Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

by Guest Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:00 pm

Adi Sankara, the most famous of hindu philosophers, was around in the 8th century AD. Sankara did not obtain any recognition in his native Kerala. The reason was that Sankara accepted and promulgated the Vedanta philosophy while in his native Kerala the widely accepted philosophy was the Mimansa.
For some reason Sankara decided to visit Benaras (Varanasi). There, again for some reason, he decided to approach the most famous Mimansa philosopher of Benaras--Mandan Mishra. When he asked people the directions to Mishra's house he was informed that Mishra lives in a house where a pet parrot chirps philosophical statements.
Sankara defeated Mishra in the debate. Following this debate, Mishra's wife Bharati--who had been the adjudicator of the debate--challenged Sankara to debate with her. Sankara agreed. When the debate with Bharati began, she started asking him questions related to sex and intercourse. Being a virgin, Sankara requested that the debate be continued after one month during which time he would gain the necessary expertise on the subject. Bharati agreed. When they renewed the debate after a month Sankara defeated her and following this Mr and Mrs Mishra agreed to become students of Sankara.
After his victory over Mandana Mishra, Sankara gained many disciples from Benaras and the region surrounding Benaras (modern Uttar Pradesh and regions around UP like Bihar). These North Indian disciples of Sankara then went all over India promulgating Sankara's philosophy. It is strange that these North Indians were promulgating the philosophy expounded by a South Indian. Presumably terms like north indian and south indian are recent constructs and they did not make any sense to people of those days.

As a footnote, i should add that although Vedanta became the dominant philosophy all over India after Sankara, in his own native Kerala the Mimansa philosophy continued to hold sway. The Mimansakas spurned what a fellow Malayali was preaching and continued to believe and promulgate their Mimansa philosophy.

by Guest Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:30 pm

it was in Benaras that Sankara composed his famous commentaries on the Upanisads and the Bhagawad Gita. His philosophy was embraced by North Indians who gave him respect, recognition and affection--and they promulgated his philosophy throughout India.
Adi Sankara embodies the syncretic tradition in Indian culture where narrow minded parochialism is eschewed.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:36 pm

Sankara was not the only one who wrote bhasshyas on Upanishads and he was not thinking of himself as a SI or NI.

India probably was not as BIMARU as it is today in Akhilesh's backyard.

by Guest Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:38 pm

Adi Sankara's life also demonstrates how Uttar Pradesh has been one of the main cultural centers of India from ancient times. Mark Twain wrote in 1897: Benares is older than history, older than tradition, older even than legend, and looks twice as old as all of them put together.

This great city of Benaras and the Uttar Pradeshis and other North Indians recognized the worth of Adi Sankara and gave him respect and recognition. The same Sankara who had been spurned in his native Kerala where the intellectuals refused to give him any importance.

by Guest Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:41 pm

The story of Adi Sankara's life and the message it carries about the absence of narrow minded parochialism in India in his times would have been even more fascinating if the philosophy Sankara was preaching was particularly brilliant from a scientific perspective. Sadly that is not the case. His philosophy is not science oriented, rather it is hostile to science.

by Guest Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:51 pm

The philosophical idealism preached by Sankara was combated in South India by several eminent philosophers like Ramanuja of Tamil Nadu (who espoused the philosophy of Visistadvaita) , Madhvacharya of Karnataka (founder of Dvaita Vedanta) , Mimansa philosophers of Kerala, and Vallabhacharya in Andhra Pradesh.

However, in North India, there was really no polemical attack on Sankara. Even philosophers espousing different schools of philosophy seem to become strangely ambivalent when dealing with the Sankarite philosophy. The one North Indian who attacked the Sankarite philosophy very very effectively is the great philosopher Kumarila Bhatta of the Mimansa school (circa 7th century AD) was either a senior contemporary of Sankara or else who had died shortly before Sankara was born. Kumarila was actually attacking Mahayana Budhism but since Adi Sankara's philosophy is just a disguised version of Mahayana Budhism Kumarila's arguments are equally effective for combating Sankara.

Sankarites claim that Sankara had defeated Kumarila in a debate but this story is not accepted by serious scholars who point out that as a logician Kumarila comes across as superior to Sankara in his writings. And that if we go by their writings Sankara did not have even a remote chance of defeating Kumarila in any theoretical debate.

by smArtha Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:06 pm

Rashmun wrote:The philosophical idealism preached by Sankara was combated in South India by several eminent philosophers like Ramanuja of Tamil Nadu (who espoused the philosophy of Visistadvaita) , Madhvacharya of Karnataka (founder of Dvaita Vedanta) , Mimansa philosophers of Kerala, and Vallabhacharya in Andhra Pradesh.

