AADYHAASA of Shri Adi Shankara Padachariyal

"Brahma satyam jagat mithya jivoo brahmaiva naa parah iti vedanta dindimahah" is the startling line in sariraka mimamsa adhyasa bhashya of shri Adi shankara Bagavat Padar"Brahmam is the sole reality the world of plurality is false(illusory) and jiva is identical with Brahmam. Adi Shankara a kevaladvaitha has to explain his stance of attributeless Brahmam as the only reality and so he uses Vivartha Vada to solve the contradiction between theory and observation. "Ajaya manoo Bhahudavijayathe tasya Dhirah parijananthi yonimm" as stated in vedas means the unborn takes many births and only learned understand the reason. Shankara says Brahmam is not an object of knowledge for whatever is revealed by knowledge is bound by space and time and has attributes. Brahmam is neither subject nor object of activities like thinking etc. All self consciousness is finally false as Brahmam cannot be grasped by consciousness because Brahmam is not an object of sense perception. because of endless Ignorance{ its not a negative entity like lack of knowledge but false knowledge} the Brahmam appears to an object and falsely identifies itself with Upadis or adjuncts. Maya which makes the one appear many cannot be said to be really related with Brahmam for Brahmam is said to be ever pure at the same time Maya cannot be said to be unreal for it is experienced in our activities. Thus it is "anirvachineeya" or inexplicable . Superimposition requires the pre-existence of a substratum and a superimposing object. Also the knowledge of superimposing object is necessary as in the case of snake-rope. this would make that knowledge real.So what ever we try we cant explain superimposition"vacham agocharam" admits Sri Shankara. For Brahmam to be substratum of apparent superimposition it has to be an object. Brahmam can appear like an object only after superimpostion and stretching this explainition would lead to infinite regress and Adi Shankara uses an analogy to explain why superimposition cannot be logically explained. He says "Bijaankura Nyaya" can explain this. Liberation is only through the Knowledge that Brahmam is the only truth. Even Eshwara is a Brahmam as conditioned with Upadis-Saguna Brahmam{ only Narayana as accepted by Shankara in BRHADAARANYAKA upanishad Bhashya and Geeta Bhashya-"VAASUDEVAAKYAM PARAM BRAHMA ITI NI SHREYAS PRAYOJANAM.."} is a close reading of the truth but the ultimate truth is attributeless Brahmam......................{to be continued..............}

remembering the great C.S.K

i present here some of my observations and incidents which happened during my Grand Father's{csk} time.
1. one day Mr . Mani , a customer was having a chat with sri C.S.K and in course of discussion Mani was stressing that vibuthi was better for forehead and not nama, Sri csk gave a apt reply in his style that vibuthi being horizontal would make u rotate around this world only and only namam which is straight will take u to vaikundam.
2. after returning from a hotel , sri csk asked us why we had "eccha sooru" as he calls it. we had no reply and he continued..for having "eccha sooru u people paid money too."
3. once while having chat with Dr. Madhavan , C.s.k said "Yama takes life away and you doctors take money also with that....."
4. once i was having a heavy argument ...for name sake{which is called kudrishti and which i am generally gud at} on the topic of karma....sri c.s.k finally ended saying that we have to accept that karma is anadhi and it precedes janma on the strength of texts alone and expatiated vedia texts that speak of the same ..... and also added if u want to argue try reading satha dushini first and learn how to argue.
5. once when i was praising his memory, sri csk replied that apart from patti, every one notices only positives in him and said "if u want to know how bad i am ask patti, she is an expert in that"
6. simply to tease my Gfather i called him and said i am Lingam iyengar and wanted a car repair...he immediately blasted back.."first repair your name then we will see ur car"
7. we used to have a sloka teacher for vishnu sahasranama and tatha came to test him and it was the teachers bad day that he was teaching"padmanabho mara prabhuhu" tatha blasted back at him that "ooye say padmanabah amara prabhuh ...enne vishnu marathikaa prabhu...avan amarargaluku prabhu...ennaaa solitara...."
8. i introduced my school sanskrit teacher who was a gold medalist in sironmani and tatha asked him to explain Desikas sloka in paduka....yaayaayaayaayayaayaaa and my teacher was standing quiet..."tatha replied all ur phd's are not sufficient to understand a single line of vedanta Desika"
after the incident my teacher in school asked me personally"is ur tatha a sanskrit genius" i replied him back ....."not exactly but tatha has great intution and knowledge"
9. damadora Dhishita used to visit us often and on seeing my mantha buddhi he suggested doing saraswathi homam...tahta came to know of this and said " hayagriva stotra is even superior to that and said to dikshitar that ur saraswathi sits like a baby on Lords lap and restated Desika's stotra "
10. once one evening tatha was explaining me the meaning of rudratandava stotra of ravana and rudram and chamakam......i was taken aback and asked him how come u know these things also...he replied" its never bad to know shiva literature as long as one studies it with the thought that Narayana is superior to all"
rest will continue......................

