PRECEPTORS OF ADVAITHAM PART 7 10 24 CONTS KR IRS SADASIVA BRAHMENDRA SARASVATI
*by* N. Raghunathan M.A., B.L. Sadāśiva Brahmendra Sarasvatī, the *mahāyogin* and jīvanmukta, became a legend in his own lifetime. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw a great flowering of the spirit in the Tamil country, especially in the Tanjore region under the enlightened rule of the Nayak and Maharaṣtra dynasties. Under the aegis of Sahaji (1684-1711) flourished a brilliant galaxy of poets and makers of music, scholars and thinkers who were noted alike for their personal purity and acuteness of intellect. Many of them, including it is believed Sadāśiva’s father, were settled in Sahajirājapuram, a royal grant for the encouragement of learning Great saints sojourned among them, providing the inspiration to the higher life. In Sadāśiva, all the varied talent of that time of awakening seems to have met and blended harmoniously. His output as a poet and writer in the Vedāntic tradition was slender. But he touched the imagination of the people in a unique way, only Bodhendra and Śrīdhara Veṅkaṭeśa, affectionately known as ‘Ayyāvāl’, being comparable to him in this respect. Many miraculous tales are told about him, but few concrete facts are known. He was the disciple of Paramaśivendra Sarasvatī, the fifty-seventh head of the Kāñchī Kāmakoṭi Śaṅkarāchārya Pīṭha, whose greatness he repeatedly extols. Paramaśivendra seems to have been a contemporary of the great poet Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita (born in 1612 A.D. or earlier); for his disciple Rāmanātha was a contemporary of Rāmabhadra Dīkṣita, the accomplished poet and grammarian, who was a pupil of Nīlakaṇṭha, and won his praise. And Rāmanātha’s pupil Nallā Adhvarī, a younger relation of Rāmabhadra Dīkṣita, acknowledges in his *Advaita-rasamañjarī* Sadāśiva as his spiritual preceptor after his Guru Paramaśiyendra. So we may take it that Sadāśiva was born about the same time as Rāmabhadra, in the early years of the seventeenth century. He mastered all the Śāstras at an early age and was a formidable debater. But a mild word of rebuke from his Guru, says tradition, made him a maunī. He spent his time mostly in the secluded peace and charm of the Kaveri banks as an *avadhūta;* only occasionally emerging, to bestow his grace on some fortunate individual such as Malhari Pandita, who requested him to bless his patron Serfoji (1911-29), who was childless, or Vijaya Raghunatha Toṇḍaimān of Pudukkoṭṭah, or passing through the countryside like a silent benediction, radiating kindliness and compassion. He seems to have lived far beyond the Vedic span of a century and attained beatitude at Nerur near Karur on the Kaveri. And now for a brief survey of his works: Appayya Dīkṣita’s works had great influence in that age of intellectual ferment and vigorous polemic. His *Siddhāntaleśa-saṅgraha* is a survey of the development of Advaitic doctrines after Śaṅkara. Sadāśiva made a verse compendium of it, evidently to serve as a refresher to the serious student engaged in *manana.* His commentary, *Kesaravalli* is an integral part of the work. It supplements the text, as well as elucidating it. The verses convey, as the author justly claims, a depth of meaning in simple words. Indeed all his expository work is both concise and lucid. Of his method in this work we can give but one instance here. The first section of the text treats of a question of Vedic exegetics—whether the study of the Vedānta is enjoined as an *apūrva vidhi,* a *niyama vidhi,* or a *parisaṅkhyā-vidhi.* Three verses are devoted to the statement of the first and the last views and to the conclusion (Vāchaspati Miśra’s), which is that there is no *vidhi* at all involved here. But as there are as many as nine varieties of the view that it is a *niyama vidhi,* the five major ones are set out in as many verses; while the minor varieties are relegated to the commentary, or altogether omitted, as being but derivatives or extended applications. Thus the seventh verse puts forward the *Vivaraṇa* view that the injunction is restrictive, aiming at confining the study of the Vedānta to the traditional mode under a *guru,* by a proper *adhikārī.* And the commentary mentions three possible violations of this injunction, which are prohibited by implication. These are a. that an intelligent man might be tempted to rely on his own powers of mind to intuit the Vedāntic truth, instead of studying and reflecting on it as revealed by the Upaniṣadic texts; b. or he might dispense with the guidance of a *guru;* c. or that a dullard might be content to study Vedānta through uncanonical expositions in the vernacular. In such summary statement there is naturally no room for scholastic subtleties. But this may have the advantage of highlighting the main threads of argument. This is found to be eminently the case in the *Brahma-tattva-prakāśikā,* the brief but splendid gloss on the *Brahma-sūtra.