Sankara Acarya

Page 3–Advaita Vedanta

Introduction

The advaita philosophy is not easy to explain briefly, and it is not my intention to repeat in a www home page what takes whole volumes for accomplished experts. I will content myself with providing a brief synopsis of the various aspects of advaita-vedanta.

A very important assumption in all vedanta is that man suffers from bondage in the course of his life in this world. This is said to be samsara, which involves being caught in an endless cycle of births and deaths. The quest therefore is to seek a way out of this bondage, to break the cycle of rebirths and attain moksha or liberation. The most important issues in vedanta have to be understood with respect to what constitutes bondage and what constitutes liberation. Theadvaita school is of the view that jnana (knowledge) of man’s true nature is liberation. Bondage arises from ignorance (avidya) of man’s true nature, and therefore removal of ignorance roots out this bondage. Liberation is therefore nothing more or nothing less than man knowing his true nature. This true nature is his innermost essence, the atman, which is nothing other thanbrahman. He who knows this, not merely as bookish knowledge, but through his own Experience, is liberated even when living. Such a man is a jivanmukta, and he does not return to the cycle of rebirths.

Brahman

It may be noticed that at first glance, advaita’s solution to the problem of man’s liberation does not seem to involve God as a Creator or a Savior at all. If all that is required is to know one’s own true nature, what role does God have to play in this universe? Advaita’s answer to this issue is buried in the advaitic conception of brahman. One is the view of the Brahma-sutra that brahman is at once both the instrumental and the material cause of the universe. The Brahma-sutra holds such a view because there is nothing that can be said to exist independent of brahman. Is brahman then just a name for a universal set – the superset of all things in this universe? Not so, because brahman has been described as beyond all change, whereas the perceived universe is full of change. Still, this universe is said to have brahman as the only cause. At the same time, to understand brahman truly is to know It to be devoid of parts and diversity, and beyond all causality/action. Such a conception of brahmanderives from the Upanisads, which say sarvam khalvidam brahma – all this is indeed nothing but brahman – on the one hand, and neha nanasti kincana – there is no diversity here – on the other. Thus, the conception of brahman as a Creator in advaita is a unique one, and directly relates to the advaita views on causality.

Causality: Parinama and Vivarta

There are different theories of causality described by advaita vedantins, but they are all agreed that brahman is the sole cause of the universe, i.e both the instrumental and the material cause of the universe. The axiom that the Onebrahman is the cause of the many-fold universe is the foundation on which the entire system of advaita vedanta is based, and numerous efforts have been made over the centuries, to address logical problems arising out of it. This brahman is also held to be eternal and changeless. It is easy to understand brahman as the instrumental cause of the universe. This view is not very different from the traditional perspective shared by almost all religions – some creator is usually credited with having created this universe. This creator is the instrumental cause of the universe. What differentiates the standard vedantaposition from such general theistic views is that brahman is simultaneously also the material cause of the universe. In other words, creation is never ex nihilo, but proceeds out of brahman Itself, although brahman remains unchanged.

Common-sense views of material causality always involve some kind of change. Thus, for example, milk is said to be the material cause of curds. However, in the process of curdling milk, the milk cannot be recovered. All we have at the end is the curds, the milk being irretrievably lost. This kind of causality involving change is called parinama. There is another kind of material causality. For example, gold is the material cause of an ornament made out of gold. In the process of making the ornament, the metal does not change into something else. It is only drawn into another form, from a lump to an ornament; the gold remains gold. This kind of causality is called vivarta , where the material cause itself does not change into something else. The Chandogya Upanisad makes very telling use of this kind of causality in its illustrations of how “Being” alone is the original cause (sadeva saumya idam agra asit, ekameva advitiyam), and how all perceived change is only in the realm of name and form, dependent on language (vacarambhanam vikaro namadheyam). The reality of gold is quite independent of what shape it is in.

Although Sankaracarya makes use of both kinds of causality (parinama andvivarta) in his analogies, he denies that brahman’s role as the material cause of the universe involves any change in the essence that is brahman. In the logical extreme, both parinama and vivarta views of causality are deficient, as they presume a separate reality of the effect, apart from that of the cause. Therefore, the most subtle arguments in advaita vedanta turn upon the ajati vada notion – that there is no real creation. vivarta and parinama are both seen as convenient ways of describing causality, only if some provisional reality is conceded for the notion of creation. Those who follow the drsti-srsti-vada also maintain that brahman is beyond all causality. However, most post-Sankaran authors, who teach in accordance with what is called the srsti-drsti-vada, opt for a vivartanotion of causality, as far as accounting for all creation is concerned. It should be remembered that the conception of brahman as both the material and instrumental cause of the universe implies a very special kind of causality, one that is not similar to any other, and that cannot therefore be captured completely by any analogy. It is as if brahman has acted upon itself in order to produce this universe, that is full of change. Yet, the Upanisads abound with passages denying that any change is possible in brahman, and indeed Sankaracarya denies that brahman really acts. Brahman is also described as devoid of all attributes, along with passages that glorify brahman as isvara, the Lord of this universe, with infinite attributes.

Nirguna and Saguna brahman

To resolve such passages in the Upanisads, advaita vedanta maintains that really brahman is devoid of all attributes, and is therefore known as nirguna. brahman may be described as in the Upanisads, as Truth (satyam), Knowledge (jnanam), Infinite (anantam), or as Being (sat), Consciousness (cit), Bliss (ananda), but none of these terms can be truly interpreted as attributes ofbrahman as a Super-person/God. Rather, it is because brahman exists, that this whole universe is possible. It is because brahman exists that man ascribes attributes to brahman. However, brahman’s true nature cannot be captured in words, for all these attributes are ultimately just words. Hence, it is man’s ignorance of Its true nature that postulates attributes to brahman, thereby describing It in saguna terms (with attributes). This saguna brahman is isvara, the Lord, whose essential reality as brahman is not dependent on anything else, and does not change because of the production of this universe. Therefore,advaita holds that brahman’s own nature (svarupa-laksana) is devoid of any attributes (nirguna), while It is seen for the temporary purposes of explaining creation ( tatastha-laksana) to be isvara, with attributes (saguna).

So much for saguna and nirguna brahman. If brahman cannot be held to have suffered any change because of creation of the universe, then what is the status of this universe? Since the cause does not undergo any change in the process of producing the effect, it is held that the cause alone is Real. The universe only partakes in reality inasmuch as it is to be considered as dependent on brahman. Therefore the Upanishads say, “sarvam khalvidam brahma.” If the universe is considered to be independent of brahman, then it has no real Reality, although the world of human perception can never reveal this truth. This is simply because brahman Itself is never an object of human perception. It is this characteristic of dualistic knowledge, derived from perception alone, that prompts the advaitin to call it mithyajnana (false knowledge).

Avidya and Maya

Why does human perception fail to see brahman directly? Sankaracarya attributes it sometimes to avidya (ignorance) and sometimes to maya (the power to deceive). As the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad puts it, ” vijnataram. are kena vijaniyat? ” – How is the Knower Itself to be known? It also stands to reason, therefore, that any effort at characterizing brahman falls far short of brahman. No words reach brahman; how can mere verbal descriptions claim to describe It? advaita now turns to the ancient technique of adhyaropa-apavada(sublation of superimposition) to explain this. Thus, although brahman is called the instrumental and material cause of the universe, advaita tells us that this is only a preliminary view of brahman, motivated by a need to explain creation of the universe. In order to understand brahman, one has to go beyond this preliminary view, and understand brahman in Itself, not necessarily in relation to the universe. Then it is understood that the whole universe is only superimposed on the underlying Reality that is brahman. To really knowbrahman, one needs to sublate this superimposition, and look at the substratum (adhistana ) that is brahman. As for the exact nature of avidya and maya, later authors seem divided into two major schools of thought, namely the bhamatiand the vivarana schools.

