Source: TW
Shad-darshanas: Six Approaches to Reality by Manjushree Hegde
Advaita Academy
[[0:00]] foreign [Music] [[0:27]] welcome everybody the very famous debate between shankaracharya and Mandana [[0:33]] Mishra the debate between a staunch Advent and a very staunchaka [[0:42]] this debate this episode occurs in many hedgeographies of [[0:48]] shankaracharya and there are many many hedgeographies of shankaracharya so I [[0:54]] will primarily rely on the madhavi ashankara and the chip velasia to an [[1:01]] extent in this discussion at the outset I want to say that I will be [[1:06]] sidestepping questions of historical accuracy of this episode my approach to [[1:13]] texts is usually academic especially if the text is [[1:18]] abstract philosophy but this text is not that I personally believe that history [[1:25]] is not the correct lens through which we must read this type of work because the [[1:31]] purpose of these higiographies is not historical accuracy in the way that we [[1:37]] understand today I like what SRI aurobindo said in this context [[1:42]] in the context of the category of itihasa in India he said that itihasa [[1:49]] encompasses the historic and the a historic together he wrote The Poets who [[1:56]] wrote and those who added to these great bodies of poetic writing wrote with a [[2:01]] sense of their function as Architects and sculptors of life [[2:07]] so any literary account of any thinker of India [[2:12]] assumes the form of a living commentary on the truths that he verbalized that he [[2:19]] preached in his works so these hedgeographies they try to show [[2:25]] that the truth claimed by the acharya was lived embodied and realized by him [[2:32]] they tried to show that his life reflected the truths that he taught so [[2:38]] they established the connection between knowledge and way of living the two must [[2:44]] go hand in hand this is very important so these hedgeographies function as a [[2:50]] narrative commentary of a philosophical position it is this that is highlighted [[2:56]] in the text it is this that must be reflected upon when we read the hey geographies so questions like did this [[3:03]] incident truly occur did it occur in the way that it is described there are many [[3:09]] variations of the story in different higiographies so which one is correct so [[3:15]] these questions are truly irrelevant so I’ll sidestep them entirely [[3:21]] my point is simply this these hair geographies serve a purpose even if they [[3:28]] are not necessarily based on historical evidence in the modern sense of the term that is [[3:35]] all but this as an introduction we can look directly into the text [[3:42]] is dated between 1650 to 1800 CE [[3:48]] at the end of each of its chapters its colorful drinks it is [[3:54]] so the author of this work is [[3:59]] while many believe that this is the same who later became the famous monk [[4:06]] vidyaranya his claim is not established it is disputed there are many reasons to [[4:13]] contest this claim be that as it may the author of this work is [[4:21]] the author refers to his work asaya [[4:27]] and in his writes [[4:39]] so this text essentially brings together skillfully material from several earlier [[4:46]] hedgeographies it’s a late work 17th 18th century far [[4:55]] removed from shankaracharya so it is necessary has to Cull material from [[5:01]] different geographies from earlier hit geographies it weaves these together in [[5:06]] a beautiful narrative primarily it Chronicles shankaracharya’s [[5:12]] now big Vijaya is originally a term for Imperial military conquest or expansion [[5:19]] literally it means a conquest of the eight directions the eight quarters the [[5:26]] Sham vitayaha so a conquest of the world is of course not a military conquest it [[5:34]] is an intellectual conquest of the different regions of India it’s not a [[5:39]] conquest by battle but by debate by words not words by sastra [[5:46]] so this episode of his debate with Mandana Mishra occurs in the eighth [[5:51]] circle of this text we can look into the details the scene unfolds like this Shankaracharya’s meeting with Kumarilabhatta for a Vartika on his Bhashya [[5:58]] shankaracharya had written his bhashya on the brahmasutras and he wished that [[6:03]] one of the greatest Scholars of the time kumarilla bhatta write a varthika a [[6:09]] gloss for his partial so to make this request with him [[6:14]] shankaracharya reaches prayag to meet kumarilla to request him to write a [[6:20]] varthika on his worship foreign [[6:43]] [Music] [[6:56]] means [[7:11]] is collected made into a pile and Saturn fire this was a form of capital [[7:18]] punishment meted out to hardened criminals dry straw was twisted around [[7:25]] the limbs of the criminal and it was set on fire so that he burns a very slow a [[7:31]] very torturous depth until we have Kumari lapatta Seated on burning [[7:37]] tusharashi he’s surrounded by his illustrious [[7:44]] disciples like prabhakaramishra who are watching their teacher die a very slow [[7:50]] and a very painful death with tears streaming down their eyes yeah [[8:03]] now the fire has already burnt has already engulfed the lower half of [[8:08]] kumarena’s body yet amidst that smoke amidst that fire [[8:14]] that has engulfed him only his face is seen radiant fresh like a Lotus blooming [[8:22]] in the Mist Paris foreign [[8:39]] subjecting himself to capital punishment for Christ for atonement for the [[8:47]] expiration of three sins that he committed discusses the three sins in quite some [[8:54]] detail in the text but in the interest of time I’ll take only one of it if you watched Sanskrit movie on [[9:01]] shankaracharya