Brahmavidyavilasa and chandrikakhya of Sringeri

[Guest guest]

The tradition of sringeri till date has preserved the srividya in its pristine

purity. Varivasya Rahasya and Saubhagyabhaskara, though respected, are not

accepted as authority by Sringeri which advocates parinamavada.

 

Sankara Bhagavatpada has written wonderful commentary for Panchadasi Mantra

called “Brahmavidya Vilasam”. This commentary is still preserved and is with

Bharati Tirtha. Chandrasekhara Bharati wanted to write commentary on this

bhashya but most often he used to be in antarmukha state. Brahmavidya Vilasam

propounds the philosophy of advaita which is called vivarthavada. Sankara draws

a common principle between Brahma Sutras and Panchadasi Mantra. The sutra he

emphasizes most was “Ananda Mayo Bhyasat”. It runs like this:

 

“Athato brahma jigyasa…..Janmadasya yathah, sastra yonitva, tattu samanvayaat

iti chatussutri – hrim …….evam sarva veda sastra sat bija bhuteyam para srividya

iti arthaha”

 

“Atratayam pada vibhayah : Ka, E, I, La, Hrim; Ha, Sa, Ka, La, Hrim; Sa, Ka,

La, Hrim.”

 

The last kuta he explains as sakala hrim ie., everything is HRIM.

 

Similarly, the commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama was written by Sri

Vaidyanatha Dikshitar (srividyanandanatha). The name of the work is

“Chandrikakhya”. This is a valid authority by the acharyaas of sringeri. This

commentary too is based on Vivartavada school of Sankara. The copy of this

manuscript is available with Sri Bharati Tirtha. But unlike Saubhagyabhaskara

and Varivasya, these did not become popular because still there is purity left

with Sringeri Parampara and they did not propagate this on the roof tops.

Srividya is Gupta Vidya which is a way of life.

 

For samaya and dakshina schools, Shodasi is the highest form of Upasana and

beyond which there is no diksha. After shodasi diksha, mahavakya upadesa and

turiya asrama is given. Sri Sarada which is the Brahmavidya Swarupini is an

aspect of Shodasi with Dakshinamurthy Kala in her. The 4 adhyayas of

Brahmasurtra represents the 4 mathas of Sankara. Sarada is the upaasya devata in

the sutra " athatho brahma jigyasa " .

 

This shodasi is called Suddha Vidya. This shodasi is having 16 bijas. As per

sa-maya (ie., Brahma with maya) tradition, the bija is comprehended along with

kama-kameshi. So, 16 bijas are comprehended with Siva and Shakti each which

become 32 in number. This 32 is described as the 2 pairs of 16 teeth each for

Mother (Suddhavidyaankurakara danta pankti dvayojwala). This is as per samaya

tradition. This differs in Vama / Koula tradition.

 

Mannatha sri jagannathah madguruh sri jagatguruh (My lord is Jagannath and my

guru is Sankara Bhagavatpada).

 

With regards,

Sriram

 

Glory to Sankara Bhagavatpada

Glory to sringeri acharya parampara

Glory to sarada

 

 

 

 

Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Join them now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

, venkata sriram

<sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> The tradition of sringeri till date has preserved the srividya in

>its pristine purity.

 

Absolute nonsense. They just adapted shrIvidya which has its origins

in various kAshmIra shaiva schools. If anything they just mixed it

with vedAnta. Not that it is wrong or anything.

 

Saying something repeatedly does not it make it right. Such a

strategy is directly opposed to the spirit of sAdhana or Atma

vichAra. It is just a dishonest practice which at times borders on

propagating lies. Kindly keep this in mind.

 

 

> Varivasya Rahasya and Saubhagyabhaskara, >though respected, are

>not accepted as authority by Sringeri which advocates parinamavada.

 

Texts should be accpeted fo rtheir merits or demerits. shrIvidya is

not related to vedAnta. When it is so why is this an issue in teh

first place?

 

> Sankara Bhagavatpada has written wonderful commentary for

>Panchadasi Mantra called " Brahmavidya Vilasam " .

 

I just wanted to roll on the floor laughing seeing this.

 

> For samaya and dakshina schools, Shodasi is the highest form of

>Upasana and beyond which there is no diksha. After shodasi diksha,

>mahavakya upadesa and turiya asrama is given.

 

One can mix whatever they want. But please do not propagate it as

being pristine pure or whatever. It is just funny.

