Can Hinduism be based on Sankara Vivartavada-advaitam?

[aum_namasivaya]

Sankara Advaitam in its new version

In some of the internet forums, quite funny things are happening. Advaiti Sankaracharya has become the exalted Guru of the Saktas and Saivas on the basis of cooked up legends and stories. Can an advaiti like Sankara write Saundaryalahari which is wholly a Dvaita text? But all such issues are sidelined to place Sankara as the crown of Hindu spiritual wisdom.

First and foremost, Sankara’s seemingly monopolistic claim on the ‘advaita’ must be denied. It was by Brahmnical/priestly distortion of the spiritual tradition that Sankara got credited as the proponent of Advaita by manipulating ludicrous bridges and drawing correspondences between the original advaita and the Vivartavadam. We must note here that Sankara is not one of the sixty four saiva siddhas of ancient Tamilakam and the voluminous literature he created was given no cognizance by the Saiva and Sakta tradition. Many legends amply bring out the conflict he had with the Saivas and Saktas and hence he received the appellation “Pracchanna Buddha”. As per legends which stand at the same degree of acceptability as the legends with which aura has been created around his life, his own community of Kerala had boycotted him and did not render a helping hand to lift his mother’s body to the pyre. Pracchanna Buddha in later times got transformed into a Saiva and Sakta by crediting the siddha literature of later times exclusively in his name clandestinely by the Brahmins to claim credit of exclusive proprietorship of spirituality.

In the post that has come, see the reflection of the old tactic, equating the rubbish with the fact taking advantage that there existed no identity for the rubbish. Vivartam is the rubbish that lacks identity – What is vivartam of Sankara’s jargon? When we don’t know what is Vivartam, how it can be transcended? It is like the “variable x, the unknown” of mathematics that can assume any meaning. So now the modern priest has dared to speak that the difference between Vivartam and Parinamam is only to the extent of replacing Brahmam with Sakti. What a funny theory? What a funny correspondence drawn?

Parinamam in Sakta doctrine anybody can perceive, experience, it is the change from moment to moment by the manifestation of tattvas at different levels and is well defined. Parasakti manifests herself into the universal limb structure and her leela by way of the dis-equillibrium of the Gunas has facilitated the microcosmic duality in which Siva gets deluded. Both the Siva and Sakti are at leela and that is the evolutionary arrival of the human beings like a seed holding the potential to evolve as Isvara and Isvari through Yoga. There is a theory for the ‘manifested state under limitations’ and there is a method prescribed for transcendence. There is both the deluding Avidya and the liberating Sri Vidya and the path is well built since the days of the Urdhvaretas (Pasupati) of the Indus seals (2300 BC) at least.

On the other hand, in Vivratam, what is it? Then there is the talk of Maya in Sankara’s jargon. What is this agency causing Vivartam?

Rope is seen as the snake and when a torch is brought realization happens. So Sankara has taken out few torches out of the Upanishads, “aham brahamsmi”, “Tatvam asi”… etc go on chanting and you will be Brahmajnani. Sankara had become Brahmajnani like that and so in Kasi he had asked the Chandala to keep distance to observe un-touchability. The Great Advaiti, a man who spoke of oneness of everything, personified “aham brahmasimi” was treating another fellow human being like a dog or even worst, and that too after completing his academic career at Govinda muni’s school and completing his commentaries. And in the thousand years that followed his life 820AD – 1820 AD, no advaiti can be seen in India who had the realization that untouchability is a sin. What then is Sankara’s advaitam if the Kerala where he was born had stooped so much into casteism promoted by his caste and creed that it became a “bhrantalayam” in the days that followed? Did humanity hear any sane voice of declaring untouchability as a sin from the four Mutts/tradition established by Sankara?

On the other hand, the tantric tradition declared the denial of Vidya to any two legged creature as a sin and condemned any discrimination on account of sex or caste. Why this difference? In the Tamil siddha tradition, we can find members of all castes from the highest to the lowest, but why we miss non-Brahmin in the four mutts and tradition established by Sankara?

In the defense of Sankara that appeared we can see: “Sankara has approved the parinamavada for Saguna Worship in his brahmasutra bhashya …etc” Some Sanskrit is quoted without giving its meaning. But even then the ludicrous dimension is quite evident – It says Sankara had approved the parinamavada also. Can a sane philosopher approve of both the Vivartam and Parinamavadam? What is saguna worship when the Brahman is nirguna? When nirguna_parabrahma alone is the “One” how the saguna turned up?

I am sure some funny answers will be forthcoming. Let me see the answers before going into a detailed discussion on the “kutarkkam” that is contained in the jargon which was sufficient to fool the people before the dawn of modern science.

II

Truth of Sankara’s philosophy must be inquired in relation to the manifested and the unmanifest. Not in the conundrums he has created in his commentaries to confuse and kill the inquiring minds to a morbid acceptance of the doctrine. Morbid acceptance of any doctrine leads to a state of wide gap between preaching and practice and this is the tragedy that befell upon Sankara tradition. He was the first and last genius in his tradition, and then those who succeeded had his name to parrot his jargon devoid of any practice.

