The pundit, the idiot and Parashara Bhattar- a few thoughts

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

I'm grateful to one and all who took the trouble to thank me for

helping them recollect the old story about Sri.Parashara Bhattar.

 

There are perhaps many versions of the story. I was merely

re-conveying the incident as heard from Sri.U.Ve.Mukkur

Lakshminarasimhachariar (of Kakinada) in an " upannyAsam " at least 15

years ago. His style of narrating it in Tamil had a " svArasyam " of

its own which somehow can never truly be captured in any English

translation, least of all mine (and no false modesty here, believe

me).

 

When I first heard about the Bhattar incident (known to be one of

" Bhattar's famous 'nirvAham-s' in SriVaishnava lore) I was quite

young and naive and, frankly, I did not know what to make of it. Was

the story meant to discount " gnyAna " or knowledge as something

inferior to " faith " ? Was the 'man of faith' inherently superior to

the " man of knowledge " ?

 

My confusion was made worse when on one occasion I privately asked

Sri.Mukkur Swamy what lessons Bhattar's disciples in the end drew

from the incident, and he simply smiled and looked away as if to say,

" Sorry, my friend, go and dwell upon the story and draw your own

conclusions. No short-cut here " .

 

It wasn't as though Mukkur Swamy was being un-helpful then. In

hindsight I can now see how right he was, in fact, to ask me not to

expect explanations to be always served on a silver platter. He made

me understand how important it is to exert one's own mind to draw

lessons from the lives of our " achAryA-s " . After all Bhattar himself,

in the story, had not dished out any homily or easy, clear-cut

answers to his disciples, did he? Bhattar had merely demonstrated to

the 'sishyA-s' how in a man's life (and especially in one spent

single-mindedly in pursuit of God) a moment inevitably arrives,

sooner or later, when he must somehow confront, and then resolve, the

question of how much longer, and how much farther, he should cling to

Knowledge before deciding to take the leap of Faith.

 

Fifteen years later I know I can't claim to having grown any wiser

now than I was when I first heard the Bhattar story, but certainly

over the years a few valuable lessons did really go home to me.

 

In a nutshell, they are as follows:

 

(1) Great SriVaishnava " achAryA-s " like Bhattar were true

intellectuals indeed. Far from telling their students to simply

accept what was taught to them, they seemed to have actually

encouraged disciples to think for themselves. Bhattar, if he had

wanted to do so, could have easily given a staid answer to his

disciples' straight query. But it would have made them no wiser

thereafter. Instead, in order to drive home a very important truth to

them, he took the trouble to create a situation in real life and then

had them figure it all out in relation to the question posed.

 

The incident thus goes to show that our " achAryA-s " , when they wanted

to impart some really important truth to their students, could do so

quite effectively through the Socratic method even long before

Socrates ever set foot on earth... Our 'AchAryA-s " seemed to have

been perfectly adept in the modern teaching-method of presenting a

paradigmatic situation to students and then simply leaving it to them

to draw conclusions.

 

(2) In Bhattar's times, students had their education under the system

of " gurukula-vAsam " ... the system where Master and pupil " live

together and share living space under one roof " for years and years

and where education is *imbibed* by the disciple rather than

delivered to him by the teacher in the sterile form of a rigid

syllabus. The students learnt great truths not only from texts and

lectures but from the intimate knowledge gained through merely

observing the behaviour ( " nadamurai " in Tamil) of their " AchAryA " in

day-to-day situations.

 

In the case of the Bhattar-incident, the great lesson he delivered to

his students was not conveyed to them through lecture or text. It was

delivered when the disciples themselves happened to notice an unusual

pattern in Bhattar's behaviour towards the pundit and the idiot...

and became curious as to what to make of it. How is this method of

education... this unique method of imbibing the 'guru's' wisdom...

ever possible outside the institution of " guru-kula-vAsam " ?

