Posted by: adbhutam | February 23, 2018

ABOUT THE ‘SANKARSHA KAANDA’

About the ‘Sankarsha’ kANDa

The ‘Sankarasha’ kANDa is a four-chapter appendix (parishiShTa) to the 12-chapter purva mimamsa shAstra. There is a lot of confusion about this appendix, as can be seen here:

quote

https://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_3.html

 

  • Coming back to the basics, you mentioned that the Vedanta is a complete system that accepts the nyAya of both the pUrva and Uttara mImAMsA sUtras. Are there any other mImAMsA sUtras accepted in the Vedanta darshana?

 

Ans. Yes. In addition to the pUrvamImAMsA sUtras and the Uttara mImAMsA sUtras, the Vedanta and the mImAMsA schools accept the “madhyamakANDa” also known as “daivI mImAMsa”, “saMkarShakANDa” or “devatAkANDa sUtras”, which are authored by kAshakRRitsna. They are considered to be later part of the pUrvamImAMsa sUtras. Sri Jayatirtha, a guru in the mAdhva tradition provides us with the detail that these sUtras begin with “athAto daivI”, meaning it is begun to explain the nature of the devatAs described in the Veda.

Shabarasvamin, the commentator on the pUrvamImAMsA sUtras, as well as all Vedantins including from Shankara, Ramanuja (Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 3.3.43) up to Madhusudana Saraswati (in prasthAnabheda) accept this work.

unquote

Here are some scholarly inputs that clear the confusion:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/isTTwlbO_3w    That which appears within brackets [ ] are added here in clarification/translation of Sanskrit lines.

Vidwan Sri Korada Subrahmanyam’s post in 2013:

Quote:

// नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

  1. Samkaracarya and Ramanujacarya quoted सङ्कर्ष(ण)काण्डसूत्रम् in प्रदानाधिकरणम् – सू . प्रदानवदेव तदुक्तम् (3-3-28-43) –

शां भा – तदुक्तं सङ्कर्षे – नना वा देवतापृथकग्ज्ञानात् इति ।

भाष्यरत्नप्रभा –

 संकर्षो देवताकाण्डम् ।

न्यायनिर्णयः –

 संकृष्यते कर्मकाण्डस्थमेव अवशिष्टं कर्म संक्षिप्य उच्यते इति संकर्षो देवताकाण्डम् , तस्मिन्निति यावत् ।

[Anandagiri, to the commentary of Shankara, says: the word ‘sankarSha’ is derived thus: the remnant portion of karma that is actually part of the karmakANDa is summarized (sankRuShyate) and this is called ‘devatAkANDa’]

अप्पय्यदीक्षिताः परिमळे –

  यद्यपि संकर्षकाण्डो न देवताविचारार्थं प्रवर्तितः । किन्तु द्वादशलक्षण्यविचारितनानाविषयन्यायविचारात्मकः तत्परिशिष्टः , तन्त्रप्रसङ्गवत् उपदेशातिदेशसाधारण्येन प्रकीर्णकः प्रवर्तितः । न हि तत्र देवताविचारेण उपक्रम उपसंहारो वास्ति । …… तथापि संकर्षे देवताविधानरहितेषु उपांशुयाजादिषु देवता अस्ति न वा , प्रयाजादिषु देवतावाचिनः समिद्बर्हिरादिशब्दाः दर्शपूर्णमासाङ्गप्रसिद्धसमिद्बर्हिरादिपराः तदन्यपरा वा ….. इत्यादिदेवताविचारभूयस्त्वात् भूम्ना संकर्षकाण्डस्यैव देवताकाण्डा इत्यपि व्यवहारो’स्तीति तस्य  तेनोपादानम् ।

[Appayya Dikshita says in the Parimala:The Sankarsha’ kANDa is not initiated to discuss about devata. The portions not included in the 12-chapter main purva mimamsa shAstra is discussed here in the Sankarsha’ kANDa. There is neither a discussion of devata-s in the beginning – upakarama, or at the end, upasamhara, of the Sankarsha’ kANDa. Yet, since there is a lot of discussion as to whether there is a devata involved in certain shrouta karmas or not, etc. this Sankarsha’ kANDa has an appellation that it is devatA kANda.]

