Category Archives: Biosketch

Captain Baba Harbhajan Singh

Baba Harbhajan Singh has been on duty both before and after death in Nathula border. Baba Harbhajan Singh who died in 1968 on duty in Sikkim still does his duty on Nathula Border between India and China in East Sikkim. Both Indian and Chinese Army worship him. During the flag meetings between the two nations at Nathula, the Chinese set a chair aside for the saint.

Captain Baba Harbhajan Singh was born today in the year 1941 in Panjab. He died at the age of 7 at Nathula in Eastern Sikkim. But as per legends, he still does his duty in Nathula Border.

 

Some striking facts about Saint Captain as told by the Army officials I met at Nathu-La and Baba Mandir :

1. Baba warns the soldiers of any impending attacks atleast 3 days in advance. He is still guarding the international boundaries of the two countries.

2. During the customary flag meetings between the India and China, the Chinese army still sets a chair aside for Baba.

3. Baba Mandir today has three rooms, Baba’s office, store room and living room. In the living room every item of his need has been neatly kept. His bed, shoes, slippers, water bottle, ironed uniform, an umbrella – everything.

4. His room is cleaned every morning.

5. On some mornings, soldiers have found crumpled bedsheet and his muddy shoes in the room.

6. On a lot of occasions, soldiers have discovered that Baba still visits the camps and his post.

7. He still draws a Major’s salary every month.

8. He still gets 2 months of leave every year.

9. Every year on 11 September, his belongings are sent to his hometown. The train departs from New Jalpaiguri station, Siliguri, West Bengal.

10. A berth is reserved in his name and is left empty for the entire journey.

11. A team of soldiers accompanies him till his hometown.

12. The Army is on high alert when Baba is on leave.

 

Some soldiers never die .

Komaram Bheem

Komaram Bheem (Oct 22 1901 –19 October 1940) was a leader from the janjaatis who fought against the Asaf Jahi dynasty for the liberation of Hyderabad state. Komaram Bheem openly fought against the ruling Nizam government in a guerrilla campaign. He defied courts, laws, and any other form of Nizam authority, living off the sustenance of the forest. He took up arms against Nizam Nawab’s soldiers, and fought Babi Jhari until his last breath.

Bheem was born in a Gond family in Adilabad district. He gave the slogan of Jal, Jungle, Jameen , meaning Water, Forest and  Land . It means the people who live in forests should have the right on all the resources of the forest.

He was inspired by Alluri Sitaramaraju, and his heart was aflame when he heard about the death of Bhagat Singh. Realizing that the time was near to revolt against the Nizam Government’s wild official injustice, Komaram Bheem became a veritable deity, raging with the fire of revolt.

Talukdar Abdul Sattar failed to bring Bheem to kow-tow his line. Abdul Sattar, well equipped with ninety policemen armed with guns, attacked Bheem, who did not have any armour to protect himself. On that fateful full moon night, hundreds of followers of Bheem armed themselves with bows, arrows, swords and spears. The fearless Gonds launched a frontal assault, from just a dozen feet away from the Nizam’s police force, braved their guns, only to be riddled with bullets. That night, the moon burnt like a flaming sun.That night, the wild moonlight became a veritable stream of tears.That night, the martyr Komaram Bheem became deity and eternal hero to the Hindu community. Komaram Bheem is Trible leader who fought against the erstwhile Asaf Jahi Dynasty for the liberation of Hyderabad State at the Beginning of the 20 th century. In Telugu, he is known as Komaram Puli.

Philosophies of Gandhi and Deendayal

– Dr. Walter K. Anderson (American scholar, author of “Brotherhood in Saffron”).

After Mohandas Gandhi’s emergence as the major figure in India’s freedom movement in the 1920’s his life, thought and program became benchmarks against which other Indian political and social figures were compared. There has been a marked revival of interest in Gandhi since the electoral victory of the Janata Party, many of whose leaders trace the Party’s ideological roots to him.

Simultaneously, there has been a developing interest in the life of Deendayal Upadhyaya. Until recently, he was not widely known outside the confines of the Jan Sangh.