However, in North India, there was really no polemical attack on Sankara. Even philosophers espousing different schools of philosophy seem to become strangely ambivalent when dealing with the Sankarite philosophy. The one North Indian who attacked the Sankarite philosophy very very effectively is the great philosopher Kumarila Bhatta of the Mimansa school (circa 7th century AD) was either a senior contemporary of Sankara or else who had died shortly before Sankara was born. Kumarila was actually attacking Mahayana Budhism but since Adi Sankara's philosophy is just a disguised version of Mahayana Budhism Kumarila's arguments are equally effective for combating Sankara.

Sankarites claim that Sankara had defeated Kumarila in a debate but this story is not accepted by serious scholars who point out that as a logician Kumarila comes across as superior to Sankara in his writings. And that if we go by their writings Sankara did not have even a remote chance of defeating Kumarila in any theoretical debate.

Kumarila didn't attack Shankara or his philosophy. Shankara goes in search of Kumarila to invite him for a philosophical debate but by then he is already on a pyre arranged by himself to die. It is Kumarila that directs Shankara to Mandana Mishra his best disciple in Purva Mimamsa and the rest of the story you already narrated above. So Shankara indeed defeated and converted Mandana Mishra from a Purva Mimamsaka to an Uttara Mimamsaka (Vedanta - Advaita version of it). Mandana Mishra becomes disciple of Sankara taking up the Sanyasa name of Suresvaracharya. He is the first achArya of the famous Sringeri Sarada Math established by Shankara.

by Guest Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:21 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The philosophical idealism preached by Sankara was combated in South India by several eminent philosophers like Ramanuja of Tamil Nadu (who espoused the philosophy of Visistadvaita) , Madhvacharya of Karnataka (founder of Dvaita Vedanta) , Mimansa philosophers of Kerala, and Vallabhacharya in Andhra Pradesh.

However, in North India, there was really no polemical attack on Sankara. Even philosophers espousing different schools of philosophy seem to become strangely ambivalent when dealing with the Sankarite philosophy. The one North Indian who attacked the Sankarite philosophy very very effectively is the great philosopher Kumarila Bhatta of the Mimansa school (circa 7th century AD) was either a senior contemporary of Sankara or else who had died shortly before Sankara was born. Kumarila was actually attacking Mahayana Budhism but since Adi Sankara's philosophy is just a disguised version of Mahayana Budhism Kumarila's arguments are equally effective for combating Sankara.

Sankarites claim that Sankara had defeated Kumarila in a debate but this story is not accepted by serious scholars who point out that as a logician Kumarila comes across as superior to Sankara in his writings. And that if we go by their writings Sankara did not have even a remote chance of defeating Kumarila in any theoretical debate.

Kumarila didn't attack Shankara or his philosophy. Shankara goes in search of Kumarila to invite him for a philosophical debate but by then he is already on a pyre arranged by himself to die. It is Kumarila that directs Shankara to Mandana Mishra his best disciple in Purva Mimamsa and the rest of the story you already narrated above. So Shankara indeed defeated and converted Mandana Mishra from a Purva Mimamsaka to an Uttara Mimamsaka (Vedanta - Advaita version of it). Mandana Mishra becomes disciple of Sankara taking up the Sanyasa name of Suresvaracharya. He is the first achArya of the famous Sringeri Sarada Math established by Shankara.

The story of Kumarila meeting Adi Sankara in person is believed to be a myth by serious scholars to the best of my knowledge. According to one version of this story Sankara not only meets Kumarila but also defeats Kumarila in a debate.

Also, there is no conclusive evidence that Suresvara was the same person as Mandan Mishra although Sankarites certainly make this claim. Actually there is no conclusive evidence that Mandan Mishra and Bharti became disciples of Sankara.
So i take all the above facts with a barrel of salt. However, i am willing to provisionally accept the story of Sankara defeating Mandan Mishra and also perhaps his wife who was the adjudicator of the debate.

