46. न्यायादिनयकोविदः Nyāyādi-naya-kovidaḥ

One who was proficient in the traditional schools of theology starting with Nyāya (logic)

The six traditional schools of theology are Nyāya of Sage Gautama, Vaiśeṣika of Sage Kaṇāda, Sāṅkhya of Sage Kapila, Yoga of Sage Patañjali, Pūrva-mīmāṁsā (Mīmāṁsā) of Sage Jaiminī and Uttara-mīmāṁsā (Vedānta) of Sage Veda-vyāsa. His Holiness once clarified: “He who follows the Vedic religion is a vaidika. He may follow the Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Mīmāṁsā or Vedānta school of thought. A person having the Veda as pramāṇa and intending to follow what is said in it is a vaidika.”

His Holiness was kovida, One proficient in, these six schools of philosophy. In fact, He was recognized world over as the authority on these six systems in general, and in Nyāya and Vedānta in particular. He had the uncanny ability to present complex concepts embedded in not just any one of these schools of philosophy but also across the entire spectrum of them, in a simple yet undiluted manner. At the same time, He used to regale scholars with His

130 46. Nyāyādi-naya-kovidaḥ incisive arguments concerning the various philosophies and His ruling was recognized as final by scholars across the country.

His Holiness personally taught the texts of Nyāya (Tarka) several times and produced, in batches, scholars fully versed in Tarka and themselves competent to teach it in its entirety to others. While Tarka serves the end of scholars, His Holiness, being interested in the spiritual uplift of people, laid particular emphasis on expounding Vedānta, be it for the general public through His anugraha-bhāṣaṇas or through formal classes.

❧

His Holiness’s studies in Tarka were as yet incomplete when a Tarka scholar from North India came to Sringeri to seek some clarifications from the senior Jagadguru. The senior Jagadguru directed the paṇḍita to His Holiness but the scholar was hesitant and sought help from the senior Jagadguru Himself. “Let him give the necessary explanation. If your doubts are still not dispelled, I shall clarify,” said the senior Jagadguru. Unconvinced, but not in a position to say anything, the scholar settled down to hear what he presupposed would be the inept mumblings of a novice. He was taken aback when he heard a torrential flow of intricate points from His Holiness; all his doubts were resolved. He realised his folly in underestimating His Holiness’s expertise and, after due apology, returned home satiated and wiser in more ways than one.

❧

During His Holiness’s visit to Kochi and surrounding areas of Kerala in 1964, Dr. C.A. Cuttat, the Swiss Ambassador to India, had His darśana. Well-versed in the Advaita philosophy, the Ambassador sought His Holiness’s clarifications on spiritual practices, topics such as the difference between suṣupti and samādhi states, the distinction between various stages of samādhi and the role of devotion in Advaita philosophy. Much to the Ambassador’s delight, His Holiness responded to each one of his questions, providing all the clarifications the Ambassador sought. His Holiness also appropriately guided him on his spiritual practice.

❧

[In a benedictory discourse, His Holiness explained in very lucid terms, the basic philosophical aspects of the traditional schools of philosophy and established the superiority of the Vedānta school that propounds the Advaita philosophy. What follows are excerpted from the discourse.]

Tārkikas (followers of the Nyāya school) say that the Ātman undergoes joys and sorrows. However, what has a beginning must also come to an end. Hence, if joy and sorrow come to a person, they must also necessarily leave him at some time. Now if both happiness and sorrow leave, then what happens to the Ātman? The Ātman will become like an inert stone. Does this mean that we, who are in a state superior to a stone now, have to strive to become a stone? If we ask this question to the Tārkikas, they will not be able to answer it.

The Sāṅkhyas say that the Ātman is of the nature of knowledge and bliss. However, they say that there are multiple Ātmans that get liberated. If there are several muktas (liberated ones), then for such persons there may arise the feeling, “Am I the greater mukta or is this other person a greater mukta?” While the notion of multiplicity is still there, there is no question of liberation. Hence, there is a problem with this philosophy too.

The proponents of the Yoga school of philosophy teach that there are two entities, jīva and Īśvara. They say that prapañca, creation, which is different from the Ātman, is real. Since liberation cannot be had while the notion of duality persists, this philosophy is also not acceptable.

Even if we do not know who Īśvara is, we know that there is someone who has created this universe. The Sāṅkhya says this creator of the universe is prakṛti (Nature), while the Vaiśeṣika says it is paramāṇu (subatomic particle). The Advaitins, however say “Let it be prakṛti or paramāṇu. Without consciousness, no entity can create anything, and hence the enabler for the entire creation is a caitanya, that is a consciousness.” That we should take refuge in this caitanya is what we Advaitins say.

The Upaniṣad says, “There is fear indeed from a second entity (other than oneself).”¹²⁴ Then how is it that we are not afraid of the world that is different from us? If we ourselves were to create a ghost and have it in front of us, we would not be scared of it. It is only if a new ghost comes our way, that we may be afraid. According to Advaita, even though this whole world is like a big ghost, it is like our very svarūpa or nature. How can we be afraid of ourselves? This delight of non-dual Brahman is not there in any other philosophy.

❧