It is dedicated to refute the whole thinking system of naiyAika-s, the followers of gautama(गौतमः).
It goes to an extent where anything said to define anything seems polluted with flaws.
vedAntin-s know as anirvachanIyatA(अनिर्वचनीयता). This is the nature of this whole
world and it’s cause – avidyA(अविद्या).
This nature is common to things seen in illusion. So, vedAntin-s call this world illusion.
illusion of any kind is found to be refuted by correct knowledge of it’s
adhisThAna(अधिष्ठानम्), the substratum(the thing which was not known); hence
vedAntin-s say that this illusory world and it’s cause are destroyed and
refuted by knowledge of brahman(which is substratum of this illusion).
khaNDana-khaNDa-khAdyam(खण्डनखण्डखाद्यम्) helps vedAntin-s reach the decision that world
is similar to illusiory things and dream by refuting validity of every
possible definition of things which we grant as real and permanent.
the work was created when technical language of naiyAyika-s(नैयायिकाः) was quite
simple, it refutes only those definitions which were based on that
As a result of this treatise the whole logic
system of that time collapsed. This caused naiyAyika-s(नैयायिकाः) to think about
errors in their definitions and the language used. As a result a new
complicated language was born in mithilA(मिथिला). ga~Ngesha-upAdhyAya(गङ्गेश उपाध्यायः) was the
man who first used such language. He is hence known as starter
of a new era of tarka-shAstra(तर्कशास्त्रम्). His famous work is tattva-chintA-maNi(तत्त्वचिन्तामणिः)
which was in a way answer to vedAntin-s(वेदान्ती).
As mere change of language
didn’t cause change in definitions, so vedAntin-s neglected refutation of this new work. Actually, new generation of naiyAyika-s(नैयायिकाः)
came near to vedAntin-s(वेदान्तिनः) while trying to define things more correctly. They reached many
times the same conclusion which was familiar to vedAntin-s(वेदान्तिनः), but to save
themselves from this incapability they named it akhaNDopAdhi(अखण्डोपाधिः).
vedAntin-s(वेदान्तिनः) hence didn’t get bothered.
But, in some places new logics were presented to refute anirvachanIytavam(अनिर्वचनीयत्वम्) and they were not refuted by older vedAntin-s(वेदान्तिनः) properly.
Moreover, some works of shrI-udayanAchArya(उदयनाचार्यः), such as laxaNAvalI(लक्षणावली), were complex in nature and hence became base for new tArkika-s(नव्यतार्किकाः).
all this a scholar paramahaMsa-saMnyAsI(विद्वान् परमहंसः संन्यासी)
shrI-sha~Nkara-chaitanya-bhAratI(स्वामी शङ्करचैतन्यभारती), who was a devI-upAsaka(श्रीविद्योपासकः) and knower of kAshmIra-shaiva-Agama (काश्मीरशैवागमविशारदः), started to write a refutation.
khaNDana-khaNDa-khAdya(खण्डनखण्डखाद्यम्) as base and started to write a commentary on it.
He explained it at places where it was obscure or appeared
wrong.(Actually khaNDana-khaNDa-khAdyam is really such a difficult work
to study for anyone). He adopted language of navya-naiyAyika-s(नव्यनैयायिकाः). While
taking in consideration the refutation of khaNDana(खण्डनखण्डखाद्यम्) by navya-naiyyAyika-s(नव्यनैयायिकाः)
at all places he presented refutation of their amendments(परिष्कारः). They were
mostly the same definitions but with more complex words and assumptions.
So, it took some more space to refute them. New logics presented by
tArkika-s(तार्किकाः) were also refuted by this saMnyAsI(संन्यासी) with his ingenious logics(नूतनोद्भावनाः).
Nothing was left. It was complete in every way.
As the commentary
shAradA(शारदा टीका) also appeared difficult to understand and explain at some
places, the author(शारदाकारः) wrote a sub-commentary called rAjahaMsa(राजहंसः). It’s like
Tup-TikA(टुप्टीका) of shrI-kumArila-bhaTTa(श्रीमान् कुमारिलो भट्टः) in nature.
