[Advaita-l] Evidence to hold the Panchapadika to have been a larger text

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Reg  <<  "पञ्चापाद्यां तु
रूढिरुक्ता, तां दूषयति - येत्विति | >>,

Is it not possible to understand from above cited portion that Kalpataru is
merely stating that the position taken by Panchapadika (could be elsewhere
in BSB) is in accordance with rUdhi (meaning thereby that it is the
conclusion of kalpataru), and not necessarily that Panchapadika has stated
in this portion of BSB that the rUdhi meaning of akAsha is Brahman. It may
be pointed out that elsewhere in Panchapadika, this meaning is taken for
AkAsha (without mentioning rUdhi). One example is cited below

<< तदुच्यते — येयं श्रुतिस्मृतीतिहासपुराणेषु नामरूपम् , अव्याकृतम् ,
अविद्या, माया, प्रकृतिः, अग्रहणम् , अव्यक्तं, तमः, कारणं, लयः, शक्तिः,
महासुप्तिः, निद्रा, अक्षरम् , आकाशम् इति च तत्र तत्र बहुधा गीयते >>.

In fact Sri MDS also appears to allow for such a possibility in response to
a question from one of the participants at  3.20  to 3.50 in the above talk.

Regards

Chandramouli

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 5:15 PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> https://www.centreforbrahmavidya.org/acharyas/dr-mani-dravid-sastri/brahma-sutra-bhashya-0184-sutra-01-03-17.html?filter=dr-mani-dravid-sastri%27s-brahma-sutra--bhashya-classes--adhyaya-1-pada--3&back=/acharyas/sri-shankara-bhagavatpada.html
>
> An interesting observation by Sri Mani Dravid Shastrigal in the above talk.
> In the bhAmatI commentary to the brahmasUtra bhAShya to sUtra 1.3.17, the
> bhAmatIkAra, without naming anyone, criticises the view that the primary
> meaning of the word AkAsha is Brahman. ie the word AkAsha refers to Brahman
> by mukhyavRtti. The bhAmatIkAra says that that is not possible, the primary
> meaning of the word is the well known sky, and the same word cannot refer
> to two things by primary meaning as that would violate a rule of mImAmsa.
> Therefore he concludes that it can refer to Brahman by lakshaNA on account
> of the guNa of vibhutvam seen in the sky being applicable to Brahman also.
> भामती - ये त्वाकाशशब्दो ब्रह्मण्यपि मुख्य एव नभोवदित्याचक्षते, तैः
> “अन्यायश्चानेकार्थत्वम्” इति च “अनन्यलभ्यः शब्दार्थः” इति च मीमांसकानां
> मुद्राभेदः कृतः । लभ्यते ह्याकाशशब्दाद्विभुत्वादिगुणयोगेनापि ब्रह्म । नच
> ब्रह्मण्येव मुख्यो नभसि तु तेनैव गुणयोगेन वर्त्स्यतीति वाच्यम् ।
> लोकाधीनावधारणत्वेन शब्दार्थसम्बन्धस्य वैदिकपदार्थप्रत्ययस्य तत्पूर्वकत्वात्
> ।
> In the kalpataru, Sri amalAnanda points out that the bhAmatikAra is
> actually refuting the position of the panchapAdikA - "पञ्चापाद्यां तु
> रूढिरुक्ता, तां दूषयति - येत्विति |
> Irrespective of the merits of the respective positions of the panchapAdika
> and the bhAmatI, we are all aware of the famous story of SrI padmapAda's
> uncle burning the text of the panchapAdikA, and what could be rescued was
> the commentary to the bhAShya to first five sUtra-s as recalled by Adi
> Shankara bhagavatpAda. Now only the commentary to the bhAShya to the first
> four sUtra-s remains.
>
> The bhAmatI / kalpataru discussion demonstrates that, contrary to the
> story, the portion of the panchapAdikA beyond the fourth sUtra was
> available even in the times of SrI vAchaspati miSra and SrI amalAnanda
> (11th century), some 400 years post the time of SrI padmapAda.
>
> (write up courtesy: Sri S.Venkataraghavan)
>
> Here are some passages in the Panchapadika itself which give one a clear
> idea that Sri Padmapadacharya at least intended to write a complete gloss
> to the Brahma sutra Bhashya:
>
> एक आत्मनः शरीरे भावात्’ (ब्र. सू. ३-३-५३) इत्यधिकरणारम्भे दर्शयिष्यामः,
> सत्यमेवम् ; तथापि………(We shall show in the commentary to the sutra 3.3.53.)
>
> एवमविरुद्धः इति सम्भावनां निगमयति । यथा
> आकाशस्याक्षव्यापारमन्तराप्यपरोक्षता, तथा दर्शयिष्यामः ॥ (a reference to a
> yet to be taken up portion of the Bhashya).
>
> इतरेषां युक्त्याभाससिद्धत्वं स्वावसरे दर्शयिष्यामः । दर्शितं च लेशत
> उत्तरोत्तरपक्षग्रहणकारणप्रदर्शनेन, वाक्याभासतां तु तत्र तत्राधिकरणे
> सिद्धान्तयिष्यन्तः प्रदर्शयिष्यामः ।   (again about a yet to come part...)
>
> The above passages could be collected upon the observations of Sri Mani
> Dravid Sastrigal.
>
> It is evident that the Sri Vachaspati Misra (Bhamati) (10th century CE) and
> Sri Amalananda (Kalpataru) (13th Century) have seen the stated larger text
> of the Panchapadika. It could be inferred that the loss of the portions
> beyond what we have today must have happened post 13th Century.
>
> Om Tat Sat
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>