श्रीभाष्ये —

  1. तदुक्तं संकर्षणे – नाना वा देवतापृथक्त्वात् ।

2.तदाह वृत्तिकारः – वृत्तात् कर्माधिगमादनन्तरं ब्रह्मविविदिषेति ।

3.संहितमेतच्छारीरकं जैमिनीयेन षोडशलक्षणेनेति (कर्मब्रह्मशास्त्रयोः ऐकशास्र्यम् – see महावाक्यविचारः for details)

निगमान्तदेशिकाः – शतदूषणी —

देवताकाण्डशेषतया श्रीभाष्यकारैः परिगृहीतम् । ’तदुक्तं संकर्षे’ इति हि सूत्राण्युदाहरन्ति।

[Sri Vedanta Desika in the ShatadUShaNI alludes to the Sribhashya citing the sutra from devatA/sankarsha kaanda]

वेदान्तसारः – श्रीरामानुजाः —

अधीतवेदस्य हि पुरुषस्य कर्मप्रतिपादनोपक्रमत्वात् वेदानां कर्मविचारः प्रथमं कार्य इति ’अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा’ इत्युक्तम् । कर्मणां च प्रकृतिविकृतिरूपाणां धर्मार्थकामरूपपुरुषार्थसाधनतानिश्चयः , ’प्रभुत्वादार्त्विज्यम् इत्यन्तेन’ ।

प्रस्थानभेदे मधुसूदनसरस्वती —

तथा सङ्कर्षकाण्डमध्यायचतुष्टयात्मकं जैमिनिप्रणीतम् । तच्च देवताकाण्डसंज्ञया प्रसिद्धमपि उपासनाख्यकर्मप्रतिपादकत्वात् कर्ममीमांसार्गतमेव ।

शबरस्वामी (10-4-32) —

स्विष्टकृद्विकारश्च वनस्पतिरिति संकर्षे वक्ष्यते ।

द्वादशाध्याये —

ननु नैव पशोर्हविष्कृदस्ति औषधार्था अवहननार्था वा यथा पत्नी तुल्यवच्छ्रूयते इति संकर्षे वक्ष्यति ।

So here , Sriramanuja , by quoting the first Sutra of पूर्वमीमांसा and the last Sutra (प्रभुत्वात्…) of Samkarsanakanda , it can be surmised that – according to Ramanuja the षोडशलक्षणी is applicable to कर्म ।

वेदार्थसंग्रहे रामानुजाः —

अश्रुतवेदान्तानां कर्मण्यश्रद्धा मा भूदिति देवताधिकरणे अतिवादाः कृताः, कर्ममात्रे यथा श्रद्धां कुर्यादिति सर्वमेकं शास्त्रमिति वेदवित्सिद्धान्तः।

आगमप्रामाण्ये यामुनाचार्याः –

भगवतो जैमिनेः कर्मणः फलोपन्यासःकर्मश्रद्धासंवर्धनाय ।

Scholars feel that – it is विंशतिलक्षणी मीमांसा – षोडशलक्षणी शबरस्वामिप्रणीता (जैमिनिप्रणीता – this correction has been incorporated here after consulting the author of this post, who acknowledged that it was an error during typing the post), चतुर्लक्ष्णी बादरायणप्रणीता ।

Even present day Visistadvaitins feel that Kasakrtsna was not at all the author of Sankarsakanda.

प्रस्तावना (p xx) by  समुद्राल वेन्कटरङ्गरामानुजाचार्युलु (Editor) – Samkarsakanda of Jaimini Muni (Sri Venkateswara Vedic Uni , Tirupati, 2009 —

एवंच सङ्कर्षकाण्डकर्तृत्वविषये जैमिनिकर्तृत्वं काशकृत्स्नकर्तृत्वमिति द्विधा अभिप्रायभेदे सति , कृत्स्नस्य देवताकाण्डस्य षोडशाध्यायस्य जैमिनिप्रणीतत्वकथनमेव समुचितं प्रतिभाति ।

श्रीभाष्यकारादिवचनानुसारेण , तत्पूर्वतनशाङ्करवचनानुसारेण , पूर्वतन्त्रभाष्यादिवचनेन च तथैव प्र्तिपन्नत्वात् ।

विशिष्टाद्वैत does not have any special interest in सङ्कर्षणकाण्ड ।

The only thing to note is they have too much of respect for वेदान्तदेशिक / निगमान्तदेशिक ।

I have a copy of सङ्कर्षकाण्ड  with a commentary , भाट्टदीपिका (भाट्टच्न्द्रिका), of  भास्करराय ( S S V Vedic Uni, Tirupati, 2009).

Since Devatakanda is in the middle of  विंशतिशलक्षणी , some may style it – मध्यमकाण्ड also .

There are two available commentaries on Samkarsakanda – by Devaswami and by Bhaskararaya.

The later mostly depends on the former  and follows भाट्टचन्द्रिका of Khandadeva .

Any more doubts are welcome.

