The Genuine Works of Sankaracarya (AdI)

[Nitaidas]

Here I would like to post some sections or in some cases whole works by Sankaracarya as a complement to the other thread on this site dealing with the "rehabilitation" of Sankara. Most of the 200+ books in Sankara's name are no longer believed to be by him (see the work of Paul Hacker since 1950). Here only works that are considered authentic will be presented in the original Sanskrit and/or in translation. The first will be his only independent work (i.e., not a commentary) called A Thousand Teachings (Upadeza-sAhasrI; उपदेशसाहस्री). There are two English translations that I am aware of (there are bound to be more): one by Sengaku Mayeda and another by a member of the Ramakrishna Mission, Swami Jagadananda. The latter translation is often an ideological mistranslation (translating Bhagavan as Brahman, for instance). It will not be used here except as a source for the Devanagari text of the work. Understanding Sankara's real teaching is essential for understanding Sri Jiva's arguments against Sankara in the Tattva-sandarbha and other sandarbhas. It will also highlight places where Sri Jiva is misinformed about Sankara's position and pooisbly allow us to compare Sankara's teaching to that of the Bhagavata Purana. My gut feeling is that the Bhagavata Purana is really quite close to the teachings of Adi Sankara, but only a close comparison can confirm or disconfirm that.

[Nitaidas]

A Thousand Teachings--उपदेशसाहस्री

Verse Section

Chapter One:

Verse 1:

चैतन्यं सर्वगं सर्वं सर्वभूतगुहाशयम्।
यत्सर्वविषयातीतं तस्मै सर्वविदे नमः॥ १।।

Salutation to the all-knowing Pure Consciousness which pervades all, is all, abides in the hearts of all beings, and is beyond all objects [of knowledge]. (1)

[Interesting note: this seems to describe a being that is consciousness and conscious (all-knowing). Knowing is an indicator of agency. Commentator Ramatirtha glosses sarvavide as sarvaM vetti (he knows all) tasmai namaH (I bow unto him). Perhaps Sankara is not so far from Sri Jiva's view.]

Verse 2:

समाप्य क्रियाः सर्वा दाराग्न्याधानपूर्विकाः।
ब्रह्मविद्यामथेदानीं वक्तुं वेदः प्रचक्रमे।। २।।

Having completed all the rituals, preceded by the marriage ritual and the ceremony of installing the sacred fire, the Veda has now begun to utter knowledge of Brahman. (2)

Verse 3:

कर्माणि देहयोगार्थं देहयोगे प्रियाप्रिये ।
ध्रुवे स्यातां ततो रागो द्वेषश्चैव ततः क्रियाः ।। ३।।


Karmas [as the results of actions, good or bad, in the past existence] produce association with a body. When there is association with a body, pleasant and unpleasant things are inevitable. From these result passion and aversion [and] from them actions.

[Note the similarity of this and the next verse to the Buddhist cycle of dependent origination.]

[Nitaidas]

Verse 4:

धर्माधर्मौ ततो ऽज्ञस्य देहयोगस्तथा पुनः ।
एवं नित्यप्रवृत्तो ऽयं संसारश्चक्रवद्भृशम् ।। ४ ।।


[From actions] merit and demerit result [and] from merit and demerit there results an ignorant man's association with a body in the same manner again. Thus this transmigratory existence rolls onward powerfully forever like a wheel. (4)

Verse 5:

अज्ञानं तस्य मूलं स्यादिति तद्धानमिष्यते ।
ब्रह्मविद्यात आरब्धा ततो निःश्रेयसं भवेत् ।। ५ ।।


Since the root cause of this transmigratory existence is ignorance, its destruction is desired. Knowledge of Brahman therefore is entered on. Final beatitude results from this knowledge. (5)

[Only knowledge can destroy ignorance. In this there is complete agreement between Sankara and our tradition. Bhaki is a special form of knowledge (jnAna-vizesa). Or, as we say in our tradition, bhakti is hlAdinI samvitsamanvitA.]

