PRECEPTORS OF ADVAITA PART 251024 CONTD K RAJARAM IRS JAGADGURU SRI CHANDRASEKHARENDRA SARASVATI
*1. On Advaita*[1] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62925.html#note-e-33000> At first, Śrīmad Āchārya (i.e. Śrī Śaṅkara) established Advaita-siddhānta. Among the texts that teach Advaita-siddhānta, the principal ones are the commentaries on the three *prasthānas,* viz. the *Upaniṣads* , the *Bhagavadgītā,* and the *Brahma-sūtra.* These three are the basic authoritative texts for Advaita-siddhānta. Besides these, the Āchārya has written several manuals *(prakaraṇas*). The *Vivekachūḍāmaṇī* , etc,, are the most important among them. And, in addition, he has composed many a hymn—Śiva-stotras, Viṣṇu-stotras, Aṃbikā-stotras, etc. He has also written a text on mantra-śāstra bearing the title ‘*Prapañchasāra*’. Many great learned preceptors have written commentaries on the works of the Āchārya. Of the works of the Āchārya, the most important is the *Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya.* This is a commentary on the *Brahma-sūtra* of the Sage Vyāsa. In the *Brahma-sūtra* are to be found topics that are taught in the ten principal Upaniṣads. The essence of these teachings is given in the *Brahma-sūtra* in aphoristic form. The *bhāṣya* explains in an extensive way how the *Brahma-sūtra* refers to the topics dealt with in the ten Upaniṣads. Many preceptors, down to the present day, have written commentaries on the *bhāṣya.* Padmapāda, one of the chief disciples of the Āchārya, wrote a commentary by name *‘Pañchapādikā’.* For this, there is a commentary by Vivaraṇāchārya: it is called *Tattvadīpana.* Thus, there is one branch of commentaries (known as the Vivaraṇa school). There is a commentary called ‘Bhāmatī’ for the Āchārya’s bhāṣya, written by Vāchaspatimiśra who lived in North India. Amalānanda wrote a commentary *‘Kalpatarut* on it. Appayya Dīkṣita wrote a gloss *‘Parimala’* on the *Kalpataru.* There is another gloss on the *Kalpataru* by Koṭṭaiyūr Lakṣmīnṛsiṃha Vājapeya: this is called *Ābhoga.* This is another (Advaita) tradition (known as the *Bhāmatī* school). For the *Sūtra-bhāṣya,* there is a commentary, *Ratnaprabhā,* by one Rāmānanda; there is also a commentary on the *Ratnaprabhā.* For the same *Sūtra-bhāṣya,* Ānandagiri, a disciple of the Āchārya (Śaṅkara), wrote a commentary: this is called *‘Ānandagirīya’.* About one hundred-and-fifty years ago one Tryaṃbaka Bhaṭṭāchārya wrote a commentary on the *bhāṣya* : *Bhaṣyabhānuprabhā.* One Raghunātha-sūri of Mahārāṣṭra wrote a commentary for one section (pāda) of the *sūtra-bhāṣya:* this bears the name ‘ *Śaṅkara-pāda-bhūṣaṇa’.* These are the commentaries (on the *bhāṣya)* known to us. Thus, for a single *bhāṣya* there are so many commentaries. Of the ten principal Upaniṣads, the *Bṛhadāraṇyaka* and the *Taittirīya* have *Vārtikas* by Sureśvarāchārya. Hence, this preceptor is also known as the *Vārtika-kāra.* There is a commentary on the *Bhagavad-gītā* by the Āchārya. Following this commentary, there are ten commentaries. All these are texts which expound Advaita-siddhānta. Similarly, there is Dvaita-siddhānta. For the aforesaid *Brahma-sūtra,* Śrī Madhvāchārya who appeared on the West-Coast wrote a *bhāṣya* after the Dvaita-siddhānta. Many scholars have written commentaries on this *bhāṣya.* In those commentaries, they have opposed the doctrine of Advaita-siddhānta. About four-hundred years ago, a work called *‘Nyāyāmṛta’* was written criticising Advaita-siddhānta. Criticising this, Madhusūdana Sarasvatī wrote a work by name *Advaita-siddhi.* On behalf of Dvaita, a work bearing the title *Taraṅgiṇī,* was written criticising the *Advaita-siddhi.* Criticising the *Taraṅgiṇī,* a great preceptor by name Brahmānanda who lived in Gauḍa-deśa wrote his *Chandrikā.* This work is also known as *‘Gauḍa-brahmā-nandīya’.* Criticising this from the standpoint of Dvaita, one Vanamālāmiśra wrote *‘Vanamālāmiśrīya’.* Tryaṃbaka Bhaṭṭa, the author of the *Bhāṣyabhānuprabhā,* wrote also the *Siddhānta-vaijayantī* in which he criticised Vanamālāmiśrā’s work. More than sixty years ago, Anantāḻvār wrote a work called ‘ *Nyāya-bhāskara’* criticising the *Gauda-brahmānanīya* from the standpoint of Viśiṣtiādvaita. Criticising the *Nyāyabhāskara,* Rāju Śāstrin who came in the lineage of Appayya Dīkṣita wrote the *Nyāyendu-śekhara.