|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
offer convincing arguments in favor of one or another reading of progress of the whole. There are some identifications of samgati; for instance, Sankara says that the link between the consideration of the Vaisesika position (12-17) and the Sarvastivada Buddhist position (18-27) is that whereas the former is ''half-nihilist," the latter is "completely nihilist;" or, more picturesquely, Anandagiri comments (Skt. 479) that the analysis of the Buddhist positions (18-32) is followed by that of the Jainas (33-36) because the former are "those whose garments hang loose" (muktakaccha) while the latter are "those whose clothes have been discarded altogether" (mukambara;) he then notes (Skt. 487) that after the Jainas (33-36) the Saivas (37-41) are treated, because whereas the former are those "whose hair has been plucked out" (luncitakesa)the latter are those "who wear their hair twisted in braids." (jatadhari) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65. By contrast, Advaita is portrayed not as rejecting matter, but as subsuming it into consciousness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66. 32 summarizes the positions related to Buddhism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67. Anandagiri identifies four sects: Saiva, Pasupata, Karunikasiddhantin, and Kapalika. (Skt. 488) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68. Although a thorough analysis of this pada remains to be done, some of the problems with the Advaita portrayal of the various positions have been duly noted. Ingalls (1954) drew our attention generally to the nature and limitations of the Advaita presentation of Buddhism, and more recently Darling (1987). Larson (1979) has sketched and defended the Samkhya position against its Advaita description. Even if one concedes that Buddhists or Samkhyans would on their own portray and defend their positions more convincingly, the main point is to read each Advaita portrayal in context, and to read UMS II.2 within the whole of the Text. The positions are distorted by Advaita not merely because of deficient or distorted presentations of their details, but primarily because they are written into an alien scripta script which is all the more difficult to understand because it also has an interest in constraining and weakening the role of reason, and in showing the impossibility of the emergence of any clear, reasonable viewpoint on the whole matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69. The pedagogical rationale for the pada is stated clearly in an argument which occurs at its very beginning. Sanikara recognizes the following objection: "It is proper to establish one's own point of view for the sake of determining what the right knowledge is, as a means to the attainment of liberation by people seeking release; but what need is there of demolishing others' points of view, which amounts to being inimical to others?" (Tr. 367) Sankara replies, "There are some people of dull intellect who, on noticing that the great scriptures of the Samkhyas and others are accepted by the honored ones and that |
|
|
|
|
|