 

 

> Sarada is the upaasya devata in the sutra " athatho brahma

>jigyasa " .

 

?! You are probably trying hard to undo the popularity of saubhAgya

bhAskara because it doesnt twist the names to interpret it in a

manner which emotionally pleases you.

[Guest guest]

how dare you question sringeri achara. srividya is brahmavidya. r u challenging

sankara and gaudapada? just go ask sri bharati tirtha swmigal. he will show all

the manuscripts to you. be modest and humble dear satish. if u are challenging

sringeri what is ur interpretation to srividya then. And mind you this is not my

interpreation and i donot get fun out of indulging in controversial remarks.

 

sriram

 

Satish <satisharigela wrote:

, venkata sriram

<sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> The tradition of sringeri till date has preserved the srividya in

>its pristine purity.

 

Absolute nonsense. They just adapted shrIvidya which has its origins

in various kAshmIra shaiva schools. If anything they just mixed it

with vedAnta. Not that it is wrong or anything.

 

Saying something repeatedly does not it make it right. Such a

strategy is directly opposed to the spirit of sAdhana or Atma

vichAra. It is just a dishonest practice which at times borders on

propagating lies. Kindly keep this in mind.

 

> Varivasya Rahasya and Saubhagyabhaskara, >though respected, are

>not accepted as authority by Sringeri which advocates parinamavada.

 

Texts should be accpeted fo rtheir merits or demerits. shrIvidya is

not related to vedAnta. When it is so why is this an issue in teh

first place?

 

> Sankara Bhagavatpada has written wonderful commentary for

>Panchadasi Mantra called " Brahmavidya Vilasam " .

 

I just wanted to roll on the floor laughing seeing this.

 

> For samaya and dakshina schools, Shodasi is the highest form of

>Upasana and beyond which there is no diksha. After shodasi diksha,

>mahavakya upadesa and turiya asrama is given.

 

One can mix whatever they want. But please do not propagate it as

being pristine pure or whatever. It is just funny.

 

> Sarada is the upaasya devata in the sutra " athatho brahma

>jigyasa " .

 

?! You are probably trying hard to undo the popularity of saubhAgya

bhAskara because it doesnt twist the names to interpret it in a

manner which emotionally pleases you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explore your hobbies and interests. Click here to begin.

 

 

[Guest guest]

the only line i have comment on ( because the rest are too controversial and

will not lead anywhere meaningful )

 

> shrIvidya is not related to vedAnta.

they are related as the lakshya is the same from the standpoint of Advaita.

 

regards

Vishwam

 

 

 

 

Satish <satisharigela

 

Saturday, May 24, 2008 3:15:16 AM

Re: Brahmavidyavilasa and chandrikakhya of Sringeri

 

 

@ .com, venkata sriram

<sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> The tradition of sringeri till date has preserved the srividya in

>its pristine purity.

 

Absolute nonsense. They just adapted shrIvidya which has its origins

in various kAshmIra shaiva schools. If anything they just mixed it

with vedAnta. Not that it is wrong or anything.

 

Saying something repeatedly does not it make it right. Such a

strategy is directly opposed to the spirit of sAdhana or Atma

vichAra. It is just a dishonest practice which at times borders on

propagating lies. Kindly keep this in mind.

 

> Varivasya Rahasya and Saubhagyabhaskara, >though respected, are

>not accepted as authority by Sringeri which advocates parinamavada.

 

Texts should be accpeted fo rtheir merits or demerits. shrIvidya is

not related to vedAnta. When it is so why is this an issue in teh

first place?

 

> Sankara Bhagavatpada has written wonderful commentary for

>Panchadasi Mantra called " Brahmavidya Vilasam " .

 

I just wanted to roll on the floor laughing seeing this.

 

> For samaya and dakshina schools, Shodasi is the highest form of

>Upasana and beyond which there is no diksha. After shodasi diksha,

>mahavakya upadesa and turiya asrama is given.

 

One can mix whatever they want. But please do not propagate it as

being pristine pure or whatever. It is just funny.

 

> Sarada is the upaasya devata in the sutra " athatho brahma

>jigyasa " .

 

?! You are probably trying hard to undo the popularity of saubhAgya

bhAskara because it doesnt twist the names to interpret it in a

manner which emotionally pleases you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, vishwanthan Krishnamoorthy

<krishvishy wrote:

>

>

> the only line i have comment on ( because the rest are too

controversial and will not lead anywhere meaningful )

>

> > shrIvidya is not related to vedAnta.

