Nai Rskarmyasiddha Analysis
Śrī Surēśvarācārya shines like an ever glittering star in the horizon of Advaita philosophy with his insight. Śrī Surēśvarācārya, the author of the work Naiṣkarmyasiddhi, was a direct disciple of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya. He has made a specific note of it in the book and reveals that spiritual illumination was gifted to him by this great Guru.
It is found, on an in-depth scruitiny of Surēśvara’s stance that he differs from Maṇḍana Miśra with whom he is identified with traditionally and also his Guru Śaṅkarācārya. Maṇḍana’s view point on ontology is developed to a fuller extent. He tries to find similarities between Bhāvādvaita and the pure form of Advaita where he differs from Śaṅkarācārya, his Guru. Avidyā is Avicāritasiddha and not Anirvacanīya …show more content…
It is a much shorter work compared to the other major works of the author. It is authored partly in verse and partly in prose. The verses, by themselves, state a complete account of Advaita in a clear, brief, and simple manner. The style in which it is written is quite enchanting and Surēśvara successfully depicts the philosophical view points in his inimitable fluid manner. The prose portion is not to be overlooked as superfluous. The prose portion is known as Sambandhōkti. Sambandhōkti is employed by Surēśvara for various purposes. Introducing a problem for discussion, formulating an introduction to the verse or verses following it, explaining the relation between the verses, stating an objection of the opponent and the reply, summarizing the points at a particular stage for the purpose of recapitulation etc are all included in his intentions. The prose portions help in understanding the doctrines and arguments with ease. There are 100 verses in chapter 1, 119 verses in chapter 2, 126 verses in chapter 3, and 78 verses in chapter 4 making a total of 423 stanzas. Getting free of constraints of originals the author develops his position in accordance with the logical sequence of his argument. He found a lot of scope for concentrated thought of philosophy and …show more content…
He quickly describes the main content of the work, which is liberation from transmigratory existence and the means of attaining it. He states with clarity that Avidyā, ie. ignorance of the Self is the cause of bondage. The only means of removing it, is the knowledge regarding the Self available in Śruti texts similar to “Tat twam asi”. This being the subject, the first chapter is almost fully devoted to the discussion about Karma and Jñāna. Surēśvara analyses doctrines in detail and with clarity the views of Bhatta and Prabhākara which hold the opinion that liberation can be attained by Karma alone and finally disapproves them. He also analyses the doctrines of Brahmadatta and Maṇḍana Miśra who raise their view that Bhāvana is a must for the attainment of Aparōkṣa- Jñāna along with carrying out of Karma and meditation and finally refutes them. Then he examines the validity of Jñāna-Karma-samuccaya in connection with Bhēdābhēda of Bhartr̥prapañca and rejects it after careful scruitiny. He leads the reader back to the prime point of discussion the chapter was commenced with and asserts by way of conclusion of this chapter that liberation can be achieved by one and all through knowledge alone and certainly not by “the deeds of speech, mind and body”.1 Naiṣkarmyasiddhi. I. Sambandhōkti. In the mean time, Surēśvara is quick to point out that Karma performed in mentality of total
It is found, on an in-depth scruitiny of Surēśvara’s stance that he differs from Maṇḍana Miśra with whom he is identified with traditionally and also his Guru Śaṅkarācārya. Maṇḍana’s view point on ontology is developed to a fuller extent. He tries to find similarities between Bhāvādvaita and the pure form of Advaita where he differs from Śaṅkarācārya, his Guru. Avidyā is Avicāritasiddha and not Anirvacanīya …show more content…
It is a much shorter work compared to the other major works of the author. It is authored partly in verse and partly in prose. The verses, by themselves, state a complete account of Advaita in a clear, brief, and simple manner. The style in which it is written is quite enchanting and Surēśvara successfully depicts the philosophical view points in his inimitable fluid manner. The prose portion is not to be overlooked as superfluous. The prose portion is known as Sambandhōkti. Sambandhōkti is employed by Surēśvara for various purposes. Introducing a problem for discussion, formulating an introduction to the verse or verses following it, explaining the relation between the verses, stating an objection of the opponent and the reply, summarizing the points at a particular stage for the purpose of recapitulation etc are all included in his intentions. The prose portions help in understanding the doctrines and arguments with ease. There are 100 verses in chapter 1, 119 verses in chapter 2, 126 verses in chapter 3, and 78 verses in chapter 4 making a total of 423 stanzas. Getting free of constraints of originals the author develops his position in accordance with the logical sequence of his argument. He found a lot of scope for concentrated thought of philosophy and …show more content…
He quickly describes the main content of the work, which is liberation from transmigratory existence and the means of attaining it. He states with clarity that Avidyā, ie. ignorance of the Self is the cause of bondage. The only means of removing it, is the knowledge regarding the Self available in Śruti texts similar to “Tat twam asi”. This being the subject, the first chapter is almost fully devoted to the discussion about Karma and Jñāna. Surēśvara analyses doctrines in detail and with clarity the views of Bhatta and Prabhākara which hold the opinion that liberation can be attained by Karma alone and finally disapproves them. He also analyses the doctrines of Brahmadatta and Maṇḍana Miśra who raise their view that Bhāvana is a must for the attainment of Aparōkṣa- Jñāna along with carrying out of Karma and meditation and finally refutes them. Then he examines the validity of Jñāna-Karma-samuccaya in connection with Bhēdābhēda of Bhartr̥prapañca and rejects it after careful scruitiny. He leads the reader back to the prime point of discussion the chapter was commenced with and asserts by way of conclusion of this chapter that liberation can be achieved by one and all through knowledge alone and certainly not by “the deeds of speech, mind and body”.1 Naiṣkarmyasiddhi. I. Sambandhōkti. In the mean time, Surēśvara is quick to point out that Karma performed in mentality of total