On this auspicious day of Ramanavami , Please extend your support for our Temple In Canada , Let us Spread our glorious Sanatana Dharma Everywhere !
by
His Holiness Sri Visvesha Tirtha Swamiji of Pejavar Mutt.
Translated from Kannada to English by
Dr C.H. Srinivasa Murthy
India is a mother land of many schools of philosophy and religion. A large number of schools of thought are born, nourished and ptronized here. Generally, in other parts of the world, while only one religion is allowed to be practised and propagated in a nation, followers of many religion have been living in large numbers in this country. In hinduism itself many branches that are irreconcilably different have come in to being. There are people who say that the existence of many schools of thought is a symbol of disunity and disorganisation. "The nation had to fall a victim to the imperialistic ambition of foreigners because, Hidus and their leaders had no collective will abd organized power on account of religious and philosophical quarel among them. In a critical situation when the inculcation of the sense of unity and independence was most essential in the country and in a critical situation when the nation was falling a victim to foreign attack our religious leaders, instead of showing courage and fortitude which the exigency demanded, engaged themselves in dry discussions about their schools of thought and pushed the nation into dire straits. These acaryas were busy with the dispute as to whether siva was supreme or Visnu when nation was being attacked by foreigners." Such allegations against our ancient acaryas are being heard in several quarters and there are people who believe that the plurality of philosophical schools is the root cause of disunity among us.
As a matter of fact, unity among people should not be artificial. Unity imposed on people by force is ugly and would be a mark of decline. Treating peoples' mind as inanimate machines and putting restrictions on fresher and fresher thoughts under the pretext of unity would result in preventing the progress of mankind. No society would like the kind of peace that prevails in a graveyard and political unity that prevails in a totalitarian state. The existence of many different schools of thought is a hallmark of intellectual freedom in our country. From time immemorial anybody in the country was free to express his views no matter hpw revolutionary they were. All were free to pursue thrir views. When, in other countries, people in power belonging to a particular sect were burning the followers of other sects, in this country kings were building temples for Hindus and Viharas for Buddhists.While in other countries, followers of one sect behaved with intolerance and commited violence on followers of another sect, in this country, even an atheist school which propounded the non-existence of God was allowed to raise. As a symbol of this generous attitude of accepting the freedomof thought of others and allowing them to follow and propagate the views they liked, hundreds of schools of thought have come to stay in our country. Therefore, there is nothing to be apologetic about the plurality of philosophical and religious schools of India. On the contrary we can see here facts which make us proud about our ancient tradition. During the period of political turmoil in our country, our religious leaders might not have played any vital role for securing political independence. But we have to take note of the fact that their activities and influence have averted the contingency of a total destruction of our culture along with political defeat. While acient cultures of Egypt and other countries have vanished without leaving a trace as a result of foreign attacks our national culture is stil very much alive even after facing a continous attack for thousands of years and even after long span of political bondage. It is admitted by one and all that this itself is a great achievement.
Spiritual awareness and dedication to spirituality are deep rooted in this country on account of various activities of religious propagation by our religious leaders and therefore it was not shaken even by such political whirlwind. Even during this period of darkness when the storm which shook the entire nation blew uprooting even the strong political forces the divine light of our spiritual culture was carefully protected from extinction and was enlivened by our ancient religious leaders . This service rendered by them is really great and praise worthy. Their achievement in saving our national culture from destruction when the country lost its independence deserves gratitude from the posterity forever.
However, we must critically examine, without prejudice and pertinacity, all schools of philosophy and religion which developed in our country and the world over. Though our fore-fathers established many different schools of thought and religion we should not believe that al of them are true. Though all founder acaryas of schools tried to preach truth only, to people with their effort, without research and studies we should not believe that all of them have been successful in teaching the truth. Had they been successful there would not have arisen such serious differences and fundamental contradictions among those schools.
Some reconcile the disharmony and contradictions in schools in the following manner:
"Truth does not have only one face. It is multifaceted. Each acarya or founder of a school of thought realised only a part of that vast form of truth and preached only what he realised. Hence these contradictions. All have preached truth alone. But they have preached different faces of truth and this is why we find conradictions in schools. Therefore, there is no need for serious discussion, examination and desire to know these schools. We can reach truth by following any school".
Many peculiarities in a thing can be harmonized or explained by such reconciliations Bur one cannot reconcile fundamental contradictions. There can be many sense organs having different capacities and natures and there can be many limbs having different shapes is a person. If one describes a particular part of the body and another describes another part of the same body both descriptions could be true. But if one states a thing as existent and another states the same thing as non-existent, both the statements are not correct as both existence and non-existence of the same thing cannot be true at the same time. When such serious contradictions are seen in the expositions of different schools with regard to the nature and attributes of soul and other entities, acceptance of such contradictions as part of truth would be a mockery. There can be a variety of aspects in a thing, but not any contradiction. The view that different sentances which state different parts and properties of a thing in bits are correct is understandable. But the view that two different schools, describing one and the same thing as existent and non-existent at the same time, are true is not understandable. It two persons eat two different slices of mango and describe the respective slice eaten by them as sweet and sour, both the versions may be right. But the statements like "this is mango" and "this is not mango" cannot be correct.
