V.Panoli o Adi Sankara

V.Panoli on Adi Sankara.

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”. The Matrubhumi weekly carried an adv. for pre-publication orders for the book. Reading about the contents of the book self became curious and ordered one. 31^st March 1999 was the last date and now, it is the end of April 1999 and still there is no announcement as to the date of book publication.

According to the advt. Panoli questions so many long held views on Adi Sankara. He is said to contest the authorship of Bhaja Govindam, Soundarya Lahari and many more works attributed to Adi Sankara. He is also said to have maintained that both Bhakti and Yoga are not part of Adi Sankara’s teachings. V.Panoli is said to deny the widely held view that it was Adi Sankara who propagated a rigid caste society in Kerala making everyone Sudra other than Nambudri Brahmin. Un-touchability and pollution of lower castes were said to have been established by Adi Sankara in Kerala. These views are said to have questioned by Panoli. On the whole, Panoli is said to have advocated a fresh look from un-touchability, Dalits and women towards Adi Sankara’s real views in the light of his Vedanta philosophy. He also says that it will help the Dalits and others to understand that they also are the followers of Vedic religion. Does Panoli view that Vedic religion and today’s Hindutva are two separate entities?

The Matrubhumi publication”Adi Sankara’s Vision Reality” by the renown Sanskrit scholar V. Panoli was received in the afternoon of 1.6.1999. Self completed reading a large part of the book on the same day. In the next two days, I tried to complete it, by selected readings. However, I was unable to understand the real motive behind writing such a book by the scholar. The author in his preface to the book claimed that he wrote this book to dispel certain commonly held understandings on Sankara’s many published works. The author Panoli did not attempt any critical appraisal of the ideas and philosophy propagated in the name of Adi Sankara. Instead, he starts with saying that Adi Sankara is not a mortal man but an appearance of divine miracle that might happen in a Yuga. Adi Sankara  is made out to be an avatar who appeared in the land of Bharata just to write correct commentaries for the Upanishads, Geetha and Brahma Sutra i.e. Prastana Trayee and also to subdue other contemporary philosophical views and systems like Mimamsa, Sankhya, Vaiseshika, Nyaya, Yoga etc. He is also said to have campaigned to expel Buddhist philosophy and practices from the land of Vedas. The author goes on repeating his homilies to Sankara in establishing the supremacy of Advaita philosophy. The claim for the supremacy is said to be Vedas and the divine revelations.

The learned author Panoli claims that his writings on Adi Sankara’s Vision of Reality, were meant to dispel certain interpretations that were said to have entered or inflicted over the original writings of Sankara. The author says that beside the superstitious imaginations and myths about the Acharya, which too have marred the purity of his teachings. These were specifically pointed out in the book but it ended there.

The author has not tried to get into details as those given below:

Most of the philosophical systems and ideas dealt with in Adi Sankara’s ‘authentic works’ were that of northern Indian origin and they were predominant there only. Then why divine took birth in an obscure place in Kerala? Sankara went all the way to the banks of Narmada in Maharashtra to learn all the Vedas etc. from his Guru Govndacharya. The historical truthfulness of this happening is not clear. Does it mean that there were no institutions in Kerala itself to impart Vedic learning to the Brahmins? But there must be some in Tamil Nadu, Andhra or Karnataka. Leaving all these places Sankara traveled all the way to Narmada, at a young age of 12. Who guided him to go all the way in search of this particular Guru? Can it be assumed that at that point of historical time there were collections of Vedic and other literatures in the Ashram of Govindapada on the banks of Narmada? Sankara learned all the Vedic and others in a fast pace. He must be an extra ordinary student to complete not only his Vedic education, Upanishads and Brahma Sutra but also write commentaries i.e. Bhashyas on them within four years i.e. when attained the age of 16. According to this book, Sankara did not write anything there after but went on travelling the length and breath of India, except the present South India. Sankara entered into discussion and dispute with several scholars of the system current at that time. He established his mutts in East, South, West and North; i.e. at Puri in East, Sringeri in South, Dwaraka in West and Kashmir in North respectively. There is not one in his birthplace in Kerala! There are little supporting evidences to all that were attributed to Sankara. It is popularly known that Sankara attained Samadhi at the age of 32, after completing his life mission. It is acclaimed by the author of this book that Advaita advocated by Sankara is a monument to Indian philosophy. At the same time the author deplored the fact India i.e. Bharat deviated from the teachings of the Acharya and continued to follow despicable ways and behavior in their life that are authentic in Vedas and smrities. He has not made any attempt in analyzing the historical context of these revelations. How is that then Adi Sankara is took samdhi so early in life? Did he not know that the people for whose elevation, he appeared in the land has failed to absorb his teachings, specifically his philosophy of Advaita Vedanta as truth? Can it be concluded that Sankara’s teachings were not intelligible not only to the mass of people but also to people who were supposed to teach and guide the masses? If they felt the divine origin and message of Sankara, it is inexplicable as to why they did not continue campaigning and propagating Sankara’s ideas. Just by establishing, the four mutts in four corners of India cannot be considered as revolution in social or even in philosophical sphere. Did any of his mutts tried to attract any one other than the born Brahmins? It will be useful to do some research on the functions of these mutts during their entire history of more than 1,200 years of existence. The author of “Adi Sankara’s Vision of Reality’ himself admits and quotes others in support that theses mutts themselves created and propagated myths about interpolations and attributions to Sankara’s works. Many of them took the freedom to attribute authorship of their own works on Adi Sankara. But all such claims based on certain pre-conceived notions and ideas do not amount to de-mystification when the author is so firm and ready to peddle other myths about Sankara. At one place, the author makes out a case to deny any kind of writing on the part of Sankara where some kind of sex is mentioned. The reasoning and arguments resemble the catholic missionary ideas that he has absorbed as part of his education. One feels sorry for him that he has to explain away Sankara’s commentaries on Brihadaranyaka and Chandokya Upanishads where sexual activity is explicitly explained and sensuality is accepted as normal functions. (It will be good to know that the monumental Brihadaranyaka Bhashyam of scholar sanyasi Nitya Chaitanya Yati, who expired only a few days back omitted the text itself, from his published Bhashyam.) In another work of commentary on Chandokya Upanishad the texts of those mantras dealing sexual acts of pleasure though given but not commented saying that it is the tradition. It all shows a recent mindset conditioned with 18^th century teachings on morality to exclude any thing sexual. All these modern scholar know that in Rigveda there are mantras extolling explicit sexual acts. However, they seemed to feel ashamed to accept them and try to explain away them as allegorical and mystical means. What is that prevents Sankara from following Veda in this subject and why he should be deprived of authorship of such works of poetry? One cannot accept any such exclusion at least in context of ancient Indian thoughts. The anti-sexual and anti-female feelings of many of today’s scholars cannot find support in the ancient texts. Even if some of the works credited to Sankara are kept out, still there are innumerable passages in his works that portray females as obstructing men striving and attaining Jnana or knowledge of self; Atma and Brahma. As the author Panoli maintains; one should not expect contradictory extremes in Sankara and when such contradictions are found, they should be discounted as Sankara’s.

There is the claim that Sankara was expounding the Vedic philosophy of Advaita, but a serious readings of the Vedic texts will show that there are too few mantras dealing with oneness i.e. Advaita in those texts. It is all conjured up commentaries to sustain long preached positions of the Advaities. The most authentic commentary of Sayana did not give that much credence to these claims and followed a common sense method in interpreting Vedic Hymns. The chart provided by Panoli on the sources quoted in the “Prastana Traya” of Sankara is worth telling. While cross quotations from one Upanishad to another Upanishad Bhashyas and other two namely Geetha and Brahma Sutra abound, quotations from Rigveda Samhita are confined to 20 alone. That means that the Acharya mainly depended on cross quotations from Upanishads to develop and sustain his advaita philosophy, Yajur Veda had only 4 and nothing from Sama and Adharva Vedas. Manusmriti is quoted 23 times. Panoli says that there are no quotations from Ramayana, many more of the Puranas not even Kalidasa. Can it not be concluded that Sankara’s acquaintance with works Sanskrit then existing and available, is only limited? That will be a correct one, considering the length of his period of learning being only 4 years. He mastered only one part of the ocean of Sanskrit studies; a smart prodigy he was able to master that part well. He used his learning to win over most of the opposition. He debated and argued with the then scholars of other subjects on the basics of Advaita. V.Panoli cites that there are quotations from 54 earlier works in “Prastana Trayee” Bhashyas of the Acharya. Except for 17 from Jaimini’s Mimamsa, 2 from Nyaya, 2 from Yoga, one from Samkhya, one from Vaiseshika all other quotations are from kindred works supporting Advaita. Why Buddhist, Jaina, Lokayata and others are not mentioned though they were very prevalent at the time? Reason may be limitations of his learning, not the availability of those sources. If he was learned and powerful, the Bhakti and Yoga paths should have been sidelined in his works and only Advaita thoughts and practices to be established as relevant. The later day practitioners of Vedanta mixed up all Bhakti, Yoga and Vedic rituals along with preaching Karma and Jnana. The then rulers did not propagate any Advaita philosophy, but to cater to Bhakti movement and cement it in the minds of masses, constructed the monumental temples. One cannot assume that the movement to build temples was motivated to subdue advaita philosophy but it had that effect in the later years. The heads of Advaita Mutts while mouthing fidelity to advaita practiced and propagated idol worship and various pilgrimages for man’s salvation. . they never left out of dvaita philosophy in the long years of their existence. In fact, all the Hindu orthodoxy found refuge in them.

