Part 10 - Philosophical Standpoint of the Srikara Bhashya

Sripati writes in a simple and easy style. His mastery of Panini is visible in almost every page of his work. His 88 89

varied learning and profundity of thought are conspicuous in his Bhashya. He is, as may be expected, highly critical of the views of his opponents but it must be said to his credit that he nowhere does any injustice to them in propounding their views before attacking them. The really distinctive part of his writing is the statement of views current in his own times among the most progressive Virasaivas with regard to the everlasting theme Tatvamasi. He combats the view primarily of Ramanuja, against whom apparently his work is intended, though Sankara and Madhva also claim fair attention at his hands. His philosophical standpoint is summed up in the two or three alternative phrases he uses to describe the nature and contents of his work:Viseshadvaita. Dvaitadvaitabhidhana. Bhedabhedatmaka. Viseshadvaita Siddhanta Sthapaka. The author refers frequently to the Pasupata school but only to differ from it. The reason is very simple. The Pasupatas, like the other older Saiva schools, expound the dualistic point of view, while the Virasaiva school, as expounded by Sripati, holds to the bhedabheda doctrine. Sripati's Criticism of Sankara. Sripati refutes the position of Sankara and his doctrine of Maya at length. His argument is too long to summarize here. But it may be stated very briefly to clearly indicate the standpoint taken by Sripati in regard to Sankara's views. In Adhyaya I, Pada I, Sutra 4, Tattu Samanvayat, Sripati strongly combats the doctrine of the unreality of the world. as propounded by Sankara. His bleak philosophy of negation he rejects at every step. He says that if the world is to be assumed to be real only for the purpose of vyavahara and not for paramarthika, then the doctrine cannot be accepted to be true. What kind of truth is it that is confined to vyavahara? What kind of truth is it that is

only applicable (gamyatvam) to vyavahara? And what kind of truth is it that is outside (badhita) vyavahara? What is this truth which is both truth and not truth? What is this nomenclature which is divorced from Cause and Effect? What is this truth which is the semblance of truth and yet not truth? What sort of object is it which has no basis in Cause? (He answers :-) Therefore the first view is not true, because if Brahma is anything other than vyavahara, Brahma is beyond what is assumed, is unnecessary and is redundant (ativyaptihi). This results in muteness as between guru and sishya. That is, further discussion is unavailing or impossible. So the first Sutra, Athatho Brahma jijnasa, falls to the ground. He then passes on to deny nirviseshatvam, as being inexplicable to everybody. He then vehemently attacks Nirviseshamata as: smartan sarvamatabhrastan jaganmithyatva sadhakan | ganikacara sampannan pasandanparivarjayet || Smartan sarvamatabhrashtanjaganmithyatva sadhakan Ganikachara sampannan pashandan parivarjayet. Accordingly he states that that system of philosophy cannot prove acceptable to persons seeking salvation. through the Veda. (Adhyaya I, Pada I, Sutra 20, line 28, page 71.) Criticism of Ramanuja and Pancharatra Agama. Ramanuja's system is referred to in the work as Visishtadvaita and refuted as such. The Pancharatra Agama is also severely criticized by Sripati in Adhyaya I, Pada I, Sutra 3, Sastra yonitvat. Ramanuja's system of Visishtadvaita is criticized in Adhyaya I, Pada I, Sutra 20, Asmin nasyacha tadyogam sasthi. The former may be taken first. Ramanuja, as is well known, gives expression to the views of the Pancharatras or Bhagavatas, an old Vaishnavite sect, whose doctrine is expounded in the Bhagavad-Gita and the Bhagavata-purana, as well as in the special text-books of the sect. The tenets of the Bhagavatas, as set forth by Ramanuja, diverge considerably from those of the Brahma-Sutras on which he has

