[Advaita-l] Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: A documentary in English on the scholars who flourished on the banks of Tamraparani

[V Subrahmanian]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bhupal <bhupal.todi at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 10:41 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: A documentary in English on the scholars
who flourished on the banks of Tamraparani
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvparishat at googlegroups.com>


*Shri Sarvajnatmendra Sarasvati, who was the successor of Shri Adi
Shankaracharya (under the guidance of Shri Sureshvaracharya) to head the
Kanchi Kamakoti **Sarvajna Peetam** was from a village on the banks
Tamraparni.*

*Source: https://sites.google.com/site/jamadagni/pages/kamakoti
<https://sites.google.com/site/jamadagni/pages/kamakoti>*

Ashrama Name: Shri Sarvajnatmendra Sarasvati
Appellations: Sarvajnatma Muni, Sarvajna Chandra
Birth Place: Brahmadesham, a village near Tirunelveli on the banks of the
Tamraparni River
Purvashrama Name: Mahadeva
Purvashrama Father's Name: Vardhana
Sannyasa: at age 7
Years as Pithadhipati: 42 after the Siddhi of Shri Sureshvara who reigned
as protector for 70 years; in total 112
Siddhi: 2737 Nala Vaishakha Krishna Chaturdashi (BCE 365-Apr-20)
Siddhi Place: Vedachalam (Tirukkalukkundram near Chennai/Kanchipuram)

Other:
When Shri Shankara was about to ascend the Sarvajna Peetham in Kanchipuram,
many scholars from all parts of the country came to challenge His
qualification to be recognized as a "sarvajna" (omniscient). Shri Shankara
proved His knowledge and was accepted by all scholars. When He was then
about to ascend the throne, Shri Sarvajnatma, then a child of seven years
who had been silent so far, challenged the Acharya and held Him in
scholarly debate for three whole days. On the fourth day, He accepted the
replies given by the Acharya and remained silent, after which the Acharya
ascended the Sarvajna Peetham.

Shri Shankara was most happy to see such an erudite young child, and asked
the child's father about him. The father replied that since age 6, his son
would only intake water, and would speak nothing but the Pranava when
spoken to. Shri Shankara then decided to appoint this child as His suitable
successor in the Sarvajna Peetham. After obtaining consent of the father,
He gave the child sannyasa by the name of Sarvajnatmendra Sarasvati and
appointed Him His successor under the guidance of Shri Sureshvara.

This Acharya retained His vrata of not consuming anything more than water.
He composed works on Advaita such as Sankshepa Shariraka. At His time, the
Jaina-s, who were not so peaceful then as they are now today and who had
been subdued by Acharya Shankara, had been making a resurgence. This
Acharya ensured that they do not disturb the Vedic Dharma as far east as
Pragjyautisha (Kamarupa, today known as Assam).

=====

*Source: http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html
<http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html>*

*Sri Sarvajnatman* :
After having conquered the leaders of many heretic sects prevalent in many
parts of India, Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada reached Kanchi, the southern
Mokshapuri to spend the evening years of His life in that holy city. One of
the famous incidents of Sri Sankara's stay at Kanchi is his Sarvajna
Peethahoranam or ascending the seat of Omniscience. On knowing about this,
scholars from various parts of the Tamil regions gathered at Kanchi to
witness the grand event. Among those, a band of scholars from Brahmadesam
and its neighbourhood had a debate with the Acharya on Deva bedha,
Moorthybedha, etc. By his clear exposition of the Advaita doctrine, the
Acharya silenced their arguments.
After the successful ascending of the Sarvajna Peetha, Sri Sankara was
attracted by a* boy of 7 summers *to be very precious. He sent word for the
parents of the boy. They came with their son and bowed before Sri Sankara.
Then the great Acharya expressed His wish to nominate the little boy as his
successor to the Kanchi Peetha. The parents greatly rejoiced and agreed to
the Acharya's proposal. Thereafter the Acharya initiated the boy Into
sanyasa asrama, gave him the deeksha name of Sarvajnatman. The Bala Sanyasi
was put under the care of Sri Sureveswaracharya. Sri Sarvajnatman presided
over the Sri Kanchi Shankaracharya Math for a long number of years.
He wrote a lucid summary or rather a further commentary on Sri Sankara's
Sutra Bashya. Sri Sarvajnatman's commentary is known as The Samkshepa
Sareeraka. It is also said that He is the author of a poetical thesis
called Sarvajna Vilasa. The Samkshapa Sareeraka of Sri Sarvajnatman
contains 1267 verses couched in verses of elegance and easy style. After an
eventful and glorious career Sri Sarvajnatman attained videha mukthi in
Kanchi on the 14th day of the dark fortnight (Vaishaka Krishna Chaturdasi)
of the cyclic year Nala (364 BC).