Thus, though everything said by all philosophical and religious thinkers cannot be true, all of them deserve our respect on the ground that they were seekers of truth. Though the findings of some earlier scientists have been proved to be false by later scientists all scientists deserve the honour that they tries to find the truth concerning Nature. The findings of scientists are subjected to serious examination without any blind faith in any of them and after finding out which is true and which is false, wrong conclusions are rejected. This generous attitude and dedication to truth found in the field of science should be applied to the field of philosophy also. There should not be a blind belief that everything taught by every Guru is true. But we should be respectful to them as all of them worked to find out truth and we should study, without prejudice, the teachings of all Acharyas. Then using all our mental ability with complete calm and composure we must examine them with a comparative outlook and find out as to which of them is true and where the truth lies. Afterwards (After this kind of critical and comparitive study) we must accept the spiritual principles that are agreeble to our head and heart. This congenial atmosphere of healthy thinking can usher in spiritual advancement in the country. There is no room for passion, enmity, disharmony and inequality in this harmonious examination of truth. We must try to understand the secret principles of universe by examining all the schools of thought with the aim of finding out truth.
The vast ocean of vedic religion was consistently steady and calm for a very long period. It appears that as a consequence of the rage of Buddhist revolution it got suddenly disturbed abd flowed down to us in disorder. Even today Vedic has no recovered from the onslaught of Buddhism and is not able to settle in people's heart in its original form in the same old measure. the Buddhist influence is seen in a great measure in the vedic philosophy which is folowed by the majority of Hindus. Thus, it is clear that Hinduism as found in the practice of a big number of Hindus has not retained its original form, but being influenced by other religions has undergone a sea change. Thus the influence of Buddhism on Hinduism is extraordinary. Even Kumarila Bhatta who fought with great heroism for the revival of Vedic religion, was so much influenced by Buddhism that he established for the first time in the country, an atheist Vedic religion. There is no room for any doubt to assert that the Bhatta school was influenced by the atheist Buddhism because the school which is based on the validity of Vedas and rituals refutes the existence of God.
Sri Sankaracharya endeavoured towards establishing Vedic religion overthrowing Buddhism. But even he was not able to avoid the influence of Buddhism. The influence of revolutionary atmosphere of Buddhism has reappeared in the Advaita of Sankaracharya. His inability to revive Vedic religion that flourished before Buddhist revolution in its pure form is discernible. Many writers since his time have said about Sri Sankara that he made use of many important tenets of Buddhism and presented to the people the very Buddhism in the guise of Vedic religion. Though the Vedic religion represented by Sri Sankaracharya is like a conglomeration of many things he deserves the credit of having turned the Hindu mind which was once averse to Vedas -the root of Hinduism, towards Vedas once again. For this the followers of Vedic religion should be grateful to Sri Sankaracharya. The brilliance shown by Sri Sankara, a man of wonderful genious, a matchless speaker and an extra-ordinary dialectician is really a great spectacle in history. In his time, there was a severe conflict between Buddhism and the atheist Vedic religion of Kumarila. Utilising this opportunity Sri Sankara intervened in the conflict and making use of some concepts and methodology of both the Bhatta school and Buddhism presented a new coalitional religion before people. He gave an extraordinary charishma to this religion with the help of his methods of logic and style of exposition. Its influence was so much that both the Bhatta school and Buddism had to flee from India without leaving a trace. The ansence, even today, of a single followers of the Bhatta school as well as of Buddhism, is a proof enough for the great achievement of Sri Sankaracharya. This indeed is a historicle miracle. We can see in the Vedic religion expounded by Sri Sankara a different version of the Bhatta school and Buddhism. hat is why the tradition of following Bhatta methodology in expounding the Advaita thought at the empirical level gained ground in the Advaita school. Different types of methodology of Buddhism were absorbed into the Advaita thought, of course, under new labels. Even moderns like Sri Vinobaji, a staunch and loyal supporter of Advaita have agreed that there was very clear similarity between the Vedic religion of Sri Sankara and Buddhism and they even upheld the affinity. To sum up: Sri Sankara and finally surrendered to it.
Buddhism and the advaita school have given world a common message. The essence of both the schools is:
"The entire world which one perceives is illusionary; it is just an appearance of unreality and there is only one indeterminate and attributeless Sat at the root of this world".
