Smarta brahman vs Samkaracharya

[Guest guest]

It is correct that smarta brahmins were not attached to any of the

Kanchi or Sringeri. In fact the smarta system does not at all need

such a organisation to attain advaita realisation. We can very well

compare the present case with the smartas of North India. For

example, in Varanasi the smartas do not at all attach to any of the

so called Samkara Mathas. I think well meaning scholars will agree

with me that smarta system is a complete and independent one based on

Veda, Smriti, Vedangas, Puranas and including at its later

develipments the Agamas and the Tantras.It is purely a misnomer to

say that the advaitin Samkara contributed much for the reorganisation

of the smarta system. Let them prove how he did. First of all what is

the connection between Samkara and the smarta system? By Samkara I

mean he who has written bhashyas on the Brahmasutras, selected

Upanishads, the Bhagavadgita, and a few philosophical treatises and

not he on whom ascribed any number of devotional poems, installation

of Sricakra, the debates he is said to have had with so many acharyas

such as Nilakantha, Abhinavagupta who lived in different periods as

is eulogised and propagated in a most unreasonable, illogical and

totally against common-sense view !!. I am afraid I may sound too

harsh. But this is the historical fact.

While on the one hand we a lot of textual, epigraphical evidence and

support for the Pasupata, Saivasiddhanta systems from the beginning

of at least the 7th century which were spread thrioughout India and

propagated by kings and laymen and who have really fought and debated

against heretics and Buddhists that is completely overlooked and a

fictitious history in the name of Samkaravijaya that defies all

reasoning and contemporary tradition supported by the above nentioned

historical data is foisted on us !! What a travesty of truth !!

We are also lead to believe that in order to protect the Sanatana

dharma Samkara established four (five?) mathas in the four directions

of the country! I will ask one simple question: Where are the texts

in the vaidika-smarta tradition that prescribe the rules and

regulations for construction of Mathas? On the other hand in the

Saiva Agamas and the ritual Paddhatis dating from at least the 11th

century (Somasambhupaddhati) we have detailed instructions on Mathas,

consectration of tehm, excavation of wells, Ashramas consisting of

wood-resorts and trees. We have the well known Amardaka and the

Golaki mathas from the 7thcentury onwards and the Pasupata mathas and

acharyas. Really they were the protectors of the Sanatanadharma. We

read in the Kalamukha inscriptions as to how they taught and

nourished various branches of study such as the Vedas, Dharmasastras,

Vyakarana, Nyaya, and secular literatures as Kavya. Can one find any

such reference to the propagation and regular teaching in the so

called Samkara mathas from the medieval period. The point is not to

find fault with the system Because advaita vedantic tradition is

exclusive and by its very nature world-negating and encourages

seclusion from the world and society. As Samkara says in the

Brahmasutrabhashya that since the world is ultimately mithyaa-

illusory it is immaterial to try to decide whether it has come out of

Brahman or Agni or Akasa.

Then there is the negation of any ritual for the highest advaita

realisation. According to him no ritual or sacrifice can bring about

the advaita realisation. Karma and brahma are totally opposed. Only

mumukshu- who is desirous of liberation from the worldly existence is

eligible even for the study of vedanta. What can he have to offer for

the ordinary lay smartas with family and other duties and who are not

yet ready to seek liberation ? Just think of it ! So it is a myth to

think and say that Samkara mathas were and now are the protectors of

our Sanatanadharma and heritage. Far from it ! In the same way no

theoritical and traditional connection between the Mathas and the

smartas either in the bygone ages or at present.

[Guest guest]

>It is correct that smarta brahmins were not attached to any of the

>Kanchi or Sringeri. In fact the smarta system does not at all need

>such a organisation to attain advaita realisation.

 

Does one necessarily need to finish college to be smart – Bill Gates

is an example why such a case is not necessarily true. So does this

mean that we can do away with schools and colleges?

 

The post by T Ganesan only brings out the envy of certain "Hindu"

communities against the Advaita tradition. Is it our fault that the

philosophies of the detractors of advaita lacked the universal

outlook of Advaita or its lofty ideals or its incisive logic or the

charisma of the exponents of the doctrine?

 

>We can very well compare the present case with the smartas of North

>India. For example, in Varanasi the smartas do not at all attach to

>any of the so called Samkara Mathas.