It was almost inevitable, both for intellectual and ideological reasons, that the two men would be compared. However, there are major difficulties in any effort to do so. The political environment in which they worked was different; their own social backgrounds were not the same; their most immediate political objectives were not the same. Perhaps, the most difficult problem is the lack of available material on Upadhyaya. Unlike Gandhi, who was among the most public of private men, Upadhyaya was a quiet man who preferred to operate out of the spotlight. The published compendium on his life and thought is still very thin. Research is now in progress in India to rectify the situation and the time may be near when we will get a more complete picture of his contribution to the social and political thought of India. Consequently, any attempt to compare Upadhayaya and Gandhi will have to be very preliminary and subject to much revision as more information comes to light. Those best qualified to speak on him are people who worked closely with Upadhayaya and hopefully they will contribute to the efforts of those who are collecting material on him.

Gandhi and Upadhayaya were primarily organisers and only secondarily interested in philosophic speculation. Indeed neither were intellectuals in the conventional sense of the term – that is erudite and sophisticated men with academic qualifications and long lists of books to their credit. Neither wrote systematic treaties on morals and politics, nor was either a philosopher, in the sense that they were not particularly interested in abstract theoretical formulations. Gandhi, for example, told a scholar researching the concept of *Satyagraha*: “but satyagraha is not a subject of research – you must experience it, use it, live by it” (Joan Bandurant, Conquest of Violence – Pg 146). I suspect similar anecdotes could be repeated of Upadhayaya.

Both men were charismatic figures, though Gandhi had the larger impact, in part because so many considered him a saintly figure, if not a saint. His asceticism convinced many that he was able to realize ideals which many held, but which few could realize. (See study in Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph, Modernity of Tradition, pt. 2). Gandhi transformed the Indian National Congress from a rather staid debating forum of the anglicized upper class into a rationalized organization that encompassed a wide range of activities that touched on the lives of the masses. His organizational skills, combined with his charismatic appeal as a Mahatma, transformed the Congress into the effective action arm of the independence movement.
Upadhayaya also possessed the characteristic of the saintly. He gave up the calling of a profession and a family to dedicate himself to the Motherland. His life was Spartan and his adherence to moral standards was of an unusually high order. These traits brought him the respect, if nor devotion, of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Swayamsevaks in the United Provinces where he served as a Pracharak (full time worker) from 1942-51, the latter few years as assistant state organizer of the RSS in the now-renamed Uttar Pradesh. He has a similar effect on the cadre of the Jan Sangh where he was one of the two All-India Secretaries after the formation of the party in 1951 and from 1952-67 the All-India Secretary, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, president of the newly founded party for a few years before his untimely death., commented that were he to have several more men like Upadhyaya he could transform India. Upadhyaya certainly transformed the Jan Sangh. He took over the management of the party at the death of Dr. Mukherjee in mid-1953 at a time when many questioned whether it could survive without a towering figure such as Mukherjee to lead it. There was strife in the small party over control of the executive and confusion over its program. He instilled discipline, broadened participation, recruited a dedicated cadre and shaped its program to espouse the interests of those with little money, power or status. While there were a few minor defections during his life, the Jan Sangh was the one major India party which suffered no significant fissure. That is a testimony to the cohesive organization that he mulled.

Yet, it must be recognized that he was never a mahatma, nor is there any indication that he aspired to such a status. Indeed, he even tried to avoid public attention. From both his writings and talking with people who knew him, I get the image of a man who felt uncomfortable in the limelight, who believed that the organization and its goals were incomparably more important than personal recognition.

So self-effacing was he that, for example, he often would not sign articles that he wrote for Panchajanya, a journal which he edited from Lucknow in the late 1940’s. Consistent with the RSS tradition from which he came, he viewed personal publicity as a detriment to the cause – and the cause was organizing Indians to overcome the internal divisions that, he felt, had historically exposed the country to outside subversion and that has undermined the willing ness to make the sacrifices necessary for economic and cultural revival.