=====


*Source:
http://www.kamakoti.org/kamakoti/articles/Preceptors%20of%20Advaita%20-%2014.html
<http://www.kamakoti.org/kamakoti/articles/Preceptors%20of%20Advaita%20-%2014.html>*

*SARVAJNATMAN by N. VEEZHINATHAN M.A., Ph.D, *

In order to keep alive the Advaitic tradition for the benefit of posterity,
Sri Sankara established Mathas or centres of religious learning and
practices in various parts of India.  Badari, Dvaraka, Puri, Sringeri and
Kanchi were his far-flung spiritual capitals.  Of these, the Matha at
Kanchi is the foremost and is termed the Kamakoti-pitha.  And, Sri Sankara
himself assumed the headship of this pitha.  Ordained as Sannyasin by Sri
Sankara himself, Sarvajnatman was nominated successor to the Kamakoti-pitha
with Suresvara – his preceptor, as his protector.

In the history of the Kamakoti-pitha and in the Advaita literature,
Sarvajnatman stands out as a prominent figure.  He is well known to be the
author of the work *Samkshepasariraka *which is a succinct exposition in
verses of the views of Sri Sankara as stated in his bhashya on the
Brahma-sutra.  He also wrote another work on Advaita entitled *Panchaprakriya
*which is divided into five sections.  The first of them deals with the
different kinds of meanings which a word may have.  The next three sections
treat of what are described as the ‘great-sayings’ of which ‘tat tvam asi’
is a familiar example and point out how they should be interpreted.  The
last section is devoted to the elucidation of the nature of bondage and
release.  This work summarizes the teachings of the Samkshepasariraka.

Apart from his works on Advaita, he wrote a short treatise –- *Pramanalakshana
*on the Mimamsa system.  This work deals with the various pramanas of the
Mimamsakas and closes with an estimate of their epistemological doctrines
and it is available in manuscript in the Madras Government Oriental
Manuscripts Library.

The Samkshepasariraka has one thousand two hundred and forty stanzas in
various metres and consists of four chapters.
The *first* comprises five hundred and sixty three verses and corresponds
to the first adhyaya of the Brahmasutra termed ‘samanvayadhyaya’, and as
such it is the most important adhyaya.  It is devoted to the correct
interpretation of the different texts of the Upanishads pointing to the
attributeless Brahman.
The *second *comprises two hundred and forty eight verses and it
corresponds to the second adhyaya of the Brahmasutra termed
‘avirodhadhyaya’.  It shows that the Upanishadic teaching is not stultified
by other proofs like perception, etc., or by the views of other
philosophical systems.
The *third* contains three hundred and sixty six verses and it corresponds
to the third adhyaya of the Brahmasutra termed ‘sadhanadhyaya’ and it is
devoted to an exposition of the means to the realization of Brahman.
The *fourth* contains sixty three verses and it corresponds to the fourth
chapter of the Brahmasutra termed ‘phaladhyaya’ and it deals with the
nature of liberation.
Though the titles of the four adhyayas of this work correspond to those of
the Brahmasutra, and the subject-matter treated off in each is the same as
in the bhashya of Sri Sankara on the corresponding chapters of the
Brahmasutra, all reference to the nature of the qualified Brahman, the
methods of meditative worship there-off and the result arising therefrom,
is avoided.  On this ground, the title Samkshepasariraka (the gist of the
Sarirakabhashya of Sri Sankara) is significant.

