofNon-Possession in the Molcya-dharma ............. 327
PAOLO MAGNONE:
Aho kausalam apiirvam.
Hermeneutical wrigglings about the Osッー。ョゥセ、@
_
................... 349
THEORY OF WORLD VIEW
CLAUS OETKE:
'World View' as a Topic of Research in Indian Studies ............ 369
BRENDAN GILLON:
The Correspondence Principle ................................. 381
STEPHEN H. PHILLIPS:
Cannibalising Nyiiya Epistemology ............................. 399
HIROSHI MARUI:
The Meaning of a Diversity of Established World Views
or Tenets (siddhanta) in the Science of Debate:
With Special Reference to Jayanta's Interpretation
of the Abhyupagama-siddhanta (NS 1.1.31) and its
Evaluation in the Development ofNyiiya System ................. 407
GENERAL INDEX ............................................... 433
Aho kausalam apiirvam.
Hermeneutical wrigglings about the ゥウッー。ョセ、@
PAOLO MAGNONE
The Upani$ads are the common repository from which the classical systems
oflndian thought (with the exception of the nケ。Mvゥウ・セォI@
draw their fundamental tenets, ending up, however, in utmost diversity. To confine ourselves
to the Vedanta school, Badarayal)a's attempt to summarise and homogenise
their bewildering riches in the Vedonta-sutras failed to succeed because of its
ambiguity, which has in turn given rise to the most diverse interpretations by the
bha$ya-koras, ranging from Satikara's absolute monism all the way to Madhva's
dualism, through various intermediate degrees of monism-cum-dualism represented by the bィセケ。ウ@
of Bhaskara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka and Vallabha.
But 'What did the Upani$ads really say?' (to mimic the title format of many
a popular book). Of course, the question admits of no ultimate solution.
T h e meaning of the Upani$ads does not exist as such, but manifold meanings are always there for the manifold interpreters to reach after, always on the
run ahead of-or behind-them along the circuitous path of the hermeneutical
circle that governs interpretation. Interpretation, as Gadamer made finally
clear, can never be a direct and linear process of going and grasping the
meaning that was always there, but is the result of a Horizontverschmelzung,
or an interactive fusion between the horizon of the interpreter's pre-comprehension and the horizon of the interpretandum, each with its own historical
situatedness. This interaction is a recursive process (the 'hermeneutical circle')
which results in ever renewed pre-comprehension enabling more and more
subtly attuned comprehension of the interpretandum.
Thus, the interpreter's world view is an inescapable precondition to his actual theoretical practice of interpretation; at the same time, it must not straitjacket it, but it is essential to the circularity of the process that it must remain
open-ended to what comes from the sphere of the datum.
Along these lines, the commentatorial practice on the Upani$ads provides an
excellent example of the splendours and miseries of interpretation in an Indian
setting. In particular, the isopani$ad, on account of its extreme pithiness, is
singularly suited to demonstrate the fruitful impact of the different world
views of the individual masters in fostering the comprehension of specially
World View and Theory in Indian Philosophy
Warsaw Indological Studies 5 (2012) 349-365.
PAOLO MAGNONE
350
enigmatic passages, and at the same time the length they are willing to go to
make an authoritative text square each with his own preconceived philosophico-religious outlook. In the following we are going to review a few
instances of the different interpretations produced by the great bhii$ya-kiiras of
the three conflicting Vediintic schools: Saiikara for the Advaita, Vediintadesika
for the vゥウセエ。、カ@
and Madhva for the Dvaita. The latter's commentary is
typically very succinct, consisting of a literal gloss and a (pseudo )-scriptural
quotation from some often untraceable Snqti, 1 so that we shall usually have to
resort to the sub-commentator Jayatirtha for enlightenment.
For the sake of the subsequent analysis, in order to facilitate the reader with
a ready confrontation with the original I will premise in each case the root
mantras, with the advertence, however, that the editorial requirement to dispense with the Devanagari, coupled with the common practice of separating
words in transliteration, is liable to introduce a modicum of unwarranted interpretation: as we shall see, in fact, even the actual shape of the interpretandum
cannot be taken for granted, as commentators are apt to differ even in the ways
they scan the script to isolate the individual words from the uninterrupted
strings of graphemes that make up the original scriptio continua.
And first of all the opening stanza (IU 1):
isii viisyam 2 idam sarvam yat kim ca jagatyiim jagat I
tena tyaktena bhuftjithii mii grdhal;t. kasya svid dhanam
!!3
1 The problem with Madhva's more often than not untraceable citations is a wellknown one. Cf. ROCHER (2008) for a comprehensive retrospect of the question, originating
with 'Varadaciirya's reference to quotations kaiScid, that are svakapolaka/pita ("word of his
own mouth"-P.M.), and [Vedantadesika's] dismissal of unnamed quotations invented by
ーゥCィセG@
(2008: 603) (possibly but not certainly aimed at the Dvaita master); and especially with Appayadilqita's wholesale dismissal of Madhva's 'idiosyncratic' theories on the
grounds, among others, of his quoting in support totally unknown (atyantaprasiddha)
sources, of which he lists 29 from Sruti and 11 from Smrti. In recent times the debate has
been taken up again by MESQUITA, on the side of Madhva's critics, with his 1977 monograph, imputing to him the fabrication of untraceable sources but absolving him of the
fraudulent intent, on the grounds that he bona fide believed himself an Avatara of vゥセqオ@
(through the mediation of Viiyu), hence empowered, like his fellow Vyiisa, to compose
scriptures for the enlightenment of the kali-yuga people. On the other side, SHARMA, as a
staunch Madhva supporter, has tried to exonerate his master from the allegations in his 1961
monograph (revised ed. 2000), and has taken issue with MESQUITA's criticism in a 2001
paper. Most recently, MESQUITA has published a further monograph (2007) collecting a
massive corpus of date in support of his conclusions.
2 Madhva: isaviisyam.
3
E.g. 0LIVELLE(l998: 407): 'This whole world is to be dwelt in by the Lord, whatever
living being there is in the world. So you should eat what has been abandoned, and do not
covet anyone's wealth.'
HERMENEUTICAL WRIGGLINGS ABOUT THE iS6PANI$AD
351
This stanza elicits at once discordant interpretations when subjected to the
pre-emptive force of the distinctive world views of the different commentators. It could not be otherwise, as it condenses the relationship between the
three principles-supreme self, world and soul-whose different articulation is
paramount to the respective doctrines of the three schools.
would seem to
To an unbiased look (if such thing exists at all) the uー。ョゥセ、@
lend itself more to an interpretation positing some sort of real distinction, which
would suit better its theistic perspective. According to the tenets of Advaita,
Supreme Atmanhowever, the three principles are of course but ッョセエィ・@
Brahman. Therefore, we may predict that it is particularly Sallkara who will
have to strain the letter of the text in order to distil his desired meaning.
The very first word, isii, instmmental of is ('the Lord' or 'the divine Person'), is bent by the Advaitin Acarya to mean the Paramatman, the impersonal
the universe from within, as being one with the
supreme self who rules Hゥセヲ・I@
inner self of every creature (pratyag-iitmatayii).