Brahman = Atman

What then of the human self, the jiva? It is here that advaita comes up with the most radical answer, one that is unacceptable to all other schools of vedanta. According to advaita, what is called the universe is in reality not other thanbrahman. Similarly, what is called the jiva is in reality, the atman, which is also nothing other than brahman Itself. The real jiva is the atman, which is unchanging, ever free, and identical with brahman. This is said on the basis of upanishadic passages where the atman is explicitly equated with brahman. This equation of atman with brahman is also explained by means ofadhyaropa-apavada . By sublating the superimposition of human shortcomings and attributes on the atman, the pure atman, the substratum, shines forth as brahman Itself. The mani-fold universe and the individual self, which considers itself bound, are both superimposed upon that Transcendental Reality which isbrahman. Once the superimposition is understood for what it is, the individual is no more an individual, the universe is no more the universe – all is brahman.

This doctrine of advaita should not be misinterpreted to mean that the human self is in and of itself God, without any qualification whatsoever. Sankaracarya most emphatically asserts that such is not his intention. On the other hand, he is at great pains to point out that one who is desirous of moksa needs to overcome his human shortcomings in order to achieve full liberation. Sankara prescribes rigorous prerequisite qualities for the person who is to study vedanta. These form the practical aspect of the effort to rise above and sublate the characteristics of the human jiva, in order to understand the atman /brahman. The non-dual reality of the atman is revealed to the intense seeker, as an experience that defies words. One might call it a mystic experience ofbrahman, in which to know brahman is to be brahman. Thus, rather than being atheistic or non- theistic, advaita-vedanta is meta-theistic: it points to the basic underlying Reality of all, including what humans call God, what humans call the universe, and what humans call human. This Reality is the unchangeable brahman.

Tattvam Asi

At this juncture, it is instructive to look at the advaitin interpretation of theChandogya statement tattvamasi , following Sankaracarya. This is one of the four statements that have become well- known as the Upanishadicmahavakyas, which equate atman with brahman. The four most importantmahavakyas (one from each veda) are:

– ” ayamatma brahma ” (Mundaka)

– ” tattvam asi ” (Chandogya)

– ” aham brahmasmi ” (Brhadaranyaka)

– ” prajnanam brahma ” (Aitareya)

Sankara explains tattvam asi as follows. Tat is a common designation for brahman in the Upanisads, while tvam (thou) addresses the student. The sentence states an equation of two seemingly different entities tat – that, andtvam – thou, by means of the verb asi – are. In general, brahman ( tat ) is commonly understood as isvara (saguna brahman), with an infinity of attributes, including the power of creation. Tvam is the individual who is bound, who is embodied, and who is in need of liberation. The difference between tvam and tat seems to be a matter of common knowledge for all individuals. What is the reason for the Upanishad to teach an identity then? An identity cannot be stipulated, even in infallible sruti, if there is a real difference. Keeping in mind that sruti is infallible, advaita therefore concludes that really there is no ultimate difference between tat and tvam.

The identity expressed in a statement like tattvam asi is therefore held to be Real, and its realization constitutes the height of knowledge (jnana). Direct experience of this jnana is in fact moksha. It also follows that since this identity is not perceived normally, difference arises out of avidya , ignorance of the true nature of Reality. Since sruti is superior to perception, this identity is indeed the supreme truth, all difference being in the realm of relative perception. If non-dualism is the true nature of Reality, why is this difference perceived in the first place? Given advaita’s basis on the non-dualistic scriptures, the perception of difference remains, in the final analysis, inexplicable. This is labeled “anirvacya/anirvacaniya ” in advaita – something that can never be fully understood by the human mind. Since perception of duality presupposes avidya, no amount of logical analysis, itself based on this duality, will satisfactorily explain avidya. Hence, Sankaracarya is not much interested in explicatingavidya, except to acknowledge its presence in all human activity, and in trying to overcome it to understand brahman.

Vyavahara and Paramartha

This exegesis of scripture leads to the well-known advaitic doctrine of two levels of understanding: vyavaharika satya (phenomenal or relative reality or just “reality”, where duality is seen) and paramarthika satya (transcendental reality, or “Reality”, non-duality). One important upanishadic source foradvaita vedanta’s theory of two levels of truth is the analysis of the atman as “neti, neti ” – not this, not this. This is from the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. ThisUpanisad also describes the highest state of the atman in purely non-dualistic terms – ” yatra tvasya sarvam atmaivabhut, tatra kena kam pasyet? ….. vijnataram are kena vijaniyat? ” – Where the atman alone has become all this, how is one to see another? ….. How is the Knower to be Known? Most advaitins point to the quotation from the Brhadaranyaka that immediately precedes this: ” yatra tu dvaitamiva bhavati, … ” -where there is duality, as it were, … – as the scriptural basis for saying that perception of duality is an appearance only, “as it were” and not the supreme Reality. This rejection of all characterization as partial at best, and ultimately untrue, means that the atman is beyond all duality, and all attempts to describe It fail, because language itself presupposes duality. This via negativa approach is very much favored inadvaita-vedanta. This emphasis on identifying the atman with brahman by means of sublating the commonly understood characteristics of each term, to affirm the real nature of the atman, is central to advaita-vedanta.

Note: The standard vedantic position is that brahman is both the material and the instrumental cause of the universe. This is a notion shared by advaita,visistadvaita and the various bhedabheda schools of vedanta. The dvaitaschool denies that brahman can be the material cause of the universe, and (in my opinion) goes against the brahma-sutras in the process.

References:

There is a large body of literature on advaita vedanta. Check the bibliography page for a list of references.

Last updated on May 5, 1999.

 

 

—-

 

These articles about Sankara Acarya were obtained with permission from:http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp

Sankara Acarya

Page 4–Monastic Tradition

 

The advaita tradition can be described in terms of two aspects – the textual/philosophical tradition of commentaries and sub-commentaries to thevedanta works, and the religious tradition of renunciation (sannyasa), which is emphasized to a great deal in Sankaracarya’s works. The two aspects are quite intimately related to each other – most of the notable authors in the advaitatradition were members of the sannyasa tradition, and both sides of the tradition share the same values, attitudes and metaphysics. The philosophical tradition is described in other pages at this site. This page is devoted to the sannyasatradition which continues to the present day. Sankara is traditionally said to have organized the Dasa-nami-sampradaya and established four mathas (monasteries) at Sringeri (in Karnataka), Puri (in Orissa), Dvaraka (in Gujarat) and Jyotirmath (in Uttar Pradesh). These mathas are representative of the geography of India, with one monastery each in the eastern, southern, western and northern regions. The successive heads of these and other advaita mathasare also called Sankaracaryas, after the original founder. In fact, Sankara is often called Adi Sankaracarya, or the first Sankaracarya, in order to distinguish him from his successors.

The dasa-nami sampradaya

The dasa-nami order is so called because of the ten (dasa) name (nama) suffixes which these sannyasis adopt. These names are – bharati, sarasvati, sagara, tirtha, puri, asrama, giri, parvata, aranya and vana. These ten names are supposed to be distributed among the four mathas. However, the affiliation is nominal at best. The dasa-nami sannyasis do not have to be ordained at one of the mathas, nor do they have to reside at a matha for any period of time. On the other hand, they are supposed to be peripatetic (parivrajaka – monks who constantly keep traveling), with no fixed home, except for the period ofcaturmasya in the rainy season, when they stay put at one place. The heads of the mathas are also supposed to travel around the country for the better part of the year.

In northern India, the dasa-nami sannyasis are organized into a number ofakhadas – juna, niranjani, mahanirvani, atal, avahan, ananda and agni. Except for the agni akhada, which is is for brahmacAri initiates, the membership of all other akhadas is made up of dasa-nami monks. Theseakhadas have leaders known as maha–mandalesvaras, who are usually elected during a kumbha mela [1,2,3]. The kumbha mela also offers an opportunity forakhadas to initiate large numbers of new sannyasis. The dasa-nami sannyasistend to have only a nominal affiliation with their mathas, but most maintain a closer relationship with their akhadas. Among the ten names, aranya, asrama, parvata, vana and sagara are quite rarely seen nowadays. All dasa-namimonks belong to the tradition of ekadandi sannyasa. They carry a staff consisting of a single wooden stick, symbolizing the essential identity ofbrahman and atman.