you will know this story because the movie followed this text [[9:07]] very closely it made a lot of effort to avoid any [[9:12]] deviations from this story so if you’ve watched the movie you know the story but I’ll still be some some accepts from the [[9:19]] text so what is this sin that kumarilla has committed he explains Kumarilabhatta philosophical debates with the Buddhists [[9:35]] witnessing Buddhism spreading very quickly conquering every corner [[9:44]] is Buddha so [[9:50]] and witnessing the dwindling number of vaidikas [[9:58]] witnessing this [[10:09]] but unfortunately he was unable to win any philosophical debate with the with [[10:15]] the Buddhists he lost every debate with them repeatedly continuously primarily [[10:22]] because he was unfamiliar with their philosophy [[10:29]] so he decided to disguise himself as a Buddhist enter their Monastery and learn [[10:37]] Buddhism formally so that ultimately he can defeat them in philosophical debates [[10:43]] and re-establish the Primacy of The Vedas now while in Disguise in the Buddhist [[10:52]] Monastery he had to constantly listen to The Vedas being criticized being [[10:59]] severely abused by the Buddhist monks [[11:05]] and this for him was torturous unable to Bear the pain his eyes shed involuntary [[11:14]] tears the text says [[11:19]] and these tears they gave him away the Buddhist monks realized that kumarilla [[11:26]] bhatta is not a true Buddhist because a true Buddhist will not shed tears for [[11:32]] The Vedas as a punishment for his [[11:37]] deceits decided to throw him off a cliff the text reads [[11:49]] so the monks caught him dragged him to the top of the cliff and together they [[11:57]] literally threw him off the cliff literally pushed him to his death [[12:02]] or so they thought because at this moment when he was thrown off the cliff while [[12:10]] he was falling to his death literally to hit rock bottom kumarilla shouted [[12:18]] if The Vedas are true let no harm befall me yet [[12:28]] and he lived he remained unharmed to fall from one of the tallest Cliffs did [[12:34]] not break his bones not a single scratch on his body because he had vowed yet [[12:47]] and this this is why kumarilla is performing [[12:53]] because he said if The Vedas are true let no harm before [[13:01]] the use of the word if [Music] [[13:09]] the word if expresses a doubt it is [[13:19]] almost casting aspersions on its validity he should have said May the [[13:24]] true Vedas protect me no he said if The Vedas are true let no harm the follow me [[13:31]] and this for him is an unforgivable transgression and to atone for this sin [[13:39]] he is on that slow burning to his death [[13:44]] if this seems I don’t know uh outrageous or a disproportionate punishment for [[13:52]] what may be a minor transgression if that we would do well to remember that [[13:58]] our ancestors have faced far worse conditions to safeguard The Vedas to [[14:05]] have protected The Vedas to have passed on The Vedas for at least a couple of [[14:10]] thousand years without any errors in transmission they have given their life [[14:15]] for it and this here is a small illustration of that level of dedication [[14:22]] that level of Faith the absolute surrender to The Vedas that has [[14:27]] protected this country anyway coming back to the story kumarilla because he is himself unable [[14:35]] to fulfill shankaracharya’s request he is unable to write a varthika for his [[14:41]] bhashia he directs him to his disciple Mandana Mishra Why did Kumarila direct Shankara to Mandana Mishra [[14:46]] foreign [[14:58]] foreign [[15:24]] you win him in an argument you have won everybody [[15:34]] and when you have defeated him in he will write that for your passion [[15:42]] so shankaracharya stayed with Kumari lapatta until his end and then left to [[15:49]] mahishmati to meet mantana Mishra according to the madhaviya and the [[15:55]] vyasachalia lives in mahishmati according to the [[16:02]] chid velasia he lived in Kashmir the details of the kumarla episode is also slightly different in the philasia be [[16:10]] that asset me mahishmati shankaracharya had no trouble finding Finding Mandana’s house [[16:17]] Mandana mishra’s house the text treats like this [[16:33]] are birds like Paris so where parrots are debating the swathak of The Vedas at [[16:41]] the entrance of the house know that house [[17:00]] [Music] or requires the intervention of ishwara [[17:06]] nor that house [[17:20]] where parents are debating if the world is eternal or non-eternal [[17:30]] nor that house to be Mandana mishra’s so shankaracharya arrived at mantana Śaṅkara-Maṇḍana banter [[17:37]] mishra’s doorstep for his part is not very pleased to [[17:43]] receive shankaracharya primarily because at that moment he was engaged in [[17:50]] performing ceremony and for him an auspicious time like that the sight of a shaven-headed [[17:58]] sannyasi is inauspicious so their very first exchange is very unpleasant [[18:05]] Mandana is irritable shankaracharya is amused and a very witty conversation [[18:12]] follows Mundi where did you come from you [[18:18]] shaven-headed fellow shankaracharya playfully twists the [[18:23]] meaning of these words he takes [[18:29]] how far is your head shaven it’s a play of words it’s funny so shankaracharya [[18:35]] humorously replies to this I’m shaving up to the neck Mundi [[18:44]] that is not what I asked I asked you where you have come from I asked your way [[18:53]] playfully twists the words again he says you asked the way what did the way say [[19:03]] ing replies it’s said that your mother is a widow [[19:10]] foreign [[19:37]] the banter continues