Sridakshinamurtistotram Part IV (first half)

[Guest guest]

Sridakshinamurtistotram Part IV (first half)

 

Akhanda-mandalaakaaram vyaaptam yena chara-acharam |

Tatpadam darshitam yena tasmai Srigurave namaH ||

 

The Third Verse:

 

Yasyaiva sphuranam sadaatmakam asatkalpaarthagam bhaasate

Saakshaat Tat-tvam-asi-iti vedavachasaa yo bodhayatyaashritaan |

Yat-saakshaat-karanaad bhaven-na punaraavrttir-bhavaambho-nidhau

Tasmai Srigurumurtaye nama idam Sridakshinamurtaye ||

 

Obeisance to Him whose radiance alone, that is the Reality, renders manifest,

things which by themselves are non-entities, who directly enlightens those who

take refuge in Him, with the word of Veda - Tattvamasi – on direct realisation

of which there will be no return again to the ocean of phenomenal existence, to

that resplendent Dakshinamurti, incarnate in the glorious figure of one's own

Guru.

 

The Anvaya:

Yasya sadatmakam sphuranameva asatkalpaarthagam bhaasate, Yah saakshaat

Tat tvam asi iti vedavachasaa aashritaan bodhayati, yat-saakshaatkaranaat

bhavaambhonidhau punaraavrittiH na bhavet, Tasmai Srigurumurtaye,

Sridakshinamurtaye idam namaH.

 

In the first two verses the Acharya established that the world is not real

from the absolute standpoint and that it is only an appearance. He also pointed

out that such a seeming world has for its substratum the Self. In this verse

the Acharya specifies the essential nature, the svarupa lakshana, of the Self,

that it is Existence-Consciousness. This is specified as the essential nature

of the Self as different from the incidental nature of the Self shown already as

the Cause of the world.

 

Objects, non-existent-like, asat-kalpa:

 

We can, for convenience, have two categories : one, the objective universe

that is experienced and two, the Conscious individual soul who experiences the

universe. The verse shows that it is the Existence-Consciousness of the Self

that lends existence and shine to the objective universe. The status of the

objective universe is 'asat-kalpa', that is, non-existent-like. Why is this

kind of name given to the universe? What is superimposed must be regarded as

non-existent. Why should one regard it as non-existent-like? It is the

Substratum, of the nature of Existence and Shine, which is seen as though it

belongs to the superimposed world which has no existence of its own, because

the Srutis, 'Now therefore the instruction (regarding Brahman) as 'not this, not

this' (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2-3-6) and 'there is no diversity here' (Br.Up.

4-4-19) negate the world. The experience pertaining to the objective universe

as that which exists can be accounted for as being due to

delusion. Since in empirical experience they are regarded as different from

non-existent, they are distinguished from the absolutely non-existent 'objects'

like the horns of a hare.

 

Sphuranam, Consciousness, is what is to be realised:

 

The objects being inert in themselves and dependent on the Consciousness

principle for them to be known, what becomes essential is to realise that

Consciousness principle, as it is, without the admixture of the objective

universe. It was pointed out in the Adhyasa bhashya that the body, the sense

organs that are the instruments of knowledge, the operation of the instruments,

the objective knowledge, the very 'knower', pramaata, are all pertaining to the

non-Self, the anaatma. The separating of the Pure Consciousness from this

admixture and realising it alone as oneself constitutes liberating knowledge.

The endeavour of all the scriptures is to secure for the aspirant this

knowledge. The authority for this knowledge being the scriptures, the Guru

bases his teaching on the authority of the scriptures. The verse shows that the

teaching 'Tat tvam asi', the teaching contained in the Veda is employed by the

Guru. The word Aashritaan in the verse signifies the aspirant, a fully

qualified one to receive the supreme teaching, who has taken refuge in the

Guru. The Guru is verily the Mahavakyaartha in patent form. Here are two

significant verses from the Gurugita:

Shivavad-drshyate saakshaat shriguruH punyakarmanaam |

Naravad-drshyate saiva shriguruH paapakarmanaam ||

 

The purified aspirant knows the Guru to be verily the Lord Shiva, the others

see him as just another human.