It is important to remember that the advaita sampradaya is not a Saiva sect. The fact that both the prominent non-advaita schools of vedanta are Vaisnava leads to a confusion among many modern researchers, who uncritically talk of all dasa-nami sannyasis as being Saiva ascetics. In reality, advaitins are non-sectarian, and they advocate worship of Siva and Visnu equally with that of the other deities of Hinduism, like Sakti, Ganapati and others. Modern neo-vedantins, who are most strongly influenced by advaita–vedanta, have no trouble accepting Moses, Christ and Muhammad also. Philosophically, classicaladvaita would disagree as much with the Saiva-siddhanta and the Saivavedanta schools, as with the Vaisnava schools of vedanta. On the other hand, the God Siva is the archetype of the ascetic, and advaita–vedanta lays great emphasis on sannyasa. Saiva schools also tend to be more non-dualistic in outlook than Vaisnava schools, and Sankaracarya himself is venerated as an incarnation of Siva. Hence, the contemporary Sankaracaryas do wield a larger degree of influence among Saiva communities than among Vaisnavacommunities, but that does not necessarily make them exclusively Saivaascetics. The famous Madhusudana Sarasvati was an ardent devotee of Krsna, while Prakasananda was a sakti-worshipper.

The major following of the gurus of the advaita tradition has been mostly among the smartas, who integrate the domestic Vedic ritual with devotional aspects of Hinduism. The traditional pancayatana puja scheme of smartaworship is offered to Siva, Visnu, Sakti, Ganesa and Surya, as aspects ofsaguna brahman. Skanda is sometimes added as the sixth important deity who is worshipped, especially in the south. The smartas also regard themselves as followers of Sankaracarya and his successors at the various mathas, but there is a lot of regional variation in this regard.

The Amnaya Mathas

The four mathas established by Sankara are known in the tradition as theamnaya mathas. Sankara is said to have assigned one of the four vedas to each of these mathas, and the AcAryas and paNDitas of these four mathas continue the tradition to this day. Accordingly, the Puri maTha is associated with the Rg veda, Sringeri with yajurveda, Dvaraka with sAma veda and Jyotirmath with atharva veda. The ten daSanAmI suffixes are distributed among these fourmathas – according to most traditions, puri, bharati and sarasvati with Sringeri;tirtha and asrama with Dvaraka; sagara, parvata and giri with Jyotirmath, andvana and aranya with Puri. Many notable post-Sankaran authors, including Suresvara, Jnanaghana, Jnanottama, Anandagiri, Bharati Tirtha, Vidyaranya and others, can be found among the heads of these mathas. Of these four, Sringeri is the only institution that has had an unbroken line of succession fromSankara. Among the other three mathas, the succession has been interrupted at one time or the other, for a variety of historical reasons. The longest hiatus in the line of succession was in the case of Jyotirmath, where the seat lay vacant for around 165 years. In the recent past, the Sringeri matha has been involved, directly or indirectly, in stabilizing the line of succession in the other threemathas.

From L to R: Sri Svarupananda Sarasvati (Jyotirmath), Sri Abhinava VidyaTirtha (Sringeri), Sri Niranjana Deva Tirtha (Puri), Sri Abhinava Saccidananda Tirtha (Dvaraka) – Meeting at Sringeri in 1979.

The successor to the title in a matha is usually nominated by the presidingSankaracarya of that matha. It is quite normal to see Sankaracaryas who have become sannyasis directly from the student life, without ever having beengrhasthas. This is especially the norm in the Sringeri lineage. Thus, aSankaracarya can be a very young man, sometimes barely out of his teens, when he takes charge at his mathas. On the other hand, the Puri lineage has seen many heads who have become sannyasins quite late in their lives, after passing through the grhastha stage. In cases where a Sankaracarya passes away without nominating a successor, or if there is a dispute about the succession, the head of one of the other mathas is consulted to resolve the issue. Within this century itself, there have been instances where theSankaracaryas of Sringeri, Dvaraka, and Puri have been called upon to resolve succession issues in one of the other mathas. The Sringeri lineage names thirty-six successors to the Sankaracarya title, while Dvaraka has about seventy. The Puri list of Sankaracaryas has more than 140 names to date. The larger number of names in these two lists is probably because many of the presidingSankaracaryas have been former grhasthas, who took charge at a comparatively older age and consequently held charge for shorter periods. The line of the Jyotirmath has many gaps in it, an unfortunate circumstance of history.

The position of the Sankaracaryas in modern Hinduism has often (quite wrongly) been compared to that of the Pope in Roman Catholicism. The fourSankaracaryas do not issue catechisms for all Hindus, nor do they claim sole right to decide on doctrinal issues. Sri-mukhams issued by the mathas are very different in nature from papal bulls or encyclicals, and unlike the Vatican City , the four mathas do not enjoy sovereign status. Rather, they are governed by the federal and state laws on religious and charitable trusts and endowments in independent India, and are often answerable to governmental bodies.

However, this should not be construed to mean that the Sankaracaryas are insignificant or that their importance is overrated. They are held in high respect by almost all sections of Hindus, but they also tend to get blamed by the modern media, somewhat unfairly, for everything that goes wrong in Hindu society! For all that, however, the Sankaracaryas generally lead quiet, secluded lives, as befits monks, and tend to avoid media attention. There are, of course, exceptions to this norm, and recent developments in India, especially the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue, have forced all of them to take more active roles in public life.

Recent history of the four Amnaya Mathas

Sringeri

Sri “Ugra” Narasimha Bharati (1817 – 1878) was well-known throughout India as a very saintly personality. He travelled far and wide, and had disciples all over India and even in Sri Lanka. He was succeeded by Sri SaccidanandaSivabhinava Narasimha Bharati (1878 – 1912), who rediscovered Kaladi, AdiSankaracaryas birth-place, and instituted Sankara Jayanti celebrations all over India. He also arranged for the publication of a comprehensive collection ofSankara’s works, and initiated the practice of having the various Sankaracaryas meet for informal discussion and decision making. Following his lead, meetings took place at Kaladi, Hardwar, Prayag etc. His successor, Sri Candrasekhara Bharati (1912 to 1954), was an acclaimed jivan-mukta . He wrote a commentary to Sankara’s Viveka-cudamami. The first meeting of all fourSankaracaryas ( caturamnaya-sammelanam ) in the 1200 year old tradition of post-Sankaran advaita, took place at Sringeri, in 1979, under the leadership ofSri Abhinava Vidya Tirtha (1954 – 1989). Sri Bharati Tirtha, the presidingSankaracarya of Sringeri, succeeded to the title in 1989. The Sankaracaryas of the four amnaya mathas and the head of the Kanci matha held another conference at Sringeri in 1993, following the events of December 1992 at ayodhyA, to express their concern at the politicization of religious issues, and resolved to lead a non-political effort to solve the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue amicably.

Contact Address: Swami Bharati Tirtha, Jagadguru Sankaracharya, (or Sri V. R. Gowrishankar, Adminstrator), Sri Sringeri Math, Sri Sringeri Sarada Peetham, Sringeri, Karnataka 577 139, INDIA.

Dvaraka

Sri Trivikrama Tirtha was the head of the Dvaraka matha till the year 1921. He was succeeded by Sri Bharati Krsna Tirtha, who had a very interesting career. Beginning as a student of vedAnta at Sringeri, he became a sannyAsin underSri Trivikrama Tirtha of Dvaraka, and succeeded to the Sankaracarya post at Dvaraka, in 1921. Soon after the first world war, he was >prosecuted along with the Ali brothers and other Muslim leaders, by the colonial British government for treason, in connection with his involvement in the Indian Independence movement, and his support of the Khilafat movement. He is also said to have discovered some ancient sutras of basic arithmetic, which have been published as a book, under the title “Vedic mathematics”. He was asked to take over the Puri matha in 1925, when that seat fell vacant. Accordingly,Sri Svarupananda Tirtha and Sri Yogesvarananda Tirtha followed at the Dvaraka seat. In the year 1945, Sri Abhinava Saccidananda Tirtha was nominated as the Sankaracarya of Dvaraka, with Sri Bharati Krsna Tirtha performing the installation ceremonies. Before taking over at Dvaraka, SriAbhinava Saccidananda Tirtha was the head of the Mulabagal Matha in Karnataka. This was an old branch of the Dvaraka matha, established in the 17th century, and with his appointment to the Dvaraka seat, the collateral lineage of Mulabagal matha was merged with that of Dvaraka. In later years, he was called upon to mediate the succession issues at both Puri and Jyotirmath. He also renovated the samadhi site of adi Sankara at Kedarnath with assistance from the government of Uttar Pradesh. He passed away in 1982, following which Sri Svarupananda Sarasvati of Jyotirmath assumed charge at Dvaraka. Sri Abhinava Vidya Tirtha of Sringeri consecrated his appointment, and Sri Svarupananda has held dual charge at both Dvaraka and Jyotirmath since then.

