Sankalpa Suryodaya of Venkatanatha (Critical Study)
by R. Laxmi | 1998 | 94,004 words
This is an English study of the Sankalpa Suryodaya—an allegorical Sanskrit drama by Venkatanatha, a distinguished philosopher-poet and dramatist of the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta tradition. This work of Venkata-natha (or, Vedanta Deshika). stands out for integrating allegory to convey moral and philosophical truths. The thesis examines its place in Sa...
Introduction—Philosophical doctrines in the Sankalpa-suryodaya
As the Sankalpa-suryodaya, is an Allegorical drama, it variably consists of philosophy of ethics and Vedanta. The philosophical aspect of the drama is however another face of the drama. Perhaps Venkatanatha indicates and refutes the views of different philosophical systems including Advaita Vedanta. In the second phase the dramatist establishes the supremacy of the Visistadvaita Vedanta. As it is stated in the drama itself, Lord Narayana is the Supreme Being. Devotion to Him leads to Moksa. And His auspicious will makes the devotee free from Samsara. Thus he who is imparted with the Knowledge of Astaksaramantra by competent preceptor, he conquers the demon called Avidya. 1 Still a man aspiring for Knowledge gets his intellect affected by listening to insignificant and fallacious doctrines of different systems as such the Knot of devotion to Lord becomes loosened. When seeker's advancement of Knowledge and devotion is impeded due to such deluding doctrines, it is the duty of the preceptor to rescue such seeker by avoiding the obstructions. Of course such systems are rather deluding systems. These systems spread the darkness after the setting of Sun like knowledge. These systems cannot stand the test of Pramanas, and deceive the folk of demon natured persons. Before the Sun of the knowledge these systems are like darkness, bound to disappear.2 1. parasna panah pranipatamik timam subharavambulavamati sancarabadhim 1 jhatityevam prajnamupajanayata kenacidasavavidyavetalimatipatati mantrena purusah || S.S. 1 93, p-185 2. asuradimohanavidhau vihitah pramitavatitasamayah samayah | tapanapaneyatimirakramatah pracaranti hanta jagadantaratah || S.S. II - 12, p-217
264 The disputants following such a systems cause a terrible knowledge but insensible like the sound heard at the time of churning milky ocean. These disputants make vain efforts to silence even Brhaspati. As elephants destroy of grooves of plantain trees, these disputants also, with their own fallacious arguments try to root out the faith in the path of righteousness. But these elephants like disputants should be driven away by a lion like scholar endowed with irresistible strength with the help of its five sharp claws of logical reasoning such as Atmasraya, Anyonyasraya, Cakrasraya, Anavastha and Anistaprasanga. And such a lion like a scholar can dispel the darkness with its two well-displayed teeth of Parapaksopalambha i.e. refutation of false doctrine and Svapaksasthapana i.e. the establishment of right doctrine. For achieving this end, a lion like scholar has to hold a debate of scholars of different systems of Thought. Hence it is significant on the part of the dramatist that he has entertained the scene wherein Guru and Sisya are engaged in philosophical debate. With a view to showing weak and fallacious views of other systems, the dramatist points to such doctrines and refutes them in a cogent manner. When a scholar is engaged in such philosophical debate he should avoid Vitanda vada. And he should refute opponents views and through which he has to establish the right theory. This is the ethics of the debate highlighted by Venkatanatha. Just as Rama authorised by Visvamitra took the help of mantras Bala and Atibala to conquer the demons, a debator too is aloud to employ the methods of Vitanda and Jalpa to defeat foes speaking ill of the Vedas and of God.3 In this context, the dramatist Venkatanatha suggests a rule for disciple to be followed in the discussion i.e. when discussions are held with the persons of our own school of Vedanta one should argue accepting the authority of scriptures held in common by both. Bearing this discipline in the mind, one should argue with the support of Pramanas in a manner which would appeal to the hearts of the audience. 3. tvaya mannidesanuvartina kausikaniyamitena raghaveneva sadhikarena yathavidhi vitaragakathanavasare vedesvaravidusakah sarve tattvadhyavasayasamraksanarthamanujnatabhyam balatiblabhyamiva jalpavitandabhyamapi jetavyah | S.S. II p-226
