चन्द्रिकामण्डनम्: Chandrikamandana Chandrika Khandana and Chandrikaprakasa

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

This volume contains three treatises namely: (i) Chandrikamandana of Sri datyadhyana tirtha. Head of Uttaradi Matha (ii) Chandrika Khandana of Pt. Ramasubba Shastry and (iii) Chandrikaprakasa Prasara of Gowdagiri Venktaramana Charya. These three works deal with Tatparya Candrika of Sri Vyasa tirtha. In Tatparyachandrika, Sri Vyasa tirtha has criticized Advaita interpretations of Brahmasutras all along. This was not contested by any Advaita scholar directly earlier Pt. Ramasubba Shastry has made an attempt to justify the Advaita interpretation. He has also tried to point out some drawbacks in Dvaita interpretations. His work was published in 1924. His justification and criticism are shown to be baseless in Chandrika Mandana. This work is arranged in question and answer form, which is a typical style of Sri Satyadhyana tirtha. His style is lucid direct and simple.

Another great scholar of Dvaita tradition, Sri Gowdagiri Venkataramana Charya has also critically reviewed Pt. Ramasubba Shastry’s justification of Advaita interpretations and the criticism of Dvaita interpretation. These three treatises are very helpful to known the position of Tatparyachandrika on these issues. In view of this these are printed together in this volume.

Vidwan Krishnacharya Upadhyaya has assisted me in preparing this edition. I record my appreciation of his help.

Tatparya Chandrika of Sri Vyasatirtha is a major work of Dvaita Vedanta. It is a detailed commentary on Tattvaprakasika of Sri Jayatirtha which is a commentary on Brahmasutra bhasya of Sri Anandatirtha, more popularly known as Sri Madhvacharya. Brahmasutras form the central text of Vedanta philosophy. The Vedanta doctrines enshrined in Veda, Upanisads, Pancharatra and Itihasa Purana are codified and logically explained. It is presented in sutra and adhikarana forms with the arrangement of purvapaksa and siddhanta. The passages from Veda and Upanisads are taken as Visayavakyas i.e. the statements of themes, and interpreted. This involves a two level presentation viz. i) Interpretation of the Visayavakyas ii) Logically consistant presentation of the theme.

A vast Vedanta literature has developed on the basis of these sutras in the form of bhasya, commentaries on bhasya, sub-commentaries on these and independent polemical works i.e. Vadagranthas. Different schools of Vedanta have taken shape. Among these, Advaita Visistadvaita and Dvaita of Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva are prominent. Very distinguished scholars have written commentaries on the bhasya of the three founders of the schools. Vachaspati Misra, Vedanta Desika and Jayatirtha are the leading commentators of the three schools respectively. These commentaries are not .merely explanatory. These are polemical works. These review the works of each other in respect of the interpretation of Upanisad passages referred by brahmasutras and the doctrines developed. This has resulted in rich contribution to the science of interpretation and epistemology. It has also resulted in different world views based on deep investigation into the very nature of thought structure and the nature of the world structure brought into the field of thought structure. The debate carried on in these great commentaries is not a controversy of vested interest in this or that school of Vedanta but a serious effort to know the mind and the matter deeply.

There is an important difference between the systems like Nyaya, Samkhya, and Vedanta. While Nyaya and Samkhya develop their world view purly by logical analysis the Vedanta develops it through interpretation of the scripture. It means that they do not depend upon only contemporary minds and their limited logic but they take into account the reflections of the gr.eat minds of previous generations of even remote past. The debate on the interpretation of the Upanisadic passages is an attempt to know the reflections of the minds of earlier generations. The debate on the interpretation of Upanisad passages is not text torturing in favour of this or that school but a deeper investigation into the very relation between the languages and thought in different contexts. These debates on interpretation not only apply the canons of interpretation to unearth the thought but also examine the language used in different places in the same text and in the allied texts. By bringing about a harmony among these texts they arrive at the exact nature of the concepts, doctrines and the theme. The logical consistency, of course, is taken care of both linguistically and psychologically. It is a fascinating study to go through these debates on the interpretation of upanisadic passages and get an insight into upanisadic thought.

Tatparya Chandrika of Sri Vyasatirtha has made rich contribution both in respect of the interpretation of upanisadic passages and the logical chiseling of the Vedanta doctrines, concepts and themes. Its contribution is two fold:

i) Within the tradition of Dvaita works the observations made in the four works of Sri Madhvacharya on brahmasutras, the works of Trivikramapandita, Padmanabhatirtha and Jayatirtha are brought together ‘and the theme of each adhikarana is given a consolidated shape.

ii) The interpretation offered to upanisadic passages by the commentators on Sankara bhasya viz Bhamati and Vivarana are reviewed and their formulation of purvapaksa and siddhanta is examined. The interpretation offered by Ramanuja bhasya and srutaprakasika is also reviewed.