The author’s dislike of the Smrities in general except that of Manu, is the result of his blind faith in the ideas of Swami Dayananda Saraswati the founder of Arya Samaj in last centuary. Swami’s work “Satyartha Prakash” is not based on a verifiable historical inquiry but blind faith in performing Vedic rituals. Even his interpretation of Vedic literature is not universally accepted because not historical but also due to Christian influence.

While Panoli accepted the Swami’s contention that only Manusmriti is authentic worthwhile, he explained away the so-called interpolations as not desirable. He seems to think that the author of Manusmriti is the fore-father of all earthly creations. What a pathetic understanding of history? But his own idols like Adi Sankara and modern Vivekananda did not ascribe any interpolations as false. One might expect Panoli undertake to edit and publish an authentic text removing all interloping  by imposters with a rigor as was done to Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Institute, Pune. The author mentions approvingly and uncritically a stanza from Balakanda of Ramayana as if there is no other opinion about this part of Ramayana. He also  might have forgotten that ancients themselves considered Uthara Kanda as not belonging to original text. That was the reason for Bhoja to conclude his Champu Ramayanam with Yudhakandam. Today a good number of Sanskrit scholars but not the Pandita Siromanies accept the above.

On his own admission that “the cradle of human race” and “native land of the highest philosophy” i.e. India did not follow those precepts i.e. Advaita and thus down graded itself. He claims that through his writing “Adi Sankara’s Vision of Reality” he is trying to lift up the national and real traditions and correct the perspectives. The claim is simple and silly. He has not come forward with any practical way to restore the past glory of Hinduism. He has not demarcated himself from the “protectors of Hindutva” represented by RSS, BJP, VHP, Bajarag Dal and so many other manifestations of the Parivar. What the author of “Adi Sankara’s Vision of Reality” tried to bring out in the learned dissertation is of limited value. Some of the works attributed to Adi Sankara or those added to originals might be true. It will not make any difference to people reciting Soundarya Lahari and Bhaja Govindam or some other devotional poems whether Adi Sankara or some other Sankara in fact composed them. Panoli’s claim that the Acharya did not accept or approve of Bhakti will never persuade people from following their favorite god worship/ while according to Panoli, the divine avatar who came to establish basic worth of Vedic thoughts and philosophy; in his own admission no such restoration took place during the more than 1,200 years after the Samadhi of the avatar. On the other hand all kinds of myths and superstitions were inaugurated through many more smrities and Puranas. There is some similarity with Tantric and Yogic practices as well.

Then also according to Panoli, no one was as scholarly as Sankara until the appearance of Swami Dayananda Saraswati a Gujarati Brahmin by origin in the second half of 19^th century. We were supposed to believe such a claim even though there were good lots of writings in all faculties in Sanskrit were created and propagated in the land. This happened while the land was more or less under Muslim rule. Panoli’s claims belittle the contributions of Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka, Sayana, Madhava and many others whose names are legends. In his book, Panoli did not mention works other than that of Dayananda Saraswati. May be, in his opinion they were less learned than the Swami. This kind of extreme positions taken by Panoli is negative.               

Matrubhumi of 6.6.1999 carried an article by learned historian Dr. N.V.P.Unithiri in reply to an earlier article by Vasudeva Bhattathiri extolling the ancient Sruti/Smriti Puranas for advocating good only for men against women and Sudras. According to Bhattathiri, people of modern times did not understand the meanings of Sruti/Smriti Puranas and because of that, meanings of teachings of those ancients are not truthfully reported. He specifically dealt the subject of Sudras and women to learn Vedas. During the argument, Bhattathiri relied on selected quotations and half verses. He also attributed his own meaning to them. These included certain portions of Apasudradhikaranam from Brahma Sutra and its Sankara Bhashya.