But the next word is again a major stumbling block for the Advaita perspec7
tive: given that the Paramatman is the sole reality, and the world merely ゥャオセ@
sory appearance, what could possibly be the relationship obtaining between the
two, conveyed by the word vasyam4? Not a relation of immanence, as the term
would naturally seem to suggest: the real cannot abide in the unreal. Rather,
according to Sallkara's glossing viisyam with acchadaniyam, the supreme self
must be made to 'clothe' or 'cover' the unreal world, paradoxically veiling
illusion in order to reveal the truth, hiding appearance to make reality reappear.
This is in fact the gist of the simile employed by Sallkara to exemplify the
peculiar nature of the acchiidana ('covering'): as a piece of fragrant sandalwood may develop an unpleasant smell owing to dampness-a smell which is
not its own, and can be easily 'covered' by its own quintessential fragrance
stirred up by rubbing-just in the same way the illusory appearances superimposed on the self by the necessities of empirical intercourse can (and must) be
'covered' by the realisation of his true essence which alone is supremely real. 5
One cannot but remark that this interpretation rests on the bold oxymoron of a
cover that uncovers. According to common understanding, deceit is unmasked
by uncovering it, i.e. getting rid of the cover-up to pierce through to the underlying truth. But Sankara here invites us not to uncover the Advaitic core of
reality but rather to recover it by literally re-covering illusion, as it were, by a
4 Viisya can be derived as a gerundive from at least two homophonic roots (and from
their causatives), hence meaning, as the case may be, 'to be indwelt, entered into, worn (as a
cloth), clothed or enveloped' etc. The commentators play on this ambiguity to distil each his
desired meaning.
s Sankara, iU 1 4.2-5: yathii candandgarv-iider udakddi-sambandha-ja-k/edddi-jam
aupiidhikam daurgandhyam エ。MウカイゥーョァィセGャI・、」ケ@
svena piiramiirthikena
gandhena tadvad eva hi svdtmany adhyastam sviibhiivikam kartrtva-bholctrtvddi-lakya'l)am
jagad-dvaitariipam ... paramortha-satydtma-bhiivanayii tyaktam syiit.
PAOLO MAGNONE
352
further coating of reality. On the other hand, covering consists in placing
something on top of something else: this, however, is exactly what is precluded by non-dual vision. Furthermore, ·what is covered is occluded by the
covering, which prevents the apparition of the true form of the covered by
replacing it with mere semblance. On the contrary, according to the peculiar
acchadana postulated by Saiikara, covering and covered cease to be two; the
covering is the same covered that becomes uncovered or unveiled 're-vealing'
itself by itself with its true form, which discloses itself occluding or covering
not itself but its mere semblance.
Vediintadesika's and Madhva's interpretations of isa vasyam do not differ
significantly6 in spite of their different wording: according to the former, the
world 'must be pervaded' (ryapyam), whereas for the latter it is 'fit to be indwelt' (vasa-yogyam), by the Lord.
The third pada (tena tyaktena bhunjithaM is interpreted in markedly different ways by the three commentators. The most straightforward reading from a
grammatical viewpoint is Vedantadesika's: 'by renouncing that [world], enjoy'. In everyday life what is enjoyed is the world itself; but here the Svamin
characterises 'that [world]' as an object of illusory enjoyment, which is therefore fit to be renounced when its manifold shortcomings become apparent.
Since the natural object of fruition, the world, has thus been given up, the injunction bhunjithal;i must needs be qualified 'according to the [suitability of
the] meaning and the subject matter': 7 enjoyment must be limited to that group
of permissible objects of fruition which are exclusively instrumental in supporting a body serviceable for yoga.
Renouncement of the world is not required by Madhva, who accordingly
takes pada C to mean 'enjoy [by] what is given by Him [i.e. the Lord]', interpreting 'tyaktena as 'handed over' or 'devolved' rather than 'renounced', and
tena as an agentive governing the passive past participle instead of as an instrumental agreeing with its predicate. This requires some twist of the grammar, which the subcommentator Jayatirtha implicitly acknowledges by observing that Madhva's explanation was indeed necessary, as the passage is
awkward (durgam artham 8): the reference of tena is indeterminate,9 and it is
not proper to say that something 'renounced' (tyakta) could be a means of
fruition. 10 Now here goes the explanation: tena must logically be construed to
refer to isa mentioned in the first pada, in spite of the latter being the subordiExcept for Madhva's peculiar reading of the phrase as compound of isa and iivasyam.
Vedantadesika, p. 4.21: [artha-]•prakarai:tiibhyiim sidhyati. [a The word artha, missing through some oversight, has been restored from an editorial footnote to the passage as
well as from a literal citation in the translation on p. 34.19.)
8 Jayatirtha, p. 6.29.
9 Jayatirtha, p. 6.28: tena iti pariimarsasya カゥセ。ケッ@
na pratiyate.
10 Jayatirtha, p. 6.28: tyaktasya ca bhoga-siidhanatvam ayuktam.
6
7
HERMENEUTICAL WRIGGLINGS ABOUT THE iS6PANI$AD
353
nate member of a compound11 (which would usually prevent it from being directly referred to by another word). Furthermore, because this world is incapable of activity in itself-and for this very reason must be permeated by the
Lord, who alone is svatantra, or capable of spontaneous activity-whatever
we experience can only be 'devolved' by the Lord, and not secured by our own
endeavour: therefore, tyakta must mean datta, 'given' by the Lord, i.e. spontaneously obtained (yadrcchaya labdham ).
For his part, in accordance with the strictly ascetic, world-denying stance of
his Kevaladvaita, Saiikara bars any kind of enjoyment whatsoever for him who
has the adhikara, or 'qualification', for supreme knowledge, and for whom this
first mantra is intended. As a consequence, his interpretation of the pada cannot but be highly idiosyncratic: 'by renouncing that [world], protect your Self.
Here his understanding of tena tyaktena is similar to Vedantadesika's, except
that he adds the logical remark that, properly speaking, something 'renounced'
or 'abandoned' (as a dead son or servant), being a purely negative entity, cannot entertain any positive relationship; therefore, we should read tyaktena
('renounced') to mean tyagena ('renouncement'): for while what is renounced no
longer exists, renouncement itself is a positive entity capable of affecting us. But
it is what comes next, the injunction: bhuiijithii'Q, 'enjoy', that poses a real difficulty for the Advaita master. Surprisingly enough, especially after all the fastidiousness of the foregoing elucidation, here Saiikara does not spend many words to
smooth out the problem, just one to gloss bhuiijithab with palayetha'Q, 'protect
yourself; nor does Anandagiri make up for the concision. Jayatirtha takes issue
with this explanation, remarking that the meaning 'to protect' is not proper for
the root "bhuj in the middle voice (atmane-piida; according to Pfu}.ini I.3.66); but
one modern commentator, B.K. IYER (1995: 8), is quick to exonerate Saiikara on
the grounds that Pfu}.inian rules do not apply to Vedic passages.