265 So far as, generally accepted order of the systems of Indian Philosophy, Carvaka school comes first. Then other schools like Jaina, Bauddha, NyayaVaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga and Advaita, come in after. But in this order appears to be dishevelled in the drama. As a matter of fact, Venkatanathas method of following the order of rival schools is not insignificant. He chooses Sankhya school first for refutation in the drama. He says, the discourse of Sankhyas is taken first because that school is close to the Upanisadic Thought; srutisirah pratyasannataya prathamasamutthitanam samprati svamato'panyasam | 1. Sankhya and Yoga School of Thought: Sankhya system of thought has been propounded by Sages such as Kapila, Asuri and Pancasikha. They maintain the view that Prakrti or matter is different from Purusa or the Individual Self. But they do not accept the existance of the Supreme Being because of their sinfulmindedness.4 The dramatist refutes suggestively that upholding two tattvas Prakrti and Purusa and rejecting Paramapurusa is not Coherent to the Upanisadic Thought. If Sankhyas reject Paramapurusatattva then they become equal to either Vaisesika who accept Paramanus causality of the world and reject Prakrti or to Carvakas who uphold the view that there is no Individual soul other than the body. In this way, the dramatist wards off the theory of Prakrti and Purusa as upheld by Nirisvarasankhyas. Even in case of Sesvarasankhyas their views becomes defective because they accept the existence of Supreme Being, But as possessing glories and powers only within certain limits. Thus Sesvarasankhyas are in close confirmity with Yoga system. However, this veiw of limiting the glories and powers of the Lord is baseless. Yoga system holds the view that the glory of the Lord resembles the nature of the reflection in a mirror.5 Hence according to them Lords glory is as true 4. kapilasuripancasikhadimunipratipadita samkhyamatapravanah | prakrti purusam ca vibhajya param purusam na pathantyagharuddhadhiyah || S.S. II - 64, p-282 5. ya ete yogakhye katicidapatantre pathitinah prajalpantyaisvaryam pratiphalanakalpam bhagavatah | svatah siddhan bodhaprasakanabaladin gunaganan grnantastrayyantah pratibhanitiresamavitatha || S.S. II 68, p-286
266 the reflection. This view goes against the Upanisads. Hence both Sesvarasankhyas and Yoga stand refuted. 2. Vaisesika School of Kanada : Next, Vaisesika school of Thought is taken up for exmination. Kanada's Vaisesika Thought accepts the creation of a new object which did not exists before as pots from mud the followers of Kanada hold that when mud or potsherds are united to form a pot, the potsherds disappear and a new object i.e. pot is created. Vedantins say that pot is only a modification of clay or of the potsherds. This school applies the casuality to Paramanus and rejects Brahman's causality which is supported by scriptures. Moreover, Kanadas school maintains Moksa is not resembelance to the Supreme Being which is blissful. But, according to them Moksa is the attainment of a state similar to that of a stone. Therefore, Kanadas view is defective. Therefore, Kanada system survives only in name.6 3. Buddhistic School of Thought: Further, the view of Buddhists is refuted. Venkatanatha calls these Buddhists "Vainasikas, because they hold that there is nothing permanent and that everything has a momentary existence and perishes afterwards. Of the Buddhists, Vaibhasikas hold that the universe has only a momentary existence and Sautrantrikas think that the external world preserves only from inference and not for preception. And the knowledge has different forms. But Yogacaras assert that the external world is illusory, and the Madhyamikas consider that there is nothing real in world at all. Thus these different views of differnt Buddhistic schools contradict one another. When declaring everything is void, Madhyamika is impetuous in his power of arguing that it is possible to determine the truth of falsehood of anything. It is as improper as saying ' ' Therefore they stand defeated. Therefore there 6. 7. 7 asaddravyasrstiprabhrtyarthaklrptya srutiprakriyanamadhiksepatasca | ulukopadesapadesapravrttah kathasesito'sau kanadapranadah || parasparavidhattana trutitatarkasastratchatatiraskrtacamatkrtih svayamakhandi vaitandikah | kimatra parisisyate kimapi drsanodbhavanam svato nihatamudgarapraharanaprayasayate || S.S. 1 70, p-288 S.S. II 75, p-294-95 -
