rajeev@sfsup.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/13/86)
Adi Shankaracharya [Sanskrit] 1983 GV Iyer. At the Museum of Modern Arts and 11 other locations: part of the Film Program connected with the Festival of India. "Adi Sankara" is a difficult movie for me to review objectively, given the subject matter, the life of the greatest philosopher in Hinduism for over two thousand years. Anyway, first of all, one has to admire Iyer's audacity in making a movie in Sanksrit, arguably the most difficult language around, and one with such connotations for Indians. Chronicling Sankara's life is not the easiest task either, considering that his life was short and his message extremely complex and esoteric and not really amenable to visuals. What Iyer has tried to do is to produce the story of Sankara's travels leavened with a bit of his teachings. I would have liked to learn more about Advaita (Non-Dualism) and Vedanta and perhaps about the various philosophic debates that Sankara triumphed in. What Iyer has succeeded in is recreating 8th century India in a generally believable manner and in giving us an experiential view, a general immersion into the world of the Acharya without too many details. I thought the best part of the film was the magnificient soundtrack, filled with the sonorous chanting of mantras. The crisp Sanskrit dialogue was exciting, though it was also tantalizing, because most Indians I suppose can understand the occasional word here and there, but are lost without the subtitles. (I also liked what might be called the "chorus mantra": "Akasham patitam thoyam "Water falling from the skies Sagaram prati gacchati..." Flows towards the sea..." which I guess illustrates Sankara's basic monist idea of the identity of the self with the Brahman, the Ultimate, That.) While the film is visually not as impressive as it is to listen to, and somewhat long (130 minutes), I found it very interesting. The story of Sankara is of considerable interest to most Hindus, I imagine, because his impact on orthodox Hinduism was immeasurable. His concept of Advaita revitalized a Brahmanical tradition that was seriously in decay and defensive in the face of such unorthodox faiths as Jainism, Buddhism and Tantrism. Although it was really the intense personal identification with an accessible God (the Bhakti movement) that finally led to the comeback of Hinduism in India, Sankara's ideas, while appealing to an elite few, helped Hinduism regain the philosophical high ground that it had gradually lost. The movie starts off with some spectacular vistas of dawn at Kaladi in Kerala, the birthplace of the Acharya, to the chant of the Gayatri mantra (the Invocation Hymn) by the Brahmins on the bathing ghats. He grows up in the strict traditional household of his father, who dies when Sankara is quite young. He attends a gurukula, where he lives in the guru's household. He enjoys the usual pleasures of childhood, including the village theatre (incidentally, that was Koodiyattam, not Kathakali) where he watches the story of Nachiketa, the boy who, when given a boon by Yama, the God of Death, insists on knowing the answer to the questions of life and death. Sankara is preoccupied by the meaning of death; he decides to become an ascetic and to seek wisdom from the great monks. He travels all over India until he reaches the hermitage of the sage Govinda on the banks of the Narmada river. There, symbolically, the master entrusts him with the restoration and interpretation of the great Vedic and Upanishadic writings, which had long been neglected. Sankara proves more than equal to the task; soon he formulates his Advaita ideas; he also becomes an accomplished poet. His "Bhajagovindam" (Hymn to the Lord) with its clear and simple lyrics, still resounds in Hindu homes. He travels, engaging in philosophical debate with adherents of the various schools of thought that held sway: Nyaya, Purva Mimamsa, ... None is able to hold their own against him; by the sheer force of his logic and rhetoric, he is able to convince people of his ideas of the illusion of the material world; and how reality becomes visible only at the moment that one merges with the transcendent One, the Truth, the Brahman. He establishes monasteries at the four corners of India to spread his ideas. His ideas take firm root and have been a cornerstone of Hindu philosophy ever since. At the age of 32, in the Himalayas, Sankara passes on to Nirvana: he vanishes one day, alone, into the mountain heights. I have a few quibbles about the film; one was the decision to personify Death and Wisdom as two boys (and later, men) to show that these were Sankara's constant companions. I thought this was, cinematically speaking, not a very good idea. Another complaint was the glorification of Brahmins: while they are shown as generally good, noble people, all the others a) speak the inelegant vernaculars instead of the graceful Sanksrit, b) appear as coarse, ill-groomed peasants. This depiction of Brahmins as a class apart is ironic considering Sankara's non-dualist theme and also the incident where he meets an untouchable. (The untouchable wants to know which part of him is polluted, his body or his Atman, the inner self. Sankara realizes that he had erred in accepting the orthodox caste structure, which he now sees as unjustifiable.) The final quibble is a long, unnecessary scene, where Sankara and his disciples all pay tribute to a woman, for what appears to be no more than the fact that she had just cooked them a good meal. I feel that this scene was tacked on as an afterthought to show Sankara's deep affection for his mother; for, he hurries across hundreds of miles to her bedside when he knows she is dying. Apart from these minor problems, I feel 'Adi Sankara' is a good movie for all those want to learn more about Hinduism.
