6 Greatness of Shankara’s Life and Teachings

(This benedictory discourse was delivered by Acharyal, in Kannada, at Mysuru on 15.4.1988. The venue was Abhinava Shankaralaya and the duration of the holy talk was 50 minutes. The twelfth birth centenary of Bhagavatpada was then being celebrated in the different parts of country, with Acharyal as the “Paramadhyaksha” or chief patron.

Acharyal had tremendous admiration for Bhagavatpada. Presumably, His deep feelings of regard were stirred when He gave this divine discourse. Thus, about half an hour after the completion of the holy talk, He initiated a long conversation with me about Bhagavatpada though He was about to commence His evening Anushtanam when I went to His divine presence to offer prostrations. He spoke for over 45 minutes; tears of joy welled up in His eyes and flowed down His cheeks on two occasions.

Acharyal elaborated on some of the points that He had made in His benedictory address and also provided much additional information and incisive analysis. What He said was, as always, invaluable, absorbing, and impossible to forget. In view of the intimate relationship between Acharyal’s public discourse and private talk on the greatness of Bhagavatpada’s life and teachings, what has been provided in the sequel is the result of the merger of the two holy talks. Had the contents of Acharyal’s private talk been included in brackets in the appropriate places of the translation of the public discourse, the resultant text would have been cluttered with brackets. As for omission of what Acharyal said in private about Bhagavatpada, that would have been quite unjustifiable.

• Translator)

Greatness of Shankara’s Life and Teachings

(Benedictory address delivered, in Kannada, at Mysuru on 15.4.1988)

(Obeisance to Lord Shiva, who has a body constituted by pure consciousness, is conversant with the Veda, possesses a divine eye, bears the crescent moon and is the means to attain liberation.)

(I pay obeisance to the consort of Lord Shiva, whose tresses are decorated with the crescent moon and who is a river of nectar that removes the intense heat of transmigratory existence.)

In our holy land, Bharat, persons in the Government, Advaitic Sannyasis, devotees and people interested in the Shastras have been celebrating, since the start of the current year, the twelfth centenary of the advent of Bhagavatpada, the preceptor. Historically, 1200 - 1300 years have passed since Bhagavatpada was born. If, following deliberation as on other issues, a consensus had arisen about the year of Bhagavatpada’s advent, be it 1200 years ago or earlier or later, there would have been no occasion for dispute. However, be that as it may, it is intensely gratifying that the twelfth birth centenary of that holy one is being celebrated.

Historians have so far not determined the year of Buddha’s Nirvana with exactitude and certainty. Yet, in 1956, the 2500th anniversary of Buddha’s Nirvana was commemorated, in various parts of the globe. Research has not established that Jesus Christ was born precisely in 1 A.D., on December 25. Nevertheless, the world over, Christmas is observed on December 25 and the Christian era commences from 1 A.D. Thus, there are precedents for the anniversaries of events relating to personages being celebrated even in the absence of historical definiteness about the dates of those occurrences. So, the mere reason that 788 A.D. may actually not be the year of Bhagavatpada’s advent cannot debar or render censurable the current twelfth birth centenary celebrations. Further, the present celebrations provide us a special opportunity to think of and express our gratitude to Bhagavatpada, who has done so very much good to all.

What was the state of affairs in India when Bhagavatpada incarnated? What was the attitude that had developed in the minds of the people? There was discord on metaphysical and Dharmic matters; each deemed his view to be paramount. Bhagavatpada, however, emphasized a sameness in all.

Nowadays, people create a hullabaloo about uniformity, without proper consideration of its nature and scope. They want all the sameness that is favourable to themselves but reject that uniformity which is disadvantageous. For instance, a wealthy young man who wishes to marry a girl of another caste but faces parental opposition is likely to readily advocate “sameness” of people, this uniformity being characterized by the absence of caste distinctions. On the other hand, he would be against “sameness”, marked by uniformity in economic status. The populistic ideas of uniformity are directly or indirectly incompatible with the dissimilarities between people. Such is not the right import of “sameness”. It is a truism that there are and shall be differences between individuals; their natures are disparate. What Bhagavatpada visualized was sameness that is compatible with human variety.

It has been said :

(A dance drama is a unitary means of delighting people with different preferences.)

People go to a dance hall for entertainment. But they have dissimilar tastes. One feels happy on watching a performer enact the part of Karna; another revels in the portrayal of Bhishma. The former is disposed to the Veera Rasa or sentiment of valour, while the latter inclines to the Shanta Rasa or the sentiment of tranquillity. Though such is the case, are their joys disparate? No, here there is sameness, notwithstanding the obvious differences between the persons.

Dispensing with all differences could lead to whimsical dressing and functioning by individuals. There are norms relating to the attires of a policeman, a soldier, an office-goer and a Purohit. When the norms are observed, there is an elegance. On the other hand, if an official were to go to his office with a Panchakaccha Dhoti for a lower garment, a Brahmavastram for an upper garment and with a bundle of Durbha grass in his hand, people at his place of work would wonder where they should send him, to a lunatic asylum or to where religious rites are to be conducted. Alternatively, if a Purohit were to put on trousers, a shirt and a cap and enter a house to perform rites, the inmates would not know where to seat him. Such confusion must not occur. Dealings can proceed smoothly only if there be clear-cut rules and regulations in the world. Therefore, great diversity is certainly there. It is in the midst of all this diversity that unity is to be discerned.