Unlike Gandhi, Upadhyaya was not a religious man in conventional sense of the term. While he was stepped in the Hindu traditions, particularly Vedant, he was not a wordly sadhu and he was not moved to act by religious precepts. However, like Gandhi, he rejected post-Machiavellian trend of western thought that posited the separation of religious and political ideals. In their attempt to fuse the two concepts, Gandhi and Upadhyaya drew on the traditional Hindu concept of Karma Yoga, or spiritual realization through social work. Both accepted the traditional notion that Dharma (individual and social duty) is the legitimate guide for shaping Artha (interest) and Karma (pleasure).

Yet, their approach to the determination of dharma was quite different. Gandhi stressed the individual’s quest of satya (truth) to inform him of the ethical rules that govern man’s behavior. This approach stands out in his oft-quoted assertion that “I would reject all authority if it is in conflict with sober reason or the dictates of the heart. Authority sustains and ennobles the weak when it supplants reason (that is) sanctioned by the small voice within”. Gandhi’s focus on individual effort has led some to conclude that he was a moral anarchist, if not also a social anarchist. For example, he wrote in Young India (March 1931), “there is no freedom for India so long as one man, no matter how highly placed he may be, holds in the hollow of his hands the life, property and honor of millions of human beings. It is artificial, unnatural and uncivilized institution”. Gandhi of course, was not an anarchist in either sense, for he also accepted the Vedantist notion that there is an underlying truth potentially open to all. Moreover, he had a respect for traditional institutions such as the Panchayata and the varna system, both of which specified special social duties and responsibilities.

Upadhyaya on the other hand, emphasized the collective wisdom of the nation as the authoritative voice of Dharma. However, he was also apprehensive that the majority might not always properly understand the laws of Dharma. “But even the people are not sovereign because people too have no right to act against Dharma” (Integral Humanism, page -56). Furthermore, “the truth cannot be decided by the majority; what the government will do will be decided by Dharma (Ibid – page -58). He does not define who the legitimate interpreter of dharma is. It is not unreasonable to conclude from his writings that he thought democracy the system most likely to approximate dharma since it provides an opportunity to detached men dedicated to national well-being to shape and correct public opinion.
The centrality of the nation in his thought rests on notion that it has a soul (i.e, “chiti”), shaped by experiences within a given geographical space and motivated by an over-arching ideal ( Integral Humanism – page 36-37). In describing the nation, he often drew on the metaphor of an organism, in particular the human body, in which each part has its true reality only in the particular function it fulfills within the whole.

“A system based on the recognition of this mutually complementary nature of the different ideals of mankind, their essential harmony, a system which devises laws which removes the disharmony and enhances their mutual usefulness and cooperation, alone can being peace and happiness to mankind; can ensure steady development” (Integral Humanism – page 39). Indeed, it is this organic concept of the nation that, it his view, has been the ideal that kept alive the Indian nation through the vicissitudes of time. It is its unique contribution to political philosophy. His major philosophic argument against the ruling political elite of his time was his conviction that they advocated western notions of society and, in the process, undermined the integral unity that has sustained Bharatiya civilization.

He was far less committed to traditional institutions than Gandhi. His writings are sprinkled with attacks on the caste system, as practiced. In his view, all institutions are derivative and, when they cease to fulfill the integrating function, they should be revised or abandoned. It is not surprising that orthodox Hindus were among the major critics of the Jan Sangh.

Gandhi’s political object was Swaraj (self-rule). But he interpreted Swaraj as more than mere independence from the British; it carried the meaning of an all-embracing self-sufficiency down to the village level. Self-sufficiency translated into a concrete program of action that led him to espouse Swadeshi (self-reliance) and the central effort during the years of the nationalist struggle for Swaraj lay in the propagation of Khadi (hand-spun cloth). Swadeshi served not only an economic function in actual supply of cloth; it also carried significant ideological implications. It was the central piece of his elaborate constructive work program. It was the symbolic representative of his effort against centralized industry and urbanization which he thought degraded the worker. (These products of modernization were attacked vigorously in his tract – Hind Swaraj, written in 1909). His condemnation of western materialism led him inevitably to support the concept of self-governing village communities and a simple low-technology system of production.