commented. For, according to him, individual souls are not identical with God; they suffer from innate unbelief, not ignorance, while belief or the love of God (bhakti), not knowledge, is the means of salvation or union with God. Madhava in his treatment of Ramanuja's system in his Sarvadarsana Sangraha also deals with the Pancharatra. Pancharatra Agama Assailed. Sripati disputes at length the Pancharatra Agama criticism that the studying of Siva-Purana and worshipping Siva according to it, will certainly result in sin, because Siva-Purana is a tamasa-purana. As against this position, Sripati argues that there is no evidence for this from the Srutis. This is, he says, an invention (kalpitha) of the Prachchanna Bauddhas (i.e., Nirvisesha Advaitins) and is groundless. Since Vyasa is the author of both the Siva and Vishnu Puranas, does the tamasatva extend to both of them or only to Siva-Purana? If to the latter only, that position cannot be accepted as true. Then, again, does the tamasatva extend to the author's (Vyasa's) works only or both to his works and to himself? If it only applies to his works and not also to him, that position too cannot be accepted. Then, again, if Vyasa, the author, as a Satvika created the Vishnu-Purana, then, it cannot be held, he became a tamasa when he created the Siva-Purana. In the Rig and other Vedas, both Rudra and Agni, who are treated as synonymous, have been praised. This being so, even the Vedas, which thus praise Siva under these forms of Rudra and Agni, should be termed tamasa. This Prachchanna Bauddha invention cannot, therefore, be believed. Statements of this kind are, he says, baseless because of want of evidence in their favour. Sripati also points out the inconsistencies between the statements made in the Pancharatra Agama and the Matsya-Purana and remarks that in a case of this sort the Pancharatra Agama cannot but be held as lacking in authority. Apparently during Sripati's time, the disputation over Hari and Hara had reached its

climax. An argument of the kind that Sripati urges against the votaries of Vishnu is indicative of rival feelings in the matter. The joint worship of Vishnu and Siva in the form of Harihara, declared in the well-known Davangere inscription dated in 1224 A.D., (Epigraphia Carnatika XI, Davangere 25) was apparently limited in practice. That this question of superiority and inferiority lasted much longer than the period to which this inscription belongs, is clear from Haradattacharya's work, Hariharataratamyam, which treats, in Sanskrit verse, of the superiority of Siva over Vishnu. (See Madras Descriptive Catalogue of MSS , X, Nos. 5121 and 5122.) Haradattacharya was also the author of Chaturvedatatparya Sangraha, which purports to give briefly the essence of the four Vedas and is in praise of the worship of Siva as the Supreme God. (Ibid., No. 5077.) Haradattacharya is specifically referred to by Sripati in Adhyaya I, Pada I, Sutra 26, line 22, page 83, in connection with his exposition of the Gayatri doctrine, where Haradattacharya's authority is quoted in support of his own position that the upasana devata of Gayatri is Siva and not Vishnu. The term Prachchanna Bauddha used by Sripati in describing the followers of Sankara is worthy of note. It is a term that has been made popular by the Madhva writer Narayana Panditacharya as a description of Nirvisesha Advaitins. He uses the term in his Madhva Vijaya, a work of the 14 th century, almost contemporaneous with Madhvacharya. The sloka deserves notice, the more so as it sums up a long disquisition on how Sankara, starting with the idea of pulling down the doctrine of Buddha, himself fell an easy victim to it. In this disquisition, Narayana Panditacharya points out how Sankara adopted the cardinal doctrines of Buddhism to suit his own Nirvisesha Advaita theory and remarks that the variation being only a transparent one, his theory has become renowned as the Prachchanna Bauddha theory, i.e., the theory of the hidden Bauddha. That is, Nirvisesha Advaita is, in his opinion, nothing but hidden Buddhism. This sloka may be quoted in full:-