Verse 6:

विद्यैवाज्ञानहानाय न कर्माप्रतिकूलतः ।
नाज्ञानस्याप्रहाणे हि रागद्वेषक्षयो भवेत् ।। ६ ।।


Only knowledge [of Brahman,(or of Krsna)] can destroy ignorance; action cannot [destroy it] since [action] is not incompatible [with ignorance]. Unless ignorance is destroyed, passion and aversion will not be destroyed. (6)

[It is the same with us. Nothing we can do will destroy our ignorance or counteract maya. By chanting Krsna's name we purify ourselves and prepare ourselves to receive bhakti. But nothing we can do will make bhakti appear. It is given by the grace of Krsna or his bhakta. When it appears in our minds, ignorance/maya is destroyed or forced to retreat.]

[Nitaidas]

Verse 7:

रागद्वेषक्षयाभावे कर्म दोषोद्भवं ध्रुवम् ।
तस्मान्निःश्रेयसार्थाय विद्यैवात्र विधीयते ।। ७ ।।


Unless passion and aversion are destroyed, action arises inevitably from [those] faults. Therefore, for the sake of final beatitude, only knowledge [of Brahman, or, of Krsna] is set forth here [in Vedanta].

[I was reading last night in a summary of the Bhagavat-sandarbha by my Sanskrit teacher Dr. Chinmayi Chatterjee, which I shall post a scan/photo of soon, about the difference and sameness of Brahman and Bhagavan. She says: The Ultimate Reality is one and is of the nature of indivisible bliss (तदेकमेवाखण्डानन्दरूपं तत्त्वम्).  When such Reality is experienced by sages as being indentical with their own selves through their practice of meditation, when in spite of its divine powers belonging to its essential nature it appears in a general featureless way in its abstractness in those minds which are unable to grasp it as possessed of diverse powers, and when no distinction made between its powers and itself possessed of powers is realised, it is called Brahman.

When the same Reality appears to the mind of devotees whose internal and external sense organs are charmed by devotion which is an aspect of its own specific bliss-yielding energy and which is the best means of its realization, as endowed with some vizeSa through the functioning of its essential energy and as the original substratum of all supreme energies, it is called Bhagavan. In this state distinction between the Reality and its energies is realized.

Although Bhagavan represents the one and indivisible Reality, His distinction from Brahman is possible because some sadhakas do not possess the proper capacity of realization; to them the ultimate Reality appears in [the] general or incomplete form of Brahman. (श्रीभगवानेवाखण्डं तत्त्वं साधकविशेषाणां तादृशयोग्यत्वाभावात् सामान्याकारोदयत्वेन तदसम्यक्स्फूर्तिरेव ब्रह्म । ) So there is no real difference between these two forms: Brahman and Bhagavan; "the difference is one of degree only, and the limitation is in relation to the capacity and stage of realization of the devotee."

From the Bhagavat-sandarbha by Sri Jiva Gosvamin, ed. by Dr. Chinmayi Chatterjee, xv-xvi. (Calcutta: Jadavpur University, 1972)]

[Nitaidas]

Verse 8:


ननु कर्म तथा नित्यं कर्तव्यं जीवने सति ।
विद्यायाः सहकारित्वं मोक्षं प्रति हि तद् व्रजेत् ।। ८।।

[Objection:] "Should not [certain] action too always be performed while life lasts? For this [action], being concomitant with knowledge [of Brahman, or Bhagavan], leads to final release. (8)

Verse 9:

यथा विद्या तथा कर्म चोदितत्वाविशेषतः ।
प्रत्यवायस्मृतेश्चैव कर्यां कर्म मुमुक्षुभिः ।। ९ ।।


"Action, like knowledge [of Brahman, or Krsna, should be adhered to], since [both of them] are equally enjoined [by the Srutis]. As the Smrti also [lays it down that] transgression [results from the neglect of action, so] action should be performed by seekers after final release. (9)

[Nitaidas]

More of the objection:

Verse 10:

ननु ध्रुवफला विद्या नान्यत्किंचिदपेक्षते।
नाग्निष्टोमो यथैवान्यद् ध्रुवकार्योप्यपेक्षते।। १० ।।


"[If you say] as knowledge [of Brahman-Krsna] has permanent fruit, and so does not depend upon anything else, [we reply:] Not so! Just as the Agnistoma sacrifice, though it has permanent fruit, depends upon things other than itself ...

