bhishma-stuthi-11

[Guest guest]

srimathE lakshmi-nrsumha parabrahmaNE namaha

sri vedanta guravE namaha

 

Dear "bhAgavatOttamA-s",

 

In the last post, we analysed the first principal message (A) about

'avatara-rahasya' contained in the Lord's pronouncement in the 'Gita' verse

Ch.IV.5 which we translated as follows :

 

" Many births have both you and I undergone, O Arjuna. I can remember mine

and yours --- every single one of them. But you, my valiant one, can and

will recollect none !"

 

The second salient feature of His "avatAra-s" the Lord implied in the above

verse has been pointed out to us by "pUrvAchAryA-s" and it is as follows :

 

(B) Krishna proclaims that while He can precisely remember and foretell

every single one of His own 'past' and 'future' "appearances", the same

'gnyAnam' or "knowledge" is simply beyond the reach or capacity of mere

mortals like Arjuna or ourselves.

 

This statement of the Lord is a reminder to us of the nature of

"para-brahmham" being different from that of "jivA" ---- the same difference

which, we saw earlier, Lord Varadaraja of Kanchi indicated Himself to

Sri.Tirukachi-Nambi in the terse statement of an Article of SriRamAnujA

Faith ("siddhAntham") :

 

"darshanam-bhEdamEvacha"

 

The point to be appreciated here is that "para-brahmham" is "sarvagnyan" ---

"All-Knowing and Self-Illumined". The "jIva", on the other hand, is

"a-gnyan" -- Ignorant and "one who is in dire need of the Grace of

illumination".

 

The Supreme One is "Knowledge itself" and there is nothing that remains to

be "known" by Him. Without Him nothing in the World of Creation stands

"known" or "apprehended"; only dark Ignorance ("a-vidyA") and Un-Wisdom

("a-vivEkam") prevail.

 

In His Presence, on the other hand, everthing extant stands "revealed".

 

What must further be noted here, most importantly, is that "para-brahmham"

by Himself does not need any part of the "knowledge" He bestows ! That is

why He is said to be "different" -- in the sense of "darshanam-bhEdamEvacha" !

 

"pUrvAchAryA-s" illustrate this esoteric aspect of the Lord's "avatarA" by

using the example of a candle-lamp.

 

A room enveloped in darkness requires a candle to be lit in order to have

its interior illumined. Now, when the candle is lit, "illumination arrives"

by itself --- we use the phrase "switched-on" ! However, the candle-flame

itself does not require any illumination, does it ?! No, indeed, and that's

because, as we know, the candle-flame is "self-luminous" in nature : while

it "illumines" its surroundings it is really in no need of "illumining

itself" !! By its own intrinsic nature, IT IS ILLUMINATION itself ! If it

did not "illumine" it would not fit the definition of a candle-flame, would it ?

 

Now, in ancient days, it is said a certain "tArkika-n", a dialectician, in

the course of a debate on the question of the Lord being fully

"knowledgeable" of past and future "births", once cavilled at the statement

that "para-brahmham" is "sarvagnyan" -- the All-Knowing One.

 

He posed a tricky question countering that statement from the 'Gita' and it

is worthwhile pausing a bit to study it in earnest. It might help us all in

clarifying some of the doubts we might silently entertain but are afraid to

air openly.

 

The "tArkika-n" raised a very valid question :

 

If you say Bhagavan is "sarvagnyan" --- He who "Knows" everything and

illumines everything -- then surely He must "know", too, His own Death !!

 

We as mortals are called "agnyAni-s" because we lack the "knowledge" or the

"experience" related to our own respective deaths.(We can only "know" the

death of persons other than ourselves as when we watch them "dying"). But

Bhagavan, who is supposed to be "sarvagnyan", surely ought to "know" or be

able to "experience" His Own Death, isn't it ?!!

 

But if "sarvagnyan" did admit of "knowledge" of Death, then would He not be

trapped into an admission of His mortality ?

 

The "tArkika-n", thus, cleverly sought to undermine the logical validity of

the Upanishadic statement on the nature of "para-brahmham" : "satyam gnyAnam

anantham brahmha".

 

If "brahmham" is said to be "sarvagnyAn", the dialectician argued, then He

ought to certainly "know" Death. If He "knew" Death, then, He could not be

said to be "anantham" i.e. eternal !

 

On the other hand, if He was truly "anantham", or Deathless, then 'brahmham'

could never be "sarva-gnynan" because, then, He would never be in possession

of the "knowledge" of Death !

 

Now, As per the rules of dialectics ("tarka-sAstra"), our "AchAryA-s" say,

the above argument seems faultless !

 

But if you look closely at the argument a fallacy in its logic will emerge.

It is as below :

 

Consider a statement such as : "I know" a thing ; or even, "I don't know" a

thing.

 

In both the cases, the statement pre-supposes a thing in existence, isn't it ?

One cannot "know" or "be ignorant" of a thing that does not pre-exist.

 

"Knowledge" or "Lack of knowledge" both ALWAYS relate to a thing "in existence".

"Knowledge" or "Lack of Knowledge" can never relate to a thing "in non-

existence" or to a "thing" which owes its "existence" only to a pure figment

of cerebral projection such as the Tamilian fantasy called "AhgAya-pandal"

("a pavilion in the clouds") or "sakkarai sottum thEn-mazhai" ("sugary

downpour of honey")!

 

The Lord in the 'Gita' proclaims His 'sarvagnyatvam' of His past, present

and future "births" on the ground that He is "ajOpi sann-avya-yAtmA" i.e. He

is Un-born. We also saw that the "rk" in the "purusha-suktam" uses the

phrase "ajAya-mAna-ha" to categorically state that He is "un-born".

 

In fact if one looks closely, neither in the "sruti" nor in the Gita is the

Lord referred to as the "deathless One" ! He is always referred to only as

the "birthless One" or the "unborn One" !

 

Now, if the Lord is "un-born", as per the above "pramaN-ic" sources, then it

is easy to conclude that His "death" is "non-existent" ! For, how can That

which is "un-born" ever experience Death ? Death cannot "exist" for such an

Un-born Being, can it ?!

 

It is therefore proved, Q E D, that in the case of "para-brahmham" which is

"un-born", there is no question of Death at all. And since "gnyAnam"

(knowledge) can only relate to a thing that "exists", the question of the

Lord's "knowledge" of "non-pre-existent" Death does not arise at all !

 

Hence, there is nothing in the "tArkikan's" argument to invalidate the

Vedantic statement: "satyam gnyAnam anantham brahmha" !

 

Our "AchAryA-s" explain astutely, thus, that the "All-embracing knowledge"

or "sarvagnya-tvam" the Lord possesses is attributive only of "All Which

Truly

---------------

Exists" !!

-------

 

That is why the Upanishad describes "para-brahmham" as not only "gnyAnam"

(Self-luminous illumination) but also as "satyam" (all that which truly exists)!

 

We cannot trifle, therefore, with "Supreme Knowledge" ("sarvagnyatvam") by

seeking to measure or "bench-mark" its essential nature against the

yardsticks of mere logical categories or dialectical discourse.

 

********************************************************

 

We will examine the other 4 aspects of the Lord's "avatara-rahasya" echoed

in the BhismAchArya-r's immortal phrase, "yat-Bhava-pravAha-ha", in the next

post.

 

 

srimathe srivan satagopa sri narayana yathindra mahadesikaya namaha

sudarshan