> they are related as the lakshya is the same from the standpoint of

Advaita.

 

They have many similarities.

As you correctly note, the lakshya *could be* the same for some.

It is possible to correlate aspects of shrIvidya with shankara

vedAnta and like some teachers(ex: GYAnAnandanatha- of shAradA

chatushshati fame) did, it can be shown how they have many

similarities. I was making that statement in light of sentences

like " sringeri preserves pristine pure or crystal clear shrividya etc

etc " . In addition to saying any non vedAntic interpretation is wrong

or unoriginal. This is what I am opposed to.

 

You may refer to Jaldhar H Vyas's posts in Advaita-l where he notes

that most tAntric schools like shrIvidya have an advaitic outlook but

not necessarily vedAntic. This mania to paint everything in vedAntic

colors is an outcome of 18 and 19th century political and cultural

circumstances as Jaldhar notes.

 

>not initiated in srividya, how can comment on others.

 

:-) I wondered why this comment did not surface in your earlier

response. Ofcourse like others I am sure you realise it does not lead

to any answers. That shrIvidya is guhya/secret and that only

initiates know anything about it might have worked in the past but

not these days. This is often used to browbeat any one who questions

some of these 18-19th century British influenced orthodoxy.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Satish,

 

What is " pristine pure " shrIvidyA? Is it even meaningful to talk of

such an entity?

 

In southern India, the primary practitioners of shrIvidyA historically

were the smArta brAhmaNa-s who were simultaneously the leading patrons

of shrauta rituals as well as advaita-vedAnta. The historical

personage of bhAskararAya is a prime example of this. Therefore, all

three (shrIvidyA, the shrauta ritualistic tradition as well as

advaita) are preserved by the leading smArta institutions such as the

sha~Nkara maTha-s. All these maTha-s claim allegiance to the vedic

tradition in general and do not restrict themselves only to the " core "

advaita tradition based on the bhAShya-s of sha~Nkara.

 

So if someone says that Sringeri has preserved shrIvidyA in a pure

form, it only means that the Sringeri tradition of shrIvidyA has been

preserved in pure form by the Sringeri maTha. There could be other

lineages with variations and they may claim to be " pure " too :-)

 

In any case, advaita-vedAnta as a darSana does not have much by way of

sAdhana apart from the various prakriyA-s and AtmavicAra. So the

sAdhana elements are picked up from the larger vedic tradition

including elements such as aShTANga yoga, shrIvidyA etc. Vidyasankar

of Advaita-l has eloquently explained the role of yogAbhyAsa in the

advaita tradition.

 

You say that shrIvidyA originated in kAshmIra shaiva circles. Where is

the evidence for this? And what is the claim to purity for the

kAshmIra shaiva tradition? SK Ramachandra Rao avers that the major

Agama texts followed by the kAshmIra shaiva-s (mAlinI vijaya, vij~nAna

bhairava, etc) are primarily dualistic. However vAsugupta through his

SivasUtra-s popularized a non-dualistic view which was further

expounded by thinkers like abhinavagupta.

 

Now where did vAsugupta get this non-dualistic view from? If we ignore

the legend that it was revealed to him on a rock or in a dream, it is

possible that he was influenced by some form of upaniShadic

non-dualism (and hence vedAnta) if not the sha~Nkaran variety of

vedAnta.

 

> You may refer to Jaldhar H Vyas's posts in Advaita-l where he notes

> that most tAntric schools like shrIvidya have an advaitic outlook but

> not necessarily vedAntic. This mania to paint everything in vedAntic

> colors is an outcome of 18 and 19th century political and cultural

> circumstances as Jaldhar notes.

 

Jaldhar made no reference to shrIvidyA. He was talking in the context

of the vAmAcAra tantra as practised in Bengal during Swami

Vivekananda's times. shrIvidyA as practised by the sha~Nkara maTha-s

is certainly much older than the 18th or 19th century and I am sure

Jaldhar is quite aware of that.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Dear Divine,

 

let us first understand that sanyasis worship Devi without the " Tarpayami " as

per Dhurvasa kalpam.Their approach is totally different from those of the

Grahastas. Why there should be so much controversy.

