182486_335307979914535_318958989_nEnlightening news —

A person belonging to ‘one’ of the many different sects of Sanātana-dharma (as for example, a person belonging to Śaṅkara-advaita-sampradāya) cannot be entitled to called as ‘dharma-samrāṭ’ or the ’emperor of whole Sanātana-dharma’. Rather, actual ‘dharma-samrāṭ’ is only Jagadguru Mahaṛṣi Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana Bādarāyaṇa Vedavyāsa to whom all the existing sects of Sanātana-dharma bear their allegiance towards. Therefore, Late Svāmī Karapātrī ‘Kevalādvaitin Śaṅkarite Daśanāmī Ekadaṇḍī Māyāvādī’ aka Hariharānanda Sarasvatī aka Mr. Harihara Ojha (hailing from Pratapgarh, UP, Bhārata) cannot be considered as ‘Dharma-samrāṭ’ of whole Sanātana-dharma – for he belonged to just one sub-denomination of Sanātana-dharma.

Another objection can be raised by the envious contenders as to how can the divine moods/sentiments/emotions like ‘bhakti’ (devotion), ‘rasa’ (succulent mellows) and ‘vedānta’ (end of knowledge or the Upaniṣadic knowledge) be considered to be predominated by any one sacred seat (pīṭham) like the Bhakti-rasa-vedānta-pīṭham (of BRVF in Anand, Gujarāt, Bhārata)?

The confutation of the above view is as follows –

According to the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava theology based on scriptures like Śrīmad-bhāgavatam, aspects like ‘bhakti’, ‘rasa’ and ‘vedānta’ are partially present in all jīvātmās who are either sādhakas (practitioners) or siddhas (perfects). Śrī Kṛṣṇa and His incarnation Vedavyāsa are ‘jagadgurus’ or the masters of the whole world due to their being ‘akhaṇḍa-guru-tattva’ or their being the embodiments of ‘universal masterhood’. But, as explained in the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava literary heritage, any jīvātma (individual living entity) can only possess ‘vyaṣti-guru-śakti’ (the power of being an individual master) and not the ‘samaṣṭi-guru-śakti’ or the ‘power of being an aggregate master’. Furthermore, if any mentor/master teaches subjects like bhakti, vedānta and rasa etc., his seat can be called as Bhakti-rasa-vedānta-pīṭham. Such title is never a monopoly. Anyhow, BRVF or its ācārya never claims to be an ‘aggregate’ spiritual master of the topics like vedānta, bhakti and rasa etc.

On the other hand, in the Kevaladvaitin view upheld by so-called dharma-samṛats, since all jīvas are absolutely brahma and since the aupādhika-brahma (conditioned brahma) Kṛṣṇa (in the Advaitins’ view) is jagad-guru by the strength of the Padma-purāṇa verse (‘….kṛṣnaṁ vande jagad-gurum..’) and because brahma is one with the jīva, they feel that they can claim themselves to be the ‘dharma-samṛat’ or the universal emperor of whole Sanātana-dharma. But, in the vaiṣnavite conception, any jīva is not entitled to usurp such posts.

If the contenders claim that in the word ‘dharma-samṛat’, whole Sanātana-dharma and its various sects are not to be taken, but only a limited meaning of ‘varṇāśrama-dharma’ is to be taken and since, entities like Svāmī Karapātrī upheld the true spirit of smārtta + vaidika varṇāśrama – they can be righteously called as ‘dharma-samṛāt’ – then these contenders should well know that even then since Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the founder of the varṇāśrama system (refer to Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā verse ‘cāturvarṇyaṁ mayā śṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ’), only He can be duly designated as ‘dharma-samṛāṭ’ even if the limited meaning of ‘varṇāśrama’ is taken here. Svāmī Karapātrī is not the founder of Vedic varṇāśrama.

Additionally, the Kevalādvaitins cannot argue that they are taking the meaning of ‘vyaṣti-guru’, because, they do not believe in the ‘aṇutva’ or the ‘aṁśatva’ of the ātmā in eternal sense, because in their belief of Radical Monism (Kevalādaita-vāda), the individual ātmā (self/soul) is the very same as the nirupādhika-brahman (unconditioned Absolute).