* While faithfully adhering to the *Bhāṣya,* Sadāśiva makes no attempt to follow the master into the fascinating by-paths. To take an instance at random, in explaining the *sūtra,* “It (the Prāṇa) is designated as having five functions, like the mind” (ii-iv-ii), Śaṅkara, after examining and rejecting as unsatisfactory a number of alternative reasons why the word ‘five’ in the *sūtra* as applied to mind should be taken literally, concludes that it is intended merely to suggest, not a specific number, but plurality. Sadāśiva skips the discussions and simply states the conclusion, and he brings out the *Bhāṣya* view of the *sūtra* in these pithy words: “Because of its special and manifold functions, *prāṇa* is subsidiary to the soul, resembling the mind in this respect”. The Bhāṣyakāra is occasionally laconic when from the context the meaning is fairly clear; as for example in III, ii, 25, especially when it is considered along with the succeeding sūtras 29 and 34 where the word *karmaṇi,* which he leaves unexplained, obviously refers to the act of wrapt worship *(samrādhana*), which has the adjuncts (upādhis) of *dhyāna,* etc. In fact the *Bhāmatī* and its sub-commentaries simply pass over the word. But Sadāśiva, following the *Ratnaprabhā,* elucidates *karmaṇi* as *dhyānādyupādhau karmaṇi.* Apparently he anticipated that there might be people like Thibaut, who, puzzled by the fact that *“karmaṇi* is as good as passed over by him”, confidently concluded, “It certainly looks here as if the Bhāṣyakāra did not know what to do with the words of the *sūtra”.* Commenting on II, ii, 37, the Bhāṣyakāra reviews and refutes the schools that maintain that the Lord is only the efficient cause of the universe, not the material cause. Though he includes the Sāṅkhya and the Yoga in this indictment, and in this is followed by the *Bhāmatī* and its sub-commentaries, Sadāśiva in his gloss does not refer to them but takes the attack as mainly directed against the Māheśvaras. This is in all probability due to his view, set out in his work on the *Yoga-sūtras* (described below) in commenting on the *Yogasūtra* IV, 3. His view is that the Sāṅkhya does not recognise Īśvara at all, holding that the subserving of the interests of the *puruṣa* alone is the teleological cause of the restarting of the heterogeneous activities of the *guṇas* in pradhāna after pralaya; while the yogis, though they do regard Īśvara as the final cause, acting in the interests of the *puruṣas,* assign to ‘dharma’ and ‘adharma’, the role of efficient cause, which is a rather negative one in this system. If the view here put forward is right, it should be clear that Sadāśiva could take an independent line when he felt it necessary. While thus unobtrusively condensing, elucidating, supplementing and qualifying, his main aim in his gloss is to give the student a bird’s-eye view of the system. He brings out the coherence of the thought and the cogency of the argument, showing how, as the teaching develops through all its ramifications, the central thesis, the Brahman-ātman equation, is never lost sight of. Particularly helpful is his practice of bringing out the logical connection *(saṅgati),* between *adhyāya* and *adhyāya, pāda* and *pāda, sūtra* and *sūtra.* His method of exposition is to set out under each *sūtra* the subject, the doubt that necessitates the enquiry, the consequences that would flow from either of two possible conclusions, and the leading arguments in support of the *prima facie* view and the view that is ultimately arrived at. In beautifully simple verses he sets out the kernel of every major section. The *Vṛtti* is thus an ideal handbook for the student. The *Yogasudhākara,* an extremely valuable gloss on the *Pātañjala-sūtras,* is undoubtedly Brahmendra’s work. But this is the one major work of his, in which he does not anywhere mention Paramaśivendra Sarasvatī as his Guru. He pays homage, instead, to an *unnamed guru* by whose grace, he says, he got the *vidyā* and, having “churned it in his mind” *(viloḍya*), wrote this *Vṛtti* . Paramaśivendra Sarasvatī has not left any work on Yoga. The references to Yoga and Kaivalya in his *Dahara-vidyā-prakāśikā* suggest, rather, that his primary preoccupation, was with the Upaniṣadic vidyās. Brahmendra may have studied Aṣṭāṅga-yoga under some other *guru.