19. CHAPTER X SŪRANĀ'S PHILOSOPHY

CHAPTER X SŪRANĀ'S PHILOSOPHY

Any theory of Art, if it is to be sound and differentiated from mere opinion, must have its roots in epistemolgy. To know Surana's theory of Art and its emergence, therefore,requires a careful study of hs philosophy. It has been observed in the previ- ous chapter that the poet was a staunch Visitadvitin as he manı- fests himself in the Kaläpurnodayam. Consequently it is neces- sary to know the epistemology, cosmology, ethics and the nature of Release or Moksa as advocated by Visistādvaita and then aes- thetics. Before these things are taken up for study, one has to examine a question raised by a cntic.266 He says and strongly holds that Surana was not a Visistadavaitin as he pretended to

.214 be in the Kalapurnodaym, that he was an Advaitin through and through and that he had masqueraded as one, only to please his patron, Nandyala Krsnabhûpati. As a further explanation,he points out that with the ancestors of the poet devotion to the Sun and Siva and practice of yôga were prevalent. Though the poet was an Advaitin, the critic argues, he was more devoted to Sıva and that was why desciptions pertaining to Siva and that was in his works, the Raghavapandaviyam,the Kalāpurnodayam and Prabhävatipradyumnam. He draws attention also to the fact that vertical caste-mark is even now predominat among the members of Pingalı family and accounts for it as being the result of the poet's advocacy of Vaisnavısm n the Kalapūrnodayam, Another reason which he brings forwards in support of his theory is that the veritical caste-mark is not a sure sign of Visitadvaita be- cause there are a good many Advaitins who are in the habit of using it. From these remarks two things clearly emerge,firstly,that Surana was an Advaitin, and secondly, his advocacy of Visistadvita was only a mask. In support of the first, the critic points firstly to the description pertaining to Siva in his works,and secondly,to Studies in Kalapumnodayam

Advaitins putting on vertical caste mark. The two reasons put forth by the critic are really surprising. Nobody who has studied the Pandurangamahatmyam can say that its author was not a Visistādvaitin simply because descriptions pertaining to siva and Parvati are found in that work. Nor is the second reason less unfortunate than the first because its deduction is like this :- Some cows are black;this is a cow and therefore this is black. And this 1s logic! Even the argument so far pursued is only negative,and one has yet to prove the positive aspect,whether he is an Advaitin or a Visistādvaitin or the follower of some other school of philoso- phy. The more dependable guides than histoncal facts and cir- cumstantial evidences in this respect are the very passages which bear direct or indirect refernces to metaphysics and epistemology in his works,and these are not lacking. Suppose one work, con- tains passages referring to one shcool of metaphysics whereas another work gives evidence of interest in another school-in that case one has to conclude that there is a change, real or assumed 215

in the poet's outlook. Generally speaking the change is genuine because no one play with his cherished values of human life un- less he is dilettante or a crook: Let the same method be applied to Surna's works so as to arnve at the school of philosophy which he favours. In the Raghavapandaviyam,the introduction contains the following passages which bear direct references to the poet's phi- losophy in general :- "May Brahman who is known by the name Virupaksa, who wears the folwer that is bom along with the Goddess Laksmi,and that is full of sweet nector,who is well-known to have his abode in Pampahēmakuta and who abides in the heart of Venkatādn of Akuviti Timmaprabhu protect the worlds."267

G V. Knshna Rao

216

Studies in Kalapurnodauam

Does any one of the above verses contain specific reference to the epistemolgy and the nature of Isvara,Jiva and Moks pecu- lar to Advaita? Moreeover,as there is nothing contray to the prin- ciples of Visistadvaita,the poet, by the evidence of these verses cannot be called either an Advaitin or Visistadvaitin. Now the text of the poem proper may be examined to see what it says on this aspect. The first canto of the Raghvapandaviyam contains these verses which have some bearing on Philosophy:

217

G. V. Knshna Rao

These verses also fall in line with the above,i.e.,these do mot refer exclusively to the metaphysics of Advaita or Visistadvaita. Either way these can be interpreted. The second canto contains only two verses which have philosophical implications and they are :-

These two also do not throw any positive light on the prob- 218 lem. The word budhnavat, if one is to acept Pedaramayya's interpretation,means growing,and knowledge according to Advaita cannot be said to grow or decrease. Hence this point is more favourable to Visistdvaita which attributes increase and decrease to knowledge. Anyhow,this connot be said to be a clearer indica- tion of the poet's leanings towards Visistadvaita. There are five verses which have some metaphysical implications. and these are to be gone through to see whether they throw any light on this question. They are as follows :-

