365bet娱乐

Udayana, in his 狈测腻测补-办耻蝉耻尘腻帽箩补濒颈, speaks of 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 as a commentator on the 痴别诲腻苍迟补 in accordance with the traditions of the 迟谤颈诲补峁囜笉补 school of 痴别诲腻苍迟补 and as holding the view that Brahman suffers evolutionary changes^[1]. Bha峁�峁璷j墨 顿墨办峁�i迟补 also, in his Tattva-viveka-峁�墨k腻-惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺, speaks of 产丑补峁�峁�补 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 as holding the doctrine of difference and non-difference (产丑别诲腻产丑别诲补)^[2]. It is certain, however, that he flourished after 艢补峁卥补谤补, for, though he does not mention him by name, yet the way in which he refers to him makes it almost certain that he wrote his commentary with the express purpose of refuting some of the cardinal doctrines of 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 commentary on the 叠谤补丑尘补-蝉奴迟谤补. Thus, at the very beginning of his commentary, he says that it aims at refuting those who, hiding the real sense of the 蝉奴迟谤补, have only expressed their own opinions, and in other places also he speaks in very strong terms against the commentator who holds the 尘腻测腻 doctrine and is a Buddhist in his views^[3]. But, though he was opposed to 艢补峁卥补谤补, it was only so far as 艢补峁卥补谤补 had introduced the 尘腻测腻 doctrine, and only so far as he thought the world had sprung forth not as a real modification of Brahman, but only through 尘腻测腻.

For both 艢补峁卥补谤补 and 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 would agree in holding that the Brahman was both the material cause and the instrumental cause (耻辫腻诲腻苍补 and nimitta) 艢补峁卥补谤补 would maintain that this was so onlv because there was no other real category which existed; but he would strongly urge, as has been explained before, that 尘腻测腻, the category of the indefinite and the unreal, was associated with Brahman in such a transformation, and that, though the Brahman was substantially the same identical entity as the world, yet the world as it appears was a 尘腻测腻 transformation with Brahman inside as the kernel of truth. But 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 maintained that there was no 尘腻测腻, and that it was the Brahman which, by its own powers, underwent a real modification; and, as the 笔补帽肠补谤腻迟谤补蝉 also held the same doctrine in so far as they believed that 痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补 was both the material and the instrumental cause of the world, he was in agreement with the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补蝉, and he says that he does not find anything to be refuted in the 笔补帽肠补谤腻迟谤补 doctrine^[4]. But he differs from them in regard to their doctrine of the individual souls having been produced from Brahman^[5].

Again, though one cannot assert anything verv positively, it is possible that 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 himself belonged to that particular sect of Brahmins who used three sticks as their Brahminic insignia in preference to one stick, used more generally by other Brahmins; and so his explanation of the I 鈥檈d膩nta-蝉奴迟谤补 may rightly be taken as the view of the 迟谤颈诲补峁囜笉墨 Brahmins. For in discussing the point that fitness for Brahma-knowledge does not mean the giving up of the religious stages of life (腻艣谤补尘补), with their customs and rituals, he speaks of the maintenance of three sticks as being enjoined by the Vedas^[6].

M膩dhav膩c膩rya, in his 艢补峁卥补谤补-vijaya, speaks of a meeting of 艢补峁卥补谤补 with 产丑补峁�峁�补 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补, but it is difficult to say how far this statement is reliable^[7] From the fact that 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 refuted 艢补峁卥补谤补 and was himself referred to by Ldayana, it is certain that he flourished some time between the eighth and the tenth centuries. 笔补峁囜笉颈迟补 痴颈苍诲丑测别艣惫补谤墨 笔谤补蝉腻诲补 refers to a copper-plate found by the late Dr Bh膩wd膩jl in the M膩r膩th膩 country, near Nasik, in which it is stated that one 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 产丑补峁�峁�补 of the lineage (gotra) of 艢腻峁囜笉颈濒测补, son of Kavicakravart墨 Trivikrama, who was given the title of 痴颈诲测腻辫补迟颈, was the sixth ancestor of Bh膩skar膩c膩rya of 艢腻峁囜笉颈濒测补 lineage, the astronomer and writer of the 厂颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补-艣iroma峁噄; and he maintains that this senior V idy膩pati 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 产丑补峁�峁�补 was the commentator on the 叠谤补丑尘补-蝉奴迟谤补^[8]. But, though this may be possible, yet we have no evidence that it is certain; for, apart from the similarity of names^[9], it is not definitely known whether this 痴颈诲测腻辫补迟颈 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 产丑补峁�峁�补 ever wrote any commentary on the 叠谤补丑尘补-蝉奴迟谤补. All that we can say, therefore, with any degree ot definiteness, is that 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补 flourished at some period between the middle of the eighth century and the middle of the tenth century, and most probably in the ninth century, since he does not know 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补^[10].

