With grateful acknowledgements to Late Shri
Vidyavachaspati V.Panoli, a multi language scholar and learned in Adi
Sankara literatures is reported to have prepared a well researched work
on Adi Sankara in English titled “Adi Sankara’s Vision of Reality”.
In Acharya Panoli's opinion, Soundarya Lahari (SL) is not a composition of Adi Sankara, although that is how the popular mind has been made to believe. I give below Shri Panoli's reasons as briefly as possible, because this will be a very sensitive issue for many.
The doubt regarding the real authorship of SL has been there for centuries and debates have been going on; but a final decision has yet to come. While many people have expressed doubts on this particular item, we should also note that no one has even raised a word of doubt about the authenticity of Vaakyavritti, Upadesasaahasri, etc., as Sankara's genuine works. This is because there is no doubt about the authenticity of their contents.
In the case of SL, it has become a treasure for the Saakteyas. In addition a legend has also grown around the circumstances in which this was composed, and this myth further reinforces SL as a tantric text. But it is an irrefutable fact that Sakti- worship has not been mentioned by the Acharya anywhere in the bhashyas which contain his prime message. "It is clear to any student of Vedanta that Sakti-worship belongs to Vama-marga which has no place at all in the Advaita Vedanta of which Sri Sankaracharya was the unrivalled exponent.", states shri Panoli.
The doubt regarding the real authorship of SL has been there for centuries and debates have been going on; but a final decision has yet to come. While many people have expressed doubts on this particular item, we should also note that no one has even raised a word of doubt about the authenticity of Vaakyavritti, Upadesasaahasri, etc., as Sankara's genuine works. This is because there is no doubt about the authenticity of their contents.
In the case of SL, it has become a treasure for the Saakteyas. In addition a legend has also grown around the circumstances in which this was composed, and this myth further reinforces SL as a tantric text. But it is an irrefutable fact that Sakti- worship has not been mentioned by the Acharya anywhere in the bhashyas which contain his prime message. "It is clear to any student of Vedanta that Sakti-worship belongs to Vama-marga which has no place at all in the Advaita Vedanta of which Sri Sankaracharya was the unrivalled exponent.", states shri Panoli.
There is also one tradition which holds that the first 41 verses of SL alone were composed by Sankara. There is marked difference in the poetic beauty and grandeur between these and the rest of the composition; probably that gave rise to this legend.
The first sloka of SL is:
शिवः शक्त्यायुक्तो यदि भवति शक्तः प्रभवितुम् ।
न चॆदॆवम् दॆवॊ न खलु कुशलः स्पन्दितुमपि ॥
अतस्त्वाम् आराध्यां हरि हर विरिञ्चादिभिरपि ।
प्रणन्तुं स्तॊतुं वा कथमकृत पुण्यः प्रभवति ॥
சிவ: சக்த்யாயுக்தோ யதி பவதி சக்த: ப்ரபவிதும்
நசேத் ஏவம் தேவோ ந கலு குசல ஸ்பன்திதும் அபி
அதஸ்த்வாம் ஆராத்யாம் ஹரி ஹர விரிஞ்சாதிபிரபி
ப்ரணந்தும் ஸ்தோதும் வா கதம் அக்ருத புண்ய: ப்ரபவதி
(Lord Siva, if he is united with Sakti (Parvati), becomes able for creation. If not, he is unable even to move. Hence, how shall one who is unrighteous, be able to prostrate before you or to extol you who are worshipped even by Vishnu, Siva and Brahma?)
It is quite clear and well-known that this sloka makes Sakti the supreme and in its absence Siva himself becomes powerless even to move. Advaita does not refer to any such inter-divinity differences or supremacies in any of his bhAshyas or the other prakaraNa granthas which the scholarly community has unanimously accepted as verily his. Similarly Sankara says:
केवलाद् एव ज्ञानाद् मॊक्ष इति अर्थो निश्चितो गीतासु उपनिषत्सु च । (kEvalAd Eva jnAnAd mOksha iti arthO niScitO geetAsu upanishatsu ca)
(That liberation is attained through knowledge alone is a settled fact in the Gita and in all the Upanishads.) --Gita, Adhyaya III, Sambandha bhashya
Again,
मोक्ष कारण सामग्र्याम् भक्तिरेव गरीयसी ।
स्वस्वरूपानुसन्धानम् भक्तिरित्यभिधीयते ॥ Viveka cUDAmaNi - 31
(Among the paths leading to liberation or 'mOksha', bhakti has the supreme place; constant meditation on one's real nature is called devotion.)