Contact Address: Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati, Dvaraka Peeth, Dvaraka, Gujarat 361 335, INDIA.

(or) Sri Rajarajeswari Mandir, Paramhansi Ganga, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 002, INDIA.

Puri

This matha is historically connected with the famous Jagannatha temple in Puri. It is also called the Govardhana matha, and has an important branch in Puri itself, called the Sankarananda matha. In the beginning of the century, the head was Sri Sankara Madhusudana Tirtha. Sri Bharati Krsna Tirtha, who was then at Dvaraka, took over as the Sankaracarya of Puri in 1925. Sri BharatiKrsna Tirtha visited the USA in the 1950’s, at the invitation of the Self-Realization Fellowship. During this time, Sri Sankara Purusottama Tirthasupervised the Puri matha on his behalf. After Sri Bharati Krsna Tirtha passed away in 1960, he was succeeded by Sri Yogesvarananda Tirtha, whose period was quite short, as he passed away in 1961. This lead to a brief period of uncertainty during which the succession at the matha was being litigated. In 1964, Sri Niranjana Deva Tirtha, who was one of the nominees named in SriBharati Krsna TirthaÕs will, was consecrated at the Puri seat by Sri abhinava saccidAnanda Tirtha of Dvaraka. SrI niranjana deva Tirtha is known for his unpopular political views on volatile issues affecting Hindu people, like sati and cow protection. In 1992, he stepped down after nominating SriNiscalananda Sarasvati as his successor, who is currently in charge at Puri.

Contact Address: Swami Niscalananda Sarasvati, Puri Govardhan Math, Puri, Orissa 752 001, INDIA.

Jyotirmath: Also known as Joshimath, it is located near Badrinath in the Himalayas, because of which it is also known as the Badrinath matha. After a long hiatus of 165 years, this matha was revived in the year 1941, under SriBrahmananda Sarasvati, a disciple of Sri Krsnananda Sarasvati, who was originally from Sringeri. The appointment was made by a committee of pundits from Varanasi, and Sri Brahmananda’s accomplishments helped re-establish the Jyotirmath as an important center of traditional advaita teaching in northern India. When he passed away in 1953, Sri Santananda Sarasvati succeeded him at this seat, according to the terms of a will. However, there was a dispute regarding the capacity of Sri Santananda for the title and also about the validity of this will. This resulted in a major controversy that remains unresolved.

Karapatri Swami (Hariharananda Sarasvati), a well-known disciple of SrI brahmAnanda, was asked to take over the Jyotirmath title, but he declined. To resolve the dispute, another committee of pundits from Varanasi was formed, under the guidance of Karapatri Swami and Sri Abhinava Saccidananda Tirtha of Dvaraka. Sri Krsnabodhasrama was appointed as the new head of thematha. When he passed away in the early 1970’s, he nominated SriSvarupananda Sarasvati, another disciple of Sri Brahmananda, as his successor.Sri Svarupananda continues as the Sankaracarya of Jyotirmath, and has also been in charge of Dvaraka since 1982.

Some people consider the rightful succession of the Jyotirmath title to be along the disciple line of Sri SantAnanda Sarasvati. He is said to have retired in 1980, in favor of his disciple, Sri Visnudevananda Sarasvati, who has since passed away. Sri SantAnanda also passed away in December 1997, and has been succeeded by Sri Vasudevananda Sarasvati. Thus, there are at least two separate lineages at Jyotirmath currently, although it is Sri Svarupananda Sarasvati who is endorsed by the other Amnaya mathas.

There is a third ascetic, named Sri Madhavasrama , who is another claimant to the Jyotirmath title, who contests both the claims of Sri Svarupananda and SriVasudevananda. Sri Madhavasrama is a disciple of Sri Krsnabodhasrama, who was nominated to the Jyotirmath title in the 1960’s. His contention is that SriSvarupananda cannot be accepted as the head of two different amnaya mathas(Dvaraka and Jyotirmath), so that the Jyotirmath title has to revert to another disciple of Sri Krsnabodhasrama. According to publications supporting his claim, he was anointed in 1993 or 1994, under the guidance of Sri Niranjana Deva Tirtha, the former Sankaracarya of Puri. Thus, the dispute between two parties for the title of Jyotirmath Sankaracarya has now become a dispute among three different parties.

Contact Addresses: Sri Sankaracharya Math, Joshimath, Badrinath, Uttar Pradesh 246 443, INDIA.

Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati: Sri Rajarajeswari Mandir, Paramhansi Ganga, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 002, INDIA.

Swami Vasudevananda Saraswati: Shankar Math, Allope Bagh, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh 211 001, INDIA.

Swami Madhavashrama: Sri Keshav Ashram, Haridwar, Uttar Pradesh 249 401, INDIA

Other mathas: Other than the four amnaya mathas, there are a number of well-known mathas owing allegiance to advaita and the Sankaracarya lineage. Many of them were originally branches of one of the four amnaya mathas, established officially by the parent matha, and which grew into more or less independent institutions over time. Notable among these are the branch mathasat Kumbhakonam (now based in Kancipuram, Contact Address: No. 1, Salai Street, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu 631 502, INDIA ), Sankhesvar, Kudali, Virupaksha (Hampi), Kolhapur (Karavir pITham), Sivaganga, Sakatapuram etc. In recent times, the matha at Kancipuram has been very active. Sometimes, notable sannyasis of the dasa-nami order start their own mathas, to cater to the spiritual needs of their followers. An example is the famous Upanisad Brahmendra matha at Kancipuram, which was founded in the 18th century by Ramacandrendra Sarasvati. Sometimes, succession controversies (as in the present Jyotirmath) also leads to the establishment of separate mathas. A fewmathas of the nambudiri community in Kerala also trace their foundation toSankara himself, as do the sumeru and paduka mathas in Varanasi. However, the Kavale matha of the gauda sarasvata community in Goa traces its origin in 740 CE not to Sankaracarya, but through another disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpada.

In general, the various mathas in India operate quite independent of one another. The Sankaracarya of the four original mathas do not normally interfere with one another, nor do they seek to exercise any control, administrative or spiritual, on any of the other advaita mathas in India, unless specifically requested to do so. Although their heads are sannyasis who lead completely detached lives, the advaita mathas are not immune to contemporary social and political pressures. Some mathas deal with these pressures better than others. Manifestations of these pressures can be seen in the sometimes acrimonious rivalries between followers of two different mathas, as also in the recurrent succession disputes in some of them. Such succession disputes sometimes lead to protracted litigation and the establishment of independent mathas elsewhere.

Modern Institutions: In addition to the more traditional advaita mathas andakhadas, various sannyasis of the dasa-nami order have established some of the more well-known modern institutions, like the Ramakrishna Math and Mission (Swami Vivekananda), the Self-Realization Fellowship (Paramahamsa Yogananda), the Divine Life Society (Swami Sivananda), Yoga Vedanta Center (Swami Vishnudevananda), the Chinmaya Mission (Swami Cinmayananda), and others. Among these, the founders of the Ramakrishna Mission, the Divine Life Society and the Chinmaya Mission trace their spiritual descent through the Sringeri parampara. The Self-Realization Fellowship has links to the Puri parampara. These organizations usually teach some variant or the other of advaita–vedanta, generally combined with yoga practice, or an acceptance of the prophets of the Semitic religions, and/or an emphasis on social service. These modern institutions tend to have as much a presence in the West as in India, and their ideologies have come to be called by the generic name of neo-vedanta. It remains to be seen whether these institutions will be the catalysts for the growth of a truly universal philosophy/religion that has been a dream of most of their founders.

