U članku se propituje autorstvo i vrijeme nastanka Ātmabodhe, poznate filozofske pjesme koja na popularan, ali i pjesnički imaginativan način razlaže glavna učenja indijske filozofske škole Advaita Vedānte. Iako se Ātmabodha tradicionalno pripisuje velikom filozofu Śaṅkari (8. stoljeće), u članku se iznose argumenti koji govore u prilog tezi da je djelo nastalo nekoliko stoljeća nakon Śaṅkare. Osim suvremene stilometrijske metode General Imposters Framework, koja ju ne prepoznaje kao Śaṅkarino djelo, Ātmabodha također ne zadovoljava Hackerov kriterij kolofona. U članku se stavlja (...) poseban naglasak na doktrinarne i terminološke osobitosti u Ātmabodhi koje pripadaju vremenu nakon Śaṅkare. Osobit je primjer shvaćanje pojma neznanja, uz uvođenje kasnijih termina i koncepata. Dostupni dokazi upućuju na to da bi djelo moglo datirati iz vremena između 11. i ranog 14. stoljeća. (shrink)

The oldest preserved commentary on the Br̥hadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad was composed by Śaṅkara. Sureśvara composed a sub-commentary on this commentary, while Ānandagiri composed commentaries both on Śaṅkara’s commentary and on Sureśvara’s sub-commentary. All these four books contain a number of passages from earlier works which are not preserved. Sureśvara and Ānandagiri attributed some of these passages to a commentator named Bhartr̥prapañca. The aim of this article is to present a philological method which will establish which of the passages might be paraphrases and (...) which might be quotations from Bhartr̥prapañca’s lost commentary composed in the scope of the bhedābheda theory. This article will argue that Śaṅkara paraphrases Bhartr̥prapañca’s text, while Ānandagiri quotes most probably Bhartr̥prapañca’s text literally. This text was metrically adjusted by Sureśvara who paraphrases Bhartr̥prapañca by shortening and adjusting the original text in order to fit into the pattern of the śloka meter. If this is true, it is possible to establish a methodology which may help us to reconstruct portions of the oldest known commentary on the Br̥hadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad. (shrink)

Ovaj članak predstavlja tragove ranoga vedāntskog tumačenja Maitreyī-brāhmane, jednog od najpoznatijih dijelova Brhadāranyaka-upanišadi u Brahma-sūtrama, temeljnom tekstu filozofske škole vedānte. Predmet diskusije je egzegeza Maitreyī-brāhmane prema trima starodrevnim komentatorima Āśmarathyi, Audulomiu i Kāśakrtsni. Cilj je ovog rada pokazati kakve se metode tumačenja upanišadskih tekstova koriste u različitim vedāntskim školama. Također možemo vidjeti tehnike tumačenja preuzete iz pūrva-mīmāmse, škole tumačenja vedskih tekstova, koje su preoblikovane za tumačenje upanišadi. Članak također pokazuje kako filozofsko stajalište o odnosu sopstva i apsoluta služi egzegetskoj svrsi (...) pomirenja različitih upanišadskih učenja. Učenje BS i starodrevnih komentatora je bhedābhedavāda, istodobna različitost i nerazličitost sopstva i apsoluta. Śankara tumači sūtre kao da poučavaju monistički iluzionizam. On na dvije razine istine razlikuje niži brahman i najviši brahman. Na ovaj je način mogao pomiriti sva upanišadska učenja, bilo da naginjuteizmu ili monizmu. Važna je i hermeneutička rasprava Śankarina s bhedābhedavādinom Bhartrprapañcom o prirodi znanja i djelovanja, odnosno prvenstvu upanišadi koje se bave znanjem brahmana nad brāhmanama koje se bave obrednim djelovanjem.This article presents some traces of early vedāntic interpretations of Maitreyī-brāhmana, one of the most famous parts of Brhadāranyaka-upanishad, in the Brahma-sūtras, the fundamental work of the philosophical school vedānta. Topic under discussion conveys the exegesis of Maitreyī-brāhmana according to three ancient commentators, Āśmarathya, Audulomi and Kāśakrtsna. The purpose of this article is to show the methods of interpretation of upanishadic passages in different vedāntic schools. Also, we can see some techniques of interpretation taken from pūrva-mīmāmsa, the school of vedic interpretation, and adapted for upanishadic interpretation. The article shows how the main philosophical standpoint on the relation of the self and the absolute serves the exegetical purposes. So the standpoint of the BS and the ancient commentators is bhedābhedavāda, teaching of both the difference and non-difference between the self and the absolute, like sparks and fire. Śankara interprets the sūtras as teaching monistic illusionism. He also differentiates between the two levels of truth and accordingly the lower brahman and the highest brahman. In this way he was able to reconcile all upanishadic passages, whether they inclined to theism or monism. There is also an important hermeneutical discussion of Śankara with bhedābhedavādin Bhartrprapañca on the nature of knowledge and action and priority of the upanishads, part of sacred canon dealing with knowledge of brahman over the brāhmanas, which are dealing with ritual action. (shrink)

