Pages

Sunday, April 29, 2012

My journey to Sri Vaishnavism - Part 2 (End of the beginning)

(Pardon the poor formatting of the essay.)

The traditional idea of unalloyed devotion to one's Guru and the modern argument of non necessity of a Guru are two extreme positions and most of the spiritual seekers of Sanathana Dharma fall somewhere in between. This premise needs to be investigated as this sets the further course of actions. Some important philosophers/Acharyas of Bharata were intellectual rebels. The Most famous one is Acharya Ramanuja who had many differences of opinion with Yadava Prakasha regarding Vedanta interpretation. Similarly Madhvacharya could not agree with his Guru Achyutapreksha's teachings in many places. Another lesser known example was Bellamkonda Ramaraya who became an Advaitin though born and brought up in a Sri Vaishnava family and his Guru was a Visishtadvaitin. There are other such examples. The question is Should we really blindly follow what the Guru says?

The short answer to this is No.  We know from modern fake Guru history that the premise of blind acceptance is outright wrong. People like Nityananda, Kalki Bhagavan, David Bruce Hughes(Dasanudas Babaji) and so many Gurus of ISKCON in the past  and innumerable others have been exposed as fakes and they inflicted a lot more pain in their "disciples" due to blind allegience. However, the issue need not be as serious as sexual transgression to establish this point. Intellectually too, it is equally valid.

Here is where the three important factors, Shastra(scripture), Acharya/lineage(Spiritual Guide)  and Vichara (self investigation) come into picture. If the Guru teaches us something, then it must be present in the shastras as well as stand up to your own reasoning and convictions. If it does not appeal to your intellect, alternate paths need to be explored.

Another important point that is also over-emphasized over the above factors is following the practices of family elders and ancestors. Unequal emphasis on any one of all these factors results in serious confusion.   An elderly person confidently asserted that Morning Sandhyopasanam need not be preceded by snanam(bath). They also maintained that only for the madhyahnika sandhya a bath is required. I found this ridiculous as I knew that only during emergencies one is allowed  to do mantrasnanam  and at all other times bathing is a MUST. However, this person was arguing for his case based on the practice of another 'elder' whom he had observed. He was convinced that a snanam was indeed required for the paratah sandhya only after I showed him the instruction in a book on Sandhya. 

The foregoing issue was an important factor in my decisions because two very important advaitins figure in my family tree. One is the famous Appaya Dikshita who is the brother of Achan Dikshita, my direct 13th ancestor. Swami Sivananda, famous for his Divine life society, is the younger brother of my great grandfather. If I ask a Vaishnava acharya whether following the elders of my family is the prime duty, then they cannot give me an answer that convinces their ideology as well as their viewpoint on family tradition.

Thus we also need to study the scriptures on our own and clarify the doubts with different

teachers. Moreover, the repetition of 'follow elders' advice is not going to help us until we are

convinced about the basis of all the practices.

The elective

During my seventh semester at BITS, Pilani I had to opt for three elective courses to complete the coursework. This gave me an opportunity to select 'Shankara's thoughts' as one of them. The course was based on Vivekachudamani (Crest jewel of wisdom) , a work by Adi Shankara outlining Advaita philosophy. I remember being more enthusiastic about this course rather than electronics electives. 

The professor explained creation as follows: 
Consider the following image:

The whole circle is Brahman, which is attributeless and the only entity. It is jnanamaya (or exists as knowledge itself). However, we have to explain the diversity we see in the world. Also, the Vedas say that Brahmam at the beginning of creation said to itself "Let me become many" . One fourth of brahman becomes Maya and obscures the rest of it and hence appears as the diverse name and form that we see in the world. 

