A Digest of Paramacharya's Discourses on Soundaryalahari (DPDS - 08)

August 16, 2003

Namaste.

Recall the Note about the organization of the ‘Digest’, from

DPDS – 6 or the earlier ones.

V. Krishnamurthy

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

A Digest of Paramacharya’s Discourses on Soundaryalahari - 8

But, though the work begins with the name of Shiva, the ShAkta

school will still find in the very name of Shiva itself, the

dominance of the feminine Shakti ! In the very word ‘Shiva’

there is the vowel ‘i’ along with the consonant ‘sh’. The vowels

‘I’ (as in ‘feel’) and ‘i’ (as in ‘fit’) are themselves names

of ambaal. All consonants are letters pertaining to Shiva and

all vowels pertain to Shakti. This is a general rule. In

addition the letters ‘I’ and ‘i’ are supposed to be the very

forms of ambaal. Just as the actionless immutable brahman has a

symbolic praNava or ‘Om’, so also the brahman coupled with

Shakti, the kArya-brahman, has a symbolic seed letter called the

praNava of Shiva-Shakti. And in that praNava, the letter

corresponding to Shakti is ‘I’.

There is Vedic authority for this. Also in the ShrI sUkta the

form of ambaal as Lakshmi who resides in the heart-lotus is

mentioned as manifesting in the vowel ‘I’ and the surrender is

made to that manifestation. Note that one of the many

sanctities of the word ‘ShrI’ is derived from this.

Thus the first word of of the first sloka, though it begins

with Shiva is actually a propitiation to the feminine Shakti.

For, from the word ‘Shiva’ if we remove the vowel ‘i’ and bring

the consonant ‘sh’ to its first position ‘sha’, the word becomes

‘shava’ meaning ‘a dead body’ ! Thus the word ‘shiva’ gets its

life from the vowel ‘i’ , which is the seed letter for Shakti.

Also note that the popular word for ‘saguNa-brahman’ in Vedanta

is ‘Ishwara’, which begins with the sound ‘I’. This is quite in

accordance with its role as the dynamic active Lord who takes

care of the creation and propels the entire universe.

(For those who know the Tamil language

here are two more interesting observations: VK)

In Tamil the consonants and vowels are known as ‘body-letters’

(mey-ezhuttu) and ‘life-letters’ (uyir-ezhuttu) respectively .

So in the praNava of Shiva-Shakti, the Lord corresponds to the

‘body-letter’ and the Goddess corresponds to the ‘life-letter’.

And this coordinates with the thought that Shiva is the body and

Shakti is the soul.

Secondly, in Tamil parlance it is common to say: ‘If you have

the power (shakti) to do this, do it; otherwise stay quiet as

‘shiva’ (‘shivane-enRu iru’) ! This again coordinates with the

thought that Shiva is the actionless substratum and Shakti is

the switch that switches everything into action!

Throughout his bhAshyas and all his minor works, our Acharya is

never tired of repeating: All worldly activities are mAyA; one

should aspire to realise and become the changeless and

actionless nirguNa brahman. Thus the immutable Shivam is the

object of all his writing and advice. What produces movement out

of that brahman was called mAyA by him and he spared no pains to

paint that mAyA in uncomplimentary colors and warn us strongly

against getting into her clutches.

But the very same Acharya, now, in the first sloka of

Soundaryalahari, exclaims with great admiration of Shakti (that

very same mAyA): Oh, Goddess, without you even Shiva cannot

move!

How can the same person talk in two contradictory ways like

this? Which is true? If one of them is not true, can the Acharya

tarnish his name by speaking an untruth?

If you look at these things only by logic, you will not get

anywhere. The definition of Truth does not come by logic.

