The Achintya Bhedabheda Philosophy
of Sri Chaitanya
(The Hare Krishna Movement)
From
Schools of Vedanta
***********************************************************************
Introduction
Sri Chaitanya or Lord Gauranga may be regarded as the greatest Vaishnava teacher of the North. He gave a new form to the Vaishnava faith. He was born in 1486 AD in Bengal.
Chaitanya had a very large heart. He accepted converts from Islam freely. His disciple Haridas was a Moslem fakir. Nityananda spread far and wide the Chaitanya movement. Rupa and Sanatana who descended from a prince of Karnataka and settled in Bengal, and their nephew Jiva Goswami, were great Sanskrit scholars and were really the fathers of the Chaitanya movement (Todayâs Hare-Krishna movement).
Jiva Goswami and Baladeva furnished the philosophical basis for the school. The philosophical classics of the school are Jivaâs Sat-sandarbha, and his own commentary on it. Sarva Samvadini, and Baladevaâs Govindabhashya on the Brahma Sutras. Baladevaâs Prameyaratnavali is also another popular book. Jiva and Baladeva were greatly influenced by the views of Ramanuja and Madhava. They admit God, souls, Maya or Prakriti, Suddha Sattva and Kala or time.
The world and souls depend on God, though they are separate and distinct from Him. They are neither one with God nor different from Him. There is an incomprehensible difference- non-difference (Achintya Bhedabheda).
Chaitanya insisted on the unity of the Godhead which underlies the multitude of idols of popular worship.
The Ultimate Reality
The Ultimate Reality is Vishnu. He is the God of love and grace. He is one without a second. He is Sat-Chit-Ananda. He is Nirguna in the sense that He is free from the qualities of Maya. He is Saguna (with attributes) as He is endowed with the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. He is the material and the efficient cause of the world. He is the source, support and end of this universe. He is the efficient cause through His higher energy (Para-Sakti). He is the material cause through His other energies (Apara-Sakti and Adya-Sakti).
Mysterious and Incomprehensible Sakti of the Lord
Just as the sun has its light and the fire its heat, so the Supreme God, Krishna, has naturally His energies or Saktis which are mysterious and incomprehensible. These Saktis have no independent existence. They depend upon God. God and His powers are either identical or different.
These energies are of three kinds, viz., Chit-Sakti, Jiva-Sakti and Maya-Sakti. They are also called Antaranga, Tatastha and Bahiranga respectively. Jiva-Sakti is called Tatastha because it occupies an intermediate place between Chit-Sakti and Maya-Sakti.
The Process of Creation
Chit-Sakti created Vaikuntha. There is only pure Sattva in Vaikuntha. Maya has no access here. Kala (time) cannot execute its destructive power.
The souls are created by the Tatastha Sakti or Jiva-Sakti of the Lord. The Lordâs Svarupa-Sakti supports His Jiva-Sakti.
The Lord creates the universe from the great principle of Mahat. He manifests the Vedas and communicates them to Brahma. The work of creating other stages of creation is given to Brahma. The souls and matter are the manifestations of Godâs energy according to Jiva Goswami and Baladeva. Maya is set in vibration by the mere gazing of the Lord.
The Lord Who Appears in Different Forms
The Supreme Lord Krishna manifests Himself as Brahman to Jnanins; as Paramatman to Yogins; and as Bhagavan full of all glories, all beauties, all sweetness and all attributes, to Bhaktas. Lord Krishna is the soul of all souls and the Lord of all that is. A Bhakta (devotee) only has full knowledge of the Supreme Personal God with all His divine attributes. Krishnâs form is unique. He assumes endless forms.
Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Rama, Krishna, etc., are Lila-Avataras (incarnations). There are Gunavataras and Manavantaravataras. The four Sanakas, Narada, Prithu, Parasurama, Brahma, Sesha in Vaikuntha and Ananta who supports the earth, are the chief Avestavataras of the major type who have direct power from God. In Sanaka, Jnana-Sakti; in Narada, Bhakti-Sakti; in Brahma, creative Sakti; in Ananta, the earth supporting Sakti; in Sesha, God-serving Sakti; in Prithu, the power of preserving people; and in Parsurama the power of destroying the wicked prevailed.
Radha-Krishna
The Avataras (incarnations) are one with the Supreme. They are not parts like the individual souls. God assumes infinite forms of which the chief is that of Krishna. Radha is the essence of the delight giving power of Lord Krishna (Hladini). The Lord is the ruler of all souls. He is omnipresent or all-pervading.
The Jiva
The Jiva is of atomic size. He is the eternal servant of God. He bears the same relation to God as the sunâs rays bear to the sun and as a spark bears to the mass of fire from which it flits out. The ray, although it radiates from the sun and is part and parcel of the sun, is not the sun. So also, the Jiva, who is partly similar to God in respect of his spirituality or Chaitanya and partly dissimilar on account of his animal nature and susceptibility to the influence of Maya, is not God Himself.
The soul is bound by the power of Maya. Maya makes him forget his real, essential, divine nature. The Jiva, illumined and infatuated by Maya, can naturally have no knowledge of Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna has, therefore, out of His infinite mercy, created the Vedas; and reveals Himself to the Jiva through the media of scriptures, Guru and intuition. Then the Jiva is convinced that Lord Krishna is his Lord and saviour.
The Jiva can have God-realisation through spiritual love or Prema to Lord Krishna. Bhakti overcomes the force of Karma. Bhakti (devotion) is the way to the final emancipation. Through Bhakti the soul attains to a status of equality with God, but he is never absorbed in Him. He is freed from the round of births and deaths.
The Culture of Bhakti (Devotion)
Chiatanya taught that God could be realised only by means of ardent and all-absorbing love. He wrote to a royal minister who had asked if there was any path of salvation for a man leading an active life: "As an immoral woman constantly thinks of her illicit lover while living in the midst of her family, so do thou silently and ceaselessly meditate on Hari while doing your worldly activities".
According to Chaitanya, ardour is born from the culture of Bhakti and when ardour deepens, it is called love (Prema).
From taste (Ruchi) comes strong inclination (Asakti) which generates the sprout of passion (Rati) for Krishna. When this emotion deepens, it becomes Prema. This is the permanent form of Bhakti in Krishna.
When love grows, it is successively called Sneha, Pranaya, Anuraga, Bhava and Mahabhava, just as we have successively cane-seed, sugar-cane juice, molasses, sugar and fine sugar-candy.
When the permanent emotion (Bhava) is mingled with Rasa, it is changed into Vibhava, Anubhava, Sattvika and Vyabhichari; just as curd, when being mixed with black sugar, black pepper and camphor, becomes a thing of extreme deliciousness named Rasala. Vibhava is of two kinds:
1.
Alambana, which is kindled by Krishna, etc., and
2.
Uddipana, by the notes of His flute, etc.,
Anubhava is stimulated by smile, dance and song. Stupor and other sensations are included in Sattvika Anubhava. Vyabhichari is of thirty-three kinds, such as delight, rapture etc.
Rasa is of five kinds- Santa, Dasya, Sakhya, Vatsalya and Madhurya. In the Santa Rasa, Rati advances to the stage of Prema and in the Dasya to Raga. Sakhya and Vatsalya attain to the limit of Anuraga.
Krishna-Prema â The Supreme Attainment
That devotee who has developed Prema always communes with Lord Krishna. No mundane sorrow or affliction can perturb his mind. He has no attraction for earthly objects. He has no fear. He never cares for material success. He intensely longs for union with Lord Krishna.
Love of Krishna is the highest thing worth attaining. Bhakti is the means of attainment. Krishna-prema is, indeed, the highest achievement of life. This Prema makes the devotees serve Krishna in a selfless spirit and enjoy the Rasa or sweetness of the Lord. Bhakti is the only means of attaining Krishna and is, therefore, spoken of as Avidhaya or means. Just as wealth gives comforts, and with the enjoyment of comforts all worldly miseries disappear of their own accord, so also, Bhakti generates Krishna-prema, and with the enjoyment of Prema, the cycle of births and deaths comes to an end. Escape from the effects of privations and the stoppage of rebirths are not, however, the fruits of prema. Beatitude or Moksha is Premaâs handmaid. Therefore this Krishna-prema is regarded as the supreme attainment .
Other Teachings of Sri Chaitanya
Veneration for the preceptor is a fundamental feature of Sri Chaitanyaâs teachings. Study of the Vedas, the Bhagavata Purana, etc., is inculcated. Practice of ethics and development of ethical virtues such as mercy towards all creatures, humility, purity of heart, freedom from mundane desires, serenity and truthfulness are essential. The distinctions of caste have to be ignored. Anyone can obtain the grace of the Lord.
The following qualities make a Vaishnava. He is compassionate, truthful, saintly, innocent, charitable, gentle, pure, spiteless, humble, serene, tender, friendly and silent. He is a universal benefactor. He solely depends upon Lord Krishna. He is desireless. He is abstemious in diet and self-controlled. He has mastery over the six enemies. He honours others and does not care for honour from others.
Sankirtana â The Supreme Healer
The supreme healer in this iron age is Sankirtana of the Name. It is equivalent to the Vedic sacrifice. The true sacrificer is rewarded with Krishnaâs feet. Sankirtana enables you to conquer sin and the world. It creates purity of soul and all kinds of Bhakti. It is not restricted to a particular place or time. It works everywhere. It bears the name of Sarva-Sakti (omnipotence).
Hariâs name should always be chanted by him who must be humbler than a blade of grass (which is trodden upon); who is more patient, forbearing and charitable than a tree (which does not cry out even when it is cut down and which does not beg for water even when scorched to death, but on the contrary, offers its treasure to whoever seeks it, bears the sun and rain itself, but protects those who take shelter under it from rain and sunshine); who, however worthy of esteem should instead of claiming respect for himself, give respect to all (from a sense of Godâs immanence in all beings). He who thus takes Krishnaâs Name gets Krishnaâs Divine Love (Prema).
**********************************************************************
Did Baladeva deviate from Sri Chaitanya's philosophy? Baladeva claimed that Chaitanya's philosophy agrees with Madhva's philosophy. Is that claim true?
How can Achintya Bhed-abhed and dvaita be in agreement?
Gangajalji,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The world and souls depend on God, though they are separate and distinct from Him. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) Doesnt the above look similar to Ramanuja's theory that the plurality exists but that plurality doesnt have an existence independent of Brahman?
b) But When he says
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They are neither one with God nor different from Him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> leaving aside
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> There is an incomprehensible difference- non-difference (Achintya Bhedabheda<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
is it not closer to Madhva?
Can you expound Chaitanya's Philosophy a bit more for ignorant folks a bitter.
Another question
did Chaitanya criticize others like Sankaras in their Baskhya?
Gangajalji,
The following may throw some light on your question
The Sampradaya of Sri Caitanya
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Steven Rosen: Well, whatever the case may be, we do indeed find to this day that those four sampradayas are in fact the major traditional lineages of Vaisnavism in India. So let's move on from the four authorised chains of knowledge to how the Gaudiya Sampradaya is aligned with them. It is said that the Gaudiya school is connected to the Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya.
Dr. Deadwyler: Yes. The claim for that is found in a number of places. The main reference is a list of the guru parampara found in Baladeva Vidyabhusana's Govinda-bhasya and Prameya-ratnavali. And also in Kavi Karnapura's Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, the earliest statement. It's also in another one, a younger contemporary of Caitanya Gopala-guru. His work doesn't survive, but it's quoted somewhere else.
Steven Rosen: B. B. Majumdar mentions eight.
Dr. Deadwyler: That's right. There are eight places in addition to Baladeva and Kavi Karnapura where the affiliation is brought out. But the really significant ones are those that I've mentioned. Gopala-guru was a disciple of Vakresvara Pandita.
Steven Rosen: I think his work is called Padya.
Dr. Deadwyler: That's it. And it's also mentioned in the Bhakti-ratnakara of Narahari Cakravarti.
Steven Rosen: Well, the other important place is Visvanatha Cakravarti's Gauranga-svarupa-tattva-candrika. That's a bit later, but it's an important reference because he was such a prominent acarya.
Dr. Deadwyler: Now he was an associate of Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Visvanatha Cakravarti was the very one who sent Baladeva to debate the authenticity of the Gaudiya Sampradaya. We can conclude that there was some agreement at that time that this list, with its Madhva connection, was indeed the correct parampara. At least these two important acaryas Baladeva and Visvanatha agreed. So, yes, Visvanatha Cakravarti also accepted it.
This comes from the Vrindavana side they all accepted the Gaudiya affiliation. So there was some consensus of opinion. But the earliest writer to attest to the affiliation was Kavi Karnapura. In other words, the idea was there in Orissa as well. Of course, Baladeva was originally form Orissa himself. There's a work by a Mukherjee called The History of the Caitanya Faith in Orissa.
Steven Rosen: Oh, Prabhat Mukherjee. He's a very important and well-known historian of Oriyan Vaisnavism.
Dr. Deadwyler: Prabhat Mukherjee finds a number of Oriyan Vaisnavas who affiliate themselves with Caitanya and give a guru parampara that includes Madhva. So it seems to have been accepted in Orissa at a time soon after Caitanya's disappearance. Thus, there was a firm, early tradition that Caitanya's disciplic succession descended from Madhvacarya. And so it's called the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya.
