Some Key Concepts in Sankaradeva’s Vaishnavism Dr. (Mrs.) Archana Barua Department of Humanities and Social Sciences IIT Guwahati, [email protected] --- An attempt at philosophically approaching the teaching of a Vaishnavite Saint whose prime objective was to combat superstitions, magical practices and materialism and selfishness of his contemporary society in order to safeguard the spiritual dimension of life. Sankaradeva and his ardent disciple Madhavadeva concentrated more on defending religion against the onslaught of degradation. They related their religious beliefs and practices with the noble ideas of humanism, with the doctrine of Bhakti, love for God and love for man as antidotes to hatred, fanaticism and discord and disharmony. --- A philosophical approach can be an outline approach: one may try at understanding the basic concepts used in a particular form of religion, which sustained that religion and gave it meaning and significance. At the outset one must admit the fact that in Sankaradeva’s writings there are references of statements which may have pantheistic, monistic or even impersonalistic significance if these statements are interpreted fragmentarily without relating them to the general framework which gave distinctive meaning to these statements. Accordingly, with this preliminary classification, I wanted to select some passages from the saints with special reference to the fact that unlike ours, Sankaradeva’s approach was that of a believer who reasons to safeguard the religious dimension of life for the benefit of mankind. But Sankaradeva was also well versed in the teachings of the Sruti and the Smriti, which gave him impetus to build up his system in a distinctive may, which is unique and reformative in many areas. Sankaradeva builds up the distinctive tenets of his teachings centering round the key concepts which are much discussed and debated in almost all the diverse systems of Vedanta. The source of these concepts is the tradition of the Sruti and Smriti. The cryptic and ambiguous nature of some such concepts and the terminologies used for them kept their nature elusive. In this article I would like to select some passages from the ‘Kirttana’ and from some other texts of Sankaradeva and of Madhavadeva in order to understand these concepts philosophically in the light of contemporary philosophical debates. I would like to concentrate on the concepts of Brahman, Isvara, Maya, Kala, and Bhakti in a very limited and selective manner. Sankaradeva begins the Kirttana with following lines:- “First of all I bow down to Sanatana (Eternal One) Narayana, Brahman in manifestation, cause of all incarnations (Avatara). From Thy Lotus-navel, Brahma had sprung up and Thou had manifested Thyself in innumerable incarnations throughout the ages.” (Kirttana: Sankaradeva. Trans. Chandra Kanta Mahanta. Asom Satra Sangha, Jorhat) Sankaradeva begins his Kirttana with obeisance to Sanatana Brahman who is also the cosmic God Narayana. Sankaradeva’s position differs from Sankara and is closer to the spirit of Ramanuja in this particular aspect of emphasis. The difference in emphasis arises from the variation in viewpoint concerning the character of the Absolute for the Brahman is Pure Consciousness, indescribable and unknowable. The only way to describe Brahman is by silence: ‘not this, not this’. Sankaradeva recognizes the conditional reality of a Qualified Being from the phenomenal standard. “That Sankara [also] admits and respects this personal God is evidenced by the many devotional hymns that he composed to the gods and goddesses of popular religion.” But how does this Qualified Being come about? Swami Nikhilananda states the Vedantic explanation in these words “without compulsion from outside, Brahman imposes upon itself, as it were, a limit and thus becomes manifest as God, soul and world; it is Saguna Brahman by whom all things have been created, and by whom, after being created, they are sustained, and into whom, in the end, they are absorbed” (Ruth Reyna, The Concept of Maya. Asia Publishing House. P. 19). Conditioned by the limiting power of Maya, the Absolute becomes the Conditioned, the Saguna Brahman, with the qualification that this conditioning is apparent. Maya for Sankara becomes both inscrutable power of projection and the mysterious veiling power of Nirguna Brahman, who remains the unchanged substratum. For serious theists like Ramanuja, Maya is Brahman’s own power and he accords reality to both Isvara and His attributes. In this analysis then, the world is due to the transforming power (Sakti or Maya) inherent in Brahman, which permits an effect of Brahman but does not affect its nature, as the soul of the body, the Brahman remaining unchanged (Ibid: p.22). Sankaradeva often uses ‘Nirguna Brahman’ concept in the following manner:- “Caitanya svarupe vyapta eka niranjana Tomaka bulibe dvaita kona