[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
ARTICLE : Shankara and Vaishnavism, etc (was Re: ..)
Mani Varadarajan wrote:
Sorry for the rather late reply. I have been rather busy with my work lately.
> Let us adhere to some standards of interpretation
> if we wish to reach any conclusion in this conversation.
>
> First of all, primacy must always be given to word of
> the Veda. This is traditional practice, and for good
> reason, for only the Veda is apaurusheya, i.e., of
> preter-personal authority.
Fine.
> Second, the philosophy of Sankara, or any Vaidika
> acharya for that matter, should be evaluated based
> first and foremost on their undisputed commentaries
> and expositions on Vedanta, such as Upanishad and Sutra
> bhashyas. Stotras and other minor works are generally
> in the realm of apocrypha. The traditional attribution
> of authorship of minor works may not be accurate.
Perhaps. But you must be aware that a lengthy commentary on the
dakshiNaamuurti stotram.h called the maanasollasa is attributed to
sureshvaraachaarya. It is considered a most important work.
> Third, it is highly misleading to project the practices
> of present day smArtas onto Sankara's personal beliefs
> and teachings, without sound historical authority. Would
> you say that the Catholic Church of today practices
> religion the same was as Jesus taught it?
First of all there is doubt whether there was any Jesus and the canonical
texts were written about 200 years after he is supposed to have died. So such
comparisons are hardly appropriate. Moreover I really don't know what Jesus
actually taught. Do you and what are your sources? It's quite probable that the
catholic church is following Jesus faithfully. I really can't judge.
Further, sampradaaya is given prime importance in India, not any less
among smarthas. For eg, smaarthas in TN are taught akshaarbhyaasam using
om namo naaraayaNaaya, in AP they are taught om namaH shivaaya. Though I
worship shiva and devi more than vishhNu I would be loath to change my
tradition. That would answer your part about the Ochre robe alo.
Let me recall one particular thing here. I remember an argument about
sharaNaagati in srv. When something seemingly contradictory to
what you said about sharaNaagati was pointed out in shrii raamaanuja's BG
bhaashhya itself, you were quick enough to point out the gadyatrayam (or some
such thing) and deskikaachaarya's gloss on the BG bhaashhya. Now one could
question why a central tenet is not present in the BG bhaashhya, but only in a
prakaraNa grantha which is of no use for non - srivaishnavas. You were also
very quick to suggest that he should learn from a scholar (in Bangalore?) and
get his facts straight. I rather wish you would apply the same criteria in
evaluating advaitins, before you claim that you know better than all our
teachers right from abhinava sha.nkara, vidyaaraNya and so on.
The manasollasa explains each verse in more 40-50 shlokas. A criticism of all
major philosophies like nyaayaa, puurva miimamsa etc is given. I fail to see
why it is any less important than something like the gadyatrayam for you. I
could very well suggest that the gadyatrayam is in the "realm of apocrypha". In
fact such a thing may be suggested by Western scholars who you seem to be very
fond of, if they start applying criteria like that of Hacker. I mean some
central tenet for you, not even something like saguNopaasana which is a
secondary concept, is not present in the bhaashhyas of the canonical works, but
rather only in a prakaraNa grantha! The western scholars would be very
suspicious indeed!
More over the Western scholars have no real reason for doubting the authorship
of this work. They are just suspicious about every work other than the BSB due
to their own judeo-christian prejudices. Some of the criteria given by Hacker
were absolute nonsense with no appreciation of the advaita tradition. And
their results are equally absurd. The vivekachuuDaamaNi is pronounced a fake
since there is one verse equating the dream state with the waking state,
whereas the upadeshasaahasrii passes the test inspite of the fact that it does
the same in more than one place. That's that.
And now, given the smaartaas regard for sampradaaya, eg, you yourself point out
later that advaita sanyaasis _have_ to say om namo naaraayaNaaya etc, don't you
find it strange that the same sanyaasis who follow that to this day, somehow
became "non-viira vaishnavas" while sha.nkara, as you would have it, was one?
That is quite an impossibility.
Please, I'd tell you the exact same thing, study under a proper advaitin before
making sweeping statements that you know better than our gurus what sha.nkara
was talking about.
Even if you are not willing to apply your own criteria to yourself, here is my
reply:
> This having been established as my criteria for evaluating
> the philosophy of the ancient acharyas, let me address
> your points:
>
> Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
> > Mani Varadarajan wrote:
> >
> > > final authority. The final authority must be the eternal Veda
> > > itself. What does the Veda say?
> > >
> > > viSvam nArAyaNam devam aksharam paramam prabhum ...
> > > sa brahma sa Siva: sendra so'kshara: paramasvarAt
> > >
> > > [Taittiriya Aranyaka of the Yajur Veda.]