We now come to the two parallel triads of stanzas iU 9-11 and 12-14, whose
enigmatic diction has given rise to widely diverging interpretations. The first
triad runs as follows:
andharh tamab pravisanti ye 'vidyiim upasate I
tato bhuya iva.te tamo ya u vidyiiyarh ratiib II 9 II
anyad evahur vidyayanyad ahur avidyaya I
iti suiruma dhirarJ.arh ye nas tad vicaca/cyire II 10 II
vidyarh cavidyiirh ca yas tad v.edobhayarh saha I
avidyayii mfYurh tirtva vidyayamrtam a8nute II 111112
11 Jayatirtha, p. 29-30: samase upasarjani-bhiitasyapi isasya buddhyii vivekenayam
paramiirsa/;I. As noted above (n. 6), Madhva reads the first piida as a エ。Mーオセ@
compound
(isa + iiviisyam).
·
12 E.g. 0LIVELLE(l998: 407, 409): 'Into blind darkness they enter, people who worship
ignorance; and into still blinder darkness, people who delight in learning. It's far different
from knowledge, they say, different also from ignorance, we're told-so have we heard
354
PAOLO MAGNONE
At first sight, the gist of the passage would seem to teach the inadequacy of
both avidya ('ignorance', literally 'non-knowledge') and vidya ('knowledge')
taken separately, and the ensuing necessity of their association, but the manner
of expression is striking, and ascribing a positive agency to ignorance or a
deluding power to knowledge are paradoxes that require 1an explanation.
Like Vedantadesika, Sankara overcomes the former difficulty by understanding avidya as 'other than vidya' , 13 viz. karman, exemplified by ritual
works. Even so, in conformity with his strictly monistic stance he cannot accord any positivity whatsoever to the performance of rituals, which in his view
do nothing but help perpetuate attachment to the illusory world. Not recognising any value in works, Sankara cannot accept in any way the doctrine ofjfianakarma-samuccaya ('cumulative practice of knowledge and works') as a means
towards liberation-which doctrine would however seem to be taught by the
passage under consideration. How does Saitlcara acquit himself of his duty of
allegiance to the Sruti without renouncing his fundamental tenet, that knowledge of the supreme Reality alone is all that is required to attain liberation? His
solution is a radical one: he simply denies that the instruction here promulgated is meant for the mumu'lcyu, or the 'seeker after liberation'; on the conthe worldly-minded
trary, such instruction he takes to be meant for エィ・ェゥカセオL@
'life lover', recalling the distinction previously made by jfiana-ni#ha ('stand
on knowledge') and ォ。イュMョゥセヲィ@
('stand on works'), or nivrtti-marga ('path
of inactivity') and pravrtti-marga ('path of activity'). According to Saitlcara,
the uー。ョゥセ、@
under discussion does not present a uniform teaching, but contains two different sets of teachings meant for people with different adhikaras,
or 'qualifications'. In his view, for instance, whereas the first mantra teaches
Advaita and renouncement of actions for those entitled to supreme knowledge,
the second mantra teaches dutiful performance of rites for those entitled to
action; and to a hypothetical objector marvelling at the partition Saitlcara reminds the opposition 'unshakeable as a mountain' 14 previously established
between knowledge and works.
Thus, in harmony with the aforesaid partition, he begs to take this triad (as
well as the following one) as teaching karma-marga ('path of works') to the
worldly man, which stance has a further consequence on the interpretation of
vidya. By definition, the worldly man is not entitled to metaphysical knowledge; hence the vidya here in question cannot possibly be atma-jfiana ('knowledge of Self), which is a prerogative of the world-renouncer, but only some
kind of inferior knowledge open to any and all: namely, devata-jfiana, or
'knowledge of the deities', as Saitlcara clarifies.
from wise men, who have explained it to us. Knowledge and ignorance-a man who knows
them both together, passes beyond death by ignorance, and by knowledge attains immortality'.
13 Saiikara, p. lu 1 10.6: vidyiiyii anyii 'vidyii.
14 Safilcara ad iU 2, p. 5.9:jniina-karmal)or virodham parvatavad akampyam yathOktam
1
na smarasi kim.
HERMENEUTICAL WRIGGLINGS ABOUT THE i$6PANI$AD
3SS
In sum, according to Sailkara the purport of the passage is to teach some sort
of jiiana-karma-samuccaya o n 1 y for the ordinary man, as the renouncer
has no use soever for karman. On the other hand, the ordinary man has no right
to supreme vidya; the passage, then, must be understood to teach that the
worldly man should not indulge the practice of rituals alone for their exclusive
sake, lest he should plunge into deep darkness; but he should not even be satisfied with mere theoretical knowledge ·of the gods gained from study of the
scriptures, shunning the actual practice of rites, lest he should enter darkness
even deeper. He should, instead, combine both, in order to reap their distinct
fruits: by the practice of karman he overcomes death, i.e. by ritualised action
he sublimates natural desire-impelled action binding to death and samsara, and
by devata-jiiana he attains immortality, i.e. oneness with the ゥセO。M、・カエ@
('deity
of one's choice'). This latter goal, of course, in Sailkara's perspective can only
mean relative immortality, not to be confused with the absolute and definitive
immortality of final emancipation in the attainment of oneness with brahman.
As anticipated, Vedlintadesika concurs with Sankara in taking avidya to
mean karman, but the agreement ends here. The synthetic conception of
vゥウセエ。、カ@
views the world as really existing and rooted in brahman; accordingly, Vedlintadesika is willing to grant actions their rightful place in so
far as they are performed to fulfil one's duty 15 and without attachment, in conformity with the doctrine of ョゥセォ。ュMイ@
('desireless action') propounded
in the Bhagavad-gita. Therefore, unlike Sailkara, Vedlintadesika accepts the
doctrine of jiiana-karma-samuccaya ('cumulative practice of knowledge and
works') in some form, namely, as spe.cified later in the text, as カゥセ。ュᆳ
samuccaya or 'asymmetrical accumulation': that is to say, he accepts
Sailkara's dictum that in conformity with the scriptures knowledge alone is
required for liberation, but admits that such knowledge may be enhanced by
the subsidiary practice of good deeds. In this view, thus, works are subservient
to liberation, though not on a par with knowledge, and their 'asymmetrical association' may be recommended. 16 Hence, unlike Sankara, Vedlintadesika
finds _no inconvenience in the passage in question, which he interprets to the
effect that 'worshippers of ignorance plunging into darkness' are performers of
actions for the sake of fruits, and 'devotees o knowledge plunging into darkness even deeper' are followers of knowledge alone who neglect their practical
15
Vedantadesika, p. 18.S: atravidyii-sabddbhihitam van;idsrama-vihitam karma (quoting
which the translator takes to mean 'the Commentator on the Vedanta
Sutras (Sri Riminuja)' (iU2 : SS).