If it is argued by their side that only the ‘aupādhika-jīvatva’ of the ‘ātmā’ (since, the Kevalādvaītins consider ‘atmā’ to be different from ‘jīva; — ātmā is self-same as paramātmā and parabrahma in their theology) present within the grossly visible human body of Late Svāmī Karapātrī is designated as ‘dharma-samṛāṭ’, then it would mean that as soon as the ‘jīvatva’ of his ātmā got vanished at the time of his videha-mukti, he ceased to be called as ‘dharma-samṛāṭ’. Hence, since it is assumed that he got liberation or videha-mukti and the brahma-ṣāyujya or kaivalya/nirvāṇa, he shouldn’t be addressed as ‘dharma-samrāṭ’ anymore, right?

Contrastingly, in the Vaiṣṇava view, the jīvatva of the jīvātmā is eternal and so the ‘vyaṣṭi-gurutva’ of the jīva who is accepted as ‘guru/ācārya’ is eternal, too.

Again, if it is argued from the side of Advaitins that since the Late Svāmī Karapātrī was a ‘champion of debates’ (śāstrārtha-digvijayī’ during the Kumbha-melās, let us bring to the attention to his followers that his famous long-lasting 28 days’ continuous debate on the topic of the supremacy of Dvaita (Radical Dualism) and the Advaita (Radical Non-dualism) with the then Late Svāmī Vidyāmānya Tīrtha of Mādhva Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya of Bhandarkeri-Pālimāru Maṭha of Udupi (Karṇātaka, Bhārata) – while debating on a certain verse from the 14th Chapter of Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā in the year 1965 AD in Haridvāra (Uttarākhaṇḍa, Bhārata) had remain disputed because Svāmī Vidyāmānya Tīrtha alleged that any Mādhvaite debater need not to exactly follow the ṭīkā of Madhvācārya in a parrot-like sense, but that a Madhvaite can annex his supportive logical contentions to the above Mādhva-bhāṣyam on Gītā while debating the Avaitins – a justification not accepted Karapātrī. But, in this, Karapātrī’s own fallacy became evident later on when he wrote his Bhāṣyam on Iśāvāsyopaniṣad in which, rather than following the Śaṇkarite doctrine of the ‘sole supremacy of brahma-jñāna’, Karapātarī ‘leniently’ interpreted some verses of the said verses in the support of ‘karma’, some in support of ‘upāsanā’ (bhakti) and some in support of ‘jñāna’. This is called clearly going astray from the classical Śaṅkarite view – though it may be supported by the then Late Śaṅkarācārya of Purī Govardhanapīṭham Svāmī Nirañjanadeva Tīrtha ‘Advaitin’.

Furthermore, when the Southern Bhāratīya / Dākṣiṇātya Late Mahāmaṇḍaleśavara Svāmī Kāśikānanda Giri ‘Advaitin’ of Kerala (head monasteries in Mumbai and Haridvāra) had challenged Svāmī Karapātrī as to why he had taken titles of ‘dharma-samṛāṭ’ and ‘digvijayī’ without first debating with top scholars like himself (Kāśikānanda) and had thus challenged Karapātrī to do debates with him (Kāśikānanda), the former (Karapātrī) was afflicted with a tremendous fever ensuing for many dues to this psychological tension (because Karapātrī was afraid of losing debate with this South-Indian monk). At that time, by applying the political peer pressure from the then ‘bāhu-balī’ or muscle-powered North-Indian Advaitin sadhus who were supporters of Karapātrī during the Kumbha-melās, Svāmī Kāśikānanda’s desire to have debate with Karapātrī was made diluted gradually.

If it is argued by the followers of Karapātrī that in his book ‘Vedānta-rasa-sāra/Sarva-siddhānta-samanvaya-prakāra’, His Holiness has, successfully, tried to establish all the so far existing Sanātana-dharmīya theological conclusions of various sects (like Śaiva, Śākta, Gāṇapatya, Vaiṣnava, Saura and Viśiṣṭādvaita, Adviata etc.) as in mutually sequential harmony by rejecting the ‘sunda-upasunda-nyāya’ and by employing the ‘sopānāroha-krama-nyāya’ and has thus given due relevance to all systems other than Advaita while establishing the par-excellence supremacy of Advaita, (the same method which was used by the Late Abhivana Śaṅkarācārya Svamī Vidyāraṇya Muni of Śrīṇgerī-pīṭham in the 14th Century CE in his classically renowned work Sarva-darśana-saṅgrahaḥ), then let us inform the fanatic Advaitins of North India (supporters of Karapātrī- since the support for Karapātrī from the South Indian Advaitin Piṭhams has remained dubious) that such ‘bāhya-samanvaya’ or ‘superficial reconciliation’ is rejected by all other schools of though and even by staunch Advaitins. No need to say a word more. If such samanyava was the goal, the historically famous ‘sampradāya-pravarttaka-ācāryas’ like Rāmānuja, Madhva etc. would have done such samanyava while concurrently establishing their distinctive thoughts on Vedānta rather than confuting earlier doctrines on Vedānta!

