[Advaita-l] PARAMARTHIKA AND VYAVAHARIKA SATYAM - more on Abhinava Gupta

[Siva Senani Nori]

sarvebhyo namah.

With reference to Sri Sunil Bhattacharjya's comment "It appears that Senaniji has not gone through Abhinanagupta's commentary himself", I would like the readers of this list to know that the general guiding principle for me is not to take off on a topic where I do not have sufficient background or otherwise interesting enough material to present. I believe I did not violate that principle when I commented on the similarity of Abhinava Gupta's and Sri Madhvacharya's style. Here is my defence:

Sometime back, one gentleman showed me a book which contains "additional" (Footnote 1) slokas of Bhagavidgita, and that these would unite the three differing matas (of Advaita, ViSishTaadvaita and Dvaita). He wanted to understand them better and wanted a translation of those. I translated those slokas from Sanskrit to Telugu and during this process, I had to consult Abhiava Gupta's commentary as 15 of these additional slokas were from the Kashmiri recension, which Abhinava Gupta commentated upon.

One particular difficulty I had was with the word, stambha, in the following sloka (3-40 in the version of Abhinava Gupta; 3-39 in the version from which I translated the additional slokas):

kaamakrOdhamayo ghorah stambhaharshasamudbhavah |
ahaÑkaaro'bhimaanaatmaa dustarah paapakarmabhih ||

The context of the above sloka is that in 3-36 of Sri Sankara's version of Bhagavadgita, Arjuna in the sloka starting with "atha kena prayukto'yam..." asks why purusha does paapa though he does not like to do so. In the version that I was given, Arjuna asks five additional questions: i) Whence comes the reason for paapacaara? ii) How does it grow? iii) What is aatmaa?; iv) What is aacaara?, and v) What is brahmapadaartha? In answer to the first of the above questions, Bhagavan says A1) This (the mUla for paapa) is infinitesimal, beyond grasp, and an enemy. It combines with the indriyas of man and causes moha. Then, Bhagavan continues with the above quoted sloka and in two more slokas answers the first and second questions together. Rest of the Bhagavadgita is to be taken as the answer for the remaining three questions. Thus, this sloka is a part of the explanation for why men indulge in paapakarmas.

This sloka explains ahaÑkaara as a) kaamakrodhamayah, b) ghorah, c) stambhaharshasamudbhavah, d) abhimaanaatmaa and that e) it cannot be crossed by those who indulge in paapakarmas (paapakarmabhih dustarah). Bhagavan later explains that from abhimaana comes kaama and kaama obstructs aananda, gives rise to sorrow and fear, makes man a mohita and grows.

Coming back to the translation, I had a difficulty with the third adjective, stambhaharshasamudbhavah, as stambha is mostly used to mean a pillar and such. How could ahaÑkaara be connected with a pillar, and what is the need for harsha with reference to a pillar? When I referred Abhinava Gupta's commentary, this is what I found:

stambhah kulaadyabhimaanah tatkrito yo harshah ahameedriSa iti | ata eva aaha ahaÑkaara iti |
(Translation: stambhah is the arrogance of belonging to a [great] kula, family; the joy consequential to such feelings [is stambhakulaadyabhimaanah]. Therefore it is said "ahaÑkaara....".)

The commentary only explained the difficult word and left the others. (Before I proceed further, an aside: compare this explanation of stambha with the wordings "maa kuru dhanajanayauvanagarvam" in Mohamudgara or Bhajagovindam).

To contrast this, compare with the bhashya of Sri Sankara on 3-36 where he explains 'vaarshNeya' (one of the names of Sri Krishna) as 'vrishikula prasUta' (one born in the family of Vrishis). Another aside: Sri Sankara explains paapam in 3-36 as 'karma'. This is dynamite. See Abhinavagupta's subtle defence of his jñaanakarmasamuccayavaada in his commentary on the same sloka.

I hope the above sufficiently demonstrates the pithiness and terseness of Abhinava Gupta. If nothing, a modern saadhaka likes the fact that a lot of obvious material is skipped; the very title of the commentary "Geetaartha samgraha" conveys this. (To be sure, Abhinava Gupta has a slightly different spin on what is 'samgraha', but that is a different matter).