We have to examine how far this view is convincing, logical and authentic. The view that the world is mutable and that there is room for various kinds of illusions in the world is aceptable to all. But people are not prepared, in this scientific era, to accept the world to be unreal in the Advaitic and Buddhist sense of the term. Modern science is discovering in a newer and newer manner that wonderful things are taking place in creation, in an orderly manner conforming to the hundreds of systematic arrangements in each and every object of the world. Through this discovery it is proving every moment that the view of unreality of the world is meaningless. Viewed in this light, the conception of the unreality of the world would appear like the stories of "Arabian Nights" in this scientific world.
The views that do not conform to the conduct of life cannot appeal to the minds of people. The philosophy which sets the aim that cannot be followed in practice and the practice which is inconsistant with the aim cannot satisfy the minds of inquisitive seekers and earnest practitioners. This drawback is glaring for the application of Advaita to the present world. In Advaita, which is said to be based on Vedic tradition a distinguished place is given to devotion and observance of religious practices propounded in Vedas and Puranas. A Special place is given to the worship of God and observance of religious rites in mundane life. But what consistency is there in the Advaita school between the ultimate goal aimed at and the real form of "Sat" on the one hand and these observances on the other? When viewed from a realistic angle there is a possibility of developing a kind of indefference towards these observances under the impression that these are a mere pretentious show. Knowing full well that a being that is full of virtues and attributes and which is the supreme Lord of the world is just a fancy of the mind and knowing full well that an attributeless and immutable entity (Sat) alone is real in the world, how far would an effort to inculcate devotion adventitiously be successful? It one learns that the whole world is illusionary and that the perception of world is just an illusion like that of silver in the conch -shell and like that of blue color in the sky, is it possible to have a sincere and heartfelt involvement in the observance of deeds (Karma) ? When we know that all this is a pretence interest in such meaningless observances which are not founded on truth would produce a kind of dissatisfaction and disgust with ourselves. Thus, a philosophy in which there is no harmony between practice and ultimate goal can in no way influence one's life. This defect in Advaita had made a majority of Hidus unable to embrace Advaita willingly though they respect it because of tradition. As a result of this an attitude that Philosophy has nothing to do with one's life and that it is only on object of veneration is growing. Besides this, there is a possibility of developing an attitude that the essentials of daily life - devotion to God, devotion to duty, devotion to practice of virtues and good conduct - are meaning less in this fancied world. There is no need for an elaborate description of the consequence of such attitude. The essence of the foregoing discussion is that there is need today, for all of us, of a Philosophy which can be translated into life.
Moreover, according to the Buddhist and Advaitic thought the creation of the world is purposeless; and a very important question as to how the world was created goes without answer. If we understand that the 'Sat' is attributeless, that it does not undergo any change, that it cannot influence anything and that it cannot produce appearance by its own power without depending on an external object, then, the creation of world by such an attributeless 'Sat' is beyond imagination. How did the one and only Absolute become many for the first time? How did this variegated world appear in this Absolute? These issues remain a question for ever in Advaita school. An illustration is given to explain the creation of world by the Absolute in conformity with the Advaita conception. If a single light is surrounded with hundreds of mirrors it gets reflected in them and the single light appears as many. In the same way the single 'Sat' can appear as many. But this is not satisfactory. For the appearance of a single light as many, not only is the light but hundreds of mirrors which have separate existance like light are also causes. The appearance of a single light as many is justifiable on account of the existance of mirrors independently of light and of their power. But the absence of anything powerful enough to produce an idea of diversity in the sigle attributeless 'Sat' is agreat difficulty in justifying the appearance of the world in the absolute. Some hold the view that the superimposition of world on the Absolute is due to Maya. But Maya has no existence independently of the Absolute. Then, the question as to how the first superimposition of Maya arose remains without answer. It will not be possible to logically explain the creation of the world after denying the reality of all the things except that of 'Sat' which is numerically one and one only. Thus the Advaita view of world creation that the pure 'Sat' bereft of any attribute began to appear as the world of plurality without external influences and without any purpose is not convincing. We have narrated so far the existence of several difficulties, for am impartial observer and an earnest seeker, in getting a satisfactory guidance from the Advaita and the Buddhist thoughts.
Let us now consider the schools of thought which accepts the reality of the world and God who is endowed with infinite attributes. According to these schools, God himself has assumed the form of world 'for sport' (Lila). The world is just a transformation, a different form of Brahman. Finite souls (jivas) are the minute parts or fragments of God severed from him by external agents (Upadhis). Infinite Brahman Himself lapses into finite state and becomes Jiva. The world is real as Brahman Himself got transformed into the world by His own free merge in God. Bhaskara and Vallabha have propounded this view in an approximately identical manner. Of late, it appears that Aravinda has followed this view.
-17
Copyright © 2006 Dvaita Resources
The information on this page may not be republished on another webpage or website. Please LINK TO US instead