RSS

Category Archives: Vedanta

Crazy Wisdom

crazy wisdom

1.1. Crazy wisdom is a way of teaching; and it is prevalent in almost all traditions. It has been there for a very long-time. Crazy wisdom says: we all are, in truth, interconnected. The separations in the physical world such as human bodies, houses, communities are mere appearances. Crazy Wisdom seeks to unearth and heal the false beliefs that people have about themselves and of the world around them. It is a means for expressing and maintaining the difference between the conventional point of view and the transcendental point of view.

1.2. The teaching might have gained that name – crazy – because, its teachers were eccentrics who used their eccentricity to bring forth an alternate vision, the one that was different from the pedestrian and dogma-riddled view of existence. They were the masters of inversion, proficient breakers of taboos and lovers of surprises. They relished the delight in contradictions and ambiguity. Sometimes they overdid and went overboard; and were mistaken for tricksters and clowns.

1.3. Crazy wisdom or holy-madness, as it came to be called, does indeed seem crazy to rational mind and commonsense. That is because it is designed, deliberately, to confront, to shock and to confuse an otherwise rational mind. The crazy teacher’s behavior and his teachings turn the ordinary view of life upside down; and, project life in a different perspective. His approach is what one might call “no-holds-bar”. The crazy teacher is willing to employ a wide range of tactics and applications including , but not limited to , provocation, insult, physical and mental abuse, humour, and credulity; and in extreme cases, it might stray in to use of alcohol, drugs and sex. All those unconventional and socially unacceptable ways of behaviour were pressed into service in order to drag the student out of the cocoon, strip him naked and bring him face to face with reality.

1.4. Predictably, such behavioural patterns create scare and conflict in the minds of even the committed followers of the path. It also brings into question, the issues of trust; and abuse of position and power. But a serous seeker will have to face those challenges and resolve the contradictions, all by himself.

1.5. The crazy wisdom or foolish wisdom is thus a two-edged sword, to be handled with extreme caution. The dividing line between wisdom and foolishness is very thin; and it is not possible to say with certainty when a fool is just a fool, or a fool graced by wisdom, or a wise person touched by foolishness.

1.6. In all such traditions, it is said, a genuine crazy –wisdom- teacher will act only in response to the needs of his student, regardless of his own discomfort and personal preferences. His main concern is the awakening of his student .But, it is the responsibility of the student to understand and learn; and the teacher is not obliged to make it easy for the student.

1.7. It is explained, the teacher, to put it crudely, is like a dispensing machine. The student will have to come up with right questions to get the benefit of the teacher. It is the questions the student frames – internally or explicitly- and the demands he makes in seeking the answers that truly matter. He can challenge himself to formulate a question that accurately captures the real need; and follow it with intensity. After a period of time, as he begins to endure the heat (tapa), generated by the genuine unanswered questions, the answers start appearing unexpectedly in the most unlikely places or in the most obvious places right under his nose.

That is the basis of the learning process under an Avadhuta or a Siddha or a Zen teacher or the saintly – madman (lama myonpa) of Tibetan Buddhism.

[ By the way, Aryadeva (14th century?), a Buddhist scholar, in his Chatuhsataka (four hundred verses) narrates a story to illustrate (a) madness is a relative concept; and (b) just because one is in a minority he cannot be dismissed as being wrong.

According to his story, a wandering astrologer warned a king that in a week’s time, very heavy rain would pour down on his country; and whoever drinks that rainwater would go insane. The king took the astrologer’s warning quite seriously and ordered to get his well of drinking water tightly covered. His subjects, however, either lacking means or laughing at the astrologer, took no action to secure their sources of drinking water. It did rain a week hence, as predicted; and the whole of the kingdom’s populace drank the rain water which found its way into their well and tanks. They all, promptly, went mad. The king , who had protected his well, was the only sane person in the whole of his kingdom.

But, the king’s subjects gathered together and laughed and jeered at the king calling him insane. After such repeated heckling, the king – the only sane person in the whole of the kingdom – could no longer endure the irritating jibes. In order to put an end to his agony, the king, at last, decides to drink the rain water. And, he promptly goes mad just, as his subjects. Now, all are alike ; and all are happy in their madness.

Therefore, if one is the sole, single sane person, then he does not get to call the rest as insane. But, at the same time, he would not be wrong if he calls the rest as insane. Then, again, who will listen to him or pay heed to his words …!!

The story also illustrates how ‘madness’ is a relative concept, depending upon each one’s perspective. In the broader view, what defines madness is the social, cultural and other ways of understanding human behavior at different times; and, in different regions. Madness is thus a highly context-sensitive issue.]

****

2.1. Avadhuta, the one who has cast off all concerns and obligations, like the Shiva himself, is the typical teacher of wisdom. He does that in a highly unconventional manner. He has no use for social etiquette; he has risen above worldly concerns. He is not bound by sanyasi dharma either. He roams the earth freely like a child, like an intoxicated or like one possessed. He is the embodiment of detachment and spiritual wisdom..

Avadhuta Gita describes him as :

Having renounced all, he moves about naked./ He perceives the Absolute, the All, within himself.

ātmaiva kevalaṃ sarvaṃ bhedābhedo na vidyate । asti nāsti kathaṃ brūyāṃ vismayaḥ pratibhāti me ॥ 4॥

The Avadhuta never knows any mantra in Vedic meter or any Tantra.

Ashtavakra Gita describes him in a similar manner:

17.15

The sage sees no difference/ Between happiness and misery,/ Man and woman, / Adversity and success./ Everything is seen to be the same.

sukhe duḥkhe nare nāryāṃ sampatsu ca vipatsu ca । viśeṣo naiva dhīrasya sarvatra samadarśinaḥ ॥ 17-15॥

17.16

In the sage there is neither/ Violence nor mercy,/ Arrogance nor humility,/ Anxiety nor wonder./ His worldly life is exhausted./ He has transcended his role as a person.

na hiṃsā naiva kāruṇyaṃ nauddhatyaṃ na ca dīnatā । nāścaryaṃ naiva ca kṣobhaḥ kṣīṇasaṃsaraṇe nare ॥ 17-16॥

17.18

The sage is not conflicted/ By states of stillness and thought./ His mind is empty./ His home is the Absolute.

samādhāna samādhāna hitāhita vikalpanāḥ । śūnyacitto na jānāti kaivalyamiva saṃsthitaḥ ॥ 17-18॥

18.9

Knowing for certain that all is Self,/ The sage has no trace of thoughts/ Such as “I am this” or “I am not that.”

ayaṃ so’hamayaṃ nāhaṃ iti kṣīṇā vikalpanā । sarvamātmeti niścitya tūṣṇīmbhūtasya yoginaḥ ॥ 18-9॥

18.10

The yogi who finds stillness/ is neither distracted nor focused./ He knows neither pleasure nor pain./ Ignorance dispelled,/ He is free of knowing.

na vikṣepo na caikāgryaṃ nātibodho na mūḍhatā । na sukhaṃ na ca vā duḥkhaṃ upaśāntasya yoginaḥ ॥ 18-10॥

2.2. Among the classical texts that describe the nature of the Avadhuta, the prominent ones are the Avadhuta Gita , the culminating text of the Dattatreya tradition; the Ashtavakra Gita , a text of the highest order, addressed to advanced learners and dealing with the means of realizing the Self (atmanu-bhuti) and the mystic experience in the embodied state. The third and a comparatively a recent text is the Atma-vidya-vilasa of Sri Sadashiva Brahmendra , an Avadhuta who lived during the eighteenth century.

2.3. The other major sect is the Siddha tradition of South India. The Siddha is one who has attained flawless identity with reality.

Jainism too recognizes Siddha as an enlightened teacher. In the Tibetan Buddhism, Siddha is a yogi who has attained magical powers and the ability to work miracles.

2.4. In so far as the folk tradition is concerned, there are a number of regional groups and subgroups. The better known of them are the Bauls of Bengal; the word meaning mad or confused. They are a religious sect of eccentrics. The Baul synthesis is characterized by four elements: there is no written text and therefore all teachings are through song and dance; God is to be found in and through the body and therefore the emphasis on kaya (body) sadhana, the use of sexual or breathe energy; and, absolute obedience and reverence to Guru.

3.1. Avadhuta Gita the ‘Song of the Ever Free’ does not indulge in debates to prove the non-dual nor does it ask you to control your senses; it sees no distinction between sense perception and spiritual realization. It makes some amazing statements:

The mind indeed is of the form of space. The mind indeed is Omni faced. The mind is the past. The mind is present and future and all phenomena. But in absolute reality, there is no mind.

All your senses are like clouds; all they show is an endless mirage. The Radiant One is neither bound nor free.I am the Bliss, I am the Truth, I am the Boundless Sky

There is neither knowledge nor ignorance nor knowledge combined with ignorance. He who has always such knowledge is himself Knowledge. It is never otherwise.

How shall I salute the formless being, indivisible, auspicious and immutable, who fills all this with its self and also fills the self with its self?
Know it firmly, freely, independently. And maintain it at all times, all conditions. That is all. Be Avadhuta Dattatreya yourself; because, you are yourself that.

Dattatreya

Dattatreya by Shilpi Arun Yogiraj

3.2. In the Ashtavakra Gita, sage Ashtavakra maintains that all prayers, mantras, rituals, meditation, actions, devotion, breathing practices, etc are secondary. These distract the aspirant from self-knowledge. Knowledge/awareness is all that is required. Ignorance does not exist in itself; it is just the absence of knowledge or the lack of awareness. The light of knowledge or consciousness will dispel ignorance revealing the Self. The Self is merely forgotten, not lost.

This is not a belief system or a school of thought. This is simply ‘What Is’ and the recognition of ‘What is’.

Attachment and aversion/ Are attributes of the mind./ You are not the mind. You are Consciousness itself–Changeless, undivided, free./ Go in happiness

rāgadveṣau manodharmau na manaste kadācana । nirvikalpo’si bodhātmā nirvikāraḥ sukhaṃ cara ॥ 15-5॥

Ashtavakra does not pay much heed to book learning or to the importance given to mind and its control. You are already free, what will you gain by deliberating or pondering. Remain unattached at all times from all things (including the mind). He advocates direct approach. Teachings of Sri Ramana are remarkably similar to that of sage Ashtavakra.

You can recite and discuss scripture / All you want,/ But until you drop everything / You will never know Truth.

ācakṣva śṛṇu vā tāta nānā śāstrā aṇyanekaśaḥ । tathāpi na tava svāsthyaṃ sarva vismaraṇād ṛte ॥ 16-1॥

Ashtavakra then attacks the futility of effort and knowing.

Being pure consciousness, / Do not disturb your mind with thoughts of for and against./ Be at peace and remain happily’ In yourself, the essence of joy. 15.19

mā saṅkalpavikalpābhyāṃ cittaṃ kṣobhaya cinmaya । upaśāmya sukhaṃ tiṣṭha svātmanyānandavigrahe ॥ 15-19॥

Give up meditation completely/ But don’t let the mind hold on to anything./ You are free by nature,/ So what will you achieve by forcing the mind? 15.20

tyajaiva dhyānaṃ sarvatra mā kiṃcid hṛdi dhāraya । ātmā tvaṃ mukta evāsi kiṃ vimṛśya kariṣyasi ॥ 15-20॥

I Am Awareness./ Where are principles and scriptures?/ Where is the disciple or teacher?’ Where is the reason for life?/ I am boundless, Absolute

kva māyā kva ca saṃsāraḥ kva prītirviratiḥ kva vā । kva jīvaḥ kva ca tadbrahma sarvadā vimalasya me ॥ 20-11॥

kva pravṛttirnirvṛttirvā kva muktiḥ kva ca bandhanam । kūṭasthanirvibhāgasya svasthasya mama sarvadā ॥ 20-12॥

3.3. Atma_vidya_vilasa is written in simple, lucid Sanskrit. Its subject is renunciation. It also describes the ways of the Avadhuta, as one who is beyond the pale of social norms , beyond Dharma , beyond good and evil; as one who has discarded scriptures, shastras , rituals or even the disciplines prescribed for sannyasins;one who has gone beyond the bodily awareness , one who realized the Self and one immersed in the bliss of self-realization. He is absolutely free and liberated in every sense – one who “passed away from” or “shaken off” all worldly attachments and cares, and realized his identity with God. The text describes the characteristics of an Avadhuta, his state of mind, his attitude and behavior. The text undoubtedly is a product of Sadashiva Brahmendra’s own experience. It is a highly revered book among the Yogis and Sadhakas.

One of such Sadhakas who really emulated Sadashiva Brahmendra and evolved into an Avadhuta was the 34th Acharya , the Jagad-guru of Sri Sringeri Mutt, Sri Chandrasekhar Bharathi Swamiji. He studied Atma_vidya_vilasa intensely, imbibed its principles and truly lived according to that in word and deed. Unmindful of the external world, he roamed wildly in the hills of Sringeri like a child, an intoxicated, and an insane; and as one possessed, singing aloud the verses from Atma_vidya_vilasa:

Discard the bondages of karma. Wander in the hills immersed in the bliss of the Self -unmindful of the world like a deaf and a blind (AVV-15)

avadhūtakarmajālo jaḍabadhirāndhopamaḥ ko’pi । ātmārāmo yatir āḍaṭavīkoṇeśvaṭannāste ॥ 15॥

Rooted in the Brahman absorbed in the bliss within, he for a while meditates, for a while sings and dances in ecstasy. (AVV-21)

tiṣṭhanparatra dhāmni svīyasukhāsvādaparavaśaḥ kaścit । kvāpi dhyāyati kuhacidgāyati kutrāpi nṛtyati svaram ॥ 21॥

He sees nothing, hears nothing, and says nothing. He is immersed in Brahman and in that intoxication is motionless.(AVV-44)

paśyati kimapi na rūpaṃ na vadati na śṛṇoti kiñcidapi vacanam । tiṣṭhati nirupamabhūmani niṣṭhāmavalambya kāṣṭhavadyogī ॥ 44॥

4. 1.The Lankavatara Sutra of the Mahayana Buddhism is another text of the “crazy wisdom” tradition. It was the text that Bodhidharma followed all his life and bequeathed it to his disciple and successor Hui K’o . Its basic thrust is on “inner enlightenment that does away with all duality.” One of the recurrent themes in the Lankavatara Sutra is, not to rely on words to express reality. It holds the view that objects do not owe their existence to words that indicate them. The words themselves are artificial creations. Ideas, it says, can as well be expressed by looking steadily, by gestures, by a frown, by the movement of the eyes, by laughing, by yawning, or by the clearing of the throat, or by recollection, or by trembling.

Bodhidharma instructed his disciples to: “Leave behind the false, return to the true; make no discrimination between self and others. In contemplation, one’s mind should be stable, alert and clear like the wall; illuminating with compassion. “

4.2. In Zen too, the “holy madness” is widely used by the roshi (teacher). The adepts of Zen make use of shock techniques such as sudden shouting, abuses, physical violence, handclapping, paradoxical verbal responses, koans and riddles in order to induce satori or enlightenment.