True sameness, which has been enunciated by the scriptures and by Bhagavatpada, lies in the way a person conducts himself in the world, the way he mentally reacts to the world and in his discernment. If a man uniformly behaves in an appropriate manner in different situations and with different people then it can be said that there is a sameness in his conduct. What is appropriate is, however, far from uniform. Thus, the man in question would obey his parents but would instruct his students. While living as a householder, he would attend to the needs of his wife and children but would not continue to do so after becoming a Sannyasi.

A man invited several people for lunch. One of his guests was a well-built adult who was a voracious eater. Another was a child with a meagre requirement of food. A guest loved sweets, while another disliked them. The host thought, “I should not discriminate between my guests. So, I should serve every one of them the same quantity of food.” As a consequence, by the end of the meal, the voracious eater was left wondering, ‘Why was I invited and then made to go hungry?” The child, who had been taught by his parents not to waste food, ended up with a bloated abdomen and a severe stomachache. The man who disliked sweets grumbled, “Why were sweets served to me, not once but thrice, in spite of my indicating that I did not want them?” None of the guests was happy.

On the other hand, if the host had served his guests in accordance with their requirements and tastes, the picture would have been vastly different. His course of action would have been uniform in a laudable sense, for it would have ensured that the hunger and the taste of each and every one of the guests were appeased. All would have left happy.

The Shastras instruct a person to consistently adhere to his Dharma and to eschew Adharma. For instance, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna,

(Even considering your own duty, you should not waver, for there is nothing better for a Kshatriya than a righteous war.)

(Being intent upon his own duty, man attains perfection.)

Certainly, there is a uniformity in the conduct of a person who consistently abstains from what he ought not to do and does what he should, with respect to different persons and in different circumstances. A person with such sameness in behaviour is like the dance drama that uniformly entertains the different members of the audience and like a host who uniformly satisfies the appetite and tongue of all his guests.

Commonly, a person’s mind is full of likes and dislikes; unchecked attachment gives rise to intense desire, while anger manifests when desire is impeded. Being swayed by attachment and aversion, people stray to the path of Adharma. Blinded by attachment for Duryodhana, Dhritarashtra did not pay heed to the beneficial advices of Vidura. Aversion led Duryodhana to make an attempt on Bhima’s life even when the two were but lads. Thus, likes and dislikes are impediments to true sameness in conduct.

A man engaged in activity cannot avoid pleasure and pain. Persons, objects or even natural situations can serve as their causes. For instance, even when no one disturbs a man, he feels discomfort on a very hot day but experiences pleasure when a cool, gentle breeze blows. Attachment and aversion towards the persons, things or events responsible for pleasure and pain are common. Unlike pleasure and pain, these are avoidable. If a person gets rid of likes and dislikes, a sameness characterizes his mental responses to the world. After all, he does not feel attachment to one who is friendly and aversion towards one who is hostile. Same-sightedness, marked by absence of likes and dislikes, is highly eulogised in the Gita. For example, Lord Krishna says:

(He who does not hate and does not crave should be known as a man of constant renunciation.)

Just as true sameness in conduct is not antithetical to the diversity in the world, sameness in mental reactions is not opposed to the experience of pleasure and pain due to external stimuli. When a person is free from attachment and aversion, he consistently conducts himself in a righteous manner; he has sameness in conduct. Uniformity in conduct is an important step towards developing equanimity of vision. Thus, sameness in mental reactions and sameness in conduct are linked.

A gold bangle and a gold necklace are regarded as different. However, the bangle and the necklace have no existence apart from the single substance, gold. In semi-darkness, a person may mistake a rope to be a snake, while another may misapprehend it as a stick. It is the single entity, the rope, that appears as a snake and as a stick. Likewise, this diverse world has no existence apart from the Supreme Brahman; it is Brahman that appears, on account of Maya, as the cosmos and its inhabitants. The wise man sees Brahman everywhere; there is thus a sameness in his discernment of apparently diverse persons and objects.

(He, whose mind is absorbed in the Self through Yoga and who has the vision of sameness everywhere, sees his Self in everything, and everything in his Self.)

(He who sees Me in everything, and sees everything in Me - I do not go out of his vision and he is never lost to My vision.)

It is only such uniformity of vision that cuts the very root of likes and dislikes. Attenuation of attachment and aversion is important for knowledge of the Truth to dawn. Thus, sameness in discernment, sameness in mental reactions and sameness in conduct form a unit.

In the time of Bhagavatpada, there were several creeds. There were the Vaishnavites, the Shaktas, the Shaivas, the Bhairavas and the Kapalikas. Apart from these, there were the Charvakas who had the enjoyment of worldly pleasures as their sole aim in life.

(Thinking there is only this world that is experienced and none other that is attained after death.)

They denied the existence of the hereafter, and, thereby, also denied the existence of Gods, such as Shiva and Vishnu and rejected the authority of the Veda, Smritis, Itihasas and the Puranas. They professed and practised the dictum,

(Incur debt and drink ghee.)

They felt, ‘We should enjoy ourselves to the maximum extent possible. If we are wealthy, we can have much. Therefore, wealth is very important in life and should be sought. Even if we are not too well off, we can enjoy ourselves by procuring things using the money obtained from others. If we go and steal, we might get caught and land in severe trouble. People will not give us things on their own. So, let us borrow money and then use it to buy things for ourselves. Alternatively, we can borrow things too. So long as we keep postponing the repayment, we can manage. Later on, we may get into some trouble with the persons from whom we have borrowed but we can do something or the other to evade them. We could even go away to some other places.