There have been countless other nameless, realized masters over the centuries, who have realized the non-dual brahman. As a living tradition of philosophy and religion, advaita is not always restricted to dasa–nami sannyasis in the lineage of Sankaracarya. For example, within the 20th century CE, one has the example of the famous mystic Sri Ramana Maharishi (1879 – 1950), who did not formally take sannyasa, but was nevertheless a jivanmukta, who taught pure advaita.

Bibliography:

Sir Jadunath Sarkar, A history of Dasnami Naga Sanyasis , Mahanirvani, Allahabad, 1946 .

LC Call No.: n.a.

G. S. Ghurye (with L. N. Chapekar), Indian Sadhus , Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1st ed., 1953 , 2nd ed., 1964 .

LC Call No.: Microfilm BUL-ENG-111 (B)

Haripada Chakraborti, Asceticism in ancient India in Brahmanical, Buddhist, Jaina, and Ajivika societies, from the earliest times to the period of Sankaracharya , Punthi Pustak, Calcutta, 1973 .

LC Call No.: BL2015.A8 C47

Swami Sadananda Giri, Society and sannyasin – a history of the Dasnami sannyasins , Kriyayoga Asrama, Rishikesh, 1976 .

LC Call No.: BL1245.D27 S2

William Cenkner, A tradition of teachers: Sankara and The Jagadgurus Today, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1983 .

LC Call No.: B133.S5 C44 1983

Yoshitsugu Sawai, The faith of ascetics and lay smartas: a study of the Sankaran tradition of Srngeri , Sammlung de Nobili, InstitŸt fŸr Indologie der Universitþt Wien (Institute of Indology, University of Vienna), 1992 .

LC Call No.: acquisition in progress (as of September 9, 1997)

Maulana Mohammed Ali ,The historic trial of Ali brothers, Dr. Kitchlew, Shri Shankaracharya, Maulana Hussain Ahmed, Pir Ghulam Mujaddid and Maulana Nisar Ahmed , “New Times” Office, Karachi, 1921 , with a foreword by Mahatma Gandhi.

Wade Dazey, Tradition and Modernization in the Organization of the Dasanami Sannyasins , in Monastic life in the Christian and Hindu traditions – a comparative study , Austin Creel and Vasudha Narayanan (eds.), Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston (NY), 1990 .

LC Call No.: BL631 .M65 1990

Wade Dazey, The Dasanami Order and Monastic Life , Ph. D. dissertation, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara, 1987.

 

—-

 

These articles about Sankara Acarya were obtained with permission from:http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp

Sankara Acarya

Page 2–Date Controversy

 

Determining Sankara’s Date. An Overview of Ancient Sources and Modern Literature

The Sources

Placing Sankara in a period according to the modern calendar is a difficult problem. The official date accepted currently is 788-820 CE, and the Government of India celebrated the 1200th anniversary of Sankara’s birth in 1988. This date is largely based upon one traditional view prevalent in India.[1] However, the date is still open to question, as pointed out by Swami Tapasyananda in his translation of the <Madhaviya-sankara-vijayam.[2] This difficulty is experienced for almost all personalities in Indian history, due to paucity of proper records and conflicting traditions current in different parts of the country. As far as the problem of dating Sankara is concerned, our sources of information are: internal evidence from Sankara’s works, the astronomical details recorded in some of the Sankara-vijayams, and the traditional accounts kept in the advaita mathas in India.

Internal Evidence

Of these three sources, a lot of scholarly work has been done in the recent past, analyzing the internal evidence from Sankara’s works. The date now seems to be converging to the early 8th century CE.[3] The most important internal evidence comes from Sankara’s verbatim quotation of Dharmakirti, the buddhist logician. Hsuan Tsang , the Chinese pilgrim, who visited India in the time of Harshavardhana, king of Thanesar (606 – 647 CE), gives clues to Dharmakirti’s date. He also mentions Bhartrhari , but not of Sankara. It follows that Sankara is post-Dharmakirti, and possibly post-Hsuan-Tsang also. Critical academic scholars are converging to a date near 700 CE for Sankara’s period.

Astronomical Details

The astronomical details in the various Sankara-vijaya texts are not of much use. More often than not, the details in one work contradict those in another, and one cannot rely on any of them unless one is preferentially biased to accept one of the Sankara–vijayas as more authoritative than the others. Dates ranging from the 5th cent BCE to 8th cent CE have been calculated on the basis of such astronomical details. One further complication is that some astronomical information is said to have been obtained from works which are not available anywhere in India. So it is difficult even to authenticate the astronomical details from their supposed sources. Also, not all the currently available texts titled Sankara–vijaya are accepted as authoritative within the living advaita tradition. Under the circumstances, it should be noted that the astronomical references in one text is only as good or as bad as all the other such details in other texts, and no firm conclusion can be drawn about their validity.

Records of Mathas:

Whether Sankara established any mathas at all has been questioned in the modern literature. Thus, Paul Hacker attributes the tradition of four amnaya-mathas at Sringeri, Puri, Dvaraka and Joshimath to Vidyaranyasvamin. The native oral tradition, however, takes the history of these four mathas, each associated with one of the four geographical directions and one of the four vedas, to Sankaracarya himself. The dasanami sannyasi-sampradaya, with its various akhadas in northern India, accepts affiliation only with these fourmathas, though such affiliation is largely nominal. There seems to be some historical evidence for the existence of the oldest dasanami akhadas as early as the 9th cent. CE. [4] However, as Swami Tapasyananda points out, the evidence of the dasanami sannyasi tradition has never been properly taken into account in the modern literature. It seems very likely that the tradition of four amnaya-mathas reflects historical fact. It is immaterial whether Sankara established them himself or whether these four mathas developed naturally at the places where the four famous disciples of Sankara lived and taught. It is clear that even if they were not actually established by Sankara himself, the four amnaya-mathas came into existence early in the history of post-Sankaranadvaita–vedanta.

Of these four mathas, the Joshimath title had long been vacant, till it was revived in 1940 CE. Consequently, it does not have many ancient records. The Dvaraka and Puri mathas have, in the past, claimed a date of 5th century BCE for Sankara. This is partly based upon a dating of a grant by a king named Sudhanva who is supposed to have been a contemporary of Sankara. Nothing else is known about this king, and the grant itself has not been dated with any accuracy. In any case, it should be remembered that the records of the Dvaraka and Puri mathas are rather fragmentary, because they have had patchy histories, with periods when there were no presiding Sankaracaryas. This is also accepted by the administrations of these institutions, and they do not hold to the 5th century BCE date with absolute certainty. Meanwhile, Sringeri has been the only matha of the original four which has had an unbroken succession of mathadhipatis. This may be no more than an accident of history, as southern India has not experienced as many political upheavals as the north. Given these facts, among the traditional sources, only the Sringeri records seem to lend themselves to critical historical analysis.

The Sringeri matha’s record states that Sankara was born in the 14th year of the reign of Vikramaditya. The record does not give any clue about the identity of this king. Some 19th century researchers identified this king with the famous Vikramaditya of the Gupta dynasty, thereby postulating a date of 44 BCE for Sankara. A period of more than 700 years was then assigned to Suresvara, because the later successors in the Sringeri list can all be dated reasonably accurately from the 8th century downwards. This is rather anomalous, and can be resolved quite neatly, as pointed out by Mr. B. Lewis Rice in his Mysore Gazetteer. [5]

If one identifies the Vikramaditya as a member of the Western Calukya dynasty, which ruled from Badami in Karnataka, one gets a much more reasonable date for Sankara. The Calukya dynasty reached its greatest fame in the time of Pulakesin II, a contemporary of Harshavardhana. According to historians, there were two kings named Vikramaditya in this Calukya dynasty – Vikramaditya I ruled in the late 7th century CE, while Vikramaditya II ruled in the early 8th century. [ 6] However, there is still some ambiguity with respect to which of these two Vikramadityas is actually meant, but as with most Indian historical records, this is the best one can do. It is more reasonable to identify the Vikramaditya of the Sringeri record with one of these two Calukyan kings, who ruled from Karnataka, rather than the northern gupta king, whose empire did not include southern India. This interpretation of the Sringeri record is also consistent with the internal evidence from Sankara’s works. In either case, this implies that the earliest date that one can postulate for Sankara has to be in the late 7th century CE. Swami Tapasyananda also quotes a letter from Sringeri, which makes it clear that this matha claims nothing more than what its record states, interpretation of dates being the historian’s job. [7] This is the sensible approach to take, given the fact that traditions in India tend to be rather ambiguous in their chronology.