4.3. Tibetan Buddhism also has its share of eccentric Lamas who use unconventional methods to initiate their disciples into enlightenment. Crazy wisdom in Tibetan is yeshe cholwa, where craziness and wisdom walk hand in hand. It is craziness gone wise rather than wisdom gone crazy. Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche) and Karma Pakshi the second Karmapa are the celebrated crazy-wisdom – teachers in Tibetan Buddhism. They both were regarded as being able to overpower the phenomenal world. They demonstrated that what we call crazy is only crazy from the viewpoint of ego, custom and habit. Crazy wisdom is natural and effortless; not driven by the hope and fear.

There is also another set of “mad lamas (smyon‑pa) who reject monastic tradition, ecclesiastical hierarchy, societal conventions, and book learning.

4.4. Crazy wisdom is also practiced in Sufism, where it is known as “the path of blame.” Some Sufi mystics –majzubs – are known for their strange behaviour as well as for their heretical doctrine of their identification with the divine. The Sufi practitioners of “crazy wisdom” pursue freedom and humility without concern for worldly consequences.

5.1. The crazy teachers were found not just in the East. Socrates was an archetypal wise fool who claimed that his wisdom was derived from his awareness of his ignorance. His distinctive teaching method consisted in exposing the foolishness of the wise.

5.2. Even in the Christian tradition, the absurd notion that the fool may be wise and that the wise may be foolish—has long been in existence. It is often expressed as the “fool in Christ” or the “fool for Christ’s sake”. Here, foolish wisdom, the “holy folly”, is akin to “holy simplicity” or “learned ignorance”, which is an alternate way to rekindle the love of wisdom in the hearts of men and women. It is singular and sudden; and, is in contrast with the laborious common wisdom of the learned.

5.3. Europe in the sixth century seemed to be a great period for Crazy Adepts. For instance, there was St. Simeon who liked to pretend insanity for effect. Once he found a dead dog on a dung heap. He tied the animal to his belt and dragged the corpse through town. People of the town were outraged. But, he was trying to demonstrate the uselessness of excess emotional “dead weight” that people drag through their lives.

The very next day, St. Simeon entered a church and just as the liturgy began, he threw nuts at the congregation. St Simeon revealed on his deathbed that his life’s mission was to denounce hypocrisy and hubris.

5.4. Another example of the sixth-century spiritual silliness was Mark the Mad, a desert monk who was thought insane when he came into town to atone for his sins. Only Abba Daniel saw the method in the monk’s madness, and declared the monk the only reasonable man in the city.

5.5. Saint Francis of Assisi was another example of foolish wisdom. He regarded himself as a fool deserving nothing but contempt and dishonour. He is celebrated for his tender love for God and for God’s creatures, big and small.

6.1. The paradoxical idea that the fool may be wise is perhaps as old as humanity itself. It is a common experience that the untutored and innocent, including children, somehow seem to grasp profound truths, while the lettered and the learned just walk past it. Jesus alluded to it when he thanked and praised God for having hidden from the learned and the clever what he revealed to the merest children (Mt 11:25).

6.2. Without love, foolishness is just foolishness; and wisdom a mere collection of inflated bits of information. Ultimately, the foolish wisdom is a gift, a revelation received in humility of mind and simplicity of heart; an un-bounded, luminous, loving energy. It attains the power to convince and transform, more effectively than the sword and rhetoric.

That is possible only when it is graced by tender love for the fellow beings and for the fellow seekers.

Sources and References:

http://www.spiritual-endeavors.org/basic/crazy.htm

Crazy Spirituality

http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/eapr002/wisdom.htm

Wisdom of the Holy Fools

http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/book.asp?mc=319

Avadhuta

http://www.shambhala.org/teachings/view.php?id=131

Crazy Wisdom

Ashtavakra

Sri Sadashiva Brahmendra

Zen Stories by Sylvan Incao

9 Comments

Posted by sreenivasaraos on September 17, 2012 in Bodhidharma, Buddhism, Indian Philosophy, Vedanta, Zen

Tags: Avadhuta, Buddhism, Crazy wisdom, Vedanta, Zen

The texts that Sri Shankara relied upon

04 Sep

Sri Shankara

Sri Shankara described himself as a Bashyakara, one who commented on certain texts of great acclaim. Yet, his monumental work, Vedanta Sutra Bashya, a commentary on Badarayana’s Brahma Sutra is remarkable for its creative thinking, originality in approach and high literary merit. He was an original thinker. Sri Shankara’s erudition is very impressive. Though steeped in tradition he displays a disarmingly candid approach even while discussing unorthodox issues. His critics too do not accuse him of dogmatism.

He was a great logician who based his arguments on principles of logic but without contradicting intuitional revelations of the Upanishads. Scripture and reason were his two aids in his arguments. His criticism is dignified, his language restrained yet forceful and his style clear like the waters of the Ganga, as Vachaspathi Mishra describes it.

Sri Shankara’s thoughts gave a new direction to Indian philosophy. It restored the position of Upanishads as the pristine source of knowledge.

***

It was Badarayana the compiler of the Brahma Sutras who initially strived to uphold the authority of the Upanishads and to place God in the center of the scheme of things. He treated the Upanishads as the most meaningful portions of the Vedas, declared them as the highest authority and the most valid means of knowing. They are Shruthis, the Revelations, the supersensory intuitional perceptions of the ancient Rishis, he stressed. Badarayana’s efforts and anxieties were driven by an urgent need to rescue knowledge and freethinking from the encircling swamp of ritualistic texts and practices; as also from the ascending atheistic tendencies. His work represents a vigorous response to the challenges and demands of his times; and Brahma Sutra achieves that task amply well.

What, in effect , Badarayana was trying to accomplish was to drive away the strangling influence of rituals, dogma and atheism from the Indian spiritual scenes; and to bring back the Upanishad spirit of enquiry , intuition, knowledge, reason , open-mindedness and its values of life. It was for that good–tradition, Sampradaya, Badarayana was yearning. Brahma Sutra was an instrument to achieve those cherished objectives. Badarayana and his efforts represent the most important phase in the evolution of the Indian philosophy.

Badarayana set in motion the process of recovering the tradition of the ancients, Sampradaya, as also of cleansing of the spiritual environment; but had wait for over 1,200 years for Sri Shankara to arrive and carry the process forward.

Amazingly, when Sri Shankara arrived on the spiritual scene, Dharma of the ancients was beset with similar or even worse threats than in the time of Badarayana. Dogmatism, ritualism, corrupt and abominable practices of worship had taken a strong hold on the religious life of the people. There was no credible authority to dispense Dharma and the conditions were chaotic. In addition, there were the looming shadows cast across the ancient religion by other religions and atheists.

Both Badarayana and Sri Shankara were responding to the exigencies, demands and challenges of their times, which, as the fate would hate have it, were astonishingly similar, if not identical. They set to themselves similar tasks and priorities; and nurtured similar dreams and aspirations. Sri Shankara made a common cause with Badarayana, his forerunner, separated by history by over 1,200 years. That is the reason many consider Sri Shankara the logical successor to Badarayana.

Sri Shankara set himself the priorities : to bring back sanity, reason and quest for knowledge into the scriptures; to lend the right perspectives of relative and Absolute existence; to set lofty goals and aspirations to human existence; And, at the same time to wipeout ignorance , to wean people away from meaningless rituals and abominable practices of worship as also from Atheism. Badarayana addressed similar issues through his Brahma Sutra. Sri Shankara followed his lead and in turn wrote a powerful commentary on Brahma Sutra. Both the sages realized, the right way to go about their task was to treat Upanishads as the crest jewels of ancient wisdom; to bring back its authority into the center of human life; and to highlight the idealism, the spirit of enquiry, emphasis on virtues of knowledge and the process of self discovery and self realization, which the Upanishads valued as the summum bonunm of human existence.

The reason that Sri Shankara held Gauda-Pada, his Parama_Guru (the teacher of his teacher) in such high esteem was because he revived the Upanishads when they had fallen on bad days. Sri Shankara regarded Gauda-Pada as the true representative of the correct tradition of Vedanta.

Sri Shankara’s commentary on Brahma Sutra, titled Vedanta Sutra Bashya (VSB) is a highly celebrated text. Shankar’s purpose in writing his commentary was to explain the traditional view. He said, the primary meaning of the word Upanishad was knowledge, while the secondary meaning was the text itself. Sri Shankara said, the purpose of Upanishads is to remove adhyasa or avidya; and once it is removed, Brahman will shine of its accord, for it is the only reality.

He regards himself as the votary of Upanishads (Aupanishada).He even calls his way of thinking or the doctrine as Aupanishadam Darshanam, the Upanishad System. He defines the Upanishads as the texts that lead the aspirants close to the highest reality. He insists Upanishads constitute the final purpose and the import of the Vedic lore; and that is the reason he chose to write commentaries on the Upanishads and on the other two texts that depend almost entirely on the Upanishads – Badarayana’s Brahma Sutra and the Bhagavad Gita. It is therefore not surprising that Sri Shankara relied heavily on Upanishad texts to interpret and comment on Brahma Sutra.

adisankarar_image

Let us take a look at the texts he referred to in his Vedanta Sutra Bashya.

Upanishads:

He isolated the Upanishad lore from the rest of the Vedic body and narrowed it down to ten or twelve Upanishads. Even here, he did not include the ritualistic portion of the Vedas. This was in contrast to the classification followed by the later Acharyas.

Paul Deuessen the German Indologist in his work” The Systems of the Vedanta”, diligently counted the number of references made to Upanishad texts in Sri Shankara’s Vedanta Sutra Bashya. He found, Sri Shankara, in his Bashya, quoted Upanishad texts as many as 2,000 times. The Upanishads from which he quoted frequently and the number of quotes were: Chandogya (810), Brihadaranyaka (567), Taitereya (142), Manduka (129), Katha (103), Kaushitaki (88) and Svethavatara (53).

The other Upanishads he referred to were: Prashna (39), Aithereya (22), Jabaala (13), Ishavasya (8) and kena (5).

Besides he quoted from “Agni Rahasya” (Shathapatha Brahmana), Narayaniyam (Taitteriya Aranyaka) and “Pingani Rahasya Brahmana” as if to suggest they carried as much authority as the Upanishads.

Vedas:

As regards the Vedas, he referred to the Samhitha portions of the Rig Veda, Atharva Veda, the “Taitteriya” and “Yajasaneya” segments of the krshna and Shukla Yajur Vedas, respectively. But, his reliance on them is less frequent and lees pronounced.

Brahmanas:

Among the Brahmana texts, he cites the kausitaki and Aitereya portions of Rig Veda; the Shathapatha and Taitereya portions of the YajurVeda; Chandogya, Pancha Vimsa, Shad Vimsa and Tandya texts of the Sama Veda.

Aranyakas:

Only two Aranyakas are cited: Aitareya from Rig Veda and Taittereya from Yajur Veda.

Puranas:

His reliance on Puranas is meager. He cites a few from Markandeya, Shiva, Vishnu and Vayu Puranas.

Dharma shastras:

He has high regard for Dharma Shastras. He quotes from a number of these texts: Manu Smriti, Ashvalayana, Kathyayana_srauta_sutra, Apasthamba Dharma sutra and Parasara_Grihya_sutra.

Darshanas:

He is intimately acquainted with Nyaya, vaisheshika, Samkhya (of Isvara Krishna) and Yoga systems and quotes from their related Sutras.

Mimamsa:

As regards Mimamsa texts, his knowledge is extensive. He cites from Sabara’s Bashya on Jaimini, Prabhakara’s Byati and from Kumarila’s works.

Buddhist texts:

He has considerable knowledge of Buddhist texts. Dharma Kirthi was his main source. He mentions Dignaga also.

Having mentioned the sources of his references, I must add that Sri Shankara above all the scriptures , relied on experience, common as well as extraordinary to build his theory of Brahman. He gave credence to an individual’s subjective experience. He placed personal experience and intuition above all the other means of cognition. He said a person’s experience could not be disputed. He declared, “Intuition is not opposed to intellect. Reality is experience. Realizing the Supreme Being is within ones experience”.

dakshinamurti2

Reference:

Sri Shankara and Adhyasa Bashya

Prof.SKR Rao

12 Comments

Posted by sreenivasaraos on September 4, 2012 in Indian Philosophy, Sri Sankara, Vedanta

Tags: Sri Sankara, texts, Vedanta

Who was Gauda-Paada ?

04 Sep

Sri Shankara speaks of Gauda-Paada, his Parama_Guru (the teacher of his teacher) with enormous reverence. He regards him as Pujyabhi_pujya; the most adored among the most adored. Sri Shankara looks upon Gauda-Paada as the true representative of the correct tradition of Vedanta and describes him as Sampradaya vit, one who knows the right tradition. He accords Gauda-Paada’s work the status of a Smrti and calls it the epitome of the essential teachings of the Upanishads. The other reason that Sri Shankara holds Gauda-Paada in such high esteem is that, he revived the Upanishads when they had fallen on lean days.

Gauda-Paada was a celebrity of his period, which is estimated to be between 620 and 720 A.D. And that date (as it always happens in these cases) is tentative. Going by the traditional faith that Gaudapada was the teacher of Sri Sankara’s teacher, one would place him not prior to about a hundred or little more years prior to Sri Sankara. And, Sri Sankara, according to many scholars, is dated around 788 to 820 AD. Following that, Gaudapada and his Karika could be placed, say, at the beginning of the seventh century. But, on the other hand, a Buddhist scholar Bhavaviveka refers to several stanzas of the Karika and even quotes some. Bhavaviveka is placed prior to 630 AD, based on the Chinese translation of his work dated around that period. Thus, Gaudapada, it seems, must date not later than seventh century. In which case, the date of Sri Sankara who is the disciple of Gaudapada’s disciple must be dated prior to his generally accepted period (c. 788).

And not much that is of historical value is known about him; and , what little that is known, is disputed . According to Anandagiri , a well known commentator of Shankara’s works, he hailed from Gauda Desha (Eastern India) , did penance in the Nara_Narayana hermitage in the Badari region of Himalayas and obtained enlightenment. Another scholar Balakrishnananda Sarasvathi mentions the banks of the river Hiravathi in Kurukshetra region as Gauda-Paada’s birth place. He explains that “Gauda” was the name of the community to which he belonged and that he did penance for such a longtime that people forgot his name and called him by his tribe name. There is also a suggestion that “Gauda” refers to a school of Advaita that was prevalent in Northern region of Gauda country.

Many scholars surmise Gauda_Paada might actually have been a Buddhist. There is much debate around this issue. His works do reveal traces of Yogachara, Madhyamika and Vijnanavada Bhuddist influences. Dr. TMP Mahadevan an authority on Gauda-Paada and exponent of Vedanta mentions that Gauda-Paada’s Karika and Nagarjuna’s Mula_Madhyamika_Karika use similar terminologies. But, he explains, they were the terminologies of the day that were commonly used by scholars of all segments.

Gauda-Paada was not a Buddhist, he was a Vedantin. He is credited with reviving the Upanishads. Further, his major work, Karika (commentary) on Mandukya Upanishad (also called Agama Shastra), which is in the nature of rediscovery of the essential teachings of the Upanishads, amply demonstrates his status.

A few other works of commentaries are ascribed to Gauda-Paada, among them are, a commentary on Ishvara_krishna’s Samkhya_karika; one on Uttara_Gita; and another on Nrusimha_tapaniya_upanishad. But, his Karika on Mandukya is the most famous and the most celebrated of them all.

