Deivathin Kural # 16 (of Vol 2 ) of 04 Aug 2007.

Om Namah Sivaya.Deivathin Kural # 16 (of Vol 2 ) of 04 Aug 2007.(There have been a long gap from 25 Jun, till date due to some problems with the Lap-Top. Even now it was returned with the comment that it could not be repaired. But as luck would have it, my second son Anandji happened to be here and his touch was enough to make it function again ! Who says miracles are rare ? They seem to happen aplenty in my life !)1. These e-mails, are chapter wise translations of the lectures given by, Sri Chandra Sekharendra Swamigal, of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam. Every day, after the daily Puja, He used to talk, on various aspects concerning Hinduism. These are published, in Tamil, by Vanady Padippagam, T.Nagar, Chennai, as Deivathin Kural, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each. To-day's talk is titled, 'Sankara Sampradayam' i.e., 'Sankara's Tradition', in pages 119 to 156, of Deivathin Kural, Volume 2. Evidntly it will be covered by three or four e-mails.(Unless otherwise specified, 'He' herein includes 'She'.)2. The 'Adwaitin' followers of Adi Sankara Bagavath Padargal are called the 'Smarthargal' . Many of the young and old of these 'Smartha's' themselves do not know this. They call themselves, 'Iyer', as though 'Iyer' is the name of a caste or sect !3. Vaishnavas are followers of Ramanujacharya' s principle of Visishtadwaitam and are called 'Iyengars'. This is also a word like 'Iyer' or 'Sir' or 'Arya' and not a name of caste or creed. 'Dwaitins' add a surname as 'Rao'or 'Achar'. Since they follow Madvacharya, we call them Madhvas. Both 'Visishtadwaitins' and 'Dwaitins', are devotees of Vishnu and so are Vaishnavas. But their beliefs of 'Dwaitam' and 'Visishtadwaitam' , differ remarkably. As Madhvas add a suffix 'Achar' to their names, Visishtadwaitins add a suffix 'Acharyar' or Iyengar'. They have names such as, 'Rajgopala Iyengar' and 'Rajagopala Achariyar'. A point to note is that, while Madhva's followers are collectively addressed as 'Madhvas', a name deriving from the name of their Guru, the followers of Sankara and Ramanuja, do not have a name deriving out of their Guru's name. In some English book of Philosophy or lecture, the word 'Sankaradwaitikan' may get a mention but not in the normal usage. Now a days, what we have is 'Rao' for Dwaitins, 'Iyengar' for Visishtadwaitins and 'Iyer' for Adwaitins.4. Generally the Smarthas have a family name such as, Sarmas, Sasthris and Deekshidars. Those who have taken 'Deeksha' so as to maintain or observe some 'vow of abstinence' for a period, for conducting some Yagnas, are given the name of Deekshidar and it becomes his name and subsequently, a family name! (Chidambaram Deekshidars are a different case altogether.) In general, Adwaitins are thought to be Iyers.
The present generation however does not believe in having any such affix or suffix. Though it is not a caste name but a declaration of ones belief and trust in a Guru, whom we follow, the tendency is to avoid all such 'Surnames', thinking them to be 'caste names', which have become 'un-mentionables' ! But in reality there is no Sarma or Sastri or Acharyar or Rao caste.5. As the followers of Sankara do not know that they are 'Smarthas', there is another important truth that they are not aware. That Sankara as the Guru, did not pinpoint any one God as their specific Deity, but asked them to consider all Gods as equal. Not just equal, but as different forms of one and the same God. Many Adwaitins do not know this and so, thinking 'Parama Sivan' as their special 'Upasana Murthy', call themselves as 'Saivas'. For such thinking there is one more reason. Dwaitins and Visishtadwaitins are both 'Vishnu Bakthas'. So, Smarthas thinking themselves to be different from those two, assume that they are 'Siva Bakthas' and so are Saivas. This is a misconception.6. Iyer, Iyengar and Rao, are not Sanskrit names. So when they have to declare their names in Sanskrit, both Dwaitins and Visishtadwaitins, call themselves as Vaishnavas. So Iyers think that as they are not Vaishnavas, they must be 'Saivas' or followers of Siva. This misunderstanding is widely prevalent in the entire society. There is nothing wrong in both Visishtadwaitins and Dwaitins calling themselves, Vaishnavas. But there is everything wrong in Adwaitins calling themselves as Saivas.7. Many people are of the wrong notion that I am a 'Saiva Acharya'. There was one Professor Hajime Nakamura from Japan. He asked me a question, "I have read Acharyal's 'Brhma Suthra Bhashyam' and 'Gita Bhashyam' and his commentaries on the Upanishads. In all of them there is only the philosophy of Adwaitam and no mention of Siva. But why do you seem to be a Saiva?" I countered with another question, "Why do you think that I am a Saiva?" His reply was, "You are wearing such signs. You are smeared with three lines of Vibhuthi, in your hands and forehead. You do Siva Puja (Chandra Mouleeswara Puja). All Sankaracharyars (in the other Matams such as Sringeri, Dwaraka and Jyothishmath) , are like this only. When Adi Sankara propounded the theory of Adwaita, he did not differentiate between Siva and Vishnu. Why are you sporting signs of being a Saiva / Siva Baktha and doing Siva Puja?" I gave him a suitable reply. We have to go back to some of the historical facts, to understand the situation correctly. 