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

[Belavadi Shankar]

All I can say is: Brahman is one, and there is NO second.


2017-12-20 17:49 GMT+05:30 sreenivasa murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:

> Dear Friiends,    Is there a tattva which transcends all schools of
> thought, which transcends all differing thoughts, which transcends all
> opposites, and which is univesal?
> Replies from the knowers will be gratefully acknowledged.With respectful
> namaskars,Sreenivasa Murthy
>
>
>     On Wednesday 20 December 2017, 4:39:24 PM IST, V Subrahmanian via
> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>  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
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>