Mandukya Upanishad is a very short text having just twelve stanzas; but is a very profound Upanishad. Gauda_Paada’s Karika expands on that Upanishad amazingly well. His Karika is made up of four independent treatises (Prakarana Chatustayam) each dealing with a separate issue. The four treaties were at a later time put together and made into a text under the title “Agama Shastra”.

Sri Shankara is said to have written with a commentary on Gauda_Paada’s Karika. It may not actually be Shankara’s work but ascribed to him by its real author, as an act of devotion. In fact, Sri Shankara differs from the views of Gauda-Paada on a couple of issues. For instance, Gauda-Paada in his Karika states that the objects in waking state are as unreal as the dream objects; Sri Shankara does not accept this extreme position and points out the experiential variations in the waking state and the dream state.

[There is also a view that the four chapters (prakaranas) of Agamashastra are not the works of a single author; but , the works of different authors put together. Each chapter is of a different character. Further, the second chapter (Vaithatya prakarana) states the objects of our waking state are no more real than the dream-objects ; and claims that it is based in Upanishads (Vedanta vinischaya; Vedanteshu vichakshana) and handed down by ‘tradition’ (smarta). But, it does not quote its authority. Sri Sankara differs from the view presented in the second Prakarana; and, he also does not quote or refer to Mandukya Upanishad in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya. It is very unlikely he wrote a Bhashya on this Upanishad. ]

As mentioned, the Karika is in four chapters. The first chapter, a commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, establishes that Advaita is supported by Shruthi and reason. The other three chapters – Vaithathya (unreality), Advaita (Unity) and Alaata-Shanthi (extinguishing the fire brand) – are independent treatises.

The first chapter points out that revelation (intuition) is the only true means of understanding the Self.

The second chapter explains the illusory nature of the phenomenal world by employing reasons.

The third chapter propounds the view that what is non-dual (Advaita) is not illusory.

And, the fourth chapter Alaata-Shanthi-Prakarana, quite distinct from the other three, defends Advaita refuting criticisms made against it. In addition, through its Mahayana Buddhist style of dialectics, explains our phenomenal experiences and establishes the Atman as the sole reality.

[There is an interesting question about the relation of the Karika to Mandukya Upanishad. The first twenty-nine lines of the Karika, which form its First Book, provide explanations and commentary on the twelve lines of Mandukya Upanishad. The reminder of the Karika – the other three Books – is not specifically a commentary on that Upanishad, though, in some way , related to the subject. The later scholars, therefore, tend to accept only those first twenty-nine lines alone as Sruti , the scripture.

Despite these questions, one can safely say that the Karika – particularly its second and third Books – form the earliest Advaita treatise, in some fair detail. ]

The Gauda-Paada Karika comes up with some exceedingly significant concepts that were adopted by later scholars of various Schools.

:- Gauda-Paada introduces the concepts of Relative and Absolute existence. The former refers to the common transactional day-to-day experiences that are subjective. The other dimension of existence is the one beyond the relative, beyond conflicts and duality. It is the Absolute existence.

:- The often quoted and discussed error of perception –Rajju Sarpa buddhi – of imposing the notion of a snake on a coil of rope, has its origin in Gauda-Paada’s Karika. According to him, one could see a snake while it is not there; one could impose the relative over the Absolute and mistake unreal for the Real; and one could mistake the Anatma for the Atman. All because of ignorance or wrong perception.

:- Gauda-Paada introduces the concept of Maya as a dialectic devise to explain the experiential variation of the One Reality as transactional (relative) and as transcendental (Absolute).

:- The other highly interesting concept is that of Ajati_Vada or the doctrine of no-origination, which states that from an absolute point of view, the idea of birth of universe is impossibility. Gauda-Paada rejects various theories of creation which assert creation as Sport of God or as His will or as expansion of God or process of time etc. He says creation is the very nature of God; it is his inherent nature; it flows from him. Even this, he emphasizes, is mere appearance and the Truth is, there is no creation at all. Gauda Paada agrees that Buddhists might hold similar views on the subject of creation; and that does not in any manner change the Truth.

:- Another is Asparsha Yoga or pure knowledge, which is the way to realize the Absolute, which manifests itself in three forms: As Vishva in Jagrat or waking state where it has the consciousness of the outside world and enjoys the gross. As Taijasa in Swapna or dream state where it has the consciousness of the mental state and enjoys the subtle. And, as Prajna in Shushupti or deep sleep where it enjoys the bliss of deep sleep without dreams or desires. The Absolute state is that which transcends all the three states; it is the Turiya (same as Chathrtha or the fourth_one, of the Upanishads).

Deep sleep, Prajna, is a state where there is no object; it knows nothing, neither itself nor anything else; it might be non-dual but has seeds of ignorance in it. Turiya, however, is beyond waking, dreaming or sleeping; it is self luminous consciousness, bliss; it is Ishana – all pervading and non dual. It is beyond attributes. It is the Ultimate, Brahman.

The non dual Atman is realized when the individual self (jiva) is awakened from its ignorance. Atman is unborn, dreamless, sleepless, and motionless; and is beyond duality. It is cognition at its purest. It is Brahman- Ayam Atma Brahma, this Atma is that Brahma; Thus epitomizing the core of Upanishad teachings.

:- Gauda-Paada expands further on these states of consciousness. The Self is AUM. It represents manifest and un-manifest aspects of Brahman. It is the single syllable that symbolizes and embodies Brahman, the Absolute Reality. It is the Pranava that which pervades all existence and is our very life breath.

Vaisvanara in waking state is A the first part of AUM, One, who realizes this, attains his desires.

Teijasa in dream state is U the second part of AUM. One, who realizes this, attains knowledge.

Prajna in deep sleep is M the third part of AUM, concluding the sounds of the earlier two parts. One, who realizes this, attains comprehensive understanding of all.

The Syllable AUM in its entirety stands for the fourth state, Turiya the one beyond the phenomenal existence, supremely blissful and non-dual.

AUM in its integral whole stands for the fourth state which is transcendental, devoid of phenomenal existence; and is the source of all existence. AUM represents Ultimate Reality. AUM is thus verily the Self itself. One who realizes this merges into that Self. Meditate on AUM as the Self.

***

It is not difficult to see why Sri Shankara had enormous regard for Gauda-Paada. Sri Shankara’s philosophical position had its base in Gauda-Paada’s thoughts. The doctrine of the Absolute Brahman, the identity of the Absolute Self with the individual self, the concept of Maya, the dual aspects of Advaita methodology-(Adhyaropa –Apavada), the relative and Absolute levels of existence, and the notion of transformation (vivarta) as against evolution (parinama); all these are present in Gauda-Paada , in a nutshell. Sri Shankara integrates Gauda-Paada’s views with those of Badarayana and constructs an elaborate and consistent edifice on these foundations.

Sri Shankara aptly regards Gauda-Paada as Pujyabhi_Pujya, the most adored among the most adored.

References:

http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gaudapada

Consciousness in Advaita by Prof.SKR Rao.

7 Comments

Posted by sreenivasaraos on September 4, 2012 in Indian Philosophy, Sri Sankara, Vedanta

Tags: Gaudapada, Sri Sankara

Brahma Sutra

04 Sep

Continued from

Who was Badarayana?

Please read on…

Sutra literally means a thread but technically it meant in the ancient Indian context, an aphoristic style of condensing the spectrum of thoughts of a doctrine into terse, crisp, pithy pellets of compressed information that could be easily committed to memory. They are analogous to synoptic notes on a lecture; and by tapping on a note, one hopes to recall the relevant expanded form of the lecture. Perhaps the Sutras were meant to serve a similar purpose. A Sutra is therefore not merely an aphorism but a key to an entire discourse on a subject. Traditionally, each Sutra is regarded as a discourse rather than a statement.

Sri Madhwacharya defined Sutra as Pithy, unambiguous, laying out all the essential aspects of each topic, and dealing with all aspects of the question, free of repetitiveness and flaw.

The concept of Sutra was often carried to its extremes. It is said a Sutrakara would rather give up a child than expend a word. The Sutras often became so terse as to be inscrutable. And, one could read into it any meaning one wanted to. It was said, each according to his merit finds his rewards.

Nevertheless, reducing the main tenets of a school of thought into Sutra form by compiling it from its many acknowledged texts was a well accepted mode for rote learning and study. Each school of thought carried its Sutra compiled by a learned Sutrakara. For instance, the Nyaya School had its Sutra by Gautama; Vaisheshika School by Kanada; Yoga School by Patanjali; Mimamsa School by Jaimini and Vedanta School by Badarayana. Besides, there are a number of Sutras on various other subjects. Badarayana’s Sutra is of course the most celebrated of them all.

[ Of all the Schools , the Samkhya did not seem to have a Sutra of its own. ]

The style of presentation adopted by Badarayana set a model for Sutras that followed. It involved these steps : the statement of an objection or prima facie view (Purva_paksha); an answer or a rebuttal of that stand (Uttara_paksha); and conclusion (Siddantha).Accordingly, a topic for discussion (Adhikarana) is discussed in five steps or limbs: The formulation of the problem; a reasonable doubt about it; the prima facie view; the answer; and conclusion.

The method adopted by a Sutrakara was to refer to a specific passage in a text, say an Upanishad, by a key word, context or a hint to the topic for discussion. The Sutrakara would follow it by Purva_paksha, Uttara_paksha and his conclusion. He would also hint in a word or two , his reasoning. The genius of the commentator, the Bashyakara was to pinpoint Vishesha Vakya the exact statement in the Vedic text referred to by the sutra; to maintain consistency in treatment – in the context and spirit of the original text; to bring out the true intent and meaning of the Sutrakara’s reasoning and conclusions.

Brahma Sutra investigates the Upanishad teachings about God, the world, the individual soul and its deliverance. It attempts to remove the apparent contradictions that existed in its earlier texts and to bind the doctrine coherently. This, it aims to accomplish in almost 564 individual Sutras. The number of topics discussed (Adhikaranas) and the Sutras accepted by the different commentators vary. For instance, Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva have each commented on 192; 156 and 222 Adhikaranas out of 555; 545 and 564 Sutras accepted by them, respectively. The differences might be due to splitting certain Sutras or combing certain others.

The topics discussed (Adhikaranas) are classified under four Chapters (Adhyayas) . Each Adhyaya has under it four parts (Paadas).

Chapter One, Samanvaya (establishing harmony) clarifies that the basic purpose of all Upanishads is to reveal Brahman and that all the Vedanta texts talk of Brahman , which is the ultimate reality. Realizing Brahman is the goal of life. It includes an account of the nature of Brahman and its relation to world and individual soul.

Chapter Two , Avirodha (non conflict) discusses and refutes possible objections against Vedanta raised by other schools of thought like Samkhya, Yoga , Vaisheshika, Buddha, Jaina and some atheist schools; and establishes Vedanta’s views. It also gives an account of the nature of dependence of the world on God; and natural evolution from and re-absorption into God. This is followed by discussion on nature of soul, its attributes, its relation to God, body and its own deeds.

Chapter Three, Sadhana (the means) describes the process by which ultimate emancipation could be achieved. A strong yearning for attaining Brahman and distancing from worldly involvements are considered essential. It declares that with right knowledge (Brahma Vidya), Moksha can be attained here and now.

Chapter Four, Phala (fruits or benefits) talks of the fruits or the benefits of Brahma Vidya. It discusses the state that is achieved in the final emancipation. While a Saguna upasaka goes to other realms of experience, the person of true knowledge realizes his true nature right here and fulfills his life.

Badarayana commences his work with the most repeated and most discussed statement “Athaatho Brahma Jignasaha” (अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा) perhaps to say ”Then, therefore let us examine the subject of Brahman”. Tomes have been written discussing the possible intent and meaning of the ordinary looking two words – then, therefore; and setting out to postulate on Badarayana’s intent in commencing his work with these specific words; refuting explanations put forth by other commentators ; and explaining the basis for his own reasoning. A great extents of the commentaries are , therefore, taken up, both by the explanations on what is explicit in the Sutra, and by elaborations on what is implied and unsaid in the Sutra.

What is remarkable about Brahma Sutra is that each commentator came up with his version of the intent and meaning of the Sutra; and differed from the views of the rest of the commentators. Each one declared his interpretation was the truest interpretation of them all.

Apart from issues such as the status of the phenomenal world; and the nature and means to the liberation of the individual, the moot point of disagreement among the commentators was the status and relation between the individual soul (jiva) and Brahman. The possibilities were that Brahman and jiva could be:

(a) Identical; (b) Identical but qualified; (c) Not Identical and (d) Identical and yet Non Identical.

Each of these lines of possibilities (but declared by its profounder as the only certainty ) gave rise to a school of Vedanta. Such schools sprang up and have since flourished. This phase of development is termed as the Scholastic Phase of Vedanta, which commenced in about Eighth century A.D. Each of these schools gave raise to its sub classifications.

In other words, the schools of Vedanta prevalent today are of a comparatively recent origin. They started springing up about 1,200 years after Badarayana compiled his Brahma Sutra. Each school found its justification in the Brahma Sutra and yet each differed from the other interpretations.

The intervening period, from 5^th or 4^th centuries BCE to about 8^th century AD does not appear to have witnessed such scholastic developments. It all started with Shankara and his celebrated Vedanta Sutra Bashya, a commentary on the Brahma Sutra. Most of the other schools often appeared to be just reacting to Shankara’s position on the Brahma Sutra.

The following is a very brief indication of some main schools of Vedanta, in a concise form.

Shankara: Advaita

(Identity) Brahman alone is real- One without a second- transcends all attributes. Brahman and the individual soul are essentially identical. The difference is only apparent, caused by Avidya, ignorance .World is not an illusion. It is relatively real. Brahman is absolutely real. Liberation involves in realizing one’s identity with Brahman, through elimination of ignorance. Purpose of life is to realize Brahman.

Ramanuja: Vishistadvaita

(Qualified Identity) It is oneness of God with attributes or Vishesha. Brahman is the Supreme Person Narayana endowed with all auspicious attributes. He alone exists, everything is his manifestation or attributes. Individual soul is part of Brahman and hence similar but not identical. Brahman, matter and individual souls are distinct but mutually inseparable entities. Loving devotion and surrender to Narayana is the only path to Moksha, liberation and is possible with the grace of God. Moksha consists in jiva remaining in undisturbed bliss in presence of Narayana in Vaikunta. Jiva lives in fellowship with the Lord. Moksha does not involve destruction of the individual self.

Madhavacharya ; Dvaita

(non Identity) Brahman is identified with Vishnu, the all important and Supreme One endowed with all auspicious attributes. He is not impersonal. Bedha or difference is the cornerstone of the doctrine. It is unqualified dualism. There are infinite numbers of jivas, which are point-like and each jiva is separate from the other; and jivas are separate from God and depend on God for being and becoming. Reality is described as a fivefold distinction-between God and jiva; God and matter; jiva and jiva; jiva and matter; and matter and phenomena. The cause of bondage is the Will of the Supreme and ignorance of jiva. Liberation is release from cycle of births and deaths; and is possible with devotion to Vishnu and comes through the mediation of Vayu. Liberated jiva does not lose its identity. It is entitled to serve the Lord.