 

Manushyacharmanaa abaddhaH saakshaat parashivaH svayam |

Gururitybhidaam grnhan goodhaH paryatati kshitau ||

 

The Master, that is the Supreme Lord, concealed in His apparent human form,

reveals Himself out of grace only to the chosen disciple.

 

The Acharya, Sri Shankara, emphasises again and again in the Upanishadbhashyas

wherever the Guru is referred to, that it is the Supreme Mercy of the Guru that

is always operative:

Sa kadaachit parama-kaarunikena-aacharyena aatmajnaanaprabodhakrt

shabdakaaryaam vedaantamahavakyabheryaam tatkarnamuule

taadyamaanaayaam….(Aitareya Up. Bhashya 1-3)

The meaning: When, however, on some rare occasion, the Master, in His

infinite mercy, beats in the recesses of the disciple's ears, the drum that is

the Vedantamahavakya which produces the sound that awakens him to the Knowledge

of the Self….

 

Total surrender to the Guru and the Vidya are essential in order to secure the

direct realisation of the Truth. Commenting on the Mundakopanishad 1-1-5

referring to the Paraavidya – Atha Paraa yayaa Tadaksharam adhigamyate, the

Bhashya raises a question: Why is the Paraavidya mentioned by the Sruti as

though it is distinct from the Vedas which are categorised as aparaavidya? If

indeed it, the Paraavidyaa, is outside the Vedas, vedabaahya, then there arises

the contingency of its being rejected outright, and it would not be entitled to

be called Paraavidya. In reply says the Bhashya: The objection has no force,

for by the term vidya is here meant the knowledge of what is sought to be known.

By the term Paraavidya is meant primarily in this context, that knowledge of the

Immortal which could be known through the Upanishads and not the mere assemblage

of words in them. But by the term Veda is generally understood the assemblage of

words forming it. As the Immortal cannot be

realised by a mastery of the mere assemblage of words without other efforts

such as the approaching a preceptor and spurning all desires etc., the separate

classification of the knowledge of Brahman and its designation as 'Paraavidya'

is proper.

 

There is a reference in the Chandogya Upanishad in the context of the dialogue

between Sanatkumara and Narada. In spite of being equipped with the necessary

knowledge, the resources and the ability to secure anything whatsoever that is

desired, the divine sage Narada could not attain Bliss; hence, giving up the

pride due to the wealth of his equipment, exalted birth, learning, conduct,

resources and abilities, like an insignificant person, approached Sri

Sanatkumara to secure the means for attaining Bliss. Thus is established beyond

doubt, that Self-knowledge is the means for securing the Supreme Bliss.

 

Direct Instruction:

 

The disciple who conforms in every way to the description of Aashrita is thus

chosen by the Lord, the Guru, for direct instruction personally by Himself :

Saakshaat bodhayati. The word saakshaat proclaims this condescension. It also

proclaims that the Self-effulgent Lord Dakshinamurti who silently manifests from

within by dispelling ignorance is Himself the Guru that imparts the formal

instruction 'Tattvamasi' as well. The syntactical relation between the words

yaH in the second line of the verse and tasmai in the refrain affirms this. The

significance of the word saakshaat is brought out by relating it syntactically

with the other words in the line as well. Read along with Tattvamasi it conveys

to the disciple that Brahman that is being sought is verily he himself – Tat

saakshaat tvamasi – in the manner of the sentence dashamastvamasi (the tenth man

that is being sought after is yourself). The reading saakshaat vedavachasaa

gives the meaning that the instruction is offered by

Himself directly citing the actual words of the Veda itself.