S.Shangaranarayanan

 

 

: sriram_sapthasathi: Sat, 24 May

2008 08:29:29 +0100Re: Re: Brahmavidyavilasa and

chandrikakhya of Sringeri

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

, " Ramesh Krishnamurthy " <rkmurthy

wrote:

 

>

> What is " pristine pure " shrIvidyA? Is it even meaningful to talk of

> such an entity?

 

I dont think something like that exists. :-)

This is the primary reason for my opposition to statements

like " sringeri has PP shrIvidya " . It also depends on who made this

statement and why.

 

>

> In southern India, the primary practitioners of shrIvidyA

historically

> were the smArta brAhmaNa-s who were simultaneously the leading

patrons

> of shrauta rituals as well as advaita-vedAnta. The historical

> personage of bhAskararAya is a prime example of this. Therefore, all

> three (shrIvidyA, the shrauta ritualistic tradition as well as

> advaita) are preserved by the leading smArta institutions such as

>the

> sha~Nkara maTha-s.

 

Preserved sure. But in what form. What are the shrIvidya texts they

follow? If it is only shubhAgama pa~nchaka then both traditional and

western researchers agree that they were manufactured during mediveal

times. So they are relatively recent works. No issues with following

the pa~nchaka btw.

 

The only issue is saying this is PP shrIvidya and that is what is

being opposed. So we borrow something from someone( a different

tradition in this case) and then claim ours is genuine, while

implying that the tradition from which it is borrowed from is not?

 

 

> So if someone says that Sringeri has preserved shrIvidyA in a pure

> form, it only means that the Sringeri tradition of shrIvidyA has

>been

> preserved in pure form by the Sringeri maTha.

 

If by pure form it is being said the practices/interpretations stick

to source texts of shrIvidya, then it is not accurate to say sringeri

preserved this in a pure form.

 

> So the

> sAdhana elements are picked up from the larger vedic tradition

> including elements such as aShTANga yoga, shrIvidyA etc. Vidyasankar

> of Advaita-l has eloquently explained the role of yogAbhyAsa in the

> advaita tradition.

 

I remember these and found them quite helpful. Nothing to comment or

disagree here.

 

> You say that shrIvidyA originated in kAshmIra shaiva circles. Where

>is

> the evidence for this?

 

The evidence is shrI-kula texts. One can just go through them.

I am actually surprised that evidence is asked for this. This is the

understanding of most indologists.If it did not originate in kAshmIra

shaiva schools like trika, kula, or kaula then where did it originate

from? From the veda-s? Upanishad-s?

Do we have any evidence of shrIvidya originating from vedic works?

It is possible that basic idea-s were adopted from various strands of

vedic literature but its complete form can be only found in tantra-s.

So we find paddhati-s related to shrIchakra pUja in the veda?

 

>And what is the claim to purity for the

> kAshmIra shaiva tradition? SK Ramachandra Rao avers that the major

> Agama texts followed by the kAshmIra shaiva-s (mAlinI vijaya,

vij~nAna

> bhairava, etc) are primarily dualistic.

 

This assertion is somewhat doubtful. Some of the best research in

this field is done by Sanderson, his student Somadeva vasudeva, Mark

Dyckjowski and others. It is generally found that among shaiva tantra-

s/schools one can find both dualistic and non-dualistic schools.

 

 

> Now where did vAsugupta get this non-dualistic view from? If we

>ignore

> the legend that it was revealed to him on a rock or in a dream, it

is

> possible that he was influenced by some form of upaniShadic

> non-dualism (and hence vedAnta) if not the sha~Nkaran variety of

> vedAnta.

 

The non-dualistic view is from shaiva tantra-s which propound such a

view.

 

> Jaldhar made no reference to shrIvidyA. He was talking in the

context

> of the vAmAcAra tantra as practised in Bengal during Swami

> Vivekananda's times.

 

shrIvidya also has vAmAchAra/kaula origins.Evidence: shrividya texts.

Which is why it is referred to as shrI kula. There are others like

kAli kula etc.

 

 

> shrIvidyA as practised by the sha~Nkara maTha-s

> is certainly much older than the 18th or 19th century and I am sure.

 

I am not at all trying to suggest that shrIvidya was practiced by

shankara matha-s only from 18 or 19th century. The issue I meant to

focus on entirely different. i mentione dthis only incidentally.

 

Regards

-------

 

Also attached are some views of my friends. However they are not

complete and ofcourse with new evidence opinions on these matters

will change.

