Sankaracarya of the North (fwd)

[F. Smith]

Vidyasankar Sundaresan, no longer on Indology (though he accesses it from
the website), asked me to forward this to the listserv.
Fred Smith

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:55:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya at cco.caltech.edu>
To: "F. Smith" <fsmith at blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Re: Sankaracarya of the North


Re: Fred Smith's and Bijoy Misra's mails on this topic -

1. I was unaware that Vishnudevananda had passed away, but my latest
information about him is at least ten years old. So it could be possible
that Vasudevananda is his disciple/successor, and that the Hinduism Today
(Aug. 95) report has the name right. I also want to draw attention to
Cenkner's book again, where he mentions Vishnudevananda and one
Narayanananda Sarasvati, as possible successors of Santananda.
Vasudevananda has not been named in Cenkner's work, but a lot could have
changed in the years that have passed.

2. I'm also unaware that there was a serious rift between Hariharananda
Sarasvati and his guru, Brahmananda Sarasvati. But then, I must point out
that it is exceedingly difficult to get an honest account of events.
Hariharananda's followers would naturally downplay the issue, if there
were a rift, and all the blame would be attached to Santananda and/or
Mahesh Yogi. The opposite camp would probably highlight any rift more than
necessary. However, irrespective of the merits of either side, it is clear
that Hariharananda's role has been that of the Earl of Warwick, to build
upon my Wars of the Roses analogy.

3. Clarification - In 1972, Svarupananda was not the Sankaracarya of
Dvaraka. Abhinava Saccidananda Tirtha was alive till 1982, which was when
Svarupananda succeeded to the Dvaraka title. A large number of people seem
to think that Svarupananda was already the Sankaracarya of Dvaraka before
he became the Sankaracarya of Jyotirmath. The reverse is the case,
although his Jyotirmath title is not accepted by all.

4. Re: the debate between required qualifications and traditional AcAra -
The occupant of the Sankaracarya post is supposed to satisfy criteria of
Suci, jitendriya-tva, veda-vedAntAngAdi vicakshaNa-tva. I'm not aware on
what grounds Santananda was suspected, but Hariharananda and others seemed
to have had their own reasons. An outgoing AcArya has the right to
nominate his successor, but the candidate is expected to fulfil such
criteria, which are mentioned in the maThAmnAya/mahAnuSAsana texts
attributed to Adi Sankaracarya himself. The authenticity of these texts
may be doubted, but it is clear that they represent the traditions of the
mathas as they have developed over the centuries. Extracts from these
texts are given as an appendix in Baldev Upadhyaya's Hindi translation of
the mAdhavIya Sankaravijayam, attributed to vidyAraNya (second edition
published from Sri Sravananatha Jnanamandiram, Hardwar, 1967).

None of the Sankaravijayam texts that I've seen explicitly sets out the
requirements for successors to the Sankaracarya title - only the
maThAmnAya texts do so. The prAcina and/or bRhat Sankaravijayam texts are
known only by name - no mss are available. Neither the mAdhavIya nor the
anantAnandagirIya, which are the two most well-known among the currently
available Sankaravijaya texts, elaborates upon the qualifications for the
Sankaracarya post. mAdhavIya mentions the establishment of mathas in a
very general way, and only in one verse. There is no mention of the said
qualifications. anantAnandagirIya has two versions. A 19th-century edition
from Calcutta (Bibliotheca Indica series, nos. 46, 137 and 138; reprinted
in 1982 from Biblio Verlag, Osnabruck) mentions a matha only at Sringeri,
and nowhere else, but no qualifications for successors are mentioned. The
1971 edition from University of Madras, prepared by TMP Mahadevan and N
Veezhinathan, mentions a matha near Sringeri, and a matha at Kancipuram,
but again, no such qualifications for successors are described. There is
no mention of the mathas at Dvaraka, Puri and Jyotirmath in this edition
also. I seriously question the 1971 version's claim to being a critical
edition of this text. Mahadevan and Veezhinathan have allowed their
devotion to the Kanchi matha to affect their scholarly judgement. The
Sringeri tradition does not accept this text, even in its older,
19th-century version, but the Kanchi matha quotes it often.

