கேள்வி: கர்நாடக மாநிலம் துங்கபத்ரா (கூடலி) ச்ருங்கேரியில் மட்டும் நின்ற நிலையிலும், விரூபாக்ஷ ச்ருங்கேரி மற்றும் துங்கா ச்ருங்கேரியில் அமர்ந்தவாறும் இரண்டு விதமான திருக்கோலங்களில் ஸ்ரீசாரதாம்பாள் விக்ரஹம் ப்ரதிஷ்டிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது ஏன்? இந்த வேறுபாட்டின் வரலாற்றுப் பின்னணி என்ன?
वाराणसीमिति । योगिवर आचार्यः वाराणसीं काशीं वरणासोनद्योर्मध्ये स्थितत्वात् वाराणसी इति पृषोदरादित्वान्निपातितः । श्रीहरिश्रतुर्भुजैरिव शिष्यैः पद्मपादाचार्यादिभिः सह अधिगम्य प्राप्य आत्मना सह अमीषां शिष्याणां पञ्च मठान्प्रकल्प्य कतिचिद्दिनानि तस्थौ स्थितवान्। ‘कालाध्वनोरत्यन्तसंयोगे’ इति सप्तम्यर्थे द्वितीया ॥ २३ ॥
Q: What does Tunga Sringeri Matha’s Guruvamsakavya say about the final days of Shri Shankaracharya?
A: According to the Tunga Sringeri matha’s Guruvamsakavya, Towards the end of His career, Shri Shankaracharya traveled from Siddheshvara in Nepal to Dattatreya Ashrama, where He left His staff and water pot. Miraculously, His staff transformed into a tree, and His water pot became a tank. Finally He resided at the Dattatreya Ashrama in Mahuripuri, (Shri Renuka Devi Temple, Mahur, Nanded District, Maharashtra – See : Images), engaging in conversations with Shri Dattatreya.
The shloka that has surfaced and popularised in the recent times raises many critical questions.
अवतीर्णश्च कालट्यां केदारेऽन्तर्हितश्च यः ।
चतुष्पीठप्रतिष्ठाता जयताच्छङकरो गुरुः ॥
What is the pramanam or source of this shloka? It appears to be a recent composition.
Hence the author of this sloka should step forward to clarify on what basis it was composed and why it has been intentionally prioritized over the traditional gurumahima slokas.
Are the Four Matha Theorists Cherry-Picking Quotes from Chidvilasa to Support Their Narrative?
The four matha theorists claim Shri Shankaracharya established only four mathas, citing Chidvilasa’s Sankara Vijaya. Yet, they disregard the same Chidvilasa’s account of Shri Sankaracharya’s meeting with His Guru Shri Govinda Bhagavatpada in Badarikashrama (not on the bank of Narmada) and His Sarvajna Peetharohana and Shanmatha sthapana in Kanchi. Why this inconsistency?
Within the Tunga Sringeri tradition, there are variations in the location of Govinda Muni’s ashrama, as documented in different texts:
Chidvilasa’s Sankara Vijaya mentions Ratnagarbha Ganapati who is worshipped in Tunga, the ashrama of Vibhandaka Muni, a detailed description of Sringeri, the establishment of four peethas and Bhagavatpada’s ascent of Sarvajna Pitha in Kanchipuram and can be understood as the work that upholds the Tunga tradition.
However, this work curiously places Govinda Muni’s ashrama in Badarikashrama in the Himalayas and has the following description of Govinda Bhagavatpada shining like the Sun with Rudraksha mala.
अन्विष्य शङ्कराचार्यः सर्वत्र जगतीतले ।
क्रमेण बदरीं प्राप यत्र विष्णुस्तपस्यति ॥ ३८ ॥
…
बदर्यो भूरुहो यत्र फलन्ति स्वर्दुमा इव ।
तत्रैकत्र समासीनमुटजाभ्यन्तराङ्गणे ।। ४३ ।।
ध्यायन्तं परमेशानं व्याघ्रकृत्तिकृतासनम् ।
भूत्युद्भासितसर्वाङ्गं पौण्डरीकोत्तरच्छदम् ।। ४४ ।
रुद्राक्षमालिकाजालसमाकलितविग्रहम् ।
निस्तरङ्गमिवाम्भोधिं निर्विकारमिवाशुगम् ।। ४५ ।।
निस्तमस्कमिवादित्यं भास्वन्तमिव पावकम् ।
गोविन्दभगवत्पाददेशिकेन्द्रमलक्षयत् ।।४६ ।।
In a stark departure from Chidvilasiya, the Madhaviya Sankaravijaya mentions that meeting of Bhagavatpada with His guru Govinda Bhagavatpada happened on the banks of “Indubhava”.