* We need not be surprised that one who attained the summits of Vedāntic realisation should have practised Aṣṭāṅga-yoga, for the Bhagavatpāda repeatedly points out that the Advaitin accepts such teachings of the yoga and other similar *‘smṛtis’* as are not opposed to the Vedānta, and often refers to the fruits of Aṣṭāṅga-yoga.[1] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62904.html#note-e-32917> But Brahmendra, with his Vedāntic background, and from personal *anubhava,* seems to have reached conclusions regarding ‘ *Īśvara-praṇidhāna’* and the state of Kaivalya, which are not strictly in conformity with the orthodox doctrine as expounded in the Vyāsa Bhāṣya and Vāchaspati’s gloss, *Tattvavaiśāradi.* While verse 63 of *Ātmavidyā-vilāsa* says that he is transmitting the Upaniṣadic vidyās taught by his guru Paramaśiva, his familiarity with *Pātañjaīa* yoga is clear from other ślokas. Modern scholars have been puzzled by the seeming inconsistency between *Yoga-sūtra* 1-23 and *Yoga-sūtra* II-l. *‘Iśvara-praṇidhana’* and *‘kṛyā yoga’* , terms which occur in the latter *sūtra,* are interpreted by the *Bhāṣya* and the *ṭīkā* as pointing to the well-known *Gītā* teaching of karma yoga. But ‘Īśvara-praṇidhāna’ in *Yoga-sūtra* I-23 is taken by them to mean ‘special adoration’ *(bhakti-viśeṣam*). Brahmendra, however, interprets the term in the same way in both contexts, as meaning loving devotion only. Sadāśiva was a student of the *Bhāgavata* and wrote a *Bhāgavata-sāra.* This probably had a decisive influence on his taking to the *avadhūta* life. He, it seems, made a collection of all the texts bearing on ‘Pāramahaṃsyacharyā’. His interpretation of *kṛyā-yoga* seems to be based on the rather specialized and restricted significance that term has in the eleventh skandha (see especially Ch. XX-6 to 9, and Ch. XXVII-1 & 9). Taking all the *yoga-sūtras* bearing on the subject together, he thinks three grades of authorities are distinguished. To him who cannot free himself from the lure of the world, *karma-yoga* is prescribed as part of niyama (see comment on 11-28, 32 and 45). *Yoga-sūtra* II-l has in view the man whose mind is rather better controlled though not yet completely purified. *Yoga-sūtra* I-23, applies to the man who has fully succeeded in that. When the mind is purified by devotion to “the Paramaguru who has in sport assumed an exceedingly winsome form”, says Sadāśiva Brahmendra (on *yoga-sūtra* II-l), prema-bhakti, the intensified and exclusive devotion referred to in 1-23, comes naturally. Pleased with that, the Lord grants the devotee the one-pointed concentration he yearns for, and that leads in due course, to *kaivalya.* How exactly this works is thus explained in his comment on 1-29. Intense and sustained *praṇava-japa,* which is the praise of the Lord, when accompanied by loving concentration on Him, leads successively to the cessation of verbal activity (including *japa*), the inclining of the mind, by the grace of the Lord, towards quiescence and the detachment of the mind even from Him, for it achieves direct perception of the self *(pratyāsatti)* . Recognising the similarity (*sādṛśya*) between the self, “its own master”, which in its pristine state is free spirit *(asaṅga-chidrūpa)* and Īśvara, who is eternally and unchangeably that, it reminds the self of its true status; and then, its task done, it sinks down, like fire that has consumed its fuel. When *abhyāsa* and *vairāgya* have destroyed subliminal impressions, the *pratyak-chiti* (pure spirit) shines forth, established, says Brahmendra, in language reminiscent of the Upaniṣads, in its own glory *(sve mahimni nirantaram nirvighnam avatiṣṭhate)* . From the above, it will be seen that Brahmendra’s view of *kaivalya* is closer to the Vedāntic conception of mukti, which is eternal bliss, than that of the Sāṅkhya-Yoga, where it means a passionless and passive isolation for the *puruṣa.* This impersonal joy that goes with super-consciousness is in fact the key-note of all the creative work of Brahmendra. His poems and songs represent this totality of experience. Flashes of poetry illuminate the philosophical poems, even as mystical ecstasy communicates itself through an unforced lyricism in the *kīrtanas*. And the golden thread of *bhakti* runs through them all While in a sense all his poems are in adoration of the Guru, whom he looked upon as his God, the short *Navamaṇi-mālā* Is specifically in praise of Paramasivendra, “who from the purest compassion bestowed on me the dazzling gem of the *Ātmavidyā*”. In the *Svapnoditam,* he describes how the duality of seer and seen disappeared, “when by the grace of the moon, my Guru, I was submerged in the swelling sea of the c *hit* and I saw nought but Self”. In the beautiful *Dakṣiṇāmūrti-dhyānam,* he describes the glorious form of the Paramaguru and how He should be meditated upon as the Nirguṇa, the One without a second. But the most important work of Sadāśiva in this class is his brilliant *Guru-ratna-mālikā* in eighty-seven verses which he wrote at the instance of Ātmabodha, his fellow-disciple and successor of Paramaśiva on the Śaṅkara pīṭha. Following the *Puṇyaśloka-mañjarī* of his *parama-guru,* Sarvajña-sadāśiva-bodha, fifty-sixth head of the Kāñchī pīṭha, he celebrates that long and brilliant succession of yogis and *jīvan-muktas.