* Thus, we have the *Siddhānta-vaijayantī* as the last critique of the Dvaita standpoint and the *Nyāyendu-śekhara* as the last critique of the Viśiṣtādvaita standpoint. The series of critical works so far stops with these two works. But it may be extended hereafter. Any critique, by whomsoever written, must be studied by all. A study of such works will lead to clarify. It is only when differences of view arise that doctrines gain clarity. In our country, any scholar who is well-versed in the literature of his own philosophical school usually has close acquaintance with the literature of other schools. This is our tradition. There are so many works relating to our tradition. We do not read them. We know more about the books written in other countries. Which book is our authority, we do not know. Bundles upon bundles of books which have no relevance to our tradition, we know. We do not know our texts. If we become aware at least of their titles, we may begin to take some interest. If scholars who are versed in these texts volunteer to expound them, we do not lend an ear to them; we disregard them. Our country is in a very low state now. The people of other countries praise our *Ātma-vidyā.* If we should gain esteem in the world, we should augment that culture of our country which has been the object of true esteem. What is the greatness of our country? It consists in the fact that here countless sages have realised the Bliss that is the Self. If we do not come to be aware of the grounds of that greatness, we shall be demeaning ourselves. So far, I have mentioned the series of the important works on Advaita-siddhānta. What is that, Advaita? What shall we gain from it? Do we know it, or do not know? Could we gain its fruit, or not? Or, do all these belong to the region of mere imagination? Will Advaita become fruitful in experience? We shall consider these questions. What does ‘Advaita’ mean? Its meaning is ‘without a second’. That there is no second does not appear to us to be true. There are thousands of things. If there is no second, what do we gain? Is this not clear? It is only because there is no second, that for which we strive will get fulfilled. What for do we strive? We strive for the removal of all the miseries that afflict us. The removal of miseries will be accomplished through (the realisation of) that which is without a second (i.e. non-duality). We strive for removing poverty, hunger, dishonour, disease, empirical usage *(vyavahāra*), mental pain, etc. Is there any place where these miseries are absent? No. Yet, we continue to strive for the removal of miseries. Through our empirical endeavours, there is only temporary appeasement. If through medical treatment one disease is cured, another disease comes. The means for the absolute removal of all miseries is Advaita. Through it, hunger, disease, death, dishonour, empirical usage, anger, poverty, etc., will not recur. Why do we have misery? It will be good if hunger, etc., do not afflict us. But, why do they afflict us? Let us see through which course they come. They will come as long as the body lasts. But, if this body goes, another takes its place. For that body also, hunger, thirst, disease, etc., will come. So, if we could do without body, then these miseries will disappear. We take many births. What is the cause of those births? On account of what do we take a body? We have to reap the consequences of the good and bad deeds done in the previous births. The self cannot reap them. Fire cannot bum the self; nor the application of sandal paste make it cool. Therefore, a body is needed. As the result of the good and bad deeds done by us, God endows us with a body, and punishes us by making us imagine that the body is “I”. If a boy commits a mistake, he is beaten for that. By his side there is a doctor. If the boy swoons not being able to bear the pain, he is revived and again beaten. He is given food, and again beaten. For the sins we have committed, God gives us a body and thus punishes. If this is not enough, He endows us with another body and punishes. Thus, the sins that we commit are the cause for the body. If we do not commit anymore sins, we shall not be endowed with a body hereafter. Constantly we should remember that we should not commit sin. What is the cause of merit and demerit? There is the desire to eliminate them by refraining from the deeds that give rise to them; but we are not able to avoid those deeds. If a tree is to be prevented from growing, it is not enough to cut off the branches; the root-trunk must be removed. Similarly, we must discern the cause of sin, and destroy that cause. Why do we perform evil deeds? We desire to possess an object. We device short-cuts to obtain it. That is sinful. The cause for our performing sinful deeds is desire. If an object is beautiful, there arises desire to possess it. The knowledge that a thing is good produces desire. In order to fulfil that desire, we perform actions. Knowing through the senses that a thing is beautiful is the cause of desire. Through effort, we can produce desire, or change it. Knowledge cannot be produced, nor changed. The punishment for the sins we do is the body. Therefore, if we remove desire which is the cause of sin, there will be destruction of misery. How to remove desire? The way to remove misery is not taught in the other sacred texts. Vedānta does not omit this teaching. Vedānta which is the peak of the Vedas teaches the way for the removel of sorrow. Hatred and desire arise only in respect of objects other than