365bet娱乐

[Full title: Other Commentators and their Works (1) Nimbarka]

Among other commentators on the Brahma-Sutras, whose writings have actually come down to us, are the following Nimbarka, Srikantha, Kesava Kashmirin, Vallabha, Vignanabhikshu, Baladeva and Suka. Nimbarka and His Date. Of these, Nimbarka has been assigned by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, on the basis of a rough approximation, to the middle of the twelfth century, his death being fixed at 1162 A.D. Since he shows, in some respects, strong resemblances to Ramanuja's views, he may perhaps be put down at least a century later, if not more. There is the greater reason for assigning a later date to him, for his theory is a kind of Bhedabheda, which presupposes the existence of a strong dvaita school of thought at the time he propounded his teaching. Nimbarka, in his exposition of I. 1. 4, asks the question, Is Brahman describable by words or not describable by words? If he is describable by words, what will become of those passages which declare that Brahman is not describable by words? If he is not describable by words, what will become of those passages which say that he is describable? To remove this objection, says Nimbarka, we take our stand on the theory of Bhedabheda. Therefore the Omniscient, the cause of the origin, sustenance and destruction of the universe, the Brahman possessed of inconceivable energies, is apprehended through the authority of scripture alone, and is

separate from everything and also inseparable from everything. He is the lord Vasudeva. He is the object of our enquiry in this sastra and in him alone all diverse scriptures of the world find their complete reconciliation. This is the settled conclusion (siddhanta) of all the Upanishads. Since Srikantha refutes the view of Nimbarka (see comments of Srikantha and Nimbarka on III. 3. 27-30), it has to be presumed that Nimbarka preceded Srikantha. Since, as we have seen above, Srikantha lived about 1270 A.D., Nimbarka should be taken to have lived. some time before that date. How many years before Srikantha, Nimbarka actually lived, we have no materials at present to determine. But his lower and upper limits are fixed by Ramanuja and Srikantha, that is, between circa 1138 and 1270 A.D. Pandit Vindhyeshvara Prasada Dvivedin has assigned Nimbarka to a date between 1041 and 1199 Vikrama Era, or 985 and 1143 A.D. This seems clearly inadmissible, judging from the independent evidence that has been adduced above for the date of Srikantha and the impossibility of making Nimbarka anterior to Ramanuja, to whom he owes intellectual allegiance.23 23 Pandit Vindhyesvara Prasada Dvivedin in the introduction to his edition of Nimbarka's Bhashya (see p. 3, f.n. 3) quotes the following from the concluding part of the Bhavishyad-Purana :- Vishnuswami prathamato Nimbadityo dvitiyakaha | Madhvacharya stritiyastu turyo Ramanujastatha || It is needless to say that this order of chronology is wholly at variance with what we know as a fact about the dates of Ramanuja and Madhva, both from tradition and inscriptions. The Sampradaya-dipa describes the birth of Madhvacharya as having occurred in the reign of Kumarapala, King of Gujarat, in Western India. Kumarapala was anointed to the throne, according to Merutungacharya's Prabandha Chintamani, in Vikrama year 1199 (A.D. 1143). As we know from inscriptions that Madhvacharya lived between 1238 and 1317 A.D., this date seems impossible. Kumarapala became a convert to Jainism in A.D. 1159. (See A. K. Forbes, Ras Mala, Hindoo Annals of the Province of Goozerat in Western India, 2 Vols., Richardson, (1856), Vol. I, Ch. 11; see also Vincent Smith, E.H.I., p. 190, f.n. 3).

Story of Nimbarka's Life. Nimbarka was a Telugu Brahman by birth and is reported to have lived at Nimba, identified by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar with Nimbapura in the Hospet Taluk of the present Bellary District. 24 He is described as the That Nimbarka was indebted to Anandatirtha and not Anandatirtha to Nimbarka seems also inferable from a comparison of their commentaries on the Brahma-Sutras. Wherever their views are identical, it is generally to be seen that Anandatirtha's position is fully supported by argument and citation of authorities whereas Nimbarka's seems but a bare assertion which presumes much on the part of the reader. (Cf. the comments of these commentators on III. 2. 11-Nasthanatopi paratyobhayalingam sarvatrahi; II. 2. 42 Utpatyasambhavat.) 24 See Vaishnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems, 62, quoting MS. No. 706 of the (Bombay) Collection, 1884-1887. At Nimbapura, there is a Sanskrit-Kannada epigraph of Immadi Praudha Devaraya Maharaya dated in 1450 A.D. This king should be identified with Mallikarjuna, the son of Devaraya II. This Mallikarjuna was also known as Immadi-Praudhadeva Maharaya (see Mysore Gazetteer, new edition, II, iii, 1600). Sir R. G. Bhandarkar derives the name from Nimba and arka, meaning the Sun of Nimba (see Vaishnavaism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems, 62, f.n. 2). In the Sampradaya Kuladipika by Gada, a follower of Vitthala, son of Vallabhacharya, the founder of the Vedanta system known after him, Nimbarka is referred to as Nimbaditya, which is only another form of Nimbarka (see Madras Report on Sanskrit and Tamil MSS., I, 16). In explanation of the name Nimbaditya, the following anecdote is narrated :-Nimbaditya was engaged in conversation with an Advaitin. As they were conversing long on a theological topic in the evening, the sun set in the west. The Advaitin seeing that the time for the evening ceremony was past, wanted to stop the conversation and perform the ceremony. But Numbaditya remarked that the sun had not set and showed the sun to his fellow-disputant through a Nimba tree by his supernatural powers (Ibid., p. 16, f.n.). This story suggests an apocryphal attempt at explaining a personal name. In the Bhaktimala the following story, which is a variant of the one given above, is narrated-Once upon a time, a Dandin-evidently an ascetic of the Tridandi Order-arrived at Nimbarka's house and was welcomed by him. Asked to partake of his hospitality, he agreed. But