* The age in which Sadāśiva lived was one of keen theological controversy. His own Guru was a master of polemic. In his *Dahara-vidyā-prakāśikā,* and his commentary on the *Śiva-gītā,* Paramaśiva, while paying his homage to Viṣṇu, vigorously maintains the supremacy of Para-Śiva, as “the Paramātmā seated in the heart”. At the same time, as his special contribution to the literature of Nāma-siddhānta, he collected from the Upaniṣads and other sacred texts, in his *Svarūpānusandhāna* which is not yet published, more than a thousand names connoting Brahman, with extensive commentaries thereon. Of this latter work Sadāśiva offers a selection in his short poem *Ātmānusandhāna.* His heart was drawn to Śiva, *“yoginām paramam gurum”* , even as Appayya’s was; but he remained unshaken in his Advaitic conviction, which is incompatible with the kind of sectarian mentality that depreciates Viṣṇu at the expense of Śiva and *vice versa.* His poems on Parameśvara in the *Navaratnamālā,* the *Svānubhūti-prakāśikā* and the *Śiva-mānasa-pūjā* show ecstatic devotion. But in these, as in the *kīrtanas,* his mind passes with effortless ease from surrender to the Divine Personality to absorption in the Bliss of Brahman. About twenty-five of his *kīrtanas* are available; half a dozen of these sing Rāma,—“He sports within me in the cave of the heart, with Peace, the daughter of Videha, for his companion”. He devotes an equal number of songs to the Vanamālī, Nanda’s darling. And the bliss of the Unconditioned Absolute is celebrated in a dozen songs. It is not possible to explain in words, the charm of songs like *“mānasasañchara re”, “sarvam brahmamayam”,* or *“chintā nāsti kila”.* They rain down a gentle influence on the heart, laying all doubts, lulling the ego, and bringing the passionless peace that rejoices the sophisticate and the simple alike. It is in the *Ātmavidyā-vilāsa,* which enshrines the quintessential experience of the *mukta,* that Brahmendra’s soul engages in its loftiest flight. There are two versions—one in sixty-two lovely Āryā verses, which is far better known, and perfect as a pearl; though the other, in forty-six verses, like another poem, the *Bodha-ārya-prakaraṇa* attributed to Brahmendra, is not without flashes of beauty, it is versified philosophy rather than metaphysical poetry. The *Ātma-vidyā-vilāsa* is a spiritual autobiography, from which the merely contingent and ephemeral have been excluded. The quest, the practice and the perfection are all recorded, not systematically, but with the higher logic of poetry. It is the canticle of praise by the soul that has found itself, returned to its own home, its long odyssey done—the nightmare travail on the phantom sea of *saṅkalpa* and *vikalpa.* To him who knows their use all things are useful. The world of phenomena, when it ceases to be a snare, is a source of delight; the Self-realised is become as a child again. *tvamaham-abhimāna-hīno modita-nānājanāchāraḥ viharati bālavadeko vimala-sukhāmbhonidhau magnaḥ.* He is a *rasa-jña,* tasting the eternal sweetness of the *chit* . Nature— “red in tooth and claw” for us—ministers to him, the fine river sand a softer bed than eiderdown: *vijñāna-nadī kuñja-gṛhe mañjula-pulinaika-mañjutara-talpe śete kopi yatīṇḍraḥ samarasa-sukha-bodha-vastu-nistandraḥ.* He no longer takes; he gives. Bringing us wisdom and joy like some supernal sun and moon, cooling the consuming fire of passion like the breeze of heaven, he realises for us the transcendent glory that is symbolised by the song of the cuckoo, the dance of the peacock, the serenity of the swan. He knows *samādhi* with and without object, he has practised *tapas* and *vairāgya;* he has borne without resentment the jeers and flouts of the ignorant. But all that is past. He neither praises nor blames, neither rejects nor requests. He *i* s always and everywhere at home, nothing is alien to him. He is the king established in his own kingdom, the Peace that passeth understanding; he who, being nothing, is everything: *vastunyastamitākhila-viśvavihāre vilīnamanāḥ rājati parānapekṣo rājākhila-vītarāgāṇām.