Sridakshinamurtistotram Part III (i)

[Guest guest]

Sridakshinamurtistotram

 

Part III

Gurave sarva-lokaanaam bhishaje bhava-roginaam |

Nidhaye sarva-vidyaanaam Dakshinaamurtaye namaH ||

 

Verse Two

 

Biijasyaantariva-ankuro jagadidam praang-nirvikalpam punar-

Maya-kalpita-desa-kaala-kalanaa-vaichitrya-chitrii-krtam |

Mayaviiva vijrmbhayatyapi maha-yogiva yas svecchayaa

Tasmai Sriguru-murtaye nama idam Sridakshinaamurtaye || 2 ||

 

Obeisance to Him, in whom this universe was undifferentiated prior to

projection like the sprout latent in a seed, and who by His will made it

picturesque in all its variety in respect of space, time, etc., conjured up by

His Maya like a magician or a mighty yogin, to that resplendent Dakshinamurti,

incarnate in the glorious figure of one's own Guru.

 

The Anvaya of the verse:

Idam jagat (srishteH) praak biijasya antaH ankuraH iva nirvikalpam (aasit).

PunaH maayaa-kalpita-desha-kaala-kalanaa-vaichitrya-chitrii-krtam. Yah maayaavi

iva api mahaa-yogi iva svecchayaa (idam jagat) vijrumbhayati, Tasmai

Srigurumurtaye Sridakshinamurtaye idam namaH.

 

In the previous verse the Acharya showed that the universe, in its manifest

form, even when it is available for vyavahara, is non-different from the Self,

Atman. In this verse, He points out that even in its state prior to

manifestation, the universe is non-different from Atman. What we get finally

is: in the manifest state of the universe, Atman alone is Satyam. In the state

before manifesting of the universe also Atman alone is Satyam.

 

The Seed-sprout illustration:

 

This universe was, prior to creation, nirvikalpam, i.e, it could in no sense

be distinguished from the nirupaadhika-pratyagatman, the Self free of adjuncts.

With respect to that state, no words or notions, implied in the expressions

idam, this, and jagat, world, such as name, form, time, place, substance,

quality, change, class, relation, etc. could be used. The sprout that is

visible with a form, name, etc. 'existed' in the seed, before it could be called

the sprout. The Acharya's commentary on the Aitareya Upanishad 1-1-1: 'Om.

Atma vaa idam Eka Eva Agre Aasit. Naanyat kinchana mishat. Sa Ikshata Lokaannu

Srjaa iti. Sa imaan lokaan asrjat.' may be considered, in part:

 

This (which has been described previously as being) differentiated by name,

form and acitivity, viz, the universe, existed as one Atman only, at first, ie.

before its creation.

 

Then, is He Himself, now non-single? No. Then, how is it that the term 'was'

(past tense) is used? The reply is, that though even now He alone exists, yet

there is a difference. Before origination, the world which was undifferentiated

by name and form, undistinguished from Atman, cognised only as Atman, and

conveyed by the single word Atman is now, because it is differentiated by name

and form, cognised by several notions and conveyed by several words as also by

the single notion and the single word Atman; this is the difference. For

example, before it was differentiated from 'water' by a name and form, 'foam'

was cognised only as 'water' and conveyed by the single word 'water'. When it is

differentiated from 'water' by the name and form then 'foam' is cognised

severally as, and conveyed by several words, 'water' and 'foam' as also by the

single notion and the single word 'water'. (end of the bhashyam portion).

 

Due to its familiarity, we may consider the clay-pot example. Before its

manifestation, the pot was called by the single name 'clay' and there was the

notion 'clay'. On the coming into being of the pot, however, we have the name

'clay' and the notion clay – after all, the clay has not disappeared upon the

pot coming into being-- and along with this, we have the name 'pot' and the

'object' pot. But it is still possible for the discerning person to perceive the

existence of the name clay and the notion 'clay' alone even though the 'pot'

continues. This is the idea conveyed by the above bhashya. The final purport

is: Before the world manifested, Atman alone was and after the manifestation of

the world also Atman alone is. In other words, creation or no creation, Atman

alone is.

 

The consideration of the pre-creation state is very rewarding as is seen by

its deployment in the Sruti in various places. Apart from the above Aitereya

Upanishad, we see the Chandogya also speaking of the state: Sadeva Somya idam

agra aasit, ekam eva advitiyam'. Just as we would retire to a quiet place, free

from noise and other disturbances, in order to contemplate on something

important, here is a situation offered by the Sruti to 'take us' to a state

where this world that we see is not there as we see it now. I remember a Zen

koan. The Zen master asks the disciple: "What was your original face, before

your parents were born?" I think the Master is driving the disciple to think

'out of the box' and seek the answer. Again, in the 'Death Experience' that

occurred to Bhagavan Ramana, there can be seen this 'reaching out' to a state

when 'all this' is not there. That state, when sought sincerely and

contemplated upon, will provide the great reward of Realization. For, in that

state, the Sruti teaches, the Atman can be known 'as It Is'.