So long as we do not get caught and so long as we can keep fooling our debtors, there is no cause for concern. We can enjoy ourselves up to the hilt. In any case, once death overtakes us, there is no problem, for, after death, there is nothing, no virtue or vice. We do not have to suffer in any future birth. This was the kind of thinking the Charvakas had. In a nutshell, their aim was to enjoy, to the maximum extent possible, worldly pleasures and comforts and to treat the acquisition of wealth as something very important. The view they propagated was in keeping with their mental tendencies.

Apart from the Charvakas, there were those who accepted life after death and held that liberation consisted in dwelling in Vaikunta. Another group averred that abiding in Kailasa was liberation. There was a set that postulated the existence of an individual soul but said that liberation comprised in eternal ascent and not in dwelling in any world, such as Kailasa. Yet another group opined that liberation is a state of total void. Each of the several groups held that only its own view was correct.

It was in this prevailing atmosphere that Bhagavatpada incarnated among the people. Reform is best effected by keeping in mind the ways of the world. Bhagavatpada graced people engaged in austerities, Yogis, seekers of knowledge and those desirous of liberation. But He did not stop with that. He realised that He had the responsibility to set an example for the people by His life. Rama has made such a great impact on us by His having led a life totally wedded to righteousness. As with the life of Rama, that of Bhagavatpada serves as an ideal for mankind.

The Veda enjoins:

A mother puts up with so much of difficulty in begetting and raising a child. She bestows all her love on her offspring. Thus, a person is deeply indebted to his mother. If he does not conduct himself properly towards her, he is guilty of the unpardonable sin of ingratitude.

Bhagavatpada implemented the Vedic injunction that one should venerate the mother as a god in letter and spirit.

Bhagavatpada’s father Shivaguru passed away before he could perform his divine son’s Upanayanam. His mother, Aryamba, arranged for Bhagavatpada’s thread ceremony to be performed by a relative, after the impurity period was over. Bhagavatpada was then five years of age. He left for the house of a preceptor, as is enjoined in the scriptures and very quickly learned the scriptures there. He completed His studies and returned from His teacher’s home in His seventh year. Thereafter, He served His mother with great sincerity.

One day, as Aryamba was going to the river for a bath, she was unable to withstand the heat of the scorching sun and fainted. Finding that His mother did not return on time, Bhagavatpada searched for her. On seeing her unconscious, He revived her by sprinkling water on her and brought her home. The river was at some distance from His house. Out of love for Aryamba, Bhagavatpada felt that she should not have to endure the strain of covering that distance every day. So, He went to the river and prayed to it, treating it as God. He beseeched the river to change course and flow near His home.

Could the divine boy’s sincere prayer go unanswered? The next morning, Aryamba found that she just had to step out of her house to bathe in the flowing waters. Though Bhagavatpada attended to all the needs of His mother without any laxity, in His heart of hearts, He desired to renounce the world. He was dispassionate to the core. One day, some sages came to His house. In response to His mother’s query, a sage predicted that Bhagavatpada would have only a short life. This made Aryamba feel upset. However, Bhagavatpada gradually consoled her and took this opportunity to point out that parting in a family was inevitable and added that there is not even an iota of pleasure in worldly life. He said that He would like to transcend worldly life and death by taking to Sannyasa. On hearing these words of Bhagavatpada, Aryamba protested. She said, “You are my only son. How can I bear separation from You? I want You to get married.” Bhagavatpada pacified His mother and let the matter rest there.

He thought to Himself, “My mind is not inclined towards marriage. Yet, I cannot disregard My mother and act against her wishes. So, I should get her consent to realize My desire. Even if I am not able to get it whole-heartedly, I should at least get it in a measure. I can hope only for that much.” One day, when He was eight years old, He went to the river to bathe. The river was in floods. As He was bathing, a crocodile caught His leg. Bhagavatpada shouted out.

On hearing His words, Aryamba came to the river and wailed. “When my husband was alive, he was my refuge. After him, it is now my son. Even that son of mine is now caught by a crocodile and is about to perish. O, God, why is this?” She began to sob. Bhagavatpada said, “O, Mother, if I have your permission to renounce everything in the world, this crocodile will release Me. If you permit Me, I will take to Sannyasa.” Bhagavatpada chose this kind of appeal to get her permission. On hearing His words, Aryamba who was stricken with trepidation and was ready to do anything to save her son’s life, granted him permission. At once, Bhagavatpada mentally took to asceticism.

Thereafter, technically, He was free to go and take formal Sannyasa. However, He felt that He should console His mother. He told her that she need not worry about Him or about herself. Her relatives would take care of her; after all, His father’s property was there. They would tend to her even if her health deteriorated.

He informed her that though He might be far away from her, by being a Sannyasi, He would be benefitting her much more than if He were to be physically with her.

Aryamba told Him, “I gave You permission to become a Sannyasi since it was my wish that You should live. However, You are my only son. If I die, You should come and perform my obsequies. Otherwise, what is the use of having begotten You as my son?”

