Sri appayya diixita

[Guest guest]

Quoted from: http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m24973.html

Posted by: Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

 

= Begin quote =================================================

 

Namaste all.

 

I recently came across a 150-pagebook titled "Sri Appayya Dikshita"

by Dr N. Ramesan, published in 1972 by Srimad Appayya Dikshitendra

Granthavaliu Prakashana Samithi, Hyderabad. Here are some extracts

that I think may give the readers a glimpse of the personality of

Appayya Dikshitar:

>From the sapta rishis downward, there have been great (i.e.,

spiritually great) householders in the Indian tradition. One such

was Shri Appayya Dikshidar (1520 â€" 1593 A.D.) As the true advaitin

that he was, he saw no differences in the different manifestations

of the Supreme Absolute. Stemming the tide of Vaishnavite attacks on

Saivism during the one century prior to his times, one of his

missions in life turned out to be a reconciliation of creeds, cults

and philosophy. He did not think that rival interpretations of the

vedas and puranas were entirely in the wrong. He says: ` na sUtrANAm

arthAntaram-api bhavad-varyam-ucitaM' (Who can prevent different

interpretations when the sUtras themselves are capable of different

meanings?). Such was his tolerance in religious beliefs and his

ardent desire for the reconciliation of philosophic thoughts. He

wrote the `Chatur-mata-sara' to illustrate the philosophical

thoughts of the four prominent schools of interpretation of

Brahmasutras. The `Naya-manjari' deals with advaita, the `Naya-mani-

mala' with Srikanta mata, the `Naya-mayukha-malika' with Ramanuja's

philosophy and the `Naya-muktavali' with Madhva's philosophy. His

remarkable catholicity of outlook, his thoroughness in writing, his

impartiality, his unerring sense of values and his passionate search

for truth are all so evident in these writings that the Vaishnavas

have adopted the `Naya-Mayukha-Malika' as their manual for their

careful and reverent study and the Madhvas the `Naya-Muktavali'.

 

He was well read in every branch of Samskrit learning and wrote as

many as 104 works, large and and small. Only 60 of these works are

extant now. These include works on Vedanta, Siva-advaita, Mimamsa,

Vyakarana, Kavya vyakhyana, Alankara and Devotional poetry. By

conviction he was an advaitin and true worship of Lord Siva was the

religion of his heart. Though the followers of the Siva-advaita

school claim him as belonging to their school, it is not so easy to

determine whether he was more inclined to Sivadavaita or advaita.

Sivadvaita is very much akin to vishishhtadvaita of Ramanuja, except

for the role of Vishnu being taken by Shiva.

 

Among the Vedantic works of Appayya Dikshitar, the `Siddhanta-lesha-

sangraha' is most famous. In this elaborate and original treatise,

he brings together in one place, all different dialectical thinking

belonging to the advaitic school. Traditional students of Vedanta

begin their study of Bhashyas only after studying this Siddhanta

Lesha sangraha. All the different views of different subschools of

advaita, like those of `eka-jiva-vada', `nana-jiva-vada', `bimba-

pratibimba vada' `sakshitva-vada' etc. are all discussed and the

contrary views properly explained in this work with Appayya

Dikshidar's masterly touch. And in his characteristic eclectic

style, he answers the question "How can there be contradictory views

among the advaita acharyas themselves on the same point?" He says:

All the acharyas agree in affirming the unity of the soul and the

unreality of the phenomenal world. For the world of fiction

different explanations are given according to the ingenuity of each

acharya. What if different explanations are given for a mere

fiction? !

 

Another famous Vedantic work of Appayya Dikshitar is the commentary

known as the `Parimala'. It is an extremely readable commentary on

the very difficult commentary called Kalpataru by an advaitic

teacher named Amalananda. That Kalpataru is itself a commentary on

Bhamati by Sri Vacaspati Misra which in turn is the famous

commentary on the Sutra-Bhashya of Sri Sankara.

 

While the Parimala follows the advaitic approach, Appayya Dikshidar

has written another commentary `Sivaarka-mani-deepika' on the

Brahmasutras. But this is written from the point of view of Siva-

visishtadvaita.. These two works â€" Sivaarka-mani-deepika and

Parimala â€" are his magnum opus both in bulk and importance. Though

both are commentaries on the Brahma sutra, Parimala aligns itself

to the advaitic interpretation while the other work expounds the

Sivadvaita philosophy of Srikanta-acharya. Appayya Dikshidar's

patron, King Chinna Bomma Nayak of Vellore made endowments for the

maintenance of a college of 500 scholars who studied Sivaarka mani

Dipika under Sri Dikshidar himself, thus equipping themselves for

the Saivite propaganda work, which had been organised with a view to

stemming the tide of Vaishnavite attacks and encroachments.