When Karapātrī argues that, solely, for the sake of establishing the path of bhakti or devotion, the historically famous sampradāya-pravartaka-ācāryas did not accept the Advaita of Śaṅkara and rather chose to establish their doctrines superficially opposing Advaita, then let us make His Holiness known that only in the Advaita of Śaṅkara – the concept that the imagined and temporary doctrine of Dvaita (dualism) meant for practicing bhagavad-bhakti seems more beautiful than Advaita (‘bhaktyarthaṁ kalpitaṁ dvaitam advaitād api sundaram’) — is entertained. While, in the Vaiṣṇava schools on Vedānta, the Dvaita is not considered (Dvaita is accepted as common foundation by all Vaiṣṇava schools on Vedānta and not just Madhvaites) as temporary or imagined (kalpitam) and created just for the sake of bhakti — but, is rather considered eternal. All Vaiṣṇava schools on Vedānta consider the distinction between jīva-brahma and para-brahma as eternal. So, even on this basis, the idea of ‘samanvaya’ or reconciliation between the doctrines of Advaita and those of the vaiṣṇava schools — looses momentum.

“धर्म की जय हो! अधर्म का नाश हो! प्राणियों में सद्भावना हो! विश्व का कल्याण हो! धर्म सम्राट पूज्यपाद श्री स्वामी करपात्री जी महाराज की जय हो!”

The above is the sacred slogan given by Late Svāmī Karapātrī which is chanted in many Sanātana-dharmīya (Hindu/Vedic/Āryan) followers all around the globe. But, one of the above slogans has a philosophical defect. When it is said – ‘adharma kā nāśa ho’, this is in total incompatibility with the scriptures. How? Let us examine –

Even Śrī Kṛṣṇa in Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā does never talk about the ‘nāśa’ or destruction of adharma/irreligion. In the ‘yadā yadā hi dharmasya……’ and the ‘paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duśkṛtāṁ…’ verses of ŚBG, Śrī Kṛṣṇa only talks about destruction of the ‘duṣkṛtis’ or the irreligious {And that, also, according to commentators like Vedānta Deśika Svāmī of Rāmānuja Sampradāya and his Tātparya-candrikā on the Śrī-bhāṣya of Bhagavatpāda Rāmānuja on the Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā 4.8 – only, the rākṣasa-yonis or the demoniac species acquired by such duṣkṛti demons (asuras) is removed (not even destroyed). Hence, vināśa of ‘duṣkṛti’ (irreligious people) does not mean their own destruction (for souls or jīvas can never be destroyed) and neither does it indicate the destruction (vināśa) of the rākṣasa-yoni (demoniac species undertaken by such duṣkṛti sinful people), but rather, ‘vināśa’ denotes the ‘nivarttanam’ or removal of the demoniac species acquired by such duṣkṛtis. Such is the import.} Hence,  Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā does not talk about the destruction of the ‘irreligion/adharma’ itself. Rather, Bhagavān’s advent onto this mortal platform increases the amount of dharma/religion and decreases the amount of adharma/irreligion, but does not destroy the adharma. Why? Because, even Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 1.15.45 “…kalinā adharma-mitrena…” speaks about Kaliyuga being the friend of Adharma personified. Now, the 77th verse of the 1st Chapter of Padma-purāṇa’s Śrīmad-bhāgavata-māhātmyam coming in the Uttara-khaṇḍa section holds as follows — “अयं तु युगधर्मो हि वर्तते कस्य दूषणम् । अतस्तु पुण्डरीकाक्षः सहते निकटे स्थितः ॥ ७७ ॥” – which means that “It is the very nature of the eon of Kaliyuga to have all such contamination and therefore, even Lord Puṇḍarīkākṣa, though remaining very close to the Earth infested by the effects of Kali (the friend of irreligion personified), does not take any affirmative action and rather, chooses to tolerate the effects of Kaliyuga (friend of Adharma).” So, now, if Lord Viṣṇu (Puṇḍarīkākṣa) tolerates the effects of adharma and Kaliyuga and does not want to destroy the both, who is a human being called Svāmī Karapātrī to assert that ‘adharma’ should be destroyed?