Some scholars, however, have held that the affiliation was an invention of Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who was originally a Tattvavadi, a Madhvite. Then, through his spiritual master, Radha-Damodara, he became a Gaudiya Vaisnava. So some people think he had ideological motives for 'affiliating' the Caitanya movement with Madhva. S. K. De, one of the big doubters of the authenticity of the list, even hints that Baladeva himself may have written the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika and attributed it to Kavi Karnapura, in order to back-date the affiliation.
Steven Rosen: What is his evidence?
Dr. Deadwyler: There is no evidence whatsoever. S K. De's 'seminal' book, Early History of the Vaishnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, which is probably the most comprehensive early history of Gaudiya Vaisnavism in Bengal, at least in the English language, is full of forced conclusions. Yet it remains the standard work on the subject, at least for scholars. De seems to bend over backwards to ape the manners of Western critical scholarship, and he tries to doubt everything conceivably doubtable. There's almost a presumption of falsification in the documents guilty until proven innocent. He questions the historicity of everything.
So he cast doubt on this guru-parampara the linking of the Gaudiya school with the Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya. Now he's not alone in this, nor did the idea originate with him. He was following some earlier Bengali writers from the twenties and thirties. But you will find the first and one of the more prominent places where the affiliation is rejected is Surendranatha Dasgupta â History of Indian Philosophy. In the fourth volume of that work, in the section on Madhva, Dasgupta lists the succession of Madhva gurus, stating that this is largely at variance with the list given in the introduction of the commentary on the Brahma-Sutra by Baladeva Vidyabhusana.
After quoting Baladeva's list, Dasgupta tells us (on Page 56 of Volume 4): 'We see that the list given by Baladeva is in total discrepancy with the two lists given from the Madhva mathas in Belgaum and Poona'. So Dasgupta rejects it.
But B. N. K. Sharma, in his History of the Advaita School of Vedanta and Its Literature, brings to light the miscalculation made by Dasgupta. You see, there are a number of Madhva mathas. The one that Dasgupta quotes is the disciplic succession of the Uttaradi Matha. That Uttaradi Matha twice divided and so you end up with three mathas â the Uttaradi Matha and two others. But Dasgupta was ignorant of these two splits.
However, one of these offshoot mathas, called the Vyasa-raja Matha, records a line of disciplic succession that appears quite similar to the one Baladeva and Kavi Karnapura give. And this is an official Madhva list. I can go over it with you. Here's what happened. After Madhva, we find listed Padmanabha, Nrhari, Madhava, and Aksobhya.
Now in the Madhva tradition, these four are frequently regarded as direct disciples of Madhvacarya, although some places say that Nrhari, Madhava and Aksobhya were all initiated by Padmanabha. At any rate, they're pretty much contemporaries. Aksobhya's disciple was Jayatirtha. He was the famous commentator and systematiser of Madhva's teaching. All of these devotees, by the way, were the heads of mathas, mahantas or 'pontiffs' as Sharma calls them. There may have been other advanced acaryas during their time. But the list only contains the leaders of the matha.
After Jayatirtha, the official Madhva list mentions Vidyadhiraja. The list from Baladeva, however, has Jnanasindhu, Dayanidhi and then Vidyanidhi. The list from Kavi Karnapura has Jnanasindhu and, instead of Dayanidhi, Mahanidhi, and then it also has Vidyanidhi. So if you accept, as Sharma does, that Vidyanidhi and Vidyadhiraja are the same person â just a variation of the same name â then what you have in Baladeva's and Kavi Karnapura's list are two names, Jnanasindhu and Dayanidhi or Mahanidhi, that are introduced between Jayatirtha and Vidyanidhi.
After Vidyadhiraja or Vidyanidhi, assuming that it's the same person, the branching off from the matha takes place, and you get the distinctive Vyasa-raja Matha, named after Vyasatirtha, who was a later head of that matha and became very famous. Next in succession is Rajendra, who is in Baladeva's list; then the Madhva list has Jayadhvaja whereas the Gaudiya lists give a variation on that name â Jayadharma. And then it's the same: Purusottama, Brahmanyatirtha, Vyasatirtha. So up to that point, everything's fairly consistent.
There's really not too much to fuss about â you've got two extra names and a few variations on names, which is common enough. Now, after Vyasatirtha, Baladeva lists Laksmipati Tirtha, Madhavendra Puri and Isvara Puri, who was Caitanya's guru. And those first three names do not appear on any Madhva list. So this is the problem ...
Steven Rosen: Right. This is where the real controversy begins.
Dr. Deadwyler: Exactly. Well, first of all, there's the controversy that concerns Surendranatha Dasgupta, which we've looked at â he didn't even recognise this list. But as we've shown, following B. N. K. Sharma up until Laksmipati Tirtha, there's not a whole lot of difference in the two lists.
Steven Rosen: And minor differences shouldn't be all that shocking, because, for example, if two disciples of different gurus are writing books, let's say, five hundred years from now, and they make a list of teachers, each list would be different, leading up to their particular guru. That's natural. It's like a tree with many branches.
Dr. Deadwyler: That's right. But at this point we should deal with the second problem, the one that arises after Vyasatirtha.
Steven Rosen: You mean the one involving Laksmipati Tirtha?
Dr. Deadwyler: Right. Although Laksmipati Tirtha is indeed absent from the Madhva list, there is a simple solution: this Laksmipati Tirtha wasn't a mahanta. He was an initiated disciple of Vyasatirtha, but he was not at any time the head of a Madhva matha. I think that's a very simple and likely explanation.
Steven Rosen: You're saying that his name isn't on the list because he was not a leader.
Dr. Deadwyler: Because the Madhva lists don't contain every disciple. They list only devotees who served for some time as the heads of mathas.
Steven Rosen: I'm interested in something related to this: how would you explain that Laksmipati appears to be the last of the people with the 'Tirtha' titles? After him you have Madhavendra Puri.
Dr. Deadwyler: That's the more interesting puzzle. All of those acaryas up to that point have a 'Tirtha' in their names. Even Madhva's name was Ananda-tirtha. The 'Tirtha' title originally came from a Sankarite order, because Madhva was initially initiated in the Sankarite order, and it is characteristic of Madhva sannyasis. So then you have Madhavendra Puri, Isvara Puri â you get a 'Puri' title, which belongs to another Sankarite order. Now how does that happen?
There are some plausible explanations for it. One of them is that Madhavendra Puri, in fact, took sannyasa initiation in an Advaita sampradaya â just as Caitanya Mahaprabhu and, as a matter of fact, Madhva did. And sometimes when people took sannyasa, especially in those days, it didn't seem to matter so much. They took from whomever was handy. That seems to be a reasonable explanation. The change in title doesn't seem a sufficient reason to reject the lineage. The testimony that there was a Madhva connection is much older than Baladeva. And at least if you accept Kavi Karnapura and the similar traditions from Orissa, you can't say they had some 'ideological motive'.
Another plausible scenario is that Madhavendra Puri could have already been a Mayavadi sannyasi and then met Laksmipati Tirtha. Vyasatirtha is said to have died in 1539, so he was also a contemporary of Caitanya. Caitanya's lifetime was fairly short, but he was born before Vyasatirtha's demise. Still it was possible for Vyasatirtha to have initiated Laksmipati, and that succession could have gone on during his lifetime.
According to the Bhakti-ratnakara of Narahari Cakravarti, Nityananda was actually initiated directly by Laksmipati. Baladeva, on the other hand, lists him along with Isvara Puri and Advaita Acarya as disciples of Madhavendra Puri. This can be reconciled with Narahari's account, however, as Narahari says that although Nityananda was Madhavendra Puri's godbrother, Nityananda always regarded him as his guru.
Incidentally, Kavi Karnapura states that one of Jayadharma's (or Jayadhvaja's) disciples was the famous Visnu Puri, author of Bhakti-ratnavali. In that case, we have the Puri title appearing earlier in the list, as belonging to an acarya who was not a mahanta. B. N. K. Sharma speculates that this Visnu Puri may have been the actual teacher of Laksmipati, and so on, and thus the real link between Madhva and Caitanya. In this way Sharma and others, like Stuart Elkman, accept an historical Madhva connection, while having doubts about the exact list of Baladeva or Kavi Karnapura.
Steven Rosen: There is another problem that needs to be addressed: if there is a connection between the Gaudiya Sampradaya and the Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya, why is there such a difference in the theology? O. B. L. Kapoor really brings out some divergent views. How would you explain that?
Dr. Deadwyler: Yes, this has been another reason for doubting the connection, and modern scholars have sometimes made much of it. But the differences are of emphasis, really. The essential teachings are in agreement. Madhavendra Puri, it's true, is credited by the followers of Caitanya with introducing something new. Let me read you something from the Caitanya-caritamrta. This is Adi-lila 9.10: 'All glories to Sri Madhavendra Puri, the storehouse of all devotional service unto Krsna. He is a desire tree of devotional service and it is in him that the seed of devotional service first fructified.' It says that he is the 'storehouse of Krsna prema'. In his commentary, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada writes, 'Sri Madhavendra Puri, also known as Sri Madhava Puri, belonged to a disciplic succession from Madhvacarya, and he was a greatly celebrated sannyasi.' And then there's this critique: 'The process of worship in the disciplic succession from Madhvacarya was full of ritualistic ceremonies, with hardly a sign of love of Godhead; Sri Madhavendra Puri was the first person in that disciplic succession to exhibit the symptom of love of Godhead ... '
Steven Rosen: Right. I have a few quotes about Madhavendra Puri here: Vrndavana dasa Thakura, in the Caitanya-bhagavata, refers to him as 'the prime architect of the devotionalism in Bengal'. Krsnadasa Kaviraja calls him 'the first sprout of the wishing tree of devotion'. So it seems that Madhavendra Puri moved the Brahma-Madhva conception from awe and reverence, or worship of Narayana (which was more common in the Madhva Sampradaya), to worship in madhurya, or the sweet loving aspect that's found in Radha-Krsna. Apparently, there's some element here of moving from vaidhi-bhakti to raganuga-bhakti.
Dr. Deadwyler: Precisely. That's what the commentary is talking about here. Madhavendra Puri, the commentator notes, was 'the first to write a poem beginning with the words, ayi dina-dayardra natha he'. This verse is recorded in Caitanya-caritamrta, Antya-lila, chapter eight, verse thirty-four. I'll return to the poem later. 'In that poetry,' the commentary continues, 'is the seed of Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cultivation of love of Godhead.'Â So that seed is contained in Madhavendra Puri's verse, and that verse expresses Radharani's anguished feelings of separation from Krsna.
The Caitanya-caritamrta says that Madhavendra Puri was reciting this very verse while passing away from the material world. I'll give you the translation: 'O Lord, O most merciful Master, O Master of Mathura! When shall I see You again? Because of my not seeing You, my agitated heart has become unsteady. O most beloved one, what shall I do now?' This is Radharani speaking, expressing her most intense love in feelings of separation. The Caitanya-caritamrta (Antya-lila 8.35-6) says, 'In this verse Madhavendra Puri instructs how to achieve ecstatic love for Krsna (krsna-prema). By feeling separation from Krsna, one becomes spiritually situated. Madhavendra Puri sowed the seed of ecstatic love (prema) for Krsna within this material world, and then departed. That seed later became a great tree in the form of Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
Steven Rosen: But doesn't it go further? I remember ...
Dr. Deadwyler: Yes! I'm getting to that. You're right, there's another discussion of this verse in Madhya-lila, Chapter Four, in which Caitanya explained the story of Madhavendra Puri and Nathaji, or Sri Gopala. Here is Caitanya-caritamrta, beginning with Verse 192: 'After saying this, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu read the famous verse of Madhavendra Puri. That verse is just like a full moon. It has spread the illumination all over the world.'
'By continuous rubbing,' the Caitanya-caritamrta goes on, 'the aroma of Malaya sandalwood increases. Similarly, by considering this verse, its importance increases.'
Steven Rosen: This is a glorification of the verse spoken by Radharani, the verse that reflects her mood.
Dr. Deadwyler: Yes. Ayi dina-dayardra natha he. The Caitanya-caritamrta continues: 'As the kaustubha-mani is considered the most precious of valuable stones, this verse is similarly considered the best of mellow poems. (rasa-kavya, poetry about rasa). Actually this verse was spoken by Srimati Radharani Herself, and by Her mercy only was it manifest in the words of Madhavendra Puri.
So what is this saying? It's saying that Radharani revealed this verse directly to Madhavendra Puri, or that by Her mercy it was manifest in the words that emanated form Madhavendra Puri's mouth. And then Krsnadasa Kaviraja says, 'Only Caitanya Mahaprabhu has tasted the potency of this verse. No fourth person is capable of understanding it.' That is, only Srimati Radharani, Madhavendra Puri and Caitanya Mahaprabhu understood this verse. Then it says, 'Madhavendra Puri recited this verse again and again at the end of his material existence. Thus uttering this verse, he attained the ultimate goal of his life.' And then the verse is quoted in Text 197.
