If I recall correctly, it is in the Tarkajvāla commentary, not the kārikā. You can check O. Qvarnstrom’s translation. If not there, then my memory is fooling me. M
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 13:06, Uskokov, Aleksandar <[[email protected]](mailto:On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 13:06, Uskokov, Aleksandar <<a href=)> wrote: > Dear Matthew, > > I don't find it in the Vedānta chapter of the Madhyamaka-hṛdaya-kārikā. It > would be quite important if it does appear anywhere before, say, the > Tattva-saṅgraha, since the formula, not just the list of qualities—think of > the difference between the qualities of Brahman listed in the Taittirīya vs. > the sac-cid-ānanda formula—is one of the hallmarks of Śaṅkara's Vedānta that > his followers customarily use to refer to the pure (rather than the causal) > Brahman. > > Yours, > Aleksandar > > Aleksandar Uskokov > > Senior Lector and Associate Research Scholar > > South Asian Studies Council & Department of Religious Studies, Yale University > > DUS, South Asian Studies > > [The Philosophy of the Brahma-sutra: An > Introduction](https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Brahma-sutra-Introduction-Introductions-Philosophies/dp/1350150002/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=) > > Office Hours Sign-up: https://calendly.com/aleksandar-uskokov > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: INDOLOGY <[email protected]> on behalf of Matthew > Kapstein via INDOLOGY <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 5:32 AM > To: Walter Slaje <[email protected]> > Cc: Indology List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Mokṣopāya completed > > Dear all, > > If memory serves me well, the qualities of Brahman enumerated in the citation > of Jayanta are given in pre-Śankara Buddhist authors, notably Bhāviveka, in > doxographic treatments of Vedānta. > > And I know of no classical Indian Buddhist references to Śankara from any > period at all. > > best, > Matthew > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 08:56, Walter Slaje via INDOLOGY < > [[email protected]](mailto:On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 08:56, Walter > Slaje via INDOLOGY <<a href=)> wrote: > >> [Attached is an article on the issue of Bhāskara's provenance: >> Kato, Takahiro, A Note on the Kashmirian Recension of the Bhagavadgītā, in: >> Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 62.3, 2014, pp. 1144-1150. ] >> >> All the best, >> WS >> >> Am Fr., 22. Aug. 2025 um 07:27 Uhr schrieb Walter Slaje < >> [email protected]>: >> >>> Dear Alex and John, >>> >>>> Food for thought >>> >>> You said it! >>> >>> On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that even if Śaṅkara's teachings >>> were known to a few authors in Kashmir at that time, he cannot have played >>> a significant role, since one has to search for him with a magnifying glass >>> in authentic Kashmiri texts, as can be seen from the two important papers >>> sent by John and Alex. Otherwise, the question of Śaṅkara's intellectual >>> presence in Kashmir would not have arisen. Therefore, Śaṅkara was either >>> barely known or more or less ignored. >>> >>> However, if we assume that Bhāskara (the author of the Śārīrakamīmāṃsā- and >>> Bhagavadgītābhāṣyas) actually came from Kashmir — for what other reason >>> would he have known and quoted the Bhagavadgītā almost exclusively in its >>> Kashmiri recension? — then this would suggest at least one detailed >>> critical engagement with Śaṅkara in Kashmir. (On a less serious note, was >>> he unable to recover from Bhāskara's final blow in Kashmir?) >>> >>> More food for thought? >>> >>> Yours, >>> Walter >>> >>> Am Fr., 22. Aug. 2025 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Alex Watson >>> <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Dear All >>>> >>>> 1. I have written something about the kind of Vedānta known to Sadyojyotis >>>> (675–725 CE) and Rāmakaṇṭha (950–1000 CE): see pp. 23–27 of the attachment. >>>> >>>> 2. The footnote by Sanderson on this topic, cited many times since he >>>> wrote it in the first half of the 1980s (e.g. in the article by Andrea >>>> Acri shared by John Nemec) reads: >>>> “When Vedānta is expounded by its opponents in Kashmirian sources of our >>>> period it is the doctrine of Maṇḍanamiśra which is generally in mind >>>> [...]