Upadhyaya’s writings demonstrate a comparable outrage against the effects of westen models of development. In a series of lectures in Poona in 1964 on Integral Humanism, later adopted as the official ideological statement of the Jan Sangh, he lashed out at both Socialism and Capitalism. “Democracy and Capitalism join hands to give a free reign to exploitation. Socialism replaced Capitalism and brought with it an end to democracy and individual freedom” (Integral Humanism – page 10). In their place, he proposes a model that takes into consideration all aspects of the human condition, “body, mind, intelligence and soul – these four make up an individual”. (Ibid – page 24). In practical terms,, the notion translated into a decentralized economy and political system in which citizens have a meaningful voice in the production process and in their own governance. This populist conception assumes a leveling in both economic and political power. Marked differences in access to power or economic resources would undermine the harmony he believed to be the essential cement of the good society.

Upadhayaya was not, however, adverse to the selective adoption of science, technology or even urbanization. (Ibid –page 8). He thought that they should be adapted to local conditions to improve the economic well-being of the population. Societies must produce enough to feed, cloth, house, educate and employ those within it. To do less would result in misery and strife, thus disrupting the harmony necessary for well-being of the collective. At the same time, however, he felt that consumption should not degenerate into consumerism (Ibid – page 65). “From this point of view, it must be realized that the object of our economic system should be, not extravagant use of available resources, but a well regulated use. The physical objects necessary for a purposeful happy and progressive life must be obtained. The Almighty has provided as much. It will not be wise, however, to engage into a blind rat-race of consumption and production as if man is created for the sole purpose of consumption.”

Finally, both (Gandhi and Deendayal) were suspicious of political power and its corrupting effect on public figures. Neither held a political office and neither aspired to do so. (Upadhyaya once ran, unsuccessfully, for parliamentary, but I strongly suspect that he did so with no great enthusiasm). Gandhi a few months after India attained independence told his closest colleagues, “By adjuring power and by devoting ourselves to pure and selfless service of voters, we can guide and influence them. It would give us far more real power than we shall have by going into government… Today politics has become corrupt. Anybody who goes into it is contaminated. Let us keep out of it altogether. Our influence will grow thereby.” (D.G. Tendulkar, Mahatma, Volume-8-pages 278-80). His advise, of course, was rejected by most of his Congress colleagues. Ironically, Upadhyaya, the leader of a political party, would probably have subscribed to his view of politics. He wrote, “Today politics ceased to be a means. It has become an end in itself. We have today people who are engaged in power with a view to achieving certain social and national objectives” (Political Dairy – page 115). Nevertheless, he thought it important, if not crucial, for the detached man of good will to remain in the political arena to help shape public opinion in the path of “Truth” (or Dharma). Consequently, he placed great stress on recruiting to politics men of high moral rectitude.

Despite the many differences between the two men, both came to the conclusion that it is the quality of men in society who will ultimately determine the nature of the state. This is at variance with most contemporary western political though (both speculative and empirical) which argues that conflicting interests are the major forces that shape the state and its policies. Whatever the merits of Gandhi’s and Upadhyaya’s views on the issue, their intense interests in the types of people who worked around them were of fundamental importance in their successful organization-building efforts.

संत परम्परा में समरसता के वाहक श्री रामानुजाचार्य जी

ramanuja1

जीवन परिचय

  • तमिलनाडु के श्री पेरुम्बदूर कस्बे में विक्रम संवत 1074 को रामानुजाचार्य का जन्म हुआ।पिता जी केशवाचार्य व माता जी का नाम कान्तिमती थी। बचपन से ही रामानुजाचार्य की बुद्धि अत्यंत विलक्षण थी। 15 वर्ष की अवस्था में ही उन्होंने सभी शास्त्रों का गहन अध्ययन कर लिया था।
  • 16 वर्ष की आयु में इनका विवाह रक्षम्बाके साथ हुआ। 23 वर्ष की आयु में गृहस्थ आश्रम त्यागकर श्रीरंगम के यदिराज संन्यासी से संन्यास की दीक्षा ली।
  • श्री रामानुजाचार्य अपने काल के अत्यंत विद्वान, साहसी तथा सामाजिक दृष्टिकोण से उदार धार्मिक पथ प्रदर्शक थे।प्रख्यात लेखक हूपर ने भक्ति की चर्चा करते हुए कहा कि श्री रामानुजाचार्य के पूर्व आलवारों ने भक्ति की सुंदर भूमि तैयार की थी, जिस पर रामानुज ने भक्ति का प्रसार किया।