Then he went on further to explain the related concepts like anirvachaniya (inexplicability) of maya and pancha kosham, nature of mind etc. The introduction of Maya rekindled a lot of doubts that I had already. Brahman is first of all indivisible. How can it be divided like stated above. If it is said that Maya is a separate entity, then the fact of only one reality is contradicted. Also, how can we explain the fact that Brahman which is the eternal knower, full of knowledge be obscured by Maya? However I did not discuss this deeply at that time with the teacher as I thought that some more learning will clear this up. I also assumed that these doubts are somewhat like the doubts we have regarding our epics and Puranas where many events seemingly unethical have some hidden reasons behind them. Later on I would find out that these questions cannot be answered satisfactorily with Kevaladvaita interpretation of Vedanta.

I went on to do a project on Dakshinamurthy stotram, which is allegedly composed by Adi Shankara. However, there is no doubt that it is a very well structured stotram giving the salient features of Advaita philosophy. While referring works on Advaita for this project, I got hold of 'Advaita VedantaEdited by R. BALASUBRAMANIAN. History of Science, Philosophy, and Culture in. Indian Civilization, vol. II, part 2' .

It is really a commendable project. The volume on Advaita Vedanta was very extensive in its coverage. It even briefly surveyed vernacular literature of advaita, which we often never hear about. While discussing  the concept of abheda or non-difference and mithyatva or illusoriness of the world, which are central to advaita,  Vyasatirtha's objections(in Nyayamruta) on these issues were discussed. These objections were answered by Madusudhana Saraswati in his advaita Siddhi. These in turn faced a rebuttal in Tarangini by Ramacharya. (Vyasatirtha and Ramacharya belong to the Dvaita lineage of Madhvacharya). I highlighted all these issues briefly during my project presentation. However, my professor was not really into comparitive Vedanta. He assumed the truth of advaita and hence I could not get meaningful solutions to these problems. 

I used to have long hours of discussion on this topic with my friend Dushyanth Sridhar who consistently supported Visishtadvaita. While I had doubts regarding advaita, I was still undecided.

As regards to Vishnu paratvam, the way was easier.

Vedic Scriptures - the way

शास्त्रयोनित्वात्
                - ब्रह्मसूत्रम् (१.१.३ )
   (That the Brahman is the cause of creation etc follows altogether from the vedic scriptures)

  The Brahmasutram is a work comprising of 545 short aphorisms by Rishi Badarayana. It talks about the goal(Brahman), the means to attain the goal and also defends vedanta from other schools of thought. It begins all this by harmonizing various seemingly contradicting vedic passages to give a coherent view.

This particular sutra (aphorism) stated above is one of the most important sutras of the text. This is because it reveals the epistemology of spiritual journey in a nutshell. Epistemology or the science of knowing is extremely crucial to any endeavor. We cannot know Brahman by either sense perception (pratyaksha) or inference (anumana) simply because Brahman is a non-material tattva (or entity) that is beyond the gross or the subtle senses. The only way to understand this Supersoul (Paramatma) is by experiencing it with atman or the individual soul, which is also non-material. Since, this is not easy for all the atmans, it is revealed as shastra through the atmans that are capable of this cognition. They are the Rishis and they give us the Vedas, which is apaurusheya (not created by anyone including God) and ananta (unlimited by space or time). Using any other method such as logic, guesswork, experiments etc is futile since all of these ultimately fall under the first two categories of knowing mentioned above.

Other important works called smriti, itihasa and puranas also appeared with the view of 

explaining the purport of Vedas. Those works in these categories which are in tune with the 

message of the Vedas are also considered as a pramana (or a valid means of knowledge)

Lord Krishna to the rescue

I decided that I must take the matter into my hands (but ultimately the Paramatma was of course responsible for shedding light on himself in my mind) and do a small analysis of Bhagavad Gita (accepted by Advaitins too) to see if there is any clue to the issue of Paratvam.(Upanishads and Brahmasutra were not that easily accessible in terms of interpretation). As the azhwars have stated, the floating opinions regarding this issue are that All the three deities Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are equal (or) Vishnu is supreme (or) Shiva is Supreme (or) There is a higher nirguna sadashiva who is the creator of all the three (or) Shakthi is the origin of all the three etc. 

The first verse that caught my attention is the Charama slokam.

ahaḿ tvā sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi  śucaḥ (18.66)

Here, Krishna specifically says that one has to surrender to him only and not anyone else. This indicates that he recognizes difference/ gradation.