childish metaphysics of vivekananda school of thought

swami Vishveshwaraananda in his introduction on brahmasutra Shankara Bhashya says that no commentator has done justice to Badaranaya as much as vivekananda school of thought and says dvaitha, vishishtadvaitha and advaitha are phases in psychological development towards mukthi.
Nothing can be more erroneous than this view as dvaitha and advaitha are poles apart at metaphysical levels . Mukthi in advaitha is more of a speculation as the conclusion of Shankara is that" There is none in bondage, none striving for liberation and none liberated".
Ramanuja enquires , what is the nature of liberating knowledge - if it is real than it is different than Brahmam, if its non real, then its object cant be real and hence it will be useless for mukthi, if its "anirvachaniya" then its nothing but refusal to answer this question, for world is "anirvachaniya, maya is anirvachaniya, liberating knowledge is anirvachiniya" means that this dharshana simply indicates truth can never be explained, theorised or pondered upon in which case there was no need to Shankaras Bhashya.
Madvaacharya on the other hand lays less stress on unity between Jiva and Brahmam and Prakriti which may not represent the abedha shruthi part of upanishads.
Without doubt we can say "Apacheda Nyaya doesnt hold in upanishads and Bagavat Ramanuja was right in pointing out "samanvaya" and hence HE ALONE HAS UNIFIED THE TEACHINGS OF UPANISHADS WITH RELENTLESS LOGIC AND METAPHYSICAL PROFUNDITY AT THE SAME TIME BRINGING THEM TO EVERYDAY PRACTICE THROUGH HIS HEART THAT EQUATES ALL AS NARAYANA SESHAAS.
all acharyas of vedanta were no ordinary persons , they had diferent goals in formulating their systems. Shankara was instrunmental in saving Brahmam and vedas from Buddhas and Jainas. Madva in bringing back mayavadas into real world of duality and Ramanuja in giving correct intepretation of vedanta and vedas and establish the easier path of Prapatthi as a means of salvation. metaphysically all acharyas "Shankara, Ramanuja & Madvaacharya " were equally brilliant, only the purpose of dharshanas were different.
these dharshanas are not step by step psychological development but complete in themselves and the best of them is ofcourse Vishisthaadvaitha which unifies advaitha and dvaitha after removing their inconsistenties.
Also in Advaitha which speaks of pure monism every thing is two- two Brahmams- suddha Brahmam and asuddha Brahmam{ishwara}, jeevan mukthi and videha mukthi, apara gnaynam and para gnaynam, savikalpa samadi and nirvikalpa samadhi...etc
Shankara himself known for his mighty intellect says in adhaysa bashya of sariraka bhashya that no matter how much we try, we cant explain the avidya{superimposition} on a logical plane and deem maya neither sat, neither asat, nor a combination of both and hence achintya and anirvachaneeya.
Sri Vedanta Desika has done a soul searching analysis of avidya from all the angles possible and have conclusively established in Satha Dushini that avidya can never be proved by any of the pramanas and hence is a philosophical figment .
so Vishveshwarananda's claim that Advaitha is the end of psychological development is naive, incorrect and childish as by no means can sri matham or dvaitha matham , finally culminate in advaitha {maya vada } .....by no means.