like this and the conversation turns very personal very bitter bandana says you fake sannyasi [[19:45]] for you sannyasa is simply loafing around with a bundle of books and a band [[19:50]] of disciples for you sannyasa is simply the inability to feed your family the [[19:56]] inability to shoulder your responsibilities foreign [[20:31]] because of your desire to eat good food without having to work for it [[20:43]] says what is you have just taken the Garb of a [[20:48]] ritualist because of your desire for women foreign [[21:18]] says enough of this meaningless banter I did [[21:23]] not come here for a vikra I came here for a Vada picture [[21:31]] and my only condition of this debate this father is that the one who loses [[21:37]] must accept the philosophy of the other and become his disciple [[21:48]] for his part is very happy to hear this he’s happy to accept a challenge so he [[21:54]] replies I will not hesitate to accept a challenge even if abhishesha the summit of [[22:02]] learning himself challenges me with his thousand tongues [[22:13]] foreign so the two agree to a debate together Rules of the Debate [[22:20]] they start the rules for the debate [[22:26]] in a debate there should be two parties meeting in an argument and we are the [[22:31]] two parties there must be a proposition for which [[22:38]] are against which the arguments are directed [[22:48]] it has to be fixed how success or defeat is to be determined and what the [[22:53]] consequence of such success or defeat should be that’s also the question of who the [[23:01]] judge should be for the debate so let us fix these beforehand so we can start the [[23:06]] debate in the best of spirits with a smile on our faces and this is what they did they decided [[23:13]] to start the debate early next morning they decided that [[23:18]] mishra’s wife will be the judge for the debate in this text [[23:23]] is the is understood as the Incarnation of goddess Saraswati herself cursed by [[23:30]] Sage durbasa to take a human birth so she is to be the church and so [[23:37]] everything is decided everything is set everything is fixed [[23:42]] at dawn at sunrise shankaracharya having completed his abductions with his [[23:50]] disciples reached mandana’s house where several learned Scholars had already [[23:57]] assembled to watch the debate furthermore Brahma and the devadas had [[24:03]] assembled to witness this historic moment and bharti adorned the seat of [[24:10]] judgment like goddess Saraswati herself at the outset shankaracharya stated his
Shankaracharya states his position before the start of debate [[24:16]] siddhanta his pratignya his position [[24:40]] the absolute is the only truth it is only because of avidya ignorance that [[24:48]] Brahman appears as the world of Multiplicity like shell shukti that [[24:54]] appears as silver when illusion is dispelled it is realized that silver is [[25:02]] just the shell similarly when ignorance is erased it is realized that the world [[25:08]] is simply Brahman which is the same as one’s own [[25:14]] this is supreme knowledge this is Moksha it brings about the cessation of samsara [[25:21]] and the pramana of this is the vedanta the upanishads the crown of The Vedas [[26:08]] he outlined his position at the outset he says [[26:24]] [Music] foreign [[26:36]] vedanta is not pramana. vedanta cannot be [[26:42]] a pramana for Brahman because vedanta is constituted of words and words cannot [[26:49]] reveal an entity that is unoriginated that is infinite words can only reveal [[26:56]] objects which are originated entities they cannot reveal pure subject pure [[27:02]] objectless. Consciousness no vedanta is [[27:14]] foreign [[27:44]] and we embody beings must perform Veda Karma as long as we are alive and this [[27:52]] is my position this is foreign [[28:33]] and she declared that whosoever wreath Garland with us that person will be [[28:41]] understood as defeated she makes this alternate Arrangement and [[28:47]] then proceeds to fulfill her household duties because she has to cook she has [[28:52]] to clean she cannot be physically present for the entire length of the [[28:58]] debate so she makes this alternative Arrangement so that her physical absence is of no real Consequence the reads [[29:06]] across their necks will demonstrate the winner of the debate [[29:12]] and so began the historic debate between shankaracharya and Mandana Mishra that [[29:19]] lasted for days for months both great Scholars both quoting Authority after [[29:25]] Authority we look at the details of the debate the topics that were discussed the arguments Details and topics of Shankara and Mandana Debate [[29:32]] that were put forward
Very broadly we can delineate five [[29:37]] important topics that were debated
- first, the purpose of The Vedas what is [[29:45]]. The purpose of The Vedas is it to enjoin, or is it to reveal Brahman [[29:51]]
- second how do we interpret them is it meant as praise [[29:59]], or is it upasana, is it meditation, or does it declare the similarity between [[30:06]] Jiva and Brahman? how do we interpret or understand this mahavakya [[30:12]]
- third how do we explain, or explain away the contradiction between perception and [[30:19]] the declaration of jiva brahmaikya - because pratyaksha and anumana stand in [[30:27]] stark contrast to what is declared in the Veda. So how do we reconcile the two? [[30:33]]
- Fourth, how do we understand The Vedic statements that each difference between [[30:39]] Jiva and Brahman? how do we reconcile such statements with the statements that [[30:44]] teach jivabharhmaikya
- 5, what is the uniqueness of Shruti [[30:49]] pramana? how is it so important?