Verse 11:

तथा ध्रुवफला विद्या कर्म नित्यमपेक्षते।
इत्येवं केदिदिच्छन्ति न कर्म प्रतिकूलतः।। ११ ।।

"so, though knowledge [of Brahman-Krsna] has permanent fruit, it always depends upon action." Thus some people think. [Reply:] Not so, because action is incompatible [with knowledge].

[Nitaidas]

Verse 12:

विद्यायाः प्रतिकूलं हि कर्म स्यात्साभिमानतः।
निर्विकारात्मबुद्धिश्च विद्येतीह प्रकीर्तिता ।। १२ ।।


In fact action is incompatible with knowledge [of Brahman-Krsna], since [it] is associated with misconception [of Atman]. And knowledge [of Brahman-Krsna] is declared here [in the Vedanta] to be the view that Atman is changeless.

Verse 13:

अहं कर्ता ममेदं स्यादिति कर्म प्रवर्तते।
वस्त्वधीना भवेद्विद्या कर्त्रधीनो भवेद्विधिः।। १३ ।।


[From the notion,] "I am agent; this is mine" arises action. Knowledge [of Brahman-Krsna] depends upon the real (vastu), [whereas] the Vedic injunction depends upon an agent.

[Here is where our tradition departs from Sankara's, it seems. Jiva Goswami is clear that the jiva is both consciousness and conscious, that is, consciousness in substance (vastu) and a conscious agent. One does have to wonder how "knowing" has been removed from the list of actions. It seems to fit in with seeing, hearing, laughing, crying, walking, etc. as an action with an agent. To Sankara, apparently it is not, nor is seeing.]

[Nitaidas]

[Further comment on the previous verse (13). Why does Sri Jiva think the jiva is consciousness and conscious? He presents this view in para 32 of the TS. He reason is primarily as scriptural one rather than a philosophical one. He points to the verse in which Vyasa's realization (Bhag. 1.7.5) is described and specially to the words that described the jiva as yayA saMmohitaH (यया संमोहितः), that is, deluded by mAyA and yet capable nevertheless of thinking (manute). Two things Sri Jiva draws from this: the jiva exists before and apart from its delusion by mAyA and the jiva can think, that is, be the agent of the action of thinking. Thus, while the jiva is itself cidrUpa or made of consciousness it is also conscious, that is it has as a natural trait the ability to know. This ability to know can be covered or distorted by mAyA, but it is a natural trait or quality of the jiva. To further support this Sri Jiva quotes the Gita: ajJAnenAvRtaM jJAnaM tena muhyanti jantavaH (5.15) (अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः, गीता ५.१५), Living beings, their knowledge covered by ignorance, are deluded.]

[Nityānanda dāsa]

Sept 27, 2020 12:58:50 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Verse 7:

रागद्वेषक्षयाभावे कर्म दोषोद्भवं ध्रुवम् ।
तस्मान्निःश्रेयसार्थाय विद्यैवात्र विधीयते ।। ७ ।।


Unless passion and aversion are destroyed, action arises inevitably from [those] faults. Therefore, for the sake of final beatitude, only knowledge [of Brahman, or, of Krsna] is set forth here [in Vedanta].

[I was reading last night in a summary of the Bhagavat-sandarbha by my Sanskrit teacher Dr. Chinmayi Chatterjee, which I shall post a scan/photo of soon, about the difference and sameness of Brahman and Bhagavan. She says: The Ultimate Reality is one and is of the nature of indivisible bliss (तदेकमेवाखण्डानन्दरूपं तत्त्वम्).  When such Reality is experienced by sages as being indentical with their own selves through their practice of meditation, when in spite of its divine powers belonging to its essential nature it appears in a general featureless way in its abstractness in those minds which are unable to grasp it as possessed of diverse powers, and when no distinction made between its powers and itself possessed of powers is realised, it is called Brahman.

When the same Reality appears to the mind of devotees whose internal and external sense organs are charmed by devotion which is an aspect of its own specific bliss-yielding energy and which is the best means of its realization, as endowed with some vizeSa through the functioning of its essential energy and as the original substratum of all supreme energies, it is called Bhagavan. In this state distinction between the Reality and its energies is realized.

