Digest Number 1191

[Guest guest]

 

Sub: My answer for the querries.

 

AdaranEya AthmabAndhavAh,

 

“Ksanthavyoham aparAdha sahasrakaih”

“NAsadAsEnno sadAseet”. (There was no ‘asat’ nor there was

‘sat’ at that time)

If you believe Siva was existing even at that time, he must

be existing as a nonexisting one only. Uttara kaulas do not accept the

existence of Siva at all. Of course we may not agree to this theory, but

SankarAchArya says,

“ThwayA hrithwA vAmam vapu raparitripthena manasA

sarErArdham sambho raparamapi sanke hritham abhooth”

Then where is Siva now? The whole of the Siva was occupied by the Sakthi only.

“Yah Sivo nAma roopAbhyAm, yA dEvee Sarvamangala”

If you utter the name as ‘Siva’, it becomes sarvamangalA only. Siva is a

nameless and formless one. He is not at all accessible either to the

eyes,tongue or mind. He is nishkriyah just like a sthAnu. He is just a Suddha,

buddha, satya, muktha avathAram. He does not do any thing at all.

It is just like a bulb alternately glowing and

extinguishing. We can recognize that a bulb is there, even when it is

extinguished, on the basis of our memory, which is called ‘Pratha’, the

recognizing power to know a thing based on the past events. Only by this

pratha, we confirm that Siva is existent.

More over, Shakthi is not a modification of Siva. She is

‘Siva para’, She has got another name as ‘Swathantra’. She is quite

independent. This shakthi which appears to be a subordinate of Siva. But

actually, she is taking Siva into her control always; that is why she is called

“Swathanthra”.

“Athma agnAnam thad avyaktham avyAkritham itheeryathei

na san naasan na sad asad bhinnad bhinnam na chobhayam||’

She is neither existent nor nonexistent; not nonexistent while being existent.

She is not at a distance from Siva, nor is remaining mixed with Siva, nor being

in both kinds. She is avyaktha and avyAkritha from where all the phenomena of

the material worlds are created, nourished and subsided. She is also ‘anAdhi’

and ‘anantha’ just the same as Siva himself.

Just as the Sun is perceptible in the form of the light

and heat, Siva also is exhibiting himself in the form of chitchakthi. She is his

beloved spouse. He has willfully accepted all the actions of chitchakti either

to be veiled by her or even to be polluted and fallen down for her. Let us take

it that Siva himself gave a power of attorney, accepting for any thing to do or

undo on his behalf. He doesn’t mind whether she makes him very rich ‘Ishwara’

or a ‘KapAlin bhikshu’.

If all the thathwAs are dependent upon its previous

thathwa e.g., the Prithwee thathwa depends on Ap thathwa, the water depends on

fire, the fire depends on air and air upon the sky. In the same way, Ishwara

depends upon SadAsiva, he on Shakthi and she on Siva. But Siva has no rescue to

depend upon any thing. That is why he is called “NirAshraya Siva”. He had to

depend upon his own Shakthi only.

Neither the Jeeva nor the Sakthi are the modifications of

Siva. If you accept that Jeeva himself is (deluded) Siva, no point of

extensions or modifications arise at all.

The Sun and clouds example does not suit in this context,

because both of these things are the manifestations of Sakthi or MAyA only. If

the clouds pass away and the Sun is extinguished, what you can see? Except the

vacant darkness every where?

It is only a children`s easy to teach version that

“Mother kundalini is longing to be united with the supreme Siva”. If that

serpent is so much longing, why should it come back down again after once

reaching the sahasrAra dala padma?

Metaphorically, let us interpret the same in another way. Lord Garuda AlwAr,

who is the embodiment of VedAs i.e., suddha gnAna sakthi is trying to carry

upwards the peethAmbara bAla brahma (Vishnu), who is lying on a peepal leaf in

the EkArnava mooladhAra chakra, to his real abode Goloka in the sahasrAra padma.

Siva has never set any stage or ever withdrawn from it.

He is not at all bored. He is just witnessing while everything is being done by

chitchakthi.

. “As my spiritual mentor would say: Shiva is Sakthi at

rest; Sakthi is Shiva in motion.” is not a correct statement, even though they

are not different from one another, we can not say both of them are one and the

same. Let us view the same with another example.

It is just like a point in a wheel. If you put a point

at the top circumference of a wheel and start rotating, the point goes downwards

to some extent as avarOhana, and then goes upwards which is called ArOhana.

This ArOhana and avarOhana are created by the same point in the wheel rotating

in the same direction. (For example we can call the ArOhana as Siva and

avarOhana as sakthi). Siva is always taking rest and sakthi never rests. Any

way, ArOhana is ArOhana and avarOhana is avarOhana. We can not equalize both

and say both are one and the same.

If ever any one says “Siva wished”, it is not fully correct, because Siva has

nothing to wish to be fulfilled. All this karma is the wish of his sakthi

(icchA sakthi and the kriya sakthi) only.

“PrakAsa” and “Vimarsa” are two words framed purely on

technical grounds. I am not going to dispute on this point, which has to be

clarified only by an experienced Guru, that too in camera only.

“PrakAsa” means bright, shining, brilliant, visible, manifest, perspicuous etc.,

but how can any one attribute these all for one who is invisible, formless,

imperceptible even to any of the senses or mind? How can the crystal like

“NirAkAra Siva” can be recognized without having a dark coloured velvet behind?

Is it possible to recognize a person without giving any description (Vimarsa) of

his name, stature, and other details?

The word “PrakAsamsa” can be used only for the person who is closely visible to

you, perceptible to you, your senses and mind, who is shining brilliantly

manifesting every thing of him for you. Could you understand it sir? Please

keep it in your mind. Don’t expose it out.

 

Haardhika subha maitree bhAvanA sahit,

 

sriparasukhanandanadha

 

 

 

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 wrote :

>Message: 3

> Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:17:55 -0000

> "Kothandaraman Ganesh" <kothganesh

>Re: L.S.4

>

>Dear Sir:

>

>I read with great interest your exposition on LS4. I was struck by a

>couple of your observations on the Prakasha that is Shiva and would

>like your explanation.