Both these, shAradA(शारदा) and rAjahaMsa(राजहंसः), were published by apAranAtha-maTha(अपारनाथमठः) of vArANasI(वाराणसी) in 1938-1940. Author(शारदाकारः) himself was the editor. (I heard that author was only 24 years old at that time!!!!)
addition to it, the author wrote an introduction to this book(added in
second volume), titled darshana-sarvasvam(दर्शनसर्वस्वम्), which took shape of another
book in future because of it’s depth and newness of style. Again
the language of this was so difficult that it needed a commentary rAjahaMsa(राजहंसः) by the
author(दर्शनसर्वस्वकारः) himself at some places. Later it was commented by his grand-disciple
shrI-sudhAmshu-shekhara-shAstrI(सुधांशुशेखरशास्त्री). He also translated it and published.
This work was taught at BHU, Varanasi(बनारस हिन्दू विश्वविद्यालय) and
AchArya-level(M.A.).(Although, BHU has removed it from it’s syllabus as
they have no capable teacher for it. Shame !!)
An interesting event took place after it was published. shrI-ananta-kR^iShNa-shAstrI(अनन्तकृष्णशास्त्री) saw
it at that time and doubted it’s originality and flawlessness. He said
that such language and work is not possible in present time and this
commentary must be work of some old person which is popularized by the
saMnyAsI in his name. He wrote letter to saMnyAsI and challenged him to
prove his ability. shrI-sha~Nkara-chaitanya-bhAratI(शङ्करचैतन्यभारती) said that he may
come to vArAnasI, but he shouldn’t expect any shAstrArtha(शास्त्रार्थः). Anyway, shAstrI
came to vArAnasI at lalitA-ghATa(ललिताघाट). svAmI met him in the temple of
shrI-rAjarAjeshvarI(राजराजेश्वरीमन्दिरम्)(which is very famous even now). shAstrI asked him to
explain something related to vedAnta. svAmI explained. He again asked.
He again replied. He then said that svAmI is actually capable of
writing such thing. After he showed his contentment, svAmI started to
talk again and showed many errors in his own explanations, which were not
caught by shAstrI. shAstrI was amazed. He prostrated before him and
This is a famous story we know.
As it is already a
long time since it was published, the shAradA(शारदा) was unavailable for many
The introduction part, darshana-sarvasvam(दर्शनसर्वस्वम्), though got extra
attention of shrI-sudhAmshu-shekhara-shAStrI(सुधांशुशेखरशास्त्री), Retd. Prof. of vedAnta, BHU and
was published with a new sanskrit commnetary and hindi explanation by
shrI-shAstrI. It was also taught at some Universities. So, it withstood
shAradA(शारदा) was not so lucky. In a scenario where
khaNDana-khaNDa-khAdyam(खण्डनखण्डखाद्यम्) is not studied by more than handful people due
to complexity of subject and language, what could we expect about study
of shAradA(शारदा). This lack of study causes absence of demand of book and
hence the book was never published again, until shrI-shAstrI took the
He started to translate the khaNDana-khaNDa-khAdyam(खण्डनखण्डखाद्यम्)
according to shAradA commentary(शारदा). rAjahaMsa(राजहंसः) of shAradA(शारदा) was published as a
different book in original edition with reference to corresponding pages in the
shAradA-publication. It caused difficulties for AchArya and shiShya-s
both, and probably for Goddess shAradA(देवी शारदा) too as she was bereft of her beloved
rAjahaMsa(राजहंसः). So, shrI-shAstrI took rAjahaMsa(राजहंसः) to shAradA(शारदा) and created a single
book comprising both works.
shAstrI is old and a devotee of
shrI-vishvanAtha(श्रीविश्वनाथः). He spends long time at shrI-vishvanAtha temple, his
guru’s place and upAsanA. So, the translation work was slow.
of the saMnyAsI students of shAradA-kAra(शारदाकारः), shrI gaNeshAnanda jI(स्वामी गणेशानन्दगिरिः), motivated shrI
shAstrI to complete the work sooner and helped in many ways. The first
volume was out within a few years.
shrI-shAstrI was teaching
brahmachArI bhUmAchaitanya(ब्रह्मचारी भूमा चैतन्यः) the recently published first volume and
working on second volume since five years.
Due to his old age and
illness, etc. the second volume took a little long to get completed. It
was just published a few moths ago.
I was excited about it. I thought this post will help shAradA(शारदा) to live long with us in this world. Why I’m saying this ? Because, no more than a few people study or can understand it, and hence it is not required by many. In this case the book is not taken by sellers and purchasers and sits in stores of publisher till destroyed. I’m just wishing to let more scholars and interested people know about it.
Here is a post by svAmI abhiShekachaitanya on darshana-sarvasvam.