 

Dikshidar threw himself heart and soul into this mission for several

years and often had to face grave personal danger, which he did with

courage and faith. He preached, organised and wrote incessantly,

enlisting the cooperation of several enlightened monarchs. He

undertook frequent travels and challenged his adversaries to open

disputation, as was the custom of those days. He brought to bear on

his widespread activities, his resourceful personality and created

an atmosphere of tolerance and goodwill, in the place of the

prevailing antipathies and narrow-mindedness.

 

Dikshidar graphically describes dvaita as the lowest step,

vishishtadvaita as the middle step and sivadvaita and advaita which

are very close to each other as the highest steps. He makes it clear

in his work that Srikantha-Bhashya on the Brahmasutra has been

written in very close approximation to the trend of thought of Sri

Sankara in his own bhashya. Srikanta, according to Dikshidar,

propagated his cult on the understanding that sagunopasana is only

the first step to nirgunopasana, and that it was the real intention

of Srikanta that the final truth lies only in Shuddhadvaita.

Dikshidar's great dialectical skill is fully reflected in the work

called Anandalahari chandrika, where he tries to narrow down the

differences between the apparently divergent schools of thought and

tries to show that the advaita of Sankara is the real eternal truth

to which all others try to approximate.

 

In addition to his poetic skills and achievements on the

philosophical propagations and Saivite missionary work, Dikshidar

was a great Siddha-yogi. One of his yogic experiments was as great

as it was thrilling. In the later years of his life, he was subject

to attacks of colic pain. He was convinced that it was due to his

Prarabdha and past karma. Whenever he wanted to meditate deeply or

worship the Almighty, he made a bundle of his towel and put it in

front of him. By his yogic power he transferred his melody to the

towel and sat in meditation. His disciples watched the towel jumping

about the place. To them he explained later that he transferred his

ailment which was in the form of an evil spirit to the cloth and

then took it back soon after his meditation was over!

 

About his mystic devotion,there is another thrilling story that is

related to his work called Atmarpana-stuti. In this small work of

fifty stanzas he makes the inner self melt as it were by his

exquisite mystic poetry. We can see here the profound maturity of

true devotion to the Supreme. It reflects the inner mental state of

a great devotee, in whom the ego has become fully distinct. There is

a traditional account of how this work came to be written. It

appears once he wanted to test the maturity of his own devotion to

the Lord. Hence he swallowed the juice of the `datura' fruit, which

introduces intoxication, and told his disciples that they should

write down whatever he says, during the stage when his consciousness

was disturbed. In the stage of inebriation generally all suppressed

ideas would find release and come out into the open. And in his case

it was the Atmarpana-stuti that came out! It is therefore also

called `Unmatta-panchasati'.

 

Dikshidar is said to have travelled widely in the manner of those

days, entering into philosophical disputations and controversaries

in many centres of learning. He had the rare good fortune of being

revered and patronised in his own life-time by kings of Vellore,

Tanjore, Vijayanagar and Venkatagiri. A mighty intellect and

peerless sage, he led a life of karma, bhakti and jnana â€" a model

for posterity to follow.

 

PraNams to Shri Appayya Dikshitar and all advaitins

profvk

= End quote =================================================

[Guest guest]

, "MSR" <miinalochanii> wrote:

> While the Parimala follows the advaitic approach, Appayya Dikshidar

> has written another commentary `Sivaarka-mani-deepika' on the

> Brahmasutras. But this is written from the point of view of Siva-

> visishtadvaita.. These two works â€" Sivaarka-mani-deepika and

> Parimala â€" are his magnum opus both in bulk and importance. Though

> both are commentaries on the Brahma sutra, Parimala aligns itself

> to the advaitic interpretation while the other work expounds the

> Sivadvaita philosophy of Srikanta-acharya. Appayya Dikshidar's

> patron, King Chinna Bomma Nayak of Vellore made endowments for the

> maintenance of a college of 500 scholars who studied Sivaarka mani

> Dipika under Sri Dikshidar himself, thus equipping themselves for

> the Saivite propaganda work, which had been organised with a view to

> stemming the tide of Vaishnavite attacks and encroachments.

 

I heard from a south Indian friend who belongs to the same ethnic

community as Appayya that he was a Smarta, that is a non-sectarian

brahmin. Does the above mean that many Smartas or South Indian were

actually mildly or directly oriented towards Shaiva view-point. I have

always wondered if the South Indian Shiva-vishishtadvaita was a

response to Ramanuja's works rather than having their roots in the

Trika tantras that led to the North Indian Shivadvaita. Appayya's

activity strikes me as being very parallel to Ramanuja's.

 

At least initially in the North the Shivadvaita and Vaishnavadvaita

evolved in close parallel to each other (Eg Samvitprakasha of the

latter). The latter was lost relatively early due to the Muslim

invasions. I wonder if these Himalayan texts were known to the

Southern counter-parts.