In addition to these four original mathas, a number of other advaita mathashave come into being over the centuries, some of which are quite well-known. These mathas either started out as branches of the original institutions, or were set up as independent monasteries by notable sannyasis of the dasa-namiorder. With the proliferation of such mathas came a number of “traditions,” many of them conflicting with one another in details. For example, some of these mathas also claim to have been established by Sankara himself. [8] Some of them also claim 5th century BCE to be the date of Sankara.

Conflicting Traditions

Historically, such claims often resulted in serious conflicts with the traditions of the undisputed four. The propagation of such conflicts was helped by the fact that the various advaita mathas had become politically influential institutions, with access to land and revenue donated by various rulers at different times. It is a fact that this has led to fierce rivalries in the past among the followers of different mathas. Such rivalries are not unknown in northern India, but they have particularly been the cause of many problems in southern Indian sources. This is probably because of the intimate connection of the founders of the Vijayanagara empire with the Sringeri matha, and the competition by other mathadhipatis in the south for similar honors as traditionally accorded to the Sringeri matha. Every southern matha with a claim to be the “original” one wants to deny Sringeri’s chronological primacy. This denial only has the effect of reinforcing the fact that Sringeri has been the most important advaita matha for centuries before any of the other matha even came into being. As such, their conflicting claims about Sankara’s date have to be evaluated in the context of their political motivations in putting forth such dates.

While most of the conflicts among the various mathas can be dismissed as petty polemics, or as “bazaar gossip,” as Swami Tapasyananda does, a serious historian needs to be aware of these problems among the traditional sources. No “tradition” about chronology should be accepted without critical analysis. For example, I find Swami Tapasyananda unwittingly contradicting himself in his introduction to the translation of the Madhaviya, because he tries to concede as much as possible to all kinds of contrary “traditional” dates. There is no need to consider seriously the claim that 788 CE is the date of one “abhinava Sankara,” and to conclude that Sankara’s date must therefore be much earlier. Firstly, the name abhinava Sankara is mostly used only as a title of respect. Thus, one such abhinava Sankara, the author of the Srirudra-bhasya , was called Rama Brahmananda Tirtha, but he lived much later than the 8th century. [9] Even in the 20th century, various sannyasins have been titled “abhinava Sankara” by their followers [10 ]. There may have been many such abhinava Sankaras over the centuries, but there is no independent evidence for the existence of someone named “abhinava Sankara” in the 8th cent. CE. Secondly, Sankara, the writer of bhasyas to the Brahma-sutras andUpanisads, is the Sankaracarya who is relevant for the history of advaita-vedanta. When internal evidence from the bhasyakara’s undisputed works shows that he lived not earlier than the 8th century CE, it follows that this “abhinava Sankara” theory is not sufficient reason for positing a date much earlier than the 8th century CE for Sankara himself.

Similarly, I find some of Prof. Karl Potter’s statements to be quite misleading. [3] That a fifth advaita matha at Kancipuram is very active today, does not mean that it has always been so, nor does such activity lend any special credibility to its claims to antiquity. The political influence and prestige that amatha enjoys today also do not confer any legitimacy to such claims. It is inconceivable that the dasa-nami-sampradaya would have overlooked a fifthmatha in choosing its affiliations. Claims to historicity that are made in a spirit of political one-upmanship seldom stand up to serious scrutiny. There is no necessary correlation between the modern activity of an advaita matha and its claimed antiquity. Prof. Potter has also not consulted available historical evidence that enables us to date the origin of this fifth mathas. [11 ] There will be no cause for confusion if such independent evidence is also taken into account. Moreover, in addition to the four amnaya-mathas and a well-known fifth institution at Kancipuram, there are numerous other mathas in India, whose traditions are at least as valid as those of the Kanci matha. To be really impartial, the traditions of all these other minor mathas in India should also be taken into account, but such a study has not attracted any scholarly attention.

The 5th cent. BCE date can be rejected without much discussion. It is much too early, and Sankara cannot be reasonably held to have been a contemporary of the Buddha. The only objection to this rejection of such an early date comes from those who believe that the actual date of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, should be earlier than the 9th cent. BCE, possibly as early as the 18th cent. BCE. Based on such an early date for the Buddha, it is argued that the possibility of a 5th cent. BCE date for Sankara should be taken seriously. However, all the available evidence points to the 5th cent. BCE as the best possible period for dating the Buddha. In any case, the proponents of the 5th cent. BCE date for Sankara also seem to forget that the evidence of Hsuan Tsang with respect to dharmakIrti is too strong to be neglected. That Sankara has quoted from Dharmakirti’s work is confirmed by Suresvara. Therefore, even if the Buddha’s date were to be drastically re-evaluated, and an 18th cent. BCE date accepted, this will simply not affect Sankara’s date at all. It must remain in the 8th cent. CE (near 750 CE, with a window of around 50 years on either side), as held by the major tradition and confirmed by internal evidence from Sankara’s own works.

It must also be remembered that the 5th cent. BCE date does not really come from any ancient tradition, notwithstanding the high-pitched rhetoric of those who claim otherwise. This date has been proposed only in the last two centuries or so, during British times. In the post-Independence period, some people champion the 5th cent. BCE date because it helps bolster a unique kind of national pride: any great Indian should have necessarily lived before Jesus Christ! [12, 13] Part of this is a modern backlash against some of the early Indologists, whose belief in Biblical chronology colored their perception of Indian history. Still, these modern proponents of the 5th century BCE date perhaps forget that the date of Christ has little relevance to events in Indian history, except for fixing dates according to international convention. Surely,Sankara’s greatness is not increased by an early BCE date, nor is it lessened by a date much later than Christ’s.

It should also be remembered that what is said to be tradition is often very misleading. The traditions of the four mathas at Sringeri, Puri, Dvaraka and Joshimath may disagree about the date of Sankara, and also about who was the successor of Sankara. Notwithstanding this, the fact remains that each recognizes the other three paramparas to be its equal in age and origin. Thedasa-nami sannyasis also accept affiliation only with these four mathas. There can be no doubt that these four are the original mathas, dating close toSankara’s times, and that all other mathas are later ones. When traditional accounts conflict (and they do so more often than not), it is necessary to test each source for internal consistency, and then for compatibility with independent external sources. If a matha’s claimed list of gurus is not historically verifiable, its traditions about Sankara’s date and life must not be accepted uncritically. This is all the more imperative in cases where even recent personalities, who lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, are dated to impossibly early times. It is quite easy to make up a “tradition” and a list ofmathadhipatis, much like the royal genealogies of some of India’s erstwhile kings. Any source that does not meet the criteria of internal consistency and independent external confirmation should not be accepted. This applies as much to the traditions of the powerful and influential mathas as to those of the less well-known ones.

These articles about Sankara Acarya were obtained with permission from: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp

References:

See R. M. Umesh, Shankara’s Date , with a foreword by Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja, Madras, 1981 , for a full discussion of this issue. LC Call No.: n.a.

Swami Tapasyananda, The Sankara-dig-vijaya of Madhava-Vidyaranya , Ramakrishna Mission, Madras, 1st ed., 1978 , 2nd ed., 1983 .LC Call No.: PK3798.M168 S2613 1978

Encyclopedia Britannica

Karl H. Potter, Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies , vol. 3, pp. 1-18, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1981 .LC Call No.: B131 .E5 1977 vol. 3 B132.A3

Swami Sadananda Giri, Society and Sannyasin , Kriyayoga Asrama, Rishikesh, 1976 .LC Call No.: BL1245.D27 S2

B. Lewis Rice, Mysore, A Gazetteer , Constable, Westminster, 1897 .LC Call No.: DS485.M84 R4

K. A. Nilakantha Sastry, A History of South India , 4th ed., Oxford University Press, Madras, 1976 .LC Call No.: DS484 .N5 1976

A. Nataraja Iyer and Lakshminarasimha Sastry ,The Traditional Age of Sri Sankaracharya and the Maths , Madras, 1962 .LC Call No.: B133.S5 N324 1962

Abhinavasankaracarya, Srirudrabhashyam , (a) Sri Vani Vilas Press, Srirangam, 1962 , (b) with translation and notes in Telugu by Lakshminarayanamurti Avadhani, Hyderabad, 1990. LC Call No.: BL1113.46 .A23 1990

Thus, followers of karapAtrI svAmijI (hariharAnanda sarasvatI), a modern guru, call him by this name, as a mark of respect. See Abhinava Sankara, Svami Karapatriji, smrti-grantha , Dharmasangha Prakashan, Meerut, 1988 .

