A Question??? (Warning: ..long...)

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

This post might cause some pain to many members of this list, and they
might prefer not to read it at all. However, I have to make certain points
rather strongly. Since I am the author of the webpage referred to by
Nandakumar, I feel compelled to respond. The issues discussed in this post
have nothing to do with advaita philosophy or brahmajnAna, but they have
to do with the integrity of the living tradition of advaita vedAnta, as
represented by the sannyAsins at the various monasteries in India. I hope
this is the last time I will have to go into this history on the advaita
mailing list.

On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, VP Nandakumar wrote:

> Hi,
>
>         I've got a question!
>
>         Couple of days back I was reading an account on the history of
Sankara
> on the net and in that it was mentioned that Sankara set up four maths in
> Shingeri, Puri, Dwaraka and Badrinath. I was surprised to find the math at

What has been said in my account is nothing more than the widely accepted
tradition in India, regarding Sankara and his life. This tradition tells
us that Sankara established four mathas at Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka and
Badrinath. The same tradition associates each of these four mathas with
one of the four Vedas and the corresponding upanishadic mahAvAkyas. The
same tradition gives us the names of four of Sankara's immediate
disciples, Padmapada, Suresvara, Totaka and Hastamalaka. There is no fifth
that can be accomodated here.

For another reference to the history of Sankara, try the online
Encyclopedia Brittanica's account, at
<http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=micro/524/83.html>, and follow links
from that page. The EB's essay has been written by Sengaku Mayeda, a
well-known Japanese scholar of advaita. Also read
<http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=micro/552/19.html>, and ask yourself
why this encyclopedia says what it says. If you want to know how
widespread this tradition of four mathas is, read The Ochre Robe, by
Agehananda Bharati, an Austrian who became an advaita monk at Varanasi,
shortly after the second World War. Also read the English translation of
the Madhaviya Sankara Vijayam by Swami Tapasyananda of the Ramakrishna
Mission, Madras. His introduction touches upon this question. Please note
that the Ramakrishna Mission and its monks are quite independent of the
traditional advaita mathas.

> Kancheepuram missing, as that's the math which is revered in the south
> of India.
>

The Kancheepuram matha is *one of the* mathas that are revered in south
India; it is not the only one that people in the south recognize. The
popular reverence shown to a matha is strongly dependent on the popularity
of the presiding head of that matha. It is certainly not an indication of
the history of that institution. Yes, the Kanchi matha is more well-known
than most others, but it is certain that it does not date back to
Sankara's times. For example, there is another advaita matha in
Kancheepuram itself, which was established by the famous guru, Upanishad
Brahmendra, in the 18th century. This other matha at Kanchi was fairly
well-known during Upanishad Brahmendra's lifetime, and shortly thereafter,
but nowadays hardly anybody knows about it. More importantly, the early
literature of this matha described itself as the first advaita matha in
that part of the country. I sincerely doubt if someone as eminent as
Upanishad Brahmendra would have said that, if there had been a tradition
of an older advaita matha, established by Sankara himself, in the same
city. If there had been such a tradition, it is hard to believe that
Upanishad Brahmendra was completely unaware of it. The more logical
conclusion is that there was no such tradition, and no older advaita matha
in Kanchipuram, at the time of Upanishad Brahmendra, i.e. less than two
centuries ago.

In any case, for many centuries now, the situation has been that each of
the four mathas at Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka and Badrinath recognize the
other three, and none other, as being equal in age. The ten daSanAmI
orders of ascetics, believed to have been organized by Sankara himself,
also accept affiliation with these four mathas only, although such
affiliation is largely nominal. And all this despite the fact that the
four original mathas have had almost no contact with one another till the
beginning of the 20th century. This situation has come about solely as a
result of the oral tradition that has been transmitted in these four
mathas and other daSanAmI organizations. Unless there is a massive,
concerted conspiracy hatched by the authorities of the four mathas, to
exclude the Kanchi matha from such recognition, I don't see how this could
have happened.


>         So what's the the history behind the math at Kancheepuram?
>

Read <http://rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu:8080/alt_hindu/1994/msg00539.html>
for details.

I now turn to another response to Nandakumar's question.

It has been suggested on this forum that not acknowledging the Kanchi
matha has become some sort of a spiritual-political rivalry. And more
often than not, the implied suggestion that is sometimes left unsaid, and
sometimes emphasized explicity (especially in Indian language
publications), is that this rivalry emanates from the matha at Sringeri,
which is the traditionally accepted southern matha. And any attempt at
setting the historical record straight, however impartial it may be, is
construed by many people as furthering such rivalry, and as being either
partisan towards the Sringeri matha or motivated by disrespect for the
Kanchi matha and its Acharyas. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The rivalry, if any, seems to lie in the exactly opposite direction,
namely the attempt to claim an ancient history, along with other more
far-fetched claims, for a fairly recently established institution.

