Reply to Sri Vidyamanya Tirtha

In the following URL is a post that gives a gist of (Late) Swami

Vidyamanya Tirtha's observations on Advaita/Shankaracharya.
[My replies to these can be read in blue coloured fonts.]
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/SUMADHWASEVA/message/28
353
[The Kannada booklet stated below can be downloaded from
the above post.]
// Paramapoojya Sri Vidyamaanya Tirtha Sripadangalavaru, of
Bhandarakeri Mutt, has written a book titled "Sri Adya
ShankaracharyarindalE advaitavaadada KaMDane" in 1934,
wherein he has analysed the Advaitha concept and dwaitha
concept. He has written in his munnuDi that he has written
based on the tatva and upadesha of paramapoojya
pratasmaraNeya Sri Satyadhyana Tirtha Sripadangalavaru. //

Response: Sri Satyadhyana Tirtha Swami floated the idea:

Shankaracharya taught only dvaita, bheda jnana and
harisarvottamatva but his followers wrongly interpreted them
to be advaita. In response to this idea, an advaitin scholar said:
It is possible to interpret Madhvacharya's works to mean
advaita alone and say that his followers misinterpreted it to
give a dvaitic meaning. And we shall restore those works to
their Advaitic purport.' Thereupon the Swami retreated from
such ideas. Sri Vidyamanya Tirtha swami has tried to express
his guru's ideas in this book.
1. He has referred the grantha of Adya Shankaracharya
"Upadesha SahasrI" and referred a shloka
" meaning - One who tells that myself is Brahma and myself is
Kartru, and BOktRu - will be jnaana karma bhrasta and naastika.
There is not an element of doubt in this.

It is an indication that Advaithavaada is not satisfying Adya

Shankaracharya himself.
But the vyaakyaanakaaraas of Shankaracharya tried to say
"kartrutva bhOktrutva sahita aham brahmaasmi jnaana" has
been condemned by Shankara and not "ahaM brahmaasmi
jnaana".
- meaning kartrutva bhOktrutva are mithya. Jeeva
brahmaikya only is satya. //
Response: The Upadesha sAhasrI verse referred to is:

- .
The meaning is: Those who claim 'I am Brahman' and also hold
that they are doers of action and enjoyers (experiencers) of the
result of action, are surely fallen from both the scripture-based
karma injunction and knowledge-path. They are verily nonbelievers (nAstika-s), having no path for gaining any
puruShArtha open for them. [This is the purport of the vivRtiH
of Sri AnandajnAnAchArya for this verse.]
The PadayojanikA-vyAkhyA of Sri Ramatirtha on the above
verse says:

[Question: 'How can the Self be non-dual since there is the
experience 'I am a doer/enjoyer' alongside the experience 'I am
Brahman' based on the scripture?' Such a thinking is held by
those who advocate knowledge and action in one individual at
the same time. These are called 'jnAna-karma samucchaya
vAdins' who want to combine self-knowledge with performance
of ordained duties. And the school that subscribes to bheda as
well as abheda in one breath. The verse of the

upadeshasAhasrI in focus is to refute such a proposition. In

reply the siddhAntin says: the scripture will not teach
conflicting things. Those who come to wrong, conflicting,
conclusions render themselves fallen from both the karma and
jnana kANDa-s of the Veda and become no different from
nAstika-s (those who do not hold the veda as an authority).]
There is a popular verse, found as 'subhAShitam' on the
internet too:


There is a variation to this verse: 'sarvam brahmeti vAdinam'.
The meaning is: One who claims to be a knower of Brahman /
Everything is Brahman, and is not free from worldly desires is
fallen from both the scriptural injunction and the path of
self/brahman-realization. Such a one is to be shunned just as a
low-born person would be shunned by the society.
The UpadeshasAhasrI verse is very much on these lines.

But Sri Shankaracharya was against that opinion as observed

from his bhaashya for the sUtra - ..
[The name of the sutra differs from the reading given by the
Swami] while writing bhaashya - has said - those who have
brahma saakshaatkaara do have praarabda karma and
bhokTrutva. If Bhoktrutva is mithya, then it shall have bhaadya
from Brahma saakshaatkaara. If even after brahma
saakshaatkaara also "bhOktrutva" is there, it means that it is
not abaadhya with brahma saakshaatkaara.