श्री रामानुजाचार्य और सामाजिक समरसता

  • श्री रामानुजाचार्य ने हिन्दू समाज के पिछड़े वर्ग की पीड़ा और उपेक्षा को ह्रदयसे अनुभव किया। उस समय की प्रचलित सामाजिक एवं धार्मिक अनुष्ठान पद्धतियों में यथा संभव सुधार तथा नयी अनुष्ठान पद्धतियों की सृष्टि उन सभी लोगों के लिए की जीने लिए उस काल में जरुरी थी
  • ब्राह्मण से लेकर चांडाल तक सभी जात-वर्गों के लिए सर्वोच्च आध्यत्मिक उपासना के द्वार, लोगों की आलोचना के बावजूद उन्होंने खोल दिए।इस कार्य के लिए उनको स्थान-स्थान पर भारी विरोध का सामना करना पड़ा, किन्तु न व डरे, न झिझके और न ही रुके
  • श्री रामानुजाचार्य, सामाजिक दृष्टि से वर्णव्यवस्था के अन्दर किसी भी प्रकार के भेदभाव को स्वीकार नहीं करते थे।उनके अनेक शिष्य निम्न कहि जाने वाली जातियों से थे। भगवान की रथयात्रा के अवसर पर तथाकथित निम्न जातियोँ वाले ही रथ पहले खींचते थे। वही परम्परा आज भी चली आ रही है।
  • उन्होंने वैष्णव धर्म के प्रचार के लिए पूरे देश का भ्रमण किया
  • उन्होंने शुद्र गुरुओं का शिष्यत्व स्वीकार किया तथा चांडाल के हाथ से भोजन करने में भी श्री रामानुजाचार्य ने कभी संकोच नही किया
  • श्री रामानुजाचार्य वृद्धावस्थामें स्नान करने को जाते समय दो ब्राह्मण के कन्धों पर हाथ रखकर जाते थे और जब स्नान कर वापस आते थे तब दो चर्मकारों के कन्धों का सहारा लेकर आते थे| लोगों ने जब इस पर आपत्ति की तो उन्होंने कहा – अरे ! मन की कलुषता को समाप्त करो’ उनका मानना था कि:

  

 न जाति: कारणं लोके गुणा: कल्याणहेतव :

अर्थात जाति नहीं, वरन गुण ही कल्याण का कारण है |

  • श्री रामानुजाचार्य ने श्री रंगपट्टम के उत्तर में मेलुकोट (दक्षिण बद्रिकाश्रम) नामक स्थान तिरूनारायण पेरूमाल वैष्णव मंदिर के द्वार पंचमों (शूद्रों से भी दूर कहे जाने वाले लोगों)के लिए खोल दिए थे। वे कहते हैं की क्षुद्र, निराश्रय मानव भी अपनी भक्ति, समर्पण तथा ज्ञान के सहारे ईश्वर को प्राप्त कर लेता है।
  • इस व्यापक भावना ने सामाजिक सद्भाव तथा सहिष्णुताको जन्म दिया और वर्ण, जाति के भेदभाव से दूर आदर्श समाज व्यवस्था निर्माण करने का प्रयास किए

श्री रामानुजाचार्य एवं एकता और अखंडता

  • उन्होंनेरामेश्वरम से लेकर बद्रीनाथ तक कि यात्रा की। आलवार भक्तों के तीर्थस्थानों की यात्रा व उत्तर भारत की यात्रा में काशी, अयोध्या, बद्रीनाथ, कश्मीर, जगन्नाथपुरी, द्वारिका आदि तीर्थस्थलों पर अपने आध्यात्मिक तथा सामाजिक विचारों को लेकर गए।
  • श्री रामानुजाचार्य ने लोकजागरण का आधार भक्ति को ही मान्य किया और भक्ति के प्रचार-प्रसार के लिए व्यापक प्रयास किया।ज्ञान और भक्ति की गंगा बहाते हुए हिन्दू संस्कृति का पुनरूत्थान तथा सामाजिक जागरण का महान कार्य किया