Nimbaraka charya: Bedhabheda

( identity in difference, dualistic monism) Brahman is the supreme reality, one without a second, the infinite reality. The world and jiva are only partial manifestations of His power. Jiva and world are different from God because they are endowed with qualities and are limited; at the same time they are not different from God because God is omnipresent and all beings exist in God. Souls and God are closely related as waves within water or coils of rope within the rope. They are both distinct and not distinct from Brahman. Salvation is attained by real knowledge and devotion. Salvation consists in the soul realizing its true nature. It attains the state of Brahman but has NO powers of creation, preservation and dissolution of the world.

Vallabhacharya: Shuddadvaita

( Pure monism) It is Pure monism because it does not admit Maya (illusion). Brahman is personal. Krishna, Purushottama, in his Sacchidananda form is Brahman. He is ever playing sport (Leela) from Gokula which is even beyond Vaikunta. World and jiva are one with Brahman in essence and are a subtle form of God. Jiva in Reality is non-dual and it is pure. The embodied jiva is defiled and impure and it must strive towards the pure state through Bhakthi, devotion, love and grace (pusti). It calls for complete surrender to Krishna, Atma nivedana (giving up oneself). The liberated souls are of different kinds. Some dwell in the city of the Lord, while some others develop perfect love for God and become His associates.

References:

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_index.php

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/brahmasutras2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta

http://www.hinduism.co.za/schools.htm

flower design

6 Comments

Posted by sreenivasaraos on September 4, 2012 in Indian Philosophy, Vedanta

Tags: Badarayana, Brahmasutras

Who was Badarayana?

04 Sep

vyas

Badarayana is a very celebrated name in the world of Indian scriptures. His name is mentioned any number of times; yet, hardly anything is known about him.

Badarayana is recognized as the compiler, Sutrakara, of the Brahma Sutras (an exposition on Brahman) also called Vedanta Sutra, Sariraka Mimamsa Sutra and Uttara Mimamsa Sutra.

Tradition identifies him with Veda Vyasa, the compiler of the Vedas; and, he is addressed as Vyasa-parasarya, though there is no adequate proof to support that.

According to some, since Vyasa was born on an island amidst Badara (Indian jujube) trees, he acquired the name of Badarayana as one of his many names.

However the Acharyas – Sri Shankara , Ramanuja, Bhaskara and Yamuna – address him as Badarayana; and, do not seem to associate him with Vyasa. They refer to his work as Sariraka Mimamsa or Vedanta Mimamsa. Sri Shankara holds Badarayana in very high regard and addresses him as Bhagavan.

Badarayana, it is suggested, might have lived anytime during 500 to 200 BCE. Prof. SN Dasguta opines he lived around 200 BCE.

Brahma Sutra is the most authoritative exposition of the Vedanta. But it was not the first. Badarayana cites the views of the earlier scholars such as Audulomi, Kaskrtsna, Badrai and Asmarthya.

But Badarayana, undoubtedly, is the most respected exponent of Vedanta. He is the final authority on the subject; though he is interpreted variously. Each commentator interpreted according to his understanding of the text.

Badarayana’s Brahma Sutra (Nyaya-Prasthana) along with Upanishads (Sruti-Prasthana) and Bhagavad-Gita (Smrithi-Prasthana) constitutes the Prasthana Trayi or the three cannons of Vedanta. These three texts are the pristine springs of Vedanta philosophy. No study of Vedanta is complete without the study of the Prasthana treya. Brahma Sutras should be studied after completing the study of Upanishads under the guidance of a teacher.

There is also a view that Upavarsha could be another name for Badarayana. This view is not well supported. It looks highly unlikely.

In any case, let us talk a bit about Upavarsha.

Again, Upavarsha comes through the mists of ancient Indian traditions and not much is known of him. We come to know him through references to his views by Sri Shankara and others. He was an intellectual giant of his times. He is credited with being the first to divide the Vedic lore into Karma-kanda (ritualistic section) and Jnana-kanda (knowledge section).He advocated the six means of knowledge (cognition) adopted later by the Advaita school. He began the discussion on self-validation (svathah-pramanya) that became a part of the Vedanta terminology. He also pioneered the method of logic called Adhyaropa-Apavada which consists in initially assuming a position and later withdrawing the assumption, after a discussion. Upavarsha is also known as the author of a commentary on Brahma Sutra titled “Sariraka Mimamsa-Vritti”, now lost.

Sri Sri Shankara has great reverence for Upavarsha; and, addresses him as Bhagavan, as he does Badarayana; while he addresses Jaimini and Sabara, the other Mimasakas, only as Teachers (Acharya). Upavarsha’s time is surmised to be prior to that of Panini, the great Grammarian, around 200 BCE.

Mimamsa was regarded a unified body of doctrine, consisting twenty sections; the first sixteen of which named Purva-Mimamsa (first part of Mimamsa), ascribed to Jaimini; and, the last four sections regarded as Uttara-Mimamsa (later Mimamsa), credited to Badarayana. Both the compilers, most likely, were contemporaries.

There is however a sharp contrast in the emphasis, treatment and views of the two sages.

Badarayana crystallizes the Upanishad thought; and, provides a framework for enquiry into the nature of the Absolute (Brahman).

Jaimini , on the other hand, inquires into the ritualistic aspects of the Vedas; and, emphasizes that worldly well-being and heavenly rewards are the objectives of a householder; and, that the rituals alone lead to the attainment of that highest objective.

Badarayana, in contrast, does not stress on rituals; and ,holds the final liberation (mukthi) as the goal of the seeker.

Jaimini hardly involves God (Isvara) into his scheme of things. He clings to the prescriptive and liturgical aspects of Vedas, setting aside their esoteric message. He generally ignores the Upanishads. His follower , Sabara described the non-human origin of the Vedas in terms of the anonymity or inability to remember the authors of the Vedas. There was therefore a fear; the ascendency of the Mimamsa might encourage atheism.

Badarayana, on the other hand, relied primarily on the Upanishads as the most meaningful portions of the Vedas. He assigned them the status of highest authority and the most valid means of knowing. They are Shruthis, the Revelations, the super-sensory intuitional perceptions of the ancient Rishis, he stressed.

It was Badarayana who initially recognized Upanishads as the crowning glory of Vedic thought; strove to uphold the authority of the Upanishads; and, to place God in the center of the scheme of things. Badarayana’s efforts and anxieties were driven by an urgent need to rescue knowledge and freethinking from the encircling swamp of ritualistic texts and practices; as also from the ascending atheistic tendencies. His work represents a vigorous response to the challenges and demands of his times; and , Brahma Sutra achieves that task amply well.

What in effect Badarayana was trying to accomplish was to drive away the strangling influences of rituals, dogma and atheism from Indian spiritual scene; and, to bring back the Upanishad spirit of inquiry , intuition, knowledge, reason , open-mindedness and its values of life. It was for that good–tradition, Sampradaya, Badarayana was yearning. Brahma Sutra was an instrument to achieve those cherished objectives. Badarayana and his efforts represent the most important phase in the evolution of the Indian philosophy.

Both Badarayana and Sri Shankara were responding to the exigencies, demands and challenges of their times, which, as the fate would hate have it, were astonishingly similar, if not identical. They set to themselves similar tasks and priorities; and, nurtured similar dreams and aspirations. Sri Shankara made a common cause with Badarayana, his forerunner, separated by history by over 1,200 years. That is the reason many consider Sri Shankara the logical successor to Badarayana.

If Badarayana, whoever he was, set in motion the process of recovery of the tradition of the ancients, Sampradaya; it was Sri Shankara who carried it forward. Sri Shankara , greatly influenced by Badarayana, recognized Upanishads as the summit of Vedic thought. The importance attached to Brahmanas appeared to him rather misplaced. Sri Shankara , then set himself the goal to recover the correct tradition, the Sampradaya.

Sri Shankara aptly referred to Badarayana, each time, with enormous reverence and addressed him as Bhagavan, Sampradaya_vit, (the knower of good tradition) and Vedanta-Sapradaya-vit, one who truly understood the traditional import of the Upanishads

aum-1-

Reference:

History of Indian Philosophy –vol.1

By Prof.S N Dasgupta .

********

Continued, please read next : Brahma Sutra

4 Comments

Posted by sreenivasaraos on September 4, 2012 in Indian Philosophy, Sri Sankara, Vedanta

Tags: Badarayana, Brahmasutras

Sri Sadashiva Brahmendra

01 Sep

The Southern India recognizes and adores Sadashiva Brahmendra as the celebrated composer of divine kirthanas; but not many may be aware he, in his later years , was an Avadhutha, a jeevan_muktha who lonely wandered the hills and dales; ran along the river banks, naked or semi naked, in a state of divine bliss. He , unmindful of the scorching sun, pouring rain, blowing chill winds roamed in wilderness without ever uttering a word; slept under starry sky; shunned all human contact ; and, was ever in a supreme intoxicated state.

Today he is revered not merely for his musical compositions; but also for his sublime Advaita text “Atma Vidya Vilasa”, the most favorite spiritual text of Sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi Swami the 34th Jagadguru of Sringeri Peetha. The swami , himself an Avadhuta, a week before his passing away, parted with all his meager passions; but retained, on second thought, a copy of Atma Vidya Vilasa till the day prior to his departure.

Not many facts are known about his life. It is believed Sadashiva Brahmendra lived in the time of Sharabhoji, ruler of Tanjore (1712 -1728). This is based on the oral tradition that Sadashiva Brahmendra presented a copy of his work Atma Vidya Vilasa to King Sharbhoji, when the king called on the Avadhuta to pay his respects.

His childhood name was Shivarama_krishna . He was the son of Somasundaram Avadhani, a Vedic scholar of Telugu Niyogi origin, who lived in Madurai in Tamil Nadu. It is said Shivarama’s family name was ‘Moksham’; and his mother was Parvathy. He was born in Nerur, situated by the quiet flowing Cauvery, near Karuru. He had his early education in traditional subjects under Ramabhadra Dikshitar who lived in Tiruvisai_nallur a.k.a. Shahajipuram. There the young Shivarama came under the influence of what were renowned as the triumvirate of Bhajana tradition viz. Sridhar Venkatesha Iyer, Sri Bhodendra Sarasathi and Bashyam Gopala_krishna Sastry.

On his return, Shivarama still in his early teens was promptly married. He however, soon thereafter ran away from home never to return. He went to Tiruvisai_nallur ; and, while wandering aimlessly in the woods nearby, he met his Guru Sri Paramashivendra Sarasvati, who initiated Shivarama into sanyasa; and named him as Sadashiva_Brahmendra.

The identity of Sri Paramashivendra Saraswati is a matter of debate. Some say he may have been an Acharya of the Kanchi-peetham , guided by the suffix ”Indra Saraswathi” to his name. But; an Acharya of that name appears in the annals of the Kanchi tradition as the 45th Jagadguru who presided over the Mutt for 27 years from 1061 AD , that is about seven hundred years before the time of Sadashiva Brahmendra. The 57th(?) Jagadguru Sri Paramasivendra Saraswathi II, recognized as the author of the treatise Dahara Vidya* Prakashika , presided over the mutt from 1539 to 1586; that is about a hundred years before Sadashiva Brahmendra.

[Dahara Vidya is an ancient form of meditation on Self dwelling in the small ethereal space within the heart-Chandogya Upanishad –VIII. Sri Ramana Maharshi was a great exponent of this method.]

(http://www.tamilnation.org/sathyam/east/ramana/self_enquiry.pdf)

In any case ; Sadashiva Brahmendra considered Sri Paramashivendra Saraswati as his Guru , named him as such in all his works and composed poetic works Navamani mala , Guru_rathna_maalika and Dakshina_murthi_dhyana in tribute to the Guru.

Sadashiva was an active young man , talkative and always chirping away. On one occasion his incessant talk so annoyed his Guru that he in despair called out “Sadashiva..! When will you learn to be quiet?”. The disciple promptly replied, “Right now, Master”. He fell into silence and never talked again the rest of his life. He gradually withdrew from the world, introspected and plunged into intense penance. He discarded all norms of accepted behavior, wandered naked aimlessly in the hills and along the Cauvery. He looked wild and insane. When some one reported to Sri Paramashivendra that his disciple had gone insane, the Guru was delighted and exclaimed “Will I ever be so fortunate!” He realized that his disciple was now an Avadhuta.

Sadashiva Brahmendra remained in that state; beyond body consciousness, not bound by ordinary social conventions and worldly concerns for a long period. A number of stories and myths grew around his mystical powers.

On one occasion , when he met his past associate Sridhar Venkatesha Iyer; the later remarked that it was laudable to be a mauni in worldly matters; and, questioned what prevented him from singing the praise of the Almighty. Then, Sadashiva Brahmendra saw reason in the argument.

He thereafter created a series of musical compositions in praise of :

Sri Rama:

Pibare Rama rasam,
Khelathi mama hridaye,
Bhajare Raghuveeram,
Cheta Sriramam,
Prathi varam varam manasa etc.

Sri Krishna

Smara nandakumaram ,
Gayathi vanamali,
Bhajare Gopalam maanasa ,
Bhajare Yadu natham maanasa ,
Kridathi vanamali ,
Bruhi mukundethi etc.

and of Brahman

Sarvam Brahma maya re ,
Khelathi Brahmande Bhagavan ,
Manasa sanchara re ,
Tadvad jeevanam Brahmani etc.

His poetic signature was “parama_hamsa” . About twenty-two of his compositions have been recovered.

Plese check here for a collection of compositions of Sri Sadasiva Brahmendra. and their MP3 links

And, for the list of known compositions of Sri Sadashiva Brahmendra– compiled by Sri P.R. Ramachander, some with translation into English

He also wrote a number of philosophical works of high quality such as Brahma sutra Vrithi, Yoga_sudhakara, Kaivalya_amrutha _bindu (based on Upanishads); Siddantha_kalpa_valli (a poetic treatise on Appaiah Dikshitar’s work), Advaita rasa manjari, Brahma tattva prakaashikaa and Mano_niyamana. His Navamani_mala, Guru_rathna_malika and Dakshina_murthi_dhyana are in praise of the Guru.

But his Atma_vidya_vilasa a true classic is the best known.

[Please check here for the text and the translation of Atma Vidya Vilasa by Shri SN Sastri]

Atma_vidya_vilasa is a poetic work running into 62 verses in simple, lucid Sanskrit. Its subject is renunciation. It describes the ways of the Avadhuta, one who is beyond the pale of social norms , beyond Dharma , beyond good and evil; one who has discarded scriptures, shastras , rituals or even the disciplines prescribed for sanyasins; one who has gone beyond the bodily awareness , one who realized the Self and one immersed in the bliss of self-realization. He is absolutely free and liberated in every sense – one who “passed away from” or “shaken off” all worldly attachments and cares, and realized his identity with God. The text describes the characteristics of an Avadhuta, his state of mind, his attitude and behavior. The text undoubtedly is a product of Sadashiva Brahmendra’s experience. It is a highly revered book among the Yogis and Sadhakas.

Sadashiva Brahmendra lived in that exalted state on the banks of the Cauvery until he discarded his mortal body at its age of one hundred years or a little more, some time between 1750 and 1753. His Samadhi in Nerur, Karur district is now a shrine to a large number of devotees. His Aaradhana is celebrated annually on the tenth day of dark half of the month of Jeshta (some time during May each year).