So these very broadly are the issues that are [[30:56]] discussed that are debated and these are very very important issues they are core [[31:01]] philosophical topics for both mimansa and vedanta so we can learn a lot about [[31:07]] both these philosophies through the details of this debate so we will look into it now
Mandana Mishra opens the debate with an objection to Shankarcharya’s Siddhanta [[31:14]] opens the debate with an objection to shankaracharya siddhanta declared by him [[31:20]] in his opening statements so he says [[31:38]] you categorically maintain that the Jiva is identical to Brahman [[31:50]] um foreign [[32:11]] [Music] [[32:42]] foreign [Music]
Shruti Pramana in Purvamimamsa [[33:17]] but where the authority in the system of advaitha vedanta on the other hand in [[33:22]] shankaracharya’s philosophy is not very well known modern scholarship on shankaracharya [[33:30]] represented by Scholars such as s [[33:38]] radhakrishnanian smart Karl Potter Elliot douche umida then you have [[33:45]] Suchi devaraj Etc they Accord Primacy of anubhava direct [[33:54]] experience over Shruti pramana they argue that the truth claims of advaitha [[34:01]] are based on Direct experience rather than on Revelation that the Declarations [[34:10]] of Shruti need to be verified confirmed by the knowledge gained through direct [[34:18]] experience so the authority of Shruti is only secondary [[34:24]] um the emphasis on anubhava on Direct experience has resulted in the [[34:31]] downgrading of Shruti pramana the acceptance of Shruti pramana I’m [[34:37]] certainly not contesting the Primacy of anubhava pramana here but I’m saying [[34:42]] that Shruti pramana is extremely significant in advaita vedanta extremely [[34:48]] significant in shankaracharya’s writings and it cannot be brushed aside as Faith [[34:54]] or theology or faith-based Revelation it is not that see any pramana must satisfy two onditions for it to be a Pramana [[35:02]] two conditions in order for it to be a pramana a [[35:07]] it must inform us of something which cannot be asserted by any other pramana [[35:14]] and B its claims must not be contradicted by any other valid source [[35:22]] so one is novelty and second is non-contradictiveness. [[35:31]] these two are considered as the crucial characteristics of valid sources of [[35:37]] knowledge, and Vedas fulfill both criteria according to shankaracharya.
Shankara on two categories of knowledge & the Vedas. [[35:45]] Categories of knowledge inaccessible to all other pramANas, available only [[35:52]] through the vedas are Dharma and Brahman. [[35:57]] The knowledge of Dharma and adharma, the knowledge of the relationship between [[36:03]] the performance and non-performance of prescribed ritual actions and their [[36:10]] unseen results which they produce - this is derived from the karmakANDa section [[36:16]] of the Vedas. This cannot be known by any other pramana and this is what purva [[36:22]] mimamsa deals with. jnAna Kanda or the upanishads on the other hand they reveal [[36:28]] the knowledge of Brahman, the absolute. Technically there is no other instrument [[36:34]] to know Brahman.
Anubhava is not a pramana in the technical sense of the [[36:40]] term - it’s not an instrument to know Brahman - it is Brahman, it is the [[36:45]] experience of brahman; it is what it is. It is not technically a pramana - so if we [[36:52]] have to admit of a pramana to know Brahman - [[36:57]] one does not need a pramana - but that’s okay - if we must admit to a pramana [[37:03]] then The Vedas are the only pramANa. There is no other pramana for Brahman [[37:09]].
Now this position raises a few questions. How is an entity like Brahman to be [[37:17]] known by words of The Vedas? Can Words Be a logical source of knowledge for such a [[37:25]] reality? How can a subject, the knower, that can never be objectified, how can it [[37:31]] be known through words?
in his opening statements raises this [[37:37]] exact question he says that is [[37:44]] [Music] [[37:54]] … argues like this … Things like the adequacy of the words of upanishads to [[38:01]] the reveal Brahman is based on the argument that these words are not [[38:07]] required to create a Brahman or to even prove the existence of Brahman. Words [[38:13]] alone cannot bring a non-existing entity into existence; and in this case they are [[38:19]] not required to do so. So the problem does not involve knowledge of an [[38:26]] entirely unknown unrevealed or remote Brahman. The problem is of incomplete and [[38:33]] erroneous knowledge of an ever-available, ever-attained entity. The function of [[38:40]] words of upanishads lies primarily in the negation of attributes imposed [[38:47]] through ignorance upon Brahman. The upanishads do not reveal an unknown [[38:53]] being. They impart correct knowledge about the self that is immediately [[38:58]] available, but whose nature is misunderstood.
So shankaracharya writes [[39:04]] in his Sutra he says [[39:16]]
इति चैवमाद्याः श्रुतयो मोक्षप्रतिबन्ध-निवृत्ति-मात्रम् एव +आत्मज्ञानस्य फलं दर्शयन्ति।
So the challenge is of understanding what is already available.
