questions (fwd)

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 15:46:55 +0200 (MET DST)
> From: Gerald Penn <gpenn at sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de>
> To: msr at tamu.edu
> Subject: questions
>
>   First, I have heard that the current senior Shankaracarya of Jyoshimath
> happens to be the Shankaracarya of the Dwarka Math.  How did this happen?  I

Please see http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~vidya/advaita/ad-today.html. This
site discusses the recent history of the maths established by Sankara.
Here are some more details.

Till 1984, the Sankaracharya of Dwaraka was Sri Abhinava Saccidananda
Tirtha. He passed away leaving a will nominating some people in order of
preference to succeed him at the seat. Sri Swaroopananda Saraswati, who
was then the Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath was the third or fourth on this
list. However, the people before him on the list politely declined in his
favor. Sri Swaroopananda Saraswati then took over charge at Dwaraka. I
know this first-hand, because one of those who declined was a close friend
of my father's. If I remember right, Sri Swaroopananda was the only
sannyasi on the list. Any of the others would have been required to become
sannyasis before taking charge of the Dwaraka math. There are always
reasons why one is not prepared/qualified to become a sannyasi at a
particular juncture in one's life.

At that time, some surprise was expressed by many people, that the same
person was now in charge of two maths. But there is no rule against such
a situation, either in the tradition or in modern Hindu law. The previous
Sankaracharya of Dwaraka had nominated him in his will, and Sri
Swaroopananda seems to have had little choice in the matter. Usually, one
does what one's guru wishes, and Swaroopananda considers Sri Abhinava
Saccidananda Tirtha as one of his gurus. The consecration ceremonies for
Sri Swaroopananda at Dwaraka were performed by Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha of
Sringeri, and I don't think he saw anything wrong in the situation.

As for the Jyotirmath, it had been vacant for a long time because of
adverse circumstances. In 1940, some concerned people in Varanasi got
together and formed a committee to revive the math. Sri Brahmananda
Saraswati, who was well-known in the north, was requested to fill the
post. His guru, Sri Krishnananda Saraswati, was a disciple of the then
Sankaracharya of Sringeri, and he was also well-known as a highly
accomplished guru in the north. Brahmananda Saraswati lived till 1953.
After his demise, Sri Santananda Saraswati succeeded him. For some reason,
I don't know what, the committee which nominated Sri Brahmananda was not
happy with Sri Santananda. I guess the people on this committee still held
some power over how these succession issues are decided. This led to
another litigation, and Sri Abhinava Saccidananda Tirtha of Dwaraka was
requested to help resolve the dispute. After a period of some confusion,
Sri Swaroopananda was proposed as a compromise candidate.

Sri Santananda has since stepped down from the Jyotirmath, but continues
to be associated with one school of that math in Haridwar, and another in
London, I believe. Dennis Waite, another list member, may want to clarify
this. In any case, one recently published book of Santananda's describes
him as the ex-Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath. However, Swaroopananda's claim
to the Jyotirmath title is disputed by some other disciples of Sri
Brahmananda, mainly one named Sri Vishnudevananda Saraswati. There are
still cases in the Indian courts regarding the matter. Meanwhile, the
other Sankaracharyas in India have recognized Sri Swaroopananda as the
head of the Jyotirmath, most probably because he was nominated through the
intercession of the Sankaracharya of Dwaraka.

The situation in the Jyotirmath is further complicated by the fact that
Mahesh Yogi of TM fame supports Vishnudevananda over Swaroopananda.
Vishnudevananda also has connections with the VHP (Vishwa Hindu
Parishad) whereas Swaroopananda seems to have been involved with the
Congress since his student days, when India was still under British
rule. The VHP calls Swaroopananda a "Sarkari Sadhu" (governmental monk)
because he does not hesitate to differ publicly with the VHP stances on
religious issues. In my opinion, this is a good thing, because I do not
think the VHP leaders are qualified to dictate religious matters to the
rest of the country. One is better off with honest dissent in public life,
as compared to the coerced assent that the VHP seems to command.

