[INDOLOGY] Mayavada (was Lines to an Advaitin)

[Hartmut Buescher]

Christian Bouy (*Gauḍapāda – L’Āgamaśāstra*, p. 247), in his commentary on
GK IV.40,

had pointed out that, apparently distinguishing between a good and a bad
version

of *māyāvāda*,

          “Gauḍapāda écarte ici, selon Anubhūtisvarūpa, la vue des «
mauvais partisans

          de la doctrine de la *māyā* » (*ku-māyāvādin*). Selon ces
*māyāvādin*, « de l’ignorance,

          qui est proprement insubstantielle, naît l’effet, [lui aussi]
proprement insubstantial »

          (*avastuna evājñānād avastv eva kāryaṃ jāyata iti*). Explication
voisine chez

          Ānandagiri. [...] Des Vedāntin, en tout cas, si l’on s’en remet
au témoignage

          de l’auteur de la *Śrutaprakāśikā*  (une explication du
*Śrībhāṣya* de Rāmānuja),

          ont enseigné le *māyāvāda* avant l’époque de Śaṃkara.”



In fact, already Bhāskara (to whom Aleksandar Uskokov had referred) – cf.
also

Paul Hacker, *Vivarta*, p. 17, n. 1) – had identified them as
*māhāyānikabauddha*s

(I.4.25: *māhāyānikabauddhagāthitaṃ māyāvādaṃ*; *Brahmasūtrabhāṣam*,
Chowkhamba

ed., p. 85).



Hacker’s *Vivarta* appeared three years later (1953) than his
“Eigentümlichkeiten
der

Lehre und Terminologie Śaṅkaras” and may be said to be even more useful on
this

particular topic. Just to quote a single summarizing passage from this work
(p. 51):

          “Im frühen brahmanischen Illusionismus verwandte der stark
buddhistisch

          beeinflußte Gauḍapāda nur *māyā*, Sureśvara in der
Naiṣkarmyasiddhi nur *avidyā*

          nebst Synonymen, Śaṅkara im Brahmasūtra-Kommentar beide, doch
*avidyā*

          fünfmal so oft wie *māyā*. Mit Padmapāda beginnt zunächst eine
Tendenz

          beide Begriffe zu identifizieren. Ihr Inhalt ist im frühen
Advaitavāda nicht nur

          vom Buddhismus, sondern offenbar auch vom Viṣṇuismus her
bestimmt.“



Kind regards, Hartmut



On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:33 AM Eltschinger, Vincent via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info> wrote:

> *māyāvāda* indeed does not to belong to the many *vāda*s alluded to by
> Śaṅkara himself, and especially to those by which he refers to his own
> teaching (*veda-*, *vedānta-*, *brahma-*, *ātma-vāda*). As pointed out by
> Paul Hacker, Śaṅkara has no specific theory of *māyā* (at least in the
> *Brahmasūtrabhāṣya*), but mostly uses the term in similes (much like the
> Buddhists).
>
> See Hacker’s short but illuminating remarks in his groundbreaking
> “Eigentümlichkeiten der Lehre und Terminologie Śaṅkaras: Avidyā, Nāmarūpa,
> Māyā, Īśvara” (*Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft *100,
> 1950, 246-286), pp. 268 ff.
>
> With kind regards,
> Vincent
>
>
> Vincent Eltschinger, korrespondierendes Mitglied der OeAW
> Directeur d'études
> École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des sciences religieuses
> Patios Saint-Jacques, 4-14 rue Ferrus - 75014 Paris
> vincent.eltschinger at ephe.sorbonne.fr
> 0033 1 56 61 17 34 / 0033 7 85 86 84 05
> ------------------------------
> *Von:* INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> im Auftrag von
> Uskokov, Aleksandar via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 9. April 2020 02:00:48
> *An:* Dean Michael Anderson; Indology List; Harsha Dehejia; Madhav
> Deshpande
> *Betreff:* Re: [INDOLOGY] Mayavada (was Lines to an Advaitin)
>
> Dear Dean,
>
> The term was used first, for all we know, by Bhaskara, in a pejorative
> sense. Hajime Nakamura’s first volume of his History of Early Vedanta
> Philosophy is a good source on this.
>
> Best wishes,
> Aleksandar
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> on behalf of Dean
> Michael Anderson via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2020 7:38:14 PM
> *To:* Indology List <indology at list.indology.info>; Harsha Dehejia <
> harshadehejia at hotmail.com>; Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu>
> *Subject:* [INDOLOGY] Mayavada (was Lines to an Advaitin)
>
> I notice that this post uses the term 'mayavada' in referring to
> Advaitins. This is appropriate in this context I suppose because it is
> offering an alternative perspective to Advaita.
>
> But some of the Advaitins I have spoken to say that that is a term coined
> by their opponents and that it is inaccurate, even if it has been adopted
> by some ill-informed Advaitins to refer to themselves and become part of
> the popular speech. These Advaitins say that the emphasis should be on
> 'avidya' or 'mithya' rather than 'maya'.
>
> I wonder if anyone has any comments about this or could point me to some
> publications that discuss it.
>
> Note: I am interested in the scholarly discussion of these terms and the
> associated concepts, not in a discussion about which is the supreme
> realization. :-)
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
>
> Harsha Dehejia via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
> Friends:Inspired by Madhav Deshpande and with a long history of my polite confrontations with Advaitins I propose to write 100 lines.I am a staunch Krishna rasika. Writing in English deprives my lines of the majesty of Sanskrit. However what English lacks in the melody and rhythms of Sanskrit it will hopefully make up in its rasa.Wait O! Advaitin, before I accept your mayavadaLet me tarry a bit and enjoy the lotus face of Krishna.Kind regards,HarshaProf. Harsha V. Dehejia
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20200409/872bd51e/attachment.htm>