LC Call No.: BL1175.H35 A62 1988

So also, followers of SrI saccidAnandendra sarasvat I call him an abhinava SankarAcArya

The Illustrated Weekly of India, The Curious Case of the Missing Monk , The Weekly Cover Story, September 13, 1987 . Also, an article on the newsgroup alt.hindu , which deals with this issue in some detail, and a posting on the advaita mailing list, for more about such controversies.

Udayavir Shastri, The Age of Shankara , translated by Lakshmi Datta Dikshit, Virajananda Vedic Research Institute, Ghaziabad, 1981.

LC Call No.: n.a.

S. D. Kulkarni, Adi Sankara: the saviour of mankind , Bhagavan Vedavyasa Itihasa Samshodhana Mandira (BHISHMA), Bombay, 1987 .

LC Call No.: B133.S48 E5 1987

 

 

 

—-

 

 

 

These articles about Sankara Acarya were obtained with permission from:http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp

 

Sankara Acarya

Page 1–Sankara’s Life

The following article is based upon accounts known through oral tradition and through texts like the Madhaviya-sankara-vijayam. There exists some controversy about Sankara’s date, but most traditions are unanimous about other details.

Birth and childhood

Sankara was born to the Nambudiri Brahmana couple, Sivaguru and Aryamba, in a little village called Kaladi in Kerala. The couple had remained childless for a long time, and prayed for children at the Vadakkunnathan (Vrsacala) temple in nearby Trichur. Siva is said to have appeared to the couple in a dream and promised them a choice of one son who would be short-lived but the most brilliant philosopher of his day, or many sons who would be mediocre at best. The couple opted for a brilliant, but short-lived son, and so Sankara was born.

Sankara lost his father when quite young, and his mother performed hisupanayana ceremonies with the help of her relatives. Sankara excelled in all branches of traditional vaidIka learning. A few miracles are reported about the young Sankara. As a brahmacarin, he went about collecting alms from families in the village. A lady who was herself extremely poor, but did not want to send away the boy empty-handed, gave him the last piece of Amla fruit she had at home. Sankara, sensing the abject poverty of the lady, composed a hymn (Kanakadhara-stavam) to Sri, the goddess of wealth, right at her doorstep. As a result, a shower of golden Amlas rewarded the lady for her piety. On another occasion, Sankara is said to have re-routed the course of the Purna river, so that his old mother would not have to walk a long distance to the river for her daily ablutions.

Sannyasa

Sankara was filled with the spirit of renunciation early in his life. Getting married and settling to the life of a householder was never part of his goal in life, though his mother was anxious to see him as a grhastha. Once when he was swimming in the river, a crocodile caught hold of his leg. Sankara sensed that he was destined to die at that moment, and decided to directly enter the fourth asramaof sannyasa right then. This kind of renunciation is called apat-sannyasa. The crocodile released him when he thus mentally decided to renounce the world, and Sankara decided to regularize his decision by going to an accomplished guru. To comfort his anxious mother, he promised that he would return at the moment of her death, to conduct her funeral rites, notwithstanding the fact that he would be a sannyasi then.

Sankara then traveled far and wide in search of a worthy guru who would initiate him and regularize his vow of sannyasa, till he came to the banks of the river Narmada in central India. Here was the asrama of Govinda Bhagavatpada, the disciple of Gaudapada, the famous author of the Mandukya-karikas. Sankara was accepted as a disciple by Govinda, who initiated him into the paramahamsa order of sannyasa, the highest kind of renunciation. Seeing the intellectual acumen of his disciple, Govinda commanded Sankara to expound the philosophy of vedanta through commentaries on the principalUpanisads, the Brahmasutras and the Gita. Sankara took leave of his guru and traveled to various holy places in India, composing his commentaries in the meantime. At this time he was barely a teenager. He attracted many disciples around him, prominent among whom was Sanandana, who was later to be called Padmapada. In this period, Sankara wrote commentaries on Badarayana’s Brahma-sutras, the various Upanisads and the Bhagavad-gita. These commentaries, called bhasyas, stand at the pinnacle of Indian philosophical writing, and have triggered a long tradition of sub-commentaries known as varttikas, tikas and tippanis. He also commented upon the adhyatma-patala of the Apastamba-sutras, and on Vyasa’s bhashya to Patanjali’s yoga-sutras. In addition to these commentarial texts, Sankara wrote independent treatises called prakarana granthas, including the upadesasahasri, atmabodha, etc.

In addition to writing his own commentaries, Sankara sought out leaders of other schools, in order to engage them in debate. As per the accepted philosophical tradition in India, such debates helped to establish a new philosopher, and also to win disciples and converts from other schools. It was also traditional for the loser in the debate to become a disciple of the winner. Thus Sankara debated with Buddhist philosophers, with followers of sankhyaand with purva–mimamsakas, the followers of Vedic ritualism, and proved more than capable in defeating all his opponents in debate. Sankara then sought out Kumarila Bhatta, the foremost proponent of the purva–mimamsa in his age, but Bhatta was on his deathbed and directed Sankara to Visvarupa, his disciple. Visvarupa is sometimes identified with Mandana Misra.

Sankara’s debate with Visvarupa was unique. The referee at the debate was Visvarupa’s wife, Bharati, who was herself very well-learned, and regarded as an incarnation of Goddess Sarasvati. At stake was a whole way of life. The agreement was that if Visvarupa won, Sankara would consent to marriage and the life of a householder, whereas if Sankara won, Visvarupa would renounce all his wealth and possessions and become a sannyasi disciple of Sankara. The debate is said to have lasted for whole weeks, till in the end, Visvarupa had to concede defeat and become a sannyasi. Bharati was a fair judge, but before declaring Sankara as the winner, she challenged Sankara with questions aboutkama-sastra, which he knew nothing about. Sankara therefore requested some time, during which, using the subtle yogic process called parakaya-pravesa, he entered the body of a dying king and experienced the art of love with the queens. Returning to Visvarupa’s home, he answered all of Bharati‘s questions, after which Visvarupa was ordained as a sannyasi by the name of Suresvara. He was to become the most celebrated disciple of Sankara, writing varttikas toSankara’s bhasyas on the Yajur-veda Upanisads, in addition to his own independent texts on various subjects.

Establishment of Mathas

Sankara continued to travel with his disciples all over the land, all the while composing philosophical treatises and engaging opponents in debate. It is said that none of his opponents could ever match his intellectual prowess and the debates always ended with Sankara’s victory. No doubt this is true, given the unrivaled respect and popularity that Sankara’s philosophical system enjoys to this day. In the course of his travels, Sankara stayed for a long time at the site of the old asrama of the rsis Vibhandaka and Rsyasrnga, in the place known asSrngagiri (Sringeri). Some texts mention that Sankara stayed at Sringeri for twelve years. A hermitage grew around him here, which soon developed into a famous matha (monastery). Suresvara , the disciple whom he had won after long debate, was installed as the head of this new asrama. Similar mathas were established in the pilgrim centers of Puri, Dvaraka and Joshimath near Badrinath, and Padmapada, Hastamalaka and Trotaka were placed in charge of them. These are known as the amnaya-mathas, and they continue to function today. Their heads have also come to be known as sankaracaryas, in honor of their founder, and revered as jagad-gurus, or teachers of the world. Sankara also organized the community of eka-dandi monks into the sampradaya ofdasanami sannyasins, and affiliated them with the four mathas that he established.

Meanwhile Sankara heard that his mother was dying, and decided to visit her. Remembering his promise to her, he performed her funeral rites. His ritualistic relatives would not permit him to do the rites himself, as he was a sannyasi, butSankara overrode their objections, and built a pyre himself and cremated his mother in her own backyard. After this, he resumed his travels, visiting many holy places, reviving pujas at temples that had fallen into neglect, establishingsri-yantras at devi temples as in Kancipuram, and composing many devotional hymns.