 

(3) It is very tempting to draw facile and rather simplistic lessons

from the Bhattar incident. We may far too easily conclude that

Bhattar actually puts a premium on " blind faith " while heavily

discounting " Knowledge " and that, somehow in the story, Bhattar is

subtly endorsing the role-model of the idiot rather than of the Vedic

pundit to his students.

 

Some of us may even want go further and conclude that Vedic effort,

in the ultimate analysis, is rather futile while a sort of childish

belief in the " power of blind Faith " will automatically fetch for us

the riches and rewards of enlightenment. In my view, such a view may

be a grossly romanticized one.

 

If we properly analyse the story, we will notice that, Bhattar's

intention was not so much to pass judgment on the pundit or the idiot

as to contrast the distances to which " knowledge " and " faith " take

man in the pursuit of God. Bhattar does not unduly run down one nor

glorify the other.

 

Bhattar was not telling his students " Vedic knowledge is futile " . He

was only reminding them that Vedic knowledge is very much essential

to realise God but without a strong focus on Faith such knowledge

takes one nowhere near understanding God.

 

All that Bhattar does in the story is to simply demonstrate to the

disciples the respective mind-states of the pundit and the idiot. And

then he seems to tell them, " You have seen what the pundit said and

now what the idiot did. Now it's upto you to compare and contrast the

mind-states of the man-of-knowledge and the man-of-faith... It's up

to you now to discern the vast distance which lies between the point

Knowledge brings us to in life's long journey and the point from

where the journey again resumes thanks to Faith " .

 

We can understand Bhattar's message better by recalling here the very

first verse in Adi-Sankara-BhagavatpAda's famous " bhaja-govindam " :

 

bhaja govindam bhaja govindam

govindam bhaja mudamathE I

samprAptE san-nihitE maraNE

nahi nahi rakshati dukrunj-karaNE II

 

Sankara asks a pundit who has immersed himself all his life in the

niceties and nuances of Panini's " vyAkaraNa-sutra " (Vedic treatise on

grammar) called " dukrunj " , " Sir, when you are at Death's door would

you still be reciting Panini's aphorisms? " .

 

Sankara's sombre warning is actually directed at Man's mind which

very often tends to get deluded in life by the heady power of

learning and the fame it begets. Sometimes the urge for knowledge is

as powerful and self-consuming as human lust and is really no

different from avarice for wealth. (In the modern world " knowledge is

power " they say, and we all know " power corrupts " ). Not until it is

too late in life does the mind realise what grief it has come to as a

result of acquiring knowledge without enlightenment.

 

At some point thus in life, Sankara says, the mind of man must

realise that Time is running out for him. It becomes urgent then to

transcend knowledge itself before he can begin to truly " Know " ... and

for that to happen Faith is needed. And Faith is not possible without

devotion.... There is thus simply no alternative to " bhaja govindam,

bhaja-govindam " ...

 

(4) The same point is made in a different sort of way in the

" kanninun-siru-thAmbu " of Madhurakavi-AzhwAr. Against the backdrop of

the Bhattar-incident the words of Madhurakavi in the " kanninun

siru-thAmbu " take on a very real and dazzling significance. The

" AzhwAr " says,

 

" ... mikka vEdiyar vedattin uL-porUl nirkapAdi yen nenjUL

niruttinAn... "

 

The AzhwAr uses very significant words indeed! He says

" vedattin-uL-poruL " .... He does NOT say " veda-porul " (Vedic

subjects); nor does he say " vedattin porul " (Vedic substance). He

specifically uses the phrase " vedattin-uL-poruL " (the essential

" core " of the Vedas).

 

The AzhwAr in the verse exlaims how by the grace of his " AchArya "

Kurugur-nambi (NammAzhwAr) his heart got indelibly imprinted ( " yen

nenjUL nirutti " ) with the essential-core ( " uL-poruL " ) of what the

'vEdiyar-s' i.e. vedic-pundits utter.

 

It is important to note here how Madhura-kavi clearly emphasises that

his enlightenment arose out of Vedic knowledge only. He respectfully

refers to the " mikka-vediyar " , the pundits. It is only through the

Vedic gateway that one can approach God. The Azhwar acknowledges the

fact but refers pointedly to the " ul-porUL " of the Vedas in

particular.