* It was this *pūrnatva,* plenitude of light and bliss, that made men say, who had a fleeting vision of that Śuka-Iike spirit: *sadāśiva-brahma-rūpam brahmādrākṣam chirepsitam.* Footnotes and references: [1] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62904.html#note-t-32917> : Vidyāraṇya in his commen t ary on *Aparokṣānubhūti,* however, only grudgingly concedes a subordinate and ancillary use for Pātañjala yoga in the case of manda-adhikāris. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ATREYA BRAHMANANDI AND DRAVIDACHARYA *by* Polagam Sri Rama Sastri Śāstra-Ratnākara These two personages who are among the early expounders of the pure Advaitic tradition were born in the beginning of this *yuga.* Of these two, Brahmanandī wrote a work called *Vākva* in *sūtra* form and it was an exposition of the purport of the *Chāndogyopaniṣad.* Dravidāchārya embellished that work by his bhāṣya on it. On account of this, these authors came to be known as *Vākyakāra* and a *Bhāṣyakāra,* respectively. In the *Chāndogyopaniṣad,* from the first to the fifth adhyāya the following topics are expounded for the benefit of persons of inferior and not-so-inferior qualifications: three kinds of upāsanas namely, aṅgāvabaddhopāsanā which leads to the fruits of karma, *svatantrapratīkopāsanā* which bestows material welfare, and *ahaṅgrahopāsanā* which leads to *krama-mukti.* In the sixth, seventh, and eighth adhyāyas are expounded in order sadvidyā, *bhūmāvidya,* and *prājāpatyavidyā.* These have their fruition in *sadyomukti* or immediate release. These relate to the realisation of nirguṇa Brahman which is sacchidānanda and are expounded for persons of superior qualification. In the eighth adhyāya, for the benefit of persons of intermediate qualification, *daharavidyā* which relates to saguna Brahman is explained again. Thus two kinds of Brahman are treated of in the *Chāndogyopaniṣad,* the qualified Brahman to be worshipped and the Brahman free from any qualities which is only to be known and realised. In his *Vākya-grantha* which is an exposition of the Chāndogyonaniṣad, Brahmanandī too clearly brings out, in accord with the Upaniṣad. the two-fold character of Brahman. Dravidāchārya also in his *bhāṣya* on the *vākya,* very clearly expounds the two-fold Brahman and his exposition is in line with the Upaniṣad and the *vākya.* Unfortunately, these two works are not available. However, thirty statements of the *vākya* and twenty of the *bhāṣya* are available having been quoted in the works of early writers. Of these, eight statements of *vākya-grantha* and nine of the *bhāṣya* are found quoted in Advaitic works. Twenty-two of *vākya-grantha* and eleven of the *bhāṣya* are quoted in the writings of Śrī Rāmānuja and others. Thus from both the *vākya* and *bhāṣya* we are now in possession of only fifty statements. They have been set forth in the work entitled *Draviḍātreyadarśanam.* Śrī Śaṅkara and others have quoted in their Advaitic works from the *bhāṣya* of Draviḍāchārya in the context of the explanation of the *madhvvidyā* and *saṃvargavidyā* found in the third and the fourth chapters of the *Chāndogyopaniṣad.* Śrī Rāmānuja and others quote from the *vākya* and *bhāṣya* passages in the context of the *antarādityavidyā* set forth in the first chapter of the *Chāndogyopaniṣad.* Though Śrī Śaṅkara has not quoted *verbatim* from the *vākya,* yet in his exposition of the *antarādityavidyā* in his *Chāndogya-bhāṣya,* and in the *antastaddharmādhikaraṇa* devoted to an examination of it in the *sūtrabhāṣya,* he has expressed the same ideas in similar language. Thus, we find that Śrī Śaṅkara has given expression in his works to ideas similar in language to passages in the *vākya* and the *bhāṣya* and having the same meaning. Such parallel passages have been indicated in the work *Draviḍātreya-darśanam.* They have also been separately tabulated in that work for purpose of comparison under the heads of *Brahmanandi-Bhagavatpāda-Vākya-Sāmarayam* and *Draviḍāchārya-Bhagavatpāda-Vākya Sāmarasyam.* The *vākya-grantha* gives six meanings to the *antarādityavidyā* passage in the *Chāndogyopaniṣad* : *tasya yathā kapyāsam puṇḍarīkam evamakṣiṇī.* In his *Chāndogyopaniṣadbhāṣya* Śrī Śaṅkara gives the conventional (*rūḍhi*) meaning of the word *kapi.* In the work *Draviḍātreya-darśanam* it has been shown that this interpretation is not affected by the criticism made against it by others. Śrī Rāmānuja and others adopt three other meanings of the word from the etymological *(yaugika)* point of view taking them from the *vākya-grantha.