8. What was the condition prevailing when Adi Sankara was born? Vaidika religion of Sanatana Dharma and 72 other religions of odds and sorts were there, as gleaned from books 'Sankara Vijayam'. Buddhism was the main one amongst them, totally contrary to the Vaidik Sanatana Dharma. Other religions were of much lesser following. As obtaining now, those days too, the smaller ones had more ardent following. All the people belonging to Sanatana Dharma were known as Smarthas, which means believers of 'Smruthi'. Smruthi is the common name for Dharma Sastras. Whatever is said in the Vedas, the portions which deal with human and social responsibilities, duties and rights, were given in the form of compilations. Some not so clearly given points too were elaborated without deviating from the letter and spirit of the Vedas, in the Dharma Sastras. From the time a life form is installed in the womb of a mother, its birth, growth, Vidyabyasam, its marriage, extension of the family into the next generation, its death and cremation; are all covered by so many rules of do's and dont's; and ceremonies and functions with elaborate Mantras and procedures. Then there are the binding principles of Brhmacharyam or bachelorhood and Householdership. Then there are the Rules and Regulations binding on various public functionaries in the society. These are what is known as Smruthies and its followers are Smarthas. What is nowadays called 'Hindu' are followers of Veda, were originally known by this name of Smarthas.9. Dharma Sastras do not restrict or enjoin devotion to a particular God. Whatever God or Deity is mentioned in Vedas are all of equal importance. You can have more devotion for one, but it is best to have the clarity that, thye are all one and the same. 'Adityam - Ambikam - Vishnum - Gananatham - Maheswaram' are the five divinities prayed to in Panchayatana Puja by the Smarthas. You could have some special attachment for one. In one house, the elder brother could be a devotee of Siva and the younger brother could be devoted to Krishna or Rama. They did not have to seperate as Vaishnavas and Saivas, for this reason. Siva and Vishnu Upasakas did have mutual ties of marriage. Vedam was common. The Karma Anushtanas as enjoined by the Vedas, were common to all. 10. Vedas require all followers to do Yagnya Karma Anushtanam and wear the Bhasma or ashes. Dharma Sastras also say so. So all Smarthas wore the ashes including those who had Vishnu as their 'Ishta Devata'. Even now when Vaishnavas and Madhvas do Yaga, they are required to wear the Bhasma on their forehead.11. To apply the Namam, with or without the 'padam' are all subsequent additions by the Vaishnava Acharyals. This is clear from the various 'Guru Parampara' stories prevalent even now. Later when only Vishnu was identified as the main God and followers of Vishnu were recognised or wanted to be recognised as seperate caste or religion, those followers had to be given seperate identities. That is how Madhvas had to have 'Gopi Chandan' and 'Sandhu', when they went their own way from among the Vaishnavites. Those who did not go away in to these sampradayas and remained loyal to the teachings of Adi Sankara, remained to be Smarthas. The old custom of 'Bhasmothdaranam' as required by the Vedas, continued to be practised the Smarthas. Actually in Vedas there is a Mantra for making a paste of the ashes with water.12. So, though there is the wrong notion that wearing of Vibhuthi or ashes is an indication of being a Saiva, this is rather a practice as required in Vedas. Smarthas believe in Siva as much as any other God. Before SriRamanujacharya established Visishtadwaitam as a seperate sampradaya, both Vishnu and Siva devotees wore Bhasma with equal felicity. Sannyasi has no requirement to conduct Yagas or yagnas. But he too would wear the Vibhuthi. Even now Vaishnavas have to wear homa Bhasma in Pancharathra Deeksha.13. Buddha objected and discarded the Vedik customs and traditions including yagas. He also did not talk about God. So in Buddhism there is no Bhakthi and no rituals of Karma Anushtanas. This had an effect on the Smarthas too. They did a lot of Karma Anushtana. Their analysis went on the following lines possibly. "Buddhism does not recognise the presence of any God. Why should we bother about this God either. After all he seems to be rather undefinable and nebulous. We have our Karmas as delineated by the Vedas. That is good enough for us." These set of people were called, 'Poorva Meemamsakar' . They neither had any time for Bhakthi nor did they aspire towards Gnana. They had only Karmas. To think of God, to do Dhyana and Meditation; to do Atma Vichara etc, were anathema to Poorva Meemamsakars. Amongst them one Kumarila Bhattar came as a great proponent of their philosophy, who roundly criticised, disputed and countered Buddhism on the grounds of ignoring Karmas. 