Here is one reason why we should not blindly accept whatever the Sankarites tell us about Adi Sankara. According to the Sankarites, after Bharati (Mishra's wife) asked him questions on sex and intercourse following which he recused himself Sankara went away and stumbled upon the corpse of a king who had recently died. Through his supernatural powers Sankara entered the body of the king and then went to the palace and experienced sexual pleasures with the king's wives. He then discarded the king's body and went back to his own body following which he went to Bharati and defeated her in a debate. Can anyone today accept this?
Another thing. There are three medieval biographies of Sankara. In them, it is said that Sankara wrote his commentary on the Brahma Sutra (his most famous work) when he was only twelve years old. I refuse to buy this.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:34 pm

in these ancient philosophical debates that were supposed to have taken place, what does "defeat" mean? who is the judge?

by smArtha Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:35 pm

Rashmun wrote:
The story of Kumarila meeting Adi Sankara in person is believed to be a myth by serious scholars to the best of my knowledge.

And what is the 'special and exclusive' evidence these 'serious scholars' have access to besides the works, inscriptions and folk lore from those times?

by Guest Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:40 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:in these ancient philosophical debates that were supposed to have taken place, what does "defeat" mean? who is the judge?

I mentioned who was the judge in the Adi Sankara versus Mandan Mishra debate. The judge or adjudicator of this debate was Bharati who was Mandan Mishra's wife and who was also a great scholar of Indian philosophy.
The rules for debating are described in the Nyaya Sutra and its commentaries and also in the medical manual Charaka Samhita. Debating is encouraged in the Charaka Samhita since the ancient doctors say that it leads to truth. It is well recognized in these texts that there can be constructive debates and destructive debates. In constructive debates both parties have some thesis to defend which was the case in the Mandan Mishra versus Sankara debate since Mishra was representing Mimansa and Sankara Vedanta.
Ultimately a defeat in a constructive debate would mean relinquishing your philosophical position and accepting the view promulgated by your opponent.

by smArtha Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:54 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:in these ancient philosophical debates that were supposed to have taken place, what does "defeat" mean? who is the judge?

Debates generally are based on the agreed methods of Nyaya and Tarka. Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ny%C4%81ya_S%C5%ABtras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarka_sastra

They usually had very capable judges well versed in the above that both parties agreed on before entering into the debates. This culture of establishing supremacy of a school/system by engaging stalwarts of the opponent school/systems was there from much before Shankara and probably even before Buddha/Mahavira times.

by Guest Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:00 pm

smArtha wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:in these ancient philosophical debates that were supposed to have taken place, what does "defeat" mean? who is the judge?

Debates generally are based on the agreed methods of Nyaya and Tarka. Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ny%C4%81ya_S%C5%ABtras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarka_sastra

They usually had very capable judges well versed in the above that both parties agreed on before entering into the debates. This culture of establishing supremacy of a school/system by engaging stalwarts of the opponent school/systems was there from much before Shankara and probably even before Buddha/Mahavira times.

all the names given as renowned figures in the wiki article on Tarka sastra are Nyaya philosophers. But since Budhists have also written some work on logic and debating i suppose you can classify the system of logic and debating as Tarka Sastra.

by Guest Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:05 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:in these ancient philosophical debates that were supposed to have taken place, what does "defeat" mean? who is the judge?

I mentioned who was the judge in the Adi Sankara versus Mandan Mishra debate. The judge or adjudicator of this debate was Bharati who was Mandan Mishra's wife and who was also a great scholar of Indian philosophy.
The rules for debating are described in the Nyaya Sutra and its commentaries and also in the medical manual Charaka Samhita. Debating is encouraged in the Charaka Samhita since the ancient doctors say that it leads to truth. It is well recognized in these texts that there can be constructive debates and destructive debates. In constructive debates both parties have some thesis to defend which was the case in the Mandan Mishra versus Sankara debate since Mishra was representing Mimansa and Sankara Vedanta.
Ultimately a defeat in a constructive debate would mean relinquishing your philosophical position and accepting the view promulgated by your opponent.

Another way of being defeated in a debate would involve using argumentation in complete violation of the rules of debating wherein your argument contains logical fallacies. The adjudicator may ask you to reframe your argument and if you fail to do so to his or her satisfaction you lose.

by Guest Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:46 pm

Rashmun wrote:The philosophical idealism preached by Sankara was combated in South India by several eminent philosophers like Ramanuja of Tamil Nadu (who espoused the philosophy of Visistadvaita) , Madhvacharya of Karnataka (founder of Dvaita Vedanta) , Mimansa philosophers of Kerala, and Vallabhacharya in Andhra Pradesh.

However, in North India, there was really no polemical attack on Sankara. Even philosophers espousing different schools of philosophy seem to become strangely ambivalent when dealing with the Sankarite philosophy. The one North Indian who attacked the Sankarite philosophy very very effectively is the great philosopher Kumarila Bhatta of the Mimansa school (circa 7th century AD) was either a senior contemporary of Sankara or else who had died shortly before Sankara was born. Kumarila was actually attacking Mahayana Budhism but since Adi Sankara's philosophy is just a disguised version of Mahayana Budhism Kumarila's arguments are equally effective for combating Sankara.

