After initial exposure to Vedanta concepts in Sribhashyam, some students develop the curiosity and interest, if not serious doubts, about certain standpoints. For instance, jiva-Brahma union (aikyam) appears logical as the droplets of a ocean must merge with the parent. Bheda is another contentious point, because Brahman is, after all, the material cause. Nirguna as the transcendental attribute appears most appropriate to the supreme reality. There are similar doubts about mithya prapancha, etc., These are all concepts set aside by Sribhashyam as anupapatti, a technical term which shall be explained at the end of this post.
2. Our Poorvacharyas have advised us to steer clear of the concepts of jiva-brahma aikyam, abheda, nirguna etc., in the student stage, as these are inevitably linked to sarvasunyavadam. To understand this we have to look into the history of post-Sankara advaitam.
3. Lord Narayana Himself is considered the first teacher and rishi of advaita. Sankara Bhagavadpada is prominent in the parampara, and famous world-wide. His achievements are the subject of several volumes. He saved vedas from extinction by outwitting Buddhists in their own crafts. He retrieved murthys desecrated by Buddhists and restored the sanctity of Himalayan shrines like Badrinath and Kedarnath. He wrote comprehensive commentaries on Upanishads, Gita, Brahmasutras, Vishnu sahasranamam, etc. He composed many philosophical treatises and stotras. Most importantly, Sankara wrote a bhasyam on Brahmasutras and he clearly indicated that saguna brahman and nirguna brahman are equally valid concepts. This is natural flowing from the opening verses of Gita chapter XII. The perception of supreme reality and one’s relationship to it are determined by the individual’s tastes, samskaras accumulated over a series of janmas, and no view is superior or inferior. It is in keeping with this view that he formulated shanmatha, six deities one or several of which a person may worship ceremonially.
4. Sankara’s guru was Govindapada, whose guru was Gaudapada. Gaudapada had written a karika, a commentary in verse form ,on Mandukya Upanishad. The Upanishad has 12 verses and the Karika 180 verses. Couched in simple Sanskrit, the karika reads like a Buddhist text, but actually it is a vaidika work explaining the imagery waking-dream-sleep and pranavam employed in Mandukya Upanishad.
5. Gaudapada karika is divided into four prakaranas. In the first agama prakaranam the central subject of the Upanishad, that is Brahman , Iswara, known by pranavam is Satyam is well explained. But in vaitatya and Advaita prakaranams which follow, Gaudapada lists about thirty vital aspects of existence starting with prana and ending with srishti sthithi vinasam, and declares all as mere fancies of human mind. Man is the creator of material world, animate and inanimate beings, action and inaction, vidya and avidya, samsara and moksha, Gods and heavens, all these being an elaborate dream, Relativity is a meaningless concept as every effect is a cause and cause the effect. When there is only existence, there is no scope for knowledge, experience, or action or time. Easwara Leela is rejected as irrational.
6.The fourth Alatashanthi prakarana of the Karika starts with a salutation to Buddha, and it explains the phenomenal world by the imagery of wonderful shapes displayed in night sky by a flaming torch swung by a skilled artist. The movement is termed Alata spandana. The vision vanishes when the spandana or movement stops. This appears to be an effort to reconcile Buddhism and Advaita.
7. It is worth noting that the Karika is quoted by both Ramanuja and Madwacharya. That indicates that the work has a deeper meaning, underneath the apparent sunyavada. The series of apavadam or dismissal must ,at last strike at the root of scriptures and the Karika itself, which is an unexpected and unacceptable position, which should necessitate a re-examination of the original premises. It is logical to conclude that the author’s intention is to stabilize the seeker’s Shraddha in Upanishads by pointing out extreme consequences of stretching standpoints beyond reasonable limits.
8. The present rigidity of Advaita arose from the period when teachers after Sankara started “purification” of Advaita. Besides some of the Sankaracharyas occupying the four cardinal peethas, there are numerous works on Advaita, though there are varying opinions on authorship of particular work. They selected the buddhi-based passages from Gaudapada and Sankara, and reinforced these with many ingenious arguments. A few illustrative examples are given below:
i) Sankara’s catholicity was replaced by dogmatic gradation of spirituality. Mandukya Upanishad, mahavakhyas, and chatussutri were considered sufficient and complete jnana for uttama Adhikari (highest class of seeker of reality). The rest, namely 99% of Upanishads and 541 out of 545 Brahmasutras were branded as “for consumption of dull intellects and low class seekers.
ii) The deities Brahma Vishnu Siva were classified as jivas presiding over their respective samsara mandalams.
iii) Though in advaita samsara and moksha are impressions in dream state , and not in reality, those without jnana were declared ineligible for moksha. There is no explanation as to how intellectual acceptance of a belief would make any difference in that state.
iv) We enquire whether on dawn of jnana the jnani “wakes up”. No. His samsara will continue till his prarabdha karma is exhausted. He will be known as jivanmukta. Will he be steady in jnana at that stage? No. There could be slide back and recovery. Can we see and identify a jivanmukta? No.
All very unpredictable.
v) The above should not be taken to mean Advaita group is homogeneous, far from it. The orthodox mainstream advaitis hold that only sannyasis are eligible for moksha and that only Brahmin men are eligible for sannyasa. There are advaitis totally immersed in bhakti for Krishna or Siva, praise their countless Kalyana gunas, but declare that the swarupam of that deity is nirguna Brahman.
9. The summary and confused course of Advaita should be contrasted with Sribhashyam which harmonises the entire Vedas, Itihasas, puranas, Divya prabhandam, intuitive awareness of individual jivas, bhakti literature and experience, incorporating a meaningful interpretation of Advaita. We want to find the elusive common thread with advaitis which is bound to be there considering the common authority of Vedas. We acknowledge karma should cease, jnana should ripen, and bhakti refined. But they say karma, jnana, bhakti are ab-initio void, as there is nothing to do, know ,or love. We see a goal, but they say that is only a step. Realising that there is no goal is their goal. The most considerate response we get from them is “We are both on the same boat. I am aware of my ajnana. You are not”. A far cry from Sankara, who preferred to be called Bhagavat pada, feet of the Lord. He lies in jiva samadhi within the precincts of the famous Vadakkanathar temple in Trichur, and on the ground corresponding to his right and left shoulders ,large granite images of Sudarsana and Panchajanya (discus and conch) are placed.
10. The above should give a good idea of the implications of nirguna, abheda, and jiva-para aikyam,etc,. Nirguna because there is no vastu, chinmatram. No vastu because cognition of a vastu would nullify Advaita. Advaita interpreted as ‘brahma Eva Satyam, Jagat mithya” because, that is the pramanam, a fact hitherto unknown introduced by the Vedas as evident from mahavakhyas.
11. If we don’t accept Advaita logic, how do we explain passages like “mrittika Eva Satyam”? Instead of the example of ocean and droplets, ocean- ice vapour may be considered. Vapour and ice are real and separate from water , though they are also water. Vapour is continuously changing like inanimate matter. Ice floats on ocean. Beyond the example, there is the strong intuitive intimation of individual immortal Chaitanya, reinforced by scriptures and experience of generations, which is the bedrock of visishtadvaita.
12. One should not forget that Ramanuja is constantly aware of the chances of error and the speculative nature of the subject. He never condemned any view, some people mistakenly take khandanam as condemnation. Khandanam is only picking holes to remove irritants, things out of tune with the general design, called anupapatti. To give an example, before eating a rawa dosa, some of us examine the surface of the dish and remove pieces of chillies, peppers, curry leaves ,etc, picking holes in the dish . The dish itself is wholesome, and the spices have enhanced the flavour, but we don’t care to munch these pieces. Concepts of avidya ,etc are valuable to purify our minds, but wholesale rejection of everything is like throwing away the baby with the bathwater. We shall see a little more about anupapattis in the next post
About Sribhashyam 