us. There arises neither desire nor hatred in regard to ourselves. Since desire arises in regard to objects Other than us, that desire will not arise if those objects are rendered identical with us. If all become identical with us, and if there is nothing other than us, then desire will not arise. If there is no desire, there will be no effort. If this be so, there will be no sin. When there is no sin, there will be no body. When that is not there, there will be no misery. It is for the destruction of misery that we put forth several efforts. If there is something as a second to us, and if that thing is more powerful than us, there arises fear. If there is something beautiful, there arises desire; and the mind is disturbed. If there is no second, there is no desire, no hatred, no fear. Scorpions and snakes cause fear in us. If we ourselves remain as scorpions and snakes, how then could there be fear? Would we be afraid of ourselves ? As long as there is something other as a second, there will be fear. Therefore, what Advaita accomplishes is the bringing about of secondlessness. The Upaniṣad declares that there is no fear when there is no second thing. Are there not in the world many people? How can all of them become one? How to accomplish secondlessness? Vedānta teaches that what we see in this world as many are illusory. It declares that all are of the nature of Īśvara. We do not see thus. If it is true that Īśvara is all, then what we see must be illusory. If what we see is true, then the declaration that Īśvara is all must be false. If what appears to us is true, then there should be no misery for us. But misery does come to us. Therefore, what Vedānta teaches must be true. If that be so, that all are of the nature of Īśvara should be regarded firmly as the truth. What appears to us is illusory. The real is not this. Our eyes see what are illusory. Advaita teaches that there is a Reality as the basis of the entire world. What appear to us to exist are all illusory; the true Existence that is one is alone real. If all is Īśvara, are we alone different? We should dissolve ourselves too as that Īśvara. Then, there will be no second entity. Now, we see things as different. But' the true seeing is seeing all as Īśvara. If we too get dissolved without leaving a second, then good will result. Even in lie empirical world if two minds become one, there is no strife. Similarly, if all become one as Īśvara, we shall become all; then, there will be no desire in regard to ourseves. In the absence of desire, there will be no sin; and if there is no sin, there will be no body; and if there is no body, there will be no misery at all. For the destruction of misery, Advaita is the medicine. Advaita is that which accomplishes secondlessness. Seeing all as Īśvara is Advaita. Seeing what is real is Advaita. It is this that is taught in the books mentioned above. Many objections are raised against this position. Some of them are logical; the others are unreasonable. The sacred texts reply to those objections. They outline the disciplines that lead to Advaita. The manuals written by the Āchārya impart the same teaching. We go to sleep. From sleep we wake up. Sometimes we sleep well. Sometimes we experience dreams. The waking state is *jāgrad-avasthā.* Experiencing dreams is *svapna-avasthā.* Deep sleep is *suṣupti-avasthā.* Thus there are three states of experiences. Our waking is for doing work. Deep sleep is for getting rid of tiredness that results from work. These two seem to be enough! Why should there be dream-experience? I reflected on this. Īśvara is everywhere. He is the non-dual Brahmam. All is of the nature of Ātman. In order to prove this truth, it appears, He has projected the dream-world as an example. There is no other purpose. The apparent plurality of the empirical world is similar to that of dreams. In dream there occur multifarious difficulties and pleasures. But at the termination of the dream there is nothing left. Even the body which appeared when the dream was experienced is not there. Only he who realizes that such dream was seen is left' as the residue. All else that appeared to exist in dream disappears. When we wake up from this empirical world which is a dream, only consciousness will remain. That is the true reality. It is that which is called Advaita. We are all Advaitins; we are in Dvaita-experience. But, those of us who have faith in Advaita see the Dvaita-dream in the empirical state. In this dream, we go through disease and misery. But we are those who believe that there will be a state in which there will be no disease. By what is Dvaita made known? It is given, in immediate experience, now, through the sense of sight, etc. Advaita is made known only by Vedānta. Advaita is that which is made known by the sacred *t* exts; Dvaita is that which is evidenced by the sense of sight, etc. Science tells us that the sun is very big; but our eyes tell us that the sun’s diameter