16 He further specifies the flavour of the doctrine he favours, known as samnipatyopakiiraka, or of the 'proximate subserviency': works perfonn their ancillary function
indirectly, by proximate synergy in furthering kriowledge by removing obstacles to it-in
contradistinction to Bhiiskara-'s favoured flavour, known as iiriid-upakiiraka, or of the
'remote subserviency': works bring about their own result directly, as an ingredient of the
final global result.
the 「ィセケ。MォゥイL@
356
PAOLO MAGNONE
duties and fail to nurture knowledge with ョゥセォ。ュMイ@
('desireless action').
The next stanza (iU 10), however, does posit a problem for him. In fact, if
literally translated as 'one thing [is obtained] by means of knowledge, another
by means of works', it would imply the joint efficiency of both knowledge and
works on an equal footing, i.e. the doctrine of sama-samuccaya, or 'symmetrical accumulation', which Vediintadesika rejects as disproved by the scriptures,
which unanimously declare the competence of knowledge alone to grant liberation.17 So, it is now his turn to exhibit his hermeneutical adroitness: he
contends that, according to the grammatical rule allowing transposition, here
the instrumental case must be read as a replacement of the ablative, which
must be supplied in order to satisfy the regimen of anya ('other, different'); in
other words, he begs to take the couple vidya/ avidya as governed by anya, and
accordingly interprets '[the means of liberation] is different from [mere]
knowledge, different from [mere] works'. It is, indeed, knowledge furthered by
works, where the two, however, stand in angangi-bhava, or in 'a relationship
of subordinate and principal'.
This would only seem to postpone the difficulty to the third stanza, which
again seems to unambiguously state that vidya and avidya are two independent
means to attain two separate goals. 18 But Vedantadesika spares no effort to
show that the discreteness of.the means and goals is only apparent. With respect to the means: in reality, avidya is just karman as an anga ('subordinate')
of vidya, 19 hence not separate but included in it; if it is mentioned as independent and equal, this is only because it must be viewed as such from the viewpoint of practice, 20 in so far as both the principal and the subsidiary, though
essentially one, must be practised independently and equally. With respect to
the goal: 'crossing death' and 'attaining immortality' both amount to the same,
i.e. attainment of liberation: however, there is no redundancy in the passage,
17
According to this view, advocated by Yidavaprakisa, knowledge and works do not
entertain a relationship of principal and subsidiary, with works merely assisting knowledge
considin reaping the one and only fruit-immortality (i.e. deliverance). Rather, they
ered each as a distinct means in its own right, leading to a distinct goal of its own; see
VARADACHARI-THATHACARYA (1975: 36). The doctrine of sama-samuccaya is rejected
by Vedintadesika on scriptural grounds, on the strength of 'the number of Srutis, Smrtis
and Siitras clearly declaring the relationship of principal and subsidiary obtaining beエキセ@
J,cnowledge and works, and the crossing of death by knowledge alone' (Vedintadesika,
mrtyu-taral)am ca vyaktam pratipap. 18.3: karma-jf!anayor angangi-bha,vam カゥ、ケ。セ@
dayadbhifl sruti-smrti-siitra-gal)aifl). Satikara, as we have seen, does not face such problems, as for him the passage is not meant for the mumu/cyu ('seeker after liberation') in the
first place.
.
18 As per a literal readi,ng セヲエィ・@
mantra, '[he who practices the samuccaya ('accumulation')] having crossed death by works, by knowledge attains immortality'.
19 Vedintadesika, p. 16.9: avidyam tad-anga-bhiita-kannatmakam.
20 Vedintadesikl;l, p. 16.10: anganginor amqfeyatva-samyat.
are
HERMENEUTICAL WRIGGLINGS ABOUT THE iS6PANI$AD
357
and the apparent duplicity is justified, in so far as the first expression (mrtyum
tirtva, 'having crossed death') lays stress on the destruction of obstacles21 in
the form of natural action leading to rebirth (and 'redeath'), whereas the second expression (amrtam aanute, 'attains immortality') lays stress on the final
achievement ensuing from such destruction of obstacles. 22
On the face of it, Madhva would seem the most scrupulous of the three
commentators in that he provisionally adheres to the literal meaning of the
terms involved, taking both vidya and avidya at their face value, as '[metaphysical] knowledge' and 'ignorance' to start with; but the net result is an even
more liberal amount of unwarranted speculation in the overall interpretation of
the passage. 23 The keystone is in the instrumentals in the second and third
stanzas, seemingly specifying vidya and avidya as different means to different
fruits. Now, it is implicit in the instrumental case that the instrumentality
thereby expressed should be carried out by way of position (as contrasted to
negation) of the relevant term. 24 For example, when we say that 'the house was
burnt by fire', we obviously mean 'by kindling a fire' (or something of the
sort), and it would be preposterous to suppose that we should mean 'by
quenching a fire'; this, however, is exactly how Madhva begs us to understand
the instrumental of avidya in the passage being considered. In fact, like his
fellows, Madhva is unable to find any value in ignorance as such, let alone the
capability of producing positive fruits. Therefore, he boldly proceeds to tum
the instrumental of avidya inside out, so to speak, by simply postulating the
ellipsis of a negative term: avidyaya, according to him, must stand for avidyanindaya, hence means not 'through ignorance' but 'through the blame of ignorance'! To be precise, Madhva does not produce this amazing piece of sleight
of hand in explicit terms, for he confines himself to alleging an untraced Snqti
passage to support his claim, as he is wont to do in similar circumstances. But
this is what the commentator Jayatirtha makes of it. 25 For his part, the subcommentator Vadiraja is well aware of the venturesome nature of such interpretation, and tries his best to defend it with a fourfold argument. 26
21
Vedantadesika, p. 17.8-9: mrtyum tirtvety asyopiiya"-virodhi-taraf)a-paratviit.
[a Sc.: moqopiiya-0 .]
22 Vedlintadesika, p. 17.9: amrtam asnuta iti ーイゥエMカッ、ィョャ「oォ・セN@
23 As Jayatirtha (ad iU3 9, p. 21.10-12) summarises the argument: yathiivat paramatmajiiiinam moqa-siidhanam ity uktam. na kevalam tat. kim niima. anyathii-jiiiina-nindiisamu<c>citam evety etad-artha-pratipiidakam iidya-mantra-trayam-'Right knowledge of the
supreme self has been said to be the means for deliverance-but not just that. What then, pray?
It must be associated with censure of false knowledge: this is the purport of the first triad'.
