Writing of an Exegesis on Sutra-bhashya
(1-21) One day Sureswara, desirous of writing some exegesis on his Master’s great commentary on the Säriraka-bhāshya, approached him and said: “O great teacher! Please tell me how I could help you in your mission. To live in the service of his teacher is the only desirable form of life for a disciple.” Glad at the disciple’s request, Sankara said to him: “You may write for my commentary a vārtikam (an exegesis giving a critical exposi- tion).” “I am not equipped enough to have a comprehensive understanding of your great commentary,” said Sureswara, “yet, if I have your grace, I shall try to do as you have ordered." After he had departed to fulfil his teacher’s command, some of the disciples approached their teacher and began to warn him thus: “This effort of Sureswara, in place of helping the propagation of your message, may have a contrary effect. Was he not, till the other day, a great upholder of the philosophy of ritualistic Karma? He, as Mandana, had been preaching that ritualistic Karma giving the fruit of heaven is the message of the Veda, and that there is no God other than Karma. All Puranas speak of the creation and destruction of the worlds as a real process. Vyasa was the author of all these Puranas, and Jaimini, the founder of ritualistic philo- sophy, was the disciple of this Vyasa. The world and its processes are real-says the doctrine supported by both Vyasa and Jaimini. For, between the disciple and his teacher, there can be no difference in view, and even if there is, the teacher’s is the Siddhanta (the thesis on the doctrine), and the disciple’s but a modification of it. Such were the views he held as Mandana. From his birth he has been following and preaching the ritualistic code, which holds that all doctrines, differing from the view that the attainment of heavenly felicities through the performance of Vedic rituals is the highest end of life, are worthless. O great teacher! An exegesis that a person with such views writes on your works, be it with your permission, is bound to be a perversion of your commentaries; for, it will have Vedic ritualism as its dominant keynote. It will be like applying the axe at one’s own roots. Getting defeated in
1 [[146]]
debate, he took Sannyasa in a weak moment, and not because he has real faith in it. He cannot be relied upon. We are firmly of the opinion that he should not be entrusted with the duty of writing this exegesis. For, according to his view, no one who has com- petence to do Vedic rituals should abandon it. Sannyasa is meant for those who are idiots, lame, blind or in other ways disabled and are incapable of the strenuous life of a ritualistic householder. This is the view that the followers of Kumarila Bhatta have been propagating, and this Sureswara, till now known as Mandana, belongs to that school of thought. He should never be trusted. Now please permit us to draw your attention to the most competent person. Perhaps you might remember that sometime back when all of us disciples were standing on the opposite side of the Ganga, you called us to come to you quickly, as a test of our devotion to the teacher. Hearing your sudden call, we were all in a flurry looking for a boat to cross the river. But Sanandana walked straight over the swiftly flowing waters of the Ganga. Seeing his uncommon devotion to the Guru, Mother Ganga supported each step he took with a lotus of gold. Thus, immensely pleased to see him cross the Ganga walking over lotuses, you were pleased to give him the name of Padmapada. Here is that Padmapada, who was born with knowledge and who by his service of you has completely got over the sense of duality. Among us, he is the most competent person to write an exegesis on your profound com- mentaries. If an alternative person is required, there is Totaka who, by virtue of his great austerities and your grace, has acquired the blessing of the goddess of learning. This Viswarupa alias Mandana alias Sureswara has been a fanatical believer in the philosophy of Vedic ritualism. How could you, O great teacher, place so much confidence in him? Let the work of producing the exegesis be given to Padmapada.
