Deivathin Kural # 17 (of Vol 2 ) of 08 Aug 2007.

Om Namah Sivaya.Deivathin Kural # 17 (of Vol 2 ) of 08 Aug 2007.(Continued from Deivathin Kural # 16 of 05 Aug 2007.)21. Poorva Meemamsa which talks of the need for Karma Anushtana, Naiyayika Madam which emphasises the existance of a God and so the importance of Bakthi, and Buddhism which ignores the Vedas, Karma Anushtana, Existance of God and the need for Bakthi, but throws light on Dhyana Vichara; are all their in its place in Adi Sankara's Adwaita. They cought hold of a level and stopped there. He co-related them all and argued and fought with them, in pointing out their limitations and the need for transcending their limitations, towards evolving a wholesome perspective.22. Adi Sankara accepted the importance of Vaidika Karma of Meemamsakas, but did not agree with their principle of, 'no need for Bakthi and no need for Gnana'. His view was that, their Karma cannot by itself give the necessary results. Karma is inanimate or 'jada vasthu' and so cannot on its own give the results. The 'Karma Phala Dhata' is Easwara. The very Karma has been created for the world to function in order. Whatever your actions, it should be done as ones duty and surrendered or offered to God. Karma should be done as 'Nish-kamya- karma', dispassionately. More than the effect of the action, this dispassionate attitude will give the greater return of 'chiththa suddhi', that is, clarity of mind. That was His advice to Meemamsakas. 23. To the 'Nyaya Sastra' experts known as 'Niayayikas' , His advice was in the following lines. It is not enough to prove the existance of God logically in debates. That arguement of proving God's existance, should become ones experience. To directly experience God is to know that, there is nothing else and so our own existance as an experiencer is null and void. This experience of God is the end Adwaita Anubhava, He proved.24. 'Who am I? What is Truth? What is permanent?' and so on the vichara goes on continuously, leaving aside all the desires and passions. Then like Buddha we can also experience a clarity of understanding. Buddha did not talk of Easwara or God. He also did not describe or define 'Nirvana'. Neither was He against it. For all we know, He might have had Adwaita Anubhava. Having had the experience, he may not have understood the experience as Adwaita Anubhava. But all of us cannot go directly to such experience, unless some pre-conditions of maturity are met with. That is why Vedas talk about an orderly ripening through, Karma, Nishkamya Karma, Bhakthi, Vichara, Dharana and Dhyana ending in Anubhava. This order is logical. Karma and Bakthi give Chiththa Suddhi and one pointedness of mind known as 'Eikhagratha' . Once this happens, that individual can proceed towards the later steps of Vichara, Dharana and Dhyana, culminating in realization. As there are all sorts of people in the world, all of them cannot cannot arrive at the end point in one go. That is why, there are as many variations to suit individual needs, in the spiritual highway of Karma, Bakthi and Gnana Marg. If you directly jump to the end process of Dhyana-Gnana for all, except for one or two, others cannot benefit. That is why Adi Sankara, countered the Buddhists ways. As said earlier, Adi Sankara complimented and completed what had already been done by Kumarila Bhattar and Udayanachariyar, in putting down the Buddhists philosophy and methods.25. Buddhism suffered a set back, by the effort of these three. Smartha Sampradaya of Sanatana Veda Dharma, regained its pride of place, amongst the common masses. What Adi Sankara elaborated upon, as the purport of the Upanishads, was that highest pinnacle of Adwaita Anubhava. Adwaita Anubhava is neither possible for all, nor can all the people absorb and understand that experience. But one could progress on the path towards it. So generally the common folk were doing their duties with devotion to God. Like the Poorva Meemamsakars, they did not consider that Karma by itself was the 'be all and end all'. As directed by Adi Sankara, they did their Karma as an offering to God.26. Now when ever we do any Karma, at the beginning we make a 'Sankalpa' that, the action is being done for the satisfaction of God ("parameswara preethyartham"). This Sankalpa was introduced in the procedure, at the behest of Adi Sankara only. This was not the practice earlier. We are not to think that Karma by itself will grant the effects. The 'Phala Dhata' remains to be God. That is why Acharyal made us do the Sankalpa. Not only that. So as to instill the sense of oneness between Easwara and Narayana or Krishna; what was started for, 'parameswara preethyartham', was ended with, 'krishna arpanamasthu'(as an offering to Krishna).27. What was originally the Religion of the followers of Veda, later became the 'Smartha', as the Religion of the followers of Dharma Sastras, based on Vedas, collectively known as 'Smruthi'. They are not two different religions. Vaidik religion is Smartham. The Karma as per Vedas were done with the purpose of Chiththa Suddhi, as