Seminar Proceedings on

Aavaita Vedanta raditenaland contemporalny akg

Chief Editor

Dr. P. Radhakrishnan

Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (UGC NAAC Accredited with A Grade) Kalady, Emakulam District, Kerala 683574 Phone: 0484 2463380 Fax: 0484 2463480 SSusreg@gmail.com www.ssus.ac.in

SREE SANKARAJAYANTHI MAHOTSAVAM 2013 CoPy

Seminar Proceedings on

ADVAITA VEDANTATRADITIONAL AND CONTEMPORARY THINKING

Chief Editor

Dr.P. Radhakrishnan

Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

(UGC NAAC Accredited with A Grade)

Kalady, Ernakulam District, Kerala 683574

Conplemeptaxy

Ad

vaita

V

ed

an

ta

SREE SANKARAJAYANITHI|Tradlio an

d C

ontemporary Thinkin

Sem

inar

Pro

ceed

ing

s PA

RT

-II

SREESA

NK

AR

A A

ND

NTELLEC

TUA

LTRA

DITIO

N

SRI S

AN

KA

RA

'S P

HIL

OS

OP

HY

AN

D H

IS TR

AD

ITIO

N FO

p

SO

CIA

LA

WA

RE

NE

SS

Dr K

Ch

and

rasekh

aranN

air .... ****

63-83 SRI SH

AN

KA

RA A

ND

INTELLECTU

AL TRA

DITIO

N

Prof. M.L. N

arasimha M

urthy .

*********************8

4

-91

3HYNTHTTTD

r. S. Radha

92 *

**

**

**

**

*'*

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

*

.

95 W

AS A

DI SA

NK

AR

AA

CO

LLOSA

L INT

ER

PRE

TE

R?: SO

ME

TOU

CH

STON

ES.

Dr.B.Chandrika

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

'**

**

*'*

**

**

**

**

*

96-103 C

OG

NITIO

N:

THE M

ETAPH

YSIC

AL C

ON

JEC

TU

RE

S

Dr. N

. Usha D

evi. 104-123

*********°*****'******** ***************

UNDERSTANDING SANKARA AS A SOCIAL REFORM

ER

Dr. PI. D

evaraj 124-132

***********************************

AD

VA

ITA PA

RAM

PARA

: ROLE O

F PRECEPTORS AND THEIR

TRA

DITIO

N IN

THE PR

ESERV

AN

CE O

F AD

VA

ITASY

STEM

Dr. Sreekala M

. Nair.

133-142 *

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

*

**

**

**

**

*

**

*

Part

III

SRE

E SA

NK

AR

A A

ND

L

ITE

RA

TU

RE

145 -153 Prof. Suddhanand Pathak

10

*

**

**

**

**

*.

...

ADVAITAPARAMPARA: ROLE OF PRECEPTORS

AND THEIR TRADITION IN THE PRESERVANCE

OFADVAITA SYSTEM

Dr. SREEKALA M.NAIR

A dvaita Vedanta is at the same time the fruit and the seed of

human civilization, and for this reason, can be termed as most ancient and most contemporary in our

conceptual history. The Vedic dictum Ekoham bahusyam, the one as am, let me be many. points to the monistic elements present at the beginning of our thinking. At the same time, it is also considered as the culmination of human thought, and every attempt to move beyond it ends up in a retreat to a lower and more basic concepts.

The present paper titled "Advaita Parampara:Role of preceptors and their Tradition in the preservance of Advaita system" addresses the issue at hand, namely Guru Lineage in Vedanta both conceptually as well as literally. The paper begins with an attempt to locate a conceptual definition of the lineage of preceptors (Guru Tradition), and in the second part I Shall attempt to trace the Gunu Tradition in Vedanta literally, enlisting

the names available, highlighting the major preceptors in the lineage who became the landmarks in the development of Vedanta Tradition. Towards the close I shall try to figure the way Guru Tradition and the orthodoxy of knowledge system gets preserved in Advaita Tradition.

To begin with my first task, search for a conceptual definition of Guru Tradition in Vedanta takes us directly to the very foundations of it and can be accomplished by exploring the inter relation between Text - Tradition & Preceptor in it. Karl H. Potter in his introduction to the

Encyclopedia of Philosophy observes thus: "Advaita is a ditficult

Philosophy to summarize, in contrast to, for example, Vaisesika....for its

Nyaya thoroughlypoints are much more

intertwined....Listening to an Advaitin is deliciously or rritatingly, repetitive, depending on one's receptivity to the message". 'This observation of Potter is very much right and it partly explans the reason

133

Advaita Vedanta SOEE SANKARAJAYANTHI Advaita Vedanta

SREE SANKARAJAYANTHI Traditional and Contemporary Thinking Traditional and Contemporary Thinkin

Seminar Proceedings Seminar Proceedings

why the system continues even today. Among the surviving orthodox

philosophical schools, Advaita is one which still claim continuity, a

parampara, and the fact that it still continues iS something remarkable

despite the onslaught of colonial rule, in flow of modernity and the

spread of western education. What could be the reason for this

preservance of the tradition, other than the interdependence of the theories within it, as just mentioned above? Permit me to start my

exploration with the following presupposition: Vedanta tradition which truly can claim a lineage from the Upanisadic seers, have given, to my mind, primacy to two factors, while propagating their philosophy: the

text and the tradition. The role of the text, Vaidika Sabda in the establishment of knowledge system in Vedanta is very popular. The

axiomatic position they carry necessitates that every theory newly constructed should be in some way traceable, and consistent with the

sabdapraman. The norms of interpretation are least flexible, and

coherence and consistency with the ontological commitments should

be absolute. These might have contributed to the preservance of the

tradition in tact down the centuries.

depth analysis of human experience and consciousness. Advaita Vcdanta

VIews tradition, paraspara/ sampradaya as a surer and a more reliable

guide to truth, than mere discursive thinking. Their emphasis on

paraspara needs a closer examination and evaluation in the proper

perspective. It would be too crude and unacademic to dismiss the appeal

to sampradayaor tradition as a simple exercise in orthodoxy (orthodoxy

have in the negative sense). By that standard, Sankara who repeatedly

invokes the support of the knower of the tradition (sampradya vid)

would have to be regarded as someone very hopelessly orthodox. In

his introductory remarks to the volume published in honor of Proi. R

Balasubrahmanian, late Prof. Srinivasa Rao observes thus: "There 1s no

work in Indian Philosophy I know of, where samparadaya is mentioned.

but mentioned without respect. Therefore, the far too read1ly done

identification of tradition with plain orthodoxy may hold good in the

case of certain phases of Western culture, but it fails apply in the case

of India, its history and its culture. If there is any milieu in either the

classical or contemporary world where there is a good reason to

consistently and continuously distinguishing between tradition and

orthodoxy it is the Indian Milieu".* It has to be admitted that no classical

Indian thought system can be approached and understood merely from

a clinically historical or even a merely linguistic / analytic point of view.

What is a text? And how do Vedantins view them as means of

knowledge? I do not, in fact want to engage myself in a discussion on

testimonial knowledge here, nevertheless it is worth mentioning the

unique position rendered to aloukikasabda in Vedanta, an analysis of

which would take me a long way in understanding the text and the

tradition in Advaita. Many passages may be quoted from Sankara,

especially from the Saririka Bhasya, where he says that Brahman, Being

super sensuous can be realized only through revelation/sruti. Sruti must

be treated as a source of authoritative knowledge, *Sruti is part and

parcel of our tradition and

continually tried to interpret it and make sense of it. It is always open to

any of us to make a depth analysis and verify the truth of the statements

contained in the sruti"", He repeatedly asserts that discursive intellect

cannot grasp reality. What Sankara wants to highlight probably here is

that reason does not, and cannot function independently of tradition.

To quote Gadamer, "Tradition has a justification that lies beyond rational

grounding, and in a large measure determines one's institutions and

attitudes". Sankara argues in favor of scripture/authority guided by reasoning instead of suskatarka. A little reflection would reveal that

authority plays a significant role even in scientific method. A young

undergraduate science student is instructed by his professor to look

for a particular thing' in the lab under the microscope. Plain reasoning bereft of instruction from the authority will not fetch you the goal.

Prof. R Balasubrahmanian's views of - and attitude towards

tradition or sampradaya are clearly dictated by his commitment to a

We would fail to grasp its essence if we do so.

Sankara argues that dream experience gives knowledge of the

independent existence of the seer and the mental modifications. an

argument which he develops at length in his Brahmasutra Bhasya and

Brihadaranyaka Bhasya too.In Brihadaranyopanisad Bhasya we find

Sankara discarding his analytical tools, and attack the opponents

especially Buddhists, who are devout logicians thus: "They whose minds

are fouled by logical quibbling are to bes pitied because they do not

know the tradition of Vedanta'". This gives a clear indication that virtue

lies in placing oneself within the tradition. If you are outside the tradition.

however, good you may be in fine reasoning truth will stay away from

you. Elsewhere in the same Bhasya he continues, "They are princes

among the liars, and among those who violate the tradition of the wise.

They cannot enter the fort of Brahman, which is open only to those

who are of excellent wisdom and have the blessings of the teacher Here he has poured out all that he wanted to, highlighting the relation

among text, tradition and truth. From the above statement of Sankara

we can draw four principles that are foundational in Vedanta Philosophy:

Violating the tradition of the wise amounts to choosing a devian

inkers of every age and generation have

path from truth.

To attain Brahmanhood, one has to acquire wisdom and not

knowledge/ information attained through discursive thinking.

135 * * ***' ***

**'* *" * ** '* *' ** ** ** **' ** **|

134

Advaita edanta:

SREE SANKARAJAYANTHI Traditional and Contemporary Thinking Advaita Vedanta

Traditional and Contemporary Thinking SREE SANKARAJAYANTHI Seminar Proceedings Seminar Proceedings

The oral tradition, both in the case of instruction as well as debates has

been success make a major chunk of the so called text, preserved bright in the

memories of preceptors down the tradition. A few words are in order.

regarding the oral tradition here. From a material1stic view, it 1s true

that this tradition is solely respons1ble for the loss of a great many

knowledge this land has given birth to, but philosophically viewing oral

method permitted the dialectical development of Philosophy here. Apart from that the oral tradition gives scope for the preceptors to determine

the qualification on the part of the disciples to receive knowledge. and

mind you, a detailed exposition has been given in Vedantic literature on the nature of adhikarin of the Vedantic knowledge. It has been said adhikarino pramiti janako vedah. If a person does not understand the self even after hearing Sruti text, it only means that he is not one of the scripture stipulated eligible persons. To substantiate the argument Sthanvandha Nyayah is resorted here, according to which. it is not the fault of the stump, ifa blind person does not perceive it

Needless to say, knowledge here is not a collection of true propositions, bottled in text books, readily available for everybody In fact the message is that the writen words are mere paintings. have no life, it is the preceptor who blows in pranas. life breathe to it and make them alivve.

And this wisdom one will get only through the study of sastras.

Again, mind you. gaining the mastery of sastras is not an empirical task. of picking up a text book and learning true propositions from it. No, not the least. On the contrary, the speaker must appeal before the sastras to reveal itself to him. It is said, the text will not unfold its truth to the non- deserving.

lly functioning in this land for centuries. which go to

Fourth and final, this knowledge of the sastras should be earned from Gurumukha - from the face of Guru. He is the one who would examine your fitness to be initiated to the tradition, and will function as a mediator between the disciple and the text. The task of the Guru ends only when the disciple finally becomes a link in the parampara- Vedantic Tradition. This is what Sankara suggests when he says 'one requires the blessings of a teacher to reach the portals of Brahman knowledge

In fact, there is some kind of identity one could draw between the Guru and the tradition. Outwardly, the relation between the Guru and the tradition, to put it in logical terminology, is samavaya sambandha, just like the one between tantu and pata, the yarn and the cloth. A Guru is one who is well within the tradition, and the tradition/ sampradaya is the continuing system of knowledge along with its pragnmatic aspects, which is passed on from generation to generation in its pristine purity. Hence the relation between Gurus and the tradition, like in any other samavaya sambandh, is of mutual dependence. This relation between the part and the whole is in fact an empirical depiction of it. Philosophically, it is a Tadatmya sambandh. A relation of identity; the Guru is the tradition. With the Guru, the time stops- he represents both the received past and forthcoming future. Sankara in his Mundakopanisadh Bhasya views that a person not belonging to the tradition has to be denounced like a fool (asampradayavid murkhavad upekshaniyah.)

The commentaries which comprise the bulk of Indian philosophical

writings are much more than mere reiteration of what is supposed to be already there in the Sutragrathas. There is something both historical and a historical about these texts: only when these writings are seen as part of a holistic, continuing and sometimes a part of a living parampara, then there is any hope/ chance of our discovering their true import. If one does not have some kind of hang of this parambara, it is worse than useless on his part to approach Vedantic tradition. The message is that the right approach to these texts, let it the Sutras, Bhasyas or Varthikas, or any prakarana grantha, consider them as important links in the chain of development of a whole parampara .

In the Indian context text includes apart from the written document even what has been orally transmitted, and their rejoinders. Let's keep in mind that Philosophy flourished in this land through debates -katha.

Let me not skip citing the material advantage of oral tradition. First. when you choose the brain to be the place of both ongin and store house of knowledge, nothing goes extermal and hence brain becomes incredibly creative. Second, when knowledge gets transmitted from consciousness to consciousness, without any physical mediation, it amounts to an immediate case of knowing. S'abia. I propose. in that sense, is a variety of immediate knowledge. and as Buddhists would

maintain, errors are due to mediacy, what is immediate is by definition free from error.

Having defined conceptually what Guru Tradition means for the Vedanta School, let me now address the issue from the physical aspect. tracing the Guru lineage of the system.

Seeds of Advaita thoughts are secn in the Rgveda but the credit of making it a systematie logical philosophy goes to Sankara. Though Sankara has been recorded as the one who postulated Advaita as a separate tradition in Vedanta, the names of.Achanas who have contributec significantly to the Advaita Tradition has to be recorded for posterity.

136 137 ** ** * * * *

Advaita Vedanta Advaita Vedunta

Traditional and Contemporary Thinking SREE SANKARAJAYANTHI Seminar Proceedings

SREE SANKARAJAYANTHI Traditional and Contemporary Thinking Seminar Proceedings

analyzed and interpreted by quite a few before him. and that his

systematization of them in 555 Sutras arranged in IV chapters must

have been the last, and probably the best attempt. If we look at the writings of Sankara alone as, Dr. Radhakrishnan

points out It stands forth complete., needing neither a before nor an after...whether we agree or differ, the penetrating light of his mind

never leaves us where we are" Radhakrishnan asserts that T here is no doubt that Sankara develops his whole system from the Upanisads and the Vedanta sutra without reference to Buddhism" But still Sankara

resorts to the tradition while seeking validity for his thesis, and chooses to depict himself as a mere link in the long lineage of preceptors of Vedanta, and proclaims that Advaita doctrine that he propagates is no new thesis, but a systematization of the strewn away thoughts of his predecessors, and all that he aims to add up is the critique of other systems, which would invariably strengthen the foundations of his

system. Without claiming any originality, he presented himself as the

spokesman of the Upanishadic traditions. Whenever the context

permitted, he would stress the importance of the tradition and decry

those who did not pay due respect to it. I find this approach of Sankara beneficial both philosophically as well as pragmatically. Claiming the lineage of the tradition gave Sankara a comfortable space. and occupying that space he chose to revamp the tradition, and free it from the ritualistic orthodoxy, of the Mimamsakas. Sankara Mentions around 100

preceptors in the lineage of Vedanta before him. In his Bhasva to the Mandukyakarika, Sankara refers to Gaudapada as the grant teacher, who is the respected leader of his teacher (yastam pujyabhi pujvam paramagurutamam padmapadai natosmi)$ and also while quoting him refers to him as, the leader who knows the tradition of Vedanta,"( atroktam vedantasampradayavidhibhih acharyaih sampradayavido vadanti).

The master brain of Sankara lies in carving out a path exclusive for Vedanta, drawing a tradition and choosing the right people as his predecessors and even converting them as sheer supporters ot Advaita Vedanta. It is no secret that Gaudapada's philosophy is essentially based on Upanishads, especially Mandukya, Brhadaranyaka, and Chandokya and quite possibly might have drawn insights from Badarayana sutra as well. There is no doubt that he was influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, by Sunyavada and Vijnanavada. One could almost say that Gaudapada represents the best that is in Nagarjuna and Vasubandu. We find Goudapada using many words, which were frequently used in the Mahayana works. Of course these words might have been the curreni philosophical coins of the day, the common heritage of language upor which the Vedantins have equally a claim as the Buddhists. He was

3TTTYNTA Like all Indian Philosophical Traditions, Advaita Guru Parampara

too begins with the Devaparampara followed by Rishiparampara and extends to Manushyaparampara. After Suka, we turn to Manavaparampara, which brings us to historical times and personalities. Even the preceptors in the Manavaparampara are regarded as partial incarnations of deities. For instance, Govinda bhagavad pada is regarded as an incarnation of Adisesa and Sankara as that of Siva. Even if we discount this, as Prof. Balasubrahmanian observes, their accomplishments are indeed beyond even by the best of human beings. The Verse ends with names of the direct disciples of Sankara.

Elsewhere, mostly from the writings of Yamunacharya and

Ramanuja, we get the names preceptors of the Vedanta tradition, which we can categorize into three divisions.

I. Pre Badarayana Vedantic Preceptors Badari

Asmarthya Badarayana

Aaudulomi

Atreya Kasyakrstna Karsajani

II Post Badarayana Bodhayana Sundara Pandya Bhartruprapancha« Govinda

Brahmanada Dravidacharya Gowdapada

Sankara

II Post Sankara VedantaPreceptors Sureshwara Vacaspatimisra Sriharsha Chitsukha Vimukthathman

Padmapada Sarvajnatma muni Prakasatman

Hastamalaka

Anandagiri Vidya Madusudhana saraswathi ranya

Brahmasutra of Badharayana were completed sometime between 400- 450 A.D, or even before that, a critical study of the teachings of the Upanishads. It was and is a guide book for the great leaders of Vedanta Of course Badarayana was not the first person to systematize the teachings of Upanishads, he refers to seven Vedanitc teaches before him. And from the way in which Badarayana cites the views of others, t is Obyious that the teachings of the Upanishads must have been 138

** ** ** ** *

*

* ** * * ** '* ** ** ** * ** * *' ****

139

Advaita edanta 1dvaita Vedanta

Traditional and Contemparary hinkingb SANKARAJAYANTHI Seminar Proceedings

SREE SANKARAJAYANTHIl Traditional and Contemporary Thinhing

Seminar Proceedings indeed a great philosopher with broad intellectual outlook. frank enough to admit his agreement with Buddhists, at certain points. but was no

system builder like Sankara. Sankara chose to preserve the best of

Mahayana Buddhism in his own Philosophy, and cleverly branded it as

the Vedanta heritage inherited from his predecessors like Gaudapada. He uses strong and even bitter words to rebuke Mahayana Buddhism. He was also well aware that to establish an identity for Advaita it is essential that he shows how his thesis has an upper hand over other competing systems. Hence he categorized the rival systems into two, as the serious rivals and trivial oppositions. pradhana and apradhana mallas, and accordingly attends on these all through his Bhasyas.

A more visible example of Sankara's craftsmanship in establishing the chastity of Vedanta tradition is available in the conversion of Mandana to Sureswara. It is still a matter of debate whether Mandana and Sureswara are identical people, for this reason that there are important doctrinal divergences between Mandana and Sureswara. Prof. Kuppuswami Sastri has popularly argued disfavoring this identity thesis, in his rather long introduction to Brahmasiddhi. He agrees with Hinayana and argues that on internal textual evidences it can be established that Mandana and Sureswara are two different individuals and that they hold markedly divergent views within Advaita. "0 He cites four doctrinal

differences between Mandana and Sureswara: I shall represent them here with the intention to highlight the commitment Sureswara exhibits to Advaita tradition.

Prasthanatraya. Sures wara, on the other, frankly adrnits that he 1s a

disciple of Sankara and brands his words as sheer elucidation of

sankarahhasya. True, the exIsting evidence supports the claim that Mandana and Sureswara are two different persons. but there is stil room for the hypothesis that Mandana, who was probably at the cnd of a long line of pre Sankarite Vedanta teaches. who accommodated Mimamsa also, came under the spell of Sankara. got converted nimselt as a through going Advaitin, and was known as Sureswara chose to go with the legend and ignore historical facticity: whatever it ras to

offer. Isn't it beautiful to fall back with the popular narrations on these

preceptors that Mandana the proud scholar was defeated by Sankara and later he became the disciple of Sankara. adopting the name Sureswara. To support my claim, let me also cite empirical evidence

(though I am least inclined to do so): many parallel passages are found

in the Brahmasiddhi of Mandana and the Brhadharany akavartika of Sureswara.

Mandana advocates drshti srshti vada, by maintaining that the seat of Advaita is in the individual Jiva, while Brahman is only the object of Avidya. But Sureswara rejects this; closely following Sankara he maintains that Brahman is both the locus and the object of Avidya.

2. Mandana maintains prasankhyana vada, according to which, knowledge arising out of the Üpanishadic Mahavakyas is only mediate in bringing liberation. This knowledge, in order to lead to liberation must have its mediacy removed by meditation Upasana. Sureswara rejects this; again following Sankara he upholds that knowledge arising out of the Mahavakyas is at once immediate and directly leading to liberation. This knowledge produces immediate result as in the dasamatvamasi instance, which needs no mediation.

Having journeyed all through this debate what became evident is.

once again Sankara's craftsmanship in systematizing Vedanta doctrine.

carefully discriminating it from Mimamsa theories with which it was

mixed up and was dumped in the common basket of ideologies This

way he carved out a system of thought, which happens to share the

best from both Mahayana Buddhism and Mimamsa but uniqu structure and identity.

Though the division of Advaita Vedanta into two schools. Bhaman and Vivarna, has caused a setback in maintaining tradition. most of the

post Sankara Advaitins exhibit the same rigor as that of Sankara in attacking the then popular theories of Buddhism. Sunvavada and

Vijnanavada and has the same animosity towards Buddhism Prakasatman for instance in his pancapad1kavivarana is found say1ng thus: He who says that Vedanta is similar to the Buddhist Vijnanavada talks something which befits an ignorant man. and his case is indeed

pitiable. Vimuktatman in his Ishtasiddhi advices the Buddhists to leave

aside his wrong views based on mere logical quibbling and follow the path of wise deluding the dull he will himself be deluded and destroved Similarly, Vidyaranya in his Pancadasi mark them as experts in dry logical quibbling, sushkatarkapatu, and who is correctly eritiezed by the venerable Sankara.

While Mandana advocates videhamukti Sureswara falling in line with Sankarite tradition, subscribes to Jivanmukti.

3 However, years after, when this rivalry died out and was no more

relevant as Buddhism got subsided in India. preceptors in the Advaita Tradition began to think dispassionately about Brahman. Thus, we finc

some post Sankarites, remarking that If sunvavada 1s not Nihilism

they have no quarrel with it, for then it is merged in Vedanta, anc

similarly, if Vijnanavada is not subjectivism advocat1ng the reality of

Like Mimamsakas Mandana upholds Viparitakhyati while Sureswara, as true descendent of Advaita tradition votes fo Anirvachaniyakhyati.

4.

Mandana's attitude towards Sankara is that of a rival teacher, propagating Vedanta, while his own Brahmasiddhi is based on

5

140 141

Adraita edanta

SREE SANKARAJAYANTHI Iraditional und Contemporary Thinkin

Seminar Proceedings

momentary Vijnanas, then they have no quarrel either with them, for

they turn out to be absolute idealists. And what more, philosopher like

Sriharsha are found openly admitting the similarities between Buddhism

and Vedanta.

Today as we know, the four mathas established by Sankara continue

the Advaita Sampradaya, and its influence is st1ll live among Saivites

and Smarth tradition.

Notes Parampara: Essays in Honour of R. Subramanian, p. 147.

lbid, P.13 ldam p. 13

Ihid p.18. BSBh 2.2.28f; BrUpBh 1.4.7, 1.4.10,4.3.7.

Indian Philosophy, Vol. I1,p. 446-447

Ibid P-472

Mandukyakarika Bhasya last verse

Sharirika Bhasya II, I, 9; I, 4, 14.

Introduction to Brahmasiddhi p.XXVI. 0

O

142 ** '* '