Of course, involvement in politics is nothing new to the Sankaracharyas.
And it is not as if it is necessarily bad for them to be involved in
politics. From the 14th century, there is the instance of Sri Vidyaranya
of Sringeri who was closely connected with the founding of the Vijaynagar
empire. In this century, Sri Bharati Krishna Tirtha of Puri was
prosecuted by the British government for his involvement in the Khilafat
movement after World War I. This was a famous case, judged by one Sir
Courtney Terrell, but it made things rather uncomfortable for the British,
because here was a bona-fide Hindu religious leader actually supporting a
Muslim cause.

In any case, Sri Swaroopananda faces quite a formidable challenge at
Jyotirmath. He seems to have genuine problems with accepting
Vishnudevananda. The ex-TM literature is very aware of Jyotirmath
politics, and there are quite a few websites discussing Swaroopananda,
Vishnudevananda and Mahesh Yogi. I can give the interested reader the
URL's if necessary. A simple Alta-Vista search should pull up the
relevant documnents. Anyway, if Swaroopananda nominates someone to take
over charge at that math, he will only end up transferring the problem
from himself to his successor. Of course, he will have to find a suitable
successor in the first place.


> was under the impression that in all of the Shankaracarya Mathas, there were
> three heads, older, middle, and younger, so that if anything unfortunate
 should
> happen to one of them, there were always two more to pick up and carry on.

Actually, three heads at the same time is more the exception than the
rule. Other than the Kanchi math's example recently, there have rarely
been even two Sankaracharyas at the same institution simultaneously. For
example, at Sringeri, from 1878 to 1912, there was only Sri Narasimha
Bharati (his full name was Saccidananda Sivabhinava Narasimha Bharati),
from 1912 to 1931, there was only Sri Candrasekhara Bharati, from 1954 to
1974, there was only Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha, and since 1989, there has
been only Sri Bharati Tirtha in charge. In the intermediate periods,
between 1931 and 1954, and between 1974 and 1989, there were two heads at
the Sringeri math. Usually, only the senior guru is the head of the math,
both legally, and in public perception. The junior guru is the chosen
successor, but he does not take charge till circumstances dictate so. This
occurs either on the demise of the senior guru, or if the senior guru
withdraws from administration activities. Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha did not
formally take over charge till 1954, although he had been practically in
charge of for a long time. This was because his guru, Sri Chandrasekhara
Bharati, did not care at all for such work, but asked him to do the
administrative work on his behalf.

It is only in south India that it has become a tradition for a successor
to a math being chosen well in advance by the existing head. In the
north,there have been repeated instances of successors being named in
wills, which naturally enough, leads to disputes. Sri Brahmananda
Saraswati of Jyotirmath (in 1953), Sri Bharati Krishna Tirtha of Puri (in
1960), and Sri Abhinava Saccidananda Tirtha of Dwaraka (in 1984), left
wills nominating a list of successors, in order of preference.

Finding and appointing a worthy successor takes time, and none of the
Sankaracharyas seem very keen to appoint just anybody for the only purpose
of continuing the line of succession. As an example, in 1912, when Sri
Narasimha Bharati of Sringeri knew he was going to pass away soon, he sent
for his chosen student who was then at the math's school in Bangalore. The
administrator of the math, thinking that it might take some time for the
student to come to Sringeri, requested Sri Narasimha Bharati to appoint
somebody else from Sringeri itself. Sri Narasimha Bharati reportedly
answered that he would rather see the Sringeri title vacant than appoint
somebody else, just for the appearance of continuity. Of course, Sri
Narasimha Bharati was right, for his chosen student was Sri Chandrasekhara
Bharati. It is difficult to think of anybody more eminent than him among
the Sankaracharyas of recent memory.


> My second question concerns the math at Kanchipuram.  The Shankaracarya from
> this Math who recently passed away was very well respected by many people.
 But
> how is it that Kanchipuram came to have a matha in the first place?  I thought
> Sri Shankara established only four, at the two sites mentioned above, Puri and
> Sringeri.  Is this a spin-off from one of those?

