Asian Philosophy

śvarapratipattiprak śa 1. 問題の所在 アドヴァイタ(Advaita, 不二一元論)学派は，イ ンドの哲学学派である五ヴェーダーンタ伝統学派 (1) の中で最も成立の早いものである．この学派は， ウパニシャッド等の天啓聖典(śruti)に基づき梵我 一如を自力で悟ることによって解脱を得ることを最 高の目的としている．そのため，解脱を得るために 人格的な主神(主宰神，īśvara)を信仰する必要が ない．また，解脱という観点から言えば主宰神の果 たす意義は重要ではない．そのため，伝統的にアド ヴァイタ教学の中に主宰神の意義が積極的に位置づ けられることはなかった． しかし，本稿で取り上げる 16 世紀のアドヴァイ タ論者であるマドゥスーダナ・サラスヴァティー (Madhusūdana Sarasvatī)の時代は，ヒンドゥー教 二大教派の主神であるシヴァ神やヴィシュヌ神に対 する信仰運動が盛んであり，二大神信仰をそれぞれ 哲学的に体系づけた哲学諸派が勢力を拡大していた (2) ．そのような状況の下，元来主宰神を必要としな かったアドヴァイタ学派も，その教学の中に主宰神 信仰を受け入れ，次第に有神論化していった．そし て，その際に重要な役割を果たしたのがマドゥスー ダナである．マドゥスーダナはその著作の中で，彼 の時代に様々に説かれていた神概念を，アドヴァイ タ教学の中に体系的に吸収することによって整理し Ī ś varapratipattiprakā ś a における 諸主宰神論の統合方法の解明 眞 鍋 智 裕 Abstract The Advaita school, one of the philosophical schools of India, aims to be liberated from transmigration through realization of brahmātmaikyatva on the basis of the Upaniṣads . Therefore in this doctrine, belief in a supreme god as a personal savior is not significant and traditionally was not put forward as a major thesis. However, with the historical background of the establishment of Islamic dynasties in India, the philosophical schools centered their beliefs in Lord Viṣṇu or Lord Śiva who rose one after another and flourished after the 12th century. Thus, the Advaita school took issue with those new schools while adopting their beliefs in a personal deity into its own system and integrating itself with them. A person who played an important role in integrating the Advaita doctrine with belief in a personal deity was Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, who wrote splendid works in 16th century. This paper addresses his view of a supreme god, treated in his work Īśvarapratipattiprakāśa (ĪPP). In ĪPP, Madhusūdana presents his unique supreme god theory by giving a reinterpretation of the supreme god theory of the Pāñcarātrika, one of the Vaiṣṇ ava schools, by attaching authority to its theory by the Advaita doctrine. Moreover, supreme god theories of other Vaiṣṇava schools and Śaiva schools are integrated into ĪPP. This paper determines the nature of and the process by which Madhusūdana developed his supreme god theory and thereby how he integrated the supreme god theories of theistic schools.

The Advaita (Vedānta) School aims at being liberated from transmigration by the realization (sākṣātkāra) of brahman's identity, the underlying principle of the universe, and ātman, that of individuals. Accomplished when the realization occurrs, this kind of liberation is called immediate liberation (*sākṣātmukti). Conversely, the Advaita School approves the gradual liberation theory (kramamukti) that attains a state of liberation gradually. Śaṅkara (ca.-756-772-), a founder of the Advaita School, studied the theory of gradual liberation in his works. Subsequently, the theory of gradual liberation has seldom risen above the arguments in Advaita literature. However , we can discover a certain amount of discussion regarding gradual liberation theory in the works of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī that flourished around 16 C.E. In this paper, I will present an example of what gradual liberation theory was in the later Advaita School by considering Madhusūdana's works.

The vyūha theory is a distinctive doctrine of the Pāñcarātrika, one of the Vaiṣṇava schools in India. Advaita scholars had criticized this vyūha theory since Śaṅkara (ca. -756-772-), the founder of the Advaita school. Madhusūdana Sarasvatī (16th century) followed Śaṅkara in this regard and criticized the Vyūha theory of the Pāñcarātrika. It should be noted, however, that he also adapted Pāñcarātorika's Vyūha theory and set forth a new version of the vyūha theory conforming to the Advaita tradition's ātmāvasthācatuṣṭaya theory. In the history of Advaita, there were variations of the ātmāvasthācatuṣṭaya theory. In this presentation, I attempt to specify the type of the ātmāvasthācatuṣṭaya theory that was referred to in the formation of the Advaitia version of the vyūha theory.