धन्यो’स्मि

Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

Unquote

Here is another paper, on the contribution of KhaNDadeva to the purvamimamsa disciple:

http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/131796/6/06_chapter%201.pdf

In this paper too the scholar is very clear that the Sankarsha kANDa is not at all about upasana or any particular devata and it is fully about/connected to the karmakANDa alone:

जैमिनीयेषु सूत्रेषु द्वादशाध्यायीं व्याप्नुवन्ति । इयं चैव द्वादशाध्यायी प्राधान्येन व्यवस्थितता. धर्मविचारात्मिका । परन्तु अत ऊर्ध्वमपि अस्ति चतुरध्यायात्मकः शेषः यं सङ्कर्षकाण्ड इत्याचक्षते । अयं च सङ्कर्षकाण्डः देवताकाण्ड इति उपासनाकाण्ड इति, कश्चित् सङ्कर्षणकाण्ड इति च प्रसिद्धात्. देवतोपासनापरतया उद्धियमाणाद्* ग्रन्थाद् अन्यः * । अयं नैव उपासनादेवतासम्बद्धः । अयं. कर्मकाण्डसम्बद्ध एव, जैमिनिना प्रणीतश्च । अस्य च देवस्वामिना प्रणीतं प्रतिसूत्रभाष्यं …]  [underlining by me for highlighting]

Vidwan Sri Mani Dravid Sastrinah too in his paper ‘daivi mimamsa’,   http://www.mediafire.com/file/9i9vok9nj6j21cv/daivamimamsa.pdf   after citing the passages from many sources concludes that the work said to contain the words ‘sa vishnuraaha hi, etc.’ cited by Madhva, Vedantadeshika, etc. is not available today. However, the sutra cited by Shankara in the Brahma sutra bhashya, as from SankarSha, is available in the  ‘Sankarasha’ kANDa that is admitted as the extension of the Purvamimamsa shaastra of 12 chapters, is accessible at present and contains the sutra and the vichara also is the same as cited by Shankara. This work alone is admitted by purvamimamsakas such as Shabara swamin. And that this text is different from the ‘devata kANDa’ stated above is clear to those who have familiarity with the ‘Sankarasha’ kANDa.’: 

‘प्रदानवदेव तदुक्तम्’ (ब्र.सू.3.3.42) इति सूत्रे तदुक्तमिति पदं व्याचक्षाणैः श्रीभाष्यकारैः- ‘यथा इन्द्राय राज्ञे…तदुक्तं संकर्षणे – नाना वा देवतापृथक्त्वात् – इति’ इति सूत्रमुद्धृतम्। (अत्र सांकर्षणे इति, संकर्षे इति पाठान्तरमुपलभ्यते।) अत्र ‘ इन्द्राय राज्ञे ’ इत्याद्युदाहृतवाक्ये कृतो विचारः शांकरभाष्येऽपि निर्दिष्टः इदानीमुपलभ्यमाने पूर्वमीमांसाशेषभूते संकर्षकाण्डे तथैवोपलभ्यते। तदेव संकर्षकाण्डं पूर्वमीमांसकैरपि शबरस्वाम्यादिभिः समादृतम्। तच्च पूर्वोक्तदेवताकाण्डादन्यदेवेति तद्दर्शिनामेव स्पष्टमित्युपरम्यते।

It is also pertinent to note that the Sarva darshana Sangraha of Madhavacharya (Swami Vidyaranya), in its chapter on Jaimini Darshana confines itself to the 12 chapters and does not include or mention the Sankarsha KAnDa of four chapters.

Sri Madhusudana Saraswati, in his commentary to the Mahimnastotram, verse 7, has dealt with the various schools of thought and this particular essay there is available as a separate work called ‘prashthAna bheda’. There, while he mentions succinctly the subject dealt with in each of the 12-chapters of ‘karmamimamsa’ and an even greater detail, running to a full page, about the four-chapter Brahmasutras, by giving the subject matter of each pada of the four chapters, does not give any such detail about the four-chapter sankarsha kaanda (which even the works Sarva Mata Sangraha and Prapancha hridaya give) apart from just saying that it is composed by Jaimini, it is popular by the name devatA kANDa and since it is deliberating on the action called upasana, is an integral part of the karma mimamsa alone.

From this vague remark about the sankarSha kANDa by Madhusudana Saraswati, it appears that he has not examined the work physically.  This we presume from the fact that the sankarsha kANDa is not about upasana at all but only about shrauta karma.

It is also pertinent to note that even the available popular sankarsha kANDa which contains the sutra cited by Shankara (and Ramanuja), has a commentary by Devaswami, (and which is distinct from the supposed, unavailable, text that contains the sutras such as ‘sa viShNuraaha hi..’) is not taught or studied as part of the curriculum for purva mimamsa shastra in the institutions where this discipline is taught.