mvramakrishn@watdaisy.UUCP (Rama) (03/14/86)
> Adi Shankaracharya [Sanskrit] 1983 GV Iyer. At the Museum of Modern Arts > and 11 other locations: part of the Film Program connected with the > Festival of India. > ... > which I guess illustrates Sankara's basic monist idea of the identity of > the self with the Brahman, the Ultimate, That.) While the film is > visually not as impressive as it is to listen to, and somewhat long > (130 minutes), I found it very interesting. > ... > imagine, because his impact on orthodox Hinduism was immeasurable. His > concept of Advaita revitalized a Brahmanical tradition that was > seriously in decay and defensive in the face of such unorthodox faiths > as Jainism, Buddhism and Tantrism. Although it was really the intense > personal identification with an accessible God (the Bhakti movement) > that finally led to the comeback of Hinduism in India, Sankara's ideas, > while appealing to an elite few, helped Hinduism regain the > philosophical high ground that it had gradually lost. > ... > interpretation of the great Vedic and Upanishadic writings, which had > long been neglected. Sankara proves more than equal to the task; soon > he formulates his Advaita ideas; he also becomes an accomplished > poet. His "Bhajagovindam" (Hymn to the Lord) with its clear and simple > lyrics, still resounds in Hindu homes. He travels, engaging in > ... > how reality becomes visible only at the moment that one merges with > the transcendent One, the Truth, the Brahman. He establishes monasteries > at the four corners of India to spread his ideas. His ideas take firm > root and have been a cornerstone of Hindu philosophy ever since. > ... ---------------------------------------- First of all I wish to thank the author for a nice review. I have a question, Was Shankara the originator of Advaita ? If so, How do you account for Vishwa roopa darshana in Bhagavad gita? (Krishna shows to Arjuna that, He is the unification of every soul in the universe ...) I have also read advaita phylosophy of Shivarama Dixit(well a little bit). Could some body enlighten me about the period he lived. How about the writings of Yogi Vemana of Andhra. His writings also have the advaita ideas. I have no doubt that Shankara was responsible for revitalising Hinduism, but I think he only propagated the right ideas from vedas/upanishads. > Brahmins as a class apart is ironic considering Sankara's non-dualist > theme and also the incident where he meets an untouchable. (The > untouchable wants to know which part of him is polluted, his body or his > Atman, the inner self. Sankara realizes that he had erred in accepting > the orthodox caste structure, which he now sees as unjustifiable.) The Many great people wanted to eradicate this problem, but finally ended up in creating yet another caste/religion. ( An example is Basavanna in karnataka, the new religion being Veerashaiva). ------------- Ramakrishna, M.V. mvramakrishn@waterloo.csnet watmath!watdaisy!mvramakrishn
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/18/86)
Thanks to Rajiv for his review of this unusual film. I was aware of the film and that it received the President's award a couple of years ago, and so it was good to see the review. I also seem to recall that Iyer, the film maker, is a committed Gandhian. A couple of points raised about the film are interesting: > Another complaint was the glorification >of Brahmins: while they are shown as generally good, noble people, all >the others a) speak the inelegant vernaculars instead of the graceful >Sanksrit, b) appear as coarse, ill-groomed peasants. This depiction of >Brahmins as a class apart is ironic considering Sankara's non-dualist >theme and also the incident where he meets an untouchable. I have not seen the film; but I must agree that I too would find a depiction of Brahmins as a class apart offensive to my own modern-day sensibilities. However, the film is set in 8th century India: a period when acceptance of the caste system was arguably at its heighest. Not only did Brahmins enjoy an exhalted social status, but other castes were certainly denied access both to knowledge and to any possibility of acquiring the sort of sophistication that comes with knowledge and awareness. In this sense, it may be unfair to find fault with Iyer; the fault probably lies with the social context of 8th century India. One has to be careful not to judge it by our present-day sensibilities. Incidentally, the vernaculars have always been regarded as inelegant in the sense that seems to have come through in the film. The word "sankritam" (which was the language of the elite), literally means "cultured", as compared with the more popular vernaculars that were "prakrit" meaning "natural". In Kalidasa's "Shakuntalam", for example, Shakuntala, Dushyanta, and the Rishis converse in Sanskrit while Shakuntala's friends and Dushyanta's soldiers converse in the vernacular. This value may arise from the fact that Sanskrit by this time was no longer the language of the masses; its grammar had been rigidly codified and to speak it well required a mastery of its grammar as Panini had set it forth. That was impossible without an extensive education. Education automatically conferred status in the Indian tradition. >final quibble is a long, unnecessary scene, where Sankara and his >disciples all pay tribute to a woman, for what appears to be no more >than the fact that she had just cooked them a good meal. I feel that >this scene was tacked on as an afterthought to show Sankara's deep >affection for his mother; for, he hurries across hundreds of miles to >her bedside when he knows she is dying. This scene appears to be a depiction of the legend of the goddess Annapoorna feeding Sankaracharya (and his followers). Annapoorna is the aspect of Parvati as the provider; legend has it that she manifested herself out of regard for Sankaracharya's knowledge and devotion, and fed Sankaracharya with her own hands (at Kashi, I think the legend says). There is a composition by Sankaracharya called the "Annapoornashtakam" ("eight hymns to Annapoorna") which is said to have been composed in connection with the episode. The interpretation of the scene as having connections to his own mother may not be off either, by the way. As an ascetic, Sankaracharya is required to renounce all worldly attachments, including his own family. In the Annapoornashtakam, he refers to Shiva as his father, Annapoorna as mother, fellow devotees as family, and the three worlds as his own native land. That the mother-connection may be strong is evidenced by another legend: When his mother dies, orthodox Brahmins refuse to participate in her creamtion since technically she died sonless (Sankara is an ascetic and has no ties to his mother), Sankaracharya thereby having no right to perform her last rites. Sankaracharya defies this tradition and cremates her himself, and in his own backyard. I understand that this is still the tradition among some very orthodox Namboodiri families in Kerala.
