ஸ்ரீசங்கராசார்யர் நான்கு திருக்கரங்களை உடைய ஸ்ரீமஹாவிஷ்ணுவைப் போல தமது நான்கு சிஷ்யர்களுடன் திகழ்ந்து தமக்கும், தமது சிஷ்யர்கள் நால்வருக்குமாக ஐந்து திருமடங்களை அமைத்தனர் என்று துங்கா ச்ருங்கேரி குருவம்ச காவ்யத்தில் உள்ளமை கீழ்க்கண்டவாறு :-
பதில்: ஸ்ரீசங்கராசார்யரின் ஸர்வக்ஞ பீடாரோஹணத்தைத்தான் ‘சாரதாபீடவாஸம்’ என்று மாதவீய சங்கரவிஜயம் கூறுகிறது.
இந்த நூலின் முதல் ஸர்க்கத்தில் ‘षोडशे शारदापीठवाससः’ என்று குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ளது. 16-ஆம் ஸர்க்கத்தில் ஸ்ரீஆசார்யருடைய சாரதா பீடவாஸம் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளதாக முன்னதாகவே முதல் ஸர்க்கத்தில் சொல்லப்படுகிறது. பிறகு, 16ஆவது ஸர்க்கத்தில் ஸ்ரீஆசார்யர்களின் ஸர்வக்ஞ பீடாரோஹணத்தைக் கூறிவிட்டு, ‘जयति यतिपते: शारदापीठवासः’ (16-18) என்று ஸர்வக்ஞ பீடத்தையே, ‘சாரதா பீடம்’ என்று இந்த நூலின் ஆசிரியரான நவகாளிதாஸ மாதவர் தெளிவுறக் கூறுவதால், துங்கா ச்ருங்கேரியில் சாரதா பீடம் என்ற ஒன்று இருப்பதாக மாதவீய க்ரந்தம் மூலம் வெளியாகவில்லை எனலாம். இதற்கு மாதவீயம் அல்லாத வேறு பழைய நூல்களில்தான் ப்ரமாணம் தேட வேண்டும் என்கிறபோது, பிற்காலத்தில் நவீனர் உருவாக்கிய புதிய மாதவீயத்தைச் சிலர் தூக்கிப் பிடிக்க முனைவதும் நகைப்பிற்குரியதே.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