Unwilling to disappoint His mother, Bhagavatpada declared, “I shall fulfil your desire. Wherever I may be and in whatever condition, I shall come to you in the hour of need and personally perform your last rites.”

One might ask, “Was it right on the part of Bhagavatpada to have given such a promise?” Yes, in that circumstance, Bhagavatpada’s assurance was perfectly in order. He procured her consent on the basis of such an assurance. However, the promise that Bhagavatpada gave cannot be given by any other, for another would not be able to visualize the time of his mother’s death and arrive at his mother’s side immediately. Can a person not assuage his mother with promises, take Sannyasa, and then forget the commitments? No, once one makes a promise, it becomes one’s bounden duty to see that one fulfils one’s commitment at the appropriate time. No promise should be allowed to turn out to be an empty one. Bhagavatpada certainly valued His promise.

When Bhagavatpada was at Sringeri, by the special powers that He had, He visioned the approaching end of His mother.

The Mantra Shastra speaks of several Siddhis or supernatural powers. One such is the ‘Paduka Siddhi’ by which a person can reach the place of his choice in an extremely short time by his mere wish. Bhagavatpada reached Kalady from Sringeri, by the use of Paduka Siddhi. Is this possible? Yes, we should accept the words of those who have experienced it. My Guru has confirmed the existence of Paduka Siddhi. An instance of the use of Paduka Siddhi comes to My mind. There was a person who lived in Sringeri. My Shastra teacher and that person started out together from Sringeri by walk to go to Kigga for offering prayers at the temple there. The concerned person was old and My Shastra teacher moved a little ahead of him. There was only one road to Kigga and so, if, at any point of time, that person had overtaken My Shastra teacher, the latter would have certainly known. However, when My teacher reached Kigga, he found that the elder person was already there.

Bhagavatpada had Yoga Siddhi and Mantra Siddhi. However, supernatural powers should not be used. Yet, if one abstains from invoking them even in the exceptional circumstances in which they should be, one would be behaving foolishly. Bhagavatpada used the Paduka Siddhi rightly for the sake of His mother. Reaching Kalady in this manner, He performed her last rites.

Today, all of us recognise the greatness of Bhagavatpada, but not many of the people in His time did. Even those close to Him had not known Him properly and as the adage goes, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” Hence, His action was objected to by His former relatives in Kalady. They contended that as He was a Sannyasi, He was not eligible to perform the rites.

Bhagavatpada’s action was guided solely by the consideration that the assurance given by Him to His mother prior to His departure had to be carried out at any cost. Aryamba attained the exalted status that she rightly deserved. Bhagavatpada did not act out of attachment; nor was He motivated by the desire to fulfil some personal ends. It is true that Sannyasis are prohibited from performing funeral rites, but Bhagavatpada was a Brahmavit, a knower of the Truth and such knowers are beyond restrictions.

No injunction or prohibition is there for the one who treads the path beyond Sattva, Rajas and Tamas.

A knower of the Truth can accept food from a lowly one who eats dog’s meat as well as from a Somayaji, an orthodox person engaged in conducting the Soma sacrifice, with equal poise and without being affected in any way. On the other hand, an ignorant man who is supposed to observe the prescribed rules will be defiled if he breaks the scriptural injunctions, motivated by attachment and lack of self-control. However, in the case of the knower, no defilement accrues. All the actions of such an exalted one take place as a result of the Punyam (merit) earned by those around him who benefit from his actions. When he feels hungry, without any attachment, merely by habit, he stretches out his hand and accepts what is put therein, only to overcome the pangs of hunger. Thus, if it so happens that he gets something from a lowly eater of dog’s flesh and he consumes it, there is nothing wrong in his act. He is beyond all distinctions and does not cognise differences between holy and lowly ones.

If some worldly restrictions were brought to his attention, he might merely say, “Oh, is it so?” The situation is entirely different when one does something with deliberation and doership, both of which do not apply in the case of the knower. Infants do not care to distinguish urinating in a standing posture and in a sitting posture. They are solely guided by their urge to urinate and they fulfil it; none would object to the child’s conduct. The case of the knower who ever revels in the Atma is on a similar footing. Normal restrictions do not apply to him. Such a person does not incur sin due to his actions. His earlier sins do not yield fruit as they have been burnt by the fire of his knowledge of the Truth. His subsequent actions do not touch him as he is free from the sense of doership.

Bhagavatpada’s concern was only with regard to the fulfilment of the promise that He had made earlier. What was the fruit of such performance of funeral rites? There was no fruit for Him as He remained established in the Atma. It may be objected that there was a transgression of the scriptural prohibition but this is insignificant in His case. Indeed, it is wrong to transgress the Shastra but in the case of a knower of the Truth, this would not be objectionable.

There is a humorous tale that I have heard. It is historically absurd and perhaps concocted by one who did not have regard for Madhvacharya. Nevertheless, I shall narrate it here solely because it demonstrates what amounts to doing a certain act with attachment and with a sense of doership and doing the same act without attachment and without the sense of doership. It seems that Bhagavatpada and Madhvacharya were walking together on a very hot day. They felt quite thirsty and stopped at the sole place of habitation that was in sight. At that place only toddy was available. Bhagavatpada took it and gulped it down as He just wanted some liquid to assuage His thirst. Though dissuaded by Bhagavatpada, Madhvacharya also asked for toddy and drank it saying, “When You can take it, why not I?”