 

Some points to be noted here :

 

1. Whether north Indian smaartha Brahmins are not affiliated to

Shankara mathas is itself a big question? Because many of the

historical matha aachaaryaas are from North India. Also I know quite

a few North Indian smaarthaas who are affiliated to the Shankara

mathas. Some serious survey needs to be done such a claim can be made.

2. Also my reference to smaarthaas is primarily concerned with South

India. Even here I would not take too many liberties but rather

confine myself to my own community.

3. It is also to be noted that Brahmins of one region seldom accept

Brahmins of other regions as Brahmins – for example my mother thinks

that Namboodiris are sorcerers (she finds it hard to accept the claim

that Shankara was one – anyway according to our tradition Shankra was

a Chidambaram dikshidar). So whether north Indian Brahmins are

smaartha or they align themselves with a Shankara matha is hardly my

concern.

 

>I think well meaning scholars will agree with me that smarta system

is >a complete and independent one based on Veda, Smriti, Vedangas,

>Puranas and including at its later develipments the Agamas and the

>Tantras.

 

What you've proposed is an idealistic view of a community based on

certain texts. But that does not hold water in reality - not

everybody who "lives by the smrithis" is a smaartha.

 

In reality there exists a tradition where only a select few are

considered smaarthaas.

 

BTW many north Indian Brahmins I've met seem to have no idea

what "smaartha" means – they only identify themselves as "Brahmin".

 

>It is purely a misnomer to say that the advaitin Samkara contributed

>much for the reorganisation of the smarta system.

 

Well even if you don't accept it this is the way many people

including Indologists see it.

 

>Let them prove how he did.

 

Rather the onus is on you to disprove it, since it is the default

view.

 

>the debates he is said to have had with so many acharyas

>such as Nilakantha, Abhinavagupta who lived in different periods as

>is eulogised and propagated in a most unreasonable, illogical and

>totally against common-sense view !!. I am afraid I may sound too

>harsh. But this is the historical fact.

 

But for this you need not trash an entire tradition. The power of

Shankara Advaita doesn't rest in his "conquests" – but rather in the

validity of the arguments contained in the texts that you've

mentioned.

 

>While on the one hand we a lot of textual, epigraphical evidence and

>support for the Pasupata, Saivasiddhanta systems from the beginning

>of at least the 7th century which were spread thrioughout India and

>propagated by kings and laymen and who have really fought and

debated

>against heretics and Buddhists that is completely overlooked and a

>fictitious history in the name of Samkaravijaya that defies all

>reasoning and contemporary tradition supported by the above

nentioned

>historical data is foisted on us !! What a travesty of truth !!

 

Are we to believe that the Saivite tradition is free from myths and

stories? What about the numerous accounts of Shiva interfering with

fate on behalf of this or that saint or Parvathi giving milk to

Jnaana sambandhar etc? If we were to compare, "stories" in the

Advaita tradition pales in comparison to the stories concocted by the

Saivites.

 

Also it is to be noted that the arguments of the Saivite saints

hardly holds water against the abstract philosophy of Buddhist

luminaries like Naagaarjuna or Vaasubandu or Dharmakirti. In Indian

philosophy the subtlety of Buddhist philosophy is matched only by

Advaita which itself instead of directly confronting Buddhist

dialectic, makes use of it to advance its own cause. Later "Hindu"

philosophers mainly copy Shankara's dialectic against the Buddhists,

in their arguments against Buddhism.

 

It is also to be noted that Buddhist schools fought each other for a

long time even before Shankara appeared. So even Shankara uses

arguments already used by the Buddhists to counter each school of

Buddhism. But true to his philosophical genius he always has

something new to add in most cases. But that's hardly the case with

the later bhakti "copy cats".

 

>Where are the texts in the vaidika-smarta tradition that prescribe

the >rules and regulations for construction of Mathas?

 

Well the aim of Advaita is to free the Self from embodiment and not

about construction of monasteries.

 

>On the other hand in the Saiva Agamas and the ritual Paddhatis

dating >from at least the 11th century (Somasambhupaddhati) we have

detailed >instructions on Mathas, consectration of tehm, excavation

of wells, >Ashramas consisting of wood-resorts and trees.

 

Is Saiva Siddhaanta a school of architecture or a school of

philosophy?