1கவ ஜம் ஜாக் கைவலிலகி திகவல் ஃஸ்லை 5

கானகஸ்க்ஸ் கஸ் நள்பு ணக! Studies in Kalapurnodauam

ஜுரஸ் கலர ஸ்வாச் ாகசேகயுன

219 These, too, do not put one in any better position than the previous stanzas. The closing verses of the last canto also do not reveal anything more than what has been noted above. After go- ing through the whole of the Raghavapändaviyam what are the conclusions? Though the poet dedicates his poem to Virūpāksa, there is nothing positively antagonistic to the philosphy of Visistadvaita proper. Nor are there any specific references to the philosphy of Advaita. To argue that the poet must be considered as an Advaitin because he not only dedicates his poem to Virupaksa on the one hand, but also praises visnu in it on the other, is to make too large a claim. If this argument is valid, Rämakrsna who praises both Krsna and Siva in the panduranga mahatmyam must also be considered as an Advaitin and this 1s more than an untenability on its very face. One may protest against this point saying that the case of Rämakrsna is quite different on the ground that he clearly reveals his adamant faith in Visistadvaita by expounding as well as advocating its philoso- phy. If that is so,the ultimate factor which determines whether G. V. Knshna Rao

one is an Advaitin or Visistadvatin is his philosophy. This can be understood only when the different comceptions of Advaita and Vissistadvaita regarding Jiva,Isvara and Bhakti are greasped. The fundamental principle of Advaita is that Brahman alone is absolute and real, and that the Universe, Jiva and Isvara are unreal. This does not mean that Jiva and Isvara do not exist at all. They do only from the standpoint of the phenomena. Just as a dream is real in that particular state and unreal in the state of wakefulness, so also jiva and Isvara are real in the state of samsāra and unreal in the state of the absolute,Brahman. This is beauti- fully presented by Vidyaranya when he says :-

When Jiva and Isvara are unreal and when they are con-

220 sidered to be the products of Maya(V.P.Chapt. 6,S.155), Brahaman becomes naturally the absolute goal. To realise it,i.e.,to become one with Brahman,Advaita advocates Bhakti as a means. The worship of Saguna Brahman,according to this school,leads to the ultimate goal,Niguna Brahman. This is made clear when the au- thor of Vedāntaparibhasa says :-

சுஸக வதக-

=x !! (Chapt. 8)

Studies in Kalapurnodayam

Therefore. Isvara,and devotion to him are not absolute re- alities but only means to the absolute goal. Thus both begin of transitory value, the devotion of an advaitin in spite of his com- plete dependence upon the mercy of his cherished God will sug- gest the ultimate goal, Nirguna Brahman. Actually this is the case with Tikkana when he addresses Hariharanatha to whom he dedicates his work in the following verse:

(Ss., e.4, 435 ) This is not a rare verse,and,as a matter of fact,any number of verses having this purport can be eited from the asvasānta padyas The same is true not only of Potana,but also of most of the poets who are Advaitins through and through. 221

With the Visistädvatin it is quite different. For him the Self and Isvara are absolutely real and have not transitory but absolue value. Even in the state of Relese,as will be explaied in the next chapter,the self does not lose its individuality and become one with Brahman.On the contrary,it attains the communion (sayujya) which is quite different from salökya, sarupya. samipya and svarüpaikya. In that ever blissful state, the self employed in its special duty will attend upon the supreme self. That mens its former devotion continues on a higher plane without being liqui- dated as in the case of Advaitic Moksa. Thus Bhakti as advocated by the Visistadvaitin has abso- lute value, and it is an end in itself,whereas Bhakti, as advocated by Advaita is of transitory value and only a means whose neces- sity disappears completely in the state of Release he conceives. When this transitory value of Bhakti is suggested by the refer- ence to the belief in Nirguna Brahman,etc. in a work,then alone the author of that work can positively be said to be an Advatın. G. V. Knshna Rao

