[Advaita-l] Sankhya and Yoga can give Moksha?

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Sat May 5 19:54:52 CDT 2012

Nazmste Vidyasankarji,

I have contacted Dr. Gerald Larson and shall let you know about his candid opinion on the issue, in case he sends any.reply 
Namaste Vidyasankarji,

Further, I am reproducing below the excerpts from page 8-9 of the "Introduction" 
by Gopinath Kaviraj  in the book Jayamangala, along with my comments below the quotes.. I feel that the 
writing of Gopinath Kaviraj is utterly condemnable by the Advaitins and 
in fact by any scholar.

The present Commentary is attributed to ShankarAcharya in the colophon where he is, as elsewhere in his works, described as ParamhamsaparivrAjakachArya and a disciple of GovindapAda. But I am inclined to suspect that the colophon is an interpolation and that the work is not ny ShankarAcharya. One familiar with the style of Shakara's prose writings will hardly believe it to be from his pen. The carelesss slipshod style of JayamangalA has nothing about it corresponding to the depth, lucidity, terseness, 
learning and clarity which universally and invariably characterise Shankara's diction.

Gopinath Kaviraj 
had just gave his assertions  witthout citing a single instance and one 
can very well say that assertion is also  uncharacteristic of the 
writing of Gopinath Kaviraj and hence should one conclude that this 
piece of "Introduction" was not actually written by Gopinath Kaviraj.?

The benedictory verse, where there is a salutation of LokottaravAdee muni makes it plain that the author of JayamangalA was a Buddhist. The term Lokottaravada is a Buddhist expression.

(Where was it used to mean Buddha?) 

and the muni referred to in the verse is no other than the Buddha himself.

Gopinath Kaviraj did not seem to know that Kapila was referred to as Kapilamuni

The name JayamangalA would remind one of two commentaries of the same designation on KAmandak's NeetisAra and on VAtsAyana'sKAmasutras. The former work has been published in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series 
(No. 14, 1912), of which the second benedictory verse reads thus:

kAmAndakiye kila neetishastre prAyeNa nAsmin sugamAH padArthAH
tasmAd vidhAsye jayamangalAkhyAM TatpanjikAMsvavindaM praNamya

This evidedntly is an obeisance to the  Buddha. The latter commentary also has a similar benediction:

vAtsAyaniya kila kAmasutra prastAvitaM kaishcidihAnyathaiva
tasmAd vidhAsye jayamangalAkhyAM TikamhaMsvavindaM praNamya

Here too the obeissance is to the Buddha, Mr. Guleri has proved (Indian 
Antiquary, 1913, pp. 202 - 3) that this commentary was by Sankaracharya,
 and not by Yashodhara to whom it is attributed.

Gopinath Kaviraj seems to agree wit Guleri that Sankaracharya had written a commentary called Jayamangala on the Kamasutra.

The former commentary, however is ascribed explicitly to SanakarAcharya.

Gopinath Kaviraj thought that Sankaracharya definitely wrote a commentary Jayamangala on Kamandak's Nitisara. 

From a comparison of the three coomentaries it would follow that all the
 three bore one and the same name, contained an obeisance to one and the
 same deity, that is , the Buddha, are written in the same style, and 
that while two are known to have been written by SankarAchArya, the remaining one, the remaining one is ascribed to SankarAchArya !

How can Gopinath Kaviraj assert that the Jayamangala commentaries on the KAmAndaka's NeeitisAraand on VAtsAyana's KAmasutrawere definitely written by Sankaracharya?Gopinath Kaviraj had absolutely no proof that Adi Sankaracharya had written 
these two commentaries and no sensible Advaitin or say any scholar would accept the senseless assertions of Gopinath Kaviraj.

The presumption, however is that the thrird commentary also was bySankarAchArya Attribution to sankarAchArya has been only due to a confusion of the 
two names, on which the colophon is based. On any other hypothesis 
obeisance to the Buddha becomes quite inexplicable.

Gopinath Kaviraj thus wants to prove in a most impossible way that Jayamangala was not written by Adi Sankaracharya.

Sunil KB

 From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
To: Advaita List <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Sankhya and Yoga can give Moksha?

> 1)
> It will be very kind of you  if you can disclose this as to who are the people who compared Jayamangala with Tattvakaumudi. and where did they do that?

Pulinbihari Chakravarty, 1951, Origin and development of samkhya thought, Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers; Ram Shankar Bhattacharya, Gerald Larson and Karl Potter, 1987,
Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. 4, just to name two books and their authors. If
you go to http://books.google.com and type in jayamangala, samkhya, sankara as search
terms, you will get a lot more.

> (2)
> Is there any reason why people did  not compare Jayamangala with Gaudapada's bhashya on Sankhyakarika?

See above two books and references therein. Scholars have indeed done the comparison.

> (3)
> Have you or any other scholar  cross-checked from the Rajavartika as to the veracity of the quote
 from that book (Rajavartika) in the Tattvakaumudi ?

How can veracity be ascertained when the said rAjavArttika is not available? What vAcaspati
miSra quotes is not from bhoja's vArttika on yogasUtrabhAshya. At most, all we can say is
that a book that was available to vAcaspati miSra has not survived through time. Do you find
any reason to doubt the idea that vAcaspati miSra did have access to such a text?

Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list