[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Hari stuti of Sankara with Anandagiri's commentary
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Hari stuti of Sankara with Anandagiri's commentary
-
From: 61475@strauss.udel.edu (Kesavan P. K Potty)
-
Date: 2 Apr 1995 13:41:36 -0400
-
From 61475@strauss.udel.edu Sun Apr 2 13: 30:55 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: University of Delaware
-
References: <3lhoa3$d06@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
In article <3lctpp$l1m@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
anand hudli <ahudli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> Furthermore, Sankara did not criticize the Bhagavata view per se in his
> BrahmasUtrabhAShya. What he did criticize is the PancarAtra view, which
> is quite different from the philosophy of the Bhagavata. Though there are
> a few passing references to the PancarAtra in the Bhagavata, yet on the
> whole the latter clearly preaches a loftier and superior form of Bhakti
> as compared to that of the former. This is further proven by the fact
> that next only to the Bhagavad Gita, the Bhagavata is perhaps the most
> extensively commented upon of all the works of religious literature.
> Notable among these commentaries is the one by SrIdharasvAmin, though
> his is not the oldest. He was an advaita sannyAsin as well as a great
> bhakta.
While everybody accepts that SrIdharasvAmin was a great bhakta,
some scholars take him to be an Advaitin and others a Vaisnava SannyAsin.
In his book "The History and Literature of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and
their relation to other Medieval Vaisnava Schools" , the author Dr.
Sambidananda Das, Bhaktisastri says:
"It is difficult to say with certainty to which Vaisnava sect he belonged.
He says of himself at the end of the commentary Suvodhini on the Gita
that he was a Sanyasi (Yati) and disciple of Paramananda. He further pays
his homage to his Guru at the end of his Guru Bhavarthadipika on the
Bhagavata, in which he supremely eulogises Tridanda Sanyas evidently in
preference to Ekadanda. He may have been a Tridandi Sanyasi instead of an
Ekadandin. As Tridanda Sanyas has been adopted in the Vishnuswami, Ramanujiya
and Nimbarkiya sects and Ekadandin in the Madhva Sect (and also in the
Sankarite sect), he must have belonged to one of the first named sects.
In the very beginning of his commentary Bhavarthadipika on the Bhagavata,
he salutes Nrsimha. Next he says that according to the rule of his Sampradaya
or sect and custom of his predecessors, he should make obeisance to Madhva
and Umadhava (Rudra) who are almost identical with and dear to each other.
("Parasparatma" "Parasparanatipriya").
[Note: Nrsimha and Rudra are not accepted in any way in which SrIdharasvAmin
did, in any Vaishnava sect except that of Vishnuswami.]
We know that the Vishnuswamins accept Rudra as the first Acarya of the sect,
the official deity of which is Nrsimha. He therefore may have belonged to
the Vishnuswami sect. SrIdhara SvAmin also wrote a poem called Vraja Viraha
dealing with love of Krishna and the Gopis.....We know that from before the
time of Vilvamangala, the Krishna Gopi cult was introduced into the
Vishnuswami sect.
(...)
The second objection to identifying him with the Vishnusvami sect is that
M.M.H.P Sastri has drawn our attention to SrIdhara SvAmi's "Dvaita Nirnaya"-
"The commentator of the Bhagavata and others (SrIdhara) is known to have been
a follower of Sankara's non-dual theory but his Dvaita Nirnaya deposited at
Mimapada in the district of Puri (Orissa) shows that in his advanced state,
he gave up non-dual theory and adopted the dual theory".
The general belief that he was a Sankarite non-dualist
which the great Pandit has referred to
has no justification. The Suddhadvaita system of the VishnusvAmi sect has
been misunderstood as the Kevaladvaita of Sankara. We do not find any clue
to justify in calling Sridhara a Sankarite Mayavadi. Sridhara criticises
Sankara's Mayavadism throughout his writings which are the Bhavarthadipika,
the commentary of the Bhagavata, the Suvodhini, the commentary of the Gita,
and the Atmaprakasa, that on the vishnupurana. He accepted Pancharatra
(Bhavarthadipika. i.3.8) while Sankara was hostile to it.
His Dvaita Nirnaya is a treatise on the Dvaita system of philosophy of
which Madhva is the official founder. It may be that Sridhara svAmin was
influened by Madhva's system...."
> Caitanya MahAprabhu regarded him with great respect. Many of
> the commentators of other schools, in many instances, are content to
> endorse him either expressly or by simply reproducing his comments
> word for word!
This is absolutely correct. It is said that Vallabha Acharya submitted
to Sri Caitanya MahAprabhu, his own commentary on the Bhagavata for his
approval, in which he criticised SridharasvAmin's commentary and found
inconsistencies in it to show his scholarship as superior to Sridhara
svAmin's. But MahAprabhu said, " Those who do not obey Svami (meaning
husband) are counted among the prostitutes". (Caitanya Caritamritha
Antya, VII.III). He also says that he could not bear that anybody should
find fault with SridharasvAmi. He adds " It is only through the grace of
Sridhara, the world teacher, that we know the meaning of the Bhagavata."
(C.C Antya VIII, qoted by Dr. Sambidananda)
Kesavan