24 Of course, this is but a particular case of the general 'positivity' oflanguage.
25 Jayatirtha ad iU3 10, p. 22.8: avidyayii anyathii-jiiiina-niridayii ca iti yiivat.
26 Vadiraja ad iU3 10, p. 22.12-16: avidyayii anyathii-jiiiina-nindayii itY atra avidyayii
moqtiika-desa-priipter asambhaviit avidyii-nindanasya priik-prastutatviic ca yathii-srutaカゥ、ケ。ッセ@
bhinna-phalatvasya sarva-sammatatvenavaktavyakatvac• cavidyayii mrtyum
tirtvii iti moqtiika-dda-riipa-phalasya vaqyamiinatvac ca nindayii iti padam adhyiihrtya
PAOLO MAGNONE
358
This notion of avidyii as something instrumental to liberation not through its
application but though its rejection reflects back on the interpretation of the
first stanza. Here there is no question for Madhva of the feasibility of jiianakarma-samuccaya, as was the case with Saiikara and Vedantadesika, since he
does not share their interpretation of avidyii as works, whether to be cumulated
or not with knowledge. In what respect is, then, vidyii by itself inadequate, and
'leading to even deeper darkness' than avidyii? Because although those who
resort to avidyii, here in its rightful meaning as 'false knowledge'-or, through
the lenses of Madhva's theistic perspective, worship of other (false) gods
(anyathOpiisanii)-are bound for darkness, they do not fare better who just
pay allegiance to vidyii or 'true knowledge' (sc. knowledge of the true God)
w i t h o u t at the same time rebutting avidyii.
Indeed, Madhva' s peculiarly sectarian and proselytising stance is clearly
evinced by the probably made-up Smrti he adduces by way of running commentary to the three stanzas, to the effect that, although the worshippers of any
god but vゥセjLャオ@
may plunge into darkness, even deeper darkness awaits those
v。ゥセjLャカ@
devotees who refrain from denouncing misbelievers. Vidyii and
avidyii (in the aforesaid negative sense) should be practised jointly, because
each is capable of producing its distinctive fruit. As Jayatirtha clarifies, vidyii
and avidyii are upala/cya1,1as ('implicit designations') for 'adherence to God's
true essence', and, respectively, 'due condemnation of false knowledge': 27 by
the latter one crosses over ignorance and sorrow expressed by the word
'death', while by the former one attains knowledge and happiness conveyed by
the word 'immortality'.
Even more difficult for the three commentators proves the interpretation of
the second triad, running thus:
andharh tamaQ pravisanti ye 'sarhbhuti m upiisate I
tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u sarhbhutyiirh ratiiQ II 12 II
anyad evahuQ sarhbhaviid anyad iihur asarhbhaviit I
iti susruma dhirii1,1iirh ye nas tad vicaca/cyire 11 13 11
sarhbhutirh 28 ca viniisarh ca yas tad vedobhayarh saha I
vyakhyiitam iti bhavab.-'By ignorance, i.e. by censuring false knowledge: here the commentator has supplied the word "by censuring" by way of explanation, because
[l] ignorance as such cannot possibly be a partial factor for the attainment of deliverance;
[2] the blame of ignorance has been mentioned previously [and therefore it cannot be implicitly praised here]; [3] as per the current notion of knowledge and ignorance, it would be
pointless to declare their fruits to be different, this being a matter of common agreement;
and, finally, because [4] in the next verse ignorance will actually be mentioned as a partial
factor of deliverance [which by itself it cannot possibly be, a8 said previously]'.
The original incorrectly reads 0 avaktavyaktatvac through dittography.]
27 Jayatirtha ad iU3 11, p. 22.29-30: vidya-padam iSvarayathatmyasya avidyii-padam ca
c·
anyathii-jniina-nindyatvasya オー。ャ」ケセュN@
28 Sailkara: (a)sambhiitim.
HERMENEUTICAL WRIGGLINGS ABOUT THE iS6PANI$AD
359
viniisena mrtyum tirtva sambhutyamrtam29 aSnute1114113°
At first sight, this triad appears to duplicate the structure of the previous one,
literally reproducing it word for word but for the substitution of the pair of opposites vidyalavidyii with the new pair sambhuti ('origination') I asambhuti ('nonorigination'). A couple of discrepancies, however, do exist: apart from the
ablatives (sambhaviidlasambhavad) in the place of the instrumentals (vidyayiil
avidyayii) in stanza 13, the most conspicuous difference is the looseness in the
designation of the new pair of opposites, which are termed in turn sambhuti
('origination')/asambhuti ('non-origination'}, sambhava ('becoming')lasambhava ('non-becoming') and (on the face of it) sambhuti ('origination')/vinasa
('destruction').
Vedantadesika and Madhva, for their part, do not make much of such discrepancies, assuming an obvious correspondence between the two triads. Such
correspondence, however, does not suit Saiikara, whose interpretation totally
disrupts the parallelism with the help of sophisticated arguments which elicit
Jayatirtha's caustic remark alluded to in the title of this paper.
To start with, there is no agreement among the three commentators on the
meaning of sambhuti and asambhuti. 31 Sankara takes asambhuti to mean the
'ingenerate; which is the cause of generated effects, i.e. the unmanifest Nature
(pralqti); and sambhuti to mean the 'generated', i.e. the effect-brahman (i.e.
the creator god Brahma) in the form of the 'golden germ' of creation (hira'f)yagarbha). As was the case with the former triad, Saiikara considers this triad
also as meant for the worldly man, who is directed to meditate both on Nature
and on Brahma to reap the respective fruits. The fruit ensuing from meditation
on Brahma is the attainment of siddhis or 'supernatural powers' 32, as Sankara
29
30
Saitkara: tirtvasambhutyamrtam.
E.g. OLIVELLE (1998: 409): 'Into blind darkness they enter, people who worship nonbecoming; and into still blinder darkness, people who delight in becoming. It's far different
from coming-into-being, they say, different also from not coming-into-being, we're toldso have we heard from wise men, who have explained it all to us. The becoming and the
destruction-a man who knows them both together, passes beyond death by the destruction,
and by the becoming attains immortality'
31 Other commentators are also at variance as to the meaning of the terms. According to
Uvata (p. 55.4 ff.), asambhuti means 'non-(re)birth' after death (mrtasya satab punafl
sambhavo nasti), and Lokii.yatikas (materialists) are targeted as zealots of this doctrine;
Mahidhara (p. 55.16 ff.) concurs, but identifies partisans of asambhuti as Bauddhas. On the
other hand, both identify sambhuti as iitman and censure .its exclusive devotees (Uvata,
p. 55.10 ff.; Mahidhara, p. 55.18 ff.) for their intellectual pride (Uvata, p. 55.11: sva-buddhim
adbhutiim vibhiivayantab-'fancying their own mind very smart'; Mahidhara, p. 55.19: svabuddhi-liighavam ajiiniiniib-'not realising the triviality of their mind') which leads them to
regard jiiiina-kiiT)</.a ('[Vedic] department of knowledge') alone, neglecting karma-kiirJ<f.a
('[Vedic] department of ritual works').
32 Siddhis or vibhutis are traditionally reckoned as eight, but their identification is not
uniform. The nine candidates include: arJiman ('parvification'), mahiman ('magnification'),
360
PAOLO MAGNONE
specifies further on. The fruit of meditation on Nature consists in the condition
of pra/qti-laya ('merged into Nature'), described by the subcommentator
Anandagiri as an unconscious state akin to deep sleep, a sort of mock isolation
desirable on account of the absence of pain inherent in samsara. 33
Now, the problem arises how to make this interpretation of sambhuti
('origination') and asambhuti ('non-origination') square with stanza 14, which
states the fruits of sambhuti and vinasa ('destruction'). Since sambhuti is expressly brought up by name, the inference lies near at hand that vinasa should
be a replacement for asambhuti, as indeed understood by the other commentators. The stanza would therefore connect meditation on asambhuti with
crossing over death, and meditation on sambhuti with attaining immortality.