son of Jagannatha, a Bhagavata, and Sarasvati. In the Sampradaya Kuladipika of Gada, a disciple of Vitthala, son of Vallabha, Nimbaditya is said to have been instructed in the Vaishnava religion by God Panduranga, the presiding deity at Pandharpur. (See Seshagiri Sastri, Madras Report on Sanskrit and Tamil MSS., I, No. 35, pp. 14-17.) It may be inferred from this statement that he was an ardent devotee of this deity and that he made Pandharpur his head-quarters. His followers are now to be found widely scattered all through Northern India, though they are especially numerous in Bengal and in Mathura. Nimbarka himself lived at Brindavan, near Mathura, which accounts for the preference he showed to the Radha-Krishna form of Vaishnavism. Nimbarka's commentary on the Brahma-Sutras is a short one and goes by the name of Vedantaparijata Saurabha, copies of which are hardly to be found in the MS. Collections of Southern India proper. In the colophons found in his work, he is styled Bhagavan and his work is described as Sariraka Mimamsa Vyakya. Sir Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar's account of Nimbarka's system is almost exclusively based on his Siddhantaratna, which is also known as the Dasasloki, from the ten stanzas of which it is composed. Srinivasa, a direct disciple of Nimbarka, wrote a commentary, called Bhashya Bhavartha Prakasika Vedanta Kaustubha, on the Vedantaparijata Saurabha, while Harivyasadeva, a later successor, wrote another on the Siddhantaratna. Kesava Kashmirin, the thirtieth in the list of Nimbarka's successors, composed an independent before the things required could be got together, the Sun set and it became dark. The Dandi said: "I cannot take my meal as the Sun has set and it is night now." Nimbarka, it is said, prayed to Sri Krishna and by his grace Sri Krishna held his Sudarsana Chakra against the Sun and prevented the Sun from setting. Nimbarka took the Dandi to a Nimba tree near by and having made him to get it up, showed him the Sun that was still shining. The Dandi took his meal and said, "I have dined now; you will become famous from now as Nimbarkacharya."

commentary on the Brahma-Sutras, which has attained some celebrity. His System of Vedanta. Brahman is omniscient, omnipotent and is the storehouse of all excellent qualities. He is the controller of Brahma, Siva and even Time. He is the Cause of the Universe and he is the purport of all scriptural teachings. Karma leads to knowledge; because the performance of Karma kindles a desire to know something higher than Karma itself. All Vedic texts have their unity and reconciliation in Brahman. This is so, because all objects, however different they may be, are one in Brahman. This, again, is so because Brahman is their essence without any difference or distinction and because Brahman is referred to in them all. Is Brahman describable by words or not? If he is, what becomes of the texts which say he is not so describable? If he is not so describable, what becomes of those which say he is so describable? To meet this objection, we-says Nimbarka-take our stand on the theory of bhedabheda. Brahman is, therefore, separate from everything, while at the same time he is inseparable from everything. He is the Lord Vasudeva and is the Self of the Universe. All the scriptures find their reconciliation in him. He is the Cause of the Universe, because consciousness is attributed. Therefore Pradhana of the Sankhya philosophy, which is non-sentient, cannot be its cause. Pradhana is not sat; for while devotion to sat leads to mukti, even the Sankhya philosophy does not teach that devotion to Pradhana leads to mukti. If Brahman is the efficicat cause, may not Pradhana be the material cause, as clay is to the potter? No-says Nimbarka-Brahman is unlike an ordinary human being who wants materials to make his things. He is the all-powerful, highest personage who, by his mere will, thought-power, creates the world. Thus declares the Sruti, "He said, 'May I be many, may I grow forth.' (Taitt. Up., II. 6). Thus, from the mere wish of Brahman, the world has come into existence. ) "

Brahman is different for jiva (individual soul); for that by union with which the jiva gets Ananda (bliss) must be different from that jiva. The Sruti teaches the union of jiva with that Ananda. In the text, we read "Verily he is sweet, by perceiving that sweetness one perceives Ananda" (Taitt. Up., II, 7). Brahman is accordingly not only sat (existence), but also chit (intelligence) and ananda (bliss). Brahman's extraordinary qualities do not belong to the jiva. The inanimate world and the jiva are thus distinct from Brahman. But as they have no existence independent from Brahman, they are identical with Brahman. They are distinct from Brahman, because they do not possess the extraordinary qualities of Brahman. Brahman possesses the qualities of both the animate and inanimate worlds. Brahman is their essence. These qualities contain in then the rudiments of these worlds and by realizing them, Brahman becomes their material cause.