Antecedents of Hastamalaka
(22-32) Just then, Padmapada went near the Acharya and began to say: “Here is Hastamalaka. He is competent to write the exegesis. His mastery of the Sastras is such that they are to him like a gooseberry fruit (Amalaka) on one’s palm. Hence it is that you have given him the name Hastamalaka.” Hearing these words, the great Acharya said: “He is no doubt very clever,
·
PREACHING OF BRAHMA VIDYA [[147]] but he is always absorbed in the Spirit and has very little external awareness. He did not learn the three R’s, nor did he study the Vedas under an instructor. He had no interest in food or play, nor did he ever speak a word. Fearing that he was possessed by some ghost, they brought this boy to me. When he saw me, he prostrated before me again and again, and stood before me with palms folded in salutation. All were astonished to see the sudden change in the boy’s behaviour. Then, when I asked him about his name, the name of his father, etc., he began to speak in beautiful verses conveying the spirit of Vedanta philosophy. Hearing his son’s wonderful power of expression for the first time, his father was astounded and said to me: ‘How wonderful is your power! This boy, who was considered dumb and idiotic till now, is now expounding the truth of the Atman in a way that even highly intelligent scholars cannot do. He must have been born as a liberated soul. Let him now follow you as a disciple. For, a swan can live only in a lotus pond and not in the midst of thorny shrubs.’ Ever since his father left him, he has been with me. But one like him, whose mind is immersed in Brahman from infancy, will not be able to concern himself with such scholarly undertakings like writing an exegesis on the commentaries.”
(33-48) His disciples thereupon enquired: “O great teacher! How did he gain this knowledge of the Atman without receiving instruction in scriptures and other spiritual practices?” Sankara replied: “Once there lived on the banks of the Yamuna a highly evolved saint who had overcome the bondage of Samsara. One day a Brahmana woman who had come for bath in the Yamuna left her two-year-old child on the bank and got into the stream with her companions. The child, slowly crawling from the place where he had been left, fell into the river. Picking up the dead body of the child, the woman came near the hermitage of the ascetic and began to cry aloud in great distress. Taking pity on the mother, the Yogi, by his psychic powers, entered into the body of the inert child, who rose up as Hastamalaka. For this reason, he had a spontaneous knowledge of all scriptures without the aid of any instruction. He is a knower of the Self and there is nothing that he does not know. Yet, a person so indrawn like him is not suited to write scholarly works which require a good deal of exter- nalisation of consciousness. Under the circumstances, Mandana, [[148]]
who combines in himself all learning and the knowledge of the Self, is more competent to do this work-is he not? He is a man of great reputation, a knower. of all Sastras, and one who has struggled hard in the pursuit of Dharma. If he is not suited for the… work, who else can be? But, if most of you are opposed to the idea, I do not want to persist in it. But then, I am afraid the whole scheme may fail.” At this the disciples said: “Why should the scheme fail? If you command this Sanandana (Padmapada), would it not materialise? He adopted Sannyasa directly from Brahma- charya, without passing through the householder’s life. He is well instructed and well qualified.” “Sanandana is certainly well quali- fied,” said the Acharya: “So, let him write an independent exegesis. Let Sureswara, our new disciple, also carry out the work that he has already undertaken.” Afterwards he called Sureswara apart and said, “Don’t proceed with your exegesis. The other disciples do not seem to have sufficient confidence in your competence to do this work. They say that as Mandana you had held the view that monasticism (Sannyasashrama) is foreign to the Vedas, and that you had instructed your gate-keepers never to allow any Sannyasin to enter the precincts of your home. For these reasons the other diciples have no confidence in you. So you better write an inde- pendent work and show me. In this way the difficulty created by the suspicions of the other disciples can be overcome.” The Acharya settled the question thus, but he had in his mind the fear that the exegesis might not come off at all.