This work Samkshepasariraka has *eight commentaries*.
The earliest of them seems to be the Siddhanta-dipa by *Visvaveda *and it
is available in manuscript [R. 1558(b)] in the Madras Government Oriental
Manuscripts Library.
Another commentary called *Sambandhokti *is by Vedananda and it is also
available in manuscript [R. 2919] in the Government Oriental Manuscripts
Library, Madras.
*Ramatirtha*, the disciple of Krishnatirtha, wrote a commentary known as
Anvayarthaprakasika published in the Anandasrama Sanskrit series, Poona.
He has based his commentary on the commentary Siddhantadipa already
referred to.
His disciple *Purushottama *wrote a commentary called Subodhini.  This also
has been published in Anandasrama Sanskrit series, Poona.
*Nrisimhasrama*, the disciple of Jagannathasrama who was a contemporary of
Krishnatirtha, the preceptor of Ramatirtha referred to above, wrote a
commentary called Tattvabodhini published in the Princess of Wales
Sarasvatibhavana texts series.
*Madhusudanasarasvati *wrote an authoritative commentary Sarasangraha and
it is published in the Kasi Sanskrit series.  This commentary is based on
the one by Visvadeva referred to above.
Apart from these commentaries, *Aufrecht *mentions one more commentary
known as Vidyamritavarshini.
Another commentary by one *Pratyagvishnu *is referred to by
Madhusudanasarasvati in his Sarasangraha.

Sarvajnatman has distinct views on the important Advaitic concepts, and
they have considerable importance in the historical development of
Advaita.  His merits appear most clearly when he is contrasted with other
Advaitic writers like Padmapada, Suresvara and Vacaspatimisra.

Sarvajnatman’s most important contribution is his view regarding the locus
and content of avidya.  He holds1 that the pure consciousness is the locus
and content of avidya as against Vacaspati who maintains that the
individual soul is the locus of avidya, while Brahman is its content.  The
latter view is refuted by Sarvajnatman on the ground that the notion of
individual soul derives its existence from avidya and as such it is
posterior to avidya.  The latter cannot abide in a substratum which is
decidedly subsequent to it.  Sarvajnatman further contends2 that the pure
consciousness is the locus and content of avidya neither in its absolute
form, nor in its blissful form, but in the form of inner self
(pratyakchaitanya).  This he proves on the basis of the experience ‘I do
not know myself.’  It is Sarvajnatman who explains the apparently
contradictory statements of Sri Sankara regarding the presence of avidya in
Brahman in deep sleep.  To any serious student of Advaita, the
contradiction in the statements of Sri Sankara, viz., avidya does not exist
in the state of deep sleep and avidya exists in Brahman in that state3
remained unsolved.  And, Sarvajnatman explains4 this view of Sri Sankara by
stating that avidya is not determinately perceived in the form of ‘I do not
know myself’ in the state of deep sleep and it is with this view that Sri
Sankara has said that avidya does not exist in that state.  Really it
exists in that state in Brahman, as it is evident from the reminiscent
experience in the form ‘I did not know anything when I was asleep’5.
Similarly Sarvajnatman explains Sri Sankara’s statement6 that the
individual soul is the locus of avidya, by contending7 that avidya though
present only in the pure consciousness is revealed in the form ‘I am
ignorant’ by the intellect which is the limiting adjunct of the individual
soul.  It is well-known that the nature of a revealing medium is such that
what is revealed through it appears as though present in the medium
itself.  The mirror which reflects the face appears to contain the face.
In the same way, the intellect which is the revealing medium of avidya
reveals it as present in itself and consequently in the consciousness
delimited by it, that is, the individual soul.  Avidya, however, is present
in the pure consciousness.

Sarvajnatman’s contribution to the theory of the nature of Brahman also is
noteworthy.  Relying on the method of gathering the unrepeated words found
in the affirmative Upanishadic texts to arrive at the exact nature of
Brahman–the method prescribed by the author of the sutras in the aphorism
‘anandadayah pradhanasya’ (III, iii, 11), Sarvajnatman affirms that, on the
whole only ten words convey the essential nature of Brahman in an
affirmative manner.  And those words are: nitya, suddha, Buddha, mukta,
satya, sukshma, sat, vibhu, advitiya and ananda8.  This same method is
adopted in the case of the negative texts also.   But, Sarvajnatman
suggests that as the elements that are to be negated in Brahman are
numerous, the words found even in all the negative Upanishadic passages are
not exhaustive and hence many words should be gathered.  Herein arises the
question of relation between the affirmative and negative Upanishadic
passages.  Sarvajnatman says9 that the negative Upanishadic texts, by
denying all duality, confirm the knowledge of the absolute nature of
Brahman arisen from the affirmative Upanishadic passages.

