[Advaita-l] Māyāmatram etc

[subhanu saxena]

V Subrahmaniam wrote:

 

In the commentary, Sri
Chandrashekhara Bharati SwaminaH also says that the

above quoted first line is a  shruti vAkyam. Is there any reference

available as to which shruti says
so?  For, we are familiar with this line

from the GaudapadakArika, Agama
prakaraNam, which is the First chapter.

However, the Madhva school holds
this entire chapter as shruti.  In
advaita

tradition this chapter consists
of both shruti and Gaudapada's kArika-s.

 

Namaste

 

It is possible that Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati
SwaminaH is simply following the erroneous views of Madhva and Ramanuja in this
regard. Ramanuja quotes GK 1.16 “anādimāyayā suptaḥ” in Sri Bhashya 1.1.4, along
with Svetasvatara Upanishad . Ramanuja does not quote Gaudapada anywhere else
in his works.  However Ramanuja is not always exact in his quotes so his
attribution to Gaudapada’s Karika as Sruti cannot be received with 100%
confidence. For example in his bhashya on Brahma Sutra 1.1.31 he fuses 2 quotations
into 1 : tadhaitat pashyan rishir vāmadevaḥ pratipede aham manur abhavam sūryashchāham
kakṣeevān rishir asmi vipra. He has
fused here a rigveda and brihadaranyaka quote. 

 

As stated above, Madhva considers
all of chapter 1 the Agama Prakarana in the Karikas to be Sruti, quoted by
Varuna. His sole authority for this odd belief is the Garuda Purana which is
said to contain the following verses:

pramāṇasya pramāṇam cha balavad vidyate mune ।

brahmadriṣṭānato mantrān
pramāṇam salileshvarah ।

atra shlokā bhavanteeti chakāraiva
prithak prithak ॥

 

These verses
are not to be found in the online Gretil edition of this Puranam

 

With regards
the Vivekachudamani shloka, this is seen as further evidence as to why this
work is not an original work by Shankaracharya, the author of the
bhashyas.  For we find in BSB 1.4.14 and
BSB 2.1.19  Shankara quoting  GK 1.16
and GK 3.15 with the introductory phrases tathā cha sampradāyavido vadanti and
atroktam sampradāyavidbhir āchāryaih. The author of GK 1.16 and 3.15 is
described as a knower of the tradition, clearly seen to be  just one author,  with no reference that these verses are Sruti,
which effectively rules out any attempt to describe these verses as Sruti by
nature. Now 3.15 is also quoted by Suresvara in BUBV 2.1.where he explicitly refers
to the author as gauḍāchāryaiḥ idam vastu
yathāsmābhiḥ prapanchitam. In BUBV 4.4.886
Suresvara explicitly refers to the author of GK 2.38 quoted in BUBV 4.4.887 and
GK 3.46 quoted in BUBV 4.4.888 as Gauḍapādādeḥ (the ādeḥ probably
refers to vyasa), leaving little doubt that the pupil of Shankara, and by
implication Shankara himself believed the karika to be 1 complete work composed
by Gaudapada , with no portion possible to ascribe to Sruti.This would be in
direct contradiction to what we see in Vivekachudamani, throwing doubt on the
authorship of Vivekachudamani by Shankara. Please note my intention is not to re-open the debate on the authorship of Vivekachudamani which has been done to death on this list, but only to bring it up in the context of the question here asked.

 

Regards

Subhanu