267 is no need of pointing out any fallacy in their argument as it is like the trouble taken in beating down with a hammer, a man who is already dead. 4. Jaina School of Thought: 8 Afterwards Jaina school is refuted. Jainas hold the validity of sense perception and inference. They hold the exposit on based on Saptabhangi i.e. a thing might be or might not be everything depending on the angle from which it is perceived. The inconsistency of their own words. Also it is true that these Jains deceive men by by imposing their own theories like Adityasthambhana, Pasanasphotana, Pratimajalpana etc. It is sad that they have no distinction between what should be eaten and what should not be. They say that Vedic path is defective. Also they ordain plucking out the deep rooted hairs on their heads. This type of religion punishes the followers thereof. Therefore, Venkatanatha saya that the gods in anger at their vilification of the Vedic way of life have inflicted on them this punishment.9 5. Advaita School of Sankara : Then the dramatist refers to the Advaita school of philosophy. As is said Advaitins resemble the Jainas as they hold the views opposed in the Vedas. But appear as observing hard vows and penances; They attempt to destroy the crops. growing in the fields of the Vedas; prathamagananukarinah kecana duracarah duracarah | ete ca naigamikadharmakamalopamarditah kamdamkariya iva durapariharaniyah | According to the Advaitins owing to the powerful influence of Avidya, the world appears an illusory imposition on Brahman, which can neither be called the sentient Self, nor the external (non sentient) thing, like the cloud-city seen in the 8. pratiksiptam vidadhatam vihitam pratisedhatam | ka ivanyah pratiksepah karyah svavacanadrte || S.S. II 77, p-296 9. bhaksyabhaksyasvaparasamaya sthapanadusanadisvaikantyam ye jahati vihitam kapi naite vidanti | daivairesam nigamapadavidusanodirnarosairdatto nunam sthirasirasijollunchanenaiva dandah || S.S. II - 78, p-297
268 sky (in maintaining this doctrine) they have to phase contradictions, which, far from being unreal, are stronger than even the Vindhya mountains. They are therefore, to be classed among the heralds who sing the praise of monarchs born of barren women. 10 But the truth is that all Pramanas like Pratyakasa etc. subject the things which possess distinguishing features. Therefore the application of Nirvisesatva to Brahman becomes opposed to all Pramanas. And all the things in the world have one or the other quality by which they can be distinguished from one another. This is the experience of one and all. Hence there cannot be a thing which is Nirvisesa. Therefore Brahman who is full of auspicious qualities and who is free from all blemishes should be accepted as worthy of worship, is accepted at first by these disputants, who (afterwards) deny all attributes and qualities in Brahman. If this is the only course left open to us from the nature of case, the contention, arising from the desire to maintain the theory of a Brahman free from all distinguishing features and qualities which is opposed to all Pramanas like sense-perception is impossible of being sustained". 11 Besides, the Advaitins try to create an additional and unique Moksa to the released Soul who is eternal and is characterised in his essential nature by an absence of distinguishing features. In doing so, he will surely be able to create a new sweetness to the taste of the honery in the flower seen in a dream.12 There is a story that, when a man came to house for alms the daughter-inlaw told him that he could not be given any. The mother-in-law felt hurt that daughter-in-law should have presumed to do so. So she called the man back and 10. 11. 12. avidyamahatmyadanahamidamarthe jagadidam grnantyete bhatam gagana iva gandharvanagaram | avandhyairvyaghatairatipatitavindhyapradhimabhirnibandhyaste vandhyasutanrpativaitalikagane || nidhyayantvanamuyavah subhagunam nirdosamaradhyamityadhva visvavisesa sunyakathakairapyaditah svikrtah | yadyarthasthitiretadekasarana sapratyavayo bhavatyadhyaksadiviruddha nirgunakatha nirvahagarvahavah || muktasyanityamavisistatanorapurvam muktim prakalpayitumattavicarayantah | svapnaprasunamakarandarasasya manye svadutvamanyadupapadayitum ksameta || S.S. II - 90, p-314 S.S. II 91, p-315-16 S.S. II - 92, p-319