94 54 INTRODUCTION asatpadesansadasadviviktam mayakhyaya samvrtimabhyadatta | brahmapyakhamdam bata sunyasidhye pracchannabauddhoyamatah prasiddhah || Asatpadesan sadasadviviktam mayakhyaya samvritim abhyadatta. Brahmapyakhandam bata sunya sidhyai Prachchanna Bauddhoyam atahprasiddhah. (See Madhva Vijaya, Sarga I, Sloka 51.) It is possible that this description of Nirvisesha Advaitins of Narayana Panditacharya was borrowed from him by Sripati. It might well be, however, that it was part of the current dialectical language of his time and as such adopted by Sripati. Examination of Visishtadvaita. Sripati's criticism of Ramanuja's Visishtadvaita may now be briefly considered. The followers of Ramanuja are thus described :- - sadasesi sesavatva vyavasthapaka samyuktadvaita pacaratradivat || nacangangitvena savayavatvavadinah || Sadaseshi seshavathva vyavasthapaka samyuktadvaita pancharatradivat. Nacha angangitvena savayavatva vadinaha. (Adhyaya I, Pada I, Sutra 1, line 14, page 20.) He says The Atman is anxious to join the blissful Brahman. This is the central topic of Visishtadvaita. But, says Sripati, this is un-Vedic, i.e., contrary to the teachings of the Vedas. Bhatta, Bhaskara and other previous Acharyas, at the time they propounded their doctrines, discarded this part of the argument. Their reasoning was that Visishtam advaitam, i.e., being both simultaneously Visishtam and advaitam is yukti virodham, i., opposed to reasoning, being in fact contradictory to each other. When the term visishtam is used, is it used as related to viseshana and viseshya or as separated from them? If not related, then advaita-the quality of being one-does not result. He then applies the Danda urusha sambandha nyaya and suggests what follows from it. The man who carries a stick in his hand

is called by the combined name of Dandi, though he and the Danda (stick) he carries are two different objects. Because he is related to the stick as its carrier, he is to be called by this single conjoint name of Dandi, affixing the Visishtapratyaya; both are co-related, not separate. An ordinary man, i.e., one who carries no Danda, calls the man who carries one, a Dandi. These two are two different persons, i.e., the man who carries a Danda and the man who calls him a Dandi. Hence Advaitva is not proved. The point is thus pressed home that Visishtadvaita is against all reason. The ordinary man without a Danda, the man with the Danda, and the Danda itself are three different objects, and there being no union of the Danda and the body of the man who carries it, there is no advaitva. As the Danda and the man have nothing physically in common between them, just as a pillar (Sthambha) and a man (Purusha) have nothing in agreement between them as to their physical attributes, the doctrine of Visishtadvaita results in untruth. At all times Danda and Purusha are different. So long as there is no (physical) union between them, they are as different as the pillar and man. For, we cannot say, with any show of reason on our part, that pillar and man are the same. This doctrine of Visishtadvaita fails to fully explain the Viseshana and Viseshya; nor does it show how they can be compromised. As these are not compromised, there is no smell of advaita here. Therefore, Viseshadvaita is, according to the Srutis, the only way to salvation. Objections against Dvaita. We may now pass on to Sripati's objections to Madhva and his system. There are at least five specific references to the latter in this work. The first occurs in Adhyaya I, Pada II, Sutra 1 (page 20, line 14): sada ghatapatavannatyanta bhedavadinah || Sada ghatapatavannatyanta bhedavadinaha. Here the expression atyanta bhedavadinaha, i.e., those who insist that there is the greatest difference between

Jivatma and Paramatma, refers to the followers of Madhva, the expounder of the Dvaita Vedanta. The second reference occurs in Adhyaya II, Pada II, Sutra 39 (page 235, line 25): dvaita bhagavata pacaratradi vaisnavamata || Dvaita Bhagavata Pancharatradi Vaishnava mata. Here the term Dvaita refers to the followers of Madhva's Dvaita system, as they are among the chief adherents of Vaishnavism. Sripati in referring in this passage, to Vaishnavas, says: "The followers of (Madhva's) Dvaita, Bhagavata, Pancharatra and other Vaishnava systems say etc. " The third reference to Madhva's system occurs in Adhyaya II, Pada II, Sutra 41 (page 237, line 27): -B kicaitatsutre srutyeka desapramanya dvaitanirasadvaitanirasaca vyavahriyate | bhagavata pascaratra madhvadi vaisnavanam jagatkaranesvarasya sariratva parigrahat ghatapatadivat antavatvam vinasatvam baladvaitavadinam brahmano nirvisesatangikarat || Kinchaitat sutre sruttyeka desa pramanya dvaitanirasadvaita nirasacha vyavahriyate Bhagavata Pancharatra Madhvadi Vaishnavanam jagatkaranesvarasya sariratva parigrahat ghatapatadivat antavatvam vinasatvam baladvaitavadinam brahmano nirviseshatangikarat || name. Here the system of Madhva is directly referred to by The fourth reference is to be found in Adhyaya II, Pada III, Sutra 40 (page 273, line 5) :- gaunatvena sarvasrutisamanvayo nirdistah | tarkika madhvadi kevala bhedavadinam bauddhadi - vat sarvasrutisamanvayabhavat | tanmatam sutaramasangatam iti sutra sucita suksmarthah || Gaunatvena sarva sruti samanvayo sruti samanvayo nirdishtaha v Tarkika Madhvadi kevalabhedavadinam Bauddhadivat sarva sruti samanvayabhavat tanmatam sutaram asangatam sutra suchita sukshmarthaha || Here the descriptive phrase Tarkika Madhvadi kevalabhedavadinam (i.e., among those who thus strictly maintain are the eternally disputing followers of Madhva and others). The term Tarkika Madhvas may be taken as equivalent to the modern popular description of Madhvas as Tatvadis", i.e., those who maintain the $6