* It has to be emphasised that all meanings, the conventional and the etymological are those stated in the *vākya* itself. In his *vākya-grantha,* the *Vākyakāra* observes that for the *anugraha* of the aspirants, the Lord’s form which is resplendent *(jyotirmaya)* is imperceivable by the sense of sight, but can be perceived only by those of pure mind who worship concentrating on the form of the sun *(āditya-maṇḍala*). This same meaning accepted by the Vākyakāra is conveyed by Śrī Śaṅkara in the exposition of the *antarādityavidyāvivaraṇa* of the *antastaddharmā-dhikaraṇa* and of the *Chāndogyopaniṣad.* The Vākyakāra says: *syādrūpam kṛtakam anugrahārtham tachchetasām aiśvaryāt*; *rūpam cha atīndṛyam antaḥkaraṇa-pratyakṣam tannirdeśāt.* Draviḍāchārya’s bhāṣya on this passage is: *añjasaiva viśvasṛ-jorūpam tattu na chakṣuṣā grāhyam manasā tvakalusheṇa sādhanāntaravatā gṛhyate.* Śrī Śaṅkara writes in the *antastaddharmādhikaraṇa:* *syāt parameśvarasyāpi icchāvaśāt māyāmayam rūpam sādhakā-nugrahārtham.* In the *Chāndogyabhāṣya* he says: *dṛśyate nivṛtta-chakṣurbhiḥ samāhita-chetobhiḥ brahmacharyādi-sādhanā-pekṣam.* ‘It is seen by those whose eyes have been turned inward and whose minds are steadfast by reason of the practice of brahmacharya, etc.’ It is to be noted that corresponding to the expressions of the Vākyakāra, *taccetasamanugrahārtham* , *aiśvaryāt* and *kṛtakam.* Śrī Śaṅkara uses the words *sādhakānugrahārtham, māyāmayam* and *icchīvaśāt.* Similarly, where the Vākyakāra says *atīndṛyamantah-karanapratvakṣam,* the Bhāṣyakāra explains it as *na chakṣuṣā grāhyam manasā tvakalushena sādhanāntaravatā gṛhyate,* and Śrī Śaṅkara’s expressions for them are respectively *dṛśyate nivṛtta-chakṣurbhiḥ, samāhitachetobhiḥ* and *brahmacharyādisādhanāpekṣam.* Thus, while the expressions in the *vākya,* the *bhāṣya,* and Śrī Śaṅkara’s explanations are in accord, not disposed to agree to this, Śrī Rāmānuja and others have altered the words *rūpam chātīn-dṛyam* into *rūpam vā atīndṛyam.* They also maintain that the statement *syād rūpam* is the *pūrvapakṣa* and that *rūpam vā atīndṛyam* contains the *siddānta.* They also say that the form of the Lord is not unreally assumed by Him, but that it is His real nature. The Vākyakāra says in the previous sentence that it is assumed for purpose of *anugraha* and he follows it in the succeeding sentence that that form is supersensuous, but perceivable in the *antaḥkaraṇa.* There is nothing irreconcilable in the Lord’s form being the result of art assumption and also supersensuous and cognisable by the pure mind. Where is the distinction of *pūrvapakṣa* and *siddhānta* between two positions which are not contradictory to each other? Dispassionate consideration will show that this has not been taken into account in a partisan view of this matter. That the Lord’s form is eternal has nowhere been stated in the *vākya.* All this has been clearly brought out in the work *Draviḍā-treyadarśanam.* In his *bhāṣya* , Draviḍāchārya says that *bhagavadrūpa,* the Lord’s form is *yathābhūta,* that is, it is existent, and goes on to observe that form is not spoken of a *devatā* which is formless; for *śāstra* speaks only of what is. It is *yathābhūta-vādī.* It informs us of what has *sattā.* True, there is no instruction of *rūpa* in respect of what is *arūpa,* formless. The meditation on the form of the Lord is not based on *adhyāsa* or supposition as in the meditation of mind as Brahman, etc., but it is -the meditation of the existing *rūpa.* Śrī Śaṅkara too following the same text speaks in the same manner. This is what he says: There is no non-validity in respect of the texts which refer to the subject of *upāsanā.* Hence *Śāstra* which speaks of *upāsanā* refers only to the actually existing *ātmā, Īśvara* and *devatā,* etc. While explaining the third brāhmaṇa of the first adhyāya of the *Bṛhadāranyakopaniṣad* , he observes, ‘As that which is indicated as Paramātmā, Īśvara and devatā is non-empirical, it deserves to be spoken of as actually existing’. Similarly in the bhāṣya on the sūtra— *svāpyayasaṃ* - *patyoh anyatarāpekṣamāviṣkṛtam hi.* Śrī Śaṅkara says: That where this Īśvara’s nature is described, it refers to a different state like svarga, etc., and it is the locus of the *saguṇavidyā.* The empirical reality of the Lord’s form subsists till the direct realization of Brahman. It is not transcendental *(pāramārthika),* non-sublatable in all the three periods of time like the qualitiless Brahman. This view is based on the passage *laukikam tadvadevedam pramāṇamtvātmaniśchayāt,* given at the end of the bhāṣya in *samanvayādhikaraṇa.* Śrī Rāmānuja and others maintain, however, that the Lord’s form is *pāramarthikam.* They rely on the following passage in Bhāskara’s bhāṣya on the *Brahma-sūtra*: *parameśvarasya sarvaśakutvāt upāsakānugrakāya (?)