269 said, "She has no right to say 'no'. I am saying 'no' as I alone have the right." The Advaitins who are, as it were, the relatives of Raksasas may be called Rahumimamsakas (because they attach importance only to the Upanisads which are Vedasiras and not to the KarmaKanda.) (It is like the head without the trunk). They condemn others for rejecting the Upanisads while, like the mother-in-law in the story, they also reject them. They are like the ignorant man, who wanted to say in an assembly (that in him there was no Sabhakampa but blurted out, that in him, there was no bhasakampa). We are ashamed even to enter into discussion for refuting them as their speech is ridiculous. The Srutis (themselves) whose (role) object is to protect the three worlds refute them. These Sanyasins who are suited to Kaliyuga deny the truth concerning the three "Reals", Cit, Acit and iswara. They say that as a preliminary to the study of Vedanta, there should be four qualifications such as (1) the power to discriminate between what is eternal and what is transcient, (2) the qualities of control of the body and mental serenity (3) the absence of the desire for the pleasures of this world and Svarga and (4) the desire for Moksa. But, as a matter of fact, good men who have observed their actual conduct ridicule them by saying that their four qualifications are in reality. (1) the Want of discrimination in distinguishing what is eternal from what is not (2) love and hatred as efficient means (3) averseness to the performance of the rites ordained fot the world and for religious welfare and (4) the desire to enjoy (the pleasures of life)." 13 Thus these Advaitins explain the existence of world illusion due to Avidya, and create much confusion in interpreting the scriptual statements like Tattvamasi by denoting opposition in the Sruti texts. 13. alaksyatamayam rajanicaravamsavandhavanam rahumimamsakanam subhagabhiksukanyayah, yadete nigamantaparityaginah paranadhiksipanti, pratiksipanti ca svayameva nigamantan | atah sabhakampa bhavapratipadakajadapurusaprayujyamana- bhasapankabhavavacanavadapaharayavacasamamisam pratiksepe'pyapatrapamahe | srutayastu tribhuvanasamraksane pravrttah pratiksipanti | yadapi caitesam cidacidisvarayathatmyataskaranamantimayugamaskarinam nityanityavastuvivekadisadhanacatustayabhidhanam, tacca tattvatattvavivekabhavah ragadvesadisadhanasampat, laukikavaidika dharmanusthanavaimukhyam, bubhuksutvam ceti yathanusthanam viparinamena parihasanti santah | S.S. Il-p-320-21
270 6. Carvaka School of Philosophy : In the fifth Act, with a view to stultifying the efforts of Viveka, Mahamoha adhers to Carvaka philosophy and propogates its teachings. And in this context, the dramatist mentions the teachings of Carvaka philosophy as below. According to Carvaka philosophy, there are four 'reals' such as earth, water, fire and air and from their combination with one another consciousness arises. According to them Sarira itself is the Soul. Because when the body has disintegrated there cannot be pleasure of any kind. This doctrine is propounded by Brhaspati. These doctrines are as per the experienced of one all. According to this system, only Pratyaksa Pramana is accepted. The Vedas prate of something or other as if it were true. This is just like thousand images of the Sun can never put the Sun to shame. The death of the body is Moksa. Sexual pleasure itself is the heavenly bliss on the earth and women who are endowed with youth and who give that pleasure are the deities. It is suggested that their teachings of Brhaspati impose no strain nor any painful on the society. Therefore, this philosophy appears superior to all schools of philosophy including Vedanta. Also it is signified that Carvaka philosophy is otherwise called Asuropanisat, which was first advised by Brahma to Virocana.15 The refutation of this philosophy is implied through the speech of Mahamoha himself, i.e. Durmati asks that how is it that though Carvaka philosophy protects the world of Jivas the adherents of rival systems entertain an irrational hostility to that philosophy? In response to this Mahamoha in a polite manner as it were says na pathaccarah prakrti muncanti | na capramattamatayaratairupahanyante i.e. "Wicked persons cannot change their nature, but careful persons can never be injured by them." This sentence indicates that Carvakas are really the thieves who so not change their nature and 14. 15. svamataviparitamanyaih krosati hrdaye vidhiyate svairam | amaragurusiksitarthairasmatsarthairyathahrdayam || cirasevanatositena dhatra nipunasthanavida niveditarthah | asuropanisadrahasyamagryam prathayamasa virocanah prajanam || S.S. V - 47, p-503 S.S. II 58, p-514 -