Given that Chidvilasiya is of relatively older antiquity than Madhaviya, and Madhaviya is a sangraha of many texts from Vyasachaliya to Shankarabhyudaya, one has to wonder what source of Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya is for mentioning Narmada as the meeting place.
दण्डान्वितेन धृतरागनवाम्बरेण गोविन्दनाथवनमिन्दुभवातटस्थम् ।
तेन प्रविष्टमजनिष्ट दिनावसाने चण्डत्विषा च शिखरं चरमाचलस्य ॥ ११ ॥
Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya uses the newly coined term “Indubhava” for River Narmada based on the traditional name “Somodbhava” replacing “Soma” with “Indu”. It is from the commentaries of Madhaviaya such as Advaitarajyalakshmi quoting Dindima that we know this.
It may also be noted here that Gururatnamala of Sadashivendra Sarasvati mentions “uparevam” situated near Reva nadi both in the stuti on Govinda Bhagavatpada and also mentions the word “pratichandrabhavam” similar to indubhava usage of Madhaviya when talking of where Shankara Bhagavatpada met Govinda Bhagavatpada. Likewise Tirumala Dikshita’s Shankarabhyudaya also mentions Narmada Tiram as the Place of Their meeting.
Given the wide extraction of many verses from Tirumala Dikshita’s work in Madhaviya, there is a likelihood that these works may have been a source for Navakalidasa Madhava, the author of the 18th-19th century Samkshepa Shankarajaya (Shankara Digvijaya) in its departure from Chidvilasiya Sankaravijaya. .
Curiously, Tunga Sringeri Matha’s Guruvamsa Kavya does not mention the location Govinda Muni’s ashrama.
The disparity between the Guruvamsa kavya and the Madhaviya Sankara vijaya and Chidvilasiya Sankaravijaya becomes a perplexing puzzle. It leaves room for speculation that either these two Sankara vijayas were not in existence when Guruvamsa kavya was written, or the Tunga Sringeri adherents were unaware of their existence when guiding the composition of Guruvamsa kavya.
“सम्प्रदायो हि नान्योऽस्ति शङ्कराद्बहिः”
From the preface of Paramapujyashri 108 Mahant Gangapuriji Maharaj, Sangameshvar Mahadev, Kurukshetra in the book “Prapancasara tantre – Shankaracharyah tantrika sadhana” by Dr. Ramachandra Puri Professor of Lajpat Rai Ghaziabad.
Shri Vidyaranya Yati in His tantrika work Srividyarnava Tantra worships Shankaracharya among the acharyas of tantrika sampradaya and says that tantrika sampradaya is not outside the Sampradaya of Shri Shankarachara.
From the standpoint of philosophical thought Acharya was an advaitin. However Shankara the sadhaka was an upasaka of Bhagavati.
The Shrividya sadhana set forth by Shankaracharya is still prevalent among many renunciate sannyasis. Sanyasis are lokasangrahis and they perform the necessary aadhyatmika, adhibhautika and adhidaivika sadhana for the benefit of this world. These sadhanas are elaborated upon by Bhagavatpada in the Prapanchasara. He was as much a lokasangrahi as he was a paramarthadarshi. He spoke of the fourth tattva moksha but did not ignore dharma artha and kama for these are essential steps in the ascent towards moksha.
Vidvan Shri. N.S.Ananthakrishna Shastri in the appendix to the edition of Brahmasiddhi – Bhavashuddhi and Abhiprayaprakashika of Chitsukhacharya, published in 1963 says the following about the Siddhisthala of Shri Adi Shankara Bhagavatpadacharya.
There is no conflict or virodha between taking the brahmibhava of Shri Shankara bhagavatpada in Kanchipuram after the anointment of Shri Sureshvaracharya (with what is said in the Madhaviya).
In the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya, Shri Bhagavatpada who came from Badarikashrama, after His avatara karya, returning to Kailasa, the prayer of the Devatas pray to Him. In the Anantanandagiri Shankara Vijaya, the brahmibhavam in Kanchipuram is described. Due to this – in one place we have the ascent to Kailasa in one and in another the aikya in Kanchipuram itself is said. This may seem like a conflict.
