365bet娱乐

Padmap膩da is universally reputed to be a direct disciple of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, and, since the manner of his own salutation to 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 confirms this tradition, and since no facts are known that can contradict such a view, it may safely be assumed that he was a younger contemporary of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补. There are many traditional stories about him and his relations with 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补; but, since their truth cannot be attested by reliable evidence, it is not possible to pronounce any judgment on them. Only two works are attributed to him, viz. the 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻 , which is a commentary on 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 commentary on the first four 蝉奴迟谤补蝉 of the 叠谤补丑尘补-蝉奴迟谤补 and 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 introduction to his commentary known as th 别补诲丑测腻蝉补 and the 蝉补尘产丑腻惫补苍腻-产丑腻峁�y补 , and the 膧迟尘补-bodha-锄测腻办丑测腻苍补 , called also 痴别诲腻苍迟补-蝉腻谤补.

This 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻 is one of the most important of the 痴别诲腻苍迟补 works known to us. It was commented on by 笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍 (a.d. i 200) in his 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻-惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺^[1].

The 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻-惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺 was further commented on by Akha峁囜笉膩nanda (a.d. 1350), a pupil of Anandagiri, in his Tattva-诲墨辫补苍补.

膧苍补苍诲补-辫奴谤峁嘺 (A.D. 1600), who wrote his 痴颈诲测腻-蝉腻驳补谤墨 commentary on 艢谤墨丑补谤峁�a鈥檚 碍丑补峁囜笉补苍补-办丑补迟颈岣峚-办丑腻诲测补 and also a commentary on the 惭补丑腻-惫颈诲测腻-惫颈岣峚尘产补苍补, wrote a commentary on the 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻.^[2]

狈峁泂颈峁僪腻艣谤补尘补 also wrote a commentary on the 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻-惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺, called the 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻-惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺-prak膩艣ik膩, and 艢r墨k峁涐梗峁嘺 also wrote one on the 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻-惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺.

Aufrecht refers to another commentary by 础尘补濒腻苍补苍诲补 as 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻-艣腻蝉迟谤补-诲补谤辫补峁嘺 ; but this is undoubtedly a mistake for his 艢膩stra-诲补谤辫补峁嘺, which is noticed below.

础尘补濒腻苍补苍诲补 was a follower of the 痴腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈 line and not of the line of Padmap膩da and 笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍. R膩m膩nanda 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨, a pupil of Govind膩nanda, the author of the 搁补迟苍补-辫谤补产丑腻 commentary on the 艢腻峁卥补谤补-产丑腻峁�y补, wrote his 痴颈惫补谤补峁噊辫补苍测腻蝉补 (a summary of the main theses of the 痴颈惫补谤补峁嘺) as a commentary on 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁�y补 ; but this was strictly on the lines of the 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻-惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺, though it was not a direct commentary thereon.

痴颈诲测腻ra峁噛a also wrote a separate monograph, called 痴颈惫补谤补峁嘺-prameya-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补, in which he interpreted the Ved膩ntic doctrines on the lines of the 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻-惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺.

Of all these the 痴颈惫补谤补峁噊辫补苍测腻蝉补 of R膩m膩nanda 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 was probably the last important work on the 痴颈惫补谤补峁嘺 line; for R膩m膩nanda鈥檚 teacher Govind膩nanda, the pupil of 骋辞辫腻濒补 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨 and the pupil鈥檚 pupil of 艢ivar膩ma, refers in his Ratna-辫谤补产丑腻 commentary to Jagann膩th膩艣rama鈥檚 commentary on the 艢腻峁卥补谤补-产丑腻峁�y补, called the 叠丑腻峁�y补-诲墨辫颈办腻, and also to 膧苍补苍诲补giri鈥檚 commentary as 鈥�惫峁沝诲丑腻丑,鈥� p. 5 (狈颈谤峁嘺测补-厂腻驳补谤补 Press, 1904). 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 was the teacher of 狈峁泂颈峁僪腻艣谤补尘补; Govind膩nanda must therefore have lived towards the end of the sixteenth century. R膩m膩nanda may therefore be placed in the early part of the seventeenth century. Govind膩nanda himself also in his 搁补迟苍补-辫谤补产丑腻 commentary followed the 痴颈惫补谤补峁嘺 line of interpretation, and he refers to 笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍 with great respect as 笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补-艣谤墨-肠补谤补峁嘺颈岣� (. 搁补迟苍补-辫谤补产丑腻 , p. 3).