Response: The bhashya does not give the above

understanding. On the other hand it says:


,

//Objection: May not other outstanding virtues and vices
produce newer bhoga? Answer: No, since their seeds are burnt
away. For other outsanding results of works can produce a
fresh body after the death of the the present body only when
they have false ignorance to prop them up. But that false
ignorance, mithyAjnAnam, has been burnt away by full
enlightenment. Therefore, it is but proper that when the effect
already produced wears away, liberation comes inevitably to
the man of knowledge.//
Moreover, in BSB 4.1.9.13 we have this emphatic statement by
Shankara on the annulling of kartRtva-bhoktRtva for a Jnani:
// -
, ,
Contrary to the earlier belief that I have doership & enjoyership,
in all the three periods of time I am the Supreme Brahman that
is devoid of doership & enjoyership. I was not a kartA (a person
acting) or a bhoktA (a person enjoying) before, I am not that
even now and I will not be that in the future as well. The
knower of Brahman understands thus.// [Shankara's
brahmasutra bhashya: 4.1.9.13]
It is clear that the Swami's understanding of Shankara's
position on Jnani's kartRtva / bhoktRtva is without any basis.

Further, while doing vyaakyaana for another geetha shlOka BG 3.5:

:
: :

Shankaracharya has said Everybody will be doing one or the

other karma at all times. - it is an indication that even
aparOkShajnaani too have kartutva. This is also accepted by
Acharya Shankara.

Response: This is a wrong extrapolation. In fact the

Bhagavadgita teaches naiShkarmyasiddhi [the state of noaction] as the ultimate goal of man. That a Jnani has no
kartRtva / his karma is no karma at all is stated by the Lord
Himself:
.



The shAnkara bhashya, in part is: ,

,

|

[In reality, actions done by a man of Knowledge are certainly

inactions, since he is endowed with the realization of the
actionless Self...Even if were to engage in actions either with
the intention of preventing people from going astray or with a
view to avoiding the censure of the wise people; sah, he; eva,
really; na karoti, does not do; kincit, anything, because he is
endued with the realization of the actionless Self. From the
subjective standpoint of the enlightened there are no actions,
but ordinary people mistakenly think them to be actions, which
in reality are a mere semblance of it. ]

2. Advaitees say - Shankaracharya had brahma

saakshaatkaara - Same Shankaracharya do have kartrutva
for sootrabhaashya. Even Acharya Shankara has said that he
is sootrabhaashya kartru, and has brahma saakshaatkaara.

That means when he has brahma jnaana, he has not lost his
sootra bhaashya kartrutva naasha.

Response: The above Gita and bhashya answer this too. The
Jnani knows that the kartRtva does not belong to the Atman but
only to the body-mind complex. He has no abhimAna that 'I,
the Atman, is the kartA'. The Lord has stated this too:
Bhagavadgita (5.8,9):






(. ,)
[The man of Knowledge, a Jnani, even while engaged in seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, walking, eating,
dreaming/sleeping, breathing, talking, discharging (ejecting),
holding/grasping, closing and opening the eyes (even while still
alive) is of the firm conviction I do nothing at all; the
senses/organs interact with their respective objects. (is free
from his body) ]
In the verse BG 3. On the same lines as above, the Lord
specifies the Jnani's attitude/view: guNAH guNeShu vartante iti
matvA na sajjate.. The bhashya too is not very different from
the above.

3. Adya Shankaracharya has condemned

prapanchamithyaatva" - While doing vyaakyaana for
2.2.29 - has said during the prapanchancha seen during
jaagrutaavaste - is not abaadhya during any avasthe and said
prapancha is "paaramaarthika satya".

Response: The above is another misunderstanding on the part

of the Swamiji. Shankara in this sutra bhashya is refuting the
bauddha doctrine that 'the objects of the waking are mere
perceptions without their corresponding objects, just like
dreams.' While pointing out the difference/s between the
dream and the waking state, Shankara says:
// For a person who has awakened from a dream, the object
apprehended during a dream becomes sublated. He says 'My
cognition of contact with great persons was false. There did
not occur such contact with great persons. On the contrary, my
mind became affected by sleep and so there arose this
delusion.' Similarly, even with regard to magic and so on, there
is fitting sublation. An object, such as a pillar, apprehended in
the waking state does not get sublated in this manner in any
condition.//
As can be seen, the sutra does not teach that objects of the
waking state are real because they are perceived. Further, just
because the sutra differentiates the states of waking and
dream, it cannot be concluded, as the critic Swamji does, that it
teaches that the waking state is real. The Swamiji has
introduced a word, 'pAramArthika satyam' for the waking world
ascribing it to Shankara. Shankara never says that. What the
above sutra/bhashya refers to is just the commonly understood
lack of sublation of the waking state relative to the dream
state. It does not present the waking state as absolutely free
from sublation and, hence, unconditionally real, as the Swamiji
has misunderstood. That the waking state's relative freedom
from sublation could alone have been meant here is apparent
from some of the previous and later sutras themselves. For
instance, an earlier sutra speaks of the creation of the world as
analogous to dreaming by a person, while a subsequent one
states that the world is annulled on one's awakening to the
Truth. These two sutras are:
1. Atmani chaivam vichitrAshca hi 2.1.28