This is actually confirmed by him in verse 2.12

na tvevāhaḿ jātu nāsaḿ na tvaḿ neme janādhipāḥ

(Certainly never at any time did I not exist, nor you nor all these kings and certainly never shall we cease to exist in the future)

He posits an eternal difference between himself and other Jivas here. It definitely means that difference is real. This verse has generated a lot of controversy among the advaitins and other schools and Swami Vedanta desikan dedicates four pages to explain the absurdity of the advaitic position with respect to this verse in his tatparya chandrika, which is a commentary on Ramanuja's Gita Bhashyam. 

It is further illuminating to study the verses where he talks about worshipping the Gods.

ye 'py anya-devatā-bhaktā yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ
te 'pi mām eva kaunteya yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam   (9.23)

(Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way.)

na tu mām abhijānanti tattvenātaś cyavanti te (9.24)

(I am the only enjoyer and master of all sacrifices. Therefore, those who do not recognize My true transcendental nature fall down.)

kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ prapadyante 'nya-devatāḥ

(Those deprived of discrimination by various desires impelled by their particular nature surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.)

antavat tu phalaḿ teṣāḿ tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām
devān deva-yajo yānti mad-bhaktā yānti mām api (7.23)

(The result of those of insufficient understanding is temporary. The votaries of the demigods obtain the demigod but my devotees attain me)

Now, the above slokams show us that there can be no clearer scripture than the Bhagavad Gita. I came to realise that Krishna who is non different from Sriman Narayana (he shows his four armed form after the vishwa roopa darshanam in Chapter 11) is the Supreme Lord and there is none greater OR EQUAL to him.
Any other interpretation is simply wrong and has to be forced upon it. This is because there is nothing in the rest of the Gita to overrule the above verses. It is so consistent. 

This certainly gels well with the first of 6 short sentences conveyed by Lord Varadaraja of Kanchi to Kanchi purna.
 "Ahameva paramtattvam" (Only I am the Supreme entity/Paramatma).

Note: Here it does not mean that Lord Krishna condemns worship of other deities. What he simply says is that it is lower rung in the ladder and is temporary. It cannot give us liberation. This sense is conveyed because he mentions in other verses that he himself makes every one of these devotions stronger and finally gives the desired fruit of this worship too. Hence, taking the extreme positions of either condemning everyone else to hell or equating Krishna with other Gods will not help in the true understanding of Gita.

Fancy interpreters of the Gita want us to somehow believe that by all these verses too, he talks about total equality of all deities. This is a view not supported by most of the traditional interpreters including Adi Shankara. 'Radical Universalism' or the idea that every religion is  the same is the bane of today's "followers" of Vedic religion. Even S.N.DasGupta in his History of Indian philosophy does a lengthy analysis of the word 'yoga' used in the Gita and comes to the conclusion that it conveys the same sense of the word as used in the Pancharatra agama rather than in others like Sankhyasutra, yogasutra etc.  Thus, while  giving non- straight forward meaning in some places will certainly help a coherent interpretation, this should not become an excuse to read into the text one's own views, especially when if it is clear and can stand on its own.  Moreover, we will see how all this analysis is in fact confirmed by the shruti as well as puranas.

In fact, Adi Shankara, despite being an advaitin, has strictly used only Narayana/Vishnu at all the zillion places where the general words Brahmam/atma/sat etc have been used in the prasthana trayam. The Acharyas of the shankara mutts sign their letters as "Narayana Smriti" . Mind you this Narayana has not been used by Shankara in the sense of Nirguna Brahman but as the Saguna, with all the kalyana gunas.