acintya-bedha-abedha darshana of krshna chaitanya mahaprabhu

bengal vaishnavism is a direct offshoot of chaitanya cult of krishna worship. this school is known as achintya bedha-abedha darshana. the basic tenets of this school is that lord krishna who is superior to narayana, vishnu and others is the supreme entity.
this brahmam has its body as prakriti and jeevatmas who are nothing but the localised consciousness of the same brahmam. this is a sport of brahmam to see itself as different whereas the pure brahmam called krishna is the ultimate reality. "un imaginable difference cum non difference is observed"
if difference cum non difference exist in the same brahmam its tantamount to considering that the brahmam is divided and unified at the same time hence un imaginable.
this is a modified form of bedha-abedha of bhaskara wherein brahmam has a form and it enjoys bliss and plays with itself , deceiving itself. this school presumes that brahmam hides certain portion of itself to itself as a sport as a child hides its hands and watches itself in the mirror. who gets liberation is a big question whether krishna gets liberation or his hidden part differentiated as jeevas?
also this school places puranas above vedas and ithihasas which is generally not the case with the vedantic method of exploration. they reduce vaikunta to a small planet like kailasha and consider golokha vrindavana to be the ultimate summum-bonum, but this school depends heavily on bagavat Ramanujas arguments to counter mayins and mayaa-vadins. if shankara's concept of "anir-vachaneeya" mayaa is not tenable , so is this achintya {bedha-abedha}.
Ramanuja's system of ubaya vedanta strikes a perfect balance between dry logic and emotional bhakti. swaying on either direction leads to imbalance. Ramanuja does not accept achintya as an answer to a question. the answer should be found using pratyaksham, anumanam, sabdam in congruence. this shows the why vishishtadvaitha is considered to be the most dangerous challenge to shankara's advaitha, for this shreematham alone gives a coherent picture of vedanta following the rules of nyaya , tarka and vyakarana at the same time placing importance on devotion thus the end result is the nectar.

the philosophy of lokayats-charvakas

indian philosophy is mulitifaceted with innumerous philosophical schools like nyaya-vaiseshika, vedanta, jaina, bhuddha, loyakatas, mayins, saktas -tantrics, samkyas, yoga...etc. some think atheism is a dogmatic reaction against theism and atheism{charvakas} are one of the oldest surviving schools along with vedanta and others. when people suspect the very existence of Rama avatar, one may feel that majority of people have already become charvakas and are hindus by name only.
guru Chanakya commenting upon the hypocrisy of people during his time , wrote"anthah shatyah bahir shaivo janamaa madye cha vaishanah" meaning unside they worship shakti, by chant they are shaivas but when they step they behave like vaishnavas so as to get prestige.{vaishnavas were once considered the best of brahmins} . today we have to redefine this. we worship God but we dont believe in him. Among us, people like Karunaanidhi are the worst of charuvakas and they feel as if they are so logical.
the basic tenets of charva philosophy are
there is earth
earth is formed by various elements and those elements combine without any external agency.
consciousness is the result of body and is nothing but a sensation.
there is no god or hell , but only sense perception is true.
inference is valid as long as the sense perception validates it.
its better to commit sin to enjoy , for death destroys everything. so far so good .
But , if only sense perception is true then how come perceptions formed by mathematical reasoning that dont tease any sense be real? if earth can form on itself , why doesnt a dead man suddenly not come back to life by himself ? if consciousness is formed by association of certain elements, then that means the elements had consciousness in potent state and not as what they surmise. also if there is no eshwara then the analysis of cause-effect would lead to an infinite regress . despite their weak logical structure this school has survived and are still influencing the minds of people.
these charvakas are lower than animals since even cows have krishna bhakti and legendary animals like gajendra aspired for moksha. even vaanaras served Sri Rama.
Their logic is miraculously flawed and their behaviour hence. so there is no wonder that karunaanidhi like lower organisms display the best level of ignorance. people following him are the blindest of fools . these human like organisms are called NriPashu(animal in human form).
Also we answer the question ..... Rama built the sethu using Nal and Neel who weren't humans in ordinary sense so the formation now appears as a natural formation. due to time, what remains now is but a faint reflection of the original. Also there is no need of engg degree to construct a bridge .... we ask ...is Nature an engineer to construct universe and life? no charvaka can answer this question.

brahmam as per vedanta

all the systems of vedanta address these issues: tatva, hita, purushartha. they differ in the way they define them. tatva is accepted by all the schools as brahmam. advaitha says brahmam is undifferentiated pure consciousness and it cannot be defined by attributes. it is nir-vishesha. the Shruthi says "neti neti" and sri sankara intreprets it as sublation of all the qualities and reducing it to an undifferentiated consciousness. Ramanuja uses "aparkta siddhi" and says that non differentiated substance cant be inferred or perceived and thus says that brahmam is a unified congloromerate of all the auspicious qualities.
So vishishtadvaitha treats brahmam as an omni-potent eshwara i.e Narayana who has svabhava and svarupa and who is of the substratum of suddha satva . suddha satva is one of the "dravyas" which gives rise to "Dharma bhuta gnayna" or attributive consciousness . this consciousness reveals other objects and through "dharmi gnayna" brahmam realises and revels in its own bliss. Brahmam has its body composed of jeevas and achit and it associates with them in a very complex relationship explained as "samana adikarana" which roughly can be described to a body -soul relationship. dvaitha's brahmam is similar to vishitadvaitha's brahmam but differs in relationship with chit and achit. Desika says in virodha pariha that nature of liberation is such that the attributive consciousness gets merged with that of Narayana but dharmi state remains that gives seshatvam . thus through coordinate predication Ramanuja says brahmam is some thing changeless but exists alone qualified by manifold attributes and subordinates like achit and jeevas.