is just a span in length. With the palm the sun could be covered. Therefore, the sun appears small. But, what is the truth? If what we see is alone true, there is no need for the texts. It is only what we do not know that should be revealed by the sacred texts. In the Upaniṣads, at certain places, Dvaita is .mentioned; at some other places, Advaita. In what context is Advaita mentioned? It is mentioned in the context where the nature of supreme Brahman is taught, hi the *Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad,* for instance, when the significance of *Praṇava* is taught, it is declared that all is of the nature of Advaita, that Om is all; here the expression ‘Advaita’ occurs. The term ‘Dvaita’ occurs in an Upaniṣad. The context there is this: “Remaining as different, how can one perceive an object that is different? If all is of the nature of Ātman, who can experience what as different?” In this context occur the words “Where, indeed, there is Dvaita (duality) as it were”. The meaning is: In the state where duality appears to be, there would be that (differentiated) experience: *yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati, taditaraḥ itaraṃ paśyati; yatra tvasya sarvam ātmaivābhūt, tatkena kam paśyet.* — *Bṛhadāraṇyaka.* Where, however, all has become the Ātman, there, it is declared, there is duality *as it were.* In the context of the expression *as it were (iva),* duality is mentioned; and in the context of the statement ‘where, however, all has become the Ātman’, non-duality is taught. There is also the word *‘tu’* (however) mentioned in the context where Advaita is declared. If after a statement, the word tu (however) or the word *‘atha’* (then) occurs, it means that the final position is set forth thereafter. After the words *‘yatra tu’* (where, however), it is declared ‘all has become the Ātman’. Thus, from the expression *‘tu’* (however) we have to understand the conclusive truth that all is of the nature of Ātman. The expression *‘iva5* (as *it were)* indicates appearence and not reality. The expression ‘like him’ means ‘not he himself’. Hence, when it is said ‘duality, as it were’, it means that there is no duality—this is the *siddhānta.* To our senses, duality is presented. That is mere appearance. What is understood with the help of sacred texts is Advaita. That alone is the siddhānta. That all is the Self (Ātman) alone is the truth. Here, the expression ‘Ātman’ occurs; should not the expression be ‘Paramātman’ (supreme Self) ? Thus it may be asked. If there is ‘Paramātman’, there would be ‘alpātman’ (little self) as different from it. There is no Paramātman too. It is only in the state of duality that there is the distinction of ‘Paramātman’ and ‘jīvātman’. When the state of Advaita is realised, there is only the Self (Ātman). Tbe *Bṛhadāraṇyaka* declares: *dvitīyād-vai bhayaṃ, bhavati.* It is from duality that fear, misery, strifes, etc., arise. Only if there are two different entities, there would arise desire, fear, misery, etc. If some one that is dear to us dies, there arises misery. If he passes away before our eyes, we feel distressed. We think that there would be no distress if we pass away. If we pass away, there would be no misery for us. Therefore, if all are ourselves, then there will be no misery whatsoever. When there occurs misery, there is the thought of difference. What is it that occasions desire? It is only when there is consciousness of duality that there arise desire and misery. If the other becomes us, then there is no misery at all. How to effect this identity? If all become the Paramātman, there would be the one Self alone. Hence, Vedanta declares: There need not be duality; nonduality alone is the truth. This truth our Āchārya has expounded, as a glowing lamp, and has asked us not to forget. His commentary is called *‘bhāṣya-dīpa’.* Simply because the expression ‘Dvaita’ occurs in Vedanta, people begin to say ‘Dvaita’, ‘Dvaita’. They do not inquire as to where, what for, and before which concluding statement, the expression occurs. This is like the conclusion that there was the prevalence of drinking toddy among the Vedic circles, which some scholars arrive at, on the ground of the Vedic statement, ‘Do not drink toddy’. We are now in the state of dream. If we wake up from this state, that is the state of Advaita. If this *siddhānta* is retained in memory, at least one in a hundred-thousand will endeavour to attain that state. It is with this end in view that the great preceptors have written their works. It is not enough if we know that there is the Gaṅgā at Kāśī; we must buy the necessary ticket, travel by the appropriate train, cross the railway junctions *en route,* and without oversleeping arrive at Kāśī and actually bathe in the Gaṅgā. K RTAJARAM IRS TO BE FINALISED TOMORROW 251024 Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZooNk27W%2BNjN-pO-RmSUNCFC%3DZ7XW6KRbR%2BypKHf3rhQiw%40mail.gmail.com.