Sringeri Jagadgurus and Atma_vidya_vilasa

Sadashiva Brahmendra and his classic work Atma_vidya _vilasa wielded an enormous influence on the life and Sadhana of the Sringeri Jagadgurus.

It was the 32nd Jagadguru of Sringeri Sharada Peetam, Sri Nrusimha Bharathi VIII (1817-1879) that first recognized the greatness of Sadashiva Brahmendra and arranged for the upkeep and maintenance of his Samadhi.

His successor Sri Sacchidananda Shivabhinava Nrsimha Bharathi (1879-1912) made a seminal visit to the samadhi of the saint at Nerur. He became an ardent admirer and devotee of Sadashiva Brahmendra in whose praise he composed two poetic works (Sadashivendra Stava and Sadashivendra Panchrathna stotram) .

Please visit the following link for the text of Sadashivendra Panchrathna stotram

[The Adhyatma Prakashana Karyalaya, Holenarasipur, Hasan District, Karnataka, has published in Kannada the texts and translation along with explanatory notes of Atmavidya Vilasa and Sadashivendra Stuthi]

Sacchidananda Shivabhinava Nrisimha Bharati

He considered Sadashiva Brahmendra his ideal, tried to emulate his principles. He modeled his attitude, his ideals and his way of living in the light of Atma_vidya_vilasa. He gradually withdrew from the active administration of the Mutt starting from the year 1901and devoted increasingly to spiritual practices. Listening to Atma_vidya_vilasa and contemplating on it became a part of his daily spiritual exercise. He in his last days lived like an Avadhuta. He instructed his disciples that in the last moments of his life while he would be drawing his last breaths they should recite aloud the verses from the Atma_vidya_vilasa. He wished to die with those verses ringing in his ears. Such was his devotion to that text.

Chandrasekhara Bharti swamigal

But the one who really emulated Sadashiva Brahmendra and evolved into an Avadhuta was the 34th Jagadguru Sri Chandrasekhar Bharathi Swami. He studied Atma_vidya_vilasa intensely, imbibed its principles and truly lived according to that in word and deed .Unmindful of the external world he roamed wildly the hills of Srngeri like a child , an intoxicated , an insane and as one possessed singing aloud the verses from Atma_vidya_vilasa:

Discard the bondages of karma. Wander in the hills immersed in the bliss of the Self -unmindful of the world like a deaf and a blind (AVV-15)

avadhūtakarmajālo jaḍabadhirāndhopamaḥ ko’pi ।
ātmārāmo yatirāḍaṭavīkoṇeśvaṭannāste ॥ 15॥

Rooted in the Brahman absorbed in the bliss within, he for a while meditates, for a while sings and dances in ecstasy. (AVV-21)

tiṣṭhanparatra dhāmni svīyasukhāsvādaparavaśaḥ kaścit ।
kvāpi dhyāyati kuhacidgāyati kutrāpi nṛtyati svaram ॥ 21॥

He sees nothing, hears nothing, and says nothing. He is immersed in Brahman and in that intoxication is motionless.(AVV-44)

paśyati kimapi na rūpaṃ na vadati na śṛṇoti kiñcidapi vacanam ।
tiṣṭhati nirupamabhūmani niṣṭhāmavalambya kāṣṭhavadyogī ॥ 44॥

Sri Chandrasekhar Bharathi was the living epitome of the Atma_vidya_vilasa. He was an Avadhuta – a liberated soul, one who “passed away from” or “shaken off” all worldly attachments and cares, and has realized his identity with Self. He was an enlightened being who lived in a state beyond body-consciousness.

Avadhuta – a brief remark

Avadhuta (he who has shed everything) is a radical type of renouncer of an unconventional type. Avadhuta is one who has risen above bodily consciousness, duality and worldly concerns. He has no use for social etiquette. He is not bound by sanyasi dharma either. He roams the earth freely like a child, like an intoxicated or like one possessed. He is pure consciousness embodied.

Avadhuta Gita describes him

The Avadhuta alone, pure in evenness of feeling, Abides happy in an empty dwelling place,

Having renounced all, he moves about naked .He perceives the Absolute, the All, within himself.

The Avadhuta never knows any mantra in Vedic metre or any Tantra.

This is the supreme utterance of the Avadhuta, purified by meditation

And merged in the sameness of the Supreme Being.

Ashtavakra Gita describes him in a similar manner:

17.15
The sage sees no difference / Between happiness and misery,/ Man and woman,/ Adversity and success. / Everything is seen to be the same.

bubhukṣuriha saṃsāre mumukṣurapi dṛśyate । bhogamokṣanirākāṃkṣī viralo hi mahāśayaḥ ॥ 17-5॥

17.16
In the sage there is neither / Violence nor mercy, /Arrogance nor humility, / Anxiety nor wonder. / His worldly life is exhausted. / He has transcended his role as a person

dharmārthakāmamokṣeṣu jīvite maraṇe tathā । kasyāpyudāracittasya heyopādeyatā na hi ॥ 17-6॥

17.18
The sage is not conflicted / By states of stillness and thought. / His mind is empty. / His home is the Absolute.

kṛtārtho’nena jñānenetyevaṃ galitadhīḥ kṛtī । paśyan śṛṇvan spṛśan jighrann aśnannāste yathā sukham ॥ 17-8॥

18.9
Knowing for certain that all is Self, / The sage has no trace of thoughts / Such as “I am this” or “I am not that.”

ayaṃ so’hamayaṃ nāhaṃ iti kṣīṇā vikalpanā । sarvamātmeti niścitya tūṣṇīmbhūtasya yoginaḥ ॥ 18-9॥

18.10
The yogi who finds stillness / is neither distracted nor focused. / He knows neither pleasure nor pain. / Ignorance dispelled, / He is free of knowing.

na vikṣepo na caikāgryaṃ nātibodho na mūḍhatā । na sukhaṃ na ca vā duḥkhaṃ upaśāntasya yoginaḥ ॥ 18-10॥

Not all Sanyasis are Avadhutas and not all Avadhutas are Sanyasis. Of the four types of Avadhutas, Shaiv-avadhuta and Brahma-avadhuta need not be sanyasis they could even be householders. The Dashanami_avadhutas (those that bear names such as Vana, Aranya, Giri, Thirtha, Bharathi etc.) and Bhaktha_vadutas are the other two.

Of these, the Shaivadhutas and the Brahmavadutas indulge in Tantric practices.

The Bhaktavadutas form the prominent group. It consists Paramahamsa (fully realized) and Parivrajaka (incomplete, wandering) classes. The former is considered incarnation of Shiva. He could be a sanyasi or a householder; he could wear clothes or could be naked. He is not bound by any restrictions. He has no fixed place of stay. Practices like meditation, rituals, worship etc. are irrelevant to him. He is beyond conflicts of pain and pleasure, gain or loss, joy or sorrow. He is ever immersed in bliss of Self-realization.

Dattatreya

Dattatreya is the supreme Avadhuta. There is a belief that Dattatreya composed the Avadhuta Gita, which describes the characteristics of an Avadhuta.

Nath Sampradaya is a sect of Avadhutas that places great importance on the Guru and on Yoga.Avadhuta Gita is its text and Sri Ghorakhnath is its prime Avadhutha.

The worship of Datta is more prevalent in Maharashtra and North Karnataka. The Datta kshetras such as Ganagapur, Agadi and Baba Budan Giri in Karnataka are prominent centers of Datta worship.

Resource

Sahradapeetada Manikya by Prof SKR Rao

8 Comments

Posted by sreenivasaraos on September 1, 2012 in Indian Philosophy, Vedanta

Tags: Atma vidya vilasa, Sadashiva Brahmendra, sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi

Ashtavakra Gita

01 Sep

ashtavakra gita 2

The day of full moon, Purnima, in the month of Ashadha is traditionally celebrated as Guru Purnima also as Vyas Purnima. Today, 29 July, 2007 ; Sunday is the Guru Purnima. Think of the Guru.

Guru (Gu- ignorance/darkness, Ru-destroyer)is one, who removes the darkness and delusion. Purnima is the effulgent full moon. The true Guru is in our heart. Purify the heart to let the Divinity dwell in it. Guru Purnima is an occasion for cleaning the mind to make it absolutely pure.

In what better way can we do that than by talking of Guru Ashtavakra?

One of my favorite readings is Ashtavakra Gita also called Ashtavakra Samhita. It is in the form of a dialogue between King Janaka and a brilliant but physically deformed boy genius, Ashtavakra. It comprises 298 verses in 20 chapters of varied length. It glorifies the state of Self-realization. The story of Ashtavakra appears in the Vana Parva of the Mahabharata.

The story of Ashtavakra is narrated in a simple form here

Sri Ramana Mahrishi’s rendering of the tale is here

John Richards’s translation of Ashtavakra Gita is simple, lucid and popular.

The translation of Bart Marshall is brilliant.

Those interested may also see the notes made by Swami Shraddhananda, a sannyasin of Sri Ramakrishna order.

AshtavakraGitaCh-4Of20Slideshow

Ashtavakra Gita is an Advaita text of the highest order, addressed to advanced learners. We do not know who wrote this classic. The estimate of its date varies from third or fourth century BC to post Sri Shankara period. The author, whoever he was, employed the King Janaka- Ashtavakra episode with great imagination and wove around it a sublime philosophical work , in simple, lucid, classic Sanskrit. The text deals with bondage and liberation, the nature of the Self, means of realizing the Self (atmanu-bhuti) , state of mystic experience in the embodied state. This is Advaita in its distilled form, devoid of stories, examples, arguments.

Janaka, here, unlike Arjuna , is not a confused person. He is not seeking refuge from despair or delusion. Janaka is mature and knowledgeable; an earnest seeker. The Guru did not have to go through the preliminary exercise of convincing the disciple of the futility of pursuing after objects.

Sage Ashtavakra says that the Self alone exists and all else within the mind-senses vortex is unreal. He draws his disciple’s attention to his restlessness, despite being a model king. This, Ashtavakra recognizes as Janaka’s yearning for truth.

Ashtavakra maintains that all prayers, mantras, rituals, meditation, actions, devotion, breathing practices, etc are secondary. These distract the aspirant from self-knowledge. Knowledge/awareness is all that is required. Ignorance does not exist in itself; it is just the absence of knowledge or awareness. The light of knowledge or consciousness will dispel ignorance revealing the Self. The Self is merely forgotten, not lost, not to be attained. This is not a belief system or a school of thought. This is simply ‘What Is’ and the recognition of ‘What is’.

Admittedly this stringent approach is not suitable for all. A sharp , discriminating and inward-looking mind is required for understanding Asthavakra’s teaching. Perhaps due to its rigor , the text has not been popular

It starts with the King Janaka asking the sage Ashtavakra how he can attain knowledge, detachment and liberation. It quickly becomes a guru-disciple dialogue; however, after Janaka realizes his true Self, they get into an Advaitic discussion of the highest caliber.

white lotus

The sage instructs:

1.2

To be free, Shun the experiences of the senses Like poison / Turn your attention to/ Forgiveness, sincerity, kindness, simplicity, truth.

muktiṃ icchasi cettāta viṣayān viṣavattyaja । kṣamārjavadayātoṣasatyaṃ pīyūṣavad bhaja ॥ 1-2॥

1.11

It is true what they say: “You are what you think.”/ If you think you are bound you are bound./ If you think you are free you are free.

muktābhimānī mukto hi baddho baddhābhimānyapi । kiṃvadantīha satyeyaṃ yā matiḥ sā gatirbhavet ॥ 1-11॥

1.15

You are now and forever/ Free, luminous, transparent, still./ The practice of meditation/ Keeps one in bondage.

niḥsaṃgo niṣkriyo’si tvaṃ svaprakāśo niraṃjanaḥ । ayameva hi te bandhaḥ samādhi manutiṣṭhati ॥ 1-15॥

1.16

You are pure Consciousness/ The substance of the universe./ The universe exists within you.’ Don’t be small-minded.

tvayā vyāptamidaṃ viśvaṃ tvayi protaṃ yathārthataḥ śuddha buddha svarūpastvaṃ mā gamaḥ kṣudracittatām ॥ 1-16॥

1.17

You are unconditioned, changeless, formless./ You are solid, unfathomable, cool./ Desire nothing./ You are Consciousness.

nirapekṣo nirvikāro nirbharaḥ śītalāśayaḥ । agādha buddhi rakṣubdho bhava cinmātra vāsanaḥ ॥ 1-17॥

The technique of Jnana used here is that of Vichara usually translated as self-enquiry but it signifies examination, reflection, or looking within.Sri Ramana Maharishi was the greatest exponent of this method in recent times. In other types of spiritual practices, the mind is assumed to be an independent entity and therefore efforts are made to control it, purify it and channel it towards the Godhead. Ashtavakra preaches that mind has no existence of its own. It is a bundle of thoughts, he says, take the direct path and plunge into consciousness. A conscious bliss ensues when one abides in Self. Sri Ramana Mahrshi echos these thoughts in his Upadesha Saram (verses 17-21 and 28).

Ashtavakra suggests that there is in reality only the Self and that it is all- pervasive. Just as waves, bubbles or foam have no existence without the sea, so too everything in experience is a phenomenal manifestation of the one great spiritual reality. Ashtavakra speaks of the rising of the winds of the mind and says the worlds are produced, as waves on the sea. He suggests it is the mental activity that gives rise to our experience of the world.

2.23

In the limitless ocean of Myself / The winds of the mind/ Roll the myriad waves of the world

aho bhuvanakallolairvicitrairdrāk samutthitam । mayyanaṃtamahāmbhodhau cittavāte samudyate ॥ 2-23

Upon hearing the Guru, Janaka is enlightened. He bursts into joy and wonder of his new-found state. Ashtavakra is pleased but notices inconsistencies in Janaka’s approach and lets out a series of confrontational verses about attachment to objects. He questions at the end:

3.13

Why should a person of steady mind,/ Who sees the nothingness of objects,/ Prefer one thing to another ?

svabhāvād eva jānāno dṛśyametanna kiṃcana । idaṃ grāhyamidaṃ tyājyaṃ sa kiṃ paśyati dhīradhīḥ ॥ 3-13॥

Janaka defends by saying

4.1

Surely one who knows Self,/ Though he plays the game of life,/Differs greatly from the world’s/ Bewildered burdened beasts.

hantātmajñānasya dhīrasya khelato bhogalīlayā । na hi saṃsāra vāhīkair mūḍhaiḥ saha samānatā ॥ 4-1॥

4.6

Rare is he who knows himself / As One with no other—The Lord of the Universe./ He acts as he knows/ And is never afraid.