This information does in a natural way lead to Vaishnavism ,  but why Sri Vaishnavism? There have been a lot of advaita vaishnavas in History, famous examples being Sridhara who wrote a commentary on Bhagavatham and Madhusudhana Saraswati who wrote Bhakthi Rasayana.
Also, We know that the Madhva, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu were also Vaishnavas. Why not these paramparas?
The puranas, which are often extolled as the commentaries on Vedas confuse us regarding paratvam. Six puranas including Shiva and Linga puranam talk about Shiva paratvam, Six puranas including Vishnu and Bhagavatha talk about Vishnu Paratvam and the remaining six about Brahma and other deities. How is this to be reconciled with the Gita?
                                                                        (.........to be continued)

Saturday, April 21, 2012

My journey to Sri Vaishnavism - Part 1(The beginning)


(Note: The 'I' s in the post mean adiyen and not the ego-centric I. Due to limitations of the English language it is best to write it as 'I')


The Soul(Jivatma) and the mind are two entities which travel in their own ways. While the jivatma transmigrates in these created worlds from beginningless time depending on where it is thrusted by its karma, the mind is a super-expert in travelling to places far removed, at any instant of time. A combination of these journeys give us our present state. My Journey into Sri Vaishnava philosophy and theology is also a combination  of these factors and probably a lot more. This essay is intended to give an idea of what thought processes I underwent to become a prapanna (A surrendered soul) being born into a family that follows Adi Shankara's philosophy of Advaitam**. 

My father is a fan of Ramakrishna mutt publications. He has significant shelf-space dedicated to works of Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and their disciples. Vedanta kesari, the annual magazine of the mission also finds a place. There are upanishads with commentary by Swami Sivananda, Swami Ranganathananda and Swami Krishnananda. He is also a voracious reader of theosophical society publications, works of Aurobindo, Swami Chinmayananda, Ramana maharishi, Swami Dayananda (not the founder of Arya Samaj) and other Neo-advaitic writers. (J.Krishnamurthy, though was a rebel in terms of tradition can also be included in this list). He does not read many original works in Sanskrit but has stacked up books that are more inclined towards psychology and spirituality. He is less interested in puranas and itihasas. Arguably, this is exactly what we expect from a person with an advaitic worldview. He also dislikes the "narrow-mindedness" of Iyengars. I come from this background. 

He had a small book of Bhagavad Gita and encouraged me to memorise verses starting from 2.11 since it was Lord Krishna's Upadesham from that verse. I was about eleven or twelve years old then. I knew it was an important scripture but did not know anything else at that time. I memorized about 5 or 6 verses and then followed the very natural human tendency to give up.

Then with time, I started reading philosophical tracts that dealt with the problem of the world, nature of reality etc. to the extent I could understand. I certainly had the (usual) question "what is the purpose of existence?" all along in my mind and was looking for answers. I also had reverence for the scriptures. These two, I suppose are due to my karma vaasanas. I more or less came to accept Advaitam as my philosophy. On the theological front, I naturally went along with the popular neo-Hindu view of equality of all Hindu Gods. The turn around was yet to come.

I can say with confidence that my years from 2004 to 2007 in BITS, Pilani was a very active period in this journey. In 2005, I got introduced to Dushyanth Sridhar, who was an avid listener of Swamy Velukkudi Krishnan's discourses. He had a tape-recorder and listened to his discourses in casettes (Many in the new audience group might have never seen a casette recording of Swami's discourse). The first discourses I listened to were about Divyadesams, their sthala puranams and azhwars' experiences regarding them. I instantly liked them for their clarity and interesting way of presentation. 

Dushyanth also had a book of Desika stotramala with meaning and used to refer to it often. He once recited a part of Raghuveera gadyam(an Eulogy on Lord Rama) from it. It runs as follows:

jaDa-kiraNa shakala-dhara jaTila naTa pati-makuTa taTa naTana-paTu 
vibudha-sarid.h-ati-bahula madhu-galana lalita-pada 
nalina-raja-upa-mRidita nija-vRijina jahadupala-tanu-ruchira 
parama-muni vara-yuvati nuta !   