This argument [[39:22]] is the basis for shankaracharya’s important distinction between Karma and [[39:28]] jnAna - between action and knowledge. Action is the correct and appropriate [[39:34]] solution where the problem involved is the accomplishment of something not [[39:39]] accomplished - something unaccomplished. Knowledge on the other hand is adequate [[39:45]] … So he [[40:14]] argued for the independent authority of the operations. [[40:20]] has stated here he says that the pramana foreign [[41:13]] so mandana’s argument is based on the purvum imamsa position that the pramana [[41:19]] of The Vedas is limited only to the chodana sentences it is only the [[41:25]] chodhana vakyas of the Veda that function as an instrument to no Brahman [[41:31]] here chodana is defined as chodana [[41:37]] is that sentence of The Vedas which incites a person to act to perform an [[41:45]] action to perform a yanya so chodana comes from the root name [[41:51]] literally is so incitement to act Purvamimamsa and Vedic injunctions [[41:58]] so according to this system of purvami mamsa Dharma is conveyed by The Vedic [[42:05]] injunctions so whatever is not an injunction does not convey Dharma and [[42:11]] accordingly has no independent epistemological value Mandana Mishra in [[42:17]] his Brahma siddhi his actual text he says [[42:29]] I have to confirm that but this is [[42:39]] pointed out that the injunctive part of the Veda is not tantamount to the whole [[42:45]] of the Veda the whole of the Veda is not a pramana of Dharma it is only the [[42:52]] injunctive sentences the sentences which enjoin actions only these sentences are [[42:58]] instruments to know Dharma the rest of the way the Corpus is relegated to a [[43:03]] secondary role what is not chodhana is these sentences do not yield knowledge [[43:11]] of Dharma directly they are classified as explanatory material or matter they [[43:17]] have an ancillary role they only participate in the larger Purpose By supporting the chodana they do not yield [[43:25]] any meaning independently now there are several reasons why the [[43:31]] system of purvami Mansa accepts and not the entire Corpus of The Vedas [[43:39]] one reason is that it is not possible to offer rational explications for the [[43:45]] entire vedance the entire Vedas is not strictly rational this does not mean that it is irrational [[43:51]] or that it is nonsensical it is simply that it is beyond reason it is Supra [[43:56]] rational you cannot ex offer rational explications for it the Mima musakas [[44:03]] strictly worked within the limits of reason so they set aside the rest of the [[44:08]] Vedas as they avoided sidestep the debate on the rationality of The Vedas [[44:14]] because the irrational and the suprarational appear to be very similar [[44:19]] it’s very easy to confuse one for another so the easier way out is to sidestep it to put it aside to bring [[44:26]] back the attention the focus to what matters and what matters for the purvum imamsaka is the performance of the year [[44:39]] and therefore not of great importance this is mandana’s argument so he says [[44:58]] he says statements like they occur after the injunctions as an [[45:07]] afterthoughts or the to the Choda namakyas they are not injunctions in [[45:12]] themselves they are Allied to the children of akhyas in a subsequent sense here specifically in the case of the [[45:19]] pharmacy this statement seems to be a praise of the yajamana the performer of [[45:26]] The Vedic he has praised for his highly meritorious deed of Performing the [[45:31]] sacrifice so he is praised as ishwara himself there is no greater meaning that [[45:37]] can be derived from this sentence is mandana’s argument this is very much [[45:42]] Justified from the standpoint of the purvami Mansa [[45:57]] he said [[46:21]] they may be considered as eulogies they may be understood as eulogies but [[46:27]] the pharmacy it occurs in an entirely different context in an entirely different section [[46:33]] of The Vedas [[46:39]] on what basis can it be dragged into the ritual and made a shisha of the vidhis of that ritual this argument is entirely [[46:48]] based on shankaracharya’s brahmasutra the commentary on the third Sutra of the [[46:54]] Brahma treats like this I just read it out here is saying [[47:00]] foreign [Music] [[47:29]] I think it’s amazing how beautifully the very subtle very abstract arguments of [[47:34]] the brahmasutra is woven into the story how the abstract philosophical details [[47:40]] reach the common man it is in details like this that text like this becomes so [[47:45]] important not in their historical accuracy because a common man might not lead brahmasutra but he may learn about [[47:52]] it through other means through texts like these so to this Mandana says [[47:58]] all right if it is not a vidhi shesha then maybe we can consider it as a vidhi [[48:04]] an injunction maybe can be interpreted as an injunction as a vidhi to meditate [[48:09]] on Brahman similar to the injunction [[48:15]] can be interpreted similarly so he says [[48:31]] [Music] now this is a big debate in itself there [[48:38]] are two issues that are involved in this first what is the role of upasana in [[48:44]] mokra does it contribute in some way to the attainment of Moksha and two is [[48:53]] an injunction if it is then does it help in the attainment of motion [[48:59]] first what is the role of upasana and karma in Moksha is an injunction to [[49:07]] meditate on Brahman so shankaracharya’s answer to this question is very clear [[49:12]] and the answer is no Karma does not contribute to the attainment of Moksha [[49:19]] shankaracharya is very clear there’s absolutely no role of karma in the [[49:24]] attainment of mokra this argument is very nicely captured in the brahmasutra bhashya on the Sutra [[49:33]] it’s an argument between I’ll just read out some excerpts of it [[49:38]] this is what is echoed in the madhavishaya so the argument goes like [[49:43]] this in this Sutra erases the exact same objection that Mandana Mishra has raised he says [[49:51]] don’t convey an injunction then it serves no purpose it is useless [[49:57]] foreign [[50:22]] a statement that merely declares that this is a rope not a