Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part VIII – a)

[Guest guest]

Sridakshinamurtistotram

(Part VIII – a)

 

pratiSheddhumashakyatvAt neti netIti shEShitam |

idam nAhamidam nAhamityaddhA pratipadyate ||

(Impossible to be negated, the Self is left over on the authority of

the Sruti 'Not this, not this'. So, the Self becomes clearly known

on the reflection 'I am not this, I am not this'.)

(The Acharya in His 'UpadeshasAhasrI' II-1 metrical)

 

 

Having seen that the Atman is not the void, the most subtle type of

anaatma superimposed by Avidya, there arises the need to clearly

identify what exactly the Atman is. As one is overwhelmed by

what 'happens' to one at various occasions of a day, of the whole

life, one wrongly identifies with that 'happened state', only to be

presented by the vagaries of life with another state. As no state

remains over as everlasting, a person ends up considering oneself to

be a bunch of differing states and thus does not come to know who in

truth one is. The current verse recognizes this situation and comes

to the aid of the aspirant by first enumerating the various changing

states and then by pointing out the method of 'separating' the true

Self from these fleeting states. This process is rendered easy by

the benign Grace of the Lord, Sridakshinamurti, who is none other

than the Guru who compassionately enables the aspirant to realize his

own Self, Atman, again none other than the Self of the Guru Himself.

Thus we have in this verse, the seventh in the hymn, the process of

sravana, manana and nididhyasana indicated in a subtle manner.

 

The Verse:

bAlyaadhiShvapi jAgradaadiShu tathA sarvAsvavasthAsvapi

vyAvR^ittaasvanuvartamaanamahamityantaH-sphurantam sadaa |

svAtmaanam prakaTIkaroti bhajatAm yo mudrayaa bhadrayaa

tasmai shrIgurumurtaye nama idam shrIdakShiNAmUrtaye || 7 ||

 

(Obeisance to Him, who, by means of the blessed symbol reveals to His

devotees His own Self which for ever shines within as the 'I',

unchanging through all the stages of life such as childhood etc., and

in all the states of experience such as waking etc., and generally in

all changing conditions, to that resplendent Dakshinamurti, incarnate

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

 

The Tattvasudhaa says on the verse: In the stanza, by distinguishing

the inner Atman from the body etc., in the manner of separating a

stalk of grass from its enveloping sheaths, Atman is shown to be of

the nature of Existence, Consciousness and Bliss, as also the

identity of Atman with the Supreme Lord Parameshwara. This is

realized only by the grace of the Sruti, Guru and Ishvara. It is

shown that Atman is constant in all the varying states which are

mutually exclusive viz., childhood, boyhood, youth, middle age, old

age, the waking, the dream, the deep sleep, the swoon, birth,

decreptitude, death, also within them like seeing, hearing etc., as

also doership, enjoyership etc. All the varying states are of the

nature of non-existence and insentience, and devoid of Bliss. But

Atman is experienced as persisting in the form of Existence in the

triad of the waking, the dream and the deep sleep states in the

manner 'I who saw the dream while sleeping, am now awake', as also in

the states of childhood etc., in the manner 'I who was a boy and then

a youth am now of old age'. Similarly Atman is experienced as

persisting in the form of Consciousness, Himself as the Witness of

the eye etc., which are regarded as the seer etc., but which

disappear. Likewise Atman is experienced as persisting in the form

of Bliss, being Himself always the object of incomparable love, all

other things being dear because they subserve Him,while wealth,

progeny, body etc., which are regarded as dear, all disappear.

 

The Tvam, thou:

In the same manner, Atman is experienced as the persisting Self, ever

by the awareness 'I' and never otherwise, while the entities right

from the gross body to the enjoyer (bhokta indicated by the

Anandamayakosha), which are regarded as made known by the term 'I',

all disappear. Thus in this manner, That alone which never departs

from the nature of Existence, Consciousness, and from the nature of

being dear – because of Its nature of Bliss – and from the nature of

being Innermost, being as It is the object of the I-sense, is verily

Atman, indicated by the word 'thou' , tvam.

 

The Sruti pramana:

The tApanIya Sruti says 'This Atman that persists in all the three

states of the waking, the dream and deep sleep as also in the Turiya,

experiencing each of these to the exclusion of the others, which is

of the nature of eternal Bliss, always of the nature of Pure

Existence, the Seer of the eye, the ear, the speech etc.' This is

what is voiced by the stanza of the hymn by the

phrase : 'ahamityantaH-sphurantam sadaa' 'shining always as 'I' in

the midst of the body' etc. This shine is to be seen as indicative

of the Shine as Existence and Endearing as well.