According to what is said in Brahmasutra,
“कारणत्वेन चाकाशादिषु यथाव्यपदिषोक्तेः” (Although there is a conflict of the Vedanta texts as regards the things created such as ether and so on, there is no such conflict with respect to Brahman as the First Cause, on account of being represented in one text as described in other texts). Likewise, the merging with the akasha in one and the merging of tejas and others elsewhere – as explained in the बस्तुख्यातिविघातिवादितिमिरं नैष्कर्म्य सिद्धिस्फुट- व्याख्याचन्द्रिकया विधूय सुधियां सद्दृष्टिमुन्मीलयन् । अन्तः संभृतशान्तवेदनसुघोहयोतः समुद्दद्योतते – सर्वज्ञाश्रमचन्द्रमा त्रिजगतीसर्वज्ञचूडामणिः ॥creation.
There even if there is an appearance of conflict, “The creation of Aksha and Vayu and then Tejas and others” – is resolved by this sequence.
Likewise, how is saying that from Badarikashrama, coming to Kanchi, Bhagavatapada attained aikyam be a conflict? Even now, great sannyasis, when they are in another grama accept the prarthana of devotees to come to one’s grama, and in between stay for a few years in the middle in various places and then arrive there? This being the case how does the stay in between make the final destination invalid?
It is not known whose work Chidvilasiya Shankara Vijaya in the form of a dialogue between Vignanakanda and Chidvilasa in the course of Shankara Vijaya Vilasa is. Therefore it has to be taken as a lesser pramanam than the Shankara Vijayam of Anantanandagiri. However since it is said there also that Sarvajnapitham is in Kanchi, and Shri Bhagavatpada ascended the SarvajnaPitha is said there as well, it is clear that Kanchi Pitham is Sarvajnapitham of Shri Bhagavatpada.
Sri Vidyatirtha, the 51st Acharya of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetha is also revered as Sri Vidyasankara, in the Guruparampara records of the Tungabhadra (Kudali) Sringeri and other Advaita mathas of Karnataka . Sri Vidyatirtha’s greatness is undeniable, especially if we consider that the Vijayanagara kingdom was influenced by his glance from Bukka. Born in Bilvaranya, Sri Vidyatirtha was the son of Sarangapani and lived from 1296 to 1384. He spent seventy-three years in Kanchi, practiced penance for fifteen years near the Himalayas. He also revitalized the Sankarite institutions of Karnataka.
In the book “Founders of Vijayanagara,” published by the Mythic Society in Bangalore in 1938, the distinguished historian of Mysore State, S.Srikantayya, expresses his perspectives regarding the association between Sri Vidyatirtha (also known as Sri Vidyasankara) and the Vijayanagara empire.
The Historical survey records published by the Mysore Government provide fascinating insights into the migration and settlement of Tamil Brahmins from Tanjore and Kanchipuram regions, near the Sankarite institutions on the Tunga and Tungabhadra rivers (Tunga Sringeri and Tungabhadra -Koodali Sringeri mathas).
In the Quarterly journal of the Mythic Society, while reviewing the 1931 Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of Mysore, there is an interesting observation that Sri Vidyatirtha also hailed from the Tamil Brahmin community of Choladesa (Tanjore) in his earlier life.
“… Hale Sringeri Village is about two furlongs to the west of Sringeri with about one Brahman and twenty other houses. A small mud shrine contains the old Vidyasankara Linga, about six feet high. The Vidyasankara image is 1½ ft. high in Yoga-mudra with a sannyasi disciple on either side. Compared with this, it will be clear that the image to which I have referred in my article on “An Ancient Image at Hampi ” may not be that of Vidyasankara.
In his notes on Vidyaranyapura, Dr. Krishna says that “Vidyaranya also must have been a Karnataka (Kannadiga). But Vidyasankara is said to have been a ‘choli’ (belonging to the Chola-desa of Tamilnadu) since some ‘cholis’ (Tamil Brahmins from Chola desa) have set up his image in the Agrahara.”
This statement is evidently traditional, picked up during the course of enquiries but it deserves further investigation…”
The authenticity of this statement is supported by the ancient Guruparampara records of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetha. These records state that Sri Vidyatirtha, the 51st Acharya of Sri Kanchi Matha, originated from Bilvaranya kshetra of the Chola desa. His successor, Sri Sankarananda, the 52nd Acharya hailed from Madhyarjuna kshetra (Tiruvidaimaruthur) in the Chola country.
(Reviews : Archaeological Survey of Mysore – Annual Report for 1931 – The Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society.)