 

Now what is this " ul-porul " ? Clearly the " ul-porul " is nothing but

" paramporuL " ... the Supreme Being, Sriman Narayana. And so it follows

the ultimate focus of all Vedic knowledge is really " param-porul " ,

" para-tattvam " , " Isvara " . In other words, while the *goal-post* of

one's spiritual quest may be Vedic-knowledge the *goal* itself can be

nothing but God Almighty Himself. Without that particular " focus of

faith in a Supreme Goal " ( " ul-porul " ) all knowledge is, as Sankara

says, mere hocus-pocus.

 

Another interesting point to note here is that the AzhwAr uses the

words: " yen nenjUL niruttinAn " ... meaning, the essential-core of the

Vedas was imprinted upon his heart ( " nenjuL " ) by the grace of his

'guru', NammAzhwAr. Madura-kavi deliberately avoids the phrase " yen

manattil niruttinAn " or " yen arivvuL niruttinAn " ... which is to say

that the mind ( " manam " ) or the intellect ( " arivu " ) of Man is

incapable of comprehending the " ul-poruL " of the Vedas; it is only

the organ of Man's *heart* ( " nenju " ), flooded with Faith in and

Devotion for God, which can intuitively realize the " core of all

Vedic purpose " -- that " ul-porul " or " para-tattvam " Bhattar spoke

about to his disciples in Srirangam.

 

This is exactly what the Vedas themselves too proclaim in one

magnificent piece of poetry many of you may easily recall:

 

" anantha~mavvyayam kavigum samudrEntam vishva-sambhuvam I

padmakOsha-pratIkAshagam hrudayam chApya-dhOmukham II

(Rk 6 of the " narayana-suktam " )

 

The Veda too here refers to Man's " hrudayam " (heart) as the seat of

Faith... the perfect abode for " para-tattvam " !

 

" He who is limitless, unchanging, all-knowing and the Cause of all

that is happy in this world, dwells in the vast sea within one's

heart! He is the Goal of all earthly striving! The proper place to

meditate upon Him and know about Him is the ethereal space within

one's heart... that which is shaped like an inverted lotus-bud! " .

 

***** ******* *******

 

How wonderful it is, my dear friends, to see the thread of a great

Vedic theme and truth run right across an AzhwAr's 'pasuram', Adi

Sankara's " shlOka " , Parashara Bhattar's " nirvAham " and ... finally

Mukkur Swamy's " upannyAsam " ! How wonderful indeed this chain of lofty

ideas!

 

Regards,

dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!

/

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaH

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SaThakOpa-

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear devotees,

 

Thanks to SrI Sudarshan for narrating this incident very well,

through his unique style of presentation.

 

> When I first heard about the Bhattar incident (known to be one of

> " Bhattar's famous 'nirvAham-s' in SriVaishnava lore) I was quite

> young and naive and, frankly, I did not know what to make of it. Was

> the story meant to discount " gnyAna " or knowledge as something

> inferior to " faith " ? Was the 'man of faith' inherently superior to

> the " man of knowledge " ?

 

In our sampradAyam, " men of Knowledge " are referred to as

" AchAryas " Or " VidvAns " . They are regarded superior to those

who are " men of faith, but lacks knowledge " . Even the disciples

of Bhattar devotedly learnt under their AchArya and followed

him, since Bhattar was a " man of knowledge " apart from his

good anushThAnam.

 

But the twist in the writings of SrI Sudarshan is that the

" man of knowledge " in this episode has not been given importance

over " man of faith " . The question thus to be asked is :

" man of 'what' knowledge ? " .

 

AchAryas have the knowledge of VEdAnta (ie.ViSishtAdvaita) and

practice it. Since it is the topmost form of knowledge, they are

regarded very highly by us. But the puNDit referred in this

episode though read sAmAnya SAstras like NyAya, mImAmsa etc and

even tried to interpret VEdas/Upanishads, he has not understood

the reality (ie. real knowledge viz. ViSishtAdvaita). He is still

in the state of confusion in understanding the

tattva-hita-purushArtams.