Sankara disqualifies Samkhya and Yoga also without any ambiguity as means for attaining liberation. This may be seen from following statements in Brahmasutra Bhashya:
एतेन योगः प्रयुक्तः (Brahma Sutra - II, 1-2-3)
(Because of this, that is to say, because Samkhyasmriti has been denied, Yoga too should be considered as denied.)
एतेन साम्ख्यस्मृतिप्रत्याख्यानेन योगस्मृतिरपि प्रत्याख्याता द्रष्टव्येत्यतिदिशति (Brahma Sutra Sankara Bhashya for the above)
निराकरणम् तु न सांख्यज्ञानेन वेदनिरपेक्षॆण योगमार्गेण वा निःश्रेयसमधिगम्यत इति । (श्वेताश्वतर भाष्य IV-13)
(The denial is to show that neither through the knowledge of Samkhya nor through the path of Yoga, independent of the Vedas, liberation can be attained.)
न मोक्षसाधनानवगमात् । नहि वेदन्तेषु ब्रह्मात्मविज्ञानात् अन्यत्परमपुरुषार्थ साधनत्वेनावगम्यते । (Brihadaranyaka Bhashya)
(It is not proper to say so, for it (Yoga) is not known to be the means of attainment of the life's highest end.)
When Sankara disqualifies even Samkhya and Yoga, two of the eralier "darsanas" as not means for attaining "moksha" and since he never refers to tantra anywhere in his bhashyas, since tantra was always considered as 'vaama maarga' (left-handed path), it is inconceivable that suddenly Sankara would have become a supporter of tantra vidya and a devout devi-bhakta.
Since Advaita does not envisage any duality like Siva and Sakti and bhakti other than in the form stated by sankara, viz., constant meditation on one's real nature, it is difficult to envisage SL as Sankara's work at all.
The second verse of SL is :
तनीयांसम् पांसुम् तव चरण पङ्केरुहभवम् ।
विरिंचि: संचिन्वन् विरचयति लोकानविकलम् ॥
वहत्येनं शौरिः कथमपि सहस्रेण शिरसाम् ।
हरः संक्षुद्यैनम् भजति भसितॊद्धूलन विधिम् ॥
தனீயாம்ஸம் பாம்ஸும் தவ சரண பங்கேருஹ பவம்
விரிஞ்சி: சம்சின்வன் விரசயதி லோகான் அவிகலம்
வஹத்யேனம் சௌரி: கதமபி சஹஸ்ரேண சிரஸாம்
ஹர: ஸம்க்ஷுத்யைனம் பஜதி பஸிதோத்தூலன விதிம்
(Brahma creates this universe free of defects with a particle of dust from your feet. Vishnu bears it somehow with his thousand heads and Siva pulverizes it and smears his body with it as the holy ash.)
This is very similar to purANic story-telling. Sankara has never resorted to quoting purAnic stories in any of his bhashyas. This is also a marked departure from the Acarya's style of the acknowledged principles of philosophy. Cosmology forms an integral part of any complete system of philosophy. Sankara also gives in his commentary on praSnopanishad 1-4 as under:
मिथुनं द्वन्द्वं उत्पादितवान् । रयिं च सोमं अन्नं प्राणं च अग्निमत्तारं एतावग्नीषोमावत्त्रन्नभूतौ मे मन बहुधानेकधानेकधा प्रजाः करिष्यत इत्येवं संचिन्त्याण्डोत्पत्तिक्रमेण सूर्यचन्द्रमसावकल्पयत् ॥
(He produced a pair, rayi - the food or sOma, and prANa, the fire or eater (the sun). Beginning from the aNDa (primordial egg) he created the sun and the moon, in that order, thinking that these two, the fire and the moon, would create many offsprings for me in diverse ways.)