In the presentation of Dvaita view as well as the views of advaita and visistadvaita, Chandrika profusely utilises purvamimansa nyayas, A careful study of the utilisation of these nyayas will convince the importance of vakya sastra for the understanding the upanisadic thought.

In a way Chandrika is an interdisciplinary study of the three schools of Vedanta developing rich thought on linguistics. epistemologyand the science of interpretation.

Recently Pandit Ramasubbashastri wrote a criticism of “Tatparyachandrika” of Vyasatirtha, under the title “Chandrika Khandanam,” a strong reply to this criticism was written by Sri Satyadhyana tirtha of Uttaradi Math under the title “Chandrika Mandanam.” Another great scholar of Dvaita Vedanta tradition. Gowdagiri Venkataramanacharya has also written a reply to it under the title “Chandrika Prakasa Prasara.” Chandrika Prakasa is the title of Sri Raghavendra tirtha’s commentary on Tatparya Chandrika of Sri Vyasa tirtha. Sri Raghavendra tirtha had already answered the objections recently raised anticipating the same much earlier. Gowdagiri Sri Venkataramanacharya makes Sri Raghavendra tirthas answers more explicit. To bring out this fact he has given the title “Chandrika Prakasa Prasara” to this recent work. A brief summary of these three works namely “Chandrika Mandana,” “Chandrika Khandana” and “Chandrika Prakasa Prasara” is given below.

Under each Adhikarana of Brahmasutrabhasya and Tatvaprakaslka, the interpretation of Advaita commentators like Bhamati and Vivarana are examined in detail and criticised. For a long time there was no reply to these criticisms from Advaita side in the form of direct reply. In the works like Laghuchandrika and Guruchandrika, the advaita position was defended. However one Pandit Rama Subba Shastry wrote a work designated as Tatparya Chandria Khandana. He not only tried to defend advaita interpretation but also criticised dvaita interpretation. This work was published in 1924. There was immediate reaction from two distinguished Dvaita scholars viz., Sri Satyadhyatirtha, Head of the Uttaradi Matha and Goudageri Venkataramanacharya. Sri Satyadhyana tirtha’s work is designated as Chandrika Mandanam and Sri Goudageri Venkataramanacharya’s work is designated as Chandrika Prakasa Prasara. Chandrika Prakasa is a name of the commentary by Sri Raghavendra tirtha on Tatparya Chandrika of Sri Vyasatirtha. The word Prasara means extension. It implies that for the objections raised by Rama Subba Shastry were already envisaged and replied by Sri Raghavendra tlrtha in his commentary. Chandrika Prakasa and these are further clarified in this Prasara, the extension of that commentary.

Both these works cover the first pada of the first chapter of Tatparya Chandrika Sri Satyadhyanatirtha neatly arranges the points to be made in his Chandrika Mandana. First he quotes the text of the Chandrika in which some objection is raised against advaita position. Then he gives the defence of it stated by Rama Sul.ba Shastry. Finally he rejects the justification given by Rama Subba Shastry.

Similarly he quotes the Chandrika text which is criticised by Rama Subba Shastry, then he gives the criticism of it by Rama Subba Shastry and finally he refutes Rama Subba Shastry’s contention. In this way, the entire matter is presented in a clear and simple way. It is well known that Sri Satyadhyana tirtha’s thoughts are profound and his presentation is simple and clear.

This is found in his lectures on Bhagavadgita which were appreciated by the great scholar Lokamanya Tilak.

Sri Rama Subba Shastry also mentions certain Purvamimamsa points stated in Tatvaprakasika and Tatparya Chandrika, and claims that the Dvaita scholars have .not correctly understood the Mimamsa position. For instance, in the adhikarana Swaminah phalasruteh, it is stated that the rithviks who are not Yajamana will also get the Phala. But the Purvamimamsa position is in Satrayaga rithviks are also Yajamanas. This position is misunderstood by Madhva commentators. Sri Satyadhyana tirtha replies to this point that the expression Ayajamana excludes only Grihapati but not rithviks. Therefore, there is no misunderstanding.

Another example is it is stated that Dvadashaha Yaga is Ubhayavidha i.e. it is both Kratu and Satra. But, the actual position is Dvadashaha is not Kratu. It is only Satra. This is misunderstood by Madhva commentators. This criticism is also not correct here ahina which is a part of Dvadashaha is Krtu. In this way, it is pointed out that the so called misunderstandings of Purvamimamsa positions are the misunderstandings of Sri Rama Subba Shastry, but not of Dvaita commentators. A reading of Chandrika Mandana not only gives the correct knowledge of Tatparya Chandrika but enriches our knowledge of Vedanta and Mimamsa.

The next work Chandrika Prakasa Prasara does not arrange the topics as in Chandrika Mandana but presents them in a running way. Its style is very scholastic and the arguments are very strong. This work contributes to the understanding of Tatparya Chandrika in a different ‘way and criticises Rama Subba Shastry’s contention firmly with very strong arguments.

These two works are critically edited and published in this volume.