After this, they proceeded to walk for some more distance. Again, they were overcome with thirst. They entered the building there; it was a smelting factory. As only molten iron was available, Bhagavatpada took some of it and drank it. Then He asked Madhvacharya if he wanted to follow suit. Madhvacharya protested that he would not take molten iron as it would scorch his throat. At this, Bhagavatpada told him, “In that case, you should purify yourself for the toddy that you drank a little while ago.”

This narrative brings forth strongly the import of

(For one who is treading the path beyond Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, what injunction is there and what prohibition?)

Bhagavatpada, like Rama, showed by His life, what an ideal son is like. He fully carried out the Vedic teaching:

(Venerate your mother as a god.)

Bhagavatpada mentally renounced the world at Kalady, even while He was gripped by a crocodile. After making His promise to His mother, He went in search of a Guru to get Himself formally initiated into Sannyasa. Nowadays, several people take to Sannyasa but do so by resorting not to a Guru but to a cloth shop. There, they purchase an ochre dress. They are particular that their apparel, which includes a shirt, be glossy and well-ironed. Tonsuring is a mere formality to them. After donning the ochre robes, they give themselves some new names and thereafter deem themselves to be Sannyasis. Subsequently, such people can be seen in places like hotels and cinema theatres. There is a prescribed way of doing things. The Veda says:

A seeker of the knowledge of the Truth has necessarily to approach, with reverence, a Guru who is a knower of the scriptures and is established in Brahman.

If a man tries to know the Truth on his own by simply reading books, he will not be successful. Consider the case of a person who has approached a Guru and carried out intense spiritual discipline in an earlier birth but failed to get the realization of the Truth before passing away. Such a person would easily get knowledge in his next birth. In exceptional cases, he may not even require a Guru. In the Upashanti Prakarana of the Yoga Vasishta, there is a story relating to how king Janaka of Videha obtained knowledge without formal instruction from a Guru. Janaka was walking alone in a grove near his palace, when he heard a song sung by several Siddhas. The song propounded the Truth. For instance, one of the verses that he heard was:

(Renouncing the seer, the seeing and the seen, together with all mental tendencies, we resort to the Self which is the root consciousness beyond objectification.)

On hearing the song, he automatically and straightaway became enlightened. In the Veda, we hear of Vamadeva who obtained the realization of the Truth even when he was lying in his mother’s womb. On the other hand, we daily read the Gita, which contains a lucid exposition of the Truth, but our activity amounts to no more than some mumbling of words; we continue to remain ignorant. The remedy lies in approaching the right person who has direct knowledge of the Truth. Learning from such a one would certainly yield the desired result but not mere study of books or argumentation. The ideal Guru knows how to instruct the disciple according to the latter’s capacity. That is the reason why the Shruti declares :

(For knowing that Reality, he should go with sacrificial faggots in hand to a teacher versed in the Veda and absorbed in Brahman.)

The disciple must serve his Guru sincerely, be eager to learn from him and satisfy him. The Guru must be a knower of the Truth. With reference to a Guru who is not a knower of the Truth and who goes astray, it is said:

(The Guru who is defiled, does not cognise what is proper and improper and treads the wrong path must be discarded.)

The very scripture that says that the Guru must be served with great sincerity also says that the Guru must be discarded. It seems that there is a contradiction. Actually, there is none. Serving and obeying a Guru is the rule while discarding him is the exception. We can now consider an example of a scriptural rule and its exception.

When a person is not in a position to take a regular bath, the Shastra permits him to don Vibhuti and to treat this act as equivalent to a bath; this is a concession. But taking advantage of this concession, if one were to decide to bathe only during summer and to totally give up bathing during winter, it would amount to misapplication of this concession. During illness, if a doctor were to instruct a patient not to bathe and, if the patient were to insist that he must have a bath as it is a prerequisite for Sandhya Vandanam, the patient would be behaving like a fool. Let him make use of the Shastraic concession and go ahead with the application of Vibhuti as the substitute for a bath.

Another extreme case is that of a lazy man not willing to leave his bed in winter, saying that he would happily recite the Sandhya Vandana Mantras, sitting in bed, after taking advantage of the concessional application of Vibhuti. Is this truly an emergency situation? No. The Shastras have prescribed concessions only after considering several aspects. One has to carefully analyse them and then try to ascertain the purport of such injunctions. Otherwise, what will result is a desire-prompted misinterpretation of the Shastra.

Bhagavatpada wanted to set an example by adhering to the scriptural norm by approaching a Guru, receiving Sannyasa and learning at the Guru’s feet. So, He approached sage Govindapada. Govindapada was in Samadhi, the acme of Yoga, at that time. Bhagavatpada did not disturb His Guru but humbly waited on with the sincere longing for the Darshan of the exalted Guru’s holy feet. On coming out of Samadhi, Govindapada asked, “What brings You here? Who are You?” Bhagavatpada replied in ten verses commencing with:

(I am not the earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind, nor Akasha, nor the senses, nor their collection. As they are subject to destruction, I am the residue that is established in deep sleep. I am Shiva, the absolute.)

This composition is known as Dashashloki. Taking the cue from the reply, the Guru, perceiving the divine plan underlining the unique disciple’s arrival, prepared himself to play the role of an instrument in the execution of the divine plan. He accepted Bhagavatpada as a disciple and imparted the great Brahmopadesha to Him. Brahmopadesha is ordinarily understood to be the instructing of the Gayatri, for Brahma is the Veda and the Veda has the Gayatri as its basis. The other meaning of Brahmopadesha is instructing about Brahman, the Supreme. This is what is meant in the context. This instruction brings about the identity of the individual soul with the Supreme.