//In the case of the jIvAtman too during dreams, as do the gods
and magicians, varied creation occurs. The case with Brahman
too in respect of the creation of the world.//
And
upamardam cha 3.4.16
//The Knowledge of the Self results in the destruction of the
whole world of duality consisting of actions and their results
and the constituents of actions.//
Thus, the categorical position of Shankara is that the world of
waking too is false, being sublated by Right Knowledge.
Here is one such sentence from the BSB 3.2.21:
// ' ', ' (. ..)

//
[Brahman is One alone, without a second.' 'That is the truth,
That is the Atman, You are That (Ch.up.6.8, 7) - when Brahman
is taught thus, knowledge arises on its own. By that
knowledge, ignorance is negated. Then, the entire world of
names and forms, which is a superimposition on Brahman,
owing to ignorance, resolves like the world of a dream upon
awakening.]
Here is one more sample, from BSB 2.1.6:
- [Owing to the fact
that the two states of dream and waking mutually cancel out
each other, the Self is untouched by the two states.]
Again, in the Br.up.bhashya 2.4.12 Shankara says (for the word
'mahadbhUtam' of the upaniShad:
, ,

[Even though an object of the world may be huge (mahat), it is

akin to the Himalaya and other mountains brought about by a
dream or magic; it is not something quite true. Therefore the
upanSshad mantra specifies that This Brahman is, on the other
hand, great (mahat) as also real (bhUtam).]
From these and many similar passages across the works of
Shankara it is undoubtedly clear that in His siddhAnta the
waking world is not absolutely real as mistakenly concluded by
the critic Swamiji.
When he has said that prarabdha karma is there even after
brahma saakshaatkaara, then they have to accept the pancha
mahaabhoota. As such, these pancha bhootha-s do not have
baadhya from brahma saakshaatkaara.

Response: The experiencing of prArabdha karma need not be

with the notion of the reality of the pAnchabhautika prapancha.
On the other hand, the Jnani knows that all experiences are like
the ones in a dream, only appearances, and the
matter/material that is involved in those experiences are not
real. When the Advaitin has accepted that the body and the
required world are bAdhita by jnana but continue to appear
owing to the force of prArabdha, there is no question of their
being real for the jnani. What is to be remembered is that the
pAnchabhautika prapancha does not get destroyed, that is, it
does not undergo nAsha, due to brahmajnAna. On the other
hand, it undergoes bAdha, sublation. That means: there is firm
conviction of its mithyAtva, even when it is available for the
indirya-s, like the knowledge that the mirage water is only an
appearance, even when the mirage phenomenon is
experienced by the sense organ: eye. For example, Shankara
has stated this through the 'dvichandrajnAna' in the BSB cited
above: when, owing to a defect in the eye, the moon appears to
be dual, or even more, sometimes. But the person knows that
it is one only. In the BGB 2.16 Shankara gives another
example:


' '
The Lord's message in this verse to Arjuna is: You too, following
the way of Tattvadarshi-s, giving up misery and delusion, look
upon the dualities such as heat and cold which are regular and
irregular, that 'this transformation is non-existent but only
appears like the water in a mirage formation, and practice
forbearance, titikShA.
The prapancha / jIvatva satyatva bhrama is negated / ended. In
other words, the mithyAtva nishchaya with regard to prapancha
/ jIvatva is what is had. These verses of the Panchadashi will be
useful in understanding this advaitic concept :

|
||6.12||
|
||6.13||
|
||6.14||
12. Therefore one should always enquire into the nature of the
world, the individual Self and the supreme Self. When the ideas
of Jiva and Jagat (world) are sublated, the pure Atman alone
remains.
13. By 'sublation' it does not mean that the world and Jiva
cease to be perceptible to the senses, it means the conviction
of their illusory character is had. Otherwise people would be
automatically liberated in deep sleep or in a faint (when the
world is not perceived).