ātmānamadvayaṃ kaścijjānāti jagadīśvaram । yad vetti tatsa kurute na bhayaṃ tasya kutracit ॥ 4-6॥

Ashtavakra does not disagree; but in a terse four verses points to the next step—dissolution

5.1

You are immaculate,/ Touched by nothing./ What is there to renounce?/ The mind is complex—let it go./ Know the peace of dissolution.

na te saṃgo’sti kenāpi kiṃ śuddha styaktumicchasi । saṃghātavilayaṃ kurvannevameva layaṃ vraja ॥ 5-1॥

5.2

The universe arises from you/ Like foam from the sea./ Know yourself as One./ Enter the peace of dissolution.

udeti bhavato viśvaṃ vāridheriva budbudaḥ । iti jñātvaikamātmānaṃ evameva layaṃ vraja ॥ 5-2॥

5.3

Like an imagined snake in a rope/ The universe appears to exist/ In the immaculate Self / But does not./ Seeing this you know: “There is nothing to dissolve.”

pratyakṣamapyavastutvād viśvaṃ nāstyamale tvayi । rajju sarpa iva vyaktaṃ evameva layaṃ vraja ॥ 5-3॥

5.4

You are perfect, changeless,/ Through misery and happiness,/ Hope and despair,/ Life and death./ This is the state of dissolution.

sama duḥkha sukhaḥ pūrṇa āśānairāśyayoḥ samaḥ । sama jīvita mṛtyuḥ sannevameva layaṃ vraja ॥ 5-4॥

Ashtavakra makes a remarkable statement; the world however turbulent it may appear is within the infinite being and that it cannot alter the fundamental nature of the Self. He says, it is in the infinite ocean of myself that the mind-creation called the world takes place. I am supremely peaceful and formless and I remain as such.

7.3

In me, the shoreless ocean,/ The universe is imagined./ I am still and formless./ In this alone I abide.

mayya naṃta mahāmbhodhau viśvaṃ nāma vikalpanā । atiśāṃto nirākāra etad evā aham āsthitaḥ ॥ 7-3॥

Janaka says “I know that already,” matching him in style and number of verses Janaka goes on to further describes his enlightened state.Still hearing too much “I” in Janaka’s language, Ashtavakra instructs him in the subtleties of attachment and bondage.

Ashtavakra said:

Bondage is when the mind longs for something, grieves about something, rejects something, holds on to something, is pleased about something or displeased about something. 8.1

tadā bandho yadā cittaṃ kiñcid vāñchati śocati । kiṃcin muṃcati gṛṇhāti kiṃcid dṛṣyati kupyati ॥ 8-1॥

Liberation is when the mind does not long for anything, grieve about anything, reject anything, or hold on to anything, and is not pleased about anything or displeased about anything. 8.2

tadā muktiryadā cittaṃ na vāñchati na śocati । na muṃcati na gṛṇhāti na hṛṣyati na kupyati ॥ 8-2॥

Bondage is when the mind is tangled in one of the senses, and liberation is when the mind is not tangled in any of the senses. 8.3

tadā bandho yadā cittaṃ saktaṃ kāśvapi dṛṣṭiṣu । tadā mokṣo yadā cittamasaktaṃ sarvadṛṣṭiṣu ॥ 8-3॥

When there is no “me,” that is liberation, and when there is “me” there is bondage. Consider this carefully, and neither holds on to anything nor rejects anything. 8.4

yadā nāhaṃ tadā mokṣo yadāhaṃ bandhanaṃ tadā । matveti helayā kiṃcinmā gṛhāṇa vimuṃca mā ॥ 8-4॥

Ashtavakra goes on to annihilate the false sense of identification of the Self with the mind, saying that “it is bondage when the mind desires or grieves at anything, rejects or accepts anything, feels happy or angry at anything..” In a movingly simple verse, he sums up a free and fearless soul as one who has renounced desire, for “the renunciation of desire alone is renunciation of the world”.

Ashtavakra continues to describe the way of true detachment and stresses the folly of desire—no matter how elevated or subtle. Ashtavakra further describes the state of desireless-ness to which he points

11.6

“I am not the body, nor is the body my possession—I am Awareness itself.”/ One who realizes this for certain/ Has no memory of things done or left undone./ There is only the Absolute.

nāhaṃ deho na me deho bodho’hamiti niścayī । kaivalyaṃ iva samprāpto na smaratyakṛtaṃ kṛtam ॥ 11-6॥

Janaka says he understands what Ashtavakra is saying and summarizes his exalted state with calm indifference. Ashtavakra is impressed but tells the disciple he is not there yet.

15.5

Attachment and aversion/ Are attributes of the mind./ You are not the mind. You are Consciousness itself–Changeless, undivided, free./ Go in happiness

rāgadveṣau manodharmau na manaste kadācana । nirvikalpo’si bodhātmā nirvikāraḥ sukhaṃ cara ॥ 15-5॥

15.16

Leave behind such distinctions/ As “I am He, the Self,”/ And “I am not this.”/ Consider everything Self. / Be desire-less. / Be happy

sarvabhūteṣu cātmānaṃ sarvabhūtāni cātmani । vijñāya nirahaṅkāro nirmamastvaṃ sukhī bhava ॥ 15-6॥

Ashtavakra then attacks the futility of effort and knowing.

Being pure consciousness, do not disturb your mind with thoughts of for and against. Be at peace and remain happily in yourself, the essence of joy. 15.19

Give up meditation completely but don’t let the mind hold on to anything. You are free by nature, so what will you achieve by forcing the mind? 15.20

16.1

You can recite and discuss scripture / All you want,/ But until you drop everything / You will never know Truth.

ācakṣva śṛṇu vā tāta nānā śāstrā aṇyanekaśaḥ । tathāpi na tava svāsthyaṃ sarva vismaraṇād ṛte ॥ 16-1॥

Ashtavakra does not pay much heed to book learning or to the importance given to mind and its control. You are already free, what will you gain by deliberating or pondering. In other words, remain unattached at all times from all things (including the mind). He advocates direct approach. Teachings of Sri Ramona are remarkably similar to that of Ashtavakra.

Ashtavakra then goes on to describe the nature of a wise person or yogi (chapters 17 and 18) .The characteristics of the true knower as outlined by Ashtavakra are very similar to that of a sthitha_prajna described in Bhagavad-Gita Gita.

17.15

The sage sees no difference/ Between happiness and misery,/ Man and woman, / Adversity and success./ Everything is seen to be the same.

sukhe duḥkhe nare nāryāṃ sampatsu ca vipatsu ca । viśeṣo naiva dhīrasya sarvatra samadarśinaḥ ॥ 17-15॥

17.16

In the sage there is neither/ Violence nor mercy,/ Arrogance nor humility,/ Anxiety nor wonder./ His worldly life is exhausted./ He has transcended his role as a person.

na hiṃsā naiva kāruṇyaṃ nauddhatyaṃ na ca dīnatā । nāścaryaṃ naiva ca kṣobhaḥ kṣīṇasaṃsaraṇe nare ॥ 17-16॥

17.18

The sage is not conflicted/ By states of stillness and thought./ His mind is empty./ His home is the Absolute.

samādhāna samādhāna hitāhita vikalpanāḥ । śūnyacitto na jānāti kaivalyamiva saṃsthitaḥ ॥ 17-18॥

18.9

Knowing for certain that all is Self,/ The sage has no trace of thoughts/ Such as “I am this” or “I am not that.”

ayaṃ so’hamayaṃ nāhaṃ iti kṣīṇā vikalpanā । sarvamātmeti niścitya tūṣṇīmbhūtasya yoginaḥ ॥ 18-9॥

18.10

The yogi who finds stillness/ is neither distracted nor focused./ He knows neither pleasure nor pain./ Ignorance dispelled,/ He is free of knowing.

na vikṣepo na caikāgryaṃ nātibodho na mūḍhatā । na sukhaṃ na ca vā duḥkhaṃ upaśāntasya yoginaḥ ॥ 18-10॥

In a final flurry of questions pointing only at their own meaninglessness, Janaka bursts forth into inspired poetry and burns off the last vestiges of personhood and enters dissolution (chapters 19 and 20). He ends with: “No more can be said.” Ashtavakra smiles, nods approvingly, and says no more

Using the tweezers of the knowledge of the truth I have managed to extract the painful thorn of endless opinions from the recesses of my heart. 19.1

20.11

Where is illusion? Where is existence? Where is attachment or non-attachment? Where is person? Where is God?

I am Awareness./ Where are principles and scriptures? Where is the disciple or teacher? Where is the reason for life? I am boundless, Absolute.

kva māyā kva ca saṃsāraḥ kva prītirviratiḥ kva vā । kva jīvaḥ kva ca tadbrahma sarvadā vimalasya me ॥ 20-11॥

kva pravṛttirnirvṛttirvā kva muktiḥ kva ca bandhanam । kūṭasthanirvibhāgasya svasthasya mama sarvadā ॥ 20-12॥

20.14

Where is existence or non-existence? Where is Unity or duality? / Nothing emanates from me. / No more can be said.

kva cāsti kva ca vā nāsti kvāsti caikaṃ kva ca dvayam । bahunātra kimuktena kiṃcinnottiṣṭhate mama ॥ 20-14॥

॥ Om̃ tatsat ॥

white lotus

The approach and treatment of Ashtavakra are logical and precise like mathematical equations.Yet, the Ashtaavakra Gita may not be read at a streatch , in one straight reading. It is preferable the verses are read few at a time , on a daily basis, and reflected upon .

One rarely comes across a Guru-disciple association as that of Sri Ashtavakra and King Janaka, a mature disciple. To such Sri Guru, who is the Para Brahman, I offer my salutations, on this Guru Purnima !

header

https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_giitaa/ashtgita.html?lang=iast

16 Comments

Posted by sreenivasaraos on September 1, 2012 in Ashtavakra gita, Indian Philosophy, Vedanta

Tags: Ashtavakra gita, Janaka

Adhyasa Bhashya of Sri Sankara

01 Sep

sri sankara

1. The magnificent prelude that Sri Sankara wrote to his commentary on the Vedanta Sutras is celebrated as The Adhyasa Bashya. It is in fact not a Bhashya; it is not a commentary. It is an independent piece of writing, which served as a prologue to his main work.

2. The Adhyasa Bashya is remarkable in many ways. It is not a lengthy work; it is less than fifty lines divided into five sections. It is a free flowing writing. Sri Sankara lucidly puts forth his views. While doing so, he does not cite any traditional text or authority in support of his views. He does not denounce or attack any school of thought (vada). He is not propagating a new school of thought or a new argument. He assures that the significance of the initial discussion will be realized in the main commentary, which seeks to restore the true interpretation of the. Vedanta tradition as contained in the Vedanta Sutra. Adhyasa Bashya is a rare gem in the field of philosophical texts.

3. Attaining ones aspirations and expectations by resort to rituals had caught the imagination of the common people, though the Vedanta tradition advocated wisdom as the sole means for attaining ones goals in life. However, some thinkers diluted the rigorous position by combing Upanishad teachings with rituals to make it appealing to the common people. This they called ‘jnana_karma_samucchaya”– a two- in- one of wisdom and ritual.

3.1. Sri Sankara viewed this as a distortion of the Upanishad ideals. In order to play down the prominence given to rituals by the Mimamsakas, Sri Sankara relied on the idea of avidya He bracketed the ritualistic approach with avidya and called it an “error”.

4. Avidya is a word that occurs in Upanishads, though not often. The word Vidya is used to denote effective discrimination and avidya is the absence of it. Sri Sankara states wisdom (vidya) can eliminate ignorance (avidya); but the ignorance it eliminates is not real, because it has no existence of its own. Once the error is removed the Universe (Brahman) will reveal of its own accord.

4.1. Sri Sankara explains, darkness and light are distinct from each other in their nature and in their functions. Darkness has no existence of its own; it is merely the absence of light. Whereas, the light is positive and helps vision. Darkness and light can neither coexist nor share their functions or nature. Darkness is an error that can be removed.

5. Sri Sankara states in his prologue , the main purpose of the Upanishads is to provide the Knowledge(vidya) that will eliminate darkness , ignorance(avidya) , which is in the nature of “reality transfer” (adhyasa). He thereafter goes on to explain the concept adhyasa.

5.1.Adhyasa, according to Sri Sankara, is not an intellectual construct (kalpana_viseha) but a matter of experience (anubhava). Sri Sankara says we do it all the time. Adhyasa consists in mistaking one thing and its attributes for another; superimposing one level of reality over other. This we do every day.

For instance; we measure the duration of the day with reference to sunrise ; and , reckon our existence in terms of days/weeks/months / years which again are related to motion of the Sun. But, in the absolute view, the Sun neither raises nor sets; but , it is the earth that rotates . For our day-today existence we accept and go by the relative -reality of the diurnal motion of the Sun, and also ignore the fact of earth’s rotation. Both these positions are real in their own sphere ; but, one is a ‘relative reality’ and the other is the ‘Absolute reality’. We , in our living , impose the relative reality over the Absolute; and accept the relative as the Real .

Thus, an individual experiences the world through his senses, mind and other ways of perception. His experience of the world may be tainted by the defect in his senses or other constraints, internal or external. Nevertheless, that person creates his own set of norms, impressions and experiences and he accepts those subjective experiences as real.

5.2. A special feature of Sri Sankara’s thought is that he regards personal and intuitive experience (anubhava) as independent and convincing evidence. Sri Sankara says that individual’s experience cannot be disputed, because the experience he went through was real to him; though that may not be real from the absolute point of view. Sankara makes a distinction between the absolute view and the relative view of things.

6. In short, what the person does is, he imposes his transactional experience (relative or dual) over the transcendental (absolute) and accepts the former as real. That subjective experience need not be proved or disproved . However, the confusion it created can be removed by wisdom (vidya). According to Sri Sankara the world we experience is not absolutely real but it is not false either. The real is that which cannot be negated and that which is beyond contradiction.

6.1. Sri Sankara explains that vyavaharika (relative) and para_marthika (absolute) both are real. However, the relative reality is “limited” in the sense it is biologically or mechanically determined and it is not beyond contradictions. The absolute on the other hand is infinite (everlasting and unitary (meaning utter lack of plurality)).

Sri Sankara is careful to point out that the two dimensions – Vyavaharika and Paramarthika – are two levels of experiential variations. It does not mean they are two orders of reality. They are only two perspectives. Whatever that is there is REAL and is not affected by our views

6.2. The Self in the vyavaharika context is saririka (embodied self); it encounters the world. However, the Self in reality is not saririka; it is absolute, asaririka and is infinite. The infinite Self, perceived as the limited self (jiva) is what Sri Sankara calls as Adhyasa.

7. The dichotomy between being an individual-in-the-world (jiva) and being originally a pure, transcendental consciousness (atman) is taken by Sri Sankara as merely superficial.According to Sri Sankara, it is due to avidya that the individual fails to see the nexus between Being and the world. That nexus indicates the oneness underlying the subject-object, inner-outer, Man-Nature distinctions. All that is required is to remove the error and the universe will shine on its own accord.

8. The analogy given in the text is that of a pond that is clear and undisturbed .One can see the bottom of the pond through its still water. When, however, pebbles are thrown into the pond, the water in it is disturbed and the bottom of the pond becomes no longer visible. That bottom however is there all the time and it remains unchanged, no matter whether the surface water is disturbed or not. The water in the pond is the transactional world. The bottom of the pond is the transcendental reality. The disturbance created is avidya

[It is difficult to find an exact English word for adhyasa. It may, among other things, mean “superimposition”,” projection” etc. adhyasa is more comprehensive than that. Sri Sankara, in my view, recognizes three levels ofexistence, the Absolute, the relative and the illusory. Adhyasa consists in superimposing one level of existence (relative/illusory) over the other (The Absolute) and accepting the former as true while it may actually be untrue.The absolute (atman) appearing as the limited (jiva) is what Sri Sankara calls adhyasa.