Is this akin to converting a tiger into a goat? No, that is impossible. Even a dog that is black cannot be made white nor one that is white be made black. What then to speak of changing a tiger into a goat? However, if a goat had been painted as a tiger, the task of converting this “tiger” into a goat can be accomplished by simply washing the paint away; the “tiger” then “becomes” a goat. If the soul were to be really finite in its nature it would not be possible to make it the infinite Supreme by any teaching whatsoever. Only seeming finitude can be removed, so as to bring out the inherent infinitude to the limelight.

How is this possible? The seeming finitude is merely due to name and form. How did the originally absolute infinite entity become the finite individual soul?

(That Brahman created Itself by Itself.)

(The Supreme visualised, “I shall become many. I shall be born.”)

How can there really be anything other than It, if all these names and forms are merely Its own appearances?

The Veda says:

(In the beginning there was neither the unmanifest nor the manifest; there was just Brahman.)

The Gita says:

(It is verily a part of Mine which has become the eternal individual soul in the world.)

The ‘many’ is actually only a part of the One, until the ‘many’ merges in the source, that is, in the Supreme. Upon the individual soul merging with Brahman, all the names and forms vanish.

(Just as flowing rivers give up their names and forms and become indistinguishable on reaching the ocean...)

This is the instruction that Bhagavatpada was blessed with by His Guru. During His stay with His Guru, Bhagavatpada, by the use of His Yogic power, brought succour to the suffering people of the region by taking into His Kamandalu, the flood waters of the Narmada. Later, in accordance with the instructions of His Guru, He set out correcting the attitude of the various people who were following several schools propounded by men merely on the strength of their intellect. He analysed their viewpoints thoroughly and laid bare, before such blind followers, the lacunae contained in their merely relying upon the intellect and upon persons who propound theories having their fancies as basis.

(If Kapila were to be accepted as the all-knowing one, what is the justification in denying such a status to Kanada? If it be held that both are all-knowing, why is it that their views differ?)

Reasoning that springs from the mere imagination of persons lacks conclusiveness, for man’s conjecture has no limits. Thus, it is seen that an argument discovered by adepts with great effort is falsified by other adepts, and an argument hit upon by the latter is proved to be hollow by still others. So, nobody can rely on any argument as totally conclusive, for human intellect differs. Why not rely upon the reasoning of somebody having wide fame say, for instance, Kapila, under the belief that this must be conclusive? Such reasoning too is inconclusive for even people whose greatness is well-recognised and who are the initiators of schools of thought are seen to hold divergent views.

There are several schools of thought in the world that accept the existence of God. What is the speciality of those who accept the authority of the Veda? Most of the religions have some starting point in time. Their followers aver that God made known His laws to mankind through some messengers of His. These messengers were sent well after God had created the world. So, what is the fate of those who existed prior to God making known His laws? Can they be denied a chance for liberation? This fallacy cannot be set right by the followers of those religions. The correct stance accepted by the followers of the Veda is,

(In the beginning of creation, having created beings together with the sacrifices, Prajapati said...)

That is, the Lord manifested this world and also His teaching, the Veda, coterminously. This teaching, the Veda, specifies two paths - the Karma Marga, the path of works and Jnana Marga, the path of knowledge. The former path occupies the major portion of the Vedic teaching and it is meant for a large section of the people. On the other hand, the Jnana Marga is meant for a few and is relatively tough.

(One in thousands strives for liberation. Even among such persons, scarcely one succeeds in knowing Me as I am.)

Both the paths are prevalent in the world. Bhagavatpada clearly taught, in His Upadesha Panchakam:

Study the Veda daily and perform sincerely the actions ordained therein. First, the Upanayanam ceremony must be performed. Next comes Upakarma or the preparation to the formal study of the Veda, then the actual study, then the performance of the various prescribed duties, then recourse to the householder’s life and then the ascertainment that the worldly life is trivial. This is the sequence that Bhagavatpada talks of. When disgust for worldly life arises, one should renounce the home.

Such disgust results when a person realizes that by just wallowing in his worldly activities, he is doing neither good to the world, nor to his own finite family or to himself. He now turns within and attempts to bring about the reform in himself. Upon analysing, he finds the world to be without any stuff.

(Having seen that the world is definitely puerile and desirous of apprehending the essence (the inmost Truth)...)

He finds it futile to look for any meaning in the world. How can one conclude that there is no true happiness in the world? Nobody is able to guarantee anything of lasting happiness here. Worldly people speak of one thing as giving happiness and, subsequently alter their position and say exactly the opposite of what they had said earlier. One who is happy at one instant is seen to be sorrowful the very next instant. How then can we say that there is any significant meaning behind worldly existence?

When required to perform an underwater job, we get into the water attired in a tight-fitting rubber garment, wearing a mask and carrying a breathing apparatus. But do we go about in that fashion when driving a car? No, we just put on trousers and a shirt. Thus, we take different stances in different situations. Likewise, till such time as we resort to discrimination and develop dispassion, we are enamoured with worldly life. On acquiring dispassion, we see the world as puerile and seek to renounce it. Till we realize the Truth, regardless of whether we have desires or limited dispassion, the world appears real to us. Once we realize the Truth, we see the world as a mere appearance.