 

>We have the well known Amardaka and the Golaki mathas from the

>7thcentury onwards and the Pasupata mathas and acharyas. Really they

>were the protectors of the Sanatanadharma.

 

Well some people believe that philosophy is more important than

buildings in the upkeep of religion.

 

>What can he have to offer for the ordinary lay smartas with family

and >other duties and who are not yet ready to seek liberation ? Just

think >of it !

 

Then are we to believe that only those totally immersed in samsaara

can provide advice on life?

 

Such a view contradicts the basics of Indian philosophy/spirituality

itself! Looks like there's a need to go back to the basics again!

 

As Ramana Maharishi says : a realized person need not do anything.

His mere presence is a guiding light for the world.

 

>So it is a myth to think and say that Samkara mathas were and now

are >the protectors of our Sanatanadharma and heritage.

 

But that is the way that most of India considers it and rightfully so.

 

Maybe instead of bad mouthing the Advaita tradition, other traditions

first need to understand how Advaita has ruled the spiritual roost in

India for more than a millennia and half now. But given the level of

criticism by other schools I doubt if anything is going to change.

 

BTW no offense intended – as aachaarya Gaudapaada says : only

dualists quarrel. We non-dualists have only tolerance for them

as "they know not what they speak" :-)

[Guest guest]

Speaking of the samkarite and smArta traditions,

I would like to know when temples associated with the samkarite

institutions were built and what texts and modes of worship are

followed therein?

 

How is it that an agamic temple worship is allowable within an

advaita framework?

 

 

Another issue related to this :

Is it true that smArtas who are followers of BaudhAyana seem to have

the sanction for external or bahir worship while those that follow

Apastamba sUtras do not ?

 

 

Vidya

[Guest guest]

> >Where are the texts in the vaidika-smarta tradition that prescribe

> the >rules and regulations for construction of Mathas?

 

Are there works of this sort in the Buddhist or Jainaa traditions?

 

Other than prescribing an environment "soothing to the mind and

senses" I've not seen anything specific on the building of monastries

in Buddhism.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk <vpcnk@H...>" <vpcnk@H...>

wrote:

 

Nanda,

 

I see that you don't get tired of getting on the soapbox :-) That too

without any notes, references :-)

 

> But true to his philosophical genius he always has

> something new to add in most cases. But that's hardly the case with

> the later bhakti "copy cats".

 

I am confused. Please help me here.

 

The Vishnu bhakti poems of paripATal are dated by Zvelebil to around

500 AD. The Saiva poet KAraikkAl Ammaiyar is dated to around 550 AD

by scholars. The first 3 Azvars are placed by most scholars in the

late 6th-early 7th century timeframes. One AzvAr even seems to hint

that he was the first to compose in the antAti genre 'yAn2mukamAy

antAti mEliTTu aRivittEn2'( nAn2mukan2 tiruvantAti 1). If this were

to be accepted he nay even have to be dated before KArakkAl AmmaiyAr.

Appar and Campantar are securely dated to the early/middle part of

the 7th century.

 

Samkara's dates as accepted by scholars is like 788-820 AD. I am not

clear what you mean therefore by QUOTE later bhakti "copy cats" END

QUOTE. Perhaps in your considered opinion, the bhakti poetry itself

is devoid of any philosophy.

 

Warm Regards,

 

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Guest guest]

>Perhaps in your considered opinion, the bhakti poetry itself

> is devoid of any philosophy.

 

Not devoid of philosophy - but lacking the seriousness that a real

work of philosophy would contain.

 

The bhakti saints were not philosophers by religious poets. That

there is a philosophical element in their works merely points out the

intellectual nature of religion in India.

 

The arguments of the bhakti saints against the Buddhists can hardly

stand against the subtle philosophy of Naagaarjuna or Vaasubandu or

Dharmakirti.

[Guest guest]

A Tamilian Smartha Brahman once told me that "Smartha" comes from

Sama (equal) Artha (emphasis)meaning that they treat

Shiva and Vishnu equally.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "yaksh12000" <yaksh12000> wrote:

> A Tamilian Smartha Brahman once told me that "Smartha" comes from

> Sama (equal) Artha (emphasis)meaning that they treat

> Shiva and Vishnu equally.

 

By any chance, was he L.Iyer ?