This is in accordance with the vedic statement, सूर्या चन्द्रमसौ धाता यथापूर्वम् अकल्पयत् - RV,10-190-3 [(The Lord) created the sun and the moon as before.]
Also, Sankara repeatedly states in his various bhashyas that all that agrees with the vedas should be accepted and all that does not agree (vEdabAhya - outside the vedas) should be rejected. If one looks at the above verse of SL it will be readily seen that it is not in accordance with the vedic pronouncements. Hence there is every reason to believe that Sankara would not have written such a verse.
Verse 5 of SL is another example:
हरिस्त्वां आराध्य प्रणतजन सौभाग्यजननीं ।
पुरा नारी भूत्वा पुररिपुमपि क्षोभं अनयत् ॥
स्मरॊऽपि त्वां नत्वा रतिनयनलेह्येन वपुषा ।
मुनीनां अप्यन्तः प्रभवति हि मोहाय महताम् ॥
ஹரிஸ்த்வாம் ஆராத்ய ப்ரணதஜன சௌபாக்ய ஜனனீம்
புரா நாரீ பூத்வா புரரிபும் அபி க்ஷோபம் அனயத்
ஸ்மரோऽ பி த்வாம் நத்வா ரதிநயன லேஹ்யேன வபுஷா
முனீனாம் அப்யந்த: ப்ரபவதி ஹி மோஹாய மஹதாம்
(Once long ago, vishNu, by worshipping you who are the dispenser of prosperity to the prostrating devotees, and becoming a woman, created passion even in Siva, the destroyer of Tripura. Even kAmadEva became visible to the eyes of rati and capable of creating passion even in sages, only after worshipping you.)
Sankara has not given even a single instance of citing any hero from the purANas or itihAsas in the whole of his prasthAnatraya bhAshya. Moreover his path was one of jnAna and not of bhakti. The above verse which dwells with the creation of lust or passion even in the minds of Siva and rishis, is a topic only an ordinary mind will use to extol the greatness of his or her ishTadEvata with an acceptance of duality; it is impossible for a great jnAni and sanyasi of the calibre of Sankara to write such mundane verse.
Verses 9 & 14 of SL refer to the cakras of the tantric system. It has already been clarified that Sankara does not approve even the yogadarsana as a means of attaining mOksha. It is therefore well-nighimpossible that he would approve of anything but constant meditation as the means. Praising the antric system, that too in the background of the duality implied in finding the Goddess as the ultimate godhead, would mean that Sankara recommended both Advaita and Dvaita in his lifetime. Will an Acarya of his calibre do that?
Verse 13 of SL is still worse; it talks of beautiful women getting passionate towards even a pretty old man, and rushing to him with their clothes slipping off, etc., if only such an old man gets the "glance" of the goddess upon him! Will Sankara embark on writing down such patently erotic poems to make his advaita reach the people, though there is nothing of philosophy is present in it?
Verse 81 of SL goes one step ahead of even Kalidasa in describing the goddess' physical beauty in plainly erotic terms.
Oh, pArvati ! Perhaps himavAn , the king of mountains gave the solidity and expanse of bottom, as nuptial fee to you. Therefore your behinds are so broad and dense that
it hides the entire world and leads the world to lightness.
In aparOkshAnubjUti -19, Sankara says:
आत्मा ज्ञानमयः पुण्यो देहो मांसमयो ऽ शुचिः
तयोरैक्यम् प्रपश्यन्ति किम् अज्ञानम् अतः परम् ॥
ஆத்மா ஞானமய: புண்யோ தேஹோ மாம்ஸமயோऽசுசி:
தயோரைக்யம்ப்ரபச்யந்தி கிமஞானம் அத: பரம் ||
(The atma is all knowledge, all holy; the body is all flesh and impure. What can surpass the ignorance of those who hold that these are one and the same (identical)?