The question whether lordship is natural to Brahman or not is answered10 in
the negative by Sarvajnatman, on the ground that lordship involves a
reference to the controlled beings; and whichever is dependent on something
else is illusory, and hence lordship, being illusory, cannot be natural to
Brahman.  This conclusion seems contrary to the view of the author of the
sutras, who in the aphorism ‘parabhidhyanattu tirohitam tato hyasya
bandhaviparyayau’ (III, ii, 5) holds that lordship is natural to Brahman.
Sarvajnatman, with a refreshing independence of judgment, points out11 that
the author of the Sutras has said so from the opponent’s stand-point and it
is not his final view.  And to substantiate this point, he refers12 to the
other aphorism ‘kamaditaratra tatra cayatanadibhyah’ (III, iii, 39) which
treats lordship on a par with attributes like possession of desire, etc.,
which cannot be said to be natural to the attributeless Brahman.  Hence,
Sarvajnatman holds13 that Brahman is eternal, pure, consciousness,
ever-released, truth, subtle, existent, all-pervasive, absolute, and
bliss.  And herein lies Sarvajnatman’s contribution to the theory of the
nature of Brahman.

As regards the elucidation of the nature of the supreme lord and the
individual soul, Sarvajnatman adopts the well-known theory, the
pratibimba-vada, and in this he seems to have been influenced by the views
of Padmapada.

Coming to the practical side of Advaita, Sarvajnatman speaks14 of
asceticism as a necessary condition for attaining the knowledge of
Brahman.  He holds15 that the remote means such as the performance of
rituals including the optional ones (kamya-karma) lead to the desire to
know Brahman; and after this result is achieved the remote means should not
be pursued.  Again, Sarvajnatman holds16 that the Upanishadic texts alone
give rise to the intuitive knowledge of Brahman; and sravana, manana, and
nididhyasana remove the impediments which are present in the intellect of
the aspirant who has such a knowledge and which hinder the knowledge from
becoming effective in dispelling avidya.

Summing up, Sarvajnatman as a philosopher has a considerable historical
importance.  His main contribution to Advaita rests in his clear
exposition, in verses, of Sri Sankara’s views as stated in his bhashya on
the Brahmasutra.  His work is entitled Samkshepasariraka; and the title is
very significant, as throughout the work, Sri Sankara’s phrases and
arguments recur.  He is most concerned with finding a way of reconciling
the apparent contrary statements of Sri Sankara.  His treatise is
systematic, critical, and without any trace of dogmatic assertion.  He does
accept the foundations laid by his predecessors, yet he makes improvement
on them.  He is best in detail and in criticism. His style is easy and
unpedantic. He has an admirable literary sense, and in fact, only several
centuries after Sarvajnatman the world could produce Vidyaranya, who like
Sarvajnatman, wrote in verses on the Advaitic concepts in an admirable
way.  Sarvajnatman is a great philosopher who has influenced profoundly the
Advaita-thought in the subsequent ages.  As Madhusudanasarasvati
characterizes him, he knows the traditional interpretation of the Advaita
Vedanta.  His views are very respectfully cited by Appayya Dikshita,
Madhusudanasarasvati and Brahmanandasarasvati.



On Thursday, 2 July 2020 21:07:17 UTC+5:30, V Subrahmanian wrote:
>
> A very interesting documentary capturing a lot of interesting details:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/100028494164027/posts/381468439479625/?d=n
>
> There are many palm-leaf and other manuscripts preserved in the households
> here.  Any institution may come forward to study them and publish the
> contents depending on their worth. Perhaps Indic Academy can take this up.
>
> regards
> subrahmanian.v
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to bvparishat+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/f0afd738-1b63-490b-840e-e68b71ef9a40o%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/f0afd738-1b63-490b-840e-e68b71ef9a40o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.