 

The Chandogya Upanishad (6-12) speaks of the huge banyan tree coming out of

the essence from within a seed, which, however, is not seen when the seed is

broken open.

 

There is a question raised by Sri Ramachandra in the Yogavasishtha:

 

Mahaa-kalpakshaye drshyamaaste bija iva ankuraH |

Pare bhuuya udetyetat tata eveti kim vada ||

 

EvambodhaaH kim ajnaaH syuruta jnaa iti cha sphutam |

Yathaavad Bhagavan bruuhi sarvasamshaya-shaantaye || (4-1-19,20)

 

The meaning: Venerable Sire! Kindly tell me clearly so that all doubts are

dispelled as to whether it is true that, in the great cosmic dissolution, the

world exists in the Transcendent, as the sprout in a seed, and arises again, and

whether those who entertain this view are ignorant or wise.

 

In reply Sri Vasishtha says:

 

Idam bije'nkura iva drshyamaaste mahaashaye |

Bruute ya evamajnatvametat tasyaasti shaishavam || (4-1-21)

 

The meaning: Those who hold that this world that is cognised exists in

Brahman as the sprout in a seed, are to be characterised not merely as ignorant

but also childish.

 

The Yogavasishtha tika (4.1.22) raises another important and interesting

question regarding the postulation that the sprout is in the seed prior to its

manifestation by asking as to whether the 'existence' of the sprout in the seed

pertains to the universal 'existence', 'existence' of the seed or its

(sprout's) own 'existence' and exposes the invalidity of each of these

possibilities. It is thus not established that the sprout was in the seed, ie.

the illustration is not a drstanta that can be employed in a syllogism leading

to an inference; it is on a par with what is to be proved. In the

Mandukyakarika (4.20) and the discussion on the topic, Sri Gaudapadacharya shows

how the concepts of anaaditva (beginninglessness) and utpatti (origination) are

devoid of meaning. The Sutrabhashya 2.1.1.18 makes this statement: Thus it is

the primary cause (Brahman) of all, that appears in the form of this and that

effect upto the last effect of all, in the manner of an actor and thereby

becomes the basis for all the current notions and terms in all parlance. In the

Gitabhashya 18-48 we find: …. the One Existence, the sole Reality, is, by

Avidya, imagined and termed variously as so many things undergoing production,

destruction and similar changes, like an actor on the stage.

 

The illustration drives home that the situation has to be understood in terms

of vivartavada that the material cause of any effect is always the Satpadartha

that is Atman, that the appearance of each of the effects is because of Maya and

that the terms like origination and dissolution are only conventional usages for

describing certain empirical states associated with Atman.

 

Space in Vedanta:

 

The verse contains the words: Maya-kalpita-desa-kaala-kalanaa..

The world of experience consists of space, time and other objects fashioned

out by Maya. The dream that we experience daily gives ample proof of the

'creation' of space, time and all other objects, living and inert. What is the

material that goes into the making of space, time and objects in the dream? This

is a question that has to be pondered by everyone.

In day to day parlance we experience variously – here, there, near,

farther, separation, size, directions such as East, North, motion, etc. The

notion of desa, space, is what forms the basis for these experiences. In

Vedanta, akasha or desha is not known by perception as it is devoid of colour,

etc. In the Adhyasabhashya, the Acharya says: apratyakshe hyapi hyakashe…

thereby clarifying that akasha is not an object of pratyaksha pramana. It is

to be understood that akasha is known by the Witness-self manifested only when

there is the transformation of the mind that has the form of the illumination

arising from the contact of the eye with an object. Unlike objects such as pot

which are generated in the space and time of parlance, desa is not so; it is a

direct transformation of Maya or Avidya like tamas (darkness), bheda

(difference), shell-silver etc. All these are held to be known directly by the

Sakshi, Witness-self and not by the use of pramanas. It may be of interest

to note that the snake of the rope-snake is not a vishaya for the senses, here,

the eye. What the eye has seen and reported (to the mind) is just the 'this'

aspect of that which is lying in front, in this case, the rope, in the

inadequately lit area. The rest of the story is the working of the Master, the

mind!! What we mean by 'the seeing of the snake' is actually, the imagining of a

snake there. As thoughts are not perceived by the senses, it has to be admitted

that it is the Sakshi that apprehends this 'snake'. Again, it is interesting

to note what the Panchadasi says: There is, for example, a 'mamsa-mayi stri' =

a woman in flesh and blood outside. But there is another, the 'manomayi stri',

the woman-in-the-mind = although the 'real' woman is one, she is variously held

to be mother, sister, daughter, sister-in-law, wife, etc. Actually all these

relations are not in that mamsamayi stri. They are all in the manomayi stri

alone.