-saṃbhavāt, kiṃ māyāmayani rūpam? neti brūmaḥ, pāramārthaka-mevaitat, yathābhūtajñāpakam hi śāstram.* Attracted by this view, they delude themselves into believing that the same may be the view of the Vākyakāra and the Bhāṣyakāra. But that is noi correct. Even as the Vākyakāra upholds the theory of *vyāvahārika,* so does the Bhāṣyakāra too. In the context of the explanation of the *sadvidyā,* taking up the Śruti *vāchā-raṃbhaṇam vikāro nāmadheyam mṛttiketyeva satyam,* Vākyakāra discards the theory that a thing should be either *sat* or *asat* only, and establishes on the basis of śruti the theory of the *vyāvahārika* - *satya* of the world which is neither exclusively *sat* nor *asat. na saṃvyavahāramātratvāt.* This conclusion of the Vākyakāra is clearly explained in the *Saṃkṣepa-śārīraka,* in the commentaries on it and in the *Kalpataru.* It is pertinent to ask those who proclaim that they are followers of the position of the Vākyakāra, why they have rejected the statements establishing the *vyāvahāri-katva* of the world and quoted in the *Kalpataru* and the *Saṃkṣepa-śārīraka.* While explaining the *sadvidyā* the Vākyakāra says *yuktam tadguṇakopāsanāt.* He considers that *antarguṇaka brahmaprāpti* is a proper consequence of *antarguṇakabrahmopāsanā.* The Bhāṣyakāra too explains this passage as follows *:* *antarguṇam pratyakguṇameva bhagavatīm paradevatām bhajata iti tatra tadguṇaiva devatā prāpyate.* Here the word *tadguṇakam* in the *vākya* is explained as *antar-guṇa* . And, the expression *antarguṇa* in the bhāṣya is explained as the *pratyagātman*. *Antaḥ* (inner) is a correlate of *bahiḥ* (outer), i.e. inner as opposed to outer. So we get the equation: *tadguṇakopāsanāt antarguṇakopāsanāt pratyagrūpabrahmopāsanāt.* By the ‘tatkratu nyāya’ it is proper to say *tadguṇaiva antarguṇaiva pratyagsvarūpaiva.* By this *pratyagsvarūpa* the *paradevatā,* the supreme deity which is *parabrahma-rūpa* is attained. This reasoned conclusion of the Vākyakāra and the Bhāṣyakāra is established beyond doubt. That the consciousness of the nondifference of the *pratyagātman* and *Brahman* arises from the knowledge of the identity of the two which is the purport of the mahāvākya *tattvamasi* is expounded by both of them. The same is explained by Śrī Śaṅkara in his commentary on the *Chāndogyopaniṣad.* That this is the view of the bhāṣya of Draviḍāchārya is clearly stated in the *Saṃkṣepaśārīraka* also. Explaining the mahāvākya *tattvamasi,* the Vākyakāra puts it in the form of a sūtra *siddhantu nivartakatvāt.* The Bhāṣyakāra explains it thus: A prince brought up among hunters thinks that he is a hunter. But when he is told on the basis of proper reasons that he is a prince, he realises his true nature. Even so the jīva thinks that he is a *saṃsārī.* But when a guru tells him of his *brahmabhāva* of which he was ignorant so long, he realises his true nature upon the removal of that nescience. Thus is established the validity of the declaration *tattvamasi.* The vākya is not to be understood as illumining what was not luminous itself. No other light can illumine what is already luminous. Thus this elucidation of Draviḍāchārya in the form of the story is found in several Advaitic works. The fact that Advaita sannyāsins specially worship Draviḍāchārya at the time of Vyāsapūjā, proves his association with the propagation of the Advaita sampradāya. And so, it is concluded with the prayer that every one may derive benefit according to his capacity by the study of the Advaita darśana which is the central teaching of the Upaniṣad, proclaimed in the *Jñānavāsiṣṭha* by the great sage Vasiṣṭha, enunciated by Bādarāyaṇāchārya in his *Brahmasūtra,* clearly explained by Vṛtti-kāras like Upavarṣa, made definite by Gauḍapādāchārya in his Kārikās on the *Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad,* established by Śrī Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda who stands for the pure Advaita saṃpradāya in his bhāṣyas, etc., annotated on in their *ṭīkā, vārtika,* etc., by āchāryas like Padmapāda and Sureśvara, by the authors of *Saṃkṣepa-śārīraka* and *Vivaraṇa* and by Vāchaspati Miśra, expounded in simple language by Śrī Vidyāraṇya and which has been transmitted through a holy and beginningless tradition and which dowers its votaries with supreme joy and eternal peace. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz PRITHVIDHARA *by* Sri Anantanandendra Sarasvati Swami In the last part of the first Ullāsa of the work *Tattvachandrikā*[1] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62907.html#note-e-32918> by Vellalakula Umāmaheśvaraśāstrī, we come across the following passage: *ekonaśatam bhāṣyānyanārṣāṇi pṛthvīdhara-abhinavagupta-praṇītāni tatkālam vidyamāna-kartṛkāṇi chhinnānīti prasiddham.