जब भगवान् पुण्डरीकाक्ष स्वयं अधर्म तथा उसके मित्र कलियुग के प्रभाव को पृथ्वी पर पडने को सहते रहते हैं, तब भला करपात्री कौन होते हैं इस ‘अधर्म’ का नाश करने का नारा उछालने वाले?

प्रश्न – अधर्म को भगवान् के द्वारा सहन क्यो किया जाता है व क्यों भगवान् केवल इसका ह्रास करते हैं, परन्तु नाश नहीं?

उत्तर — क्योकि धर्म प्रकाशसदृश है व अधर्म तिमिरसदृश है, अतः जैसे प्रकाश के योग्य मूल्याङ्कन के लिये तिमिर के सहवस्थान की अनिवार्यता है, अतः इस द्वन्द्वात्मक प्रपञ्च में धर्म के साथ अधर्म का प्रणयन भगवान् के द्वारा सृष्टि के आदि में हुआ है!

If it were to be destroyed, why did both Viṣṇu and Brahmā created Adharma during the time of sarga (initial creation) and the pratisarga/visarga (subsidiary creation) and as corroborated by Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 3.12.25 as follows – “dharmaḥ stanād dakṣiṇato……adharmaḥ prṣṭhato yasmān…” meaning that the personified religion was produced by Brahmā from his right breast and the personified irreligion was produced from his back. Now, we see that the same ŚBMP asserts in 6.3.19 that ‘dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavad-praṇītaṁ…’ meaning that the personified religion/dharma is directly made manifest by Bhagavān during the sarga/initial creation. Later on, during visarga/pratisarga/secondary creation, it is again made manifest by Brahmā. Similarly, adharma, too, is made manifest by Bhagavān Viṣṇu, originally. If adharma was to be at all non-existent and was meant to be fully destroyed (‘nāśa ho’ – as how Karapātrī asserts), why was it created by God, at all? Therefore, by saying that ‘Let adharma be destroyed’ – Svāmī Karapātrī has exposed his intelligence.

If the contenders argue that Svāmī Karapātrī wrote Karapātra-bhāṣyam aka ‘Vedārtha-pārijātaḥ’ (not to be confused with Vedārtha-pārijāta-saurabhaḥ of Nimbārkācārya on Brahma-sūtras) on some of the Vedas (not all) in 20th Century and that no one after Uvvata, Mahīdhara and Sāyaṇācārya (pūrvāśrama brother of Vidyāraṇya – Vedānta-pañcadaśīkāra) of medieval Bhārata (up to 15th Century CE) wrote any such commentary on Vedas and because of this reason Karapātrī should be designated as ‘Dharma-samrāṭ’, then the contenders’ such allegation is refuted because, in the 20th Century CE itself, Late Jagadguru Rāmānandācārya Bhagavadācārya (Ahmedabad, Gujarat) Svāmī wrote a very much pro-Vaiṣṇava bhāṣyam (commentary) on the Sāma-veda-samhitā — even if the Ṛg-veda-bhāṣyam of the Madhvācārya Pūrṇaprajña Ānandatīrtha (13th Century CE) is discounted.

Conclusion — Since, Karapātrī ‘Advaitin Śaṅkarite’ had failed to take on the challenge of Svāmī Kāśikānanda Giri ‘Advaitin Śaṅkarite’ and since the outcome of his debate with Svāmī Vidyāmānya Tīrtha ‘Dvaitin Vaiṣṇava’ had remained dubious and not unanimously accepted and because, the so-called samanvaya or doctrinal reconciliation provided by Karapātrī falls apart by our arguments given above — the title of ‘Dharma-samrāṭ’ conferred on him is illogical.
Link — https://goo.gl/0B8Uh0

— Sanātana-dharmāntargata Caitanya-gauḍīya-vaīsṇava-sampradāyī Acintya-bhedābheda-vādi-vedānta-dhurandhara Advaita-parivāra-daikṣa-paramparāgata Mahāmahopādhāya Kavi-tārkika-siṁha Bhakti-rasa-vedānta-pīṭhādhīśvara Ācārya Śrī Rādhākṛṣṇadeva Munīndravarya Āmnāya-vācaspati Gurupāda

One thought on “Why any entity belonging to any one sect of Sanātana-dharma cannot be righteously entitled as ‘dharma-samrāṭ’? – A must read analysis on Late Svāmī Karapātrī of 20th Century.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s