 

 

 

The Sastra speaks of bhutakasha, chittakasha, avyakrtakasha and

Chidakasha the grossest to the subtlest. In the drshtisrshtivada, the theory

that holds 'cognition is creation and non-cognition is dissolution' = darshanam

srshtiH, adarshanam layaH, the world of parlance is put on a par with dream

wherein the gross space that is experienced in parlance is an illusion, a

concoction on the part of the chitta, the mind, which is again a concoction of

Avidya or Maya whose primal state is spoken of as avyakrtakasha. All these are

'contained' in the Chidakasha, the Supreme Reality. The Chidakasha is the

Adhishthana, the substratum, on which the rest are only a superimposition. The

concept of space in Vedanta is summarised by the Panchadashi, (Chapter Ten,

verses 15 to 17 and 19 to 24) thus:

 

A lamp staying in its own place illuminates all round. So too the Witness

being permenant and immutable, illuminates outside and inside. The

differentiation as outside and inside is in relation to the body. The objects

are in space outside, the ego-sense is inside. It is only the vascillating

intellect that goes out again and again; the Witness neither goes in nor goes

out. Even to say that the Self is Omnipresent and All-pervasive, is to

superimpose on It the category of space. When all cognition gets dissolved, the

Self alone remains.

 

Time:

 

In parlance we have these experiences : now, then, soon, later, delay,

simultaneous, earlier, anterior, later, posterior, young, old, instant, past,

present, future, motion, process of transformation, etc. In all these the

notion of Time, kaala, is employed.

Time is anirvachaniya. Like space it is maayaamaatra. The Vedantic view of

Time is given expression to in the Kaalamaadhaviya:

Indeed the experience "I am at present' is universal. It is not generated by

external sense-perception, as time is devoid of colour etc., nor is it a mental

experience, as it is not so accepted by the Tarkikas. Nor does it arise from

inference, as it is directly experienced. Since it is a matter of direct

experience even though the necessary causal complement is absent, the followers

of Upanishad regard it as directly experienced by the Witness-self, the

Sakshi.. Like space, time is regarded as an effect of Avidya. Change and

lastingness are characteristics of time and have a meaning only 'in' time, and

not 'beyond' it. The Eternity is timeless.

 

The purpose of Time is to serve as the gateway to Reality. The notion of

permanence in time is only an image, though a crude one, of Eternity. The image

serves, however, the purpose leading to Eternity just as the account of creation

which is urged in different modes with the illustrations of clay, metal, sparks,

etc. is only a means of introducing the Truth of non-difference. In no way is

there any difference as the Gaudapada Karika 3 – 15 says. In the Kathopanishad

mantra Yasya Brahma cha Kshatrm cha… 1.2.25, it is declared that, while the

different orders of creation indicated by brahma and kshatra are as food for

Brahman, time, here called death, is a sauce – upasechana – i.e, time is not

left behind, for it too, is consumed.

 

Objects:

 

While it is the Atman alone that is spoken of as space and time, it can be

seen that the 'objects' that exist in space and time, are also none other than

the Atman, only seen and transacted as objects due to Maya. The delineation of

even a 'pot' becomes impossible and will have to be given up. What to speak of

the universe!! Even with regard to one's own body, so intimately claimed to be

'known' by one, it becomes an impossible task to give a correct delineation.

One wonders whether what one possesses is knowledge or ignorance with regard to

the objects of the world including one's own body and organs. The knowledge

that we possess about these things might at best serve practical needs but this

is certainly not true knowledge that reveals the Truth.

 

Vaichitrya-chitriikrtam:

 

This term of the verse shows that the universe is just a picture rendered so

by Maya. One can study the Chitradipa prakarana of the Panchadasi for a

detailed analysis of the world-picture that is painted on the canvas of Atman.

The Yogavasishtha 4.2.13 and the tika say: The experience of the world as he,

that, this, I, not I, etc., is none other than the Pure Consciousness in the

same way as the entire picture consisting of man, elephant, etc. which are

considered as other than the wall of a mansion in the picture, is none other

than the wall on which it is painted. There is another telling verse of the

Yogavasishtha (4.3.18): The universe of the three worlds is akin to a doll

similar to the one carved out in a pillar carrying her daughter on her lap, the

latter again carrying her daughter on her lap.

 

All this point out that Creation is a vikalpa and not an event in time, for

there is nothing called time before creation.

(Part III has not ended; will continue for one more post)

 

 

 

 

 

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Autos