. To my knowledge no source betrays familiarity with the doctrines of >>>> Śaṅkara.” >>>> To support the contention that Kashmirian sources draw on Maṇḍanamiśra >>>> rather than Śaṅkara to compose their Vedānta-pūrvapakṣas, he lists >>>> passages in the Paramokṣanirāsakārikā, the Nyāyamañjarī and the >>>> Tantrālokaviveka. The inclusion there of Jayaratha's Tantrālokaviveka >>>> implies that at the time of writing the footnote he had found no trace of >>>> Śaṅkara in that text. But if my memory serves me correctly, he did >>>> subsequently find it in that text of Jayaratha. That would date the >>>> earliest definite knowledge of Śaṅkara in Kashmir to the beginning of the >>>> 13th century. >>>> >>>> 3. Elliot Stern once sent me the following possible piece of evidence for >>>> familiarity with Śaṅkara in Jayanta's Nyāyamañjarī (c. 890 CE): >>>> >>>> Nyāyamañjarī (Mysore ed. p. 466.2-3): >>>> nanu yady ekam eva brahma na dvitīyaṃ kiñcid asti, tarhi tad brahma >>>> nityaśuddhabuddhasvabhāvatvāt muktam evāste. >>>> >>>> Śaṅkara’s Brahmasūtrabhāṣyam (NSP 1938 edition, 2.3.40: p. 616.7): >>>> api ca nityaśuddhabuddhamuktātmaprati pādanān mokṣasiddhir abhimatā. >>>> >>>> (1.1.4: p. 113.1): nityaśuddhabuddhamuktasvabhāva ḥ >>>> >>>> Śaṅkara uses nityaśuddhabuddhamukta and similar expressions several times >>>> in this work. Nothing like it appears in Brahmasiddhiḥ or Gaudapāda’s >>>> kārikāḥ. >>>> >>>> This is of course not conclusive, for Jayanta could be drawing on a third >>>> source. >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> Alex >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Alex Watson >>>> Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Indian Philosophy >>>> Professor of Indian Philosophy, Ashoka University >>>> >>>> https://ashokauniversity.academia.edu/AlexWatson >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 7:20 PM Nemec, John William (jwn3y) via INDOLOGY >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Harry, Walter, and All, >>>>> >>>>> Andrea Acri has written about this, and I have downloaded the relevant >>>>> article from his [academia.edu](http://academia.edu/) page and attach it >>>>> here. >>>>> >>>>> See p. 578 environ, and Andrea may be right that I (and several others) >>>>> might be wrong about whether Śaṅkara was known in the Valley around this >>>>> time. >>>>> >>>>> Food for thought. >>>>> >>>>> As Ever, >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________ _____________ >>>>> John Nemec, Ph.D. >>>>> Professor of Indian Religions and South Asian Studies >>>>> Department of Religious Studies >>>>> 323 Gibson Hall, 1540 Jefferson Park Avenue >>>>> University of Virginia >>>>> Charlottesville, VA 22904 >>>>> +1 (434) 924-6716 >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://virginia.academia.edu/JNemec >>>>> >>>>> Take a look at my new book: >>>>> https://global.oup.com/academic/product/brahmins-and-kings-9780197791998?cc=us&lang=en&; >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> From: INDOLOGY <[email protected]> on behalf of Walter >>>>> Slaje via INDOLOGY <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 1:12 PM >>>>> To: Harry Spier <[email protected]> >>>>> Cc: Indology <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Mokṣopāya completed >>>>> >>>>> Dear Harry, >>>>> >>>>>> Was the existence of Śaṅkarācārya and/or his writings known in 10th >>>>>> century Kashmir? >>>>> >>>>> To my knowledge, Śaṅkara played no role in Kashmir at that time. >>>>> Maṇḍanamiśra was seen as the representative of Advaita Vedānta. >>>>> Significantly, the Mokṣopāya addresses and quotes Maṇḍana's theory of >>>>> error (khyāti [Vibhramaviveka]) in Mokṣopāya VI.325.1–10 (the current >>>>> volume), adopting "Vasiṣṭha's" inclusivistic approach by redefining the >>>>> ātmakhyāti of the Yogācāra school in his own terms. As so often, he tells >>>>> a parable to illustrate his point (śilopākhyāna, VI.32511–40). >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Walter >>>>> >>>>> Am Do., 21. Aug. 2025 um 15:59 Uhr schrieb Harry Spier >>>>> <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Walter, >>>>>> >>>>>> My congratulations also on this impressive accomplishment. >>>>>> >>>>>> You wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Contrary to a still-prevailing misconception, the 10th-century >>>>>>> Mokṣopāya from Kashmir has nothing at all to do with Śaṅkara's >>>>>>> Advaitavedānta . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> Was the existence of Śaṅkarācārya and/or his writings known in 10th >>>>>> century Kashmir? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Harry Spier >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________ _________________ >>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] >>>>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >>>> >>>> https://ashokauniversity.academia.edu/AlexWatson >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Confidentiality Notice: This email and any attachments may contain >>>> confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended >>>> recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then >>>> delete the email and any attachments permanently. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