Sankarites claim that Sankara had defeated Kumarila in a debate but this story is not accepted by serious scholars who point out that as a logician Kumarila comes across as superior to Sankara in his writings. And that if we go by their writings Sankara did not have even a remote chance of defeating Kumarila in any theoretical debate.

i have written earlier about the reluctance of North Indian philosophers to come forward and launch polemical attacks on Sankara like they were carried out in South India. Why did this not happen? I have a theory about this but this would require going into great detail and i will elucidate my theory in a piecemeal fashion.

It has to do essentially with Sankara's establishment of four different well funded monasteries in four corners of the country. On the east in Puri (Orissa), in the south in Sringeri (Karnataka), in the west in Dwarka (Gujarat) and in the north in Jyotirmath. These well funded monasteries immediately became sanctuaries for scholars who wanted to do research on Indian philosophy. When you have such an opening available and that too only to one school of hindu philosophy it is not difficult to see why most philosophers of those times would prefer to become Vedantins. Since if you became a Vedantin you could carry out your scholarly studies in one of these monastaries and not have to worry about your day to day existence.

Sankara's great organizational skills and capability of raising huge funds from the kings of those times who recognized the practical importance of his philosophy for themselves should also be noted in this connection.

by Guest Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:00 pm

The monastery established by Sankara in North India is in Jyothirmatha. Now Jyotirmatha is near Badrinath and Kedarnath which are sacred places for hindus. The main temple in both Badrinath and Kedarnath has traditionally had priests who are Keralites. This custom of having only Keralite Namboodari brahmin priests has continued since the time of Sankara.

Could it be that Sankara pulled strings and ensured that people known to him in his native Kerala (including his family members) gained employment opportunities in North India by ensuring that only Keralite Namboodari brahmins were made priests in the temples at Badrinath and Kedarnath? At any rate, the great prestige Adi Sankara has continued to enjoy down the centuries in North India has ensured that the practice established by him of having only Keralite priests at these two North Indian temples is being continued to this day. The offerings made by the devotees at these temples in Badrinath and Kedarnath are pocketed by the Keralites.

Unlike the Dikshitars of Tamil Nadu who are believed to be north indians who made Chidambaram their home, the Namboodari brahmin priests in Badrinath and Kedarnath have not made these towns their permanent abode. They come as priests, stay on as priests for several years, and finally they return to their native Kerala after which a fresh batch of Namboodari brahmin priests come to the temple towns.

Namboodari brahmin priests must be thanking Adi Sankara to this day for providing a wonderful employment opportunity to them in North India which has continued for more than a thousand years.

---
The positive side of this practice must also be appreciated. This custom ensures the establishment of a certain centripetal force in ensuring that North India and South India are not distinct entities but in fact one nation. There are many such centripetal forces in play which keep the country together in spite of its obvious great diversity.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:06 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:in these ancient philosophical debates that were supposed to have taken place, what does "defeat" mean? who is the judge?

Debaters in those days were not like Al-Akbari - they accepted others viewpoint and embraced the opposing view. And they were intellectuals with an open mind - not cut-vommit Maulanas.

by Guest Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:41 pm

There is an interesting tradition in the Sringeri mutt established by Adi Sankara. To the best of my knowledge this tradition is not followed by the other mutts in Puri, Dwarka, and Jyotirmatha. The tradition is as follows: every Shankaracharya of the Sringeri mutt writes down his spiritual experiences in a diary. And this diary is passed on exclusively to the person who succeeds him as the next Shankaracharya. This has been going on since the time of establishment of the Sringeri mutt.

by Guest Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:05 pm

With respect to the Kanchi Kamakotti mutt, the mutt itself claims to be the fifth mutt established by Adi Sankara. According to one version of the claim Adi Sankara after establishing the four mutts had retired to Kanchi to establish this fifth mutt and became the first Shankaracharya of Kanchi. But all these claims are false. The Kanchi mutt was never established by Adi Sankara and has a relatively recent history. But the Kanchi mutt makes these claims so as to enhance its prestige amongst the people.

by Guest Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:13 pm

There are also hundreds of mutts all over India which claim to have been established by Adi Sankara so as to enhance the prestige of these mutts amongst the people (and get them to contribute funds to the mutt).

by Sponsored content

Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India

Re: Adi Sankaracharya, the south indian representative of North India