271) the persons following the path of righteousness, i.e. Vedantins can never be injured by their teachings because they possess the knowledge of discrimination. Further, pathantasrayyantanparihasanakakum vidadhatam ie "Let the Vedantins mock at us by posing questions". This sentence signifies that Carvaka philosophy is fit to be rediculed. Then another statement : bhajantastatarathyam paribhavitumicchantu mahatah i.e. "Let them pretend to be impartial while wishing to put greatmen to shame." This speech denotes that Vedantins are greatmen and neglect this philosophy of atheism. Another statement udantah santanamayamiti ca jalpantvabhimatam ie "Let them prate as they please, saying - this is the considered view of goodmen with a serene outlook. This sentence denotes that Vedantins are very good at heart with a serene outlook. Therefore for the good of society, they consider Carvaka Philosophy as meaningless. The last statement kimantardurdantaih krpanakathakairebhiriha nah | i.e. "What have we to do with these wretched disputants and inwardly arrogant ?". This statement suggests that Carvakas are indeed wretched disputants and inwardly arrogant. So Vedantins have nothing to do with them. In essence it means that although the teachings of Carvaka philosophy are quite attractive to the people of mundane world, they lead the person to the sorrowful condition. Realising this point, Vedantins redicule this philosophy. Before Vedantins, the Carvaka's are butt of redicule. Really this is the considered view of good men with a serene outlook. Thus Carvakas are wretched disputants. 16 7. Mimamsa School of Kumarilabhatta : Mimamsaka's attempt to defend the authority of the (former part of the) Vedas, but have given up the Vedanta (the latter portion of Vedas). The philosophy of Vedanta or the Upanisads is the head of the Vedas. Therefore, Mimamsakas should not have neglected the concluding part of the Vedas also. As such, accepting lower part of the body and rejecting upper part of the body, put the Mimamsakas to the condition of headless body. As a matter of fact, the devotees of 16. pathantastrayyantanpariharana kakum vidadhatam bhajantaratatasthyam paribhavitumicchantu mahatah | udantah santanamayamiti ca jalpantvabhimatam kimantardurdantaih krpanakathakairebhiriha nah || S.S. V - 60, p-515
272) Lord Visnu should give up all the rituals intended to secure worldly desires, and should perform all rituals Nitya and Naimittika. Therefore, all good men consider that former portion of the Vedas dealing with Karma Mimamsa, and the latter portion of the Vedas dealing with Brahmamimamsa form a single Sastra. This is all the view of Mimamsa school of Kumarilabhatta is silence. Besides, other schools like Pasupata Prabhakara, Bhaskara and Yadavaprakasa have been just named and said that their views are not valid. In this manner, the rival schools of Sankhya Yogas, Vaisesikas, Bauddhas, Janis, Advaitins, Mimamsakas etc. have been referred together with mentioning their important tenets, then those tenets are refuted and showed meaningless. On the otherhand, Venkatanatha has reflected the ideals of Pancaratra school, one of the branches of Srivaisnava religion. It however appears that Venkatanatha has brought in here the philosophy of Pancaratra Agamas which are regarded as valid as Vedic texts, to synthesise the teachings of both Tengalai and Vadagalai sects of Srivaisnava religion. As is found in the literature of Srivaisnavism, Vadagalai section has all sastric texts including Pancaratra Agama as its basis; while Tengalai sect has Dravidian Samhitas written in Tamil as the basis of its religion. Belonging to the Vadagalai sect, Venkatanatha has made many efforts to unite both the sects showing the integration of the philosophical thoughts and the themes of the rituals. It is for this reason, that Venkatanatha has explained the teachings of Pancaratra Agama as a separate section though it is part and parcel of Visistadvaita Vedanta. 16 a As given in the drama, this Pancaratra Sastra is composed by Vyasa, as being valid as conferring glory, as holy and as being extremely beneficial. This is composed by him for the benefit of the devotees. Therefore, this Sastra is faultless 16 a. For further details see Krishnaiengar D., Sri Desika Sambhavana, Seventh Century Celebrations Committee of Sri Venkatesha Sabha, Mysore, 1968, p.4
273 and all authoritative. 17 Thus there leaves no doubt regarding its validity. This text closely establish the Siddhanta view. When there appears due to wrong notion an inconsistancy or contradiction between Veda and Pancaratra, the erroneous idea should be dispelled and should show the consistency between both the scriptures.18 After setting aside all the views of rival schools of Philosophy, Venkatanatha enumerates the sailent features of Visistadvaita Vedanta establishes its Supremacy over all schools of Philosophy.