>
> >
> > Actually I think it says (atleast the one I was taught)
> >
> > sa brahma sa shivaH sa hariH sendraso.akshararaH paramasvaraaT.h
>
> While this does not change the meaning, it is generally
> understood that ``sa hariH'' is a later interpolation.
> The proof for this is that the chandas (meter) of the
> verse is destroyed if these words are introduced.
Please, let us stick to how the veda is taught by oral tradition, not your
corrections of what has been taught for thousands of years. You may perhaps be
aware that sometimes chandas etc is not strictly followed in the vedas.
Case in example, the last stanza in the amR^itabindu upanishhad.h and the last
but one in the kaivalya upanishhad.h. Further the same sa brahma etc occurs in
the nR^isimha puurva taapaniiya upanishhad also (with the "flawed chandas").
> In any event, the import of this anuvAka is that nArAyaNa,
> who is identical with the Purusha of the Purusha sUkta,
> and who is eternally associated with Lakshmi, (hrISca te
> lakshmIS ca patnyau) is the Highest Reality.
In the kaivalya upanishhad.h similarly umaasahaayam, niilakaNTha and
trilocanam.h leave no room for any doubt. In fact the same kind of stuff is
repeated here, but replacing hari with shiva as saguNa brahman.h.
> > vishvam.h naaraayaNam.h devamaksharam.h paramam.h padam.h (not
> > prabhum.h, pardon me if I am wrong, this one I am not absolutely sure).
>
> These are acceptable alternatives. Please see the Mahanarayana
> Upanishad published by the R.K. Mutt.
Yup, verified it yesterday, my apologies. A small sidenote here, if anyone is
actually chanting this upanishhad.h. Many of the svaras are completely wrong in
this book.
> > [...] Just because sha.nkara advocates at one place/some places
> > the worship of
> > saguNa brahman.h as vishhNu it does not mean he devalues the worship of
> > other deities as saguNa brahman.
>
> Sankaracarya, in his undisputed philosophical works, *invariably*
> equates saguNa brahman with nArAyaNa, vAsudeva, or hari. This is
> true even when the context does not call for it. Let me cite
> a few examples:
>
> 1. gauDapAda kArikA bhashya, alAtaSanti prakaraNa 1.
> 2. brhadAraNyaka upanishad bhashya, antaryAmi brAhmaNa
> 3. brahma sutra bhashya, utpatty asambhava adhikaraNa
> 4. bhagavad gita bhashya, passim, particularly 6.47,
> where he goes well above and beyond the call of the
> text and writes like a vIra-vaishnava
Fine. His favorite deity before he became a jiivamukta was in all probability
vaasudeva. So what? It does not mean that he would have disapproved of
worshiping saguNa brahman.h as shiva. This is exactly the classic
misunderstanding I was talking about.
> Note that I am not relying on apocrypha such as bhaja govindam,
> narasimha karavalamba stotram, etc. The identification of
> Brahman with nArAyaNa is found in the highest and deepest
> works of Sankara. One may ask, why would he do so in such
> unmistakeable terms? Why does he, in the brahma sutra bhashya,
> explicitly state that Vasudeva alone is the highest Brahman,
> and the Vaishnava practices such as abhigamana, ijyA, etc.,
> should be explicitly practiced by a Vedantin?
>
> The answer is simple: because there was (and is) a Vedic predilection
> towards Vaishnavism.
Certainly not.
1. RudraprashnaH
2. shvetaashvatara upanishhad.h
3. kaivalya upanishhad.h
4. atharva shira upanishhad.h
to name but a few.
Moreover you have forgotten the two important shaivite commentators
abhinavagupta and niilakaNTha. abhinavagupta is infact a key commentator.
In fact the only example in the vedas where there is something akin to naama
smaraNam is the rudram. jaabaala upanishhad.h says that chanting it will
lead to liberation. It's highly curious that the mantras you tout or the
common names of vishhNu like hari, naaraayaNa etc do not occur at all in this
rudram. Nowhere can you find sentences in shruti which say chanting purushha
suuktam leads to liberation. As for the rudram, I have jaabaala upanishhad.h,
kaivalya upanishhad.h, the mahaabhaaratam.h, and a host of smR^itis. I am
presently writing an article on the rudram.h, but it will probably take me a
while to put together all the stuff I have. Also note that the jaabaala
upanishhad has been quoted by sha.nkara himself.
Oh, BTW the same mahaanaaraayaNa upanishhad.h also has a host of mantras
praising shiva as brahman.h. Eg, the pa.ncha brahma mantras, sarvo vai rudraH
etc. Neither the purushha suuktam.h nor the fact that sha.nkara advocates
vishhNu worship can make all this evidence vanish into thin air.