Now I want to look at some of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's commentary on this text here. Prabhupada writes, 'Out of the four sampradayas, the Sri Madhvacarya Sampradaya was accepted by Madhavendra Puri. Thus he took sannyasa according to parampara, the disciplic succession.'
Here, we see Prabhupada's statement that it was a sannyasa initiation. If this is so, the 'Puri' title must have been used in the Madhva order, at least outside of the formal matha structure. Kavi Karnapura's mention of Visnu Puri as a disciple of Jayadharma (Jayadhvaja), gives some support for this idea.
Anyway, the commentary goes on: 'Beginning from Madhvacarya down to the spiritual master of Madhavendra Puri, Laksmipati Tirtha, there was no realisation of devotional service in conjugal love.' Then he says, 'Sri Madhavendra Puri introduced the conception of conjugal love for the first time in the Madhvacarya Sampradaya.' So here on the Gaudiya Vaisnava side is a frank recognition that there was something new with Madhavendra Puri in this sampradaya.
Steven Rosen: So is that to say that devotees before the time of Madhavendra Puri could not attain Goloka Vrndavana? They only went to Vaikuntha?
Dr. Deadwyler: Well, does it say that?
Steven Rosen: That does seem to be the implication ...
Dr. Deadwyler: In the Madhva Sampradaya, the Deity that they were worshipping was Narayana.
Steven Rosen: So they go to Vaikuntha.
Dr. Deadwyler: That's where they'll go; they'll go to Vaikuntha. And if in the Sri Sampradaya they were worshipping Sita-Rama, for example, then that's what they'll attain â Ayodhya â which is also Vaikuntha.
Steven Rosen: Well, was anyone worshipping Krsna prior to that time?
Dr. Deadwyler: Of course. But even so, the worship was largely on the platform of vaidhi-bhakti, that is, formal regulative service. Krsna worshippers on that platform could attain the majestic feature of Krsna in Dvaraka or Mathura, but not Goloka Vrndavana. That is obtainable only by devotion on the spontaneous platform, raganuga-bhakti.
But let me finish reading this commentary on Madhavendra Puri's verse: 'Sri Madhavendra Puri introduced the conception of conjugal love for the first time in the Madhva Sampradaya.' Now, the next comment is interesting: 'This conclusion of the Madhvacarya Sampradaya was revealed by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu when he toured Southern India and met Tattvavadis, who supposedly belonged to the Madhva Sampradaya.'
So the idea here, at least from the Madhva-Gaudiya point of view, is that there were potentialities, spiritual realisations, latent within Madhvacarya, and these were fully brought out later by Caitanya Mahaprabhu and, before him, in a less manifest form, by Madhavendra Puri. The implication here is that, for reasons of time and place, Madhvacarya may not have spoken these things aloud, or not have made certain things explicit, although they might have been recognised by followers with realisation.
What the Gaudiya Vaisnavas generally say is that Caitanya's philosophy of acintya- bhedabheda-tattva, and also his teaching on the madhurya rasa, are a kind of synthesis and capstone of the philosophies of the four sampradayas. Yet it's significant that Caitanya himself took initiation in the Madhva Sampradaya. He singled it out, so to speak, because of his appreciation for its strong polemic against the Mayavadis. More than anyone else, Madhva and Jayatirtha really were ferocious in their opposition to the Mayavadis.
Now you can list a number of differences between what's commonly accepted as the philosophy of Madhvacarya and that of the Six Gosvamis. But you can make another list of similarities. If you ask me, the similarities are greater. So it's really a question of what you consider important, and what you consider secondary.
With a teacher as rich and profound as Madhvacarya, it's a question of what in his writings becomes emphasised, what becomes expounded upon by his followers, what becomes the prevalent mode of teaching. And there will be other things latent in those teachings which will not receive much emphasis, and yet may seem to be of greater importance at a later time. So it's a question of how you look at it. There are differences. And finally, that's why Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who's one of the big proponents of the Madhva affiliation, also had to write a separate commentary on Vedanta-sutra specifically for the Gaudiya Sampradaya. Because there are certain things in Madhva's works â relating to Gaudiya practices â that you won't find, such as the worship of Radha-Krsna together. This won't be found in Madhva's works. The Madhvites worship Narayana, and they generally don't worship Laksmi-Narayana as well â just Narayana alone. The fact that there are differences between the philosophy of the Madhvites and the Gaudiyas is not argument against historical affiliation.
Steven Rosen: You know, in some ways, it always seemed to me that the Sri Vaisnavas â the Ramanujites â were very close to the Gaudiya idea. At least as much as the Madhva teaching. You know, when Mahaprabhu met with Vyenkata Bhatta , they seemed to really get on pretty well. And the sakti thing is there â Laksmi-Narayana. So there is a closeness.
Dr. Deadwyler: Right. Well, it depends on what Madhvite you talk to, you know. I've spoken to some who strongly remind me of a kind of Christian, actually, in their 'this is the only way' mode of relating. Their emphasis on duality, a dualism that they have emphasised, also sometimes seems quite extreme â 'there's no oneness between God and the living being, no similarity whatsoever.' Well, I don't know if I can accept that.
On the other hand, a scholar like B. N. K. Sharma, who's a Madhvite scholar, will say that Caitanya's acintya-bhedabheda-tattva is really just a variation of Madhva's category of visesa. And he sees a clear development out of Madhva's teaching. Whereas some other scholar will say, 'You know, they're two completely different things', and so on.
Steven Rosen: I once read in an early Harmonist that the reason Mahaprabhu chose the Madhva Sampradaya with which to align himself, as opposed to the other sampradayas, was because Madhvites emphasised duality â they taught that the living being is different to God. And when there's a difference, there's more of an aptitude for service.
Dr. Deadwyler: That's right.
Steven Rosen: I thought that this was very nicely put.
Dr. Deadwyler: This reminds me of something I wanted to speak about. What gives some scholars problems â on the doctrinal level â with this Madhva affiliation is the high respect Caitanya Mahaprabhu gives Sridhara Svami's Bhagavata commentary. Most scholars regard Sridhara Svami as an Advaitin, and he was regarded in this way by Sankarites, too; they accepted him as one of them, although he did get into trouble with that community. His commentary on the Bhagavata was controversial, and it did seem as though it might not have actually been accepted because Sridhara Svami did recognise a quantitative difference between the soul and the Supreme Lord. And, of course, there is a Madhva idea here, as you mentioned.
So the Gaudiya Vaisnavas do not accept him as a real Advaitin. Even though he was apparently recognised by the Sankara Sampradaya as one of them, they thought he was trying to stay too close to Vaisnava ideas. As far as the Vaisnava sampradayas are concerned, we have to recognise a great deal of overlapping. The four orthodox sampradayas teach basically the same thing, which is that is one is an eternal servant of Visnu or Krsna, or one of his many incarnations. The emphasis and the details may differ, but the truth is ultimately one. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-sridhar k+Mar 19 2005, 09:02 AM-->QUOTE(sridhar k @ Mar 19 2005, 09:02 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The world and souls depend on God, though they are separate and distinct from Him. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) Doesnt the above look similar to Ramanuja's theory that the plurality exists but that plurality doesnt have an existence independent of Brahman?
b) But When he says
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They are neither one with God nor different from Him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> leaving aside
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> There is an incomprehensible difference- non-difference (Achintya Bhedabheda<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
is it not closer to Madhva?
Can you expound Chaitanya's Philosophy a bit more for ignorant folks a bitter.
Another question
did Chaitanya criticize others like Sankaras in their Baskhya? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sridharji,
Madhva's Dvaita darshana is a pure bheda system. Jiva and Jagat are eternally different from Vishnu though dependent on Vishnu. Achintya Bhedabhed is as the nomenclature suggests a Bheda Abheda type system. Jiva is both similar and not similar to Vishnu. It would seem to me that there is considerable difference between the two positions. Then I don't think Madhva stresses madhur bhava the way Chaitanya stresses madhur bhava. There is also a huge controversy regarding the guru parampara which is mentioned in the discussion regarding Steven Rosen. One problem with the Guru Parampara is that it is fairly certain that Chaitanya was a Sankarite monk. I am not completely sure but in a book by Murari Gupta (Have to check this) Chaitanya's initiation is mentioned. Apparently Chaitanya was initiated into one of the Maha Vakyas (most likely Tattvamasi = Thou art That) in a dream. Chaitanya was very downcast since he did not like that idea that he was Krishna. Then Murari Gupta told him to interpret the passage to mean 'You are Krishna's'. There is also evidence that Chaitanya worshipped Kali.
You have already done a good job expounding Achintya Bhedabheda darshana.
The real problem is that the six Goswamis (Rupa, Sanatan etc) who knew Chaitanya intimately did not write any Bhasya on Brahma Sutra. They mostly wrote treatises on love (Ujjala Nilamani etc). Jiva Goswami's Sat Sandharva is the first book that explains Achintya Bhedabhed darshana but does not mention Madhva. None of the six Goswamis mention Madhva's dvaita darshana. If Chaitanya agreed with Madhva, then why didn't his most intimate disciples refer to Madhva? Baladeva wrote his commentary on Brahma Sutra 300 years after the passing away of Chaitanya and his disciples. It is fairly certain that it is Baladeva who first claimed that the sampradaya accepting Achintya Bhedabheda is a Madhva-Chaitanya Sampradya. Baladeva's commentary has not been accepted by all Vaishnavas belonging to the Chaitanya lineage. The combination of the silence of the six Goswamis about Madhva, the sudden claim by Baladeva 300 years later about the Madhva-Chaitanya Sampradya, and the fact that not all Gaudiya Vaishnavas agree with Baladeva is what has created doubts in some people's mind.
The Discussion is back on, and Sridharji/Gangajal ji, it's nice to see the thread back and alive. I cannot participate for a while even if I want to - as I am sleep deprived.
edited
Sridhar ji,
Here is some additional info on Baladeva's claim that Chaitanya belonged to the lineage of Madhva.
1. Apparently the first time this is mentioned is in the Sanskrit biography,Chaitanya charitmrta mahakavya, of Kavi Karnapura. None of the six Goswamis, however, make that claim. Chaitanya has admiited that he was a Shankarite monk, since Keshava Bharati was his Guru, and used to call himself a mayavadi albeit in a disparaging manner.
2. Chaitanya also visited the Sringeri Monastery and while he is said to have entered into debate everywhere else, he did not get into any debate in Sringeri. Could it be because Sringeri is the headquarters of the Bharatis and Chaitany was received respectfully since his Guru was a Bharati?
3. Chaitanya remarked after visiting Madhva's monastery in Udipi," Both karmis
and jnanis are devoid of devotion; these are the very two signs in your
sampradaya. The only virtue I see in your sampradaya is the you accept the
true form of the Lord". Would he say this if he regarded himself in the lineage of Madhva?
4. Chaitanya did not agree with Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya. Chaitanya told Vasudeva Sarvabhauma (the famous Navya Nyaya scholar), "The meaning of the Sutra is perfectly clear; but listening to your explanations (Shankara's Bhasya) has confused my mind. ..... Shankara's commentary does not reflect the primary meaning of the Sutra." So it is clear that Chaitanya rejected Mayavad.
5. Chaitanya's remarks about Brahma Sutra to Advaitin Prakasananda in Banares are quite remarkable:
"The meaning of Vyasa Sutras is extremely deep. Vyasa was bhagavat himself
(i.e. an avatara of bhagavat). As no mere mortal is capable of understanding
the meaning of his Sutras, he has himself explained them. No when the author
himself explains his own Sutras, their true meaning can be understood. The
meaning of the syllable OM is contained in the Gayatri, and the meaning of
the Gayatri is explained in the Catuhsloki, the four Bhagavata verses
(2/9/30-33) which were handed down from Isvara to Brahma, from Brahma to
Narada, and from Narada to Vyasa. When Vyasa first heard these verse, he
thought,'This is indeed the correct interpretation of my sutras. I will
compose the Bhagavata to serve as a commentary on these sutras.'
Vyasa then gathered together all of the doctrines found in the four Vedas
and Upanisads. Each verse which forms the subject of a particular sutra was
made into a verse of the Bhagavata. Thus the Bhagavata represents the (true)
commentary on the Brahmasutra. The Bhagavata and the Upanisads speak with
one voice. (CCm. 25/89-98).
This is very important piece of information and may explain why none of the six Goswamis wrote a commentary on the Brahma Sutra. Jiva, in particular, could have easily done it. Yet none of them did. It seems the obvious explanation is that Chaitanya told them that the Bhagavata Purana is already the definitive commentary on the Sutras. Given this information why did the Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept Baladeva's dualistic interpretation of the Sutra as reflecting Chaitanya's views?
[To be continued]
6. Chaitanya was a great admiror of Sridhar Swami, an Advaitin, who emphasized bhakti. This is clear from the conversation between Chaitanya and Vallabhacharya.