snake this [[50:28]] statement serves a purpose it removes the fear that you felt when you assumed [[50:34]] this object to be a snake so this statement is certainly not purposeless [[50:39]] or meaningless similarly vedanta bakya that declares that you are free you are [[50:46]] eternally free this that you’re not bound to samsara how can this be meaningless it freaks you it serves a [[50:54]] purpose it serves the purpose of removing ignorance so for this [[51:00]] he replies foreign [[51:14]] foreign [Music] [[51:49]] foreign [[51:54]] but yet we continue to be bound to samsara as before [[52:25]] nothing changes so clearly action plays a role in the attainment of mokra to [[52:33]] this shankaracharya offers a very protracted argument to the gist of which [[52:38]] is simply this we aren’t talking about knowledge that is simply information [[52:43]] information about Brahman is of course not equal to knowing Brahman the point [[52:49]] can be Illustrated like this if I’m told a joke now and I get it [[52:55]] after 10 minutes and then I break out into a laugh then when did I really hear the joke [[53:02]] when I first heard it or when I understood it when I got it so according [[53:08]] to shankaracharya merely hearing the words is not Sharman it is that [[53:13]] transforming moment when you get it so there are no injunctions for brahmajnAna [[53:19]] the month of you Etc are not with his in [[53:24]] hisarya says [[53:35]] so these sentences [[53:40]] Etc these serve the purpose of turning the Mind away from its natural [[53:46]] inclination the tendency to go outwards foreign of the natural tendency of the mind this [[53:55]] in so-called injunction is said but it’s not supposed it is not a literal reading [[54:00]] of the text so in this text shankara argues if your words are true if the [[54:06]] Primacy is indeed then it would imply that Moksha is a [[54:13]] product an effect of an action of a Karma [[54:31]] if Moksha was to be attained by action then like swarga it could also be lost [[54:38]] and destroyed Brahma Vidya is not a product Brahman Atman is what it is the [[54:45]] upanishads merely draw your attention to it whether you choose to see it or not as an entirely different matter it is [[54:54]] not depend on your volition [[55:01]] so it’s not something to be accomplished by action it is simply what it is [[55:07]] argument [Music] [[55:21]] foreign [[55:44]] contradicts I don’t see myself as ishwara I don’t [[55:51]] feel I am ishwara in fact he says [[56:12]] replies [[56:19]] in addition to the inherent limitations of the sense organs and the absence of [[56:26]] any quality in Brahman that can be apprehended by any of them there’s also [[56:31]] the impossibility of objectifying Brahman the process of empirical [[56:36]] knowledge involves a distinction between the subject and object between the [[56:42]] knower and the known knowledge of an object presupposes the subject the knower but [[56:49]] Brahman is the Eternal subject it is eternally a subject as awareness it [[56:57]] illumines everything and the entire universe including the mind the body the [[57:02]] sense organs are its objects Brahman is the light of even the lights so in his [[57:09]] sutrah shankaracharya says [[57:38]] does not deny the validity or the capacity of the pramanas like perception [[57:44]] and anumana inference to produce valid knowledge in their respective spheres of [[57:51]] the empirical World in fact he says that practical Affairs would become impossible if the pramanas were rendered [[57:58]] to be fundamentally useless it is only in the matter of Dharma and Brahman that [[58:04]] he says that these pramanas are useless so Brahman is prior to the Saints organs [[58:11]] it is prior to the identification of the body mind complex so it cannot be known [[58:16]] through any of these instruments so detection karacharya says [[58:35]] in order to declare that Jiva and Brahman are different the sense organs [[58:41]] must first make contact with Brahman there must be sunny between the indria and Brahman in order [[58:49]] to declare that there is a difference between Brahman and Jiva akrasia [[59:02]] but that is not the case here the sense organs don’t really truly perceive the [[59:09]] difference between Jiva and Brahman they don’t truly contradict the shrutis not [[59:15]] that it would matter if they did because there’s fear of application is entirely [[59:20]] different but they don’t truly contradict should they so to this says [[59:27]] all right I concede to this let us set aside perception but what of intuition [[59:32]] we don’t Intuit that we are Brahman foreign [[1:00:13]] but what is difference is a Guna is it something that can be [[1:00:20]] perceived independently or even intuited independently by any pramana no it is a [[1:00:27]] quality it is an attribute it is a Guna it is adjective how do you propose that it is [[1:00:35]] perceived without the perception of the object that it qualifies and that is [[1:00:40]] Brahman which you cannot perceive refines his position he says okay [[1:00:47]] we say that this can we say that this difference is inferred them there are [[1:00:53]] certain qualities that Define ishwara which are entirely absent in the Jiva in [[1:01:00]] absent in us so therefore we can conclude that the Jiva and ishwara are [[1:01:06]] different so this is through inference this is the other pramana [[1:01:11]] no inference is again based on perception on pratiksha and when [[1:01:17]] perception itself is faulty then how can inference hold any good now restarts [[1:01:24]] from an entirely different point he says self-knowledge does not eliminate the [[1:01:29]] difference between self and ishwara any more than it eliminates the difference between self and a pot he says [[1:01:44]] knowing myself does not abolish difference between me and the rest of [[1:01:50]] the world you on the other hand claim that self-knowledge leads to abolishment [[1:01:55]] of all defenses so I will be no different from a pot does this not sound ridiculous to you so much [[1:02:16]] what exactly do you mean when you say the self do you refer to that self which is [[1:02:22]] unaffected by dualities like Pleasure and Pain or do you mean the individual [[1:02:28]] who is subject to these dualities to these sufferings which is the self that you talk about [[1:02:48]] if you refer to the individual then we are in agreement that can be no abolishment of defenses by the knowledge [[1:02:55]] of this self I agree with you entirely if on the other hand you refer to [[1:03:00]] knowledge of that self which is unaffected and unaffectable then yes [[1:03:05]] knowledge will eliminate differences even between the self and the thought [[1:03:10]] and unfortunately there is no illustration to show how this works because every illustration every [[1:03:17]] brushtanta belongs to the field of avidya and the self is beyond avidya so [[1:03:23]] this Mandana says well my point is that you’re not prepared to admit but there is such a self which is subject to [[1:03:31]] Pleasure and Pain which is different to ishwara this self is the Jiva and it is [[1:03:37]] different from ishwara it is different from a pot shankaracharya says this is a [[1:03:43]] Vidya it is because of a Vidya because of adhyasa that we believe that we are [[1:03:49]] this limited Body Mind complex we believe that we are different from ishwara from Brahman it’s because of a [[1:03:56]] fundamental confusion between Atma and anatma self and not self that we mistake [[1:04:03]] the self for the north self and the north self for the self we mistakenly [[1:04:08]] perceive the qualities of Atma in anatma and vice versa this is the play of [[1:04:15]] avidya so and the proof of this is Shruti and your anubhava [[1:04:22]] now Mandana raises a very important question he says you conveniently use Mandana on Upanishadic passages which teach difference [[1:04:28]] the Shruti statements that are not contradictory to your assertions but what of those upanishadic passages that [[1:04:36]] teach difference that don’t declare brahmaji way how do you explain those sentences what [[1:04:43]] do you make of them sumandana quotes some relevant examples he says to [[1:05:01]] you have the extremely famous passage of the two birds [[1:05:07]] one of which Acts and the other watches so there are two not one there’s one [[1:05:15]] that is Jiva the other that is Brahman the two are different and this is quoted [[1:05:20]] in the very same portion of The Vedas that you take as a pramana to this shankaracharya says that these [[1:05:28]] statements are simply describing the apparent Notions the wrong Notions not [[1:05:35]] the ultimate truth this is a very important dimension of shankaracharya’s [[1:05:41]] teachings the method of adhya Rupa and appava [[1:05:49]] employ this method to teach the unteachable Brahman [[1:05:55]] a describe a combined process of deliberated pedagogical [[1:06:03]] superimpositions of attributes followed by their retraction negation [[1:06:10]] elimination the first step [[1:06:16]] is deliberately framed by the instructional process in order to remove [[1:06:23]] the natural superimpositions that is founded in ignorance so every [[1:06:29]] pedagogical superimposition is effective in as much as it undertakes the removal [[1:06:36]] of natural superimpositions the second step upavada [[1:06:41]] it prompts the removal of even these deliberated superimpositions so as to [[1:06:48]] avoid its ultimate replication see the method is like this imaginary characteristics are attributed to Atman [[1:06:57]] this is and it serves to negate whatever is [[1:07:02]] incompatible with it later even this falsely attributed characteristics are [[1:07:09]] negated this is so here see in when you read it according to this method then [[1:07:16]] there are absolutely no contradictions in the Shruti bhakyas so in this particular Passage [[1:07:24]] writes that by mentioning a difference between the bhaktra and the sakshin The [[1:07:33]] Vedas merely point to the fact that the suction is absolutely Untouched by any [[1:07:40]] actions the suction is not the doer of actions not the enjoyer of fruits so [[1:07:46]] this separation between the doer enjoyer and the witness is not absolute it is [[1:07:52]] imaginary it is it is a pedagogical tool it simply serves a pedagogical purpose [[1:08:00]] and it serves to teach the absolute unblemished nature of the witness that [[1:08:05]] is all this is later negated in a later part of the text and that is [[1:08:11]] so the imaginary separation teaches or serves to teach the nature of the [[1:08:19]] witness so the attention must be focused on the description of the nature of the witness not on the separation between [[1:08:26]] the Jiva and the witness so this is how Shruti is to be read and this is what shankaracharya teaches further he says [[1:08:51]] lies in pointing what is not obvious to us and this is what is [[1:09:05]] foreign [[1:09:20]] Ty from this then this defeats this [[1:09:25]] Vedas that you yourself so vigorously uphold [[1:09:33]] the theory of intrinsic validity of The Vedas is extremely important this is the [[1:09:41]] basic epistemological position of the mimamsakas that all cognitions must be [[1:09:47]] accepted as true unless and until that they are falsified by other cognitions [[1:09:55]] so what is the implication of this Theory with regard to the Veda the [[1:10:01]] self-validity theory amounts to saying that the Veda is valid in and of itself [[1:10:08]] until proven to be wrong or false by another valid source but since its [[1:10:15]] sphere of application is Dharma and Brahman and this cannot be known by [[1:10:22]] human perception because it is not accessible to other human means of knowledge so Veda can never be false [[1:10:30]] white it is always fully valid this is theory and this is [[1:10:39]] arguments threatened to cut at its root so at the end of this Mandana simply Post debate conversation between Shankara and Mandana [[1:10:45]] accepted his defeat [[1:10:59]] foreign [[1:11:14]] accepted the cogent arguments of shankaracharya that she accepted that Mandana Was [[1:11:21]] Defeated and her words her verdict came like a shower of sweet smelling flowers [[1:11:34]] and the verdict was a directive to her husband to take up sannyasa to abandon [[1:11:40]] home to abandon her there’s a rather interesting long conversation that [[1:11:46]] occurs between shankaracharya and Mandana