doctrine of essential difference between the Jivatman and the Paramatman. The fifth and last reference to Madhva's system is to be found in Adhyaya II, Pada III, Sutra 18 (page 263, line 16):- madhvadvaita ksapanaka tarkikadayo jivanam vibhutvangikarat tannirasanartham eta- dadhikaranaprarambhah || Madhvadvaita kshpanaka tarkikadayo jivanam vibhutvangikarat tannirasanartham etadadhikarana prarambhaha. The reference to the followers of Madhva is self-evident at the very beginning of this quotation. From these references to Madhva's system we can easily grasp Sripati's attitude towards it. His own theory being styled bhedabheda, i.e., both bheda and abheda, a theory for which he seeks support from the Srutis, he is anxious to prove what he means by bheda and abheda as he understands these terms. He does not agree with the bheda doctrine in full as propounded by Madhva. He, however, admits that there is temporary or transient difference between Jiva and Isa. Accordingly, in the first Sutra, he points out that though he agrees with Madhva only to a certain extent in his doctrine of difference between the Jiva and Isa, he does not go the whole length of it with him. The transient difference is, in his view, restricted to the time required for the Jiva working out his emancipation after which he becomes Isa, because according to the Srutis the Jiva is, he says, naturally eternal and full of good qualities. Commenting, again, on Adhyaya II, Pada II, Sutra 39 (Adhishtana nupapaththescha, page 235) he endeavours to prove that he differs from Madhva and other Vaishnava schools who hold that the Creator of the world has bodily lineaments. He cannot, he says, accept this position as such a view would attribute to the Creator the passions (Raga, dvesha, duhkha, etc.), which, he says, is not in accordance with the Srutis. Commenting next on Sutra 41 (Antavatvam asarvagnatava, page 237), he goes on to prove that Brahman neither 7 F

has such bodily form as would be liable to destruction nor is there such a difference between the Jiiva and Isa as is postulated by those who hold the Dvaita, Bhagavata, Pancharatra and other schools of Vaishnava thought. According to the latter, Brahman has bodily form though not made of flesh and blood but of gnana and there is difference between Jiva and Atma. These systems of thought, says Sripati, do not, generally speaking, accord with the truth as propounded in the Srutis throughout. Also, their views lead to confusion-rather they confuse themselves. If they were fully informed with the truth, they would not, he adds, propound such a theory. Therefore, their views should not be accepted. Next, in discussing Sutra 40 (Amsadhikarana, page 272) dealing with the difference between amsa, the original Jiva and amsi, its representative in the world, he says that the view of Madhva and others who maintain strictly that the Jiva has a separate existence from the Isa is utterly improper inasmuch as it is not in consonance with the teachings of the Sutras as a whole. The Jiva has not, he protests, the smallness, the distinctiveness and the subordination to Isa which is postulated by these schools nor is it a reflection or an image of the Isa as is represented by them. Finally, commenting on Sutra 18 (Utkrantigatyadki karanam, page 263) dealing with the passing of the Jiva from the world, he enters his protest against Madhva's view that the Jiva leaves the world after death on its march to Svarga (Heaven) or to Naraka (Hell) according to the good or bad it has done in this world, and returns back again to this world. Jiva, he says, always goes back to its natural exalted position after death as the Vedas declare; therefore they cannot go back to the world as is suggested Madhva. He adds that this Adhikarana is against the view of Madhva. Sripati's Exposition of Viseshadvaita. Sripati's exposition of his own position-Viseshadvaita-is contained in different parts of his work. In