It is for right-thinking people to ponder over the question whether Sankara would express such an opinion and also feel that describing the goddess in the aforesaid details is also right.
The final verse of SL is in the form of expressing the composer's humility, though it looks belaboured, according to Shri Panoli. Sankara never resorts to this "proclamation of vinaya or humility" in any of his bhashyas.
Vagbhatananda guru (disciple of Sree Narayana Guru) said:
" The thinkers who can be relied upon believe that it was not Adi Sankara who composed the Saundaryalahari which begins with शिवः शक्त्यायुक्तो एत्च्., but it was some other Sri Sankara who belonged to that order of Acharyas." -(Adhyatmayuddha of Vagbhatananda Guru)
Shri Panoli concludes thus:
"Strictly speaking, the philosophical insight, the creative genius and the sanctity and purity which are the pre-eminent characteristics of the Acharya's authentic works are absent in Saundaryalahari. Evidently this is composed by someone else and foisted on the Acharya, for its author knew full well that anything that bears the sacred name of the Acharya would pass muster.
Courtesy: www.tamilbrahmins.com
The first sloka of SL is:
शिवः शक्त्यायुक्तो यदि भवति शक्तः प्रभवितुम् ।
न चॆदॆवम् दॆवॊ न खलु कुशलः स्पन्दितुमपि ॥
अतस्त्वाम् आराध्यां हरि हर विरिञ्चादिभिरपि ।
प्रणन्तुं स्तॊतुं वा कथमकृत पुण्यः प्रभवति ॥
சிவ: சக்த்யாயுக்தோ யதி பவதி சக்த: ப்ரபவிதும்
நசேத் ஏவம் தேவோ ந கலு குசல ஸ்பன்திதும் அபி
அதஸ்த்வாம் ஆராத்யாம் ஹரி ஹர விரிஞ்சாதிபிரபி
ப்ரணந்தும் ஸ்தோதும் வா கதம் அக்ருத புண்ய: ப்ரபவதி
(Lord Siva, if he is united with Sakti (Parvati), becomes able for creation. If not, he is unable even to move. Hence, how shall one who is unrighteous, be able to prostrate before you or to extol you who are worshipped even by Vishnu, Siva and Brahma?)
It is quite clear and well-known that this sloka makes Sakti the supreme and in its absence Siva himself becomes powerless even to move. Advaita does not refer to any such inter-divinity differences or supremacies in any of his bhAshyas or the other prakaraNa granthas which the scholarly community has unanimously accepted as verily his. Similarly Sankara says:
केवलाद् एव ज्ञानाद् मॊक्ष इति अर्थो निश्चितो गीतासु उपनिषत्सु च । (kEvalAd Eva jnAnAd mOksha iti arthO niScitO geetAsu upanishatsu ca)
(That liberation is attained through knowledge alone is a settled fact in the Gita and in all the Upanishads.) --Gita, Adhyaya III, Sambandha bhashya
Again,
मोक्ष कारण सामग्र्याम् भक्तिरेव गरीयसी ।
स्वस्वरूपानुसन्धानम् भक्तिरित्यभिधीयते ॥ Viveka cUDAmaNi - 31
(Among the paths leading to liberation or 'mOksha', bhakti has the supreme place; constant meditation on one's real nature is called devotion.)
Sankara disqualifies Samkhya and Yoga also without any ambiguity as means for attaining liberation. This may be seen from following statements in Brahmasutra Bhashya:
एतेन योगः प्रयुक्तः (Brahma Sutra - II, 1-2-3)
(Because of this, that is to say, because Samkhyasmriti has been denied, Yoga too should be considered as denied.)
एतेन साम्ख्यस्मृतिप्रत्याख्यानेन योगस्मृतिरपि प्रत्याख्याता द्रष्टव्येत्यतिदिशति (Brahma Sutra Sankara Bhashya for the above)
निराकरणम् तु न सांख्यज्ञानेन वेदनिरपेक्षॆण योगमार्गेण वा निःश्रेयसमधिगम्यत इति । (श्वेताश्वतर भाष्य IV-13)
(The denial is to show that neither through the knowledge of Samkhya nor through the path of Yoga, independent of the Vedas, liberation can be attained.)