WHATEVER WILL DO GOOD TO WHOMSOEVER IT IS INTENDED, THAT SHOULD

BE STATED LOVINGLY; THAT IS TRUTH (SATYAM). For those who can

tread the path of jnAna, he recommended retirement from the

world. For those who have yet to evolve to that stage of

spiritual maturity, he recommended the path of Bhakti and Karma;

this will make them reach the kArya-brahman through worldly

actions of work and worship. When one does not have an evolved

attitude to a certain path, it is counterproductive to advise

him go that path. So it is not a question of being logical; it

is a question of seeing the psycho-logical (!) perspective. The

ancients called it ‘adhikAri-bheda’, that is, difference in

prerequisite qualifications.

Secondly, it is not just that he understood the psychology of

different types of seekers of spirituality and preached

accordingly. It is more. Both the advices he gave, though

seemingly opposite, are ‘true’, each at a particular stage of

evolution. In the phenomenal world, creation and the universe

and the activator of all of them, namely, Ishwara, are all

‘real’ certainly. But when we enquire into the root cause of all

this, we find that the more basic Reality is the Existent

Self-in-itself that is actionless but through a miraculous magic

wand of mAya brings about all this moving world.

Thus, when an Acharya or the scripture compares two paths or two

objects of worship and speaks of one as the better or greater of

the two, it does not always mean that the other thing, that had

a lower estimate, is worthless. That which our Acharya talked

about as the thing to be discarded, namely, perception of

duality, in all his works – that very same thing he now praises

to the sky, saying that this is what you have to hold

steadfastly in the bhakti-mArga. In one case it is duality, in

the other case it is ‘sva-svarUpa-anu-sandhAnaM’ (remaining

steadfast in one’s own Self).

To be continued.

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

PraNAms to all advaitins and Devotees of Mother Goddess

profvk.

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

August 16, 2003

-

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

from Paramacharya's Discourses...

"All worldly activities are mAyA; one should aspire to realise

and become the changeless and actionless nirguNa brahman.

Thus the immutable Shivam is the object of all his writing and advice.

What produces movement out of that brahman was called mAyA by him

and he spared no pains to paint that mAyA in uncomplimentary colors

and warn us strongly against getting into her clutches.

But the very same Acharya, now, in the first sloka of

Soundaryalahari, exclaims with great admiration of Shakti (that

very same mAyA): Oh, Goddess, without you even Shiva cannot

move!

How can the same person talk in two contradictory ways like

this? Which is true? If one of them is not true, can the Acharya

tarnish his name by speaking an untruth?

If you look at these things only by logic, you will not get

anywhere. The definition of Truth does not come by logic.

WHATEVER WILL DO GOOD

TO WHOMSOEVER IT IS INTENDED,

THAT SHOULD BE STATED LOVINGLY;

THAT IS TRUTH (SATYAM). "

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Namaste, Sri Krishnamirthyji:

I hope you do not mind my posting some beautiful words of Jnaneshvar

in conjunction with your recent post on Paramacharya's Discourses above...

>From Amritanubhav (The Nectar of Mystical Experience)

Chapter One: The Union of Shiva and Shakti by Jnaneshvar

I offer obeisance to the God and Goddess,

The limitless primal parents of the universe.

They are not entirely the same,

Nor are they not the same.

We cannot say exactly what they are.

How sweet is their union!

The whole world is too small to contain them,

Yet they live happily in the smallest particle.

These two are the only ones

Who dwell in this home called the universe.

When the Master of the house sleeps,

The Mistress stays awake,

And performs the functions of both.

When He awakes, the whole house disappears,

And nothing at all is left.

Two lutes: one note.

Two flowers: one fragrance.

Two lamps: one light.

Two lips: one word.

Two eyes: one sight.

These two: one universe.

In unity there is little to behold;

So She, the mother of abundance,

Brought forth the world as play.

He takes the role of Witness

Out of love of watching Her.

But when Her appearance is withdrawn,

The role of Witness is abandoned as well.

Through Her,

He assumes the form of the universe;

Without Her,

He is left naked.

If night and day were to approach the Sun,

Both would disappear.

In the same way, their duality would vanish

If their essential Unity were seen.

In fact, the duality of Shiva and Shakti

Cannot exist in that primal unitive state

>From which AUM emanates.

They are like a stream of knowledge

>From which a knower cannot drink

Unless he gives up himself.