Mishra post defeat I’ll quickly [[1:11:51]] summarize it Mandana tells I’m not unhappy about my personal defeat it does [[1:11:58]] not bother me my ego that I Was Defeated at your hands but what does bother me is [[1:12:04]] the fact that a great sage like jainini could be wrong how is this possible I [[1:12:11]] cannot accept that such a giant of a scholar such a giant of a saint how [[1:12:16]] could he be wrong [[1:12:25]] foreign [Music] [[1:12:53]] the two areas are not even related to each other as mukhya and Governor they [[1:12:59]] are exclusively opposed to one another the fruits of the two inquiries are [[1:13:04]] different in that Dharma is meant for fulfillment within the field of avidya [[1:13:10]] and brahmadyana is intended to cross over avidya in his sutrah shankaracharya [[1:13:17]] says [[1:13:28]] so in other words one is foreign [[1:13:37]] this is a very long conversation a very important conversation but I will not go [[1:13:42]] into the details of It ultimately Mandana is satisfied he’s happy to hear Challenge of Ubhaya Bharati [[1:13:48]] this and he traces for his piercing insights he takes Refuge as his disciple [[1:13:55]] foreign [[1:14:05]] [Music] [[1:14:20]] foreign [[1:15:02]] then the gender of the Challenger should not matter to you your duty is to uphold [[1:15:09]] your siddhanta to protect it to safeguard it so do that do your job [[1:15:26]] further she cites the example of the debates between [[1:15:33]] janaka and sulabha she argues that the owner the reputation of these great sadras was in no way solid by debating [[1:15:40]] with women [[1:15:47]] accepts the challenge the two sit down for the debate this debate it is said was very well [[1:15:54]] argued by both sides everyone who had gathered to witness it was left [[1:16:00]] dumbfounded with Wonder at their learning at the sharpness of their logic [[1:16:06]] the soundness of their reasoning the beauty of expression that performance [[1:16:11]] was not less than that of ADI shesha and the details of the debate are not [[1:16:17]] mentioned it’s only said that this protracted debate continued for 17 days [[1:16:22]] and 17 nights and the only breaks that were allowed were that for daily [[1:16:28]] ablutions at the end of 17 days finding no other way to defeat shankaracharya [[1:16:35]] bharati decided to use her Advantage as a wife as a granny to defeat himself [[1:16:46]] um [[1:17:05]] discuss with me the science and the Art of Love Making between a man and a woman [[1:17:16]] and here commences the story of how shankaracharya requests A month’s time [[1:17:23]] to answer this question and he travels to go find a body of a dead King amaru [[1:17:40]] and defeats and hurt and wins this debate the story is a rather literal [[1:17:46]] understanding of the idea of saravana is it’s not necessary is not literal I [[1:17:54]] remember reading a discussion in the dialogues of the talks of Ramana maharshi so a disciple asks if Ramana [[1:18:02]] maharshi can do calculus or if can he speak Spanish if he wishes to [[1:18:08]] technically he should be able to because he’s a servant yeah so this is the literal reading of it so the upanishadic [[1:18:15]] statement that if you know Brahman you know everything so this is taken very literally an illustrated very literally [[1:18:21]] here it’s another long story I’ll not go into the details of it there are one or two [[1:18:26]] very profound dialogues that occur in that context But ultimately the dialogue [[1:18:32]] between shankara tarya and Mandana Mishra is portrayed in a way that is not [[1:18:37]] entirely fair to Mandana personally I think Mandana Mishra is a [[1:18:43]] very interesting figure in Indian intellectual history he is held in great [[1:18:49]] respect by both purvami mamsakas and traditional advaita vedanta he wrote [[1:18:54]] both mimamsa and vedanta texts he wrote a commentary on kumarillas he also wrote [[1:19:01]] a three independent pritices that deeply influenced the subsequent Indian [[1:19:06]] philosophical tradition three bucks [[1:19:11]] these are among amongst the earliest monographs in Indian philosophical [[1:19:16]] literature monograph means treatises that are dedicated to a single topic not [[1:19:22]] a commentary of a previous text so these three texts are among the earliest monographs in Indian philosophical [[1:19:29]] literature his Brahma siddhi is a text of vedanta that deeply influenced and [[1:19:35]] informed acharya’s interpretation of shankara’s works so he was in [[1:19:40]] intellectual Giant furthermore it is said that Mandana [[1:19:46]] Mishra is it is this same Mandana who later became sureshwara sureshwara is [[1:19:53]] the name that he took post sannyasa this is the tip of course it is contested in [[1:19:58]] academic circles Scholars like my own Guru for that matter held that [[1:20:05]] this identity is impossible in fact pointed out that Mandana the [[1:20:11]] word Mandana could be a title that was conferred upon very great Scholars a title of recognition because the of its [[1:20:18]] catalog was cattle bottom it uh mentions several authors with this name Mandana [[1:20:24]] so the identity of Mandana as sureshwar acharya is at best a conjecture not an [[1:20:31]] impossible one but an improbable one be that as it may this debate is ultimately [[1:20:36]] very interesting because of the fundamental issues that are addressed in it the points that are that are raised [[1:20:43]] are very valid the way they have been countered is very nuanced for a literary piece like this this is not technically [[1:20:50]] a work of abstract philosophy so you cannot expect it to Do complete Justice to either positions but it is largely [[1:20:57]] based on the original works of shankarabhashya so it makes for a very [[1:21:02]] useful and a very interesting read it would be admittedly better if [[1:21:09]] mandana’s positions were also Incorporated fully fleshed out and well [[1:21:14]] argued but well this is shankara Vijaya not Mandana Vijaya so um with this I’ll [[1:21:21]] conclude my talk thank you very much for listening to this I request you to kindly subscribe for to atharva Forum [[1:21:28]] for very fascinating talks and very fascinating topics mostly [[1:21:35]] [Music]