Coming to Sri Sunil's comments, he says Sri Madhvacharya quotes only those verses which seem to support his views; that is, but, natural. I think Sunilji's intention is to mean that Sri Madhvacharya commentates only on those verses / portions which support his view. This is a variation of the standard technique of assigning priorities suitable to one's own view, most famously in the Brahmasutras, where different commentators differ on what is purvapaksha and what is siddhanta. Sunilji's main point might be that while Sri Abhinava Gupta offers a complete commentary, Sri Madhvacharya offers but fragments. I would rather say that Sri Madhvacharya's commentaries are esoteric (understood only by a few, the initiated), almost like the Brahmasutras. The list of later glosses, sub-commentaries, expositions given by Balakrishnaji show that Sri Madhvacharya's mata is indeed complete, samagra, and that the Acharya and his later successors demonstrate - in
 their view, not mine (I am an advaitin) - that scriptures support their view.

To me, such a construct makes sense and that is why I concluded that "Sri Madhva only points out the critical aspects and does not explain every word and every aspect. This is similar, in my limited exposure, to the style of Abhinava Gupta's commentary on Gita."

A final aside. As I myself admitted, my exposure is indeed limited. I wish I read the entire corpus of Abhinava Gupta's work, but my limitations (of intellect and dhriti, and those imposed by the need to work and desires which demand to be fulfilled) do not afford me that luxury. Even if I were to start studying the entire corpus, I would start with the commentary on Natya Sastra or Dhvanyaaloka, but not philosophy I guess.

I hope the readers of the list find that my comment on the similarity of the styles of Sri Madhva and Abhinava Gupta has some grounding in facts. 

budhajanavidheyah
Senani

 
Footnote 1: The version of Bhagavadgita commentated upon by Sri Sankara is supposed to have 700 slokas (some say it actually has 701 slokas), but the Bhishma parva contains a sloka which says Bhagavadgita has 745 slokas (don't have the references at hand - if somebody wants, I will dig it up). So there must be 45 additional slokas is what some say. Dr. Vedavyas IAS published a version with additional slokas in Telugu lipi. A third of these 45 additional slokas are found in the version of Bhagavadgita commentated upon by Abhinava Gupta. It is pertinent to note that the difference between the number of slokas as stated in the text and as actually found is fairly common. In four Mahabharata recensions examined by Dr. Vedavyas, the actual slokas and the slokas mentioned do not tally in any of the parvas; in many cases, there is a difference even in the number of upaparvas. 
 


________________________________

From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
To: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 12:19:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] PARAMARTHIKA AND VYAVAHARIKA SATYAM

Sri Madhvacharya's commentaries are selective rather than holistic in the sense that he quotes only those verse which seem to support his views. His work on the Bhagavatam is a fine example of this.

As regards Senaniji's comment on the commentary of Abhinavagupta on the Bhagavad Gita It appears that Senaniji has not gone through Abhinanagupta's commentary himself.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya 

--- On Sat, 2/20/10, Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com> wrote:


>From: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] PARAMARTHIKA AND VYAVAHARIKA SATYAM
>To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>Date: Saturday, February 20, 2010, 2:24 AM
>
>
>Sri Sunil Bhattacharjya and Sri Kale Balkrishna are right; Srimanmadhvacharya indeed wrote 'commentaries' on the Upanishads. My apologies for giving out incorrect information.
>
>The context for my statement is this: Sri Madhva's commentaries are very terse and differ from the classical style of commentary. Sri Madhva only points out the critical aspects and does not explain every word and every aspect. This is similar to, in my limited exposure, to the style of Abhinava Gupta's commentary on Gita. Study of such commentaries requires a thorough mastery of the original and its 'usual' interpretations or a Guru who can provide the background knowledge. 
>
>When one is first introduced to Vedanta's basic texts - the Upanishads, even when one is studying in the presence of a Guru, the completeness of Sri Sankaracharya's commentaries are in stark contrast to the terse style of Sri Madhva. While one readily appreciates the difference in the contextual realities at the time of composition of these two commentaries, this is reason I was left with an impression that Sri Sankara's commentaries are the only works available. 
>
>A natural consequence of the terseness of Sri Madhva's style is the later explanatory works like sub-commentaries and glosses, which Sri Balakrishna referred to as 'commentaries' by other acharyas.
>
>It is interesting to note that even the publication of Sri Madhva's commentary on Isavasyopanishad at dvaita.org includes the commentary of Sri Sankara since "the bhashya of Sri Sankara is frequently referred to and criticized by Madhva's commentators".
>
>I hope the main point, that the interpretation of Vedic knowledge as a whole is advaitic, is not missed due to my lazy mistake of not acknowledging the commentaries of Sri Madhva.
>
>Regards
>Senani
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Kale Balkrishna <kale1972 at gmail.com>
>To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>Sent: Thu, February 18, 2010 11:11:33 AM
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] PARAMARTHIKA AND VYAVAHARIKA SATYAM
>
>Namaskar Senaniji,
>
>Not only Sri Madhvacharya but there are many other YATI's in Parampara who
>wrote commenteries on Upanishads. Please find the the list of few of them.
>
>Sri Jayateertha.
>Sri Raghottama Teertha,
>Sri Vadiraja Teertha,
>Sri Raghavendra Teertha,
>Sri Vijayeendra Teertha,
>Sri Satyabodha Teertharu,
>Sri Satyavrata Teertha,
>Sri Satyasandha Tteertha
>Sri Dhreendra Teertha
>Sri Vedeshateertha
>Sri Yadavararu
>
>and many more....
>
>-- 
>हरये नमः
>
>Kale Balkrishna
>Mobile : +91-9849042501
>Slogan of the day : Please do Sandhyavandane Daily.
>
>नारायणाय परिपूर्ण गुणार्णवाय विश्वोदय स्थितिलयो नियति प्रदाय ग्न्यान प्रदाय
>विभुदा सरसौख्या दुख सत्कारणाय  वितताय नमो नमस्ते
>
>
>
>On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
>sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Senaniji,
>> Sorry to have to point out that Shri Madhvacharya did write commentaries on
>> Upanishads.
>> Regards,
>> Sunil K. Bhattachyarjya
>>
>> --- On Wed, 2/17/10, Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] PARAMARTHIKA AND VYAVAHARIKA SATYAM
>> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 12:34 AM
>>
>> And, to answer the main point about the philosophy of Sayanacharya, it is
>> Advaita Vedanta. Sayancharya, the person, is the brother of Madhava, who
>> later became Vidyaranya the peeThaadhipati of Sringeri math in 14th century
>> and the one who was instrumental in the establishment of the Vijayanagar
>> empire. However the author Sayanacharya seems to be more than one person,
>> and many believe that Sayana himself, Madhava and their students wrote the
>> many works that are attributed to Sayanacharya. While the works attribute to
>> this family are many (including the madhaveeya Sankaravijayam [definitely
>> not the work of brothers in my opinion], madhaveeya dhaatuvritti etc.;
>> Sayana is even said to have given the speed of light!), the book
>> sarvasiddhantasangrah clearly shows that they considered advaitic
>> interpretation of vedanta as the highest truth. To my knowledge, nobody
>> disputes that Sayanacharya was an advaitin.
>>
>> It might be pertinent to note a few points here:
>>
>> 1. Of the three prasthanas of daSopanishads, BrahmasUtrAs and Geetaa the
>> last two have many commentaries; the Gita continues to inspire even modern
>> leaders like Tilak and Gandhi to give their interpretation, but the
>> 'advaitic' interpretation of Upanishads - if you want to use such a term -
>> is the main commentary on Vedas as such.
>>
>> 2. Neither Sri Ramanujaachaarya nor Srimanmadhvaachaarya wrote commentaries
>> on the Upanishads. To my knowledge, after the time of Vedanta Desika, one