ajnajana Nicchala nirmala suksmarupa jito swami Deve najananta taka kene jano ami” “Thou dost appear in diverse forms through Maya only, though in reality there is no diversity in Thee at all. Thou, one Niranjana, dost pervade the entire world by your cosmic consciousness. Who is that ignorant one that would find duality in Thee?” It appears that whenever Sankaradeva uses the term ‘Nirguna Brahman’, ‘Param Brahma’, etc., he qualifies these statements with certain other statements like ‘beyond the grasp of logic and intellect’ indicating limitations in our mode of understanding. Like other theists Sankaradeva goes against the Advaitic view that the Absolute has no need of expression in history. Sankaradeva, like Ramanuja, considers God’s blissful nature (nijananda Vaikuntha) - His own transcendental joyful existence - as the permanent abode (inseparable from His essence). The transcendent immanent Supreme Deity is the support of maya and of kala. At the end of each kalpa, the universe experiences total annihilation and the universe becomes a “shoreless ocean sunk within the timeless night. Within that solitary cosmic sea, the three worlds lie dormant within that cosmic sea and Visnu sleeps.” In this potential form, time and space lie dormant till these are manifested again at the time for creation. ‘Time’ as death and destruction is identified with Krishna in His Visvarupa form in which He is Siva mahakala, who is Himself known as Visvarupa in His undifferentiated state. Symbolically these concepts represented that state of ‘pralaya’ or dissolution which is beyond time, as it is normally understood. Time and eternity, Saguna and Nirguna juxtapose in which state conventional terminologies fail. Time, as Kala, as Visvarupa, is the totality of time. T.S. Maxwell comments: “From the 6th to the 9th centuries, time was expressed iconographically by the following symbols and images. A pair of intertwined serpents (partly personified Nagas) lay at the base of the image beneath the feet of Vishnu. As aquatic symbols, they represented the oceanine symbol of the state of pralaya or dissolution, the literally horizontal condition of matter in its undifferentiated state. It is upon this “Ocean” represented by a multi-headed serpent that Visnu Narayana is shown lying during his sleep between the universe, or between universal destruction and re-creation. The serpents at the feet of Visnu as Visvarupa therefore constitute the horizontal base of the concept and the actual base of the image. The ocean that the serpents symbolize is the unseen formless sea which lies between the annihilation of time as Kala and its restoration. In this potential, time and space and Kala and measure (Krama) lie in dormant potential. The intertwining of two serpents is a copulation imaged, indicating that polarization has occurred, as a result of which the time-axis can arise from the ocean. The time-axis is a liner subdivided vertical construct, in contrast to the curved, convoluted horizontal construct of pre-time or pralaya. Time is represented by the standing Visnu image and the deities which rise directly above him. They are usually Brahma, the maker of the material universe, Hayagriva, the bringer of speech and the Veda, and Siva who annihilates the axis and so terminates the axis of linear time.” (T. S. Maxwell, Visvarupa: Time and Transformation in Concepts of Time, Ancient and Modern (Ed.) Kapila Vatsayan, Sterling Publishers, New Delhi, p. 394.) Sankaradeva gives the following description: “After withdrawing the creation Narayana was lying asleep and in the first exhalation came out the Vedas. They with Supreme devotion awakened Visnu by prayers as the court minstrels awaken the sovereign Lord Chakravarty.” “The entire world including the Ten Digpalas (the presiding deities of the ten directions) emanate from Thee and in the end merge in Thee again. All the verses of the Vedas affirm only this, as the feet, wherever they tread on, fall on the earth.” (Vedastuti- Kirttana, Sankaradeva; (Tr.) C.K. Mahanta, p. 240) Within this theistic framework, Sankaradeva declares the supremacy of the Bhakti path both as a path and as a goal. He shares the monotheistic trends of the Bhagavad Gita which declares the supremacy of unvitiated loyalty in Bhakti. The components of Sankaradeva’s Vaishnavism, identification of Cosmic God Narayana with Vedic Vishnu, supremacy and distinctiveness of the path of Bhakti etc. can be traced to some ancient sources. Visnu in the Rig Veda is one of the Adityas, who rises to supreme position during the later phase. In the (Black) Yajur Veda, Vishnu is identified with Narayana. The Alwars, the Tamil Bhakti saints, sang the glory of divine love. The Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavata in some form was well known to them. The Narayaniya section of the Mahabharata refers to the Bhagavata, Satvata, Ekantika or