[Advaita-l] All non-Advaitic schools are Tāmasic - Manu and Shankara

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Brahmasūtra bhāṣya, Shankara says:

भवति चान्या मनोर्माहात्म्यं प्रख्यापयन्ती श्रुतिः — ‘ यद्वै किञ्च
मनुरवदत्तद्भेषजम्’ (तै. सं. २ । २ । १० । २) इति ; मनुना च ‘ सर्वभूतेषु
चात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि । सम्पश्यन्नात्मयाजी वै स्वाराज्यमधिगच्छति’
(मनु. स्मृ. १२ । ९१) इति सर्वात्मत्वदर्शनं प्रशंसता कापिलं मतं निन्द्यत इति
गम्यते ; कपिलो हि न सर्वात्मत्वदर्शनमनुमन्यते, आत्मभेदाभ्युपगमात् ।
महाभारतेऽपि च — ‘ बहवः पुरुषा ब्रह्मन्नुताहो एक एव तु’ इति विचार्य, ‘ बहवः
पुरुषा राजन्सांख्ययोगविचारिणाम्’ इति परपक्षमुपन्यस्य तद्व्युदासेन — ‘
बहूनां पुरुषाणां हि यथैका योनिरुच्यते । तथा तं पुरुषं विश्वमाख्यास्यामि
गुणाधिकम्’ इत्युपक्रम्य ‘ ममान्तरात्मा तव च ये चान्ये देहसंस्थिताः ।
सर्वेषां साक्षिभूतोऽसौ न ग्राह्यः केनचित्क्वचित् ॥ विश्वमूर्धा विश्वभुजो
विश्वपादाक्षिनासिकः । एकश्चरति भूतेषु स्वैरचारी यथासुखम्’ — इति सर्वात्मतैव
निर्धारिता । श्रुतिश्च सर्वात्मतायां भवति — ‘ यस्मिन्सर्वाणि
भूतान्यात्मैवाभूद्विजानतः । तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः’ (ई. उ. ७)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Isha?page=NaN&id=IS_V07&hl=%20%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%88%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%83%C2%A0%E0%A5%A4%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%95%20%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%83>
इत्येवंविधा ।
अतश्च सिद्धमात्मभेदकल्पनयापि कापिलस्य तन्त्रस्य वेदविरुद्धत्वं वेदानुसारि
मनुवचनविरुद्धत्वं च, न केवलं स्वतन्त्रप्रकृतिकल्पनयैवेति । वेदस्य हि
निरपेक्षं स्वार्थे प्रामाण्यम् , रवेरिव रूपविषये ; पुरुषवचसां तु
मूलान्तरापेक्षं वक्तृस्मृतिव्यवहितं चेति विप्रकर्षः । तस्माद्वेदविरुद्धे
विषये स्मृत्यनवकाशप्रसङ्गो न दोषः ॥ १ ॥

There is the shruti passage: what Manu has said, is verily a medicine.
Manu has proclaimed the vision of One Atman that resides in all bodies and
the realization thereof is conducive of liberation. Based on this too, the
system propounded by Kapila (Sankhya) which admits of multiplicity of
selves (Atmans), is veda viruddha. For the Ishvasya upanishad too declares
the Unitary Vision that is Advaitic. The Mahabharata too affirms this
vision alone. Thus, not just because the Sankhyas have come up with an
independent cause, prakriti, of the world, that system is inadmissible in
the Vedanta, but also because they admit of multiple atmans.

This observation of Shankara, citing the Manu smriti, is very interesting,
for Shankara has cited another Manu smriti too in the bhashyas, while
determining all dualistic schools as veda baahya, veda viruddha, and
taamasic in origin and destination:

In the Kenopanishad vakya bhashyam, Shankara cites the Manu smriti:

स्मृतेश्च — ‘या वेदबाह्याः स्मृतयो याश्च काश्च कुदृष्टयः । सर्वास्ता
निष्फलाः प्रोक्तास्तमोनिष्ठा हि ताः स्मृताः’ (मनु. 12.95………

which says that those smritis that are veda baahya, and are
ku-drishtayah...are tamo nishthaa.

In several places Shankara uses the epithets shown above. veda baahyaa,
kudrstayah, etc. while referring to taarkikas, etc.

In the Taittiriya bhashya, 2.8, Shankara makes a bold proclamation:

बहुप्रतिपक्षत्वात् ; एकत्ववादी त्वम् , वेदार्थपरत्वात् ; बहवो हि
नानात्ववादिनो वेदबाह्याः त्वत्प्रतिपक्षाः ; अतो ममाशङ्का - न
निर्णेष्यसीति । एतदेव मे स्वस्त्ययनम् -
यन्मामेकयोगिनमनेकयोगिबहुप्रतिपक्षमात्थ । अतो जेष्यामि सर्वान् ; आरभे च
चिन्ताम् ॥

Objection: You, the monist, are the singular spokesman of the Veda.
Against you are lined up all the dualists, who are veda baahya-s, and hence
my doubt that you will not succeed in determining the Vedaartha.

Siddhantin: You call me the Sole spokesman of the Veda, faced with the
multitude of those who are dualists.  This itself is a sign of benediction
to me. Hence, I shall vanquish all of them. I shall commence my exposition.

What follows from the above study is: According to Manu, those schools that
subscribe to multiplicity of Atmans are Veda baahya and kudrishtayah and
tamo nishthaah.

Those schools that Veda Vyasa has refuted in the Brahma sutra, such as the
Bauddha, Jaina, Charvaka, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Pashupata, Pancharatra,
etc. are therefore of the above category of veda baahya, etc. epithets.
The schools that came into existence after Shankara, such as Ramanuja's,
are veda baahya, tamo nishtaah, on at least two counts:

1.  They are dualistic, admitting of multiple Atmans and the eternal
absolute difference between jiva and Brahman, which is only a deity, which
again is veda viruddha.  The Kenopanishat 1.5 teaches: nedam ydidam
upaasate.  That which one meditates upon as 'this' is not the Upanishadic
Brahman.

2.   They subscribe to the Pancharatra doctrine too which has been refuted
as a product of veda ninda by Shankara in the Brahmasutras.

Madhusudana Saraswati too, in the Vedanta Kalpalatika, has clearly stated
the Vaishnava dispensations as veda baahya.  In the Siddhanta bindu, a
commentary on Shankara's Dasha shloki, he has said the 'pancharatra'
doctrine is not what the Vedanta teaches, in accordance with Shankara's
words 'na tat paancharaatram.'  It is also to be noted that the Kurma
Purana, which has been cited by Sri Vishveshvara Saraswati in his Yati
Dharma Sangraha, also holds that the Pancharatra was taught as a taamasic
(mohaka) doctrine:
https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/pasupata-and-pancharatra-composed-as-mohaka-sastra-s/


It was Sri Appayya Dikshita, out of compassion for those schools that
sprouted after Shankara, wrote short treatises on each of those systems,
with the idea that these adherents will gradually come up to the
realization of the Advaitic Truth.

Om Tat Sat