न मोक्षसाधनानवगमात् । नहि वेदन्तेषु ब्रह्मात्मविज्ञानात् अन्यत्परमपुरुषार्थ साधनत्वेनावगम्यते । (Brihadaranyaka Bhashya)
(It is not proper to say so, for it (Yoga) is not known to be the means of attainment of the life's highest end.)
When Sankara disqualifies even Samkhya and Yoga, two of the eralier "darsanas" as not means for attaining "moksha" and since he never refers to tantra anywhere in his bhashyas, since tantra was always considered as 'vaama maarga' (left-handed path), it is inconceivable that suddenly Sankara would have become a supporter of tantra vidya and a devout devi-bhakta.
Since Advaita does not envisage any duality like Siva and Sakti and bhakti other than in the form stated by sankara, viz., constant meditation on one's real nature, it is difficult to envisage SL as Sankara's work at all.
The second verse of SL is :
तनीयांसम् पांसुम् तव चरण पङ्केरुहभवम् ।
विरिंचि: संचिन्वन् विरचयति लोकानविकलम् ॥
वहत्येनं शौरिः कथमपि सहस्रेण शिरसाम् ।
हरः संक्षुद्यैनम् भजति भसितॊद्धूलन विधिम् ॥
தனீயாம்ஸம் பாம்ஸும் தவ சரண பங்கேருஹ பவம்
விரிஞ்சி: சம்சின்வன் விரசயதி லோகான் அவிகலம்
வஹத்யேனம் சௌரி: கதமபி சஹஸ்ரேண சிரஸாம்
ஹர: ஸம்க்ஷுத்யைனம் பஜதி பஸிதோத்தூலன விதிம்
(Brahma creates this universe free of defects with a particle of dust from your feet. Vishnu bears it somehow with his thousand heads and Siva pulverizes it and smears his body with it as the holy ash.)
This is very similar to purANic story-telling. Sankara has never resorted to quoting purAnic stories in any of his bhashyas. This is also a marked departure from the Acarya's style of the acknowledged principles of philosophy. Cosmology forms an integral part of any complete system of philosophy. Sankara also gives in his commentary on praSnopanishad 1-4 as under:
मिथुनं द्वन्द्वं उत्पादितवान् । रयिं च सोमं अन्नं प्राणं च अग्निमत्तारं एतावग्नीषोमावत्त्रन्नभूतौ मे मन बहुधानेकधानेकधा प्रजाः करिष्यत इत्येवं संचिन्त्याण्डोत्पत्तिक्रमेण सूर्यचन्द्रमसावकल्पयत् ॥
(He produced a pair, rayi - the food or sOma, and prANa, the fire or eater (the sun). Beginning from the aNDa (primordial egg) he created the sun and the moon, in that order, thinking that these two, the fire and the moon, would create many offsprings for me in diverse ways.)
This is in accordance with the vedic statement, सूर्या चन्द्रमसौ धाता यथापूर्वम् अकल्पयत् - RV,10-190-3 [(The Lord) created the sun and the moon as before.]
Also, Sankara repeatedly states in his various bhashyas that all that agrees with the vedas should be accepted and all that does not agree (vEdabAhya - outside the vedas) should be rejected. If one looks at the above verse of SL it will be readily seen that it is not in accordance with the vedic pronouncements. Hence there is every reason to believe that Sankara would not have written such a verse.