99 Adhyaya I, Pada I, Sutra 4, Tattu Samanvayat, for instance, he develops it at some length in criticizing Sankara's Nirviseshadvaita. If vyavaharika sathyathva and parmarthika mithyathva of the world is admitted, then ultimately why should not the mithyathva of both Jiva and Brahman be accepted? Such acceptance of mithyathva would be against the Srutis. Such a position is not, he says in effect, supported by the Srutis. Therefore, he urges that the position of the Prachchanna Bauddhas (ie., Nirvisesha Advaitins) that the world is unreal except in the vyavaharika sense, though in accordance with their Mayavada doctrine, is against the Srutis, reasoning and experience, cannot be accepted. This, he adds, is the public declaration (ghantaghosha) of the Srauta Saivas, i.e., Virasaivas. According to Nirviseshadvaita, Nirvisesham Brahma gnanam agnanam va. That is, is Nirvisesha Brahman to be understood as gnanam (comprehensible) or agnanam (incomprehensible)? If incomprehensible, it is against the Nirvisesha Siddhanta itself, for it declares that Sarvam khalvidam Brahma, i.e., everything is Brahman. If comprehensible, it becomes Savisesham, i.e., it becomes qualified. Gnana is eternal; also eternally qualified. Therefore, even in Mukti, prapancha is eternal. In Mukti, if it is declared all qualities are absorbed, even gnana would be absorbed. We thus reach a mutually destructive (or contradictory) position; there is neither object (i.e., Brahman) for gnana to lean on (niralambana) nor the knowledge (gnana) by which the object (Brahman) is to be attained. Having started with the Brahman and its qualities, we thus arrive at a position which negatives both Brahman and qualities. This is prameya viruddham, i.e., against the very hypothesis put forward. In Adhyaya IV, entitled Phala Adhyaya, Pada IV, Sutra Anavritti Sabdat Anavritti Sabdat, page 495, Sripati amplifies his statement of Viseshadvaita. All the four Vedas, the Upanishads and the Puranas, he says, declare that Moksha or the realization of Sivatatva is the highest aim of all religion. He thus states how this object is attained :-

murtimurtabrahmopasanadeva brahmatvapraptih || Murthamurtha Brahmopasanat eva Brahmatva praptih. brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati || Brahmavit Brahmaiva bhavati. brahmalokasabdena sivapadameva abhidhiyate || Brahmaloka sabdena Sivapadameva abhidhiyate. By adherence to Bhedhabhedatmaka Viseshadvaita and the practice of Shatsthala, on the analogy of the Bhramara and the Kita, Sivatatva is attained :- tasmadubhayavedavedantodita bhedabhedatmakavisesadvaitalabdha satsthalaparasivopasanadeva | satsthala sadvidhalinga upasanat bhramarakitavat murtamurta brahmatatvapraptih || Tasmat Ubhaya Vedavedantodita bhedabhedatmaka Viseshadvaitalabdha Shatsthala Parasivopasanatheva. Shatsthala-shadvidha linga upasanat Bhramarakitavat murtha-murtha brahmatatva praptih iti. By upasana, dhyana, dharana and gnana, the earthly sheath is cast off and Sivatatva is attained: - parasivabrahmatvapraptiriti ghamtaghosah || Parasiva Brahmatvapraptih iti ghantaghoshah. Doctrine of Shatsthala. As will be seen from the above, the doctrine of Viseshadvaita is closely connected with the doctrine of Shatsthala. This doctrine of Shatsthala is referred to by name by Sripati in his work. First, in Adhyaya I, Pada I, Adhikarana ii, Sutra 3, Sastra yonitwat, he writes :--- brahmanastavisesatmaka srstisthitilaya vacaka kayaka manasika bhedatmaka satsthala para sivabrahmopasanat parasivabrahmatvameva praptitvam vyapadisyate || Brahmanah saviseshatmaka srishtisthitilaya vachaka kayaka manasika bhedatmaka Satsthala Parasiva Brahmopasanat Parasiva Brahmatvameva praptitvam vyapadisyate. Again, in the same context, he says :- " sarveveda yatpadamamanati tapamsi sarvani ca yadvadanti " iti bhedabheda vidhayaka vedanta bakyanam sarvajagadubhayakarana satsthala parasivabrahmaparatvam | tadupasanat brahmatvasiddhi riti ||