(For more on this please see Adhyasa ]

9.Extending the concept of Adhyasa, Sri Sankara says, we superimpose the body, the sense organs and the mind on the Self(infinite) and we use expressions like: ‘I am fat’, ‘I am thin’, ‘I am white’, ‘I am black’, ‘I stand’, ‘I go’, ‘I am dumb’, ‘I am deaf’, ‘I think’, ‘I am not going to fight’, ‘I shall renounce’ and so on. In this way, we superimpose our mind on the Atman, which is the eternal witness. We do it the other way also by superimposing self on the mind, the non-Self. According to Sankara, the relation between mind and self involves mutual superimposition (itaretara-adhyasa). This relation is false since there cannot be any real relation between the self and the non-self. This confusion or adhyasa is innate to us, and is a matter of common experience.

10. Sri Sankara says, the purpose of Upanishads is to remove adhyasa or avidya; and once it is removed, Brahman will shine of its accord, for it is the only reality. This doctrine of Sri Sankara became the nucleus for the development of the Advaita school of thought.

11. As regards the rituals, Sri Sankara says, the person who performs rituals and aspires for rewards will view himself in terms of the caste into which he is born, his age, the stage of his life, his standing in society etc. In addition, he is required to perform rituals all through his life. However, the Self has none of those attributes or tags. Hence, the person who superimposes all those attributes on the changeless, eternal Self and identifies Self with the body is confusing one for the other; and is therefore an ignorant person. The scriptures dealing with rituals, rewards etc. are therefore addressed to an ignorant person.

11.1This ignorance (mistaking the body for Self) brings in its wake a desire for the well being of the body ,aversion for its disease or discomfort, fear of its destruction and thus a host of miseries(anartha). This anartha is caused by projecting karthvya (“doer” sense) and bhokthavya (object) on the Atman. Sri Sankara calls this adhyasa. The scriptures dealing with rituals, rewards etc. are therefore, he says, addressed to an ignorant person.

11.2.In short, person who engages in rituals with the notion “I am an agent, doer, thinker”, according to Sri Sankara, is ignorant, as his behavior implies a distinct, separate doer/agent/knower ; and an object that is to be done/achieved/known. That duality is avidya, an error that can be removed by vidya.

11.3. Sri Sankara elsewhere explains that, when such acts are performed by a person without desire for the fruits of his actions, by recognizing the reality that there is neither a “doer” nor an “object”, then that instills in him the desire for Brahma-vidya, which takes him closer to vidya.

12. Sri Sankara affirming his belief in one eternal unchanging reality (Brahman) and the illusion of plurality, drives home the point that Upanishads deal not with rituals but with the knowledge of the Absolute (Brahma vidya) and the Upanishads give us an insight into the essential nature of the Self which is identical with the Absolute, the Brahman.

[https://sanskritdocuments.org/sites/snsastri/adhyasabhashya.pdf ]

https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/brahmasutra_content?language=dv&field_chapter_value=1&field_quarter_value=1&field_nsutra_value=0

Sri Sankara

1. Sri Sankara was an original thinker. He was a leader.Hewas not a dreaming idealist but a practical visionary.Scripture and reason were the two aids in his arguments. He was a great logician, who based his arguments entirely on the principles of logic but without contradicting the intuitional revelations of the Vedas and the Upanishads. Sri Sankara’s thought gave a new dimension to Indian philosophy. It restored the position of Upanishads as the pristine source of knowledge. It established Vidya, wisdom as the true source of light. It put reason and discretion at the center stage and pushed the rituals out of contention.

2. He ushered in a new way of looking at our world, at our experience in/with it, by introducing the relative and absolute view of the Universe. When he talked about the infinite and time less nature of the Universe, it was not in the sense of endless duration, but in the sense of completeness, requiring neither a before nor an after. When he referred to Unity of self he was not talking of putting two things together, but he used the term to mean utter absence of all plurality in the real Self. The western world had to wait until the beginning of twentieth century to arrive at those concepts.

3. He gave credence to an individual’s subjective experience. He placed personal experience and intuition above all the other means of cognition. He said a person’s experience could not be disputed. He declared, “Intuition is not opposed to intellect. Reality is experience. Realizing the Supreme Being is within ones experience.”

4. He recognized the underlying oneness and the infinite nature of the universe. He asserted, “I am not the mind or the intellect not the ego. I am the blissful form of the Brahman.” He redefined the relation between the Man, World and the Universe. He said they were One. Duality, he said, was an error in perception.

5. His is not a system opposed to other systems, but a method of interpretation of values. His is a voice of reason and sanity. Sri Sankara is therefore relevant even today. He values reason, encourages spirit of inquiry, gives credence to subjective experience and therefore to freedom of ones thought and expression. He suggests intellect is not opposed to intuition. He asks us to take the small ego out of the equation in our day-to-day activities of life. He implores us to recognize the essential unity of all beings and their oneness with the infinite space-time continuum. He explained, the Universe is the manifestation of the Supreme Being.

6. Vedanta of Sri Sankara comes as a remedy to the conflict and violence ridden ways of our life.

7. Swami Vivekananda aptly described Sri Sankara’s Advaita as the fairest flower of philosophy that any country in any age has produced

3742705698141cd

******
Please also read

Sankara – a genius, misunderstood

Deeply indebted to
Prof.SKR Rao

8 Comments

Posted by sreenivasaraos on September 1, 2012 in Indian Philosophy, Sri Sankara, Vedanta

Tags: Adhyasa, Adhyasa Bhashya, Sri Sankara

Sri Sankara – a genius misunderstood

01 Sep

Sri Sankara, the Adi Sankara-charya is one of the greatest thinkers of all times.

This country owes him a deep debt of gratitude. He not only consolidated the classical values of life but also reorganized what we now call Hinduism. He brought together diverse strands of philosophical speculations and religious disciplines.

Unfortunately, few philosophers in the world are as misunderstood and misinterpreted as Sri Sankara. Ironically, most of the harm came from his admirers and followers.

A. Admirers

1. It became a trend in the middle ages among the lesser authors to float their work in the name of celebrated authors to ensure its acceptance by the scholars of the day. Following this custom, many of Sri Sankara’s admirers hoisted their works on him .In some other cases, brilliant works were submitted by their authors in his name. This was an act of devotion.

As a result, we have today, more than 250 works ascribed to Sankara. These include philosophical treatise (bhashyas), advices to aspirants (updaesha), minor dissertations (prakaranas), hymns addressed to various divinities, poems etc.

The quality of these works is not consistent. Some of them undoubtedly have merit. It is however, obvious not all of them could be works of one author. The ideas expressed in them are not only various but often inconsistent. In a few cases, the works contradict each other. ( E.g. Two commentaries on Kena Upanishad, both ascribed to Sankara have conflicting views) .The ideas contained in a few others came into existence much after Sankara’s time.

2. Sri Sankara during his lifetime decried and fought against Tantric practices. However, Tantric texts like Prapancha_sara, Lalitha_trisati_bashya and others are in circulation under his name. The other famous tantric work ascribed to Sri Sankara is Sandarya_lahari. The scholarly opinion is that it is not Sankara’s work, though it is an excellent composition.

3. Among the minor dissertations (prakaranas): Sarva-vedanta-siddanta-sara_sangraha; probodha-sudhakara; Advaitanu-bhuti; Yoga-rathavali; Anatma-vigrahana– prakarana etc. are definitely not Sankara’s works.

4. A commentary on Vishnu_sahasra_nama is ascribed to him. It is decidedly a recent work. It is inconsistent too. It is not Sri Sankara’s commentary.

Similarly, Jayamangala or Samkhya- saptati-tika (likely before 9th-century), describes itself as a commentary (Tika) on Isvarakrishna’s Samkhya-spatasati , authored by Sri Sankaracharya ; but , that seems highly doubtful.

ti śrīmat-paramahaṃsa-parivrājakācārya- śrī govinda- bhagava-pūjya- pāda- śiṣyeṇa śrī śaṅkara-bhagavatā kṛtā sāṃkhya- saptatiṭīkā samāptā //

It is likely that some one might have hoisted his work upon Sri Sankara, perhaps to ensure its acceptability among the contemporary scholars – Further, it is pointed out that Sri Sankara could not have described himself as, śrīmat-parama-haṃsa-parivrājakā-cārya-Sri-Sankara-bhagavata . And, the opening benediction lokottara-vādinaṃ praṇamya munim , is a typical Buddhist expression

5. A number of hymns, of inconsistent quality, in praise of various deities are known as his compositions. (E.g. Stotras on Subrahmanya, Ganapathi, Shiva, Vishnu, Devi etc.)

6. One of Sri Sankara’s missions was to wean people away from ritualistic approach advocated by Mimamsakas and to project wisdom (jnana) as the means of liberation in the light of Upanishad teachings. He criticized severely the ritualistic attitude and those who advocated such practices. However, the texts that combined rituals with wisdom (jnana_karma_samucchaya) more in favor of the Mimamsaka position came onto vogue, projecting Sankara as the rallying force of the doctrine. His followers might have found Sankara’s mission a hard task and therefore compromised the liberating wisdom with the performance of rituals.

7. Whatever be the popular opinion, the scholarly tradition recognizes only three texts as authentic works of Sri Sankara. These are his commentaries on the Upanishads, the Gita and on Vedanta Sutras; grouped under the name prasthana_thraya.

Vedanta Sutras

1. A word about Vedanta Sutra before we proceed: Vedanta Sutras also called Brahma Sutras deal with the essential import of Upanishads. They are rendered in the form of Sutra (aphorism), terse and crisp. They are therefore open to interpretations. The work is ascribed to Badarayana, who is often identified with Krisha_dvaipayana_vyasa; the author of Mahabhatarha. Sri Sankara is however is silent on this issue.

2. Sri Sankara’s commentary on this Sutra, called the Vedanta Sutra Bhashya (VSB) is a highly celebrated text. Sri Sankara’s purpose in writing his commentary was to explain the traditional view. He said, the primary meaning of the word Upanishad was knowledge, while the secondary meaning was the text itself. He isolated the Upanishad lore from the rest of the Vedic body and narrowed it down to ten or twelve Upanishads. Even here, he did not include the ritualistic portion of the Vedas. This was in contrast to the classification followed by the later Acharyas.

3. We may assume that there were other points of view in circulation in those days and they did not entirely represent the traditional view. (No commentary on the Vedanta-sutras survives from the period before Sri Sankara.) This motivated Sri Sankara to come up with his precious commentary. Sri Sankara explained that wisdom (jnana), according to the real import of Upanishads, was the true means of liberation. Sri Sankara’s interpretation of the Upanishads marked the beginning of a new line of thought. The then existing Vedanta terms (like Brahman, maya, avidya, adhyasa, jnana, mukthi etc.) acquired in his work a deeper significance, wider context and a greater relevance.

[ Sri Sankara seems to take Brahma sutra more as an exposition of the Upanishads than as an original text. For him, therefore, the Brahma sutras derive their authority from the Upanishads; and, the sutras must therefore conform to the meaning and the spirit of the Upanishads. The Brahma sutras will have to be interpreted in the light of the Upanishads.

The sutras of Badarayana have one single purpose, that of stringing together the flowers of Vedanta akyas (Vedanta vakya- kusuma –grathanatavat sutram – BB.1.1.2)

Sri Sankara undertakes to interpret Badarayana’s Brahma Sutra in order to expound through what he understood as the philosophy of Upanishads taken as a harmonious and systematic whole. The fact that he had written commentaries on the principal Upanishads, presumably, before his commentaries on Brahma sutra and the Bhagavad-Gita goes to show that he had grasped the keynote and the essence of the Upanishads. These became central in his interpretation of Brahma sutra as also of Vedanta philosophy.

Sri Ramanuja , in turn , interprets the Brahma sutra through the Vrtti of Bodhayana and the glosses on the Vrtti by the other purva-acharyas, the old-masters.

Sri Sankara , basically, regards himself as the votary of Upanishads (Aupanishada).He even calls his way of thinking or the doctrine as Aupanishadam Darshanam, the Upanishad System. He defines the Upanishads as the texts that lead the aspirants close to the highest reality. He insists Upanishads constitute the final purpose and the import of the Vedic lore; and that is the reason he chose to write commentaries on the Upanishads and on the other two texts that depend almost entirely on the Upanishads – Badarayana’s Brahma Sutra and the Bhagavad Gita. It is therefore not surprising that Sri Shankara relied heavily on Upanishad texts to interpret and comment on Brahma Sutra.]

B. Followers

1. The history of Advaita is replete with interpretation and reinterpretation of Sri Sankara’s Vedanta Sutra Bhashya (VSB). The generation of Advaita followers that succeeded Sri wrote a number of commentaries on Sri Sankara’s VSB. Each commentator claimed that he grasped the essence and true intent of Sri and went on to write according to his own understanding. In that process, he wove into the commentaries, his personal views and hoisted them on Sri Sankara. This kind of adulation gave rise to several versions of Advaita. The numerous glosses written by his followers tried to blend ritualistic attitude with the monistic inclination of the Master. The result was the distortion of Sri Sankara’s position.

1.1. The so-called orthodox interpretation of Sri Sankara flows in two distinct channels; the one based on Bhamathi and the other on Pancha_padica.

2. Vachaspathi Misra (c.840AD) was a well-known scholar and a commentator of his times. He wrote a number of glosses and commentaries on several schools of thought. His commentary on Sri Sankara’s VSB was titled Bhamathi.

2.1. Bhamathi revels in dialectic and relies on Mimamsa (ritualistic approach) which Sri Sankara did not approve. Further, Vachaspathi brought together, in Bhamathi, the views of Sri Sankara with the ritualistic views of Mandana (a Vedanta scholar, author of Brahma siddhi); whose views were severely criticized by Sureshvara, a direct disciple of Sri Sankara. Though Sri Sankara and Mandana belonged to the same Vedanta branch they differed on ritualistic aspects of Vedas. Yet, while interpreting Sankara, Vachaspathi introduced ideas borrowed from Mandana and hoisted them on Sankara. Many ideas that appear as Sri Sankara’s in Bhamathi were in fact not his.

[ Mandana Misra is a seminal figure in the history of Advaita He was a contemporary of Sri Sankara and the Great Mimamsaka Gaudapada. His work Brahma-siddhi and Gaudapada’s Karika on Mundaka Upanishad are in fact only two surviving works of the pre Sankara period that have come down to us. Mandana’s citations from or comments and remarks on previous other authors, either refuting or endorsing their opinions, make him one of the credible resources on the state of Advaita prior to the time of Sri Sankara.

His comments on some of the disputed concepts of Vedanta such as : Vivarta (unreal appearance) , Anirvachaniyatva (inexplicable state) or Maya-vada (doctrine of the seemingly real or unreal) have always attracted the later scholars and students of Vedanta .He is perhaps the first to attempt to establish the Advaita doctrine through means of cognition Pratyaksha , direct perception. He argued that Pratyakshya cannot prove the reality or otherwise of an object because the direct perception is incapable of truly appending the distinction between the Real and the unreal (or seemingly real).

Though Mandana may have been influenced by Sri Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta, he did retain some of his own position on certain matters. Certain features of his doctrine are, in fact, not found among the principles laid out by Sri Sankara. Just to mention a few of his own elaborations the following could be cited: the inexplicable nature of Avidya (ignorance); making out a distinction between two sorts of Avidya; importance he placed on Sat (Being) and Bliss (Ananda) as the more significant attributes of Brahma etc.