Sureswara and his Exegesis
(49-62) Following the Acharya’s fresh instruction in view of the objections of the other disciples, Sureswara produced his work called the Naishkarmya-siddhi. This work, establishing the unmodi- fied nature of the Atman, is famous for the beauty of its style and the soundness of its reasoning. Himself much pleased with the work, the Acharya showed it to the disciples. They, too, felt pleased with it, and felt convinced that Sureswara was unrivalled in the correct understanding of the meaning of the scriptures. Wherever great Sannyasins. study and teach about the Atman that is unmodified by any action, and seek to live in that poise, this work, the Naishkarmya-siddhi, is in use even to this day. Then, Viswarupa (Sureswara) declared: “I started on the work of writing
T
PREACHING OF BRAHMA VIDYA [[149]] an exegesis on the commentaries of our Acharya at his command. Others have obstructed it. Whoever may produce such a work hereafter, may it not gain currency. in the world of scholars!” Pronouncing such a curse, he dedicated his new work to the Acharya and prayed to him thus: “It is not any thought of fame, or gain, or patronage that induced me to produce this work. It was written sheerly in obedience to the teacher’s words. If there is not such obedience, where is relation between Guru and disciple? Today I have not the least trait of a householder, just as a youth would not have the traits of a child, and an old man, of a youth. Nothing is stationary in human life. It is wrong to look on me now as a Grihastha (householder), just because I was that once. Mind is the cause of bondage and liberation. If a man is pure in mind, it is immaterial if he is a Sannyasin or a householder. If my original view was that no Ashrama like Sannyasa was sanctioned by the Veda, how could I have entered into debate with you with the wager that the defeated party should adopt the Ashrama of the winner? If the custom followed by me in my home life was to deny entry and Bhiksha to Sannyasins at my place, pray, Sir, how could you stay there for the many days that the debate with you lasted? People talk anything and everything about others irresponsibly. Their voice cannot be silenced. I became a Sannyasin not merely because I was defeated in argument, but because, through your instruction, I was able to grasp the truth of the Atman and feel the urge for renunciation of the world and all its attachments. After all, the purpose of a debate is to arrive at the truth. In my days as a house- holder, I wrote scholarly books to combat the views of the followers of the Nyaya school of philosophy. After I renounced the world, I desire for nothing except the service of your feet. Fortunate, indeed, is the man, and liberated is he from all debts, who is able to serve you in your efforts to combat and extinguish the flames of pride and jealousy burning in the minds of various sophistical controversialists who are working for discrediting the doctrine of Advaita in the eyes of wise men,’
(63-75) When Mandana finished his submission, the Acharya assuaged, by wise counsel, his grief at the withdrawal of permission. for him to write an exegesis on the commentary on the Vedanta Sutras. Sankara now thought of entrustring him with the work of writing exegesis on two of his commentaries those on the [[150]]
·
Brihadaranyaka and the Taittiriya Upanishads. Looking into those commentaries which are couched in meaningful, melodious and forceful words, which are based on sound reasoning, and which are full of arguments in support of the Vedantic thesis and in refuta- tion of opposite views, he said to Sureswara: “What you have said is the truth. I appreciate your modesty. I have written a com- mentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad. That commentary is dear to my heart. Write an exegesis on that commentary with the sole purpose of the world’s welfare in view. There is also another commentary of mine on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. You can produce another exegesis on that also. Your sorrow will be com- pletely assuaged by this, and you will be remembered by posterity for these works. Do not have any fear that, as before, any one can make me withdraw this permission. I give you my word.” In obedience to the Acharya’s command, Viswarupa (Sureswara), the great scholar that he was, soon produced the suggested works on the two commentaries of the Acharya and presented them to him. Some time after, Sanandana (Padmapada), too, as directed by the teacher, wrote a treatise on the Acharya’s commentary.on the Vedanta Sutras. The first part of it is the famous Panchapadika and the remaining portion is called the Vritti. Padmapada has tried to show in these works, with great scholarship and force of reasoning, that the Acharya’s arrangement and interpretations of the Sutras of Vyasa are on the correct line. He offered this as his Guru-dakshina (a thanks-offering to the teacher). Looking at the position of planets, the Acharya then told Sureswara in privacy: “In this work called Panchapadika, only five chapters, especially those portions dealing with the first four Sutras, will receive the attention of posterity (implying, thereby, that this ill-fate would overtake the work because of Sureswara’s curse). Owing to your Prarabdha you will have another birth as Vachaspati, when you will write an extensive exposition of the commentaries on the Sutras. That work will be the guide for men to understand the meaning of the commentary for all time.“1 After communciating this to Sureswara, he asked Anandagiri (the same as Totaka) and other disciples to write works on Advaita, and all of them produced works full of spiritual fervour, according to their capacity.
1 This work of Vachaspati is the famous text the Bhamati, which is to this day studied by all serious students of Sankara’s Sutra-bhashya.