Vallabha told Chaitanya,"I do not accept the views of Sridhara on the Bhagavata
and have refuted his interpretation. He has not been consistent in his
commentary, so I have not followed it." (CCa 7/110)
Chaitanya told him," You have the vanity to write your own commentary without
showing your respect to Sridhara, and have even criticized him! It is by the
grace of Sridhara that I have understood the Bhagavata. He is a world teacher;
I consider him to be my very own Guru. Whatever you have written out of pride
against Sridhara is wasted effort; no one will accept it. Give up your false
pride and follow Sridhara in your commentary. Whatever you write in accordance
with Sridhara will be honoured and accpeted by all.' (CCa 7/128-132)
All six Goswamis have been full of praise for Sridhar Swami even though
Sridhar was an Advaitin (though an ardent proponent of Bhakti). Jiva, for
example, writes at the commencement of his Bhagavata commentary, the
Kramasandharva:"I salute the venerable Sridhara, the sole guardian of Bhakti.
This commentary, bearing the name Kramasandharva, should be understood to
function as clarifying what was not clearly stated by the Swamin, or
mentioning what was left unsaid."
Sridhara acknowledges his debt to Sankara at the beginning of his commentary
on the Bhagavad Gita. He writes,"After studying, according to my own light,
the interpretation of the commentator (Shankara) and the writings of his
sub-commentators, I begin this commentary on the Gita." Sridhara does not
follow Shankara very closely, placing greater emphasis on Bhakti, often
speaking of the jiva as portion of Brahman and giving a more realistic
interpretation to the concept of Sakti.
This raises a very big question. Was Chaitanya as hostile to Shankara and Advaita as claimed by later Gaudia Vaishnavas? The contrast between Jiva Goswami and Baladeva on the issue of Shankara and Advaita is really striking.
Jiva cites Shankara as an authority several times in his Sarvasambidini.
Baladeva writes in his opening verses (in his connentary on Sat Sandharbha),
"Glory to Ananda Tirtha (Madhva), who like the Sun has violently destroyed
the doctrine of Mayavada, which is like a mass of darkness, with the
buring rays of Vedic utterances, and who has taught the world devotion to
Vishnu."
Baladeva is very caustic and polemical while Jiva is quite respectful on Shankara. What was the opinion of other Gaudiya Vaishnavas on the issue of Chaitanya belonging to Madhva sampradaya. I will give it in the next post.
Radhamohana wrote a commentary on Jiva's Tattvasandharbha around 1770.
Radhamohana's own views regarding the relationship between the Gaudiya
Vaishnava position and that of the various other Vaishnava schools are
best seen in his remarks on Tattvasandharbha 20:
"After groupng together the various different view-points found in the
doctrines of Sridhara and other respected philosophers, Jiva presents his
viewpoint, making it clear that he does not belong to the tradition of any
one of them.
Here, the system of Shankara known as Mayavada, which deals with the
unqualified Brahman, is not considered, since it contradicts the bhakti
scriptures of Jiva's school. Shankara, however, also demonstrated the
significance of Bhagavata by describing in his poetry such events as Krishna's
theft of the Gopi's clothes etc. There consequently developed a split
within Shankara's school on account of the bhakti-oriented doctrines which
he passed on to his disciples, the devotional group of Advaitins being known
as 'Bhagavatas', and the others as 'Smartas'.
Of these, Sridhara is an adherent of the 'Bhagavata' tradition. However,
since he places special emphasis on Narayana, even in his Bhagavata
commentary, Jiva only follows him where he stresses that form of Bhagavat
which is taught in the Bhagavata, and shows special devotion to him.; Jiva
does not accept Sridhara's doctrine in its entirety.
The same is the case with the qualified non-dualist and devotee of Narayana,
Ramanuja, who considers Narayana to be bhagavat himself. Ramanuja also
considers the universe to be a transformation of the insentient portion
of the Lord, but denies that prakrti is the material cause of the universe.
The whole of Ramanuja's doctrines are also not consistent with the
significance of the Bhagavata. However, by accepting certain portions of his
views in the text, such as his refutation of Mayavada, his conception of the
jiva, his belief in the reality of the universe, etc, Jiva has strengthened
Ramanuja's own position.
Similarly, the doctrines of the dualist, Madhva, are not accepted in their
entirety. According to Madhva, Vishnu is bhagavat himself. Furthermore, since
Madhva accepts Laksmi as Visnu's prinicpla sakti, he cannot consider the
Gopis to represent the highest saktis. Consequently we find in his bhasya that
knowledge is the chief means to liberation, and that liberation is the
highest goal of life. Jiva does, however, accept certain portions of Madhva's
doctrines, such as the belief that bhagavat possesses attributes, that prakrit
is eternal, that the universe is transformation of prakrti and, thus, real,
and that the jiva, being a peripheral portion of Brahman, is distinct from
Brahman. The major difference between Jiva and Madhva lies in the fact that
Madhva does not consider prakrti to partake of the nature of Brahman.
The Dvaitadvaitavada of Bhaskara, on the other hand, which maintains that the
universe is a transformation of the sakti inherent in brahman, and that this
sakti is identical with prakrti, composed of the three gunas, is consistent
with Jiva's own position.
All of these are noble doctrines, since it is said, 'They worship bhagavat,
following a variety of different teachers.' But the doctrines of Mahaprabhu
Chaitanya are superior to all since they represent an assemblage of the
essential features of all the other schools. Thus, just as Madhva, though a
disciple of Shankara, initiated his own independent sampradaya by writing
commentaires on the Brahmasutra, etc., so also Krshna Chaitanya,though himself
an avatara of Bhagavata, accepted the indispensability of having a guru and
belonging to his sampradaya, and initaited his own school through Advaitacarya
and other intimate associates. At his own command, his doctrines were put into
concrete forms by the Goswamins; but in the case of Jiva, rather than
compose a new Brahmasutra commentary, he chose to interpret that commentary
which the Lord Narayana himself taught to Brahma, namely the Bhagavata
Purana."
It is remarkable that Radhamohun did not consider Chaitanya to be part of the Madhva lineage but regarded his doctrines to be superior to everybody else. Radhamohun wrote this 40 years after Baladeva's Govinda Bhasya. What is even more peculiar that even when Gaudiya Vaishnavas publish both Radhamohun and Baladeva's commentaries on Jiva Goswami's Sat Sandharbha, they just ignore Radhamohun's clear statement that Chaitanya founded a separate Sampradaya.
Gangajalji, Looks like you have spent considerable effort in bringing these out. I should be grateful to you. Apart from exploring Chaitanya's viewpoints, i have learnt something about Sridhara (Advaitic with stress on Bhakthi).
Is Sridhara's commentary on Brahmasutra available. I might consider it gifting to one of my friends and also do you have any links about Sridhara himself. I will also try googling.
Sarvam Krishnarpanam.
Sridhar ji,
Sridhar Swami wrote commentaries on the Gita, Bhagavata Purana and Vishnu Purana. He never wrote any commentary on the Brahma Sutra. Ramakrishna Math has published only the Gita Commentary by Sridhara Swami. I checked the www.vedanta.com and found the following book:
Bhagavad Gita: (trans. Vireshwarananda): With the gloss of Sridhara Swami
translated by Swami Vireswarananda
I do not know if Sridhara Swami's commentaries of the 2 Puranas are available. Probably they are available in some ISCKON website.
Gangajal ji, Thanks again. As i am going home on a vacation next weekend, i will buy the stuff from RK mutt in mylapore, chennai.
Regards
Sridhar
came in email:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Scriptures of Sanathana Dharma
Hinduism is referred to as Sanathana Dharma, the eternal faith.
Hinduism is based on the practice of Dharma, the code of life.
Hinduism has no founder.
While religion means to bind, Dharma means to hold. What man holds on
to is his inner law, which leads from ignorance to Truth. Though
reading of the scriptures (saastras) would not directly lead you to
self-realization, the teachings of the seers provide a basis and a
path for spirituality. Despite being the oldest religion, the truth
realized by the seers proves that the truth and path provided by
Hinduism is beyond time.
Hinduism is more a way of life than a specific religion. In Hinduism
one can find all religions of the world. Various religions like
Buddhism, Sikhism emerged from it. The most important aspect of
Hinduism is being truthful to oneself. Hinduism has no monopoly on
ideas. It is open to all. Hindus believe in one God expressed in
different forms. For them, God is timeless and formless entity.
Hindus believe in eternal truths and these truths are opened to
anyone who seeks them, even if he or she is ignorant of Hindu
scriptures or ideas. This religion also professes Non-violence -
"Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" - Non violence is the highest duty. True
Ahimsa implies curtsey, kindness, hospitality, humanity and love.
Most of the Hindus do not know about their scriptures. They are aware
of Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagavat Gita only. But we have lot of
scriptures. Every Hindu must be aware of his/her scriptures. This is
a small attempt to give the reader a brief knowledge about our
scriptures.
The primary texts of Sanathana Dharma are
I. VEDAS
The oldest and the most important scriptures of Sanathana Dharma are
the Vedas. Veda means knowledge. Vedas are apauruseya, which means
they are not compilations of human knowledge. Vedic knowledge comes
from the spiritual world, from Lord the Supreme Personality.
The Vedas are known as the revealed Truths. Vedas are the recordings
of the revelations received through transcendental experiences of the
Rishis of ancient India.Â
Vedic knowledge is complete because it is above all doubts and
mistakes, and Bhagavad-gita is the essence of all such Vedic
knowledge. Out of many standard and authoritative revealed
scriptures, the Bhagavad-gita is the best. The Bhagavad-gita however
is a part of the epic Mahabharata.
The humans are divided by vedas according to their orders of life
namely Brahmacharya, Grihasthashram, Vanaprastha and Sanyasa and
vedas teach us how a soul could be purified. To simplify the process
and make them more easily performable, Maharshi Vyasa divided the
Vedas into four, Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva in order to expand them
among men.
1. Rig-VedaÂ
The Rig-Veda Samhita is the grandest and oldest book of the Hindus.
Its immortal mantras embody the greatest truths of existence and its
priest is called the Hotri. The Rig-veda contains 10,552 verses
divided into 64 chapters. Besides that it has got twenty-five
branches written by several Rishis. The Rig-veda contains the most
sacred Gayatri mantra.
2. Yajur-Veda Â
Its name is derived from the root word 'yaj' meaning worship. The
term for sacrifice i.e. yajna is also derived from here. It primarily
deals with the procedural details for performing different yajnas
There are two distinct Yajur Veda Samhitas, the Shukla Yajur Veda or
Vajasaneyi Samhita and the Krishna Yajur Veda or Taittireya Samhita.
The Krishna or the Taittireya is the older book and the Sukla or the
Vajasaneyi is a later revelation to sage Yajnavalkya from the
resplendent Sun God. About half of the Yajur-Veda are composed of
verses taken from the Rig-Veda. They are arranged according to their
importance in various rituals. The remaining part (mainly prose)
deals with the formulae for performing the yajna, external as well as
internal. The famous Rudra hymns belong to the Krishna Yajur Veda.
The Yajur-Veda contains 1875 verses. Besides that it has got one
hundred and eight branches.
3. Sama-Veda   Â
The Sama-Veda Samhita is mostly borrowed from the Rig-vedic Samhita,
and is meant to be sung by the Udgatri, the Sama-vedic priest, in
sacrifices. 'Sama' means peace. Accordingly this Veda contains chants
to bring peace to the mind. Many of the hymns of the Rig-Veda are set
to musical notes in Sama Veda. Sama Veda is the basis of the seven
notes (Sapta Swaras), fundamental to Indian classical music. The
listening of the musical chants gives one a sense of universality and
a mingling with the divine. The 'udgaata' or beginning ceremony
before a yajna is actually a chanting of hymns from Sama Veda to
ensure the grace of all the Devas. The Sama-Veda contains
approximately 2000 verses. Besides that it has got one thousand
branches.
4. Atharva-VedaÂ
This Veda is named after a sage called Atharvan who discovered the
mantras contained in it. It is basically a book of magic spells to
ward off evil and suffering and to destroy one's enemies. It deals
more with the things here and now, than the hereafter, and with the
sacrifices which are a means to them. The mantras are in prose as
well as verse. There also hymns addressed to devas other than the
ones mentioned in the other three Vedas. There are hymns, which deal
with creation also. Brahma is the representative of Atharva Veda. The
Atharva Veda gives a useful insight into the rich landscape of India
at the time of its composition.
The Atharva Veda contains of 5987 verses. Besides that it has got
fifty branches.
Yajur-veda and Sama-veda use the hymns of Rig-Veda and Atharva-Veda
and rearrange them in a manner suitable for rituals.
In all, the four Vedas have got One thousand one hundred and eighty
three (1183) branches. Each Veda consists of four parts to suit the
four stages in a man's life- Brahmacharya, Grihasta, Vanaprastha and
Sanyasa. The four divisions are Mantra Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas
and Upanishads.
The Mantra-Samhitas which are hymns in praise of the Vedic God for
acquiring material prosperity and happiness. They are poems
comprising prayers, hymns and incantations addressed to various
deities. This portion also contains information about the creative
process, the universal laws, about the creation and the universe in
detail. It is useful to Brahmacharins.
II. BRAHMANAS
The Brahmanas are explanations of Mantras or rituals, which give
guidance to people as to how; the sacrificial rites are to be
performed. They are explanations of the method of using the Mantras
in Yajnas or other rites. Details for various ceremonies like birth,
naming, study, marriage, death are in this portion. The Brahmana
portion is suitable for householders (Grihastashram).
