In the article published by the Tirumala vaibhavam on Sri.Ramanujacharya,it is said,Sri.Shankara interpreted the statement from Chandogyopanishath,"Kapyasampundarikamevakshini",as "The two eyes of that Supremebeing are like lotuses resembling the buttocks of a monkey(kapyasam)".
This is wrong.First of all this interpretation is not by SriShankara,but by the vrttikara on Chandogyopanishath,Acharya Brahmanandin,or Acharya Tanka,who has witten a vrtti on Chandogyopanishath.In his vrtti,Brahmanandin has given "six"interpretations on this statement.
The actual statement from the Chandogyopanishath is as follows:
"Tasya yatha kapyasam pundarikamevashini tasyoditi nama sa esbha sarvebhyaha papmabhyaha udita udeti havai sarvebhya papmabhyo ya evam veda".
The Bhasya of Sri.Shankara is as follows:
"Tasya evam sarvatah suvarnavarnasyapi akshovisheshaha.Katham?Tasya yatha kapeh markatasya aasaha kapyasaha.Aaserupaveshanarthasya karane ghang.Kapi prstantantaha yena upavishati.Kapyasa iva pundarikam atyantatejasvi evam asya devasya akshini.Upamitoupamanatvat na hiinopama.Tasya evam gunavishishtasya gaunamidam nama ut iti.Katham gaunatvam?Sa esha devah sarvebhyaha papmabhyaha papmana saha tatkaryebhyah ityarthaha."Ya Atmaapahatapapma"(8-7-1)ityadi vakshati."
From the above,it is clear that Sri.Shankara has not used a "Neechopama"(an inferior simile.He explains,"Upamitopmanatvat na hiinopama",which means ,this simile is used just for comparision of one upamana to another,and not for direct comparision.
N.Srikanta.
Hi
ReplyDeleteYou mention
'In his vrtti,Brahmanandin has given "six"interpretations on this statement.'
This is really new & interesting to me. Could you specify the source which mentions that there are 6 interpretations and also the other 5 interpretations?
Regards
Naresh
This is mentioned in the Sribhashya translated by
ReplyDeleteProf.n.S.Anantharangachar,an Vishitadvaitha scholar.
N.Srikanta.
Thanks for posting this. One thing to have in mind here is that, the intent is to show a red lotus as a simile to the Lord's eyes. kapyAsam pundariKam referes to a red lotus. If we go out interpreting kam as jalam etc.. we miss the point about the redness.
ReplyDeleteSome scholars have also suggested that kapyAsam is a rUdi shabdha for the color red. For ex. If we say 'He nailed it' - it does not mean he literally punched a nail in to someone, it means he did/said the exact thing that was necessary.
I think there is a way to present redness and not in something which can be ridiculous. Redness of monkey's anus can bring in more comparison of something sent out as waste by system, unpleasant smell for humans only (who alone are comprehending the verses and not animals) while comparison with lotus, not only shows redness but also the subtle fragrance, gentleness and happiness. Don't think humans will find acceptable with this definition of monkey's anus when describing something considered superior.
Delete// vrttikara on Chandogyopanishath,Acharya Brahmanandin,or Acharya Tanka//
ReplyDeleteSir these lines are not clear. Can you explain little bit.