Although Bhagavan represents the one and indivisible Reality, His distinction from Brahman is possible because some sadhakas do not possess the proper capacity of realization; to them the ultimate Reality appears in [the] general or incomplete form of Brahman. (श्रीभगवानेवाखण्डं तत्त्वं साधकविशेषाणां तादृशयोग्यत्वाभावात् सामान्याकारोदयत्वेन तदसम्यक्स्फूर्तिरेव ब्रह्म । ) So there is no real difference between these two forms: Brahman and Bhagavan; "the difference is one of degree only, and the limitation is in relation to the capacity and stage of realization of the devotee."

From the Bhagavat-sandarbha by Sri Jiva Gosvamin, ed. by Dr. Chinmayi Chatterjee, xv-xvi. (Calcutta: Jadavpur University, 1972)]

Dadaji,

Is this edition in English?

[Nitaidas]

राधे राधे !

No, Chinmayidi's editions are not in English, but she has generally written a longish introduction in which she summarizes the argument of the text. Unfortunately, the text is not critically edited either like the first volume is for the Tattva-sandarbha edited by Sitanatha Goswami. The original plan for the series was to produced critical editions of all the sandarbhas, but for some reason that was not done for the last five sandarbhas. I don't know what happened. They are just reprints of an earlier edition with a little dusting and fixing, although sadly a few misprints have seeped in. Occasionaly, Chinmayidi will add some footnotes. From the point of view of correctness, that is, freedom of misprints, and usability, Haridas Sastri's editions are much better. Those include commentaries where available and a Hindi translation which is pretty easy to follow after you pick up a little Hindi grammar. However, it is hard to beat Nityasvarupa Brahmacari's old edition in Bengali script. Sitanatha Goswami highly praises it in his introduction. And it is available on the archive. I look at it when I am a little puzzled by a passage. It has both Baladeva's and Radhamohan Goswami's commentaries. The latter is really good, the former meh! And, of course, everything is translated into Bengali.

[kd91]

Oct 14, 2020 11:22:58 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

राधे राधे !

No, Chinmayidi's editions are not in English, but she has generally written a longish introduction in which she summarizes the argument of the text. Unfortunately, the text is not critically edited either like the first volume is for the Tattva-sandarbha edited by Sitanatha Goswami. The original plan for the series was to produced critical editions of all the sandarbhas, but for some reason that was not done for the last five sandarbhas. I don't know what happened. They are just reprints of an earlier edition with a little dusting and fixing, although sadly a few misprints have seeped in. Occasionaly, Chinmayidi will add some footnotes. From the point of view of correctness, that is, freedom of misprints, and usability, Haridas Sastri's editions are much better. Those include commentaries where available and a Hindi translation which is pretty easy to follow after you pick up a little Hindi grammar. However, it is hard to beat Nityasvarupa Brahmacari's old edition in Bengali script. Sitanatha Goswami highly praises it in his introduction. And it is available on the archive. I look at it when I am a little puzzled by a passage. It has both Baladeva's and Radhamohan Goswami's commentaries. The latter is really good, the former meh! And, of course, everything is translated into Bengali.

Baladeva's commentary not nice?

[Nitaidas]

[I have had a few thoughts about Sri Jiva's view that the jiva is both consciousness and conscious. Just cited scripture is not a satisfying proof of anything. One can cite scripture as proof for just about anything one wishes to claim as true. So instead I asked myself if there was any possible philosophical proof or support for the idea. It occurred to me that the conception of atman in the Nyaya school has a view that understands atman to be qualified by knowledge or consciousness. I wondered if perhpas Sri Jiva who also certainly studied Nyaya when he was a student in Benares combined the Vedantic notions of atman as pure consciousness with the Nyaya concept of the atman as qualified by consciousness or in other words conscious, an agent of awareness or knowledge. Here is what one of the standard introductions to Nyaya says about the substance (dravya) atman:

ज्ञानाधिकरणमात्मा । स द्विविधः । जीवात्मा परमात्मा चेति । तत्रेश्वरः सर्वज्ञः परमात्मा एक एव । जीवस्तु प्रतिशरीरं भिन्नः । विभुर्नित्यश्च ।

The self is the substratum of consciousness. It is twofold: the living being self and the supreme self. Among them the Lord is the all-knowing supreme self and is one only. The living being self is different in each body and is pervasive [large, not atomic, pervades the body] and eternal.]