14. That The supreme Self alone remains also means a

conviction about Its reality and not non-perceiving or forgetting
of the world. Otherwise the (scripture-proved) state of
jIvanmukti itself will not be possible.
4. In one of the vyaakhyaana named "panchapaadika", which
is the vyaakhyana for shankara bhaashya, in the
mangalacharana shloka itself it is said that Sankaracharya was
not applying Bhasma. Even the vyaakyaanakaaraas of the
shloka have also specifically mentioned that Sankaracharya
was not applying Bhasma. But the present photoes which we
see of Sankaracharya do have bhasma. There is one direct
shishya of Shankaracharya, Sri Padmapaada who has seen
Shankaracharya directly is the vyaakyaanakaara. That means
it shall be praamaanika only. It is an indication that Sankara
was not a advaitee at all.

Response: The word 'nirastabhUtim' appearing in the verse

does not mean: without bhasma; it only means 'having given
up the vibhUti, the aishwarya, that is natural to Lord Shiva,
Parameshwara....'
The very old work 'TattvadIpana' while explaining this verse of
PadmapAda makes a comparison of Lord Shiva and Acharya
Shankara and brings out the differences: While Shiva is
bhasmoddhUlita, Shankara is free of the vibhUti-s, aishvarya-s,
of Shiva:
* (), ()
Vidwan (late) Sri Sringeri Kavi Narasimha sharmA, who has
translated several Advaitic works to Kannada, in his Kannada
complete translation of the PanchapAdikA says: ..ella
aishvaryavannU dUramADiruva (one who has given up all
aishwarya, lordship over riches...).
Further, there is nothing wrong even if an advaitin, that is a
smArta sampradAyastha, puts on the gopi chandana

UrdhvapunDra. There are many groups in the sampradAya who

put on the bhasma always, gopi chandana in the morning and
bhasma in the evening, gopi chandana always, even the
srIvaiShaNava (Iyengar) type red vertical nAma, etc. It is their
family sampradAya. There are many Kannada smArta-s who
put on the red nAma on the shrAvaNa shanivAra days. All these
are not smArta or advaita unfriendly. So, even if it is a fact that
Shankaracharya did not put on vibhUti but something else, it
does not matter at all. Advaita does not insist on this or that
mark. There is a smArta family in a town called 'viShNupuram'
in TamilnAdu. They have a rAmapanchAyatana worship in their
house. There, in the pictrure of Rama and Lakshmana one can
see bhasma on their forehead. There are some old drawings,
though rare, that depict Rama and Lakshmana with bhasma
marks just like the majority smArtas of the present day. Indeed
there is no pramANa in the Valmiki Ramayana that Rama
donned any particular type of mark on the forehead and body.
It is only popular convention that we see Rama in the Iyengar
type naama.
* There is the word 'bhUtikAmaH' in the Mundakopanishad
mantra 3.1.10:
|
** |||| where it is said
that an enlightened one can materialize for either himself or for
others those worlds (enjoyments) that he wishes to. Since he
has the power to grant those to others too, let the one desirous
of bhUti, aishwarya, worship that aparokShajnani.//
5. Further one of the direct shishya of Sankara, Sri
Hastamalaka had NaaraayaNa ashtaakshara mantrOpadesha
and had vaishnava deekshe - as found in Sri Shankara vijaya.
Response: Even this is not advaita-unfriendly. Advaita does not
insist on the worship of Shiva alone. All deities are only
manifestations of One Parabrahman. A person gains
chittashuddhi by devoutly worshiping one or the other deity. In

fact Shankaracharya-s stotra sAhitya is full of this theme alone.

Whether it is Ganesha, or Subrahmanya, Rama or Krishna or
AmbikA or Shiva or NarayaNa, or even GangA, it is the
parabrahmatva of these deities that is highlighted. One
worshiping any of these will be bestowed with all his iShTArtha
including mokSha. So, even if it is true that Shankara gave
vaiShNava deekShe to someone, it is not a mark of nonadvaita. In fact even today the Sringeri Acharyas give mantra
deekShe to various supplicants based on the mental make up
of the aspirant. A siddhapuruSha Guru can make out the type
of the disciple and give the appropriate mantra to him/her. In
the Sringeri maTha sampradAya, the person who takes up the
peeTha will be initiated in a number of mantras, one of which
is: the narasimha rAja mantra.