Thus, going by the various accounts of scholars who have familiarity with the Purva Mimamsa shaastra and its various works, there is no material to conclude that the author of the purva mimamsa shAstra, Jaimini, has ordained Vishnu as the Supreme god or Brahman. Even the work that is spoken of by Advaitins such as the ‘Sarva Mata Sangraha’ and ‘Prapancha hridaya’ as containing four chapters is not the same as the Sankarsha KaNDa that is full of shrouta karma-related discussions alone and not any upasana.

It is also discernible from the various citations that the ‘sa vishnurAha hi, etc.’ is first seen in Madhva’s work and not before.

Hence, there is absolutely no basis for the following claim:

quote:

https://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_3.html

 

  • Is this portion of the saMkarShakANDa that proclaims Vishnu as the parabrahman accepted by all, or only by some schools of Vedanta? It is reported by some indologists that these four sUtras are nowhere to be found in extant editions of the Sankarsha Kanda. What do you say?

 

Ans. This stems from the wrong notion that some of the sources used by Vedantins of certain schools are of “questionable authenticity”. To a true vaidika, such a doubt should not arise as all traditional vedAntins accept it.

For the record anyway, let us answer this. Swami Vedanta Desikan, Madhvacharya, and Jayatirtha have all quoted the four sUtras beginning “ante harau… brahmetyAcakShate”.

The “sarvamata saMgraha” which is the work of a post-Madhva advaitin mentions the following detail about saMkarShakANDa, confirming that the above four sUtras were originally present in the concluding portion of that work:

“evaM madhyamamImAMsA sarvadevatAtmano hareH pratipAdiketi saguNabrahmaparA bhavati”

[Thus, the conclusion of the madhyama-mImAMsA shows that its object is the Saguna Brahman, who is Hari, the antarAtmA of all devatas.]

This again shows that ancient advaitins considered only Vishnu to be Saguna Brahman who is the inner soul of all other deities.


unquote.

Madhusudana Saraswati, in the very verse of the Mahima stotram where his long essay on the different schools of thought is present, at the end says: haripakShe api evam. [What has been stated in this verse as pertaining to Hara, is the same as pertaining to Hari as well] And while introducing the next verse says: एवं सर्वशङ्कोद्धारेण हरिहरस्वरूपं निरूप्य….[Having thus presented the true nature of Hari and Har by settling all doubts…] At the end of the work he says:

भूतिभूषितदेहाय द्विजराजेन राजते |

एकात्मने नमो नित्यं हरये च हराय च ||

Obeisance ever to Him, who is resplendent with His body adorned with vibhūti, ashes, and is of the complexion of camphor (or having the moon on His head), the One Atman that is both Hara and Hari.

हररशंकरयोरभेदबोधो भविु क्षुद्रधियामपीति यत्नात् |

उभयार्थतया  मयेदमुक्तं सुधियः साधुतयैव  शोधयन्तु ॥ १

 [With the benediction that the understanding of non-difference between Hari and Shankara may rise even in those with a lowly intellect have I, with effort, commented on the Shivamanhima stotra verses in dual-meaning mode (as applying to Hari and Hara). Let the noble ones accept this as admissible alone.]

All advaitins right from Gaudapada onwards to the present day have been Hari-Hara abheda, Trimurti-aikya Vaadins. There is no room for them to impose on their followers Vishnu ‘alone’ as saguna brahman, even though there have been Acharyas whose ishTa devatA has been Vishnu, Narasimha, Rama and Krishna.  That did not make them bigots.

See also:  https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/would-madhusudana-saraswati-ever-mean-this/

Eminent scholar of VishishTAdvaita, Vidwan Sri K.E.Devanthan who is almost always a part of the discussions involving the three schools,   http://www.svvedicuniversity.ac.in/press/vccharge.php  was in Bangalore a few months ago delivering a talk at the Purna prajna Vidya peetha ( a Madhva institution).  While addressing the gathering, where I was present, he turned to the scholars of Dvaita seated in the front row and said ‘You and we accept the ‘sa vishnuraaha hi..’ which the Advaitins do not accept’.

Om Tat Sat


Responses

  1. Many thanks for this interesting contribution. Are you also claiming that “It is also discernible from the various citations that the ‘sa vishnurAha hi, etc.’ is first seen in Madhva’s work and not before”? If so, you might be interested to know that the same quote is found also in Śrī Vedānta Deśika’s Śatadūṣaṇī 3.

    (I quoted and discussed the passage in an article on the topic of the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa within “Adaptive Reuse” (ed. E. Freschi and Ph. Maas) which is available open access, for instance from my page on Academia.edu)

    • Thanks for your response and comment on the topic. Regarding your question, I wish to say that Sri Vedanta Desika is later in time than Madhva. Therefore the thinking now prevailing that the citation is first seen in Madhva’s work, stays. In case you have any other source for that quote, kindly share the same with me. I shall peruse your paper from that source, if that is accessible for me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: