(Pardon the poor formatting of the essay.)
The traditional idea of unalloyed devotion to one's Guru and the modern argument of non necessity of a Guru are two extreme positions and most of the spiritual seekers of Sanathana Dharma fall somewhere in between. This premise needs to be investigated as this sets the further course of actions. Some important philosophers/Acharyas of Bharata were intellectual rebels. The Most famous one is Acharya Ramanuja who had many differences of opinion with Yadava Prakasha regarding Vedanta interpretation. Similarly Madhvacharya could not agree with his Guru Achyutapreksha's teachings in many places. Another lesser known example was Bellamkonda Ramaraya who became an Advaitin though born and brought up in a Sri Vaishnava family and his Guru was a Visishtadvaitin. There are other such examples. The question is Should we really blindly follow what the Guru says?
The traditional idea of unalloyed devotion to one's Guru and the modern argument of non necessity of a Guru are two extreme positions and most of the spiritual seekers of Sanathana Dharma fall somewhere in between. This premise needs to be investigated as this sets the further course of actions. Some important philosophers/Acharyas of Bharata were intellectual rebels. The Most famous one is Acharya Ramanuja who had many differences of opinion with Yadava Prakasha regarding Vedanta interpretation. Similarly Madhvacharya could not agree with his Guru Achyutapreksha's teachings in many places. Another lesser known example was Bellamkonda Ramaraya who became an Advaitin though born and brought up in a Sri Vaishnava family and his Guru was a Visishtadvaitin. There are other such examples. The question is Should we really blindly follow what the Guru says?
The short answer to this is No. We know from modern fake Guru history that the premise of blind acceptance is outright wrong. People like Nityananda, Kalki Bhagavan, David Bruce Hughes(Dasanudas Babaji) and so many Gurus of ISKCON in the past and innumerable others have been exposed as fakes and they inflicted a lot more pain in their "disciples" due to blind allegience. However, the issue need not be as serious as sexual transgression to establish this point. Intellectually too, it is equally valid.
Here is where the three important factors, Shastra(scripture), Acharya/lineage(Spiritual Guide) and Vichara (self investigation) come into picture. If the Guru teaches us something, then it must be present in the shastras as well as stand up to your own reasoning and convictions. If it does not appeal to your intellect, alternate paths need to be explored.
Another important point that is also over-emphasized over the above factors is following the practices of family elders and ancestors. Unequal emphasis on any one of all these factors results in serious confusion. An elderly person confidently asserted that Morning Sandhyopasanam need not be preceded by snanam(bath). They also maintained that only for the madhyahnika sandhya a bath is required. I found this ridiculous as I knew that only during emergencies one is allowed to do mantrasnanam and at all other times bathing is a MUST. However, this person was arguing for his case based on the practice of another 'elder' whom he had observed. He was convinced that a snanam was indeed required for the paratah sandhya only after I showed him the instruction in a book on Sandhya.
The foregoing issue was an important factor in my decisions because two very important advaitins figure in my family tree. One is the famous Appaya Dikshita who is the brother of Achan Dikshita, my direct 13th ancestor. Swami Sivananda, famous for his Divine life society, is the younger brother of my great grandfather. If I ask a Vaishnava acharya whether following the elders of my family is the prime duty, then they cannot give me an answer that convinces their ideology as well as their viewpoint on family tradition.
Thus we also need to study the scriptures on our own and clarify the doubts with different
teachers. Moreover, the repetition of 'follow elders' advice is not going to help us until we are
convinced about the basis of all the practices.
Thus we also need to study the scriptures on our own and clarify the doubts with different
teachers. Moreover, the repetition of 'follow elders' advice is not going to help us until we are
convinced about the basis of all the practices.
During my seventh semester at BITS, Pilani I had to opt for three elective courses to complete the coursework. This gave me an opportunity to select 'Shankara's thoughts' as one of them. The course was based on Vivekachudamani (Crest jewel of wisdom) , a work by Adi Shankara outlining Advaita philosophy. I remember being more enthusiastic about this course rather than electronics electives.
The professor explained creation as follows:
Consider the following image:
The whole circle is Brahman, which is attributeless and the only entity. It is jnanamaya (or exists as knowledge itself). However, we have to explain the diversity we see in the world. Also, the Vedas say that Brahmam at the beginning of creation said to itself "Let me become many" . One fourth of brahman becomes Maya and obscures the rest of it and hence appears as the diverse name and form that we see in the world.
Then he went on further to explain the related concepts like anirvachaniya (inexplicability) of maya and pancha kosham, nature of mind etc. The introduction of Maya rekindled a lot of doubts that I had already. Brahman is first of all indivisible. How can it be divided like stated above. If it is said that Maya is a separate entity, then the fact of only one reality is contradicted. Also, how can we explain the fact that Brahman which is the eternal knower, full of knowledge be obscured by Maya? However I did not discuss this deeply at that time with the teacher as I thought that some more learning will clear this up. I also assumed that these doubts are somewhat like the doubts we have regarding our epics and Puranas where many events seemingly unethical have some hidden reasons behind them. Later on I would find out that these questions cannot be answered satisfactorily with Kevaladvaita interpretation of Vedanta.
I went on to do a project on Dakshinamurthy stotram, which is allegedly composed by Adi Shankara. However, there is no doubt that it is a very well structured stotram giving the salient features of Advaita philosophy. While referring works on Advaita for this project, I got hold of 'Advaita Vedanta. Edited by R. BALASUBRAMANIAN. History of Science, Philosophy, and Culture in. Indian Civilization, vol. II, part 2' .
It is really a commendable project. The volume on Advaita Vedanta was very extensive in its coverage. It even briefly surveyed vernacular literature of advaita, which we often never hear about. While discussing the concept of abheda or non-difference and mithyatva or illusoriness of the world, which are central to advaita, Vyasatirtha's objections(in Nyayamruta) on these issues were discussed. These objections were answered by Madusudhana Saraswati in his advaita Siddhi. These in turn faced a rebuttal in Tarangini by Ramacharya. (Vyasatirtha and Ramacharya belong to the Dvaita lineage of Madhvacharya). I highlighted all these issues briefly during my project presentation. However, my professor was not really into comparitive Vedanta. He assumed the truth of advaita and hence I could not get meaningful solutions to these problems.
I used to have long hours of discussion on this topic with my friend Dushyanth Sridhar who consistently supported Visishtadvaita. While I had doubts regarding advaita, I was still undecided.
As regards to Vishnu paratvam, the way was easier.
Vedic Scriptures - the way
शास्त्रयोनित्वात्
- ब्रह्मसूत्रम् (१.१.३ )
(That the Brahman is the cause of creation etc follows altogether from the vedic scriptures)
The Brahmasutram is a work comprising of 545 short aphorisms by Rishi Badarayana. It talks about the goal(Brahman), the means to attain the goal and also defends vedanta from other schools of thought. It begins all this by harmonizing various seemingly contradicting vedic passages to give a coherent view.
This particular sutra (aphorism) stated above is one of the most important sutras of the text. This is because it reveals the epistemology of spiritual journey in a nutshell. Epistemology or the science of knowing is extremely crucial to any endeavor. We cannot know Brahman by either sense perception (pratyaksha) or inference (anumana) simply because Brahman is a non-material tattva (or entity) that is beyond the gross or the subtle senses. The only way to understand this Supersoul (Paramatma) is by experiencing it with atman or the individual soul, which is also non-material. Since, this is not easy for all the atmans, it is revealed as shastra through the atmans that are capable of this cognition. They are the Rishis and they give us the Vedas, which is apaurusheya (not created by anyone including God) and ananta (unlimited by space or time). Using any other method such as logic, guesswork, experiments etc is futile since all of these ultimately fall under the first two categories of knowing mentioned above.
Other important works called smriti, itihasa and puranas also appeared with the view of
explaining the purport of Vedas. Those works in these categories which are in tune with the
message of the Vedas are also considered as a pramana (or a valid means of knowledge)
Lord Krishna to the rescue
Other important works called smriti, itihasa and puranas also appeared with the view of
explaining the purport of Vedas. Those works in these categories which are in tune with the
message of the Vedas are also considered as a pramana (or a valid means of knowledge)
Lord Krishna to the rescue
I decided that I must take the matter into my hands (but ultimately the Paramatma was of course responsible for shedding light on himself in my mind) and do a small analysis of Bhagavad Gita (accepted by Advaitins too) to see if there is any clue to the issue of Paratvam.(Upanishads and Brahmasutra were not that easily accessible in terms of interpretation). As the azhwars have stated, the floating opinions regarding this issue are that All the three deities Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are equal (or) Vishnu is supreme (or) Shiva is Supreme (or) There is a higher nirguna sadashiva who is the creator of all the three (or) Shakthi is the origin of all the three etc.
The first verse that caught my attention is the Charama slokam.
Here, Krishna specifically says that one has to surrender to him only and not anyone else. This indicates that he recognizes difference/ gradation.
This is actually confirmed by him in verse 2.12
(Certainly never at any time did I not exist, nor you nor all these kings and certainly never shall we cease to exist in the future)
He posits an eternal difference between himself and other Jivas here. It definitely means that difference is real. This verse has generated a lot of controversy among the advaitins and other schools and Swami Vedanta desikan dedicates four pages to explain the absurdity of the advaitic position with respect to this verse in his tatparya chandrika, which is a commentary on Ramanuja's Gita Bhashyam.
It is further illuminating to study the verses where he talks about worshipping the Gods.
(Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way.)
(I am the only enjoyer and master of all sacrifices. Therefore, those who do not recognize My true transcendental nature fall down.)
(Those deprived of discrimination by various desires impelled by their particular nature surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.)
(The result of those of insufficient understanding is temporary. The votaries of the demigods obtain the demigod but my devotees attain me)
Now, the above slokams show us that there can be no clearer scripture than the Bhagavad Gita. I came to realise that Krishna who is non different from Sriman Narayana (he shows his four armed form after the vishwa roopa darshanam in Chapter 11) is the Supreme Lord and there is none greater OR EQUAL to him.
Any other interpretation is simply wrong and has to be forced upon it. This is because there is nothing in the rest of the Gita to overrule the above verses. It is so consistent.
Note: Here it does not mean that Lord Krishna condemns worship of other deities. What he simply says is that it is lower rung in the ladder and is temporary. It cannot give us liberation. This sense is conveyed because he mentions in other verses that he himself makes every one of these devotions stronger and finally gives the desired fruit of this worship too. Hence, taking the extreme positions of either condemning everyone else to hell or equating Krishna with other Gods will not help in the true understanding of Gita.
Fancy interpreters of the Gita want us to somehow believe that by all these verses too, he talks about total equality of all deities. This is a view not supported by most of the traditional interpreters including Adi Shankara. 'Radical Universalism' or the idea that every religion is the same is the bane of today's "followers" of Vedic religion. Even S.N.DasGupta in his History of Indian philosophy does a lengthy analysis of the word 'yoga' used in the Gita and comes to the conclusion that it conveys the same sense of the word as used in the Pancharatra agama rather than in others like Sankhyasutra, yogasutra etc. Thus, while giving non- straight forward meaning in some places will certainly help a coherent interpretation, this should not become an excuse to read into the text one's own views, especially when if it is clear and can stand on its own. Moreover, we will see how all this analysis is in fact confirmed by the shruti as well as puranas.
This certainly gels well with the first of 6 short sentences conveyed by Lord Varadaraja of Kanchi to Kanchi purna.
"Ahameva paramtattvam" (Only I am the Supreme entity/Paramatma).
Note: Here it does not mean that Lord Krishna condemns worship of other deities. What he simply says is that it is lower rung in the ladder and is temporary. It cannot give us liberation. This sense is conveyed because he mentions in other verses that he himself makes every one of these devotions stronger and finally gives the desired fruit of this worship too. Hence, taking the extreme positions of either condemning everyone else to hell or equating Krishna with other Gods will not help in the true understanding of Gita.
Fancy interpreters of the Gita want us to somehow believe that by all these verses too, he talks about total equality of all deities. This is a view not supported by most of the traditional interpreters including Adi Shankara. 'Radical Universalism' or the idea that every religion is the same is the bane of today's "followers" of Vedic religion. Even S.N.DasGupta in his History of Indian philosophy does a lengthy analysis of the word 'yoga' used in the Gita and comes to the conclusion that it conveys the same sense of the word as used in the Pancharatra agama rather than in others like Sankhyasutra, yogasutra etc. Thus, while giving non- straight forward meaning in some places will certainly help a coherent interpretation, this should not become an excuse to read into the text one's own views, especially when if it is clear and can stand on its own. Moreover, we will see how all this analysis is in fact confirmed by the shruti as well as puranas.
In fact, Adi Shankara, despite being an advaitin, has strictly used only Narayana/Vishnu at all the zillion places where the general words Brahmam/atma/sat etc have been used in the prasthana trayam. The Acharyas of the shankara mutts sign their letters as "Narayana Smriti" . Mind you this Narayana has not been used by Shankara in the sense of Nirguna Brahman but as the Saguna, with all the kalyana gunas.
This information does in a natural way lead to Vaishnavism , but why Sri Vaishnavism? There have been a lot of advaita vaishnavas in History, famous examples being Sridhara who wrote a commentary on Bhagavatham and Madhusudhana Saraswati who wrote Bhakthi Rasayana.
Also, We know that the Madhva, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu were also Vaishnavas. Why not these paramparas?
The puranas, which are often extolled as the commentaries on Vedas confuse us regarding paratvam. Six puranas including Shiva and Linga puranam talk about Shiva paratvam, Six puranas including Vishnu and Bhagavatha talk about Vishnu Paratvam and the remaining six about Brahma and other deities. How is this to be reconciled with the Gita?
Also, We know that the Madhva, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu were also Vaishnavas. Why not these paramparas?
The puranas, which are often extolled as the commentaries on Vedas confuse us regarding paratvam. Six puranas including Shiva and Linga puranam talk about Shiva paratvam, Six puranas including Vishnu and Bhagavatha talk about Vishnu Paratvam and the remaining six about Brahma and other deities. How is this to be reconciled with the Gita?
(.........to be continued)