The writer of Adi Sankara’s Vision of Reality, V. Panoli on the other hand maintains that the portions of Apasudradhikaranam in Brahma Sutra as well as its Bhashya by Sankara, both are spurious interpolations. The historian Dr. Unithiri, questioned Bhattathiri quoting relevant verses from Smrities and Bhashyas including Apasudradhikaranam. The historian is of the view that whatever meaning Bhattathiri finds in those quotations the fact is that no woman is free in life, she has to always under some male protection. Similarly Sudra by his birth, a low caste and he cannot become a learned as with higher caste born.

It is ironical to find a learned scholar like Panoli, to write a small tome, at this end years of 20^th century, just to explain and establish that sacred works attributed to Adi Sankara are myths and interpolations and or complete fabrications. Ofcourse the Sanatani Hindu society evolved in the last two millennia, has accepted, absorbed and practiced certain rituals, rites and behaviors as god given, whether they actually had any scriptural base and support. Ironically, this includes the common understanding about Sankara. Unless motivated by efforts in bringing social and religious reforms, writing such long tracts has no point at all. Dayananda established Arya Samaj to meet the needs of modern times, as he understood. He tried to reform Hindu religion based on his interpretations of ancient texts, although those same texts were subjects of interpretations by so many of the scholars in historical times. Dayananda opened a new path in understanding the ancient texts. One may agree with him or may not, but his efforts resulted in forming one more group in the society. The other reformer was Vivekananda and his followers. They tried for a compromise between the ancient and modern while not making a fetish of ancients. They got more influence outside India than inside. The same fate fell upon Arabindo as well. Scholars and others not wanting in quoting sayings from Vivekananda when they want to impress and buttress their arguments. There are still less who quote Arabindo and still less who refer to Dayananda and his writings. However, none of their teachings, writings or practices did create any significant change in the rites, rituals and practices of the mass of people called Hindus.

A good lot of Keraleeya scholars had been writing about on the ancient literatures including philosophical mainly Advaita. They have never even thought of the Buddhist, Jaina literatures available in abundance. For instance, the writings of the earliest authors/scholars like Kodungallur Kunjikutan Thamburan, Vadakumkoor Rajaraja Varma Raja, Ulloor Parameswara Iyer, Vallathol Narayana Menon, Kuttikrishna Marar etc. in their writings dealing on Indian philosophical traditions did not go into any other than Hindu. They discussed and explained Vedas and Upanishads of Sankara’s Advaita philosophy, never venturing or even mentioning pre-Sankara developments in philosophies. May be the Buddhist and Jaina literatures were in languages other than Sanskrit. However, there are many Sanskrit works that of Nagarjuna, Dingnaga and more. Even these available literatures were kept out of their purview and making it seem that Sankara’s Advaita is something unique and original. It should fill the Keraleeya hearts with pride. Such scholarship on the part of Keraleeya pandits did create a halo and divinity on Sankara. That the tradition that he is the source all things in Kerala nay Hindu traditions of the whole of India, kept people and scholars of Kerala origin out of other traditions.                     

True to this historical background the author of Adi Sankara’s Vision of Reality, extols Sankara not as a human being but as a divine avatar. Avatar of which God? May be Shiva since his guru Govindacharya is recognised as such i.e. Sankara of Kailasa, on his first meeting with his pupil. But Sankara himself did not approve or recognise Shiva as the source of universe. At least Panoli argues for such a case in his book. Was Sankara is an avatar of Vishnu? Might be, since he composed a great Bhashya on Bhagavad Gita as being a saying of Krishna an avatar of Vishnu. This was not approved by Panoli. Still he maintained Sankara as divine avatar who appeared in this world to reclaim Vedic teaching and traditions. But what is the significance of his birth in Kerala about which he never mentioned anything n his writings? There is also no reasonable explanation for a Kerala Brahmin of 8^th century to go all the way to north upto Kashmir and Kedarnath to preach and propagate his philosophy but not in South India. Was it because in his time, Sankara found south India following the true Vedic tradition and the north forsaking the same? Or will it be correct to say that Buddhist and Jaina were strong in north thereby he worked there. But a number of Buddhist scholars belonged to south who wrote Buddhist treatises in Sanskrit, prior to Sankara. Except in Kashmir, there were very few Buddhist scholars in north. Most probably, the Vishnu, Krishna and such personalized cults were wide spread there such as in Punjab, Rajasthan, UP, Bengal and Orissa. But Sankara did not target these personalized cults in his works. His targets were those who proclaimed their affinity to Sankhya, Mimamsa, Nyaya, Vaiseshika like group of philosophers. Occasionally, the Vijnana Vadin and Sunya Vadin of Mahayana Buddhism. Contrary to claims, Sankara followed the ideas of Buddhism by making certain additions and alterations in the then Buddhist philosophies. Several scholars accused him of being ‘Prachhanna Budha’ in those times. V.Panoli did not go deep into these in asserting that Sankara never barrowed any idea from outside of Vedic. In proof of his contention, he depends on “Sankara Vijayam” a biography of Sankara by another divine Swami Vidyaranya. There are many more “Sankara Vijayams in vogue in this country, mystifying the birth, workings, writings and death of Sankara. None of those could be relied to tell the truth of Sankara’s life. 