But this is unacceptable for Saiikara, who identifies, as we have seen, sa1hbhuti
with Brahma: the god cannot grant immortality, but only the siddhis ('supernatural powers'), which can but help overcome death consisting in powerlessness and finitude. On the other hand, since asambhuti has been identified
with Nature, meditation on it can truly be said to grant the sort of immortality
consisting in absorption in the unmanifest ground of being. So, according to
laghiman ('levitation'), gariman ('gravitation'), prapti ('extensibility'), prakiimya ('unhindered will'), iSitva ('supremacy') vasitva ('subjugation'), kiimlivasayitva/satya-sarhkalpatva
('self-realising wish'). They are hinted at in siitra 45 of the Vibhiiti-pada of the Yoga-siitra
(YS 4), but there are discrepancies among the lists given by different commentators. Vyiisa
(YBh 4.45) with Viicaspatimisra (TVai 4.45), vゥェョ。「ィォセオ@
(YV 4.45) and bィゥカァセ・ウ。@
(YSP 4.45) omits gariman, Riimiinanda (YSMP 4.45) and Sadiisivendra (YSuK 4.45)
reduce satya-sarhkalpatva/ kiimlivasayitva) to prakiimya, while Niigojibhatta (YSVr 4.45)
apparently reduces it to vasitva. Bhagavata-pural)a 11.15.4-5 (cit. in YV 4.45) likewise has
a list without gariman. As for Bhoja (YRM 4.45), according to some editions he actually
lists all nine, but since the disagreement with the traditional number of eight is inadmissible,
the variant reading of Jiviinanda Vidyiisagara's edition (YS 3) should probably be accepted,
omitting prapti but subsuming its content under prakiimya. Cf. MAGNONE (1991: 131 f. ).
33 Anandagiri ad Iu1 14, p. 13 .18-19: sarhsari-dubkhlinubhavlibhavena ca siquptivat
pra/q'ti-layasya purtqel)lirthyamanatapy upapadyate. Pra/q'ti-layas ('merged into Nature')
are mentioned also in YS 1.19 (together with videhas, or 'incorporeal') as a class of beings
experiencing a sort of spontaneous non-cognitive enstasis (asarhprajfiata-samadhi), which,
however, is inferior to the corresponding condition acquired through yoga in that it only
yields temporary results and not ultimate molcya. According to Vyiisa, prakrti-layas are
those 'whose mind together with its object has dissolved into Nature, so that they experience a sort of isolation, until they come back by the compulsion of their [still unaccomplished] object' (pra/q'ti-layab sadhikare [= acaritarthe (Viicaspatimisra)] cetasi pra/q'tiline kaivalya-padam ivlinubhavanti yavan na punar avarttate 'dhikara-vasac cittam).
Viicaspatimisra (TVai 1.19) expands explaining that pra/q'ti-layas, having identified with
prakrfi or its intermediate evolutes, have their internal organ permeated with the corresponding unconscious habits (viisana), and dissolve into them after the fall of the body.
However, their object (i.e. the attainment of discriminative knowledge) being unfulfilled,
they are again differentiated by the force of their unaccomplished task, much in the same
way as dried-up frogs metamorphosed into lumps of clay revive again with their former frog
body when sprinkled with rain; cf. MAGNONE (1991: 39 f.).
HERMENEUTICAL WRIGGLINGS ABOUT THE iS6PANl$AD
361
his own preconception, Saitkara would rather have the stanza say quite the
reverse of what it actually does-and he accordingly proceeds to turn it the
other way round: i.e. sambhiiti must be metamorphosed into asambhiiti, and
vinasa, contrary to all plausibility, must be the same as sambhiiti. The latter
part is not difficult: as hira1J.ya-garbha ('golden germ' of creation) had previously been termed sambhiiti34 in so far as generated, just so is he now termed
vinasa 35 in so far as destructible; he is, in fact, apara-brahman ('lower Brahman') or karya-brahman ('effect-Brahman'), hence, as an effect, liable to both
generation and destruction. The former part, however, poses more of a problem: how to turn the two occurrences of sambhiiti into asambhiiti? Sandhi
comes in handy for the second occurrence: because word boundaries need not
be acknowledged in the script, tirtva sambhiitya can conveniently be read as
tirtvasarhbhiitya, i.e. a conflation of tirtva and asambhiityii. The first occurrence, though, is more resilient to possible manipulations, being the very first
word of the stanza; but here Sallkara performs a veritable coup de theatre,
apparently bringing to bear the guf,la vowel of the ending of the previous
stanza to postulate an avagraha of privative 'a' in the next one. 36 Of course,
rules of external sandhi do not normally obtain across major metrical bounda- ries, and so it is not surprising that the dvaitin Jayatirtha should sarcastically
applaud the hermeneutical exploit as a specimen of apiirva-vyiikaral)a-kausala
('unprecedented grammatical skill'). 37
34 Saiikara adfU 1 12, p. 12.3-5: sambhavanam sambhUtib sii yasya kiiryasya sii sambhiitifl. ...
bahutaram iva tamab praviSanti ya u sambhiityam kiirya-brahmal)i hiral)ya-garbhakhye ratiib.
35 Satikara ad iU 1 14, p. 12.12-13.4: vinasena viniiso dharmo yasya kiiryasya sa tena
dharminabhedhenocyate viniisa iti. tena tad-upiisanena ... hira1)ya-garbh0piisanena hy
al)imadi-priiptib phalam.
36 Saiikara ad iU 1 14, p. 13.5-{): sarhbhiitirh ca viniiSarh cety atrava71)a-lopena nirdeso
、イ。セヲカケ「N@
pralqti-laya-pha/a-sruty-anurodhiit.-'[In the chunk] sarhbhiitirh ca viniiSarh ca
the reference must be understood with the elision of an a, in compliance with what has been
heard as the fruit of absorption into Nature.' Once again, IYER ( 1995: 36 f.) goes out of his
way to justify Saitkara, adducing arguments in support of his explanation from other commentators as well as his own to the effect that: (1) by the rule that utpattimad vastu viniisi
avasyam ('what is originated must needs be perishable'), viniiSa must mean sarhbhiiti, hence
sarhbhiiti must be read as asarhbhiiti to avoid repetition; (2) elision of a is permissible acケ。エィoー、ゥセヲュ@
(A 6.3.109) allowing the elision and mucording to the rule ーイセッ、。ゥョ@
is the
tation of letters in vedic usage; (3) by Jaimini's rule sarhdigdhe tu Hウ。イィ、ゥァ・セオ@
(MS
original reading, which however IYER (1995) quotes as sarhdigdhe tu) カゥォケ。Mウ・セエ@
1.4.29: 'In case of doubt, the meaning should be gathered from the context.')-in this case,
the traditional doctrine about prakrtilayas and their reward. His final verdict is: 'Sri
Saitkaracirya' s interpretation of the mantras gives the correct purport of the mantra and is
in perfect agreement with the siistras [!]'.