 

Veda and Veda- vaak:

 

The Veda is Ananta, Nitya, Svatahpramaana, Consciousness Itself. The term

Veda is used in connection with a body of utterances, a form of speech which is

unique and determined in respect of the pronunciation of the syllables as also

the order of succession, thus immutable in form, not composed by any human

agency and, as such, without any concomitant defect such as lack of clarity or

inability to convey any meaning whatsoever. It is to be regarded to be present

in a nascent state even in deluge, manifesting again along with the objects

which are the meanings of what it conveys in the spirit of the Sruti, 'Dhaataa

yathaapurvam-akalpayat', just as the world arises in the dream state or the

waking state from the deep sleep state. It is to be regarded as Chidvivarta in

which the Samvit, the Consciousness, is prominent. Even Iswara has not the

independence to alter even a syllable in it. With its innumerable branches,

Anantaa vai VedaaH, it reveals all aspects of the universe and

is at the root of all knowledge, all shastras which are inextricably

intertwined. It produces the knowledge pertaining to all purusharthas. It

teaches the disciples the procedure in regard to all obligatory, occasioned and

optional rites belonging to the four varnas and the four ashramas, from

impregnation to cremation, all acts to be performed from the hours of dawn to

those of the evening, as also the truth about Brahman. Free from any

imperfection that speech can be tainted with, it is svatahpramana, its own

testimony.

 

We have in the sampradaya the veda-purva, the purva-mimamsa, consisting of the

study of the karma-kanda of the Vedas and the veda-anta, the uttara-mimamsa,

consisting of the study of the Upanishads. While the first three purusharthas

namely dharma, artha and kaama can be obtained by resorting to the veda-purva,

the final purushartha, Moksha, is obtainable only by resorting to the Veda-anta,

the Upanishads. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says: Tam tu Aupanishadam Purusham

prcchaami', 'I ask of that Purusha who is knowable from the Upanishads'. About

this Purusha, the Kathopanishad says: 'Purushaan-na param kinchit, saa

kaashthaa, saa paraa gatiH', 'There is nothing greater (beyond) the Purusha,

this is the ultimate, the absolute attainment'. There is no vedic portion

beyond the Upanishads that could teach a purushartha beyond Moksha. The veda

speaks about the 'aadi' and the 'anta' of the veda in this sense. The

Taittiriya Aranyaka of which the Mahanarayanopanishat is an

integral part says in the famous portion: Na karmanaa na prajayaa dhanena…., Yo

veda-aadau swaraH proktaH, veda-ante cha pratishthitaH … Here the Saayana

bhashyam is: Vedaanaam, 'agnimiile purohitam', 'Ishe tvorje tva' intyaadiinaam

aadiH = upakramaH, tasmin upakrame yaH svaraH yo varnaH pranavarupo asti, sa cha

svaraH pranavo vedaante cha = upanishadi omityetadaksharamidam sarvam

ityaadikaayaam pratishthitaH = pratipaaditaH,…

The meaning is: The sound, pranava, Om that is uttered at the commencement of

the Vedas, that same is established in the Veda-anta, that is, in the Upanishad,

as Om,, this syllable is all this….

The above bhashyam gives the meaning of Upanishad to the word 'Vedanta'

occurring in the Taiittiriya Aranyaka.

 

This specifying of the beginning and end-portions of the Veda does not

conflict with the existence of the infinite branches, shaakhaas, of the Vedas.

The culmination of the quest for knowledge is found in the Upanishads. For

example, the Upanishads teach of that knowledge by knowing which all else is

known. The Gita says about this knowledge: Yaj jnaatvaa neha bhuyo'nyat

jnaatavyam avashishyate' 'After knowing Which there will remain nothing else

that requires to be known'.