Is the sound of AUM divided into three

Simple because it contains three letters?

Or is the letter 'N' divided into three

Because of the three lines by which it is formed?

So long as Unity is undisturbed,

And a graceful pleasure is thereby derived,

Why should not the water find delight

In the floral fragrance of its own rippled surface?

It is in this manner I bow

To the inseparable Shiva and Shakti.

A man returns to himself

When he awakens from sleep;

Likewise, I have perceived the God and Goddess

By waking from my ego.

When salt dissolves,

It becomes one with the ocean;

When my ego dissolved,

I became one with Shiva and Shakti.

_________________________

With Love and Gratitude,

Joyce

This and other excerpts can be found at http://www.nonduality.com/jnan.htm

August 16, 2003

Definition of Truth: As I know, it is THAT WHICH CANNOT BE NEGATED. A quick

mail, just to get clarification on definition of Truth

With respectful regards to all

Mani

Lady Joyce <ladyjoy wrote:

-

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

from Paramacharya's Discourses...

"All worldly activities are mAyA; one should aspire to realise

and become the changeless and actionless nirguNa brahman.

Thus the immutable Shivam is the object of all his writing and advice.

What produces movement out of that brahman was called mAyA by him

and he spared no pains to paint that mAyA in uncomplimentary colors

and warn us strongly against getting into her clutches.

But the very same Acharya, now, in the first sloka of

Soundaryalahari, exclaims with great admiration of Shakti (that

very same mAyA): Oh, Goddess, without you even Shiva cannot

move!

How can the same person talk in two contradictory ways like

this? Which is true? If one of them is not true, can the Acharya

tarnish his name by speaking an untruth?

If you look at these things only by logic, you will not get

anywhere. The definition of Truth does not come by logic.

WHATEVER WILL DO GOOD

TO WHOMSOEVER IT IS INTENDED,

THAT SHOULD BE STATED LOVINGLY;

THAT IS TRUTH (SATYAM). "

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Namaste, Sri Krishnamirthyji:

I hope you do not mind my posting some beautiful words of Jnaneshvar

in conjunction with your recent post on Paramacharya's Discourses above...

>From Amritanubhav (The Nectar of Mystical Experience)

Chapter One: The Union of Shiva and Shakti by Jnaneshvar

I offer obeisance to the God and Goddess,

The limitless primal parents of the universe.

They are not entirely the same,

Nor are they not the same.

We cannot say exactly what they are.

How sweet is their union!

The whole world is too small to contain them,

Yet they live happily in the smallest particle.

These two are the only ones

Who dwell in this home called the universe.

When the Master of the house sleeps,

The Mistress stays awake,

And performs the functions of both.

When He awakes, the whole house disappears,

And nothing at all is left.

Two lutes: one note.

Two flowers: one fragrance.

Two lamps: one light.

Two lips: one word.

Two eyes: one sight.

These two: one universe.

In unity there is little to behold;

So She, the mother of abundance,

Brought forth the world as play.

He takes the role of Witness

Out of love of watching Her.

But when Her appearance is withdrawn,

The role of Witness is abandoned as well.

Through Her,

He assumes the form of the universe;

Without Her,

He is left naked.

If night and day were to approach the Sun,

Both would disappear.

In the same way, their duality would vanish

If their essential Unity were seen.

In fact, the duality of Shiva and Shakti

Cannot exist in that primal unitive state

>From which AUM emanates.

They are like a stream of knowledge

>From which a knower cannot drink

Unless he gives up himself.

Is the sound of AUM divided into three

Simple because it contains three letters?

Or is the letter 'N' divided into three

Because of the three lines by which it is formed?

So long as Unity is undisturbed,

And a graceful pleasure is thereby derived,

Why should not the water find delight

In the floral fragrance of its own rippled surface?

It is in this manner I bow

To the inseparable Shiva and Shakti.

A man returns to himself

When he awakens from sleep;

Likewise, I have perceived the God and Goddess

By waking from my ego.