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Trida峁囜笉a means 鈥渢hree sticks.鈥� According to Manu it was customary among some Brahmins to use one stick, and among others, three sticks.

笔补峁囜笉颈迟补 痴颈苍诲丑测别艣惫补谤墨 笔谤补蝉腻诲补 Dvivedin, in his Sanskrit introduction to 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补鈥檚 commentary on the 叠谤补丑尘补-蝉奴迟谤补, says that the Vaisnava commentators on the 叠谤补丑尘补-蝉奴迟谤补 prior to 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补, Ta峁卥a, Guhadeva, Bh膩ruci and Y膩mun膩carya, the teacher of 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补, were all trida峁囜笉ins. Such a statement is indeed very interesting, but unfortunately he does not give us the authority from which he drew this information.

[2]:

鈥淏ha峁�峁璦bh膩skaras tu bhed膩-bheda-ved膩nta-siddh膩nta-v膩d墨鈥�; Bha峁�峁璷j墨 D墨k-sita鈥檚 痴别诲腻苍迟补-tattva-峁�墨k腻-惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺, as quoted by 笔补峁囜笉颈迟补 痴颈苍诲丑测别艣惫补谤墨 笔谤补蝉腻诲补 in his Introduction to 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补鈥檚 commentary.

[3]:

s奴tr膩-bhipr膩ya-sa峁僾峁泃y膩 sv膩bhipr膩y膩-prak膩艣an膩t
vy膩khy膩ta峁� yair idam 艣膩stra峁� vy膩khyeya峁� tan-niv峁泃taye.
     叠丑腻蝉办补谤补鈥檚 Commentary, p. i.

Also

    鈥渏e tu bauddha-mat膩valambino 尘腻测腻-v膩dinas te鈥� pi anena rty膩yena 蝉奴迟谤补-k膩re峁嘺i' va nirast膩岣�.鈥�

    Ibid. II. 2. 29.

In another place 艢补峁卥补谤补 is referred to as explaining views which were really propounded by the Mah膩y膩na Buddhists 鈥�

    vig墨ta峁� vicchinna-m奴la峁� m膩h膩y膩nika-bauddha-g膩thita峁� 尘腻测腻-v膩da峁� vy膩var峁嘺yanto lok膩n vy膩mohayanti.

    Ibid. 1. 4. 25.

[4]:

痴腻蝉耻诲别惫补 eva 耻辫腻诲腻苍补-k膩ra峁嘺峁� jagato nimitta-k膩ra峁嘺峁� ceti te manyante. . .
tad etat sarva峁� 艣ruti-prasiddham eva tasm膩n n膩tra nir奴karu峁嚹珁a峁� pa艣y膩ma岣�.
     叠丑腻蝉办补谤补-bh奴峁�ya, ii. 2. 41.

[5]:

Ibid.

[6]:

Ibid. III. 4. 26, p. 208; see also 笔补峁囜笉颈迟补 Yindhye艣var墨鈥檚 Introduction.

[7]:

艢补峁卥补谤补-vijaya, xv. 80.

[8]:

笔补峁囜笉颈迟补 痴颈苍诲丑测别艣惫补谤墨 笔谤补蝉腻诲补鈥檚 Introduction.

[9]:

We hear of several 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补s in Sanskrit literature, such as

• 尝辞办补产丑腻蝉办补谤补,
• 艢谤腻苍迟补产丑腻蝉办补谤补,
• 贬补谤颈产丑腻蝉办补谤补,
• 叠丑补诲补苍迟补产丑腻蝉办补谤补,
• 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补mi艣ra,
• 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补-艣膩str墨,
• 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补d墨k峁�ita,
• 产丑补峁�峁�补bh膩skara,
• 笔补峁囜笉颈迟补 Bh膩skar膩c膩rya,
• 叠丑补峁�峁�补产丑腻蝉-办补谤补尘颈艣谤补,
• 罢谤颈办腻峁囜笉补尘补峁囜笉补苍补,
• 尝补耻驳腻办峁�i产丑腻蝉办补谤补,
• 艢腻峁囜笉颈濒测补bh膩skara,
• 痴补迟蝉补-产丑腻蝉办补谤补,
• 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补deva,
• 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补nrsirnha,
• 叠丑腻蝉办补谤腻谤补苍测补,
• 叠丑腻蝉办补谤腻苍补苍诲补苍腻迟丑补,
• 叠丑腻蝉办补谤补sena.

[10]:

  He makes very scanty references to other writers. He speaks of 艢腻峁囜笉颈濒测补 as a great author of the Bh膩gavata school. He refers to the four classes of M膩he艣varas, P膩艣upata, 艢aiva, K膩p膩lika and K膩thaka-siddh膩ntin, and their principal work 笔补帽肠腻诲丑测腻测颈-艣腻蝉迟谤补 ; he also refers to the 笔腻帽肠补谤腻迟谤颈办补蝉, with whom he is often largely in agreement.