Many are unable to digest the teaching of Bhagavatpada that the world is only an appearance. They wonder, “What is false here? Is our sitting here now false? Is our eating our daily food a mere appearance? What is true and what is false?” To such queries, the reply is that Bhagavatpada’s teaching about the unreality of the world is pertinent to those who have realised the futility of worldly experience and have obtained an understanding of the Supreme Reality. Till that realization dawns, we are left with little option but to look upon this world as if it were true. It would be absurd to insist that Bhagavatpada, being a knower of the Supreme Reality, should declare that the world is real. Bhagavatpada gave His teaching on the strength of His realization.

A certain job was said to be lucrative as it fetched a handsome salary of Rs.500/- per month ten years ago. But do we say that a job which fetches the same Rs.500/- per month today is lucrative? Situations have changed and so has the value of money. Likewise, depending upon whether a person gets realization of the Truth or does not, the situation is different.

We have to understand clearly as to what the knowers mean when they say that the world is a mere appearance. It is definitely not a void. There is an entity called “Badhya” or sublatable and another called “Trikala Abadhya”, one that is unsublatable at all times, past, present and future. This world is present now. Before it originated, it was not present. Will it subsist in the future? We cannot say. Everyone accepts that this world exists at present. The Shastras and the materialists say this but in a slightly different manner. Both agree that the world has reached its present state after undergoing several changes. In course of time, it will not be. What will not subsist in the course of time, cannot be said to be unsublatable. But the Brahman of the Upanishads is one which always was, is and will be. This is what is meant by Reality. But the world does not satisfy this condition. That is why it is said to be unreal whereas Brahman, which is unsublatable, is regarded as the only Reality. This is the teaching of Bhagavatpada. It is the same Reality that appears to us as all the forms seen in the world.

The one who realises this Truth is transformed into a totally different person. His actions are no longer motivated by considerations of his earlier ignorant state. Performing Sandhya Vandanam is an injunction. There is a person who sits in Samadhi on one evening. Even after the lapse of three days, he does not regain outward consciousness. Can he be said to incur sin for not performing Sandhya Vandanam? No. Had he been conscious of the Sandhya period, an objection might have been raised. But he is totally unaware of it and is lost in bliss. Later on, if anyone were to tell him that he was in deep meditation for three days, he would be surprised.

On the other hand, it is common knowledge that ordinary persons cannot sit even for a minute in total concentration. For them, Sandhya Vandanam is obligatory. The knower has transcended all such injunctions and prohibitions. In his case, the unreality of the world is obvious. For him, the world does not appear as apart from himself. Distinction asserts itself only when you and I are regarded as different. It is only the One that appears as you and I. Where then is diversity? This, in a nutshell, is the teaching of Bhagavatpada.

He did not propound any new theory. What had been existing down the ages in the form of the Upanishadic teaching had been tainted by the ignorant. Bhagavatpada cleansed this teaching of its impurities and restored it to its pristine purity. He did not prescribe or impose any new deity for worship. He only approved of the various deities being worshipped. There are sects which don Vibhuti, sandal paste or the Namam on the forehead. Each practitioner follows his prescribed mode of worship. One can find several such systems in vogue in the North. There are devotees of Sri Rama as well as those of Sri Krishna. Both adorn their foreheads with sandal paste, but differently. There is, nevertheless, no second opinion about the need to adorn the forehead and to not leave it blank.

Bhagavatpada solved the difficulty inherent in a variety of sects opposing each other. If the Supreme Lord is denoted as Shiva, the adherents of the Vaishnavite sect oppose this. Likewise, if the Supreme Lord is Vishnu, Shaivites are dissatisfied. Actually, Shiva and Vishnu are not different; they are manifestations of the single Supreme Reality.

To illustrate, using pure water, one can prepare “Payasam” (a sweet drink), “Rasam” (a diluted soup) or a beverage like coffee. But these cannot be effectively made with the saline water of the sea. If the Supreme actually had a name and form intrinsic to It, such as that of Shiva or Vishnu, then It cannot be everything. In other words, if It were Shiva, It cannot be Vishnu and if It were Vishnu, It cannot be Shiva. Such a Brahman would be like the saline water of the sea. On the other hand, the Brahman established by the Upanishads is like pure water. It does not have any attributes of Its own. It is simply Truth and consciousness; It is infinite.

It, however, appears, owing to Its power, as Shiva or Shakti or Vishnu. Which of these manifestations can be said to be most real? Each group has it that his own deity is the greatest. The Supreme appears differently to different devotees, but in truth It is the Absolute.

Bhagavatpada accomplished His task of establishing the sameness by taking care to see that no devotee was displaced and that no devotee was set up against another. The great master showed each adherent the way to the Absolute by making him tread his chosen path without conflict with the other paths. In effect, He did this by dotting the i’s and dashing the t’s without radically upsetting the various systems.

He emphasized the need for worshipping the Supreme with form, for without such a sincere worship, the mind will continue to remain unsteady. An unsteady mind cannot grasp the infinite attributeless Absolute. The need for meditation on God with form was thus stressed.

Madhusudana Saraswati, the famous all-knowing author of Advaita Siddhi, has said:

“By means of the mind brought under control by the practice of meditation, Yogis behold the Supreme Light that is free from attributes and activity. Let them do so.”