14. Another great philosopher Udayanachariyar, criticised the Buddhism for not mentioning about God and not giving any room or scope for devotion. He was an expert in the art of Debate as part of Nyaya Sastra. He proved that there has to be the presence of a God, if only for the orderly conduct of world affairs, if not for any esoteric reasons.15. To-day in school text books Buddha gets wide coverage. But there is no mention of Kumarila Bhatta or Udayanachariyar. This is due to the fact that, during the time that Britishers were in power in this country, they have intentionally suppressed some facts and given more publicity to some truths selectively, to manipulate the public mind. Their intention was to somehow denigrate the Hindu religion and pull everyone towards Christianity. Even if they fail in their effort to convert the Indians to Christianity, it was acceptable. But what was not acceptable was the supremacy of Indian culture and religion, centuries or even thousands of years before the time when England was not yet out of their Stone Age!16. After all, India was one of the countries ruled over by them. They wanted the high sophistication of Vaidik cultural background, to remain unknown not only to the rest of the world, but to Indians themselves. So what Buddha did against the Vaidik way of life was given wider coverage, from primary and elementary schools onwards, while all of the original great thinkers of Hinduism were given the convenient go by. Kumarila Bhattar contradicted Buddhists and the convertees, by re-establishing the prime-ordial importance of Karma as delineated by Vedas. Udayanar chided and derided the non-Godly attitude of Buddhism. Thus these two had, to a large extent re-established Karma and Bakthi in the minds of the mass of the country. Now Siva Avatara, Sri Adi Sankara, came on the national scene, to revive and refurbish the Hinduism and recreate interest in Karma-Bakthi- Gnana, in that order.17. Visishtadwaitins and Dwaitins, object to both Buddhism and Adwaitam, on the grounds that the Adwaitins and Buddhists are sailing in the same boat, in their preoccupation with Gnana. They called or knick-named Adi Sankara as, 'Prachchanna Bowddar'. But this view point is totally wrong. Since, Buddhists and Adwaitins call the world 'Maya' and at the highest level of Awareness(Gnana) , devotion(Bakthi) comes to a stand-still, it will seem that there is some substance, in calling Adi Sankara, a 'pseudo-buddhist' ; but even a cursory analysis, will reveal this criticism to be utterly baseless.18. When He called the Jagat (Viswam / world / universe), as Maya, Adi Sankara did not declare it as 'Soonyam' as Buddhists did; but declared it as a temporary reality, not to be thought of as a permanent truth. This Maya world does not melt away into nothingness. Instead, the world's transitoryness is what is to be understood. When you get that understanding, our own impermanence will become apparent and our permanancy lies in our identifying ourselves with the everlasting eternity of Brhmam or Atma. Buddhists 'Nirvana' is a state of nothingness; whereas, Adi Sankara's Moksham is the state of Adwaitam or Oneness; of the highest reality of truth, being and awareness; beyond dispute, beyond compare; Sat-Chit-Anandam! To say that the Buddhists 'Nirvana' and Adi Sankara's Adwaitam is one and the same, is indicative of total lack of understanding.19. What is the greatness of Adi Sankara? He accepted all other Siddhanthas at various levels of understanding as being true relatively. They all individually and collectively take us, the Sadhakas, to the end point of understanding of awareness, that is Gnana. Buddhists are those who turned away from the Vedas and Karma Marg. Adi Sankara on the other hand, was a staunch advocate of Veda and obsevance of Karma. His 'Upadesa Saram' meaning 'The Essence of Teacings', starts with the words, "vedo nithyam adheeyatam; tat karmasu anushteeyatam". This means that, 'Vedas be chanted every day; the Karmas as dilineated in them be acted upon'.20. This is the starting sentence of 'Upadesa Saram' meaning, 'The Essence of Teaching'. Gnanam is the end destination, beyond time and space. That is Gnana Marg. Before Gnana, the mind has to be focussed and concentrated to one-pointedness. This one-pointedness of the mind, can be arrived at only through Bakthi / Devotion to the supreme divinity. That is Bakthi Marg. This Bakthi will not arise in a dirty mind full of desires, wants, greed and hatred. So, Chitta Suddhi or cleaning of the mind is a prerequisite. The cleaning of the mind happens through, 'nish-kamya- karma', or doing one's duty without looking for appreciation and returns. That is Karma Marg. As Veda pointed out, first Karma as a duty to be performed; then Nishkamya Karma which led to cleanliness of the mind; then Bakthi, which led to one pointedness of the mind, resulting in mind-less-ness. This automatically culminated in Gnana, Awareness, Satchitanandam! This is the graduated process the Sadhaka the student has to undergo, as adviced by Adi Sankara!(To be continued.)Sambhomahadeva.