 

Vaak:

 

The Taittiriya Brahmanam 2-8-8 says in the mantra:

Chatvaari vaakparimitaa padaani taani vidur-braahmanaa ye maniishinaH |

Guhaa triini nihitaa nengayanti turiiyam vaacho manushyaa vadanti ||

 

This vaak has four well-defined states - paraa, pashyantii, madhyamaa and

vaikhari. Only the Brahmanas, adepts in the Shastras, know all the four; not

the other who are ignorant. For, the first three are stationed in the middle of

the body without external projection. It is the fourth, the vaikhariivaak that

men utter. The Sutasamhitatika 1-5-9 gives a succinct account of these four

stages.

 

Veda is Brahmavidya, it isUpanishad, it is Mahavakya itself. It is thus

called for the reason that it is the Vedavaak that generates the

Akhandaakaaravritti, the mental mode that has Brahman for its object, in the

aspirant and destroys avidya.

 

The Sruti and the Brahma-Sutras vehemently denounce difference:

 

The Srutis: Kaaryopaadhirayam jivaH, kaaranopaadhiriishwaraH

(Shuka-rahasya-upanishad 3-12) This jiva has the effect as the adjunct and

Iswara, the cause (as the adjunct).

 

Jiiveshau aabhaasena karoti maaya cha avidya cha svayameva bhavati (Nrsimha

uttara taapaniya Upanishad 9) It sets up illusorily jiva and Isvara, and is

itself Maya and Avidya.

 

Dhyaayati iva, lelaayati iva (Brhadaranyaka Up. 4.3.7) It thinks, as it were;

It moves as it were. etc. make it clear that all parlance based on difference

is only apparent and is in the realm of Avidya. The notion of difference is

vehemently denounced by Srutis like:

 

Neha naanaa asti kinchana (Kathopanishad 4.11) There is no diversity here at

all.

Neti Neti (Brhadaranyaka Up. 2.3.6) Not this, not this.

Mrtyossa mrtyum gacchati ya iha naaneva pashyati (Kathopanishad 4.11) He who

sees as if there were differences here, goes from death to death.

Atha yo'nyaam devatam upaaste anyo'sau aham anyo'smi iti na sa veda (Br.Up.

1.4.10)

He who worships another god, thnking 'He is one and I am another', does not

know.

Udaram antaram kurute, atha tasya bhayam bhavati (Tai.Up. 2.7.1)

He who conceives in terms of the slightest difference between himself and the

Supreme, for him there is fear.

 

The identity of jiva with Brahman is given expression to in the Sutras which

also point out that the allusion to the empirically held notion of difference

which is due to upaadhi is only for the purpose of making known this

Advaitasvarupa:

 

 

Shaastra-drshtyaa tu upadesho vaamadevavat 1.1.11.30 But the instruction

proceeds from a seer's vision agreeing with the Shastra, as in the case of

Vamadeva.

Uttaraacchet aavirbhuta-svarupastu 1.3.5.19 If it be said that, from the

subsequent text, jiva is meant here, the reply is that reference is to jiva

whose real nature is made manifest as non-different from Brahman.

Tadguna-saaratvaat tu tadvyapadeshaH praajnavat 2.3.13.29 But the

declaration (as to the atomic size of the jiva) is on account of its having for

its essence, the qualities of that viz; the buddhi, even as the Intelligent Lord

(Brahman which is all-pervading) is declared to be atomic)

Yathaa cha takshobhayathaa 2.3.14.40 And even as a carpenter is both.

Aatmeti tu upagacchanti graahayanti cha 4.1.2.3 But Upanishads acknowledge

Brahman as the Self and cause It to be so known.

Avibhaagena drshtatvaat 4.4.2.4 In liberation the jiva is inseparable from

Brahman, for it is so seen from the Upanishads.

Anyaarthascha paraamarshaH 1.3.5.20 And the reference to the individual

Self is for a different purpose.

 

The method of interpretation of the Mahavakya 'Tat Tvam asi' That thou art'

shall be now taken up for a succinct analysis.

(To be continued)

 

 

 

 

 

Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and

used cars.