Let me state the situation as I see it. The statement, "the Kanchi matha
was established by Adi Sankara," is a historical claim. In the Indian
context, history is known mostly through oral tradition. However, this
particular claim conflicts with widely established tradition. One may
believe that the Kanchi matha was established by Adi Sankaracharya, but
one also has to honestly accept that such a belief is contradicted by the
well-established tradition. Many people do not believe so easily. A
rational mind that hears a historical claim which conflicts with
well-known tradition, looks for some support of the claim from other
concrete evidence, and wonders why the conflict with the tradition arose
in the first place. If no evidence is found, the claim will have to be
regarded as unproved. This is precisely the situation with the claim that
the Kanchi matha was established by Sankara himself. You may have your
reasons for believing an unproved statement, but please do not say that
pointing to the absence of proof is indicative of some political rivalry.
If you are willing to substantiate your belief with evidence, please do
so.

As of today, owing to a number of reasons, the Kanchi matha has become
very prominent, probably more famous than the traditionally known four,
with the exception of Sringeri. Now, there are two well-known mathas in
the south, Sringeri and Kanchi, which have conflicting traditions about
Sankara. Their details of Sankara's birth, his lifespan, his date, his
death and the place where he was acclaimed as a sarvajna, are all mutually
opposed. Sringeri's traditions are in tune with what is known from the
rest of India. Kanchi's traditions are unique to itself. This conflict in
tradition, coupled with the fact that both these mathas have to draw their
following from the same south Indian community, predominantly brAhmaNas,
leads to unsavory disputes. This is contemporary social reality.

Anybody who wants to know more about these issues, has to dig into the
details of history offered by the two mathas. At this stage, if he is a
devout brAhmaNa, or is attracted to advaita thought, he has two choices.
Either he accepts one version and rejects the other, which is perfectly
fine. Or he researches more into the existent records and tries to judge
the validity and/or acceptability of various claims. If this observer
chooses the second course, and he is really impartial, he has to conclude
that the records of the Sringeri matha are extremely solid, and they go
back at least to the 14th century AD, when the south Indian Vijayanagar
empire was established. In addition, the dvaita tradition lets him know
that there was a Sringeri matha at the time of Madhva (11th-12th century).
He finds inscriptions dated to the 10th century referring to Sankaracharya
at temples in Sringeri. He also finds that the list of gurus of the
Sringeri matha can be independently verified from various external
sources, including one list upto the 15th acharya of that matha surfacing
in a manuscript in far away Bihar. Finally, he finds that the traditions
of the Sringeri matha are corroborated by those of the larger all-Indian
advaita tradition, and that in the recent past, when the other three
mathas have had problems with their line of succession, they have sought
only the help of the Sringeri matha and its acharyas to settle disputes or
to revive their paramparA. However, except for the oral tradition, he has
no persuasive evidence that Sankara actually established any mathas at
all. So he concludes that the Sringeri matha has to be at least a thousand
years old, and if the tradition about its being established by Sankara is
correct, the Sringeri matha is twelve hundred or so years old.

The impartial observer also has to conclude that the situation with the
Kanchi matha is very different. After great effort, he finds that the
earliest reliable records for the Kanchi matha date to the early 19th
century. There is not a single record dating to the times of the Cola,
Pandya and Pallava rulers of Tamil Nadu, that refers to the specific
advaita matha at Kanchi, although numerous Saiva Siddhanta and Vaishnava
mathas at Kanchipuram are mentioned. Then there is the negative evidence
from the Upanishad Brahmendra matha in Kanchipuram itself. Looking for
evidence from external sources, he finds that the accounts of the life of
Ramanuja (10th century), the teacher of the Visishtadvaita school, are
curiously silent about an advaita matha at Kanchi. Moreover, the Kanchi
matha says that Sankara ascended the sarvajna-pItham at Kanchipuram, not
in Kashmir. However, Ramanuja, who lived in Kanchipuram for a long time,
is known to have travelled all the way from Kanchipuram to Kashmir,
precisely to visit the sarvajna-pItham. Consequently, the
sarvajna-pItham's location has to be Kashmir, as Sringeri's and other
records say, not Kanchipuram, as claimed by the Kanchi matha. He is also
constantly reminded that the Kanchi matha's claims conflict with the rest
of the advaita tradition. This conflict goes to such an extent that a
press release of Sri Swaroopananda Sarasvati, the Sankaracharya of
Jyotirmath and Dwaraka categorically says, "the Kanchi matha can only be
considered as a branch of the Sringeri matha; it was not established by
Sankaracharya himself." And the Sankaracharya of Puri, Sri Niranjandev
Tirtha agrees with him. (This actually happened in 1987.) So he concludes
that not only has the claim of the Kanchi matha to have been established
by Sankara not been proved, it also has a deep conflict with the larger
advaita tradition.