In general, the tradition mentions only the four maths at Sringeri, Puri,
Dwaraka and Jyotirmath as having been established by Sri Sankara. Over the
centuries, maths have been established at many places all over India,
either as independent institutions or as branches of the original four.
Succession disputes like the current one in Jyotirmath also lead to the
establishment of new mathas. If a sannyasi is worthy of respect, he generally
receives it from everybody. Whether he is the head of a math or not is
secondary. In my opinion, even the math and its history are secondary.
What matters is the guru. Of course, for the sake of writing history, one
must look at evidence for and against everything, but history does not
dictate one's choice of a guru. If a math is fortunate enough, and if its
gurus are vigilant enough, all the people who succeed to the title will be
accomplished. Many of the most revered gurus of advaita, including
Madhusudana Saraswati, Sankarananda, Nrsimhasrama, Sadasiva Brahmendra and
most recently, Sri Ramana, have not been heads of maths.

That said, it is not clear when the math at Kanchipuram was actually
established. However, it is obvious that the math must be close to two
centuries old now. This math functioned from Kumbhakonam in the last
century, and moved to Kanchipuram after 1842 AD. There is evidence for the
existence of the Kumbhakonam Math from 1821 AD onwards. According to many
people, the Kumbhakonam math was originally a branch of the Sringeri math.
However, this has been denied by the authorities of the Kumbhakonam/Kanchi
math, according to whom theirs is the fifth math established by Sankara
himself. This controversy regarding the history of this math has gone on
for quite some time now, and quite a few books have been published
examining both sides of the controversy. If anybody is interested, I could
give some references from both sides, so that they can decide about the
pros and cons of the issue for themselves. I hesitate to bring up these
references on this mailing list without a specific need for them.

In 1993, in connection with the Ramjanmabhoomi/Babri Masjid dispute, Sri
Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchipuram participated in a joint meeting at
Sringeri and co-signed the resolution calling for a peaceful solution to
the dispute. The Sankaracharyas were quite frank in admitting that they
did not agree on many historical issues, but did not think that these
differences were relevant to the then existing tensions between Hindus and
Muslims in India. If the heads of the maths can find ways to work with
each other, there is little reason for their followers to fight.

To a large extent, I think that such disputes arise because of a seemingly
fundamental contradiction between being a sannyasi and being a
mathadhipati. Not everybody seems to be able to handle the fact of being a
sannyasi first, and a mathadhipati only secondarily. This is part of the
reason why the Sankaracharyas of Sringeri have not been overly eager to
nominate some successor. (I can presume to speak only about the Sringeri
Sankaracharyas here; I have not talked to any of the others.) Historical
circumstances have given this math a lot of wealth and influence. Hence,
the Sankaracharyas want to be convinced that their chosen candidate can
remember that to be a true sannyasi, he needs to remain detached from the
name and fame of the math that he is associated with. Renouncing the
entire world, only to grow attached to the wealth of one's own math,
defeats the purpose of sannyasa. Thus, an ideal mathadhipati is the one
who least desires the job, although he might be the best qualified for it.
Such people are rare, and a guru is indeed fortunate if he can find one
such person among his disciples. Indeed, a math is fortunate if its heads
have consistently been such ideal gurus.

Regards,

S. Vidyasankar
>From ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU Tue Sep 10 20:32:00 1996
Message-Id: <TUE.10.SEP.1996.203200.0400.ADVAITAL at TAMU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:32:00 -0400
Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Chelluri Nageswar Rao <Chelluri at AOL.COM>
Subject: EXPERIENCES
Comments: To: ADVAITA-L at tamu.edu

NAMASTE:     LET NOBLE THOUGHTS COME TO US FROM ALL SIDES-Rigveda

My computer was down for awhile and ma back again online.

Before bringing my querry to the group I asked couple of my friends members
of the group whether it is appropriate to post spiritual experiences. One
said No and the other said Yes.  Well I am asking all of you to advise
whether I should or not post.

The experiences I had defy logical explanations as far as I know.  May be you
can shed some light.

Regards
                                                                          Rao