Brahmanas of Rig-veda
There are three Rig-vedic Brahmanas.
1. Ithareya Brahmana
2. Sankhayana Brahmana
3. Kausheethaki Brahmana
Brahmanas of Yajur-veda
There are three Yajur-vedic Brahmanas.
1. Shatapadha Brahmana
2. Thaiththareeya Brahmana
3. Maithrayaneeya Brahmana
Brahmanas of Sama-veda
There are nine Sama-vedic Brahmanas.
1. Jaimineeya Brahmana
2. Thandya Brahmana
3. Aarsheya Brahmana
4. Shadvimsadhi Brahmana
5. Chandhokya Brahmana
6. Samavidhana Brahmana
7. Abhootha Brahmana
8. Vamsa Brahmana
9. Samhithopanishathi Brahmana
Brahmanas of Atharva-veda
1. Gopadha Brahmana
III. ARANYAKAS
The Aranyakas are the forest books, the texts that give philosophical
interpretations of the rituals. After a man has finished all his
worldly duties ( taking care of parents, marrying off children etc.)
he proceeds to the forest to spend the rest of his days in solitude
and meditation. The Aranyakas are intended for such people, hence the
name. It explains the different kinds of rituals to be performed in
forest by people, who go for Vanaprastha.
The Aranyakas are expositions on the inner meaning of the Vedic hymns
and sacrifices. The hymns are interpreted symbolically to gain an
insight into the reasons for performing yajnas and thus deal with
higher metaphysical concepts.
Aranyakas of Rig-veda
There are two Rig-vedic Aranyakas.
1 Ithareya Aranyaka
2 Kausheethaki Aranyaka
Aranyakas of Yajur-veda
There are two Yajur-vedic Aranyakas.
1 Maithrayaneeya Aranyaka
2 Thaiththareeya Aranyaka
There is no Aranyakas for Sama and Atharva vedas.
IV. UPANISHADS
The Upanishads are the essence of Vedic teaching. They are called
Vedantas meaning the concluding portion of the Vedas as well as the
ultimate conclusions of Vedic wisdom. Upanishads happen to be the
most foremost authorities of the Vedanta system of philosophy that
developed in later times in different forms.
They reveal the most subtle and deep spiritual truths and are meant
for Sanyasins. The collection of teachings generated by the ascetics
who meditated on the mysteries of human existence came to be known as
the Upanishads, which literally means "sitting close to" the teacher
thereby indicating that the knowledge that it imparts is esoteric.
Many, many Upanishads existed ages ago; a lot of them have been lost
in the dark backward abysm of time. Only one hundred and eight have
been preserved so far some in prose, some in verse. They are:
Upanishads of Rig-veda
There are ten Rig-vedic Upanishads. They are
1 Ithareya Upanishad
2 Kausheethaki Upanishad
3 Nadhabindhu Upanishad
4 Aathmabhodha Upanishad
5 Nirvana Upanishad
6 Mulgala Upanishad
7 Akshamalika Upanishad
8 Tripura Upanishad
9 Sowbhagyalakshmi Upanishad
10 Bhahvrucha Upanishad
Upanishads of Sukla Yajur-veda
There are eighteen Sukla Yajur-vedic Upanishads. They are
1 Isovaasya Upanishad
2 Bruhadharanyaka Upanishad
3 Hamsa Upanishad
4 Paramahamsa Upanishad
5 Subhala Upanishad
6 Mantrika Upanishad
7 Thrisikibrahmana Upanishad
8 Niralamba Upanishad
9 Mandalabrahmana Upanishad
10 Adhwya Upanishad
11 Taraka Upanishad
12 Bhikshuka Upanishad
13 Adhyaatma Upanishad
14 Muktika Upanishad
15 Tarashara Upanishad
16 Yanjavalkya Upanishad
17 Shatyayana Upanishad
18 Turiyatheeya Avadhootha Upanishad
Upanishads of Krishna Yajur-veda
There are thirty two Krishna Yajur-vedic Upanishads. They are
1 Kada Upanishad
2 Thaiththireeya Upanishad
3 Brahma Upanishad
4 Kaivalya Upanishad
5 Swetaswetara Upanishad
6 Garbha Upanishad
7 Mahanarayana Upanishad
8 Amrithabindhu Upanishad
9 Amrithanadha Upanishad
10 Kalagnirudra Upanishad
11 Kshurika Upanishad
12 Sarvasara Upanishad
13 Shukarahasya Upanishad
14 Tejabindhu Upanishad
15 Dhyanabindhu Upanishad
16 Brahmavidhya Upanishad
17 Yogatatva Upanishad
18 Dhakshinamoorthy Upanishad
19 Skanda Upanishad
20 Saareerika Upanishad
21 Yogashika Upanishad
22 Ekakshara Upanishad
23 Akshi Upanishad
24 Avadhootha Upanishad
25 Kadarudra Upanishad
26 Rudrahrudhaya Upanishad
27 Panchabrahma Upanishad
28 Pranagnihotra Upanishad
29 Varaha Upanishad
30 Yogakundalini Upanishad
31 Kalisantarana Upanishad
32 Saraswatheerahasya Upanishad
Upanishads of Sama-veda
There are sixteen Sama-vedic Upanishads. They are
1 Kena Upanishad
2 Chandokya Upanishad
3 Aaruni Upanishad
4 Maitrayanee Upanishad
5 Maitreyee Upanishad
6 Vajrasuchika Upanishad
7 Yogachoodamani Upanishad
8 Vasudeva Upanishad
9 Maha Upanishad
10 Sanyasa Upanishad
11 Avyakta Upanishad
12 Kundika Upanishad
13 Savitri Upanishad
14 Jabhala Upanishad
15 Darsana Upanishad
16 Rudraksha Jabhala Upanishad
Upanishads of Atharva-veda
There are thirty two Atharva-vedic Upanishads.They are
1 Prasna Upanishad
2. Mundaka Upanishad
3. Maandukya Upanishad
4. Atharvasira Upanishad
5. Atharvasikha Upanishad
6. Bruhat Jaabhala Upanishad
7. Sita Upanishad
8. Sarabha Upanishad
9. Mahanarayana Upanishad
10. Ramarahasya Upanishad
11. Ramatapini Upanishad
12. Sandilya Upanishad
13. Paramahamsa Upanishad
14. Annapoorna Upanishad
15. Surya Upanishad
16. Aathma Upanishad
17. Pasuptha Upanishad
18. Parabrahma Upanishad
19. Tripuratapini Upanishad
20. Devi Upanishad
21. Bhavana Upanishad
22. Bhasma Jaabhala Upanishad
23. Ganapati Upanishad
24. Mahakavya Upanishad
25. Gopalatapini Upanishad
26. Sreekrishna Upanishad
27. Hayagriva Upanishad
28. Dhaththathreya Upanishad
29. Garuda Upanishad
30. Narasimhapurvatapini Upanishad
31. Naradapariprajaka Upanishad
32. Narasimha Uththaratapini Upanishad
Besides this 108 Upanishads, so many Upa-Upanishads are also there.
V. VEDANGAS
The Vedangas and Upavedas are collections of texts that augment and
apply the Vedas as a comprehensive system of sacred living. There are
six Vedangas.
1. Siksha (The nose of the Vedas)
Siksha means Vedic phonetics and lays down the rules of phonetics -
sounds of syllables, of pronunciation- euphony. It lays down the
parameters of Vedic words. Phonetics are very important in Vedic
language because a slight change in sound may lead to change in the
meaning of a mantra and consequently have undesirable effects on the
sacrifice. Siksha explains how the sound of each syllable should be
produced, how high or low should be it's pitch and for how much
duration (maatra) the sound must last.
2. Nirukta (The ears of the Vedas)
Nirukta is the Vedic dictionary. Nirukta may be regarded as the Vedic
equivalent of etymology i.e. the study of words. Nirukta explains the
origin of each Sanskrit word in the Vedas. In Sanskrit, names or
words are not assigned ad-hoc but there is a systematic way of
forming words. Every word has a deep meaning and may sometimes be
formed by the combination of two or more nouns. All words are derived
from the basic roots or Dhatus. As Nirukta breaks each word into its
component roots and analyses its meaning, so it is likened to the
ear, which distinguishes speech by breaking words into its component
phonemes. It is also regarded as the World's first Encyclopedia.
3. Vyakarana (The mouth of the Vedas.)
Vyakarana deals with grammar and so is very important. There are many
books on Sanskrit grammar, but the most famous and most extensively
used is the Vyakarna of Sage Paanini. Paanini's grammar is in the
form of aphorisms (Sutras).
4. Chanda Saastra (The feet of the Vedas)
Chanda Saastra deals with metric composition. Any verse has to have a
specified 'metre' and number of letters in it, for a good fit. Chanda
Saastra lays down the rules for this. It defines the boundaries of
metrical composition into metre, rhyme, etc.Â
5. Kalpa Saastra (The arms of the Vedas)
Kalpa Saastra is a collection of books of Shauwta Sutra , Dharma
Sutra , Pithrumedha Sutra , Sulba Sutra , Gruhya Sutra and
Prayaschitham. All our customs and rituals are explained in Kalpa
saastra.
Kalpa Saastra answers the questions like:
How should a ritual be performed?
What are the duties of the child, student, householder,
King ,mendicant etc?
Which ritual involves which mantra, which material and which Deva?
How many priests should be employed for a sacrifice?
What objects should be used in various rituals?, and so on.
The Kalpa Saastra details the vedic rituals to be performed from the
time the embryo forms in the womb to birth leading upto the final
sacrifice of death. Cremation or Antiyeshti, meaning the last rite is
seen as a sacrifice of the whole body to Agni, the fire god. The
Namakarana (naming ceremony), the Upanayana (sacred thread
investiture ceremony), Vivaaha (marriage) are also described within
the Kalpa. The Vedic system of architecture i.e. Vaastu Shastra is
also described in Kalpa. The entire Kalpa Saastra weighs more than
250 Kilograms. (i.e., 2.5 quintals)
6. Jyothisha (Astronomy + Astrology) The eyes of the Vedas
Jyothisha includes Ganitham, Kalakriya, Golam, Jatakam, Muhurtham,
Prasnam and Nimiththam.
Perhaps the most famous of all Vedangas, it is the science of
astrology. Jyotisha gives rules to calculate the positions of the
planets and stars at any instant in the future or past. Based on
these positions and certain well defined rules, the fate of a person
can be reasonably determined provided his/her birthdate, time and
place of birth are accurately known. Vedic astrology is based on
lunar signs in direct contrast to the solar sign system prevalent in
the west. The premise is that the moon being closer to the Earth,
extends a greater influence on mankind than the distant Sun.
VI. UPAVEDAS
There are five Upavedas
1. Arththasaastra
   Unfolds statecraft. It can be called as the Hindu science of
governing by Kings.
2. Dhanur Veda
   Discusses military science. Discusses different kinds of
weapons and war rules.
3. Gandharva Veda
The science which enlighten music and arts. Discusses different kinds
of music, musical instruments and arts.
4. Ayurveda
   Deals with medicine , health and longevity.
5. Saapadhyaveda ( Tachchu Saastra )
   Deals with the architecture. Vasthu Saastra also comes under
this.
VII. PURANAS
Puranas are compiled from related historical facts, which explain the
teachings of the four Vedas. The Puranas explain the Vedic truths and
are intended for different types of men. All men are not equal. There
are men who are good, others who are driven by passion and others who
are under the veil of ignorance. The Puranas are so divided that any
class of men can take advantage of them and gradually regain their
original nature and get out of the hard struggle for existence
Mahapuranas
There are eighteen Mahapuranas. They are
1. Vishnu Purana
2. Bhavishya Purana
3. Garuda Purana
4. Agni Purana
5. Mahabhagavata Purana
6. Siva Purana
7. Markandeya Purana
8. Linga Purana
9. Brahmavaivarththa Purana
10. Matsya Purana
11. Kurma Purana
12. Varaha Purana
13. Vamana Purana
14. Skanda Purana
15. Brahmaanda Purana
16. Patma Purana
17. Vayu Purana
18. Naradheeya Purana
Upa-puranas
There are eighteen Upa-puranas. They are
1. Samba Purana
2. Devibhagavata Purana
3. Kalika Purana
4. Lakhunaradheeya Purana
5. Harivamsa Purana
6. Vishnudharmmoththara Purana
7. Kalki Purana
8. Mulgala Purana
9. Aadhi Purana
10. Aathma Purana
11. Brahma Purana
12. Vishnudharma Purana
13. Narasimha Purana
14. Kriyaayoga Purana
15. Surya Purana
16. Bruhat Naradheeya Purana
17. Prushoththama Purana
18. Bruhat Vishnu Purana
VIII. DARSANAS
Darsana means, sight or vision. In the Vedanta philosophy, the first
question is, what is the source of everything? There are philosophers
who saw different stages of the original source, and explainedÂ
philosophy according to their vision. These are known as Darsanas.
They are also known as Sad-darsanas (six systems of philosophy).