Pancaratra religions. The Mahabharata refers to Narada who obtained this religion from Narayana, Sharing some characteristics of there reformist sects which were associated with Vishnu-Keshava and Narayana in some form, Sankaradeva declares the supremacy of Bhakti which is glorified both as a means and as an end. “Intently fixing his mind on Me only, offering his life daily to Me only, he remains with his companies, trying to inspire one another with spiritual understanding. He lives with great contentment of mind, and lovingly plunged in the ocean of joy.” (Madhavadeva, Nam Ghosha) Within this theistic framework the terminologies of maya, kala, Bhakti, Brahman, Isvara etc., acquire different and distinctive significance which could b e interpreted differently within a pantheistic or an impersonalistic framework. Whether it is the veil of avidya or power of Brahman, the application is the same as an erroneous judgement. For Śankara, maya is anirvachaniya, neither real nor unreal. For the theists, the content of maya really exists in the substratum. The finite world and the finite self are contingent and dependent, are ‘maya’ for that reason but they are modifications of the cosmic God who is not illusory or inferior to the indeterminate Brahman. Brahman is both Saguna and Nirguna simultaneously, both temporal and eternal. Time and timelessness simultaneously. “A similar apparent contradiction is to be seen in many Hindu sculptures including those of Visvarupa in which the roaring faces of time surround the still and placid features of Krsna at the centre. These are the features of when (Siva Mahakala) and where (the place of stillness of Krsna), combined in a version of a condition which is beyond space and time, in the no-man’s land where Arjuna stood.” (Ibid. 394) With this background, an understanding of maya, kala, Bhakti etc. requires harmonizing and accommodating these concepts to its personalistic and devotional framework. According reality to maya and kala as instrumental causes in creation, in the eternal sphere which is the metaphysical world made up of Suddha Sattva, time remains dormant and the instrumentality of time is not required in that eternal sphere. In other words, this is a level where our ordinary terminology of time-space fails. In an attempt at philosophically understanding some such key concepts in the Vaishnavism of Sankaradeva and of Madhavadeva, what is needed is a creative assimilation of the often quoted pantheistic, monistic and even impersonalistic passages as related to a general theistic perspective which is an attempt at defending religion theoretically. While within a monistic framework, the assertion of complete identity of jiva and Brahman derives from a more fundamental source negating the certitude of the experience on which the assertion of difference was earlier based. After attaining Jnana there is no scope for Bhakti. Within a theistic perspective too there are such passages:- “As there is no distinction between the solid gold and the gold ornaments – crown and earrings – so also whatever the names are, all are only unreal. In the pursuit of Supreme Reality, O Lord, there is no distinction between Thee and the ‘ego sense’ and the five gross elements…” (Kirttana: Sankaradeva; (Tr.) C.K. Mahanta) Within a personalistic framework these lesser realities are the real modifications of the One Eternal Reality as Brahman is both Nirguna and Saguna: there is no difference between these two realms, the one is a manifestation of the other. Madhavadeva begins the Nama Ghosha with his prayer for Bhakti over and above Advaita mukti. Even after the attainment of Jnana, the prayer remains:- “Ehu rasa Madhava murukhamati gave”. References: Madhavadeva, Nam Ghosa, (Sriman-), ed. with com. by Amritbhusan Thakur Mahanta Adhikari, Dalgoma, 459 Sankarabda, 1316 B.S. ii) ed. M.Neog, ed. 1, 1955; ed.3,1962. Kakati, Banikanta, Visnuite Myths and Legends, Gauhati ,1952. Dutta, Amaresh, The Indian Perspective and Sankaradeva (Professor Maheswar Neog Commemoration Lecture), Forum for Sankaradeva Studies, Guwahati, Assam, 2004. Bezbaroa, Laksminath, History of Vaishnavism in India, Dept. of Edn., Baroda State Lecture Series, 1933-34, Lecture No. 1, Baroda, 1934. Neog, Dimbeswar, New Light on History of Asamiya Literature, Gauhati, 1962. Neog, Maheswar, Early History of the Vaisnava Faith and Movement in Assam, Lawyers’ Book Stall, Guwahati, 1965. Das, Sisir Kumar, Polyphony of the Bhakti Movement, Forum for Sankaradeva Studies, Guwahati, 1998. --- Dr. Archana Barua is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati. Her interests include topics in Phenomenology, Philosophy of Religion, Applied Ethics & Indian Philosophy. Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Posted on: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:05:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015