On this ground alone Tikkana,Potana,and other creative writers,whose philosophy is otherwise unknown, are consiedered Advaitins. Similarly,if Surana,whose philosophy is under discussion,is to be considered positively an Advaitin there must be atleast one feference to his belief in Nirguna Brahaman or to the nature of self or knowledge or Realease as conceived by Advaita. Is there even a single reference in the Raghavapandaviyam? So this philosphy of Surana,as seen in the Raghvapāndaviyam,1s neither Advaita nor Visistadvaita. When facts disclose this what grounds can there be for stamping Sürana as an Advaitin? If not the Raghavapandaviyam, the Prabhavatıpradyaumnam, may present the poet as an Advaitin and so it is to be examined to see to what extent this particular work testifies to this effect. This work which was dedicated to the poet's own father throws no more light on this problem than the Raghavapandavivam

222 : The introduction to this poem provides the following iniorma- tion - Subsequent to Kalapurnodayam, though the poet wrote many works which were well received by the people,he was not satisfied with them because none of them contamed an account of his father and his family. To repay this debt to his father, he wrote and dedicated this poem to his father. The geneology of his famly was traced from Gokanamantri of Gautamagotra By his great yogic powers this Gokana had secured pekz, a gandhrva woman. as his slave and wrote nandaka stava which earned for huim a great name.271 His wife having no children for a long time, praved to the Sun who appeared to her in her dream in the guise of a Brahmin and gave her a cucumber plant Thereafter this tamily increased by leaps and bounds. The names of the poet's grandfa- ther was Suraprabhu while that of his father was Amarest ara and both of them were devotees of Siva. The poet's father was initiated into the devotion of Sıva by one named Somaradhya. No where had the poet proclaimed himself or any member of his famıly as an Advaitın or Visitadvaitin Were he really an Advaitin as the critic maintains, the poet should have contradicted what he had said in the Kalapurnodayam or at least should have ex- Studies in Kalapurodauam

pressed his strong faith in Advaita in unabbiguous terms One does not come across such an open statement in the whole of the Prabhavatipradyamnam. On the contrary the poet has mentioned the fact that Gokanamantrı wrote nandaka stava which is a defi- nite custom with Visistadvatic poets and not with Advaitins There can be no clearer example than Krsandevaraya and Ramakrsna who had praised the weapons of Visnu at the very beginning of their works The other fact is that only the poet's father and grand- father were said to be devotees of Siva while there is no mention of the faith of their predecessors and other members of the same line. So there is reason to think that the Visistadvaita cult which was followed from the very beginning by that family was the cause of the use of vertical caste-mark by the memberes of the Pingali family at the present day After all, this may be only a conjecture and one is not immediately concerned with it because the point under discussion is not dependent upon its truth. The fact men- tioned by the poet that his father and grand-father were devotecs 223

of Siva,degs not tell us that they were purely Advaitins. On the other hand. the ven fact that Surana's on the father had been initiated in his devotion to Siva by Somaradhya indicates that his father had embraced the Aradhya faith. Even ignoring this and granting that thev were Advatins, it does not preclude the poet from becoming a Visistadvaitin. Therefore,if one is to prove that the poet is an Advtn or a Visistadvatin, he has to depend en- tirelv on the poet s own words bearing philosophical implication and on nothing else. Except one, none of the verses describing his father's greatness has any reference to philosophy. Even this verse implies only such a general principle that one cannot defi- nitely say whether he was an Advaitin or not. The theme of the poem which deals with the story of Pradyumna,the son of Krsna,also is not helpful in any way. There are altogether three verses which refer directly to philosophy and they too do not say anything about the leanings of the poet. Recently a pandit has pointd to the following verse sayng that it contains a difinite reference to pratyabhijna school of philosophy. G V Knshna Rao

Because this verse occurs in the context of medittaion on an ob- ject previously descrbed, it appears to be a refernce to Kashmir Saivism, but in fact it cannot be . If the poet was really in favour of this school, he would have certainly suggested the implication of this metaphysics on more than one cocasion. As a matter of fact,he had much scope for it because his Raghavapandaviyam, was dedicated to Virūpakksa and hıs Prabhāvatipradyumnam to his father, who was a devotee of Siva. But such references are completely lacking, and hence, it connot be said that the poet was in sysmpathy with kashmir Sawism.

224 What does the foreging survey reveal? There is not even a scintilla of evidence to prove that the poet was an Advaitin. Sec- ondly even the Rägahavapändaviyam and the Prabhavatıpradyumnam do not positively say that he was not a Vissitadavaitin, whreas his kalāpurnodayam as shown in the previous chapter definitely proclaims his leanings towards Visistadvaita.276 Given these facts, can any one agree with the cntic's judgment that the poet masquaréded as a Visistadvaitin only to please his patron, Nandyāla Krsnabhupatı?

Studies in Kalapurnodayam