Padmap膩da鈥檚 method of treatment, as interpreted by 笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍, has been taken in the first and the second volumes of the present work as the guide to the exposition of the 痴别诲腻苍迟补. It is not therefore necessary that much should be said in separate sections regarding the Ved膩ntic doctrines of these two great teachers. But still a few words on Padmap膩da鈥檚 philosophy may with advantage be read separately. Padmap膩da says that 尘腻测腻, avy膩k峁泃a, 辫谤补办峁泃颈, agraha峁嘺, avyakta, 迟补尘补岣�, 办腻谤补峁嘺, laya, 艣补办迟颈, mah膩supti, 苍颈诲谤腻, k峁�ara and 腻办腻艣补 are the terms which are used in older literature as synonymous with 补惫颈诲测腻. It is this entity that obstructs the pure and independently self-revealing nature of Brahman, and thus, standing as the painted canvas (citra-bhitti) of ignorance (补惫颈诲测腻), deeds (karma) and past impressions of knowledge (辫奴谤惫补-辫谤补箩帽腻-蝉补峁僺办腻谤补) produce the individual persons (箩墨惫补迟惫腻辫腻诲颈办腻).

Undergoing its peculiar transformations with God as its support, it manifests itself as the two powers of knowledge and activity (惫颈箩帽腻苍补-办谤颈测腻-艣补办迟颈-dvay腻艣谤补测补) and functions as the doer of all actions and the enjoyer of all experiences (办补谤迟峁泃惫补-产丑辞办迟峁泃惫补颈办腻-诲丑腻谤补岣�). In association with the pure unchangeable light of Brahman it is the complex of these transformations which appears as the immediate ego (补丑补尘办腻谤补). It is through the association with this ego that the pure self is falsely regarded as the enjoyer of experiences.

This transformation is called 补苍迟补岣�k补谤补峁嘺, manas, buddhi and the ego or the ego-feeler (补丑补峁�-辫谤补迟测补测颈苍) on the side of its cognitive activity, while on the vibratory side of its activity (蝉辫补苍诲补-艣补办迟测腻), it is called 辫谤腻峁嘺 or biomotor functions. The association of the ego with the pure 腻迟尘补苍 , like the association of the redness of a 箩补辫腻 flower with a crystal, is a complex (granthi) which manifests the dual characteristics of activity of the 补惫颈诲测腻 stuff and the consciousness of the pure self (蝉补峁僢丑颈苍苍辞产丑补测补-谤奴辫补迟惫腻迟).

On the question as to whether 补惫颈诲测腻 has for both support (腻艣谤补测补) and object (惫颈峁�a测补) Brahman Padmap膩da鈥檚 own attitude does not seem to be very clear. He only says that 补惫颈诲测腻 manifests itself in the individual person (箩墨惫补) by obstructing the real nature of the Brahman as pure self-luminosity and that the Brahman by its limitation (avaccheda) through beginningless 补惫颈诲测腻 is the cause of the appearance of infinite individual persons. But 笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍 introduces a long discussion, trying to prove that Brahman is both the support and the object of 补惫颈诲测腻 as against the view of 痴腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈 Mi艣ra that 补惫颈诲测腻 has the Brahman as its object and the 箩墨惫补 as its support (腻艣谤补测补). This is thus one of the fundamental points of difference between the 痴颈惫补谤补峁嘺 line of interpretation and the interpretation of the 痴腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈 line. In this 笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍 agrees with the view of 厂耻谤别艣惫补谤补 and his pupil Sarvaj帽腻迟尘补苍, though, as will be noticed, Sarvaj帽腻迟尘补苍 draws some nice distinctions which are not noticed by 厂耻谤别艣惫补谤补.

Padmap膩da draws a distinction between two meanings of falsehood (尘颈迟丑测腻), viz. falsehood as simple negation (apahnava-vacana) and falsehood as the unspeakable and indescribable (补苍颈谤惫补肠补苍颈-测补迟腻-惫补肠补苍补). It is probably he who of all the interpreters first described 补箩帽腻苍补 or 补惫颈诲测腻 as being of a material nature (箩补岣嵞乼尘颈办腻) and of the nature of a power (箩补岣嵞乼尘颈办腻 补惫颈诲测腻-艣补办迟颈), and interpreted 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 phrase 鈥�尘颈迟丑测腻-箩帽腻苍补-苍颈尘颈迟迟补岣�鈥� as meaning that it is this material power of 补箩帽腻苍补 that is the constitutive or the material cause of the world-appearance. 笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍, however, elaborates the conception further in his attempts to give proofs in support of the view that 补惫颈诲测腻 is something positive (产丑腻惫补-谤奴辫补). These proofs have been repeatedly given by many other later writers, and have already been dealt with in the first volume of the present work.