Verse 5 of SL is another example:
हरिस्त्वां आराध्य प्रणतजन सौभाग्यजननीं ।
पुरा नारी भूत्वा पुररिपुमपि क्षोभं अनयत् ॥
स्मरॊऽपि त्वां नत्वा रतिनयनलेह्येन वपुषा ।
मुनीनां अप्यन्तः प्रभवति हि मोहाय महताम् ॥
ஹரிஸ்த்வாம் ஆராத்ய ப்ரணதஜன சௌபாக்ய ஜனனீம்
புரா நாரீ பூத்வா புரரிபும் அபி க்ஷோபம் அனயத்
ஸ்மரோऽ பி த்வாம் நத்வா ரதிநயன லேஹ்யேன வபுஷா
முனீனாம் அப்யந்த: ப்ரபவதி ஹி மோஹாய மஹதாம்
(Once long ago, vishNu, by worshipping you who are the dispenser of prosperity to the prostrating devotees, and becoming a woman, created passion even in Siva, the destroyer of Tripura. Even kAmadEva became visible to the eyes of rati and capable of creating passion even in sages, only after worshipping you.)
Sankara has not given even a single instance of citing any hero from the purANas or itihAsas in the whole of his prasthAnatraya bhAshya. Moreover his path was one of jnAna and not of bhakti. The above verse which dwells with the creation of lust or passion even in the minds of Siva and rishis, is a topic only an ordinary mind will use to extol the greatness of his or her ishTadEvata with an acceptance of duality; it is impossible for a great jnAni and sanyasi of the calibre of Sankara to write such mundane verse.
Verses 9 & 14 of SL refer to the cakras of the tantric system. It has already been clarified that Sankara does not approve even the yogadarsana as a means of attaining mOksha. It is therefore well-nighimpossible that he would approve of anything but constant meditation as the means. Praising the antric system, that too in the background of the duality implied in finding the Goddess as the ultimate godhead, would mean that Sankara recommended both Advaita and Dvaita in his lifetime. Will an Acarya of his calibre do that?
Verse 13 of SL is still worse; it talks of beautiful women getting passionate towards even a pretty old man, and rushing to him with their clothes slipping off, etc., if only such an old man gets the "glance" of the goddess upon him! Will Sankara embark on writing down such patently erotic poems to make his advaita reach the people, though there is nothing of philosophy is present in it?
Verse 81 of SL goes one step ahead of even Kalidasa in describing the goddess' physical beauty in plainly erotic terms.
Oh, pArvati ! Perhaps himavAn , the king of mountains gave the solidity and expanse of bottom, as nuptial fee to you. Therefore your behinds are so broad and dense that
it hides the entire world and leads the world to lightness.
In aparOkshAnubjUti -19, Sankara says:
आत्मा ज्ञानमयः पुण्यो देहो मांसमयो ऽ शुचिः
तयोरैक्यम् प्रपश्यन्ति किम् अज्ञानम् अतः परम् ॥
ஆத்மா ஞானமய: புண்யோ தேஹோ மாம்ஸமயோऽசுசி:
தயோரைக்யம்ப்ரபச்யந்தி கிமஞானம் அத: பரம் ||
(The atma is all knowledge, all holy; the body is all flesh and impure. What can surpass the ignorance of those who hold that these are one and the same (identical)?
It is for right-thinking people to ponder over the question whether Sankara would express such an opinion and also feel that describing the goddess in the aforesaid details is also right.
The final verse of SL is in the form of expressing the composer's humility, though it looks belaboured, according to Shri Panoli. Sankara never resorts to this "proclamation of vinaya or humility" in any of his bhashyas.
Vagbhatananda guru (disciple of Sree Narayana Guru) said:
" The thinkers who can be relied upon believe that it was not Adi Sankara who composed the Saundaryalahari which begins with शिवः शक्त्यायुक्तो एत्च्., but it was some other Sri Sankara who belonged to that order of Acharyas." -(Adhyatmayuddha of Vagbhatananda Guru)
Shri Panoli concludes thus:
"Strictly speaking, the philosophical insight, the creative genius and the sanctity and purity which are the pre-eminent characteristics of the Acharya's authentic works are absent in Saundaryalahari. Evidently this is composed by someone else and foisted on the Acharya, for its author knew full well that anything that bears the sacred name of the Acharya would pass muster.
Courtesy: www.tamilbrahmins.com
No comments:
Post a Comment