If one were to go through the history of the Sankaradeva
Movement—which, of course, includes naturally, the writings of Sankaradeva
himself—carefully along with a basic understanding of the philosophy of the
Indic tradition, then one, perhaps, would not fail to notice the development of
some forms of alliance between (apparently) disparate ideologies.
There is a reference in the caritas to a certain
mendicant—a baudha—who used to identify himself with Narayana. If one
correctly recalls, this mendicant would sit cross-legged and with eyes
half-closed and, when questioned by people, would reply with ‘now, I am
Narayana’.
Developments such as this peculiar alliance forged
between Buddhism and non-dualism are indeed a striking characteristic of the
religious life of this period. As competent scholars have observed, there
seemed to have emerged in the Assam of the medieval time a great and
bewildering variety of such unusual alliances. But scholars, although they have
discussed at great length the strong tie existing between the sakta and
the (pseudo) Buddhist lines of thought, do not seem to have devoted much time
to the ways in which the non-dualism of Sankaracarya was transmogrified, again,
perhaps, owing to saktic influence.
There are not many writings on this topic and whatever we
hypothesize at present is merely the outcome of a simple observation that it is
nothing else but maya that is portrayed as the goddess (devi)
Durga in the puranic tradition.
Now, as everybody knows, in the vocabulary of the
Sankarite philosophy of non-dualism also, maya occupies a very important
position although, here, there is no puranic representation or
anthropomorphization (personification). Isvara (God) or more properly speaking,
Brahman, is supreme in kevala-advaita philosophy but, still, one of its
chief failures, it may be argued, is its inability to account for how the
supremely conscious Brahman, can possibly fall into nescience and become
subject to suffering. In the absence of any real difference between the jiva
and Brahman, how is it that the same Brahman can be eternally free and in
the shackles of maya at the same time? These questions perhaps led some
persons to argue for the superiority of maya over Isvara. Otherwise, the
jiva, verily Isvara (Brahman), could never come under the influence of maya.
Interestingly, such a supposition finds perfect meeting ground with the sakta
theory which also has the goddess (maya personified) exercising her sway
on Isvara as its postulate. And here we find a bond ready to be forged between
these two apparently disparate philosophies which must have been another queer
alliance that the Sankaradeva Movement had to encounter during its early,
formative period.
[This writer had actually come across an article in which
this particular affinity was discussed. The observations in that article too
have exercised some impact on this author. If that article can now be retrieved,
the author plans to reproduce the relevant portions here.]