Padmap膩da is also probably the first to attempt an explanation of the process of Ved膩ntic perception which was later on elaborated by 笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍 and later writers, and his views were all collected and systematized in the exposition of the 痴别诲腻苍迟补-paribh膩峁Ｄ� of Dharmar膩ja Adhvar墨ndra in the sixteenth century. Describing this process, Padmap膩da says that, as a result of the cognitive activity of the ego, the objects with which that is concerned become connected with it, and, as a result of that, certain changes are produced in it, and it is these changes that constitute the subject-object relation of knowledge (箩帽腻迟耻谤箩帽别测补-蝉补尘产补苍诲丑补岣�).

The 补苍迟补岣�k补谤补峁嘺, or psychical frame of mind, can lead to the limited expression of the pure consciousness only so far as it is associated with its object. The perceptual experience of immediacy (补辫补谤辞办峁�a) of objects means nothing more than the expression of the pure consciousness through the changing states of the 补苍迟补岣�k补谤补峁嘺. The ego thus becomes a perceiver (辫谤补尘腻迟峁�) through its connection with the underlying consciousness.

笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍, however, elaborates it by supposing that the 补苍迟补岣�k补谤补峁嘺 goes out to the objective spatial positions, and assumes the spatial form of the objects perceived. Hence what Padmap膩da conceived merely as the change of the 补苍迟补岣�k补谤补峁嘺 states through the varying relation of the 补苍迟补岣�k补谤补峁嘺 with its objects, is interpreted in the definite meaning of this relation as being nothing more than spatial superposition of the 补苍迟补岣�k补谤补峁嘺 on its objects. In inference, however, there is no immediate knowledge, as this is mediated through relations with the reason (li峁�ga). Knowledge however would mean both mediate and immediate knowledge; for it is defined as being the manifestation of the object (artha-辫谤补办腻艣补).

On the subject of the causality of Brahman Padmap膩da says that that on which the world-appearance is manifested, the Brahman, is the cause of the world.

On this point 笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍 offers three alternative views, viz.

1. that, like two twisted threads in a rope, 尘腻测腻 and Brahman are together the joint cause of the world,
2. that that which has 尘腻测腻 as its power is the cause,
3. and that the Brahman which has 尘腻测腻 supported on it is the cause of the world, but in all these the ultimate causality rests with Brahman, since 尘腻测腻 is dependent thereon.

Brahman is sarva-箩帽补 (omniscient) in the sense that it manifests all that is associated with it, and it is the Brahman that through its 尘腻测腻 appears as the world of experience. The doctrines of avaccheda-惫腻诲补 and pratibimba-惫腻诲补 explained in the first volume of the present work are also at least as old as Padmap膩da鈥檚 笔补帽肠补-辫腻诲颈办腻 , and both Padmap膩da and 笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍 seem to support the reflection theory (pratibimba-惫腻诲补), the theory that the 箩墨惫补 is but a reflected image of Brahman^[3].

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

笔谤补办腻艣腻迟尘补苍 also wrote a metrical summary of 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁�y补 and a work called 艢补产诲补-苍颈谤峁嘺测补, in which he tried to prove the claims of scriptural testimony as valid cognition.

[2]:

As Mr Telang points out in his introduction to the 惭补丑腻-惫颈诲测腻-惫颈岣峚尘产补苍补, it seems that 膧苍补苍诲补p奴rna lived after 艢补峁卥补谤补 Mi艣ra (a.d. 1529), as is seen from his criticism of his reading of a passage of the 碍丑补峁囜笉补苍补-kha峁囜笉a-kh膩dya, p. 586 (Chowkhamb膩).

[3]:

See volume I, pp. 475, 476. These two doctrines were probably present in germinal forms as early as the ninth century. But gradually more and more attention seems to have been paid to them. Appaya D墨k峁�ita gives a fairly good summary of these two doctrines in the Parimala, pp. 335-343, 艣ri V膩ni Vil膩sa Press, Srirangam, without committing either himself or 痴腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈 to any one of these views.