[Nitaidas]

Verse 14:

कारकाण्युपमृद्नाति विद्या 'ब्बुद्धिमिवोषरे ।
इति तत्सत्यमादाय कर्म कर्तुं व्यवस्यति ।। १४ ।।

Knowledge destroys the factors of action as [it destroys] the notion that there is water in the salt desert. After accepting the true view, [how] would one decide to perform action?

[One wonders if Sankara is describing here the destruction of the motivation to do action or the sense that one is acting on one's own behalf. In the second case acting on Krsna's behalf or offering the results of action to Krsna would turn action into inaction as per the Gita. Both of these results are dependent on knowledge, knowledge of one's relationship to Krsna. I suspect Sankara means destruction of motivation, though.]

[Ed]

Hi, Nitai

I don’t know if I’m following this correctly. He says that it is the sense of agency and possessiveness that perpetuates itself through action, specifically through the actions recommended by the Vedas, and that these carry the implication that the atman is subject to change by way of misidentification, right? so is he saying that the motivation to perform these prompted by that notion gets destroyed through Knowledge, or the motivation to perform action altogether gets destroyed? How can one attain knowledge without action + intention/motivation? and can action be completely without motivation or desire? Or, this knowledge being self-revealing implies there’s no personal agency behind attaining it, so “knowing” in this sense is not considered an action? Seems like attaining release or pleasing Bhagavan are still desires or motivations for acting, even while understanding these are not achievable through an independent agency.

[Nitaidas]

Oct 20, 2020 11:46:09 GMT -6 Ed said:

Hi, Nitai

I don’t know if I’m following this correctly. He says that it is the sense of agency and possessiveness that perpetuates itself through action, specifically through the actions recommended by the Vedas, and that these carry the implication that the atman is subject to change by way of misidentification, right? so is he saying that the motivation to perform these prompted by that notion gets destroyed through Knowledge, or the motivation to perform action altogether gets destroyed? How can one attain knowledge without action + intention/motivation? and can action be completely without motivation or desire? Or, this knowledge being self-revealing implies there’s no personal agency behind attaining it, so “knowing” in this sense is not considered an action? Seems like attaining release or pleasing Bhagavan are still desires or motivations for acting, even while understanding these are not achievable through an independent agency.

जय एद्वर्दो !

I think he is saying that the inclination or motivation to perform any action, not just Vedic rites, is destroyed by Knowledge. The example seems to support this: when one realizes that a place is a salt desert one immediately gives up the inclination of search for water there. Before one has Knowledge one may act to get it. But once one has it, action ceases and it appears that to Sankara knowing is not an action, it is the natural state of the self. The self, being consciousness, cannot not know. That is why the self or atman is often compared with the sun which lights up whatever it shines on and itself, but it is itself not an object of knowing, only a knower. Here is Mayeda's translation again:

Knowledge destroys the factors of action as [it destroys] the notion that there is water in the salt desert. After accepting the true view, [how] would one decide to perform action?

Destroying the factors of action means, I think, the causes of all action. If so, how then does a Knower survive? The answer is often put in terms of vasana, the suble traces left in the manas or buddhi of past actions. The appearance of Knowledge destroys all of the vasana that have not started to exert influence, but those vasana that have begun to bear fruit are not destroyed. They continue to cause action until they are exhausted and the body-mind ends, releasing the atman to full moksa. Before full release with the end of the body, the state is called jivan-mukti, liberation-while-living.

One of my problems with Sankara's view has to do with the relationship of Knowledge to Ignorance. Ignorance is the root of action for Sankara, but Knowledge, Ignorance's counter-positive, destroys action. Knowledge is said to be incompatible with action. However, if Ignorance is compatible with action, its counter-positive, Knowledge, should be too, only with different kinds of action. Perhaps this is what Sri Jiva means when he says that the jiva is consciousness and conscious, that is, is directed to act according to its new knowledge.