rajeev@sfsup.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/23/86)
In response to crystal!ravi: > >Sanksrit, b) appear as coarse, ill-groomed peasants. This depiction of > >Brahmins as a class apart is ironic considering Sankara's non-dualist > >theme and also the incident where he meets an untouchable. > > However, the film is set in 8th century India: a period when acceptance of > the caste system was arguably at its heighest. Not only did Brahmins > enjoy an exhalted social status, but other castes were certainly denied > access both to knowledge and to any possibility of acquiring the sort of > sophistication that comes with knowledge and awareness. In this sense, > it may be unfair to find fault with Iyer; the fault probably lies with > the social context of 8th century India. One has to be careful not to > judge it by our present-day sensibilities. > You have a good point there. But what irritated me was that it also appeared blatantly racist: all the brahmins were light-skinned, fine-featured, clean-cut, "Aryan" people, while the others were usually dark-skinned and aboriginal-looking, in addition to being ill-groomed! > >final quibble is a long, unnecessary scene, where Sankara and his > >disciples all pay tribute to a woman, for what appears to be no more > >than the fact that she had just cooked them a good meal. I feel that > > This scene appears to be a depiction of the legend of the goddess > Annapoorna feeding Sankaracharya (and his followers). Annapoorna is the > aspect of Parvati as the provider; legend has it that she manifested herself > out of regard for Sankaracharya's knowledge and devotion, and fed > Sankaracharya with her own hands (at Kashi, I think the legend says). > There is a composition by Sankaracharya called the "Annapoornashtakam" > ("eight hymns to Annapoorna") which is said to have been composed in > connection with the episode. > I had been unaware of this legend; in the film, if I am not mistaken, the scene is as follows: Sankara defeats a Varanasi philosopher in debate; he and his wife join Sankara's entourage: he becomes one of Sankara's principal disciples (I have forgotten his name). It is his wife who receives homage from them all. > land. That the mother-connection may be strong is evidenced by another > legend: When his mother dies, orthodox Brahmins refuse to participate in > her creamtion since technically she died sonless (Sankara is an ascetic and > has no ties to his mother), Sankaracharya thereby having no right to > perform her last rites. Sankaracharya defies this tradition and cremates > her himself, and in his own backyard. This is in the film; Sankara is excommunicated for his defiance. > I understand that this is still the > tradition among some very orthodox Namboodiri families in Kerala. Non-Namboodiris also do this in Kerala: people are often cremated in their backyards and their children light the funeral pyres, usually under the supervision of a priest (not necessarily a brahmin). Sri Rajeev.
ravi@crystal.UUCP (03/30/86)
> > sophistication that comes with knowledge and awareness. In this sense, > > it may be unfair to find fault with Iyer; the fault probably lies with > > the social context of 8th century India. One has to be careful not to > > judge it by our present-day sensibilities. > > > > S. Rajeev: > > But what irritated me was that it also > appeared blatantly racist: all the brahmins were light-skinned, > fine-featured, clean-cut, "Aryan" people, while the others were usually > dark-skinned and aboriginal-looking, in addition to being ill-groomed! I would agree that such a depiction is quite racist. This really makes me wonder: The idea that fair-skin means "superior" does not appear to have been part of the Indian attitudes till quite recently. I wonder if there are any Indian works (before the influence of the western philologists planted the seed of the "aryan" hypothesis in the Indian mind) where this attitude is clearly manifest. The word "arya" is used in early Indian works independently of skin-colour. Not only was Krishna dark-skinned, but so were many rishis and others held in high-esteem. Ironically, it may well have been Sankaracharya himself was quite dark-skinned since he was born in Kerala! There could also never have been any bias that Brahmins, as a class, were fairer than the others: The (presumably darker) Brahmins from the south have had a primary and formative influence on the growth and development of Hindu thought. What seems beyond doubt is that the idea that fair-skin meant a different RACE is a recent import from western thought. I am not sure if there is any reason at all to believe that the value that seems to have come through in the film ("fair" => "superior") is not purely western. The traditional Indian attitude seems to have simply been "upper-caste" => "superior". I would be very interested in hearing what others may have to say on this issue. -- ARPA : ravi@crys.wisc.edu CSNET : ravi@wisconsin BITNET: ravi@wiscvm.bitnet UUCP : ...!{allegra,harvard,ihnp4,seismo,topaz}!uwvax!ravi