When salt dissolves,

It becomes one with the ocean;

When my ego dissolved,

I became one with Shiva and Shakti.

_________________________

With Love and Gratitude,

Joyce

This and other excerpts can be found at http://www.nonduality.com/jnan.htm

Sponsor

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

August 16, 2003

Namaste Maniji.

With reference to Lady Joyce's post in reply to Prof. Krishnamurthy-

ji's commenatary and your understanding of Truth, may I say these few

words?

This may sound like playing with words. Sorry about it.

If there is a negation taking place, there is a negator. That

negator should then be the Truth as that is the only thing self-

evident and beyond which we cannot venture. "That which cannot be

negated" is just an academic deduction done through the mind and

intellect which all get sidetracked in advaitic search. The feeling

that there is a "That which cannot be negated" has locus only on the

negator. With the search thus logically zeroing in on the negator -

the Truth, there is no definition possible for that Truth as all

attempts at definition are concise descriptions done through mind and

intellect. Truth is beyond them. If the negator is understood as

Shivam, then all that are negated become mAya. The negator then

remains without descriptions and definitions apparently projecting

mAya - the negated. This brings about an understanding that there is

afterall nothing to be negated because all things negated arise from

and subside in the negator. Doing away with an urge to negate and

accepting all that can be negatged as lIlA is therefore the key to

Truth - MAya is then undone. As all women, She loves those who

understand Her! She verily is in the negator, Shivam. There is

absolutely no differentiation possible between them. Thus, shiva-

shaktyayukto or shivashaktyaikya swarUpini - the essence of LalitA

sahasranAmAvali and Saundarya Lahari.

As an example, in LalitA SahasranAmAvali, Mother is called

gaganAntastA - She who pervades space from within it. (This

particular name incidentally caught my attention this morning as I

was chanting the nAmAvali during a wait for my sandwiches outside a

restaurant!) Here She is the unmanifest essence of space and

manifest space itself too. If, I, the experiencer of space, is the

Unmanifest in it, do I then have to negate manifest space to

understand the Unmanifest in it? When I look at the blue sky,

therefore, I should spontaneously discern that it is me because the

sky cannot be without me. I am everything living and non-living!

Isn't that the practical aspect of Soundarya Lahari, LalitA

SahasranAmAvali, all the rest of the nAmAvalIs and hymns we chant all

the time where "I" (shivam) is eternally (sorry for the temporal

sense of the word) united with the Manifest in an unending lIlA!?

Kindly note that I am not finding fault with your definition. I am

only suggesting that there is no need for a definition as we are

dealing with an area where definitions and descriptions fear to tread.

Respectful praNAms.

Madathil Nair

________________________

In advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> Definition of Truth: As I know, it is THAT WHICH CANNOT BE NEGATED.

A quick mail, just to get clarification on definition of Truth

> With respectful regards to all

> Mani

August 17, 2003

Namaste, Sri Nairji,

>From the absolute point of Truth (I may be permitted to say so, because Truth

cannot be otherwise), the Truth is “yato vacho nivarthanthe, aprapya manasa

saha” and we also have “neti neti”, etc. etc. and all these are just only to

recognize that Truth, because it is already “praptham”(obtained) and that is why

I think it is Aprapyam for those who have not recognized it. Thank you for

taking the trouble of clarifying the point extremely well, and all the play with

the words, are only for the unenlightened self to recognize the Truth, which is

absolute “I”. Who is to negate what? The negatorhood is equally Mithya as the

negated are all Mithyas, manifestation of Brahman or “I”. The only negation

which seems to be possible is the negation of “Names” and “Forms”, and that too

by a Name and Form, which apparently play all the drama that is going on,

without knowing their real Swaroopa, i.e. Sat Chit Anand.

I must acknowledge “the blessing” of that Great Maya, as, though for health

reasons, I stopped attending classes on Vedanta here for the last more than a

year, I have been drawn, without making any effort from my side, to this

excellent Group, which really helps me a lot in clearing some of my confusions.

Thank you once again all Group members,

With kind regards

R.S.Mani

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:Namaste Maniji.