 

The reason is because, he has not read or understood the divine

works of PUrvAchAryas like Bhagavad YAmunAchArya (ALavandAr) and

Bhagavad RAmAnuja. That puNDit has not got the divine blessings

of NammAzhwAr and Lord SrIman nArAyaNa. The puNDit was

contemplating upon the various purport of SAstras through his own

individual efforts/mind. He didn't receive the blessings of the

AchAryas of those days like Bhattar and undergo traditional

kAlakshEpam. The result is that, he was not actually a

" man of <essential> knowledge " , though he has read various things.

For instance, even the Ph.D. holders and scientists of these days

are also not " men of knowledge " unless they understand

ViSishtAdvaita Philosophy and SrI VaishNava sampradAyam. Here,

the word " knowledge " is used in a sense wrt that knowledge which

makes one attain moksham.

 

The poor brahmin had the important knowledge which will soon

be responsible for his attainment of eternal kainkaryam at

SrI VaikUNTham. Not only that he had such a knowledge, it was

a very firm conviction too (ie.the impact of that knowledge was

deep in him => That can also be technically regarded as a

matured state of knowledge). This poor brahmin was a recipient

of the blessings of Lord SrIman nArAyaNa and aachAryas like

Bhattar, in understanding the Para-Tattvam properly. This is the

vital difference between the two.

 

Thus, Bhattar correctly respected the " man of <right,essential>

knowledge " and disregarded the other. Though one might be

performing menial service at maDapaLLi etc, but if he is a

" rAmAnuja dAsan " with firm conviction following SrI VaishNava

sampradAyam, he has to be very much respected (ie. thats the way

to move with bhAgavatas, irrespective of their social status).

 

These were the lessons imparted by Bhattar.

 

However, Bhattar did not advocate that, there in no need to

learn further about SrIman nArAyaNa's swaroopam, rUpam,

kalyANa guNas etc, once one knows that He is the " Para-Tattvam " .

The recent thread on " Why to study SAstras ? " has ample

information regarding this.

 

>

> We can understand Bhattar's message better by recalling here the very

> first verse in Adi-Sankara-BhagavatpAda's famous " bhaja-govindam " :

>

> bhaja govindam bhaja govindam

> govindam bhaja mudamathE I

> samprAptE san-nihitE maraNE

> nahi nahi rakshati dukrunj-karaNE II

>

> Sankara asks a pundit who has immersed himself all his life in the

> niceties and nuances of Panini's " vyAkaraNa-sutra " (Vedic treatise on

> grammar) called " dukrunj " , " Sir, when you are at Death's door would

> you still be reciting Panini's aphorisms? " .

 

The first verse of bhaja-gOvindam imparts the importance

of VEdAnta (Or devotion to the person to be understood from

VEdAnta) over " mere mastery " of sAmAnya sAstras like vyAkaraNa

(grammar).

 

SrI Sankarar's concept of devotion ofcourse differs from our

sampradAyam/SAstras. This quote shouldn't be extrapolated

to those things. It has to be taken in the context and limits

under which it has been referred to by SrI Sudarshan.

 

As a Note from Chairman,Monitering Committe, since a member

needed clarification on this regard :

 

There can be " occasional " quotes from kAlidAsa Or Adi

Sankarar Or MadhvAchArya etc, if it is acceptable to our

sampradAyam also, and explains certain issues in the current

discussion topic. But, when the very " occassional " quotations

becomes " quite a regular affair " , its not acceptable to

SrI Malolan Net, though those things might be non-different from

our sampradAyam doctrine. References and Quotations from the

SrI VaishNava literature are always preferred, in accordance with

the objective of this net.