श्रीरामानुजाचार्य द्वारा रचित ग्रन्थ, भाष्य

  • मूल ग्रन्थ :ब्रह्मसूत्र पर भाष्य ‘श्रीभाष्य’ एवं ‘वेदार्थ संग्रह’।
  • गुरु की इच्छानुसार रामानुज ने उनसे तीन काम करने का संकल्प लिया था- ब्रह्मसूत्र, विष्णु सहस्रनाम और दिव्य प्रबंधनम की टीका लिखना।अपने शिष्य ‘कुरंत्तालवार’ को लेकर वे श्री नगर गए तथा वापस श्री रंगम आकर श्रीभाष्य लिखने लगे।
  • उन्होंने वेदांत दीप, वेदांत सार, वेदार्थ संग्रह, गीता भाष्य, नित्य ग्रन्थ तथा गद्य त्रयम (शरणागति गद्य, श्री रंगम गद्य, श्री बैकुंठ गद्य) की रचना की।
  • विशिष्टाद्वैत दर्शन: रामनुजाचार्य के दर्शन में सत्ता या परमसत् के सम्बन्ध में तीन स्तर माने गए हैं- ब्रह्म अर्थात ईश्वर, चित् अर्थात आत्म, तथा अचित अर्थात प्रकृति।
  • रामानुजजी के समय में वेद शास्त्र तथा अन्य धार्मिक ग्रन्थों का अध्ययन तथा अध्यापन सभी जाति-वर्णों के लोगों के लिए सुलभ हो गया था।
  • सामाजिक जागरण का महान कार्य करते हुए रामानुजाचार्य 120 वर्ष की आयु में ब्रह्मलीन हुए

 

 

జగద్గురు శ్రీ ఆదిశంకారాచార్య

adishankara1

శంకరం శంకరాచార్యo

కేశవం బాదరాయణo

నమామి భగవత్పాదం

శంకరం లోక శంకరం

శ్రీ ఆదిశంకరాచార్యుల వారు అద్వైత వేదాంతానికి ఆద్యులు. ఆయనను శ్రీ శంకర భగవత్పాదులు అని కూడా పిలుస్తారు. వారు సుమారుగా 2500 పూర్వం కేరళలోని కొచ్చి నగర సమీపంలోని కాలడిలో జన్మించారు. అయితే శృంగేరి మొదలైన మఠాల ఆధారాల ప్రకారం ఆయన 5-6 శతాబ్దంలో జీవించినట్లు ఆధారాలు ఉన్నాయి. 8వ శతాబ్ద కాలంలో 72కు పైగా వివిధ హిందూ మతశాఖలు విజృంభించి గందరగోళం సృష్టించాయి. సుభిక్షంగా ఉన్న భారతదేశాన్ని కొల్లగొట్టడానికి విదేశీయుల దాడులు ప్రారంభమైనాయి, విదేశీ మతాలు భారత దేశoలోకి చొచ్చుకు వస్తున్నాయి. ఈ కల్లోలానికి దుఃఖించి భూమాత మొరపెట్టుకుంటే, ఆ పరబ్రహ్మతత్త్వం, భారతాన్ని ఒక్కత్రాటి మీదకి తేవడానికి, ఆది శoకరులను భూలోకానికి పంపాడని పురాణాలు చెప్తున్నాయి.

adishankara2kaladi

కాలడి

అతి పిన్నవయసులోనే ఆది శంకరులు, వేదాలు, షట్సాస్త్రాలు, షడంగాలు, సమస్త విద్యలు ఔపాసన పట్టిన మహామేధావి. మానవజాతిని సమైక్యంగా ఒక మహాతత్వానికి ఒడంబడి ఉండేటట్లు ఏవిధంగా చేయాలో అతనికి తెలుసు.