This paper discusses the reliability of the criteria for determining Śaṅkara’s authorship established by Paul Hacker. His analysis of terminological peculiarities is based on only one of Śaṅkara’s works—the commentary on the Brahma-Sūtras. Therefore, doubt arises as to whether these criteria also apply to other works that we can claim to be authentic. First, it will be argued that the commentaries on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka- and Taittirīya-Upaniṣad are works that can be—with reasonable certainty—considered authentic. When applied to these two works, Hacker’s (...) criteria work remarkably well, and the commentaries on the Taittirīya- and Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad share the same terminological and conceptual features with the Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāṣya. Moreover, in most cases, it is possible to distinguish the usage of some terms and concepts from Sureśvara and Padmapāda. On the other hand, Sureśvara and Padmapāda use some of these terms in a quite similar way as Śaṅkara, but differently than the later Advaitins, indicating that a sharp line between Śaṅkara on the one hand and Sureśvara and Padmapāda on the other cannot be drawn in many cases. Also, the writings of these authors—especially Padmapāda—represent a transitional phase in the development of certain Advaita Vedānta concepts although the outlines of some peculiarities by which the later Advaita Vedānta differs from Śaṅkara can already be found sketched by Śaṅkara himself. (shrink)

Ovaj članak istražuje neke usporednice novoplatonističke tradicije filozofskih komentara uz Platōna i Aristotela. Uz to istražuje egzegetske metode usuglašivanja tih dvaju velikih antičkih mislilaca. Ako prihvatimo Sorabjijevu tvrdnju da je cilj novoplatonističkoga usuglašivanja obrana poganskih filozofa od kritike kršćanskih mislilaca možemo vidjeti jasnu usporednicu s vedāntom koja je branila koherenciju svetoga upanišadskog kanona od buddhističke kritike. Ovaj se članak usredotočuje na novoplatonističkoga komentatora Amonija koji je pokušao usuglasiti Aristotelov nauk o Nepokrenutom pokretaču s Platonovim naukom o Demijurgu i Ideji dobra. (...) S druge strane u Indiji možemo vidjeti sličan pokušaj usuglašivanja različitih upanišadskih učenja o najvišem biću.This article explores some parallels between neoplatonist tradition of philosophical commentaries on Plato and Aristotle and explores some exegetical techniques of harmonisation of these great ancient thinkers. If we accept Sorabji’s claim that the aim of this reconciliation is neoplatonist defence of pagan thinkers from the attack of Christian philosophers than we can see a clear parallel with Vedānta which was defending the coherence of upanishadic sacred canon against Buddhist attack. The paper is focusing on neoplatonist commentator Ammonius who is trying to reconcile Aristotle’s Unmoved mover with Plato’s Demiurge and the Idea of good. On the other side, in India we can see very similar project of harmonisation of the different upanishadic teachings of the highest being. (shrink)