Ofcourse one can use etymology and shut ones eyes and claim that there is no
evidence the other way. But it is certainly curious that rudram.h is chanted in
all shiva temples, but not hari temples, inspite of the glorious praise shruti
showers on the rudram.h. BhaTTa bhaaskara infact calls it the rudropanishhad.h.
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but shrii vaishnavas actually use thamiz works instead
of the vedic mantras like rudram, do they not? In fact I have heard the
some vaishnavas (back home) claim that the divyaprapandham is greater than
the vedas and hence rudram is of no use! I am not sure if this is the official
position of your philosophy though.
> It is no accident that nearly all the Vedanta acharyas were
> strict Vaishnavas. It is also no accident that the Acamanam
> (Vedic purification) consists of reciting 12 names (dvAdaSa nAma)
> of Vishnu-nArAyaNa. Furthermore, the traditional Vaishnavism of
> the smArta sampradAya sannyasis is also established by their
> rigorous adherence to saying ``iti nArAyaNa smRti:'' when
> concluding their correspondence and addressing other sannyAsis
> with the greeting ``om namo nArAyaNAya'', a purely Vaishnava
> practice.
>
> In fact, substitution of ``om namo nArAyaNAya'' with the
> names of other deities (such as ``om nama: SivAya'') is
> explicitly forbidden by the orthodox. [See ``The Ochre Robe'',
> by Agehananda Bharati.]
These all depend purely on sampradaaya and vary with the regions.
> Taking into account all this evidence with an honest
> and open mind, it is quite clear that saguNa brahman
> of the Upanishads and the Veda is only Vishnu-Narayana.
If open mind means that whenever rudra, shiva/sadaashiva occurs and is used to
denote saguNa brahman.h, you use etymology to discount it, certainly your
thesis holds. I see that you never replied to my part about kaivalya
upanishhad.h. Taking into account everything with an open mind, saguNa brahman.h
classification purely depends on what tradition one is following. Period. You
have to give _proper_ reasoning about the texts I have quoted, not the usual,
quite lame, etymology reasons. Note that I am not well versed in the vedas and
even I can quote so many praising shiva as saguNa brahman.h. I know there must
be very many more.
Finally I have a few points to make.
1. How did sha.nkara's followers as early as abhinava sha.nkara deviate from
"vira vaishnavism"? Maybe they did not know how to interpret sha.nkara?
2. Why do all advaitin scholars accept the worship of the various muurtis as
equally valid saguNopaasana?
3. Is it your proposition that you know better than all the advaitin scholars on
saguNopaasana and why? You need to give proper reasoning and not wave your
hands and point out to the catholic church. We have written evidence that
shiva upaasana was considered equally valid, right from abhinava sha.nkara's
days. Considering the regard (as you know) we have for tradition, the
inference can be only one.
4. Why do sha.nkara's followers who have so much regard for following the namo
naaraayaNa rule etc stray away from viira-vaishnavism if at all they were
such before? I'd think being a "viira vaishnavite" would be a more stringent
rule than some mere greeting when another sanyaasi is seen.
5. I don't know what a viira vaishnava is supposed to do, however I would
safely assume their code would strictly forbid doing things like wearing
bhasma etc which the sha.nkarites are fond of. How is it that the same people
strictly follow trivial things like greeting rules could have deviated from
the so called "viira vaishnava" behavior on more important things?
The simple fact is that they were not vaishnavas to begin with, nor were they
shavites nor were they shaktas. The simple fact is that advaitins have taken
customs from all sects, just because they accept some vaishnava customs, it
does not mean they are vaishnavas. Further in the aalaaTashaanti prakaraNa
sha.nkara says some of the reasonings of the viGYaanavaadis are quite correct,
that does not make him a buddhist.
The matter is simply resolved if we consider the massive volume of vedic
literature on shiva as saguNa brahman.h and realize that sha.nkara was (in all
probability) a vishhNu bhakta before attaining jiivan mukti, which explains his
predilection in his works. Examples the other way are chandrashekhara
bhaaratii, ramaNa maharshhi et al. I think you have not completely grasped the
idea of isshTa devata among smaartas. Ofcourse the lack of such a concept in
the vaishnava tradition may account for that.
The other way is to shut the eyes to all the literature and claim that later
sha.nkarites are misinterpreting sha.nkara. It's up to you. Frankly I prefer to
weigh _all_ the evidence and not just all the evidence supporting one
particular point of view, which is precisely what you are doing.
umaasahaayam.h parameshvaram.h prabum.h trilochanam.m niilakaNTham.h
prashaantam.h |
dhyaatvaa munirgachchaati bhuutayonim.h samastasaakshim.h tamasaH
parastaat.h |
Ramakrishnan.
--
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant (May faulty logic
undermine your entire philosophy) -- strong Vulcan curse
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