5. Most of the lawsuits involved in the Jyotirmath succession controversy
were about property. However, given that most of the property had been
acquired post-1941, the primary issue is one of who succeeded Brahmananda
Sarasvati. I'm not sure if the courts ever decided on this issue, unless a
verdict was given about his will. And without studying the legal records,
I would not jump to conclusions about the mechanisms by which the property
lawsuits were settled. I guess that most of the writs obtained were of the
nature of stay-orders, so that status-quo is maintained till the succession
gets resolved. I still think that the issue is worthy of research, and
more so today, given the political connections of the persons involved,
and the projected victory of the BJP in the coming national elections.
Besides, in addition to the two main rivals, there is also Madhava Asrama
to account for.

6. It should also be remembered that for all the status and prestige
associated with the Sankaracarya name, the following that they command
often depends upon the individual AcArya's charisma. And there is no
guarantee that the loyalty shown to a previous AcArya gets automatically
transferred to his successor. Each new Sankaracarya has to rebuild his
following, as it were. In institutions with a reasonably old history, the
core of the following probably remains intact, but the new AcArya still
has to prove himself, in some respects. Glenn Yocum's account of the
transition that took place at Sringeri in 1989 has a few pertinent
observations in this regard (in A Golden Thread, ed. Raymond B. Williams,
Anima Publications, Chambersburg, PA, 1992). And I know of quite a few
instances among followers of the Kanchi matha, who do not view Jayendra
Sarasvati with the same reverence that they extended to Candrasekharendra
Sarasvati.

Still, the south Indian mathas have evolved a tradition which tries to
smoothen the transition, by holding public ceremonies at the time of
Sishya-svIkAra, with respect to the designated successor. A large number
of the followers are present, and after the sannyAsa initiation, the
Sishya offers pUjA to the guru, followed by the guru offering pUjA to the
Sishya. This establishes both the philosophical notion of non-difference
between guru and Sishya, and the pragmatic endorsement of the successor
maThAdhipati, through a public ritual. Others who are initiated into
sannyAsa, but not designated for the maThAdhipati post, do not get the
same kind of publicity. Also, after the successor has been inducted, the
senior Sankaracarya typically withdraws from matha administration, which
is handed over to the junior one. And after the senior Sankaracarya passes
away, the accession of the junior to the title is once again a very public
ceremony. This is akin to a yuvarAjA's role in a kingdom, where the rAjA
is still alive, and his succession to the throne when the rAjA dies. As an
aside, it is interesting how the teachers of a philosophy which rejects
the efficacy of ritual for liberation accept ritual when it comes to
vyAvahArika and laukika issues. This is another poorly understood aspect
of the advaita tradition.

6. It seems that the best candidate for a Sankaracarya title is he who
least wants the job, but such a person would probably make a very
unsatisfactory administrator. Whenever a will decides the succession, the
first few nominees decline to take over. The one who becomes the next
AcArya is usually the third or fourth choice in the will, and quite often,
his motivations in accepting the post are questioned. A maThAdhipati's
duties can often conflict with his vows of sannyAsa, but then a
maThAdhipati must first be a sannyAsin. Still, one cannot renounce the
world and become a sannyAsin, only to become a maThAdhipati and develop an
attachment to one's matha. Every maThAdhipati must choose where his
optimum lies. This is another feature worthy of research. Candrasekhara
Bharati of Sringeri (1912-1954) represents a classic example of a
sannyAsin who was a very unwilling maThAdhipati. A number of his own
followers were dissatisfied with his apparent neglect of the secular matha
administration, and viewed the growing following of the Kanchi matha among
south Indian Brahmanas with dismay.

And if it is true that a study of religion is basically a study of
persons, this is more true in the case of guru/AcArya centered traditions.
And as the personal is often political, yes, appointment to the
Sankaracarya title is a political affair. It is saved from becoming too
political only by those institutions which have a solid tradition of
uninterrupted succession. My analogies with an old English war and with
Indian kings seem right on dot. The contradictory pulls in the dharma
of a maThAdhipati are quite akin to those in the dharma of the classical
Indian king. At least at Sringeri, the Sishya-svIkAra, paTTAbhisheka and
the annual Navaratri celebrations have traditionally carried more than a
hint of royal/courtly atmosphere.

7. As for some shaven-heads having more ego than humility, some of the
daSanAmIs will be the first to admit that this is so. After all, every
true (vividishA) sannyAsin in the advaita tradition is trying to lose his
ego and develop humility, to the point of denying all individuality, but
this is easier said than done. One sannyAsin once told me, "unfortunately,
not every sannyAsin has lost his attachment to mAyA and its effects." Now,
I'm not going to judge any of the principals in the Jyotirmath
controversy, but as a general observation, it seems true enough.

Vidyasankar