శంకరుల తండ్రి శివగురు, తల్లి ఆర్యాంబ. ఎనిమిదేళ్ళ వయసులోనే తల్లిని ఒప్పించి, సన్యాసాశ్రమ స్వీకారానికి బయలుదేరాడు. గోవింద భగవత్పాదులవారు, తమ గురువు చెప్పిన గుర్తుల ప్రకారం అతనే శివస్వరూపుడైన ఆదిశంకరులని గ్రహించి తమ శిష్యుడిగా చేసుకున్నారు.

గ్రంథములు

గోవింద భగవత్పాదుల గురుత్వంలో శంకరాచార్యులు భగవద్గీతకు, 10 ముఖ్యమైన ఉపనిషత్తులకు ( బృహదారణ్యక, ఛoదోగ్య, ఐతరేయ, తైత్తిరీయ, కెనా, ఈశా, కఠ, ముండక, ప్రశ్న, మాండూక్య), బ్రహ్మ సూత్రములకు- మహా భాష్యములు రచించారు. వేదవ్యాసుని యోగసుత్రములకు, ఆపస్థంభ ధర్మసూత్రములకు వివరణలు రచించారు.   వీటన్నిoటినీ, ముఖ్యంగా బ్రహ్మసూత్రాలను క్రోడీకరించి `అద్వైత సిద్ధాంతాన్ని’ బోధించారు. భగవద్గీతకు వ్రాసిన భాష్యం అత్యద్భుతం. వ్యాస మహర్షి స్వయంగా శంకరుల వద్దకు ఆయనను పరీక్షిoచడానికి వచ్చి భాష్యాలు విని ముగ్దులయారని ప్రతీతి. ఇంకొక ముఖ్య వేదాంత గ్రంథం `ఉపదేశ సహస్రి’.

ఆది శంకరులు రచించిన ఎన్నో స్తోత్రములలో `భజగోవింద స్తోత్రం, దక్షిణామూర్తి  స్తోత్రం, శివానందలహరి స్తోత్రం, సౌందర్యలహరి స్తోత్రం, భవానీ స్తోత్రం, కనకధారా స్తోత్రం, విష్ణు సత్పది, కృష్ణాష్టక స్తోత్రం, ఆత్మ బోధ, తత్త్వ బోధ, నిర్వాణ శతకం’  మొదలైనవి ముఖ్యమైనవి. వందల సంవత్సారాలు గడిచినా భక్తులు ఈనాటికీ ఈ స్తోత్రాల పఠనం చేసుకుంటూనే ఉంటారు.

అద్వైతం

అద్వైతం అంటే అన్ని హిందూ శాఖలకి ఆది మూలం. ఒక వృక్షం ఉందంటే, భూమిలో ప్రముఖమైన వేరు, దానికి శాఖలైన చిన్న వేర్లు ఉంటాయి; అట్లాగే భూమి పైన పెద్ద మొదలు, దాని శాఖలు కొమ్మలు రెమ్మలుగా విస్తరించి ఉంటాయి. ఊడల మర్రిచెట్టు కొమ్మలనుంచి ఊడలు నేలలోపలకు విస్తరించి వేర్లుగా మారినట్లు, హిందూ మతం కూడా కొమ్మలనుంచి వేళ్ళూనినట్లు శాఖోపశాఖలుగా విస్తరించింది. ఎన్ని రూపాలున్నప్పటికీ, పరబ్రహ్మ స్వరూపం ఒక్కటే, అదే అద్వైత తత్త్వం. వర్షానికి వరుణుదు, వాయువు, అగ్ని, సూర్యచంద్రులు అందరూ వారి కర్తవ్యం నిర్వర్తిస్తున్నా, పంచభూతాలకి అధిపతి ఆ మహాశివుడే, అదే అద్వైతం, ద్వైత దృష్టి పరమేష్టికి లేదు.

శైవం, వైష్ణవం, శాక్తేయ తత్వాలన్నిటి గురించి ఆయన రచనలు చేసి అద్వైత వేదాంతాన్ని ఆవిష్కరించారు.  శాఖా భేదాలు పరిష్కరిస్తూ `స్మార్త’ సంప్రదాయానుసారం పంచాయతన’ పూజా విధానాన్ని నెలకొల్పి, గణపతి, సూర్య, విష్ణు, శివ, దేవీ మూర్తులను కొలుస్తూ, సకల దేవతలు ఒకే పరబ్రహ్మ స్వరూపమని విపులీకరించారు.