Interestingly, Vachaspathi Misra, in his commentary (titled Bhamathi) on Sri Sankara’s Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya tended to follow, on certain issues and explanations, the lead of Mandana Misra rather than that of Sri Sankara.

Vachaspathi Misra’s commentary (Bhamathi) juxtaposed with another commentary of Padmapada (one of the direct disciples of Sri Sankara) on the Brahma Sutras caused a major split or schism in the Advaita School. From then on, two rival streams of Advaita School – one called the Bhamathi School based on Vachaspathi Misra’s interpretation of , and the other Vivarana School based on the explanations provided Padmapada in his Pancha-padika-vivarana, came into being.

Amazingly, both the Schools of Advaita had drifted away from the basic tenets postulated Sri Sankara. And yet; both Schools have their followers and both are studied by the students of Advaita philosophy, in general.]

[It seems that for several centuries following Sri Sankara and Mandana, it was Mandana who was viewed by other schools as the major figure in Advaita. Vachaspathi Misra is said to have continued Mandana’s brand of Advaita in his commentary on Brahmasiddhi (now lost), and in his Bhamathi a commentary on Sri Sankara’s Brahma sutra Bhashya. Mandana differed from Sri Sankara on some issues.

For instance, Mandana accepts and advocates the doctrine of Sphota a grammatical theory put forward by Bhartruhari, while Sri Sankara rejects Sphota theory and opts for Varna vada.

Again, Mandana on the question of false judgement tries to assimilate the views of Bhatta Mimamsaka, whereas Sri Sankara is ambivalent of the view and his disciple Suresvara criticizes Bhatta’s view on error severely.

Mandana also appears to lean towards the Mimamsa view of the relevance of meditation in achieving liberation and his tendency to accommodate the combined view (jnana-karma-samucchaya-vada). These tendencies are not surprising, since Mandana, a student of Mimamsaka Kumarila Bhatta, was a well recognized scholar in the Grammar – philosophy as the author of Sphotasiddhi and also as the author of other Mimamsa texts. ]

2.2. Regardless of this position, a branch of Advaita literature grew thereafter with Bhamathi as the official version of Sri Sankara’s view. Further, Bhaskara’s views were fused or confused with Sri Sankara’s views. The interpretations and arguments of that branch were lined up accordingly. Akandanandaa’s Rju-prakasika, Anandagiri’s Saririka_nyaya_nirnaya and Govindananda’s Bashya_rathna_prabha were some of the texts produced in this school. These texts do not reflect original Sri Sankara.

2.3. Today, the study of Sri Sankara, in orthodox circles, is based, mostly, on the Bhamathi and the annotations on it by Amalananda (Vedanta_kalpataru c.1250) together with notes of Shri Appaiah Ditkshita (c.1550). These three together with Vedanta Sutra and Sri Sankara’s commentary on it constitute the basic Advaita literature (pancha granthi). This is despite the fact the views of Sri Sankara and Vachaspathi are divergent on issues relating to rituals and scriptural authority.

3.Pancha_padica is a running annotation on the first four aphorisms of Sri Sankara’s VSB. It is an incomplete work. It is ascribed to Padmapada; a direct disciple of Sri Sankara. That again, is disputed. However, a distinct school of Advaita grew with Pancha_padica as its nucleus. A major work in this tradition was Prakasathman’s Vivarana, a treatise. Later Akhanada_ananda_muni (c.1350 AD) wrote a gloss on the Vivarana

The most celebrated work in this school was, undoubtedly, the Pancha_dashi written by Vidyaranya, who also abridged the Vivarana (Vivarana prameya sangraha).

3.1. A large number of glosses, annotations, notes, and digests followed Bhamathi and Pancha_ padica. Vimuktatman’s Ishtasiddhi, Chitsukha’s Bhava_dyotankia and other works contradicted Sri Sankara. Besides these, there were independent texts that stayed clear of the recognized schools. In the post-Sankara period, many terms and concepts like-moola_avidya, vivarta, six fold pramana, avidya_lesha; became a part of Advaita vocabulary. Some of those concepts might have looked unfamiliar to Sri Sankara.

For instance, Sri Sankara treated ignorance (avidya) as an error, the removal of which led to wisdom (vidya).He left it at that. His followers however, wrote tomes speculating the causes for ignorance, nature of ignorance, different forms of ignorance etc. Had the Master watched his disciples at work he might have wondered whether they were studying about Brahman or about ignorance

3.2. The texts such as Pancha_padica, Advaita_siddhi and Pancha_dasi are brilliant works and have great merit. They are landmarks in the development of Indian thought. However, they do not correctly represent Sri Sankara’s thought; they cloud the original Sri Sankara. The question is, no matter how brilliant the ideas, imagery and arguments introduced by the later scholars be, were the authors justified in hoisting their views on Sri Sankara?

4. If the body of Advaita literature were to be taken together, Sri Sankara would be contradicting himself. He would at once be a nihilist, a ritualist, an obscurantist and an idealist too. It is difficult to cull out the original Sankara from the mass of accretion that collected over the centuries. The best introduction to Sri Sankara’s thought is his prelude to the VSB viz. the Adhyasa_Bashya.

5. Some of the areas where Sri Sankara differed with the Mimamsakas were briefly as under:

5.1. Mimamsakas held the view that the real purport of the scriptures was to provide injunctions and prohibitions. The scriptural injunctions were mandatory and the texts that relate to wisdom were spillover (sesha).

The real purpose of the scriptures, Sri Sankara said, was to describe the reality as it is. Sri Sankara rejected the Mimamsa view and argued that scripture were not mandatory in character, at least where it concerned pursuit of wisdom. Upanishads, he remarked, dealt with Brahman and that Brahman could not be a subject matter of injunction and prohibitions.

5.2. Sri Sankara strongly advocated study of Upanishads, and at the same time cautioned that study of Upanishad alone would not lead to moksha.. In matters of such as spiritual attainment ones own experience was the sole authority and it cannot be disputed

He also said study of Upanishad was neither indispensable nor a necessary pre requisite for attaining the human goal, the moksha. He pointed out; even those who were outside the Upanishad fold were as eligible to moksha as those within the fold were. He declared that all beings are Brahman, and therefore the question of discrimination did not arise. All that one was required to do was to get rid of Avidya (duality).

He pointed out that rituals could in no way bring about wisdom, much less moksha.. He asserted, while the rewards of the rituals were not matter of direct experience, wisdom which is the fruit of Vedanta is based on immediate and personal experience; one need not have to wait for the reward nor one be in doubt whether the reward would or would not come.

This was in sharp contrast to the position taken by Mimamsakas who asserted that rituals alone would lead one to higher levels of attainment. Further, the deities would reward only those entitled to perform the rituals alone. The entitlement involved the caste, creed and other parameters.

6. Most of the ideas that Sri Sankara rejected came back to the Advaita fold and the Mimamsa position with regard to the scriptural authority and value of rituals became a part of the Advaita posture. The wisdom –oriented teachings of Sri Sankara became as much a face of Advaita as the rituals, worships and other practices. There was therefore an obvious disparity between what Sri Sankara idealized and what his followers, even the elite, practiced.

7. By about tenth century, the Advaita scene was littered with a confusing array of texts that did not outline a well-defined doctrine. The rise of the sects and sectarian prejudices did not also help matters.8. The “rival” Vedanta doctrines when they came on stage, naturally, reacted to the Advaita texts in circulation at the time. It was that form of Advaita, which they encountered, that gave cause for dissatisfaction and annoyance. While criticizing Sri Sankara they relied on the later exponents than on Sri Sankara’s own views. The result was the distortion of Sri Sankara’s position. He was criticized for what was hoisted on him than on what he said.

For instance, by the time Sri Ramanuja (1017-1132) emerged as an exponent of orthodox Vedanta tradition, Ishta_siddhi written by Vimuktananda was the standard advaita text of the day.Ramanuja’s criticism of Sri Sankara was based mainly on this work. Interestingly, Madhva (1197-1276) another Acharya also criticized Sri Sankara based on the views presented in Ishta_siddi. It is said that Sri Madhva pointed more than thirty errors of argument in that text.

9. The “rival” schools of Vedanta thoughts like Vishistadvaita and Dvaita took Advaita as the common point of departure. By then the Advaita schools were in a confused state and reacted with emotion; though much of the conflict that ensued was academic. It is fair to say, the new trends emerged in fulfillment of the needs of the time.

C. Some popular misconceptions about Sri Sankara

A number of popular misconceptions are in circulation about Sankara .The following are a few of them:

1. Advaita:

1.1. The popular belief is that Sri Sankara “found” Advaita system of Vedanta, promoted and popularized it. This is a misconception.

1.2. Sri Sankara clearly said he was not putting forth a new theory or a school of thought. He did not expound or defend any argument (vaada) either in his VSB or in his commentaries on Upanishads and Gita. His mission was to present the true interpretation of the Vedanta tradition. His school of thought (asmadeye darshane), according to him, was the Upanishad system (aupanishadam darshanam) or the doctrine of emancipation (moksha vada). Sri Sankara was the upholder of tradition (Evam sampradaya vido vadanti).

1.3. Sri Sankara did not claim he found Advaita school of thought or that he was an Advaitin. He used the expression “Advaita” in VSB only two times and on both occasions, he was quoting: once from Gaudapada’s karika; and, the other time from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Gaudapada, in his karika, employed the term as a descriptive expression for Brahman (or Atman). Sri Sankara followed the lead of his guru_naam_guruhu (teacher’s teacher).

1.4. At that stage,” Advaita” was yet to emerge as a Vedanta doctrine and as a separate school of thought.. The term “Advaita” does not appear in Bhamathi , written about a hundred years after Sri Sankara . Bhamathi calls Sri Sankara’s exposition as investigation into Brahman(Brahma mimamsa), a logical procedure(tarka) and treats it as such.

1.5. The Advaita argument (Advaita_avada), as a school of thought was a post Sri Sankara development; though the essence of the doctrine was in his VSB and in Adhyasa Bhashya.

2. Attack on Dvaita:

2.1. Sri Sankara did not attack dualists (dvaitinaha), as alleged

2.2. The logical elucidation of “oneness” of Atman in Sri Sankara’s VSB appealed to his followers. They turned that into a school of thought (Advaita_vaada), in order to distinguish it from the dualistic thought (Dvaita) that emerged after Sri Sankara.

2.3. A school of dualistic thought was not in existence at the time of Sankara. The question of his attacking them did not therefore arise. The only dualists he mentioned were Samkhya and Yoga systems.

3. World an illusion:

3.1. Among the misconceptions that have grown around Sri Sankara, the persistent and the most erroneous one is that he regarded world as an illusion. It is a gross misrepresentation of Sri Sankara.

3.2. The concept of phenomenal projection Adhyasa, which is basic to Sri Sankara’s thought is seriously misunderstood. The acceptance of twofold perspective, transcendental (absolute) and transactional (relative) is at the root of his Adhyasa concept.

3.3. Sri Sankara neither takes the world we experience as absolutely real nor does he denies its reality altogether. He brings in the concept of the Absolute and the relative view of things.

Failure to understand the concept of Adhyasa resulted in such confusion.

4. Buddhism:

4.1. Sri Sankara did not drive Buddhism out of India.

He came nearly 1200 years after the Buddha. By Sri Sankara’s time (c. eighth century), Buddhism had lost its vigor a couple of centuries earlier and had moved into the neighboring countries.

4.2. Sri Sankara’s dispute with the Buddhist schools (Madhyamika and Vaibashika) was purely metaphysical and not religious. By this time, Buddhism (Mahayana) had moved closer to Upanishads and the chasm between Vedanta and Buddhism had narrowed a great deal.

4.3. Gaudapada who was the teacher of Sri Sankara’s teacher, and whom Sri Sankara addressed as the “knower of the tradition” (sampradaya vit) employed terms that were commonly in use by Mahayana Buddhism and the orthodox Schools. Gaudapada was not a Buddhist, he was a vedantin.

Shri T.M.P.Mahadevan an authority on Gaudapada confirmas this position; and, says Sri Sankara was wrongly handed down the epithet of “Buddhist in disguise’(pracchanna-bauddha).

flower-design

When one studies Sri Sankara, no matter one agrees with him or not one “is in contact with a mind of a very fine penetration and profound spirituality.”

-as Dr. Radhakrishnan said.

Please read next

Adhyasa Bashya of Sankara

Deeply indebted to

Prof.SKR Rao

Shri S Rajam

12 Comments

Posted by sreenivasaraos on September 1, 2012 in Indian Philosophy, Sri Sankara, Vedanta

Tags: life of Sankara, Sri Sankara, works of sankara

Aadhyasa

31 Aug

Aadhyasa is a concept introduced by Sri Shankara. It is difficult to find an exact English word for Aaadhyasa. It may, among other things, mean “superimposition”,”projection” etc. Aadhyasa is more comprehensive than that.

2. He also recognized three levels of existence. The Absolute, the relative and the illusory.

3. Adhyasa consists in superimposing one level of existence (relative/illusory) over the other (The Absolute) and accepting the former as true while it may actually be untrue. (Untrue does not mean false. It is a neutral term that lies between the Truth and falsehood.)

There is nothing strange or startling about this. We experience it every day in our life.

4. Let us take an example. We have accepted a “day” as a working unit of time. We have divided / sub- divided it into hours, minutes, seconds etc. We measure our work and life in terms of these units. A “day” itself is reckoned with reference to sunset and sunrise. We may call this a relative view.

Further, what you call, let us say, 08.00 AM is not 08.00 AM to people living in other time zones. It will be a different time in their day/night. A single point in “time” signifies different “time” to different people. Each sets his “time” by his sunrise.

However, all of us know that sun neither sets nor rises. From the Absolute point of view, there is no day or night. In other words, there is no “time”. It is a time- less universe (because “time” as we understand it, is measured with reference to an event.)

We, thus, in our daily life impose a relative concept (day) over the Absolute (time less ness).This we do, because we are living in a relative world and not because we are ignorant of the sun’s status. Otherwise, how else can we live in a relative world?

5. Let us see another example. One may mistake a stump of wood at night for a thief and get alarmed. Another may mistake a coiled rope, in semi darkness, for a snake and get panicky. In both cases, when some one else throws light, after the event, they may learn the identity of the objects they “saw”. They may then say to themselves, with a sigh of relief,” Gosh! It was just a piece of wood/rope”.

In these instances, the persons involved imposed an illusory existence over the real one. They realized the identity of the objects only after someone threw light on the objects.

Here the interesting thing is while the perception may be illusory the alarm/panic experienced was real.

That again leads to another story.

7 Comments

Posted by sreenivasaraos on August 31, 2012 in Indian Philosophy, Sri Sankara, Vedanta

Tags: Adhyasa, Sri Sankara

sreenivasarao's blogs

Category Archives: Vedanta

Crazy Wisdom

The texts that Sri Shankara relied upon

Who was Gauda-Paada ?

Brahma Sutra

Who was Badarayana?

Sri Sadashiva Brahmendra

Ashtavakra Gita

Adhyasa Bhashya of Sri Sankara

Sri Sankara – a genius misunderstood

Aadhyasa

Pages

Archives

Categories