|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
20. These paragraphs preview the fuller interpretation which makes up the major part of chapters 2, 3, and 4. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21. Sankara refers to an older author, known simply as "the commentator" (vrttikara). On the pre-Sankara Vedanta, see Nakamura 1983. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22. Dasgupta (1922, vol. II) remains a valuable source of information for an overview of the Advaita tradition. Hacker (1950) is an invaluable study of Sankara's immediate disciples, Suresvara, Padmapada, Totaka and Hastamala. Neither work, however, focuses on the Advaita in its commentarial aspects. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23. On the debate over the meaning of this inaugural word, see Chapter 4, p. 130. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24. I.e., the deity siva. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25. Here and throughout, all translations of Vacaspati's comments on UMS I.1.1-4 are drawn from the 1933 translation by S.S.Suryanarayana Sastri and C. Kunhan Raja. Translations of later portions of Vacaspati, and of later commentators, are my own. Throughout, references are usually given simply to the appropriate Sanskrit sloka or sutra; only in the case of particularly long commentarial passages will I give page numbers (to the Sanskrit or the translation), for the reader's convenience. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26. Steps first described in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, II.4.5; I return to this text in Chapter 3. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27. Cited by Appaya Diksita with slight variation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28. In elaborating Amalananda's third verse, which compares smashing ignorance to smashing the head of the elephant in rut, and to the abrupt manifestation from the pillar of Visnu as a man-lion, to destroy the devotee Prahlada's foe, Appaya Diksita emphasizes again the connection between knowledge and texts: "thus, Brahman, reached by the rising of manifestation, is the fruit of those acts of hearing (sravana), reflection (manana), and meditation (nididhyasana)." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29. Parpola (1981) offers helpful reflections on the original unity of the two Mimamsas and on the origin of the terms Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa. But as I have indicated elsewhere (Clooney 1990b, pp. 25-32), a decision on whether the names do or do not indicate an originally single system must proceed from a thorough understanding of both, and cannot by determined by largely extrinsic standards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30. See Clooney 1990b for a description of the nonphilosophical Mimamsa which is the true predecessor to Advaita. |
|
|
|
|
|