"Sarve veda yat padamamananti tapamsi sarvani cha yadvadanti" iti bhedabheda vidhayaka vedanta vakyanam sarva jagadubhayakarana Shatsthala Parasiva Brahmaparatvam. Tadupasanat Brahmatva siddhiriti. He thus explains what Shatsthala means : - - sravanamananavisista jnananugatanidhidhyanasanat - padsthala paramasivasaksatkare tadatmye paramakaranam nirdisyati || Sravana manana visishta jnananu gata nidhi dhyanasanat shatsthala paramasiva sakshatkare tadatmye paramakaranam nirdisyathi. In Adhyaya I, Pada I, Adhikarana iii, Sutra 4, Tattu Samanvayat, he adds :- tasmat kamyakarmanisedhapurvaka nigamagamabhayavedantocita varnasramocita nikhila - karmanusthana sampannacittasuddhilabdha satsthala parasivopasanasya parasiva brahmatvapraptih - iti azraig: 11 "Tasmat kamya karma nishedha purvaka nigamagamobhaya Vedantochita varnashramochita nikhila karmanushthana sampanna chittashuddhilabdha Shatsthala Para sivopasanasya Parasiva Brahmatva praptiriti ghantaghoshaha. According to Sripati, Shatsthala is the connecting link between the Atma and Brahman. The Atma attains Brahmatva by Gnana. Gnana is obtained by drashtavya (closely examining the truth), shrotavya (by hearing the Smritis by guru's upadesa), mantavya (by meditation), and nidhidhyasitavya (by firm concentration). If Gnana is obtained in this manner, the result is the Jiva becomes Sambhu. The words of Sripati are:- tasmat jivo bhavet sambhuh kimivatkita vicintanat || Tasmat Jivo bhavet Sambhuh krimivat kita vichintanat iti, etc. That is, the Jiva attains Sivatatva through Gnana as the Kita becomes the actual Bhramara, i.e., on the analogy of the Bhramara-Kita theory. The six positions of approximation to Sivatatva according to him, are:Sravana, Manana, Gnana, Nidhi, Dhyana and Asana.

Correspondingly there are, he says, six lingas:-Atmalinga, Bhavalinga, Jyotirlinga, Pranalinga, Upasanalinga and Dhyanalinga. A treatise, entitled Shatsthala-nirnaya, deals with this doctrine at length. It sets out the six positions in the progress of the aspirant aiming at the attainment of freedom from the bondage of Samsara through the grace of Siva. (See Madras Descriptive Catalogue of MSS XI, Nos. 5546 and 5547.) Beginning from Basava himself, Shatsthala has been the eternal theme of Virasaiva writers, who often call themselves Shatsthala Brahmavadins. Many works in Sanskrit and Kannada have been written to elucidate this particular doctrine by leading Virasaiva writers. The doctrine has also received attention from the Virasaivas of the Tamil country. Thus the Gurulingasangama Paramarahasya Sadattalam, by an unknown author, is known. Here Sadattalam is the Tamil form of Shatsthalam (Madras D.C. Tamil III, No. 1414). Another work Sadattalakkattalai (Shatsthalakattalai) explains the six talas (Sthalas), viz., Battatalam, Mahesattalam, Pirasadattalam, Pranalingasthalam, Charanattalam and Aikkiyattalam. (Madras D.C. Tamil, No. 1417).