1. Nyaya DarsanaÂ
Nyaya means the science of logic and expediency. It is also known as
Tarka Shastra. This was composed by Sage Gautama and contains
passages, which establish by means of disputation that God is the
creator of this universe. It establishes the existence of God by
means of inference.
2. Vaiseshika DarsanaÂ
Vaisesika, philosophy of specialised logic, maintains that the
combination of atoms is the cause of the cosmic manifestation. It was
composed by Maharshi Kanada He was the first philosopher who
formulated ideas about the atom in a systematic manner.
Nyaya and Vaiseshika deal mainly with physics, chemistry and other
material sciences and include reasoning or logic. Metaphysical
studies or search for knowledge of God, however, formed the ultimate
aim of the study of these saastras also.
3. Sankhya DarsanaÂ
Sankhya, philosophy of analytical study, maintains that the material
nature is the cause of the cosmic manifestation. Sage Kapila composed
it.
4. Yoga DarsanaÂ
Yoga, philosophy of mystic perfections, maintains that universal
consciousness is the cause of the cosmic manifestation. It was
composed by Padanjali Maharshi. He is the first systematiser of the
Yoga school .Â
5. Purva Meemamsa DarsanaÂ
Sage Jaimini composed the sutras for the Purvameemamsa, philosophy of
actions and reactions, maintains that fruitive activities are the
cause of the cosmic manifestation. This book consists of 12 chapters -
1000 Adhikaranas in all. In these Adhikaranas, selected Vedic verses
are examined in details. In the 1000 Adhikaranas a thousand types of
problems are taken up and various arguments against an apparent
explanation are raised before coming to a conclusion.
6. Uththara Meemamsa Darsana
The Uttarameemamsa deals with Vedanta and is thus close to the
philosophy of the Upanishads. Maharshi Veda Vyasa composed Uththara
Meemamsa.
IX. SMRITIS
Smriti means memory and are writings devised to fix in memory, the
practical use of the messages stated or implied in the Vedas. '
Smritis ' embodies the teachings of Divine Incarnations or prophets,
saints and sages. It is an explanation of the 'Srutis' ' Srutis ' are
the revealed scriptures, as mentioned in the Vedas and ' Smritis '
are the commentaries and derived literatures, based on the messages
of the Vedas;Â Some of the Smritis are in the form of Laws formulated
by saints and sages for mankind. There are eighteen important
Smritis.They are
1. Usana Smriti
2. Yanjavalkya Smriti
3. Vishnu Smriti
4. Manu Smriti
5. Angeerasa Smriti
6. Yama Smriti
7. Atri Smriti
8. Samvarththa Smriti
9. Bruhatparasara Smriti
10. Bruhaspati Smriti
11. Daksha Smriti
12. Saataatapa Smriti
13. Likhita Smriti
14. Vyasa Smriti
15. Parasara Smriti
16. Sanka Smriti
17. Gautama Smriti
18. Vasishta Smriti
X. ITIHASAS
Itihasas are literatures describing historical events pertaining to
either a single hero or a few heroic personalities in a lineage: for
example, Ramayana describing the pastimes of Sri Ramachandra and
Mahabharata describing the pastimes of the Pandavas in the lineage of
the Kurus. In these books there are topics on transcendental subjects
along with material topics. The whole idea of the Mahabharata
culminates in the ultimate instructions of the Bhagavad-gita that one
should give up all other engagements and should engage oneself solely
and fully in surrendering unto the lotus feet of Krishna. The
conclusive teaching of the Ramayana also is to fully surrender and
take shelter of Lord Sri Ramachandra.
1. Ramayana
The traditional author of this Epic, is the sage Valmiki. This Epic
is regarded as the first poetical work in the world, of purely human
origin. The verses have great diffusivity, simplicity and charm.
There are totally seven books of this great epic.
2. Mahabharata
This epic is traditionally authored by the sage Vyasa It is a rich
collection of many histories and legends. The scene of the poem is
the ancient kingdom of the Kurus; and the central story - ' the germ
of which is to be found in the Vedas ' - concerns a great dynastic
war. A very important portion of the Mahabharata is the Song of the
God ( called the Gita ). Bhagavad Gita, as it is called, is the
essence of all the messages to mankind contained in the Veda.
Acknowledgement.
Dr.N.GopalaKrishnan, Scientist, CSIR & Hon Director, Indian Institute
of Scientific Heritage, Trivandrum, ph 0471- 490149.
Thus the primary texts of Sanathana Dharma includes four Vedas,
Sixteen Brahmanas, four Aranyakas, One Hundred and EightÂ
Upanishads, Six Vedangas, five Upavedas, eighteen Mahapuranas,
eighteen Upapuranas, six Darsanas, eighteen Smritis and two
Ithihasas.
While other religions got only one book, Sanathana Dharma or Hindu
Dharma has got huge amounts of books. Please forward this document to
everyone you know. Remember, it is your, mine and our duty, privilege
and responsibility to learn, teach and spread our Heritage.
Compiled by
A.V. Ajil Kumar<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Viren ji,
Thank you for posting lot of informative materials.
Regards
Gangajal
Comments from guroos eagerly awaited.. <!--emo&:eager--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' /><!--endemo-->:
---------------
Excerpts from a recent paper from Balu to be published in JAAR. I am posting portions of it. Of interest to this thread is the difference between the christian experience and the indic experience..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>A Christian Religious Loop</i>
Let me begin with a medieval monk. There are several reasons for this choice as a starting point. Firstly, there are quite a few works dealing with medieval religiosity (including autobiographies and hagiographies) that can be fruitfullyused in this context. Secondly, one can contrast my outline with the processes that such works portray in order to identify deficiencies in my sketch. Thirdly, one can extend such a sketch to the modern-day world as well: many people (like Söderblom, for instance) have left enough material behind them for us to pursue this line of enquiry without getting caught in the normative discussion about what a religion ought to be. Fourthly, thereafter, we can see whether the modern man has âspiritual needsâ too, the way he is alleged to have âreligious needsâ as well. For all these reasons, let me begin with the medieval monk.
As a deeply religious person, this monk believes that man is a sinner but God loves him nonetheless. He believes too that one could experience the infinite love of God if only one opens up oneâs heart to Godâs grace. In a way, you could say, he believes them as âtrue propositionsâ. He does not yet appreciate their depth, or their true meaning, because he has not quite experienced what they seem to say. This is how he embarks on his quest: because he knows them to be true (this is his faith), he wants to experience this love âfirst handâ. So, he begins a process of fasting, prayer, study of the scriptures, and whatever else his monastery prescribes. After some suitable length of time, he discovers that no matter how hard he tries, he does not experience Godâs love for him. Anxiety begins to gnaw: why does he not have this experience when the scriptures, the saints, some fellow-brethren, all assure him that it is real? Is he not sincere enough? Does he not try hard enough? Is he approaching it the wrong way? Are his sins too great for God to forgive them? The soothing words of the Abbott, that the monk too shall experience this love if only he âopens himself up authenticallyâ, instead of comforting him, transform his anxiety into downright panic: because no matter what he does, he does not have that experience.
The monk now enters a loop: the more he tries, the less successful he is. The less successful he is, the harder he tries. Each circuit through this loop increases the stress, and that merely makes the subsequent traversing of the loop even more stressful. Very soon, this loop opens up another loop within itself. The monk begins to doubt whether he will ever find Godâs love. However, to entertain this doubt is to doubt the truth of the scriptures. Believing in the scriptures is leading him experientially to doubt the truth of the scriptures. His faith assures him that he too shall experience Godâs love; his experience makes him doubt whether he ever will. (This is the second loop.) Now the monk is undergoing what could properly be called a spiritual crisis: he has begun to doubt the words of the Holy Spirit. It is important to note that the monk does not doubt whether the Holy Spirit exists or whether his faith in this entity is misplaced. If he doubted this, he would be undergoing a crisis of faith. As a man of faith, it does not even occur to the monk to doubt the Holy Spirit. On the contrary. His spiritual crisis occurs precisely because of his faith. That is to say, a spiritual crisis occurs within the confines of a faith and within the parameters set by the latter.
The spiritual crisis suggests to the monk that the reason why he does not find Godâs love is to be located in his âstate of mindâ. His state of mind assures him that his sins are too great: he has even begun to doubt Godâs love for him. His faith tells him that this is his greatest sin and confirms what he knows: the Devil is sowing these seeds of doubt (about Godâs Word) in his mind. Thus, he tries harder; prays that God rescues him from the clutches of the Devil. He is filled with self-loathing and self-disgust for not being able to resist the Devil and âtruly believeâ. The intensity of travelling through the loops increases, the stress and tension grows, the pitying looks in the eyes of his brethren become more noticeable, until, one day, the inevitable happens: he suffers an absolute, total and complete nervous breakdown, the price for getting caught up in an unending loop.
<i>The Christian Spirituality</i>
Let us notice the âpsychologicalâ transformations he has undergone in the process of suffering the nervous breakdown. Firstly, his sense of agency is shattered. He is unable to do the many things he could do with consummate ease before. Perhaps he is even unable to take care of his personal hygiene; he starts crying for no apparent reason. He flies into uncontrollable rages; perhaps, cannot stop eating or drinking. In short, he realises that he has no control over himself, while he previously thought he had. Secondly, because of this realisation, his vanity is shattered. All his âurgesâ are sins, and he cannot control them. The Devil can do what he wants with this monk and he is powerless to stop Him, something the scriptures and his religion always proclaimed. Thirdly, his sense of value is shattered: he now realises that all men are sinners like him, and he is the worst sinner of all. In its wake, his sense of worth is shattered as well: he is more loathsome than the crawling worm and the poisonous insect; at least, they are not tainted by sin the way he is.
In this situation, in the depth of despair and self-disgust, there is still hope for him because he is a man of faith. The monk knows from the scriptures that God has proclaimed His love for the humankind and sent down His only son to save them. This realisation is, perhaps, the most shattering of all: how can God love such sinners as this monk, and promise to save them? Such a love cannot simply be conceptualised, and the monk is dumbstruck by it. The monk is not worth it, this he knows in his heart, and yet, in His infinite mercy, God promises to save him. At last, he understands (from the bottom of his heart, so to speak) why Godâs grace is incomprehensible and infinite.
It is this realisation that opens the floodgates. His heart is filled with what he was looking for: Godâs love. God was always present; the monk went through the purgatory in order to emerge purer of spirit and stronger of faith. He starts recovering from his breakdown, and finding Godâs love is crucial to this process. He now âdiscoversâ Godâs grace, and finds out why it is called the healing grace of God. Indeed, this experience starts to heal him, and in the reconstitution of his personality, these elements are never far away. Our monk has had a spiritual experience, and he will perhaps end up becoming another example of those touched by God. Just for the sake of convenience, and only for its sake, one could also put it this way: if the monk was a religious person before, after his experience he has become a spiritual person as well. In this process, our monk realises that his earlier âfailureâ to discover Godâs grace was not, strictly speaking, a failure at all. It is only thus, and no other way, could he open himself up to be filled with Godâs love.
Perhaps the above picture is a bit too Augustinian, but, as an illustration, it should do. What I want to get at in this picture is the fact that his religion steers the monk in a particular way, sets up a loop, generates a breakdown, and helps him emerge out of it with the means to reconstitute his personality that is more in consonance with itself. Needless to say, the community (that the monk is a part of) plays a significant role both in steering him towards a breakdown as well as help him recover from it. In general terms, the path of the monk is that of âconversioâ but he will truly understand its meaning as he starts recovering and assumes his duties. It is a process of turning himself inside out, an asymptotic process, the completion of which is not possible through human hands and human efforts.
From the above hypothesis it does not follow, firstly, that all monks underwent (or undergo) this entire process. No teaching process can make all the students learn the same thing in exactly the same way. A differential learning is an inescapable fact for all teaching processes. This is ever truer for a teaching process that works upon and (trans)forms the experience of its students. Secondly, it does not follow that this âspiritualityâ is only to be found among the monastic orders. There is no reason why some of the laity cannot undergo a similar process outside the confines of a monastic order. However, it is highly probable that one finds significantly more âspiritual experiencesâ within the ambit of the monasteries than outside it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the Indic experience, some moons ago, a question had been raised, what do different darshanas mean in the indic context and what does it mean when we say one is true, also how does it differ from the abrahamnic cults, etc.. Balu addresses that question here..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Loop in the Indian Traditions
How could we conceptualise such an event (or process) in the Indian culture? I would like to begin with the questions of the middle-aged man, and locate him within the Indian culture.4 Because of his location in the Indian culture, its resources open up to him in his attempts to pursue answers to these questions.
The first and the most important thing about the resources of the Indian traditions is the assurance they give him: what the person seeks, call it eudaimonia (or âhappinessâ) till a more appropriate term is introduced, can be found. Not only has the person heard about the indefinitely many people who have found eudaimonia, but also knows that there exist indefinitely many traditions that claim to teach the path leading to it as well. Perhaps, he even sees people who have sought and found what he himself is looking for. In other words, he knows before he undertakes his quest that his questions have answers and that they can be found. All he has to do is try.