* It appears from the above that Ppthvīdhara, Abhinavagupta and ninety seven others, had written *bhāṣyas* on the *Brahmasūtra,* that the authors were living in the time of Śrī Śaṅkarāchārya and that those *bhāṣyas* were so completely refuted by Śrī Śaṅkarāchārya that they ceased to gain further currency. In the opinion of the author of *Tattvachandrikā* , Pṛthvīdhara who was the author of one of *anārsha bhāṣyas* is more respected than Abhinavagupta; for he mentions his name first in accordance with the *Pāṇini-sūtra ‘abhyarhitam pūrvam’* which states that a revered person must be referred to first. While we know of Abhinavagupta as the author of several works on *Tantras,* nothing is known of *Pṛthvīdhara* or of his works. The only two references to him that have been traced are in the Catalogues of Aufrecht. In his catalogue[2] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62907.html#note-e-32919> of Sanskrit manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, Aufrecht describes a work *Dvādāśa-mahāvākya-vivaraṇa* by one Vaikuṇṭha-puri in which the name of Pṛthvīdhara is found among the best of disciples of Śrī Śaṅkarāchārya. Vaikuṇṭhapuri also ascribes to Pṛthvīdhara the foundation of the order of sannyāsins in Kali-yuga. The well-known ten orders of the Advaita sannyāsins are: 1. *tīrtha,* 2. *āśrama,* 3. *vana,* 4. *araṇya,* 5. *parvata,* 6. *sāgara,* 7. *sarasvati,* 8. *giri,* 9. *bhāratī,* 10. and *purī.* The sannyāsins of these orders are the śiṣyas of Pṛthvīdhara. *pṛthvīdhavāchāryaḥ tasyāpi sishyāḥ daśa:* — *tirtha-āśrama-vana-araṇya-giri-parvata-sāgarāḥ sarasvatī-bhāratī cha purī nāmāni vai daśa.* He is also reported to have written a commentary on Śrī Sūkta published in Banaras. >From the above it may be inferred that after his *bhāṣya* was refuted by Śrī Śaṅkarāchārya, Śrī Pṛthvīdhara like Maṇḍana and others became a disciple of Śrī Śaṅkarāchārya. While the other disciples like Sureśvara, Padmapāda and Hastāmalaka wrote Vārtikas, Vivaraṇas and so on to expound the principles of Advaita as established by Śrī Śaṅkarāchārya, the constitution along with the administration of the Advaita Sannyāsins was undertaken by Pṛthvīdhara in whom the great teacher apparently discovered the capacity for organization and all the qualities required to inspire reverence, obedience and faith necessary for the maintenance of discipline. The other reference to Pṛthvīdhara is found in Aufrecht’s Catalogue[3] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62907.html#note-e-32920> of Sanskrit manuscripts in the Leipzig University library. In the course of describing the manuscript *gurupādādi-namaskāra* Aufrecht says[4] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62907.html#note-e-32921> that’ Anubhūtisvarūpāchārya, Troṭaka and Pṛthvīdhara are mentioned in the manuscripts. By the kindness of Prof. Dr. Johs Schubert of the Leipzig University, a micro film copy of the manuscript was obtained. The reference to Pṛthvīdhara in the manuscripts runs thus: *anubhūtisvarūpāchārya—nirātroṭakāchārya śriṅgeripṛthvīdharāchārya.* Here too Pṛthvīdhara is stated to have been one of the disciples of Śrī Śaṅkarāchārya and from the context it appears that Pṛthvīdhara after constituting the ten orders of Advaita sannyāsins was himself ordained as the head of the Śṛṅgeri Mutt. We have to pay homage to Pṛthvīdharāchārya who was held in such esteem by Śrī Śaṅkarāchārya that he was entrusted with the organisation and administration of the sannyāsins who from his time to this day have so worthily discharged their functions by writing works on Advaita and propounding the teaching of Advaita philosophy. It is also, I think, necessary that further and careful search should be made to find out more about the respected āchārya, Śrī Pṛthvīdhara, and his works especially his *bhāṣya* on the *Brahmasūtra.* Whatever be the fact about Pṛthvīdhara—having been the first head of the Śṛṅgeri Mutt, we have a definite and undisputed fact that Pṛthvīdhara was the author of an *anārsha bhāṣya* on the *Brahma-sūtra,* that he established the order of Advaita sannyāsins and that he was very highly respected. Further research is however necessary especially to trace his *bhāṣya* which should have been considered so valuable that he was placed above Abhinavagupta by Umāmaheśvara when referring to the authors of the *anārsha-bhāṣyas.* Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx K RAJARAM IRS TO BE CONTD -- 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 thatha_patty+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqnymZR7DPDOxUt_ysK7T-wH-kP9imPc67N6oQ%2BDzPmdQ%40mail.gmail.com.