Madva says that there is complete difference between brahmam and jeevas and no union ir co-existence is possible.

Nimbarka says that both manifoldness and unity co-exist in brahmam."ajayamanah bhaudavi jayathe" of vedas says that the changless -beginningless brahmam grows into manifold .

vallabha opies that brahmam alone is the tatva and jeeva and achit are self modifications done by brahmam on itself as a sport.

but Ramanuja-Desika's system seems best to give a single coherent picture of bheda shuritis and abedha shruthis.

suddadvaitha dharshana

among bhakti schools of vedanta, some schools are more intution based and care less for metaphysics and logic. this darshana of shri Vallabhacharya is a darshana in which the thatva is radha krishna and he is the only reality. " ekam sat viprah bhahudah vadhanti" is quoted by vallabacharya to support that vedas teach of a qualified brahmam called krishna and krishna is seen as many{bhaduhah vadhanti}. krishna leela consists of modifying his body. "satyam gnyanam anantham brahma" this brahmam hides the qualities namely anantham and chith in its body and thus its portion of body that is affected developes localised consciousness called jeevatma that is nothing but brahmam itself . marga is bhakti towards krishna and moksha is in communion with Krishna. the shruthi declares that Brahmam is "paramkamaat" meaning fully satisfied in its own bliss. there are serious questions that are to be answered as to how does the brahmam which is ever perfect suddenly makes its portion of body imperfect? even if it does what is the purpose? to decieve itself that its imperfect? .
this suddhadvaitha is a modified form of advaitha where in ignorance is substituted by volition there by bringing "parinamavadha" . if brahmam cannot be deluded by maya then it should not be deluded by itseif also. this delution seems dangerous as to what if it hides all its qualities and forgets that it is Brahmam? also if brahmam is having a body, then is the body same as that of brahmam or different? if brahmam and its body are same then deluding its body would lead to perdition. if its different then pure monism wont result. this is the problem all the extentions of advaitha face i.e to explain the manifoldness. Ignorance or leela cannot account for a single entity to appear as many. also bhakthi is always meant as pure devotion. and devotion implies difference between experiencer and experienced so on no grounds this metaphysics would stand.

Buddhism vs Vedanta

today it has become a fashion to call buddhists as rational and great people as if vedanta is irrational. the buddhists believe only in Pratyaksha &ANUMANA, while vedanta believes in PRATYAKSHAM ,PRAMEYA, ANUMANA, SABDA, ETC. Buddha taught that one should believe only ones perception through rational thinking. through rational thinking he came to a bizzare conclusion that neither god or soul exists and everything is momentary sensation and the truth is the untruth of these. Bhagavan Ramanuja reasons out that even to form a molecule , real atoms should exist an should combine , which requires that they be real and not momentary. Quantum physicists may say that every thing is in a state of flux and what we observe is due to the convergence of a probability equation which supports buddistic view . But if such is the case one must also explain where is the locus of energy and where are those probability rules hanging. if one says that energy changes itself as per the probabilistic law of nature to form compounds , then energy should be real . but buddhists would say energy is false and they can never explain the locus of the source of all these so called sunya. Vedanta Desika would have probably replied to the physicist that it might be that probalities decide shape and structure and apperance but this just proves pratyaksham is not absolute { because of improper prameya} but fallacious and here buddhism would tear off. So its better to believe in sabda than pratyaksham for pratyaksham may be fallacious due to tarka dosha, indriya dhosha, kala dosha etc. vedanta gives high importance to this pramana but also recognises its defects . he definitely would not have agreed that probabilities shape things , stating that its cause is still not represented and only the method is represented and its an incomplete darshana.
the concept of nirvana leading to sunya is not only suicidal for life but also for its own philosophy .
sunyatha cannot explain why there is dhuka, moha, karma , etc as cited by buddhists . to paraphrase Vedanta Desika from his Shata Dushini, "if there is nothing to see and nothing is the truth why ponder to make a philosophical speculation."
Adi shankara built a rock solid theory of an ignorant Brahmam which is the ultimate reality. this brahmam cannot be disproved for it has no features and similar to shunya which just exists and cannot be proved for there is none apart from it to have the proof . Shankara probably intrepreted vedanta in this manner to shut the mouth of buddists , who eventually lost and ran outside india.