37 Jayatirtha ad iU 14, p. 25.9-10: akiira-lopena sarhbhiitir avyiilqtam ity apiirvarh
3
vyakartll}a-kausalam ity iistiim.-'As to [the submission that] the word sarhbhiiti means the
Unevolwd (i.e. Nature] through loss of an a,· here is [a specimen of] unprecedented gramllllllicllstill--aod so let it remain•.
362
PAOLO MAGNONE
Madhva's explanation of the triad, however, is no less idiosyncratic, beginning from his interpretation of the meaning of the couple sambhuti/asambhuti.
Actually, even for this triad, as for the foregoing, his gloss consists in one long
running quotation from the Kurma-purii1Ja, presumably forged, as is so often
the case with Madhva's quotes, since the passage cannot be traced in the published text. Jayatirtha explicates Madhva's intent to the effect that sambhuti
means 'creator' by metonymy (i.e. as the cause of sambhuti or 'creation')
whereas asambhuti, as is plain to see, by the same token must mean 'un-creator'38! The stanza, therefore, threatens darkness and more darkness for those
who do not acknowledge vゥセjスNu@
as creator, or one-sidedly recognise him as
creator o n I y , whereas he is both creator and destroyer. 39 The knowledge
of vゥセYオGウ@
true nature is not confined to the need of avoiding negative consequences, it also yields positive fruits: by the knowledge of vゥセjスNu@
as destroyer one
destroys the bonds to the body (and so crosses death), whereas by the knowledge
of him as creator of all good things one attains immortality in the form of
sameness and identity with vゥセYオL@
which not even the liberated can enjoy.
Vedantadesika puts forward still another interpretation of the couple sambhuti/
asambhuti. The former he takes to mean 'communion' (i.e., literally, 'being
together') with brahman, on the strength of scriptural passages. This choice,
however, leaves him in an awkward position when it comes to understanding
the latter member of the couple. As he remarks himself, it would not be proper
to understand asambhuti in an obvious way, as either prior or subsequent nonexistence of sambhuti (i.e. as its not yet/no longer being there respectively
before/after its achievement), because how could the absence of sathbhuti-a
means towards immortality-conceivably represent in itself a means for crossing
death (as said in the third strophe of the triad)40? Therefore, here is the solution
advanced by the Svamin: the word asambhuti, while excluding sambhuti, must
mean something that, although not (yet) communion, is proximate to it as its
precondition in the form of removal of obstacles: this is the meaning that is
38 Jayatirtha ad iU3 12, p. 23.20: asarhbhutirh ェ。ァエMウイセヲ・@
akartiirarh, with the subcommentator's gloss: na vidyate sarhbhutir yasmiid (Vidirija ad /oc.).
39 Madhva ad iU3 12, p. 23.12-15:
(... ) evarh ウイセAゥMォ。エカィ@
niingi-kurvanti ye hareJ:i I
te 'pi yanti tamo ghorarh tathii sarhhiira-kartrtiim II
niingi-kurvanti te 'py evarh tasmiit sarva-gu1,1atmakam I
ウ。イカセォエゥュ@
iSesarh sarva-sarhhiira-kiirakam II
Here the root expression ye 'sarhbhutim upiisate is boldly taken as tantamount to ye
[harim] sarhbhutim nopiisate.
40 Vedintadesika ad iU2 12, p. 19.9-10: na catrasarhbhuti-sabdena sambhuter anutpattir
viniiso vii pratipiidyaJ:i. amrta-priipti-hetutayoktiiyii/:I sambhute/:I priig-abhiivasya pradhvarhsasya vii mrtyu-tarQl)a-hetutvena vaktum ayuktatviit.
HERMENEUTICAL WRIGGLING$ ABOUT THE iS6PANI$AD
363
gathered by the subsequent substitution of the word vinasa for asambhuti41 , as
well as for want of a better interpretation.
The foregoing review, albeit cursory, may perhaps suffice to give a fair idea
of some of the sophisticated hermeneutical strategies devised by the three
commentators-Le. Sankara, Vedantadesika and Madhva-to justify their
vastly different interpretations. And so, in the end, 'What did the uー。ョゥセ、@
really say' has proved once again a hopeless question, like the squaring of the
(hermeneutical) circle. In any case, whatever it did say, in the original setting
of master and disciple, when the sacred power of the Word (brahman) was
called upon 'to sustain them both, to nourish them both, so that their joint effort might be fruitful, and their study might be bright' (to paraphrase the auspicious invocation that would inaugurate their meetings)42-and most of all,
when the inordinate quibbling of the commentators was not yet there to spoil
TS M。ャウL@
the truth of the Word (ma カゥ、セ。ィOI
is no longer for us to grasp.
Which, incidentally, may retrospectively justify the ancient Indian aversion for
committing the Word to the written leaf, where it would be helplessly exposed
to the vagaries of both haters and (misguided?) well-wishers-the same aversion that was shared by Plato, when he wrote about the logoi that once written
down 'go about everywhere, among the knowledgeable and the ignorant alike,
and if faulted or treated unfairly must appeal to their father for help, because,
left to their own devices, they can neither defend nor support themselves ... ' 44
BIBLIOGRAPHY
= Prupni: aセO。、ィケゥN@
A
Anandagiri
IU
Srisa Chandra Vasu (tr.): The aセO。、ィケゥ@
of
Pii1)ini. Sindhu Charan Bose, Benares 1897.
See: IU 1•
= Anandagiri: ャウッー。ョゥセ、M「ィケヲォN@
= ゥウッー。ョセ、@
{As。Mカゥウケッーョセ、}N@
(1) S. Subrahmanyashastri (ed.):
srimad-anandagirySriSankaracarya-viracitam オー。ョヲケ、M「ィセュ@
acarya-krta-fikaya ォ。エィMュゥQITLオケイ「セN@
prasi-
Vedantadesika adiU2 12, p. 19.6-8: tam [sambhiitim]paryudasyann ayam asambhiititad-asanna-pratibandha-vinasam abhidhatte. sambhiitim ca vinasam ca ity api hy
anantaram ucyate.
42 saha nav avatu. saha nau bhunaktu. saha viryam karavavahai. tejasvi nav adhitam
astu-so prays the santi-mantra of the kイセQj。@
Yajur-veda, which would be recited before
every session of study of the uー。ョゥセ、ウN@
43 Santi-mantra of the kイセQI。@
Yajur-veda. Literally 'let us not be hostile to each other',
but interpreted by some in the given context as 'let us not entertain conflicting views'.
44 Plato, Phaedrus 275e (somewhat abridged and adapted).
41
ウ。「、セ@
364
PAOLO MAGNONE
ddhliciirylintara-fikabhib safika-taittiriya-viirtikena ca samiiャセュアエ。N@
Khal)r!ab J. Mahe8a Anusandhana Sathsthanam
Hsイゥ、。ォセャスNュエ@
Matha Prakiisana), Varanasi 2004. (2) K.C.