                                                                                          (courtesy: srivaishnavam.com)

I was enamored by the play of words here and wanted to memorize the whole Gadyam. (I am yet to do it). I however, read the whole work, with the meaning. I had a great reverence for Swamy Desikan from that point onwards. I wanted to know more about this personality and his works and that is when my eyes landed on a work called Satadushani. This is a polemical work which has 66 (34 of the original 100 have been lost) detailed arguments against advaitam of Adi Shankara. This, he had built upon the basic seven untenables of Swami Ramanuja in his Sri Bhashyam(commentary on Badarayana's Brahmasutram). Since, this work is in highly technical sanskrit, I got an idea of its content from an online forum that discussed the first fifteen or so points from this work in English. I still had faith in Advaitam and thought that these arguments would have been answered by scholars of the Advaita tradition. However, an important change in my view here was that there existed many other interpretations of Vedanta. I had never given a thought about this before. Determining the right philosophy was an important exercise for me because the goal of life and sadhana (tattvam, hitam and  purushartham to use technical language) depended on it. These philosophies were radically different in their views and methods. I became preoccupied with this. 

From this point on, things got a little complicated because I was caught in a cobweb of ideas and opinions. Visishtadvaitam (VA) piled a lot of criticisms on Advaita and Advaitins seemed to be responding to them but then again pat came a reply from the VAs. In the history of this dispute itself we find a thread of works. First Swamy Ramanuja attacked the Advaitins(AV) in his works. This was criticised by AVs after his period. Swamy Desikan wrote the Satadushani  and paramatha bhangam against these replies. A Scholar named Ananthakrishna Sastry wrote a work called Satabhushanam in reply to Swamy Desikan's criticisms. However, Swami Uttamur Veeraraghavacharya wrote Paramartha bhushanam from VA point of view refuting Satabhushanam.  I was stranded in the middle.

Similarly, Sri Vaishnavas as well as other Vaishnavas emphasised that only Lord Vishnu/Narayana was the highest deity, paramathma and others including Shiva, Brahma, Parvathi were jivatmas/created beings. I found it very difficult to accommodate this idea initially. However, since no one spoke without reference to shruti and smriti , I was entangled in this front also. The numerous stories from the itihasa puranas as well as sthala puranams  of the Hindu pantheon in Tamizh magazines like Shakti Vikatan and Kumudam Bhakti did not help in the least, to resolve this confusion. It in fact added fuel to the fire.
  
                                                                                                                       (.........to be continued)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** For readers who are not familiar with Advaitam and Visishtadvaitam, here is a quick summary -


Advaitam - It is an interpretation of Vedanta( contained in Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahmasutram or 'prasthana trayam' as they are collectively called) by Adi Shankara who lived in the 8th century. According to him only Brahmam(crudely translated as God) is the reality. The world we see around us is an illusion caused by Maya that engulfs Brahmam. Yet somehow Brahmam is pure knowledge. The Jivatmas are also illusions and once this illusion is removed by right knowledge the Jivatma realises that it is itself Brahmam. Since, only one real entity is admitted, it is called as advaitam or non-dualism.


Visishtadvaitam - This interpretation of Vedanta has been given to us By Sri Ramanuja who lived in the 11th century. According to him, there are three eternal realities, namely , Brahmam, Jivatma and the world of insentient matter. These are termed Isvara, chit and achit. Chit and achit form the body of Brahmam. Hence Brahmam is their soul and inner controller. The relationship between Brahman and chit, achit is also described as the relationship between a substance and its attribute, Eg, Flower and its colour. Since these relationships signify an oneness, albeit qualified, the philosophy is roughly translated as qualified non-dualism. By adopting Surrender(Prapatti) or Bhakti (devotion) , the Jivatma has to reach Vaikuntam, the eternal abode of Lord Sriman Narayana and be in eternal devotional service to him simultaneously enjoying his infinite attributes with its infinitely expanded knowledge. 


There are many more interpreters of Vedanta (especially Brahmasutram) like Srimad Anandatirtha/ Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya, Nimbarka, Srikanta, Srikara, Bhaskara, Yadavaprakasha, Vijnanabhikshu, Baladeva Vidyabhushana. However, for sake of brevity, I will stick to the two schools that I have stated above.