[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Puraanas
-
To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Puraanas
-
From: Mani Varadarajan <mani@be.com>
-
From: Mani Varadarajan <mani@srirangam.be.com>
-
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:39:25 -0800
-
Date: 22 Nov 1996 11:39:24 -0800
-
Cc: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu>
-
In-Reply-To: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian's message of Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:16:05 GMT
-
References: <ghenE0qtrE.1Gt@netcom.com> <ghenE0unxo.Gzp@netcom.com> <ghenE174H4.G9K@netcom.com> <ghenE18zIu.DHH@netcom.com>
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. Is the translation by one Raghavachar good?
> This is available in the Vedanta book center. I guess I should read the
> original, but it takes me time to wade through sanskrit texts.
>
S.S. Raghavachar's translation is excellent. Ramanuja is in
near-peak form in this work. And the Sanskrit original is
lucid and easy to read as well.
> But the problem I have with systems other than advaita, whether shaivite
> or vaishnavite, is that none of them give a unified analysis of the
> three states like gauDapaada does. This method is explicitly supported
> in upanishads like the brihadaranyaka, mandukya, kaivalya, Narasimha
> tapaniya etc. However only advaita takes any notice of this fact.
These states are dealt with by Visistadvaitins, and I am sure
by Dvaitins as well. No Vedantin who bothers to comment on these
Upanishads can ignore these, as I'm sure you know.
Take the Brhadaranyaka jyotir-brAhmaNa. Ramanuja deals with
all these topics in extenso in his Sri Bhashya. Madhva and
his subcommentators probably do so as well. Have you bothered
to read them?
While I don't believe that their philosophical expositions
will convince you, as you are a die-hard follower of Sankara
(which is fine), you should give them the courtesy of at least
a casual read before declaring that these thinkers have overlooked
these Upanishads.
Mani
P.S. Does it strike anyone else that the mAndukya upanishad
is simply a restatement of a portion of the jyotir-brAhmaNa?
I will go so far as to say that the mAndukya makes no sense
without being seen in light of the jyotir-brAhmaNa.
P.P.S. To understand the mAndukya from a Visistadvaita perspective,
there are two bhashyas: one by kUranArAyaNa muni, and one by
the upanishad-bhAshyakAra of the Visistadvaita school,
Ranga Ramanuja. Recently, a Westerner has published a monograph
comparing the expositions of Sankara and kUranArAyaNa on the
mAndukya.