As Madhusūdana Sarasvatī (ca. 16th cent.) was both a scholar of the Advaita Vedānta school and a believer of Viṣṇu, he tried to integrate the Vaiṣṇava teachings with Advaita doctrine. In his Paramahaṃsapriyā (PP), he grounds the vyūha theory of the Pāñcarātrika, one of the Vaiṣṇava schools, in Advaita doctrine. Furthermore, from among the four forms of Viṣṇu 1) taught in the vyūha theory, he assigns Vāsudeva to brahman and Saṃkarṣaṇa to īśvara, that is conditioned brahman. 2) On the other hand, in both the PP and his Bhagavadgītāgūḍhārthadīpikā (BhGGAD), a commentary on the Bhagavadgītā (BhG), 3) Madhusūdana also states that Kṛṣṇa is an avatāra (reincarnation) of Vāsudeva and identifies Kṛṣṇa with īśvara. Here the following problem arises: As it is said that both Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa are transformations of Vāsudeva and īśvara, are they to be understood as the same deity or are there differences between them? In this paper, I clarify their relationship through a consideration of Madhusūdana's interpretation of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa. Before considering Madhusūdana's interpretation of Saṃkarṣaṇa and Kṛṣṇa itself, it is necessary to first ascertain what kind of existence īśvara represents in Madhusūdana's Advaita doctrine. According to his Siddhāntabindu (SB), his interpretation of īśvara is comprised of the following three elements: 4) (1) the basic definition of īśvara: Īśvara is the ātman (i.e., caitanya or brahman) conditioned by ajñāna (i.e., avidyā or māyā), 5) which in turn consists of three properties (i.e., sattva, rajas, and tamas); 6) (2) the trimūrtivāda: Īśvara takes the three different forms of Viṣṇu, Brahmā, and Śiva in accordance with the three different properties of ajñāna; 7) (3) the avatāravāda: Apart from the three forms

The Advaita school, one of the philosophical schools of India, aims to be liberated from transmigration through realization of brahmātmaikyatva on the basis of the Upaniṣads. Therefore in this doctrine, belief in a supreme god as a personal savior is not significant and traditionally was not put forward as a major thesis. However, with the historical background of the establishment of Islamic dynasties in India, the philosophical schools centered their beliefs in Lord Viṣṇu or Lord Śiva who rose one after another and flourished after the 12th century. Thus, the Advaita school took issue with those new schools while adopting their beliefs in a personal deity into its own system and integrating itself with them. A person who played an important role in integrating the Advaita doctrine with belief in a personal deity was Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, who wrote splendid works in 16th century. This paper addresses his view of a supreme god, treated in his work Īśvarapratipattiprakāśa (ĪPP). In ĪPP, Madhusūdana presents his unique supreme god theory by giving a reinterpretation of the supreme god theory of the Pāñcarātrika, one of the Vaiṣṇ ava schools, by attaching authority to its theory by the Advaita doctrine. Moreover, supreme god theories of other Vaiṣṇava schools and Śaiva schools are integrated into ĪPP. This paper determines the nature of and the process by which Madhusūdana developed his supreme god theory and thereby how he integrated the supreme god theories of theistic schools.

is two practices (i.e., knowledge (prajñ) and means (up ya)). Therefore, in the PBhU we can regard 1) meditation on bodhicitta or 2) knowledge and means as the cause of attainment of the final stage. How, then, does he associate these two ideas? Jñ nak rti defines prasth nacitta as the mental foundation for practitioners who strive to collect supplies (sa bh ra) such as giving (d n di) for entering into practice (pratipatti). This definition is based on Kamala la's definition. In Jñ nak rti's definition, the important point is that sa bh ra is defined as d n di, which are connected with up ya. Therefore, we can consider that prasth nacitta is connected with up ya. And Jñ nak rti regards prajñ as the cause for ascertaining the right state of up ya. Jñ nak rti's definition of prasth nacitta was based on Kamala la's definition. In Jñ nak rti's understanding, sa bh ra is limited to that which is relevant to up ya. From this point, we can understand that prasth nacitta is connected with up ya in Jñ nak rti's PBhU. This understanding is not found in Kamala la's BhKr I. The Demonstration of Cognition as Being Self-luminous by r har a MANABE Tomohiro r har a (ca. 12 th) argued that Brahman is self-luminous (svaprak a) in the Kha anakha akh dya (Kh), which he wrote from the position of the Advaita Ved nta. In this case, he proved that Brahman is self-luminous by proving that cognition (vijñ na), which is the nature of Brahman, is self-luminous. In the Kh, the demonstration of cognition as being self-luminous mainly consists of criticism of the Ny ya school, the opponent, and at the beginning he proves positively that cognition is self-luminous. He replaces the self-luminousness of cognition with its being self-proved. Further, he considers it to be established through a process of self-luminosity. It is proved as follows that cognition is established through a process of self-awareness. Experientially, when knowledge arises, there is for no one who seeks to know the object any doubt (sa aya) or error (viparyaya) or the valid cognition that cognition does not exist (vyatirekapram). This implies that the cognition which exists in them is known correctly. By converting this empirical fact into a logical relationship, it is concluded that the cognition is known correctly when there is neither doubt nor error nor the valid cognition that it does not exist regarding that which exists in those who seek to know the object that is wished to be known. Otherwise, there would be doubt or error or the valid cognition that the cognition does not exist for those without the brought to you by CORE View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

On the Process of the Formulation of the Advaitic Vyūha Theory MANABE Tomohiro The vyūha theory is a distinctive doctrine of the Pāñcarātrika, one of the Vaiṣṇava schools in India. Advaita scholars had criticized this vyūha theory since Śaṅkara (ca.-756-772-), the founder of the Advaita school. Madhusūdana Sarasvatī (16th century) followed Śaṅkara in this regard and criticized the Vyūha theory of the Pāñcarātrika. It should be noted, however, that he also adapted Pāñcarātorika's Vyūha theory and set forth a new version of the vyūha theory conforming to the Advaita tradition's ātmāvasthācatuṣṭaya theory. In the history of Advaita, there were variations of the ātmāvasthācatuṣṭaya theory. In this presentation, I attempt to specify the type of the ātmāvasthācatuṣṭaya theory that was referred to in the formation of the Advaitia version of the vyūha theory.