R

[Guest guest]

, "rajita_rajvasishth"

<rajita_rajvasishth> wrote:

>> which had been organised with a view to

>> stemming the tide of Vaishnavite attacks and encroachments.

> I heard from a south Indian friend who belongs to the same ethnic

> community as Appayya that he was a Smarta, that is a non-sectarian

> brahmin. Does the above mean that many Smartas or South Indian were

> actually mildly or directly oriented towards Shaiva view-point.

 

Either Ravi or someone else once mentioned that Southern Smartas are

sympathetic to Shaiva-s because of historical reasons.

Probably they allied to repulse the tactics of hostile Vaishnavas

holding high positions in various kingdoms during that period.

 

Ravi also mentioned that the Southern Shaiva-s(only those who are

not aware of the basic differences between Smarta and Shaiva) look

upon Smarta-s as some sort of disloyal Shaiva-s.

 

However, they certainly do not accept Shaiva view point and are non-

sectarian for all practical purposes.

Ex: A knowledgable member in Advaita-l, who is a Tamil Smarta once

mentioned that axarAbhyAsaM is performed using the Ashtakshari Maha

mantra in their family. In Andhra they use Panchakshari.

 

Rgds

[Guest guest]

, Ravi Mayavaram <ravi@a...> wrote:

> As

> kAnchi mahAperiyava says, we always utter (or write) nArAyaNa, and

>we

> wear bhasma like shaiva-s, and the fact of the matter is -- at the

> deepest core we are all worshippers of ambaaL. (And we dont see any

> difference between them).

 

Above statement looks like an adoption from a very popular Shakta

Tantra.

Undoubtedly, all Smarta-s are not Devi worshippers nor does Devi

worship has anything to do with being a Smarta in an ideal sense.

Devi is not necessarily the iShTa devata for *all* Smarta-s.

They might worship Her as part of Panchayatana Puja but not

necessarily the iShTa devata.

There are ample examples of this including Adi Shankara and

Madhusudana Saraswati and other great ones.

 

Rgds

[Guest guest]

, "Satish" <satisharigela> wrote:

>

> , Ravi Mayavaram <ravi@a...> wrote:

> > As

> > kAnchi mahAperiyava says, we always utter (or write) nArAyaNa, and

> >we

> > wear bhasma like shaiva-s, and the fact of the matter is -- at the

> > deepest core we are all worshippers of ambaaL. (And we dont see any

> > difference between them).

>

> Above statement looks like an adoption from a very popular Shakta

> Tantra.

 

Yes. That is what I thought (from a tantra) when I read the original

(long ago).

> Undoubtedly, all Smarta-s are not Devi worshippers nor does Devi

> worship has anything to do with being a Smarta in an ideal sense.

 

I may be wrong in attributing the generality to aacharya's words in

Tamil. One thing that I clearly remember is that he was mentioning for

sure about himself. And the error of generalization should be mine.

> Devi is not necessarily the iShTa devata for *all* Smarta-s.

> They might worship Her as part of Panchayatana Puja but not

> necessarily the iShTa devata.

 

As Sri gaNapathy pointed out, all those who meditate on gayatrii

mantra meditate on the devataa in the form of devii (see the dhyaana

shloka-s). But still that could be an obligatory thing and as you

correctly point out, a smArta could have his heart on gaNapati,

subrahmaNya, or other devata-s.

 

Thanks.

 

Ravi

 

> There are ample examples of this including Adi Shankara and

> Madhusudana Saraswati and other great ones.

>

> Rgds

[Guest guest]

, "Satish" <satisharigela> wrote:

>

> , Ravi Mayavaram <ravi@a...> wrote:

> > As

> > kAnchi mahAperiyava says, we always utter (or write) nArAyaNa,

and

> >we

> > wear bhasma like shaiva-s, and the fact of the matter is -- at

the

> > deepest core we are all worshippers of ambaaL. (And we dont see

any

> > difference between them).

>

> Above statement looks like an adoption from a very popular

Shakta

> Tantra.

> Undoubtedly, all Smarta-s are not Devi worshippers nor does

Devi

 

 

Is this reference to,

'ante shaaktaH bhahiH shaivaH vyaavahaareShu vaiShNavaH'

 

'ante shaktaH' refers to the non acceptance of 'devataantara

taaratamya vaada' prominent in both shaiva and vaishnava traditions.

Claiming superiority of one deity over another is generally not

accepted in the shakta tradition. Shaktas have the understanding

that one supreme Ishvara/Ishvarii is visible in different names and

forms. This is very much reflected in the upaasana paddhati.

 

'aseShanaama ruupaadi bhedhashcheda raviprabhaa'

Aravind