an offering to God. Poorva Meemamasakas went astray getting a fixation on Karma, that was corrected by Adi Sankara. The original, old Smartha Religion was rejuvinated and re-established to its rightful place in the life of people of this country.28. Similarly, in devotional approach as per the Vedas, there was not even an iota of relative superiority or inferiority between Siva or Vishnu. In Veda all Gods were considered to be the same Parabrhmam. In Rudram it is said that everything is 'Siva Swaroopa'. In Purusha Suktam it is said that everything is 'Vishnu Swaroopa'. Elsewhere if Varuna is extolled as the Parabrhmam, somewhere else Agni the God of fire gets the pride of place and in yet another place it will be the Sun, who will be venerated. Finally Vedas declare, 'ekam sat vipra : bahuda vadanti', meaning to say that, 'there is but one truth that is given many names'.29. Dharma Sastras (Smruthis) being of the form of notes based on Vedas, also do not give a pride of place to any one God or Goddess. But if you select one of them as your 'Ishta Devata', you are permitted to consider that God or Goddess as the Parabrhmam with the proviso that, it is not license to decry other Gods! Thus Smarthas did 'Ishta Devata' pooja without ever decrying other Gods. This state of affais deteriorated when initially, Karma Meemamsakars started insisting on Karma as an end in itself. Subsequently, each gave more importance to their 'Ishta Devata' and started denigrating other Gods and others who had different Gods. This was the time when a 'Veera Saiva' or 'Veera Vaishnava' would kill each other on sight.30. Thus when both Karma Marga and Bakthi Marga had become thoroughly confused, Buddhism further created chaos by ignoring Bakthi and Karma; as though everybody could go directly on to Gnana Marga. Acharyal Adi Sankara's advent was in such troubled times, when all He did was not to create a new approach but to re-establish the Vaidik Smartha Sampradaya of Sanatana Dharma. When the path of the Vedas had become muddled with stones, potholes and weeds; Acharyal only cleaned it up by removing the non-essentials and not create a new approach.31. Accepting the Vaidik Route of 'Ishta Devata' Pooja, Acharyal brought together, Ganapathyars who were devoted to Ganapathy; Koumaras, who venerated Lord Subrahmanya; Sakthas who were devoted to Ambal; Siva Bakthas of Saivas; Vaishnavas who had Vishnu as their Ishta Devata and Souras who considered the Sun God as the supreme Deity. Due to this action of bringing these six streams of devotees together; Acharyal was called the 'Shan-mada-sthapaka '. He did this shan-mada-sthapakam so that people could be devoted to their Ishta Devata, without putting down other Gods and Devotees of other Gods. So as before, 'adityam-ambikam- vishnum-gananath am-maheswaram' pooja of Panchayathana, thrived. All Vaidik Yagas automatically went to Agni / Subrahmanya. So he may not have been included in Panchayathana Pooja.32. So, the point I am making repeatedly is that, Sankara Sampradayam; was not anything new but, re-establishment and re-juvination of the Vaidik order. So if some one talks of Sankara Sampradaya, it is wrong. If I have used that phrase as the heading for to-day's talk, I beg your pardon too. Throughout his Bhashyas, He has praised the tradition of Vaidik methods. With great respect, He has mentioned (after a logical analysis of the veracity and suitability, ) that a point is acceptable because it is traditionally acceptable; thereby underlining the high esteem he had for the wisdom of the Vaidik ancestors! About Jesus Christ, it is said that, 'He came not to destroy the old religions; but to complete them'! Similarly, Adi Sankara's advent was to weed out the unnecessary growths and clean out the path. If anything is said to be the 'Sanakara Way', He would be the first one to object to such thinking.33. Even His end pricipled stand of Adwaita, was established and proved, through His analysis of 'Prasthana Thraya' of Brhma Sutra, Bhagawat Gita and Upanishads. No where, even by mistake has he claimed Adwaita as His personal philosophy! That is why, followers of Adi Sankara, did not opt for any new name or outer indications or signs. So they continued to be known by the name of Smarthas. Even before Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhva, there were Vishnu Bakthas amongst Smarthas, who had Vishnu as their Ishta Devata.34. There is one surprising thing here. Amongst Smarthas, there were also some who believed in Adwaitam as a principled stand point of philosophy while simultaneously believing in their own Ishta Devata as Parabrhmam. Though they believed Adi Sankara as their Guru; but did not agree on the point of NOT decrying other Gods. There have been hardcore Vaishnavas who have been Adwaitins. Let me share with you a secret. There are some such people of Adwaita Parampara, even to-day existing, who consider me as their Guru. Their Siddhantam is Adwaitam. But they will not wear the Namam on their forehead. Somehow since they consider that the Vibhuthi is connected