Varadachari; D.T. Thathacarya (eds.): isiiviisyopani.yadbhii.yyam
by Sri Vedanta Desika. Critically edited with introduction, translation and notes by ... Vedanta Desika Reasearch Society, Madras
1975. (3) Shrisha Rao (ed.): isii-viisyopani.yad-bhii.yya-tikiiprakiiSika-khal)r!lirthii'l;t sankara-bhii.yyam ca. [With Madhva's
Bhii.yya, Viidiriija's fikii, Jayatirtha's Vivaral)a and Raghavendrayati's Khal)r!lirtha]. www.dvaiti.org [2007]. (4) B.K. Iyer
(ed.): isiiviisyopani.yad. Including the original verses, Sankarabhii.yya text with a literal word by word English translation,
copious notes and introduction. Vrajajivan lndological Studies
2, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratisthan, Delhi 1995. (5) Aciirya
Sivaprasiida Dvivedi (ed.): isii-viisy6pani.yat. Hindy-anuviida-pariSilana-samvalita-siiilkara-bhiil)l6petii. Caukhambii Surabhiirati
Granthamiilii 171, Caukhambii Surabhiirati Prakiisana, Viiriil}.asi
[no date]. (6) Devendranath Pandey (ed.): isii-viisy6pani.yad-
bhii.yya-samgraha. Sankara-bhii.yyam, Uvata- 0, Siiyal)a- 0, Mahidhara-0, Prakiisa- 0, Yogapalcyyiyam Prakiisa- 0, Sviimidayaniinda-0, R. Madhva. Roy, Griffith ki fikii sapadlirthlinvayab
hindi vyiikhyii sahita. Jagdish Sanskrit Pustakalaya, Jaipur 2001.
IYER 1995
Jayatirtha
Madhva
MAGNONE
1991
Mahidhara
MESQUITA
1977
MESQUITA
2007
=See: iU4.
= Jayatirtha: ゥウMカケVー。ョセ、イャIN@
See: iU3•
= Madhva: isopani.yad-bhii.yya. See: iU3 •
= Magnone, Paolo (ed. & tr.): Pataiijali. Aforismi de/lo Yoga
(Yogasiitra). [With Bhoja's Riija-miirtal)r!a commentary, introduction and subcommentary by ... ]. Magnanelli Promolibri,
Torino 1991.
= Mahidhara: isii-viisy6pani.yad-bhii.yya. See: iU6 •
= Mesquita, Roque: Madhva und seine unbekannten literarischen
Quellen. Einige Beobachtungen. Publications of the De Nobili
Research Library 24, Institut fiir Siidasien-, Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde der Universitiit Wien, Wien 1997.
= Mesquita, Roque: Madhvas Zitate aus den Puriil)as und dem
Mahiibhiirata: Eine analytische Zusammenstellung nicht identifizierbarer Quellenzitate in Madhvas Werken nebst Ubersetzung
und Anmerkungen. Publications of the De Nobili Research Li-
MS
OLIVELLE 1998
Phaedrus
brary 24, lnstitut fiir Siidasien-, Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde
der Universitiit Wien, Wien 2007
= Jaimini: Mimiimsii-siitra. B.D. Basu (ed.); Mohan Lal Sandal
(transl.): The Kuniimsii Siitras of Jaimini. The Sacred Books
of the Hindus 27,1. Sudhindre Nath Basu, Allahabad 1923.
= Olivelle, Patrick (ed. & tr.): The Early uー。ョゥセ、ウN@
Oxford University Press, New York 1998.
=Plato: Phaedrus. J. Burnet (ed.): Platonis Opera. Tomus II
tetra/ogias III-IV continens. Oxford Classical Texts, Oxford
University Press, Oxford 1922.
HERMENEUTICAL WRIGGLINGS ABOUT THE !S6PANl$AD
ROCHER2008
365
=Rocher, Ludo: 'Review of Madhvas Zitate aus den Purar)as und
dem Mahabharata: Eine analytische Zusammenstel/ung nicht
identifizierbarer Quel/enzitate in Madhvas Werken nebst Obersetzung und Anmerkungen. By Roque Mesquita', Journal of the
American Oriental Society 128,3 (2008) 603--{;06.
SHARMA 1961/2000 =Sharma, B.N.K: History ofthe Dvaita School of Vedanta and its
Literature. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 2000 [first edition: Bombay 1961).
= Sharma, B.N.K: My Latest Four Research Papers. Published by
SHARMA2001
the Author, Mumbai 2001.
saiikara
See: IUi. IU3, IU4, IU5•
= Saiikara: ゥウッー。ョセ、M「ィケN@
TVai
= Vacaspatimisra: Tattva-vaisaradi. See: YS 1•
Uvata
= Uvata: ゥウ。Mカケッーョセ、「ィN@
See: IU6•
VARADACHARI= Varadachari, K.C.; Thathacarya, D.T.: 'Introduction' to IU2, pp.
THATHACARYA 1975
1-39.
See: IU2 •
= Vedantadesika-sviimin: ャウ。カケッーョゥセ、M「ィN@
Vedantadesika
= [Vyiisa (ascribed):] yッァ。M「ィセケN@
See: YS 1•
YBh
= Bhoja: Yoga-raja-martarJ<f.a. See: YS2.
YRM
= Pataii.jali: Yoga-sutra. (1) Gosviimi Diimodara Siistri (ed.):
YS
Samkhya-yoga-darsanam arthat pataiijala-yoga-darsanam. [With
the scholium of Vyiisa and the commentaries Tattva-vaisaradi,
Pataiijala-rahasya, Yoga-varttika and Bhasvati by Viicaspati
Misra, Riighavananda Sarasvati, Vijiiiina bィゥォセオ@
and HarihariinandiiraI)ya]. Edited with introduction, notes, indices, appendices etc. by ... Kashi Sanskrit Series 110, Chaukhambha [sic]
Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi 1989. (2) PaI)<;lit I;>hW)c.Jhiriija Siistri
yoga-sutram. [With the com(ed.): m。ィイセゥMーエェャIュ@
mentaries Riija-miirtafJ<!a, Pradipikii, V(tti, Mar)i-prabha, Candrikii
YSMP
YSP
YSuK
YSVr
YV
=
=
=
=
=
and Yoga-sudhakara by Bhojariija, BhiiviigaI)esa, Niigoji Bhatta,
Ramiinanda Yati, Anantadeva and Sadasivendra Sarasvati).
Kashi Sanskrit Series 83, Chaukhambha [sic] Sanskrit Sansthan,
Varanasi 1982.
Riimananda Yati: Yoga-sutra-mar)i-prabha. See: YS 2•
BhiiviigaI)esa: Yoga-sutra-pradipika. See: YS 2.
Sadasivendra Sarasvati: Yoga-sudha-kara. See: YS 2 •
Nagojibhatta: Vrtti. See: YS2.
vゥェN。ョ「ィセオZ@
Yoga-varttika. See: YS 1•