“But I am quite contented with the vision of the luminous blue deity, Krishna, who wanders about the banks of the river, Kalindi.”

The purport of the teaching is that one should steady the mind by resorting to the practice of meditation on God with form. Sage Vidyaranya has mentioned in the Panchadasi that there is a practice of worshipping the Lord as dwelling even in the pipal and banyan trees. He cites several such cases and concludes that even such a sincere worship is not unacceptable to those who regard the Supreme as the attributeless reality that appears as everything.

What Bhagavatpada stressed was that while there can be no objection to worshipping the deities that have come down traditionally to each person, the worship of deities opposed to the Shastraic way has to be given up.

Coming to the topic of liberation, who can get it? Evidently, he who possesses the requisite qualifications such as an ardent desire for emancipation. He who lacks the requisite qualifications will not get it. For a post that requires a candidate who has passed the IAS examination, a contender, even though he may be a genius, cannot apply if he has not passed the qualifying examination. Likewise, even though one is capable of accomplishing several other things, one cannot hope to get liberation if one does not possess intense dispassion. Dispassion leads to mental control, control of the senses, withdrawal, forbearance, faith, one-pointed concentration and finally to intense desire for liberation. He who has a burning desire to be free quickly realizes the Truth and gets liberated.

Bhagavatpada taught in His Upadesha Panchakam:

(Study the Veda everyday. Perform well the acts enjoined therein. Worship God through the performance of duties. Give up the thought of engaging in desire-prompted rites. Eradicate the host of sins. Contemplate the faults in worldly enjoyments. Establish the desire for the Self. Quickly go away from home.)

“If these are practised sincerely”, said Bhagavatpada, “You can become a Shaiva, a Shakta, a Vaishnava, etc., in the true sense of the terms.” To the Kapalikas, He advised, “Desist from scripturally-unacceptable conduct. By all means, meditate on your chosen deity, Bhairava, but do so in a Sattvic way.” He taught, “One can attain the Highest by hearing about the Truth, by cogitating upon what has been heard, and by focussing on what has been determined beyond doubt by hearing and cogitation. However, it is essential that one give up practices contrary to the scriptures and follow the scriptural path with dispassion. One can then, realize the Upanishadic Brahman as one’s own self.”

The most compassionate Guru, Sri Shankara Bhagavatpada, rendered all of us indebted by His kind and profound teaching. Smartas, the followers of Bhagavatpada, when questioned as to whether they are Shaivas or Vaishnavas, reply that they are neither. They swear by the Shastra and say that they are followers of the Veda and the Smritis. They do not follow any particular Agama. On account of this, one should not hastily conclude that they do not belong to any category. As they follow the Shastraic injunctions, they are certainly followers of the Upanishadic tradition. Those who fail to understand this, raise irrelevant objections against them.

To illustrate, some boys showed a lot of enthusiasm for learning Sanskrit. The teacher taught them the various Shabdas like Rama, Hari, Shambhu, etc. He also taught them the Pitru Shabda. A certain student’s father, upon questioning his boy about the Pitru Shabda, got irritated even though the boy correctly recited the declensions. As the Pitru Shabda declensions did not follow the manner of the Rama Shabda declensions, the father erroneously felt that the boy was wrong. He scolded the boy as well as the teacher and put an end to the learning itself. What is one to do with such persons? How can they be corrected?

If one mistakes one thing to be another and expresses his displeasure and anger, can it be the fault of a teacher, such as Bhagavatpada? A person with a jaundiced eye will insist that a conch is yellow, however much he is told that it is white. Bhagavatpada’s teachings do not give rise to any kind of likes, dislikes, delusion, envy, egotism, etc. He wants us to realize,

(I am the non-dual, pure, absolute Truth that remains as the residue when the cosmos is sublated.)

We, who are fortunate to be His followers, will be gravely erring if we do not reverentially pay our obeisance to Him on such an occasion. The twelfth birth centenary of Bhagavatpada is being celebrated in a fitting manner by numerous persons. Several deserving persons are being honoured on this occasion. I am glad that the event has proceeded so well.

A rare sage, who renounced the world before completing 14 years of age and who attained Nirvikalpa Samadhi, the highest state of Yoga, before He was 20, His Holiness Abhinava Vidyatheertha Mahaswamigal was a renowned Jivanmukta and a scholar par excellence in Tarka and Vedanta. He adorned the sacred Sringeri Sharada Peetham and brought great glory to it during the 35 years of His pontificate as its 35th Jagadguru Shankaracharya. The very embodiment of compassion, the Acharya graced innumerable devotees in myriads of ways. His numerous benedictory addresses in Sanskrit, Hindi, Kannada, Telugu and Tamil were characterized by lucidity, cogency, practicality, humour and accurate exposition of the intricacies of the scriptures. This book contains eleven of His gracious talks delivered in the three years preceding His Mahasamadhi on September 21, 1989.

I take refuge in that tranquil Vidyatheertha who is the Supreme One, about whom the Veda says, “On seeing Him, the knot of the heart (the host of impressions of ignorance in the form of desires that hang on to the intellect) is rent asunder.”

• H. H. Bharathi Theertha Mahaswamigal The Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Sri Sringeri Sharada Peetham

ISBN 81 - 903815-1-2

ISBN 81 - 903815-1-2