Two matters did not find full mention in Panoli’s book. One is about the so-called “Sankara Smriti” that is popularly claimed as codified rules of conduct to all castes in Kerala. I have not seen any published copy of this Smriti, but read in books and articles where the same is discussed. The report is that there are many versions of this work in circulation in Kerala and outside. It is said that matriarchy is imposed in Kerala to all castes except the Brahmins i.e. Nambudries.

The second is the claimed biography of Adi Sankara in circulation in several versions. No one so far proved the authenticity any one of them. They are full of stories of divine miracles performed by Sankara during his short life in this world. Panoli cited only one of them as stated earlier. According to my readings, some others claimed authenticity and sanctity to one “Sankara Dig Vijayam” certified by the Sringeri Sankaracharya as authentic. But this also propagates the same or similar myths and miracles as in other versions.

Some of them are downright absurd and farcical. Look at the following story cited by some ardent devotees of Sankara.
 Adi Sankara was challenged to a debate by Mandana Misra, a learned and well-known Purva Mimamsa scholar.  They agreed that Mandana’s wife, Ubhaya-Bharati, a renowned scholar in her own right, would be the referee and that the loser of the debate would become the disciple of the winner.  After debating for many days, Mandana Misra lost and was about to become the disciple of Adi Sankara.  However, Ubhaya-Bharati then challenged Adi Sankara to debate her, on the grounds that since she and her husband were one person upon being married, he would have to defeat both of them in order to win the debate.
 Adi Sankara accepted her challenge.  The debate went well for Adi Sankara until Ubhaya-Bharati began posing intricate questions on the science of erotica (well accepted, in the appropriate context, as a topic of sacred discourse and knowledge in Hinduism).  If it was “considered unseemly” per traditional Hinduism for women to talk about sex. (Adi Sankara ended up satisfactorily answering the questions on eroticism and Ubhaya-Bharati accepted her defeat.) How?

Sankara took a few weeks leave to continue the debate. As a young sanyasi, he was not initiated anything in sexual mores. They were known only to the married. Therefore, Sankara performed a miracle. One of the kings in a kingdom died (no cause is given in the story). It meant that the soul left the body. Sankara knew about this and using his divine power moved his soul out of his own body and entered the body of the dead king. Queens and relatives rejoiced at the king coming alive. (We have no idea about the age of the dead king. Must be young.) Sankara with the king’s body indulged in all sorts of sexual acts and thus learned the essence of eroticism and sex.   

There is more than one question rising out of this miracle episode in the life of Sankara. Although it was claimed that Sankara mastered all knowledge available at his time, was he not aware of the Kama sutra of Vatsayana much earlier to him? Kama sutra explained elaborately on all aspects of sexualities. Any one could have benefited from it without going through real experience in sexual activities. But that is what Sankara is said to have adopted. Before entering the dead body of the king, he had no knowledge as to what the king used to with his queens. How did he act with them? Since he had no idea of sex, as he was an ascetic, maintaining celibacy the behavior with the queens should have been strange.  In turn, the queens would have sensed it and wondered about the dead king coming to life. Even today, faithful are scared of ghosts possessing people and then behaving strange. At those long past era not only the queens but also everyone else in the court would have taken the king as a ghost.

What is the moral sanctity on the part of Sankara to disguise as the king? Was it not cheating and appropriating other’s identity? His performance of sex with the queens might be considered as a kind of rape, even in those times. Devotees did not envisage their telling of miracle by Sankara kindle these quarries and they need to be answered.

K.N.Krishnan.

June/July 1999.