 

 

> Another interesting point to note here is that the AzhwAr uses the

> words: " yen nenjUL niruttinAn " ... meaning, the essential-core of the

> Vedas was imprinted upon his heart ( " nenjuL " ) by the grace of his

> 'guru', NammAzhwAr. Madura-kavi deliberately avoids the phrase " yen

> manattil niruttinAn " or " yen arivvuL niruttinAn " ... which is to say

> that the mind ( " manam " ) or the intellect ( " arivu " ) of Man is

> incapable of comprehending the " ul-poruL " of the Vedas; it is only

> the organ of Man's *heart* ( " nenju " ), flooded with Faith in and

> Devotion for God, which can intuitively realize the " core of all

> Vedic purpose " -- that " ul-porul " or " para-tattvam " Bhattar spoke

> about to his disciples in Srirangam.

 

aDiyEn does not get the conveyed meaning properly. Its the

dharmabhUta-jn~yAna (dbj) of oneself (a jIvAtma) through which one

actually comprehends tattvas etc. dbj makes use of sense organs,

including mind.

 

--------------------------

Quote from YatIndramatadIpika, trans. by SrI AdidEvAnanda,

Pub: SrI RAmakrishNa Muth,Madras < Faithful translation

and Notes >:

 

" 10. Manas (mind) is that sense organ which is the cause of

memory etc. It resides in the region (cavity) of heart

and is denoted by such terms as buddhi, anan^kAra, citta

etc ; and it is the cause of bondage and as well as

deliverance. " . (avatAra IV : Prakruti).

 

Notes at the back of the book by SrI AdidEvAnanda in accordance

with the writings of our pUrvAchAryas :

 

" Manas is called buddhi (intellect) when it is engaged in the

function of deciding (adhyavasAya); ahan^kAra Or abhimAna when

it conceives wrongly - for instance, when the aatman is

identified with body; and citta when it thinks. " .

-----------------------------

 

Usually, manas is referred to in the sense of " citta " . But in

our siddhAntam, buddhi (intellect), is also a state of manas

only. Thus, when manas and buddhi are simultaneously used while

explaining certain issues in SAstras (as in Bhagavad GIta

<eg: 5.28> etc), the implied meaning of manas has to be

appropriately understood in accordance with the context.

--------------------------

 

The following instruction from Lord KrishNa through His

Bhagavad GIta will be appropriate to the discussion we

have with regard to those who have (and do not have)

knowledge and faith :

 

< From Trans. by SrI AdidEvAnanda, SrI RAmakrishNa Muth >:

 

" The ignorant, the faithless and the doubting one perish;

for the doubting one there is neither this world nor

beyond, nor happiness " . (4.40)

 

Bhagavad RAmAnuja's BhAshyam :

 

" The 'Ignorant' ie. one devoid of knowledge received through

instruction <upadESam>,

 

The 'Faithless' or one who has no faith in developing this

knowledge taught to him ie. who does not strive to progress

quickly,

 

and The 'Doubting one' ie. one who is full of doubts in regard

to the knowledge taught

 

- such persons perish, are lost " .

----

 

Here, in accordance with the context, " knowledge " refers to

" knowledge of jIvAtma ie. self " taught by Lord KrishNa. But its

also applicable to Ubhaya-VEdAnta in general.

 

aDIyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

KOmAndUr ELayavilli (BAladhanvi) KaralapAkkam anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.

[Guest guest]

--- sampath kumar <sampathkumar_2000 wrote:

> Sun, 17 Sep 2000 07:53:08 -0700 (PDT)

> sampath kumar <sampathkumar_2000

> Re: " The pundit, the idiot and Parashara Bhattar " - a few

> thoughts

> Anand K Karalapakkam <kgk

>

>

>

> Thanks to Sri.Anand for his very illuminating comments. Although I

> have a few follow-up questions/clarifications of purely academic

> interest on some of the matters he discusses, I will carry on the

> correspondence with him at leisure through private mail.

>

> Once again thanks to all members who wrote in to privately share

> with

> me their views/impressions on the Bhattar-incident.... It's really

> been quite an education!

>

> Regards,

> Sudarshan

>

>

>

> Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!

> /

>

 

 

 

 

Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!

/