Jeevobrahmaiva naaparah – this is not a factual statement on the manifested universe. Jeeva the microcosm and Brahma, the macrocosm are two different entities that make up the game of manifestation. There is the necessity to understand both to transcend the delusion that the soul faces within the microcosm (Pindandam). Sankara’s identification of the soul with the Brahman has no upanishadic sanction. Upanishads are songs on experience and not jargon songs in the fashion of Sankara’s commentaries. Upanishads were not designed for a hideous purpose – they were natural expressions of great souls – while the Sankara doctrine claims to have been derived out of the Upanishadic wisdom - is a meticulous effort to prove a pre-conceived doctrine and therefore strewn all along with twisted and stretched interpretations.

Ludicrous is the only description that can be given to Maya. What is the context in which we classify a darsanam as advaita or dvaita? What necessity is there to outline a darsanam? Can we see any darsanam per se in the Upanishads say taken individually or collectively?

Coming to Sankara, he speaks of Brahmam as the only truth and nothing else exists. Rest are like a ‘snake misconceived’ gaining the reality of being the rope. Can anyone misconceive, I mean visually put a snake over the rope unless he has seen a snake earlier and the mind finds a difficulty to discriminate between the two on account of poor vision? Drshtanthams are no evidence for the truth of a darsanam. They are instruments to convey an idea or logic and there it ends. Maya or anything else can be proposed taking shelter under a drshtantham but its relevance in a darsanam is not just completion of logic circuit but the realization it offers. Beyond a conundrum what is the role of maya in Sankara’s jargon? Did he produce anything new when contrasted with the upanisahdic literature and the epics? This conundrum itself is not an original invention if we are to go by the discussions of Vijnanabhikshu and other critiques of Sankara. They have alleged an intellectual theft – yes, maya of Sankara is a Buddhist borrowing and it got equated with the Maya bhagavati of the Saktas in later times to hijack the sakta concept and to give Sankara the aura of an all encompassing figure in the world of adhyatmavidya. It was a Brahmin jugglery to hijack the siddha tradition and they achieved it in the dark ages of casteism by attaching all the saiva and sakta writings to his name and by creating spurious legends which styled him an avtar of Siva.

Priestly class who took the name of Sankara to brand their spiritual claims, manipulated siddha tradition by inserting vivarta vadam even in Sakta tradition and claiming that Sakti is Parabrahmam and sarvam saktimayam and achieved a dubious equation between nirguna_parabrahmam and Sakti. And then they brought in the sagunabrahmam to explain the tantric mode of worship and created spurious literature taking advantage of the fact that the spiritual doctrines are all subjective discourses and the audience can be commanded by articulation. Any tom, dick and harry may give discourse in spirituality and only requirement is a sick audience which may be gained by invoking some identity of caste, creed or place. In democracy, one may abuse the system with immunity and any kind of fraud can be played against mystic historical background of India. Earlier it was the game of Brahmins who enjoyed the patronage of the Kings to play any fraud as Brahmins were immune to any punishment.

Common people does not realize the game and the folly of making Sankara an avtar when his darsanam gives no scope for the manifestation of an avtar. For Sankara the cause of Maya is Brahman and manifested world is an illusion and the cause of this apparent illusion is Maya – circular logic. Neither existent nor non-existent +. Indescribable and indefinable – so it can be anything, a conundrum to drive “kutarkkam” and is further made dexterous by alleging two powers – avarana and vikshepa. What is this avarana sakti – automated veil upon the Brahman and then the projection of the real into the unreal – brahma_satyam projected to be jagat_mithya... what a fun?

What is the need of an equation if Aham = Brahma, if Thou = That and That is poornam = this is poornam? Why this expression is needed? Who is teaching whom? Does the rope lying in darkness like a snake speak: I am the rope for others to know? What is the need for the deluded scoundrel to go on creating the jargon? Go on chanting aham brahmasmi to be lulled into a pretentious existence.

Today the Brahmin spirituality is a humbug nonsense created out of the Sankaradvaitam of lip-service spirituality and the instruments of siddha tradition like Sri Chakra. They know the path of experience is tantra but wants to keep it stamped in the name of Sankara and Brahmin supremacy. They have succeeded because the tantric/siddha tradition is not well organized to defend the names and addresses which they never care for.

This discussion has meaning only if it helps Mother’s kids to survive the confusion that has been created by the psychic brahminism that flourished under Sankara’s banner. In the name of Bhavani, I am to denounce the Vivartadvaitam of Sankaracharya as rubbish pretentious jargon deluding the people and denying them the grace of Mother.

Aurobindo had rightly remarked that the God laughed at him when he started writing commentary on the verse – Isavasyamidam sarvam.