Ascension of the sarva-jna-pitha

In the course of his travels, Sankara reached Kashmir. Here was a temple dedicated to Sarada (Sarasvati), the goddess of learning, which housed thesarva-jna-pitha, the Throne of Omniscience. It was a tradition for philosophers to visit the place and engage in debate. The victorious one would be allowed to ascend the sarva-jna-pitha. It is said that no philosopher from the southern region had ever ascended the pitha, till Sankara visited Kashmir and defeated all the others there. He then ascended the sarva-jna-pitha with the blessings of Goddess Sarada. (A few centuries later, Ramanuja, the teacher ofvisishtadvaita, would visit the same sarva-jna-pitha in search of thebaudhayana-vrtti. However, a variant tradition places the sarva-jna-pitha in the south Indian city of Kancipuram.)

Sankara

P was reaching the age of 32 now. He had expounded the vedanta philosophy through his writings; he had attracted many intelligent disciples to him, who could carry on the vedantic tradition; and he had established monastic centers for them in the form of mathas. His had been a short, but eventful life. He retired to the Himalayas and disappeared inside a cave near Kedarnath. This cave is traditionally pointed out as the site of his samadhi. Other variant traditions place Sankara’s last days at Karavirpitham or at Mahur in Maharashtra, Trichur in Kerala or Kancipuram in Tamil Nadu. It is a measure of Sankaracarya’s widespread fame that such conflicting traditions have arisen around his name.

 

True to the traditions of sannyasa, Sankara was a peripatetic monk, who traveled the length and breadth of the country in his short lifetime. His fame spread so far and wide, that various legends are recounted about him from different parts of India. The true sannyasi that he was, he lived completely untouched by the fabric of society. So much so that even the location of Kaladi, his birth-place, remained generally unknown for a long time. The credit of identifying this village in Kerala goes to one of his 19th-century successors at Sringeri, Sri Saccidananda Sivabhinava Nrsimha Bharati. Similarly, the credit of renovating Sankara’s samadhi–sthala near Kedarnath, goes to Sri Abhinava Saccidananda Tirtha, his 20th-century successor at Dvaraka.

These articles about Sankara Acarya were obtained with permission from: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp

View References

Encyclopedia Britannica.

Swami Tapasyananda, The Sankara-dig-vijaya of Madhava-Vidyaranya, Ramakrishna Mission, Madras, 1st ed., 1978 , 2nd ed., 1983 .LC Call No.: PK3798.M168 S2613 1978

Karl H. Potter (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol. 3, pp. 1-18, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1981. LC Call No.: B131 .E5 1977 vol. 3 B132.A3

Other sites:

From Swami Sivananda’s “Lives of Saints”, at the website of the Divine Life Society

Another biography, by Giridhar Madras K. B. Ramakrishna Rao’s article at freeindia.org

Article from Samata Books website

Published Literature:

Numerous books on Sankara’s life have been published in various Indian languages and in English. Here is a select list:

C. N. Krishnaswami Aiyar, Sri Sankaracharya: His Life and Times, G.A. Natesan & Co., Madras, undated. (in English) LC Call No.: n.a.

Sitanath Datta, Sankaracharya, his life and teachings with a translation of Atmabodha, Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature, Calcutta, 1911 . (in English) LC Call No.: Microfiche 95/61111 (B)

Mahadeva Rajarama Bodas, Srisankaracarya va tyanca sampradaya, Bombay, 1923. (in Marathi) LC Call No.: Microfilm BUL-MAR-021 (B)

Pundi Seshadri, Sri Sankaracharya , University of Travancore, Trivandrum, 1949. (in English, with Sanskrit quotations) LC Call No.: B133.S5 S43

Baldev Upadhyaya, Sri Sankaracarya ke jivancarita tatha upadesom ka pramanik vivarana , Hindustani Akademi, Allahabad, 1st ed., 1950 , 2nd ed., 1963 . (in Hindi) LC Call No.: Microfilm CSL-HIN-082 (B) – 1st ed., LC Call No.: B133.S5 U6 – 2nd ed.

Lakshmi Narayan Misra, Jagadguru, (drama in Hindi). LC Call No.: PK2098.M47 J3

Narayanadatta Siddhantalankara, Sankaracarya,1966. (in Hindi) LC Call No.: B133.S5 S5

Ramachandra Govinda Kolangade, Srimadjagadguru Adya Sri Sankaracarya, 1966. (in Marathi) LC Call No.: B133.S5 K6 1966

T. M. P. Mahadevan, Sankaracharya, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 1968 . (in English) LC Call No.: B133.S M33

J. G. Karandikar, Adya Sankaracarya ,1970. (in Marathi) LC Call No.: B133.S5 K36

Deendayal Upadhyaya, Jagadguru Sri Sankaracarya,1971 . (in Hindi) LC Call No.: B133.S5 U63

A. Kuppuswami, Sri Bhagavatpada Sankaracarya, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies v. 89, Varanasi, 1972. (in English, with Sanskrit quotations) LC Call No.: B133.S5 K83

Mathuram Bhoothalingam, Had Sankara lived today, Affiliated East-West Press, 1981 .LC Call No.: B133.S5 B536 1981

Prem Lata, Shankaracharya, Sumit Publications, Delhi, 1982. (in English) LC Call No.: B133.S49 P74 1982

Indusekhara S. Madugula, The Acarya, Sankara of Kaladi: A Story, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1985. (in English) LC Call No.: B132.S5 M33 1985

Vishnudatta Rakesh, Bharatiya asmita aur rashtriya cetana ke aadhaar Sri Jagadguru Adya Sankaracarya, Bhashyakara Jagadguru Sri Adya Sankaracarya Dvadasa Satabdi Samaroha Mahasamiti, Haridvar 1989. (in Hindi) LC Call No.: B133.S5 B47 1989

B. R. Sastri, Sankaracarya , Hyderabad, 1990 . (in Telugu) LC Call No.: n.a.

D. B. Gangolli, The Essential Adi Shankara, Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, Bangalore, 1992 .LC Call No.: B133.S5 G33 1992

Govind Chandra Pande, Sankaracarya, vicara aura sandarbha, National Publishing House, New Delhi, 1992. (in Hindi) LC Call No.: BS133.S5 P34 1992

Govind Chandra Pande, Life and thought of Sankaracarya, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1994. (in English) LC Call No.: B133.S5 P33 1994
T. S. Rukmani, Shankaracharya, Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India, New Delhi, 1994. (in English) LC Call No.: B133.S5 R85 1994

 

 

 

—–

 

These articles about Sankara Acarya were obtained with permission from:http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp

---

The Supreme Swan: In the is an artistic rendering of a swan, with the Sanskrit sentencebrahmaiva satyam – Brahman is the only Truth. The swan motif is seen in the seals of manyadvaita organizations. The figure seen here has been adapted from the official seal of the Sringeri Matha, an ancient and one of the most important centers of advaita vedanta in India. The swan is a very popular motif in traditional Hindu symbolism. It can be found in oil-lamps used in temples and at shrines in people’s homes.
The swan has a special association with advaitavedanta. The swan is called hamsa in the Sanskrit language. The greatest masters in theadvaita tradition are called paramahamsas – the great swans. The word hamsa is a variation of so’ham: I am He, which constitutes the highest realization. There are other equivalences between the swan and the advaitin, that make the swan a particularly apt symbol for advaita vedanta. The swan stays in water, but its feathers remain dry. Similarly, the advaitin lives in the world, yet strives to remain unaffected by life’s ups and downs. In India, the swan is also mythically credited with the ability to separate milk from water. Similarly, the advaitin discriminates the eternal atmanfrom the non-eternal world. Theatman that is brahman is immanent in the world, just like milk is seemingly inseparably mixed with water, but It can never be truly realized without the nitya-anitya-vastu viveka – right discrimination between the eternal and ephemeral – that is essential for the advaitin. The swan is thus a symbol for thejivanmukta, who is liberated while still alive in this world, by virtue of having realizedbrahman.