So, he has to accept that Sringeri and the other three have at least the
force of tradition behind them, whereas the Kanchi matha's account doesn't
even hold together. Naturally, he is reluctant to accept that the Kanchi
matha is really as ancient as it claims to be. However, by now, the
atmosphere in the circle of followers close to the mathas has become so
vitiated, that he finds it very difficult to maintain his attitude of
impartiality. He finds that others don't think he is impartial. He finds
that his impartial conclusions contradict public statements made by the
Acharyas of the Kanchi matha. Consequently, he either keeps quiet, which
makes him look as if he accepts the claims of the Kanchi matha, or he
courageously says what is on his mind, in which case, he is seen as being
disrespectful to accomplished sannyAsins and Hindu traditions. After all,
it is very difficult to say anything to the contrary when someone says,
"Kanchi is the mokshapuri, therefore Sankaracharya must have established a
matha here." Moreover, his very reluctance to accept that the Kanchi matha
is as old as it claims to be, gets labelled as spiritual-political
rivalry. After all, his impartial conclusions have more or less amounted
to the same thing as having accepted Sringeri's version and rejected
Kanchi's version of history.

No amount of hemming and hawing can conceal the fact that this controversy
has the potential of causing a deep schism in the traditional
representatives of the advaita tradition. Messy controversies, usually
centering around which matha is older or more important, are not new in
the history of advaita vedAnta. Curiously enough, in the past, most of
these controversies in the south have taken the form where a rival matha
claimed to be "the original Sringeri matha", (e.g. the Kudali and Hampi
mathas in Karnataka), thereby indirectly acknowledging that Sringeri was
established by Sankara himself. None of these old controversies have taken
the form where a rival matha claimed to be "the original Kanchi matha".
And because they never gained much momentum, these early controversies
fizzled out. Also, in the past, the oral tradition in India was strong
enough to check the growth of such rival claims.

However, the modern controversy caused by the claims of the Kanchi matha
has probably been the most widely publicized one. The momentum for its
growth is helped by modern communication media, and it has occured at a
time when the oral tradition in India has considerably weakened. As it is,
the rivalries run deep among the respective groups of followers, and I am
legitimately concerned, as are many other individuals, that the
controversy has taken away from more constructive endeavor. However, I
will not suggest that the Sringeri authorities should acquiesce to the
claims to antiquity put forth by the Kanchi matha, and thereby put an end
to this controversy. I think the responsibility for seeking a resolution
for this controversy lies squarely with those who started it in the first
place, i.e. the Kanchi matha.

This is because, for the question, "did Sankara actually establish the
Kanchi matha?", there are really only two possible answers:

1. The Kanchi matha was not established by Adi Sankara. This is consistent
with the wider advaita tradition. If this is true, as it most probably
is, then all the political rivalry has resulted because of the Kanchi
matha's claim to the contrary. It also follows from this that the day the
Kanchi matha gives up its claims to antiquity, and accepts the validity of
the larger tradition, the so-called spiritual-political rivalry will
vanish, of its own accord.

2. The other alternative is that the Kanchi matha was established by Adi
Sankara, but for whatever reason, the other four mathas have conspired
amongst themselves not to acknowledge it, from the very beginning. And
they have managed to convince the vast numbers of daSanAmI sannyAsins and
their akhADas to exclude the Kanchi matha from their affiliations, again
from the very beginning. As a result, they have managed to propagate the
tradition of only four original mathas all over India and abroad.
Moreover, throughout history, they have managed to convince the local
rulers in the south, the Colas, the Pandyas, the Ceras, the Pallavas and
others not to leave any records relating to the Kanchi matha! In this
scenario, the Kanchi matha has a highly legitimate claim, but the others
are too obstinate and they won't recognize it, which has caused all the
political rivalry.

If this case is true, the traditionally accepted four mathas have indeed
been extremely successful, for some thousand years or more, although the
so-called political rivalry with the Kanchi matha has also been going on
all the time. In which case, it has to be concluded that the tradition of
advaita vedAnta is officially represented by and has been handed down to
us by hypocrites and self-serving politicians. After all, excluding those
authors who were householders, most of the notable post-Sankaran authors
of advaita texts have been the heads of these mathas, particularly
Sringeri and Dwaraka. And countless numbers of sannyAsins of the Puri,
Bharati, Tirtha and Sarasvati orders trace their guru-paramparA eventually
to the Sringeri matha, presumably the only institution that could have a
vested interest in denying recognition to the Kanchi matha. Consequently
all of them have to be discredited, making almost the entire advaita
tradition a tainted one.

I think the weight of probability lies overwhelmingly with the first
alternative. But you can take your pick.

Regards,
S. Vidyasankar