to Siva, they will not wear that either. Sayin No to Namam and Vibhuthi, they wear Gopi Chandan. There are some other, Adwaitins who are Vishnu Bhakthas; who sport yet another variation. They wear a red vertical line in the center of their forehead and are called, 'Keerru Namakkarargal' . They are more hard core Vaishnavas than the Iyengars. While some of the Iyengars may visit a Temple of Siva, these Adwaitins would consider a visit to a Siva Temple as unthinkable. For them I am still the venerable Acharya!35. "Can you now see as to how it is incorrect to call me a Saiva?", I asked that Japanese professor. Similarly, there are Adwaitins amongst Veera Saivas too. When it comes to principles of philosophy, they accept Adwaitam. When it comes to devotional path, they are averse to the idea of accepting all Gods as equal. Not being able to accept the 'Samarasa Bhava' of Adi Sankara, they continue to hold their own Siva as the supreme God.36. Still, there is one important reason as to why Adwaitins have been thought to be Saivas. Ramanujacharya came after Adi Sankara in time and spread Visishtadwaitam. His principled stand was on the following lines:- "That Jeeva can never ever become Brhmam. The Jeeva can and does experience the Parabrhmam as the indwelling spirit, by standing apart and not by becoming one with that Parabrhmam, even in the State of Moksha. Brhmam is not 'Nirguna' i.e., devoid of character qualities and traits as held by Adi Sankara. Parabrhmam, has Guna and Karya. As the indwelling spirit in each, it is 'Antaryami' as well as 'stand apart supreme power'." These points can be applied to any God. But amongst the followers of Sri Ramanujachariyar, such a God is only Mahavishnu, not Siva or any other God. Thus He made Visishtadwaitam as a Theology acceptable only to one set of people for whom Mahavishnu was the Ishta Devata.37. Those who accepted Sri Ramanujachariyar' s Visishtadwaitam were very much the erstwhile Smarthas. Of course like Guru Govind Singh later, Sri Ramanujachariyar did permit some non-brahmins in to his fold. Till His time after all, Hindu Religion consisted of Smarthas only. From amongst them, whosoever had an inclination towards Mahavishnu went to His side either for the sake of Siddhanta or for the Love of Mahavishnu. After Ramanujachariyar, came Sri Madhvachariyar, Sri Vallabhachariyar and Sri Krishna Chaitanyar, in that order. Sri Madhavachariyar theorised that God is Mahavishnu and all of us are individual Jeevas, without even talking of God as an Antaryami in each. That is Dwaitam. It is difficult to describe the Theological nuances of Vallabhachariyar and Sri Krishna Chaitanya without sounding too simplistic. Suffice it to say that, Sri Ramanujachariyar and Sri Madhvar, had Vishnu as Parabrhmam, while for Vallabhachariyar and Sri Krishna Chaitanyar, it was Sri Krishna. There was one Nimbarkar also amongst those who considered Sri Krishna as the only God. All these are evolutes from Smartha.38. So the point to understand is that, they went out of being Smarthas, to any of these Acharyals fold, either because of their attraction for the Siddhanta or Ishta Devata Vishnu or Krishna; balance left out amongst Smarthas were essentially either Siva Bakthas or not particularly Vishnu / Krishna Bakthas or non-believers of those Siddhantas. This led to the preponderance of Siva Bakthas amongst Adwaitins / Smarthas. Once the Britisher's rule firmed in, while writing even simple entries in so called official records, Smarthas not knowing that they were believers in Smruthis, started entering 'Siva Madam' against their names. Not only then but now too, when they do not know why they are supposed to be Smarthas, they think of themselves as Siva Bakthas.39. Not only this. Much before this, almost during Ramanujachariyar' s time itself, there was another Sri Srikandachariyar or Maikandar. As many started following the foot steps of Ramanujachariyar, Adwaitins were construed to be Saivas. The reason was, that this Maikandar, started preaching almost a parallel Visishtadwaitam with a slight change; For Vishnu read Siva! When it comes to the Mukthi, He is a little more nearer Adwaita. In Upasana, for Maikandar Siva is the main. The already depleted Smarthas (after the Vaishnavas who had embraced Visishtadwaitam had already gone), the remainders must have thought of them selves anyhow as Siva Bakthas only and may not have thought it necessary to shift their allegiance. This sect known by the name of Saiva Siddhantam, stll exists and thrives.40. Tatvam or Siddhantam or what is called the principled stand point of view, appeals only to some intelligensia. For the majority of people, devotion and upasana murthy are more important. That is why, the many of the Vishnu Bakthas from Smarthas, shifted to the Sects of Sri Ramanuja / Madhva / Vallabha / Chaitanya / Nimbalkar. This also the reason that many did not go away to Maikandar. This is how Smarthas who were Adwaitins, not fully aware of the Siddhantam, came to believe themselves to be Saivas!(To be continued.) Sambhomahadeva.