Thus he begins his quest. Very quickly it is obvious to him that what he seeks is not to be found in the outside world, but inside him. A period of âintrospectionâ is initiated and, after a suitable length of time, the person comes to the conclusion that introspection does not help. Not only is such a process equivalent to entering a bottomless pit but his âinternal lifeâ is also as varied, rich and complex as the world outside him. The answer, in other words, is not found in the inside either.
Now the loop gets set up: the answer is neither inside nor outside him. But it can only be in one of these two âplacesâ. Perhaps, his âintrospectionâ was not done the right way; may be he did not look hard enough; perhaps he was not sufficiently perceptive. Be it as that may, he starts traversing the loop: from the inside to the outside; from the outside to the inside. Each journey through the loop increases the tension: why does he not find it, when others have? What is he missing? What does he not see? His tradition assures him that he too can find the answer. What should have been a fruitful search seems to culminate in a fruitless movement through the loop.
By now, the tension has become unbearable. He does not know what he is looking for, but he knows that âitâ is there to be found. Clearly, he is missing the obvious, but the obvious refuses to ârevealâ itself to him. Despair sets in, helplessness overpowers him, and he even wants to stop searching because he has exhausted himself. None of this works; his journey on the loop becomes more intensified, fed further by his day dreams of the answer occurring to him in a âflashâ or of a kind âguruâ guiding him in this process. Knowing that the answer is âobviousâ, but not finding that which is apparently so âobviousâ deepens the loop. There is one predictable end to this loop as well: a total and complete nervous breakdown.
Experiential knowledge and the Indian Traditions
Much like the medieval monk, this middle-aged person too experiences a shattering of his sense of agency, but here all further similarities cease. The reason lies in how this shattering is further experienced and what it consists of. To the middle-aged man, this experience comes as a ârevelationâ: it is as though a cloak is lifted from his eyes and he is looking at the world for the first time. He realises that he was never an agent, even though he always thought he was one. His breakdown provides him with this knowledge, and he recognises it as such because of his tradition. He is now enlightened, and if he pursues this path, he pursues the path of enlightenment. He sought eudaimonia, and he has found it in knowledge.5 Even though many people had repeatedly spoken of the same âknowledgeâ from his tradition, it did not appear to help him before his quest began. That is because this knowledge is of another type: it is an experiential knowledge that involves his situation.
In other words, this person realises that all his endeavours, projects, dreams, desires and frustrations were never really âhisâ. His unhappiness arose not because these projects were pursued, but because he thought they were âhisâ. He has still to work out many things: whose projects were they, if they were not âhisâ projects? Why and from where did he have the experience of being an agent? etc. The important point here too is that the Indian tradition steered the middle-aged person in a particular way, helped him set up a loop, and generated a breakdown. The middle-aged man must now emerge out of it, and use his insight to reconstitute his personality in a way that is in consonance with his experience.
Religiosity and Spirituality
Very often, âreligious experienceâ is described in terms of states that are typical of all breakdowns: the âfeelingâ of insignificance, worthlessness, and such like. What is wrong with these descriptions is that they describe a religious experience as a set of âemotionsâ or âfeelingsâ: resulting from something else (e.g. gazing up to a starry night in a meadow) or as a state of mind (âepiphanyâ, for instance). My story of the medieval monk provides a different picture: a religious experience includes the path travelled and the path to traverse. It is a particular way of experiencing (oneself and the world); the particularity of the way cannot be specified without speaking about how one has come to a particular âpointâ and where one is going thereafter. What we choose as a significant unit of experience in order to elucidate the religious experience is merely a âpointâ on this path. It does not, however, provide a description of the religious experience itself and, as such, is arbitrary if taken to stand for religious experience as such. One could take any other âpointâ on this path as well. A spiritual experience is part of such a religious experience.
In other words, there is a distinction between religiosity and spirituality. The latter is the subset of the former: spirituality is a particular kind of religious experience. While one could be religious without being spiritual, it is not possible to be spiritual without being religious. This distinction requires to be more carefully worked out than I can in the confines of this paper. Because nothing in my argument revolves around this distinction, I will leave this problem aside.
However, there is another distinction that is more crucial to this paper: the difference between the Indian traditions on the one hand, and a religion like Christianity on the other. I have exhaustively argued (see my 1994) that if Christianity, Judaism and Islam are religions, then the Indian culture does not have any native religions. That is to say, entities like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. are not examples of the category âreligionâ the way the Abrahamic religions are. I am not presupposing these arguments in this paper, but elucidating the differences in yet another way. The goal of Indian traditions is to enable the practitioner to achieve âenlightenmentâ.6 Let us see how this is different from the end result of the Christian Monk.
The experience of enlightenment in the Indian tradition is fundamentally dissimilar to the religious or spiritual experience. The middle-aged personâs insight into the nature of agency breaks radically with the experience of daily life. It tells him that his experience of daily life is something of an illusion and, by doing so, reorganises the way his experience was structured hitherto. But this restructuring does not tell him how he should go further, or what he has to do next. Enlightenment involves a restructuring of the travelled path, but says nothing about the path to traverse. In so far as the middle-aged man still has a future, all he can do from now on is act thoughtfully, and, in this process of thinkingly-doing-something, try to sustain and develop his insight further. What does this âthinkingly-doing-somethingâ mean? It means constantly attending to his insight in all his future endeavours. In the language of Nichomachean Ethics, the middle-aged man has acquired an ability to act thoughtfully and he has acquired it by gaining an insight (knowledge). In other words, our middle-aged man has found eudaimonia.7
Does it mean that similar quests always require a breakdown of the people who undertake such a journey? After all, nervous breakdowns have nothing heroic or romantic about them; they are always sordid and messy affairs. Besides, the outcome is unpredictable. Yet, with respect to Christianity, my answer is a qualified âyesâ. It is my impression that the Catholic and the Protestant religions are far more inclined to induce a breakdown than the Indian culture. My impression is based on some reasons. Firstly, it is my belief that my description of âreligious experienceâ closely tracks what is called the religious experience in the Christian tradition. Secondly, I believe that the monastic orders appear to have developed methods to induce a spiritual experience. While it is undeniable that a spiritual quest in the Christian religions could be undertaken successfully without a messy experience, it is my guess that one will find significantly more spiritual persons with such an experience than those without it. Thirdly, perhaps more importantly, there is very little satisfactory reflection about spiritual experience within Christianity. Its nature has not been conceptualised enough.8 In a way, such a situation stands to reason: how do you conceptualise either Godâs infinite Grace, or His unbounded love? What can you say about the experience of your heart being filled with His love for you and mankind? One may wax eloquent, or live like a saint; neither helps in reflecting about this experience. The âmysticsâ in the Christian tradition speak a language that only fellow-mystics can understand, and their reflections are not helpful to the non-mystic. Perhaps, that is the reason why spiritual experiences have something mysterious about them; such people appear to have been âtouched by Godâ, as it were.
Do the Indian traditions induce nervous breakdowns in individuals on a quest to enlightenment? The answer is in the negative: they do not. While such breakdowns can and do happen, the energy of the Indian traditions have been focussed towards teaching and guiding individuals towards enlightenment without such an experience. Using many different strategies, the Indian traditions mould the experience in such a way that the insight of the middle-aged man can be taught without inducing a nervous breakdown. As we have seen, the middle-aged personâs insight was that he was never an agent. Paraphrasing Aristotle, let me âstart with this experience, and discuss about this experienceâ.
Enlightenment and Plurality in the Indian traditions
One possibility of understanding his experience is to say that he was never an agent (nor could he be one) because there are no agents. This is the answer, for example, of the Buddhist traditions. I say âtraditionsâ, because there are several ways of understanding the absence of agency. One could say there is no agency at all and that the experience of agency is totally illusory. (This is the âdoctrineâ of anatta.) Or one could say that acts give birth to an illusory âexperienceâ of agency. To understand the illusory nature of this experience requires an insight into the relation between the organism and the actions.9 These different accents roughly indicate in the direction of the different traditions in Buddhism.
The second possibility lies in taking the insight in another direction: Who is the âheâ who realises that âheâ was never an agent and all agencies are illusions? âWhoseâ illusion was it, and why did âheâ succumb to this illusion? When these questions arise, a new âinteriorityâ opens up that is different from and other than the internal mental life. That is to say, the middle-aged man discovers that there is a difference between his persona and âhimselfâ. Here too different possibilities open up. Either the person discovers that the âheâ cannot be a particular, because particularity is a property of the organism and the persona. In that case, he is heading towards the Advaita traditions. Or he could experience the particularity of the âheâ in a different way than the particularity of the persona: in that case, he could head either towards the Jain traditions or towards the Dvaita traditions.
The third possibility is this: the illusion lay in the fact that the middle-aged person thought that he was the agent, while he never was. Actually, some one else is the Agent and this agent is acting through the middle-aged person all the time. The middle-aged person now sees his role as a conduit, and no more than that. Now, we approach the various Bhakti traditions.
Religions and Traditions
Even though I began the paper by putting both the Christian monk and the middle aged person in an analogous situation, their evolution, as we have seen, diverge in fundamental ways. Even the destinations of their journey appear different. I would like to suggest that this is one of the parameters for outlining the differences between entities like Hinduism; Buddhism, Jainism, etc. on the one hand and religions like Christianity on the other. There is a difference in kind between these two sets of entities. What one needs to do in the filed of religious studies, to the extent that one speaks about an agenda for the future, is to not only say more clearly what the differences are but also theorise the implications of these differences. Let me continue to spell out some other differences of import between Indian traditions and religions like Christianity.
III
Earlier on, when I located the middle-aged man in the Indian tradition, I did so only to provide him with the means to set up a breakdown. What would be the nature of his insight if he belonged to a particular tradition? That is, how would he experientially understand his insight if he was, say, a Buddhist? The reason for this question should be obvious. If Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, the Bhakti traditions, etc. were all to be religions, there would be a great difficulty involved in the migration of âdoctrinesâ across religions.10 To what extent would the Buddhist enlightenment be âdifferentâ from the advaitic enlightenment? Given what I have said so far, such a differentiation does not make much sense: because they are experiential insights, it is not possible to differentiate them âdoctrinallyâ. However, it might be possible to postulate such a divide when one starts providing further explanations for these experiential insights. Therefore, let me take a âBuddhist formulationâ of an explanation: attachment to the worldly things and events is at the root of the illusion that we are agents. Let me look at the several ways in which this âexplanationâ could be recuperated by the different Indian traditions. I will do that by suggesting that the differences between these entities can be re-described in a different way: it makes no reference to the doctrine, but speaks of the activity instead.
Recuperating the Differences
One way encourages an unremitting reflection and analysis of the experience of being an agent. Who acts? What is acting? In what does the attachment consist of, except the feeling of âIâ and âmineâ? What are these two terms? Is the âIâ the same as this body, or this organism, or this persona? Does the sense of âIâ undergo change and development as the organism or the persona undergoes change and development? If not, what is the relation between the âIâ and the other two? This is the path of knowledge (Gyana) that changes the nature of experience by correcting it.
Another way of reaching the same insight is to go deeper into experience. Any attachment requires constancy: of the object or the event one is attached to, and of the âagentâ who is attached. The deeper one delves into locating this constancy in experience, the more one discovers discontinuities and inconstancies. One discovers that neither the âstructuresâ of experience nor their âconstancyâ are given in experience. Rather, they are provided by the descriptions of the said experience. This would be the meditative path to such an explanation. By relocating the subordinate units of the daily experience, the meditative path (Dhyana) restructures it.
The third way of achieving the same insight is to notice that âattachmentâ is also a particular human emotion. To be unattached requires an altering of this emotion. One can do that using other kinds of human emotions as âmeta-emotionsâ directed towards emotional attachment. Attachment to objects, events, and persons are seen as situations a person is caught up in. Ironical and humorous descriptions of such situations enable the person to achieve a sense of distance from those situations; compassion and sorrow, directed towards the situation of suffering caused by attachment will help loosen the hold of the emotion of attachment. Music, rhythm, cadence, dance and poetry (in combination) work on generating such sets of âmeta-emotionsâ. This is the devotional path (Bhakti) to such an insight. This path restructures experience by altering the force of emotions invested in such experiences.
A fourth way of achieving the same insight is to try and severe the relation between action and its outcome. Attachment can also be seen as the experience of relating action to its outcome and claim that one is the fruit of the other. One decouples actions from human intentions, and such a decoupling can be achieved by building reflexivity regarding action and âitsâ intention. One acts âobservantlyâ, observing both the nature of action and âitsâ alleged intention, only to discover that âintentionalityâ is no âpropertyâ of the âagentâ at all. This is the action path (Karma) to the insight. This path transforms the daily experience by severing the relation between human action and human âintentionalityâ.
Consider how a fifth way would approach this insight. Whatever one experiences, there is but one means through which one experiences: through the organism that oneâs body is. Consequently, one can also begin to understand what experience is by experimenting with the experience itself. One way of doing that is to begin manipulating experience, begin assembling and reassembling it. Oneâs body is not only the means through which experience is possible but it is also the instrument to experiment on experience itself. That is, the focus shifts to the body, its sense organs, and such like in order to understand what the âinsightâ is. This is the Yoga path to further the insight.