----

 

The main topics in question are:

1) What is the origin of shrIvidyA and what were the original forms

of the shrIvidyA mantra-s? The pa~nchadashI and its derivative were

definitely not the earliest forms, and we have briefly discussed pre-

pa~nchadashI shrIvidyA and bAlA which were earlier. In a sense the

initiation pattern starting with bAlA and going to higher

pa~nchadashI derivatives actually mirrors history. The now declined

tripura-bhairavI form of shrIvidyA with 9 nityA-s (e.g. as in shArada-

tilaka) was an intermediate element in historical development. This

is true of many tantric traditions where ritual and initiation

patterns follow historical development (as in biology we observe

ontology following evolution). abhinavagupta in developing anuttara-

trika from the existing trika systems actually consciously follows

this pattern. The roots of shrIvidyA lie in the early kula texts,

which also spawned other kula traditions like kAli-kula, samayA-kula

and the poorly studied tvaritA.

2) Is prapa~nchasAra's shrIvidyA the pa~nchadashI? While the

commentarial tradition might hint the tripura-bhairavI form, the root

tantra itself seems to primarily follow the bAlA mantra.

3) Was mokSha the original goal of shrIvidyA? It was just one of the

many goals generally acknowledged by kaula systems.

4) Was advaita vedAnta connected to shrIvidyA from its inception?

<snip> Are sha~Nkara and gauDapAda really connected to shrIvidyA?

advaita vedAnta has its origins in one set of the diverse ideas

presented by philosophers from the vedic period. Its subsequent

development stood on the great philosophical exegesis of sha~Nkara's

school. Tradition also connects sha~Nkara's school with a certain

form of shrIvidyA, which tends to ignore or remove the kula doctrines

and this is certainly the form of shrIvidyA practiced by modern

initiates affiliated with sha~Nkara's tradition. But there are some

issues amongst these initiates: 1) Many of the modern initiates while

very knowledgeable about their paddhati-s and mantra prayoga-s have a

relatively poor understanding of the root sources: the diverse kula

texts including the root tantra-s of shrIvidyA. 2) Many aspirants as

well as lay devotees actively practice texts like lalitA-sahasranAmaM

and saundaryalaharI but do not recognize or in some cases deny the

kula doctrine at their core. 3) They pay tremendous importance to the

mahApaduka mantra which incorporates upaniShadic mahAvAkya-s [*1].

There is no evidence that the mahApaduka mantra was central to any

kula teaching. But it does resemble the ene-mene-dapphe-daDapphe [*2]

of bauddha-s being incorporated as a mantra.

 

From early times the brAhmaNa-s migrated out of their smArta baseline

to develop new systems of philosophy or knowledge. In some cases they

converted entirely to these systems, like the nAstIka-matas, or in

other cases created versions that spanned a spectrum from purely

smArta to something which might contradict smArta norms[*3].

Likewise, in shrIvidyA's development from early on there were forms

in line with smArta norms (e.g. prapa~nchasAra and shAradA-tilaka) as

well as those transgressing smArta norms (e.g. parashurAma kalpa

sUtra-s; though from the very adoption of a mImAMsaka style is

indicative of the brahminical origins of the PKS), both systematized

by Brahmins of ultimately smArta origin. The pa~ncha-makara might not

necessarily be adopted by those who remain smArta because their norms

are violated by the 5 ma-s, but the principle of kAmakala worship and

the ShaT-chakra-s, both of which are drawn plainly from the original

kula doctrine, are retained at the heart of shrIvidyopAsana by even

these smArta-s. But nowhere in any of their early sources do we find

the mahApaduka and upaniShadic statements. Now the smArta-s appear to

have created another set of Agama-s much closer to their own pattern

of worship – the shubhAgama pa~nchaka. But interestingly these hardly

have any popularity compared to the root tantra-s which follow the

unadulterated kula doctrine. Now I have only seen fragments of these

and these are clearly later in provenance than the early kula texts.

 

advaita of the early kaula-s of matsyendra's successors does not mean

the same as the vedantic advaita. There a-dvaitam appears (at least

to me) to be interpreted as the lack of duality in worship – thereby

allowing the more kaula elements (the pure-impure distinction breaks

down). So the vedantic advaita does not in anyway appear to be

inherent to the kula doctrine.

 

So, in conclusion, I believe the evidence favors the advaitins of the

sha~Nkara tradition have only secondarily adopted shrIvidyA..

 

<snip>

-----------