ఆ పిన్న వయసులోనే శిష్యులతో ఆసేతు హిమాచలం మూడు సార్లు కాలి నడకన ప్రయాణించారు. ప్రతి ముఖ్య స్థలంలో, అక్కడి హిందూ శాఖల అధిపతులతో చర్చించి అద్వైతాన్ని ప్రతిపాదించారు. గాణాపత్యులను,శైవులను, వైష్ణవులను, శాక్తేయులను, కాపాలికాది మతాచార్యులను అందరినీ ఒకే భగవంతుని నమ్మేటట్లు చేసి, వాదించి మెప్పించి అద్వైత తత్వాన్ని వ్యాప్తి చేసి, హిoదువులందరినీ ఐకమత్యంతో మెలిగేటట్లు చేసారు.  ఎందరో పండితులతో, ఇతర పీఠాలు, మఠాలతో వాదోపవాదాలు జరిపి  అద్వైత విజయకేతనం ఎగురవేశారు. వారిలో సాక్షాత్ బ్రాహ్మ, సరస్వతీ స్వరూపులైన మండన మిశ్రుడు, ఉభయభారతి ప్రముఖులు. ఆ వేదాంత తర్కానికి ఉభాయభారతి న్యాయనిర్ణేతగా ఉండాలని శంకరులే కోరారు. ఆ వాదనలో మండన మిశ్రులను ఓడించి, తన మొదటి మఠమైన శృంగేరి మఠానికి సురేశ్వరాచార్యులనే సన్యాస నామంతో ఆయనను మఠాదిపతులను చేసారు.

మఠాల స్థాపన

adishankara3sringeri

శృంగేరి శారదా పీఠం

ఒక్కొక్క వేదానికి ఒక్కొక్క మఠం చొప్పున భారతదేశానికి నాలుగు దిక్కులా నాలుగు మఠాలు నిర్మించి, తమ నలుగురు ముఖ్య శిష్యులను వాటికి పీఠాధిపతులుగా నియమించారు. ఋగ్వేదానికి తూర్పున పూరి క్షేత్రంలోని గోవర్ధన మఠానికి (`ప్రజ్ఞానo బ్రాహ్మ’ మహావాక్యం) శ్రీ పద్మపాదుల వారిని; యజుర్వేదానికి దాక్షిణాన శృంగేరి క్షేత్రంలోని శారదా పీఠానికి (`అహం బ్రహ్మాస్మి’ మహావాక్యం) శ్రీ సురేశ్వరాచార్యుడిని; సామవేదానికి పశ్చిమాన ద్వారకా క్షేత్ర పీఠానికి (`తత్త్వమసి’ మహావాక్యం) శ్రీ హస్తమలకాచార్యుడిని;  అధర్వ వేదానికి ఉత్తరాన బదరీనాథ క్షేత్రంలోని జ్యోతిర్మఠానికి (`అయమాత్మా బ్రహ్మ’ మహావాక్యం) శ్రీ తోటకాచార్యులను నియుక్తులను చేసారు. ఈ విధంగా మఠాలు స్థాపించి ఆది శంకరులు తాము  స్వయంగా కాంచీపురంలో నివాసమున్నారు.

అతి చిన్నవయసులో, తమ 32వ సంవత్సరoలో కైలాస గమనం తరువాత శ్రీ ఆది శంకరాచార్యులవారు తమ శిష్యులకి కనపడలేదు. పరమశివ స్వరూపులైన శంకరులు పరమేశ్వరునిలో కలిసిపోయారు. సద్గురువుల ఉపదేశానుసారం తమ ఉన్నతికి ప్రయత్నించడం ప్రజల కర్తవ్యం.

శంకరస్య చరితా గానం / చంద్రశేఖర గుణానుకీర్తనం //

నీలకం తవ పాద సేవనం / సంభవంతు మమ జన్మజన్మని //     

–  పి. విశాలాక్షి