>> Ragaramanujachaarya first wrote a viSishTaadvaitic commentary on the
>> Upanishads, and the portion where we studied this along with Sankaracharya's
>> bhashya, the bulk of it (Rangaramanujachaya's bhashya) did not differ from
>> Bhagavatpaada's bhashya. In places like tattvamasi or the story of two
>> birds, we can see substantial difference.
>>
>> Regards
>> Senani
>>
>>
>> Thank you Venkat for drawing my attention to the mistake I made.
>>
>> Dear Krunal ji,
>>
>> Sayanacharya wrote commentaries to the Four Veda-s. Here is a short
>> write-up on him:
>>
>> http://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism/knowledge/index.php?print/id:206
>>
>> // 4. Sayanacharya
>>
>> If anyone has written a commentary on the Vedas after Yaskacharya it
>> is none other than Sayanacharya. It is because of which that the
>> latter is glorified everywhere. He has written commentaries on all the
>> Vedas. In the preface to the Taittiriya Sanhita when indicating as to
>> the Veda about which He wrote the commentary initially, He says, “The
>> Yajurveda is like a wall and the pictures drawn on it represent the
>> Rugveda and the Samaveda. That is precisely why I am discussing the
>> Yajurveda first.” When writing a commentary on every branch of the
>> Veda He does it in different style. He also has commentaries on the
>> Shatapatha, Aitareya, Taittiriya and all the Braahmana holy texts of
>> the Samaveda to His credit.
>>
>> Commentators who preceded Sayanacharya are Bhattabhaskarmishra,
>> Venkatmadhav, etc. and those who followed Him are ones like Uvvat and
>> Mahidhar. Nevertheless they have written commentaries on any one
>> Vedasanhita, all of them being in Sanskrut and focusing on the central
>> theme of sacrificial fires (yadnya) in the Vedas.’(4)    //
>>
>> The Vedic philosophy is that which takes man step by step to the
>> ultimate realization of his Atman that is none other than Brahman.
>> The Vedanta is that portion of the Vedic literature where the higher
>> goal, purushArtha, moksha is discussed primarily.  The portion I had
>> quoted in the Article is occurring in this part of the Veda and hence
>> you see Sayanacharya commenting the way he did.
>>
>> I apologise for answering a question that you did not ask.
>>
>> Regards,
>> subrahmanian.v
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Venkata Subramanian
>> <venkat_advaita at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > sorry Subramamanian.  I think Krunal is asking about Sayanacharya; not
>> Bhagavat Pada Acharyal.
>> >
>> > Thanks & Regards,
>> > Venkat.
>> >
>> > Sadgurubhyo Namah.
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 17/2/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] PARAMARTHIKA AND VYAVAHARIKA SATYAM
>> > To: makwanakb at googlemail.com, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>> > Date: Wednesday, 17 February, 2010, 12:09 PM
>> >
>> >
>> > Namaste Krunal ji,
>> >
>> > Thank you for your words of appreciation.
>> >
>> > Shankaracharya propagated the Vedanta philosophy.  Since it is
>> > essentially Advaitic in nature, it became popular by this name.  Even
>> > to this day, after several centuries of His advent, by the term
>> > 'Vedanta' only 'Advaita' is brought up to one's mind.  Thus Vedanta,
>> > Advaita and Shankara have become synonyms.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Om Tat Sat
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM,  <makwanakb at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> Jai Siya Ram
>> >>
>> >> Subrahmanianji,
>> >>
>> >> An excellent and enlightening article on the realities by our
>> scriptures.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for sharing this with us.
>> >>
>> >> On a side note, what philosophy did Sayanacharya propogate? Was he of
>> the philosophy of Advaita?
>> >>
>> >> Krunal
>> >> Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> >
>> > For assistance, contact:
>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >      The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
>> http://in.yahoo.com/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> >
>> > For assistance, contact:
>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>> Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 12:35:51 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] PARAMARTHIKA AND VYAVAHARIKA SATYAM
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
>To unsubscribe or change your options:
>http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
>For assistance, contact:
>listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
>      
>_______________________________________________
>Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
>To unsubscribe or change your options:
>http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
>For assistance, contact:
>listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>