6. Sri Sankaracharya has said "aham brahmaasmi" shruti

means " I will do vedaadhyayana"
Response: The Br.up. 1.5.17 is about the duties the dying
father hands over to the son. Here 'brahma' means veda. The
amara kosha gives: 2563. The word 'brahma' has
the meanings/synonyms: , . The Bhagavadgita
3.15:


"Know that prescribed action has its origin in the Vedas, and
the Vedas proceed from the Indestructible [God]; hence the all
pervading Infinite is always present in Sacrifice.
In the Br.Up. 1.5.17 the father entrusts to the son: 'You are
brahma, you are yajna, you are loka'. [ 'The son acknowledges:
'I am brahma, I am yajna and I am loka'.] The shruti itself
considering the meaning of these words hidden, proceeds to
explain them: ' - 'Whatever is
studied has been or remains to be studied, is all unified in the

word 'brahman'. That is, let the study of the Vedas which so
long was my duty, be henceforth done by you for you are
brahman'. All this the son accepted as it was, having been
instructed to that effect.
Thus the context of the word 'brahma' occurring in that mantra
is veda. Hence this does not contradict with the meaning of
' 'I am Brahman' occurring in the Br.up. 1.4.10.
7. - while sootra vyaakyaana, he has said dwaitha jnaana itself
can give moksha. If Jeeveshwara bEdha is mithya, then
Sankara would not have said bedha jnaana is mOksha
saadhana.
Response: In Advaita the bheda jnAna connected with Ishwara
is the cause of kramamukti and not direct mukti. In krama
mukti, the upAsaka goes to brahmaloka and gets the advaita
jnana upadesha from Brahma and with that jnana gets mokSha
along with brahma and others at the time of pralaya. In
sadyomukti the aparoksha advaita jnani is liberated in this life
itself and does not go to any other loka after death.
8. In dwaavimou purushou lOkE vyaakyaana - Sankaracharya
has said SrikRishna is sarvottama
Response: This is not any oddity with Advaita. In the BG Sri
Krishna is the Parabrahman and accepting Him as sarvottama is
quite natural and in consonance with the text. In fact in the
very introduction to the Bh.gitA bhAShya Shankara starts with
this invocatory verse:


Narayana is beyond the Avyakta; From the Avyakta the
Mundane Egg is born; Within the Mundane Egg, verily, are
these worlds and the Earth made up of the seven dvipa-s.

Still there are many concepts explained by Shankaracharya

which is in favour of dwaitha. Please find the scanned copy of
the book for your reference.
Response: All those various 'concepts' shown by the Swami are
only his misconceptions about Advaita and Vedanta. The above
response is enough to enable the reader to conclude that the
rest of the 'concepts' enumerated by the Swami do not deserve
any separate rebuttal.
Some famous statements from the shAnkara bhAShya:
1.



[Thus occurs this superimposition that has neither
beginning nor end but flows on eternally, that appears as
the manifested universe and its apprehension, that
conjures up agentship and enjoyership, and that is
perceived by all persons. In order to eradicate this source
of evil and in order to acquire the knowledge of the unity
of the Self, is begun a discussion (after the study) of all
the UpaniShads. We shall show in this discussion about
the nature of the embodied soul, that this is the purport of
all the UpaniShads.]
(The concluding part of the preamble to the Brahmasutra
bhAShya)
2. ,
[Rather this man of realization is Brahman in this very life,
though he seems to have a body. Being but Brahman, he
is merged in Brahman.] Br.up.bhashya 4.4.6.
3.

[..for if liberation was a change of condition, it would

contradict the unity of the Self that all the UpaniShads
seek to teach.] ibid.
4. ,
[Dvaita, duality, does not deserve to be taught as it is
discernible, untaught, even by a just-born being.]
Br.up.bhAShya 5.1.1.
5.
[It is the unanimous conclusion of all the
followers of UpaniShads is that the UpaniShadic instruction
is the non-difference of the jIvAtman with the
paramAtman.] Br.up.bhAShyam 2.1.20 .
6. -

[Moreover, false knowledge cannot taint the supreme
Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot taint the supreme
Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot make a desert
muddy with its moisture. The objection that in the
absence of a samsArin there arises the defect of the
absence of samsAra is refuted by reasoning that both
samsArin and samsAra are a conjured up by / due to
avidyA.] BhagavadgitA bhashya: 13.2 [3]
7. ' '
-- ' '

[Although the unreal form is caused by the limiting

adjuncts, still, for the comprehension of Its existence it is
said, '(It) has hands and feet everywhere, etc., by
assuming this as a quality of the Knowable. Thus, as is
well known, there is saying of the people versed in
tradition, 'The Transcendental is described with the help of

superimposition and its refutation'.] Bh.gitA bhashyam

13.13 [14].

Here are some responses to the Swami's other misconceptions

about Advaita expressed by him on other occasions:
http://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/an-advaitin
%E2%80%99s-assessment-of-some-dvaita-remarks/
http://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/an-instance-ofadvaita-wrongly-comprehended-3/