Thus one could go on. But my purpose is served. One could differentiate the Indian traditions on the basis of their âdoctrinesâ; equally, one could differentiate them according to the activities they encourage; one could do both and graft doctrines or activities onto each other. All these possibilities indicate that the activity of âdistinguishingâ the Indian traditions from each other is classificatory in nature: why one chooses one way of doing it and not another way depends upon oneâs purposes for wanting to classify them. It also suggests that oneâs ability to classify depends upon the categories one brings to bear in the study of these traditions. To suggest that âBuddhismâ and âHinduismâ are two different religions and that their doctrinal differences are crucial to this divide is not a claim about the structure of the world. Instead, it is a claim about oneâs classificatory scheme.11
The above point is important enough for us to linger a bit longer. When scholars come up with stories about the âreligionsâ that exist in India and the differences between them, mostly the belief is that they are making claims about the nature of Indian culture and her traditions. That is what the intellectual world has believed so far as well. This situation is understandable: one knows that one has merely classified the world in one particular way, only when one comes across alternate methods of classifying the same. Until such time, one believes that oneâs classification mirrors the structure of the world. That is the case with the students of Indian traditions as well.
If so, it is obvious that the debates about âwho speaks forâ¦?â question become more than a bit irrelevant. If what one calls âHinduismâ, âBuddhismâ and âJainismâ, etc. have more to do with oneâs classificatory scheme than with the structure of the Indian culture and the nature of her traditions, what exactly does one ask for, when one raises the question, âwho speaks for Hinduism?â or Buddhism, or whatever? What would constitute answers to these questions? This situation should further indicate to us that something is seriously wrong with these kinds of queries.
Multiplicity of Teaching Methods
Be it as that may, let us continue. I have provided thumbnail portrayals of (some of) the paths based on a very summary description of a single insight. The only purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate the heuristic productivity of this approach in capturing the diversity within the Indian tradition. That can be highlighted by further showing that this approach captures disputes among these traditions as well. From the description I have given of these paths, it is obvious that each is present in the other: reflection on experience cannot be undertaken without emotion; poetry and music without thought are impossible; one cannot go deeper into experience without thinking about experience; reflexivity without thought and emotion is impossible, etc. In other words, the practitioners from each of these paths are likely to have disputes with the others that their way is superior because it incorporates other paths as well. Such is the case in India. Such disputes are also productive: they generate newer ways through cross-fertilisations. Techniques and strategies migrate and the diversity in the tradition increases. Such an end-result is both necessary and desirable: no particular teaching process can teach every individual in the same way and to the same extent. The presence of a multiplicity of teaching methods can only increase their total efficacy.
What kind of teaching methods am I talking about? Let me answer this question by looking at how the teaching methods have âsegmentedâ the phases in learning. Because a teaching method can teach only if it dovetails with the process of learning, it is of importance to know how they steer the process of learning. Broadly speaking, there are three phases to this learning process: (a) the process of listening or reading; (b) the process of analysis and achieving insight; © the process of contemplation. (Even here, a thumbnail sketch will have to do.)
The first phase appears quite straightforward. To the questions the middle-aged man raises, different traditions provide different answers. One listens to or reads these answers, reflects about them so that one grasps the meaning of what is heard or read.
The second phase involves reflection and analysis of what is understood. It is also the process of making use of the analytical and cognitive skills one has learnt in order to draw inferences, formulate hypothetical answers, and test them out. This phase could also be called âinternalisationâ of answers.
The subsequent phase is one of contemplation. One contemplates the insight achieved and observes its impact on experience. To do so, one has to learn new skills other than the cognitive skills one used in the previous phase. These new skills are achieved only by contemplating the internalised answer. There is nothing âcircularâ about this: one can âskilfullyâ do something only by acquiring the said skill; the only way of acquiring that skill is by doing it.
Here too, one could say that the first two phases are really unnecessary. In fact, one might even find them counter-productive because in the third phase one has to think differently than in the previous two phases. As a result, one can develop a teaching process that further sub divides the third phase into successive stages and concentrate on teaching that. Zen Buddhists do precisely that; together with their meditative techniques, their koans are the means of teaching the ability to think without thinking about.
The refinements in these phases and the development of further techniques to successfully negotiate such phases; the inevitable migration and cross-fertilisation of strategies; these add to the diversity in an already enriched landscape. By now it must also be clear that there is no need for any kind of a loop or breakdown. What is required is merely the presence of these teaching traditions in the culture.
It requires noting that I have continuously spoken of migration and cross-fertilisation. That means to say that the strategies, techniques, and insights can migrate across different traditions and different paths. The Buddhist and the Dvaita are examples of different traditions; they do have their âownâ identities. There is a divide between them too, but it is not a doctrinal divide. We need to conceptualise the difference between traditions in a different way than we do that with respect to philosophies or religions. The Buddhist insight about desire being at the root of sorrow is as much Upanishadic as it is Buddhist. It is an experiential insight not confined to specific traditions. Does that mean that such insights are true descriptions of the world, and nomenclatures like âBuddhistâ, âAdvaiticâ etc. simply identify the origin of these truths? Einsteinâs theory of relativity merely tells us that he formulated it in the first place. Is an analogous claim being advanced here? Not quite. I want to put across the claim that these insights are primarily guides to action and they are that in a particular way. These insights are rooted in experience and help you in its transformation. Even though such insights do have a descriptive role, they are not (in any straightforward sense) descriptions of the world. Let us see whether it is possible to make sense of this qualified claim.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This paper was uploaded on Balu's yahoogroup. Due to copyright issues I cant copy paste the whole paper but if somebody is interested i can email the paper.
I found this on my hard-drive. It was part of a post I made at BR forum during a discussion of Vedanta:
1. Saundarya Lahari is actually about Devi, to be precise about "Sri" or "Lalita". It is a major text in "Srividya" tradition. ( Of the ten Mahavidyas that form the core of Shakta tradition, "Srividya" or "Sundari-tantra" and "kali tantra" are usually held as the most important ones. Both are supposed to be fundamentally the same but with different apporoaches. ) Saundarya Lahari has two portions, the first one goes by the name of "Saundarya Lahari" proper, which describes "Sri-Yantra" in poetical although philosophically dense stanzas. Second goes by the name of "Ananda Lahari" which is pure poetics and is not given as much value. The authorship is usually attributed to Sankara, but doubts have been expressed whether the author of Saundarya Lahari is the same Adi Sankara who propounded Advaita.
2. There are many beautiful hymns attributed to Sankara such as "Bhaja Govindam" and "Devi-aparaadha kshama stotram". In the latter the author mentions that he is now eighty five years of age and he desperately needs Devi's grace. Tradition puts Sankara's life span well within 40 years, so again there are doubts whether Sankara who composed these stotras was same as the Adi Sankara.
3. One thing that is normally accepted without dispute is that philosophical works attributed to Sankara such as his commentaries on Upanisads, Gita and works like Viveka Chudamani, Upadesa sahasri etc. really were written by Adi Sankara himself.
4. He was born in Kaladi village in Kerala, in a Saiva Brahmin family.
5. During his time Buddhism in India was in decline and lower tantrik desciplines had gained much ground. Among these were Kapaliks (skull bearers) who practiced horrible rites. Sankara is credited with reviving Hinduism in such a time when it was becoming fast degenerated.
He studied Vedas, Vedanta, Nyaya(logic) and also Buddhist philosophies such as those of Nagarjuna etc. He particularly criticised and had debates with Buddhist scholars and he is credited to have defeated them. He also had debates with ritualists/dualists within hinduism such as Mandana Mishra and defeated them as well. His strong views against Kapaliks made them his enemies and there were attemts on his life by Kapaliks.
Primarily his doctrine is based on Vedanta (last portions of veda) a name given to Upanisads. Besides Upanisads Vedanta is supposed to be based on two more authorities, Gita and Brahmasutra. Together these are called "Prasthana-trayi" or the three authorities.
(i) Of the Upanisads, Sankara commented on 12 which are considered to be the oldest and most important ones.
(ii) He also wrote a commentary on Bhagavad Gita which is the second "prashthana" or pillar/basis/authority of vedanta.
(iii) His other major commentary was on Brahmasutra originally written by a sage called Badarayana (also called Vyasa). Brahmasutra is the third "prasthana" of vedanta.
He interpreted all these in "Advaitic" way. Vedanta itself branched into three major branches
(i) Advaita (absolute non-dualism) by Sankara
(ii) Vishista-advaita (qualified dualism) by Ramanuja
(iii) Dvaita (dualism) by Madhvacharya
Of these three Advaita is held to be philosophically most sophisticated with Vishista-Advaita a close rival.
Continued...
Fundamentals of Advaita:
Budhist philosopher Nagarjuna held that world is illusory and everything is "nothingness" or "sunya". Nagarjuna held that universe, self and everything else is ultimately "void" or sunya. Nagarjuna was a master of dialectics and his arguments were very incisive. Sankara also maintains the ultimate illusoriness of the world, but he makes the crucial difference that even for an illusion to be, there has to be a "real" substratum upon which the illusion is enacted. Typical example is given of the rope and the snake. In a dark room you see a snake and jump around in fear, but when you turn on the lights, you see that the snake was just an illusion created by a rope lying on the floor. When the higher knowledge dawns, such as when lights are turned on, reality of snake is subrated and substituted by the reality of the rope. This subration is an important concept in Sankara's theory. Subration removes the illusory superimposition of snake on the real rope( superimposition is called Adhyasa). Sankara says that as one gains higher and higher spiritual knowledge, so as to turn on more and more lights, reality of the phenomenal world is gradually and successively subrated by a higher and higher reality. If you continue this process, then in a limiting sense (as in calculus) you reach a level of reality which can not be further subrated. He calls this ultimate reality the "Brahman". This ultimate reality is the basis of whole universe. Universe appears to be real not because it is inherently real, but because it is based on "Brahman" which is the only reality. Depending on the level of light/darkness (avidya or maya) different things "appear" to be real, but they can always be subrated by a higher knowledge.
(i) There is only ONE principle of "reality" called Brahman.
(ii) Every other thing that appears to be is called an "appearance".
(iii) Appearances don't have inherent reality, because they can be subrated by a higher knowledge. But they are based on a single REALITY, viz. Brahman.
(iV) Something can't even illusorily appear to be unless it has a real subtratum to enact the illusion.
(v) Brahman is Nirguna or without attributes, Attributes necessarily describe limits of an object and so are limiting.
(vi) But from our viewpoint Nirguna Brahmana can't be comprehended. The closest we can come to describe the Brahman through attributes is called "Saguna Brahman" or Brahman with attributes. These attributes are: SAT, CHIT, ANANDA. Sat means pure existence, Chit means pure consciousness, Ananda means pure bliss. These attributes in their completeness come the closest in describing Brahman which is beyond attributes.
(vii) Individual self or Atman is usually identified with the ego. But ego is no more than an idea of the self. This "idea" can be changed. So ego is just a supposed self, it can be changed, dropped etc. Real self is beyond body, mind and ego. It is the deepest observer in us, the ultimate witness.
(viii)Two objects are distinguished from each other by their attributes. But attributes necessarily imply an observer of those attributes. If the observer inside Ashok is to be distinguished from the observer inside Imtiyaz, then we will have to give these observers distinguishing attributes. But if the observer in ashok has attributes then supposedly ashok can find a way to observe those attributes and then ashok will have a deeper observer inside which is observing this lower observer with attributes. Continue the limiting process and you reach a point where the deepest observer in ashok is left with no attributes. Same with the deepest observer in Imtiyaz or anybody else. Since these deepest observers don't have attributes they can't be distinguished from each other. And here comes the biggest idea of Vedanta.
(ix) There is a SINGLE observer in this universe. It is the deepest observer in all of us. It is our deepest self and it is identical with the self of all.
(x) This deepest self or Atman is unique without a second.
(xi) This Atman is self existent (as a statement such as "I don't exist" is impossible to be made). Therefore this deepest self can be described by "Sat" or existence.
(xii)This Atman is self conscious (Chit) as consciousness is the nature of self.
(xiii) This unique Atman is blissful (Ananda) as there is no second one to be fearful of.
(xiv) So Atman, the deepest self within all has the same limiting attributes as the "Brahman" the ultimate real substratum of the universe.
(xv) Sankara declares that Atman and Brahman are identical. That is deepest self in all of us is same as the basis of whole universe. In common language one may say I and God are no different, but of course this "I" is not the limited ego based I.
(xvi) These last statements are based on sayings from Upanisads such as
"Ayam Atma brahma" => This self (atman) is Brahman.
"Aham brahma asmi" => I am Brahman
"Tat tvam asi" => That thou art
"So aham asmi" => I am that etc.
(xvii) Upanisadic sayings were sayings by sages who had supposedly realized the truth and the uttered them without any qualifications and justifications. Sankara provided the philosophical backing for those sayings.
(xviii) Many sayings of Krishna in Gita such as "This body is a field and there is a knower of the field, and I am the knower of all the fields that there are" are basically saying the same thing and Sankara uses them to support his philosophy.
rajesh_g wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
A loop in the Indian traditions ...
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps this could [also] be posted in the "Who is a Hindu" thread?
Regards,
Sandeep
.
|