 

The Tat, That:

This inner Self is verily the same as the very Self of Parameshwara

the Supreme Lord, well known as of the nature of Existence,

Consciousness and Bliss, and free from the threefold limitation – in

the Srutis – 'Satyam Jnaanam Anantam Brahma' Brahman is Existence,

Consciousness and Infinite', Vijnaanam Aanandam Brahma' 'Brahman is

Consciousness and Bliss' etc., It is not what is known as doer, etc.,

i.e., the Inner Self is not different from Brahman. Obeisance to

Him who exhibits to His devotees by means of the auspicious symbol,

the Chinmudraa, that the Inner Self is Brahman – which was not

realized so far.

 

Thus, the Tattvasudhaa has brought out the purport of the verse by

pointing out that the Mahavakya artha is being taught here. It would

be beneficial to note that the Tattvasudhaa has drawn our attention

to a very important fact: It could be asked: all these states, the

waking, etc., childhood, etc., pertain to the ego, the I, and as

such how could these be helpful in locating the Pure Atman? The

reply, as significantly spelled out by the Tattvaudhaa is: It is true

that these states pertain to the ego, the 'I'. But the manner of

utilizing this 'I' to locate the True Self is by divesting the 'I' of

these changing states and retaining just the pure sense of the 'I'.

This negating the states, the idam-aspect, and retaining the an-idam

aham, the idam-free aham, is what is taught by the Sruti 'Neti,

neti'. When this process is properly carried out, one succeeds in

grasping the pure I, the Atman.

 

The individual innermost Self, Pratyagaatma, is the one that persists

in all the varying states and is characterized by Existence,

Consciousness and Bliss and as such it is Brahman Itself. This is

brought out in a very convincing manner by the Svaarajyasiddhi II in

verses 33, 34 and 35. The identity is shown in the 32nd verse. The

terms used herein are: Pratyagatma sadaatma, Pratyagatma dR^igAtmaa

and Pratyagatma sukhaatmaa.

 

Experience of Pure 'Aham', the Substratum of all idam, the this-

aspect:

 

It is clear from this that all the 'idam' aspect of the universe is

superimposed on the Substratum, the Atman, which is of the nature of

Existence, Shine, Supreme Bliss, Eternal, Pure, Real, Consciousness,

Ever Free, Subtle, All-pervasive, persistent in all variables,

unchanging and non-dual. The Advaitamakaranda gives all this in a

summary form:

 

6. The inert universe can never be experienced without the proximity

of Consciousness. I, the Consciousness, therefore, am present

everywhere.

 

7. Existence of the world cannot be without its experience. Without

Consciousness

the inert world cannot be experienced. The association of the inert

with

Consciousness also cannot be without superimposition. Therefore, I

(the

Consciousness) am one without a second.

 

9. I am the witness, all-pervading and dear, and never the ego, which

has the misfortune of modifications, limitations and afflictions.

 

13. The knower of the sixfold transformation, I am never the

participant in any of these changes. Otherwise the recalling of the

transformation can never be understood at all.

 

The Vivekachudamani may also be recalled in this connection:

 

135. The true self, of the nature of pure consciousness, and

separate from the productions of nature, illuminates all this, real

and unreal, without itself changing. It sports in the states of

waking and so on, as the foundation sense of 'I exist', as the

awareness, witness of all experience.

 

133. That which knows the thinking mind and ego functions takes its

form from the body with its senses and other functions, like fire

does in a ball of iron, but it neither acts nor changes in any way.

 

351. The supreme self is the internal reality of Truth and Bliss,

eternally indivisible and pure consciousness, the witness of the

intellect and the other faculties, distinct from being or not-being,

the reality implied by the word "I".

 

All parlance due to mutual superimposition, anyonya-adhyasa, of aham

and idam, caused by Avidya:

 

The basis of all parlance is seen to be the mutual superimposition of

the Self and non-Self as pointed out by the Acharya in His Adhyasa

bhashya. The Vedantic position on the process of the appearance of

the illusory is explained by the Vedanta Paribhashaa thus:

 

The appearance of the illusory silver is explained thus: First there

is sense-contact with what is in front, the shell. But, since the

sense organ, the eye, which cognizes it is affected by some disease,

the antahkaranavritti generated thereby has for its

content 'thisness' and the form of glitter, but not the specific

nature of the shell. Then there is the manifestation of

Consciousness in the 'thisness' and in the vritti that cognizes it.

That being the case, as explained earlier, because of the outgoing of

the vritti, the Consciousness defined by the 'this'-aspect, the

Consciousness defined by the vritti and the cogniser-defined

Consciousness become non-different. The Avidya present in that

Consciousness is agitated because of the defect. Then owing to this

defect-prompted agitation, the Avidya present in the Consciousness

defined by the 'this'-element is transformed in the form of silver as

a result of association with the residual impression, vasana, of

silver which is called up by the sight of similarity in respect of

glitter. Even as this Avidya present in the Consciousness defined

by the 'this'-element is transformed in the form of silver, the

Avidya present in the Consciousness defined by this antahkaranavritti

is transformed as an avidyavritti, being associated with the residual

impression of the previous cognition of silver. And that which

manifests both of them, viz., the transformation into silver and the

transformation into the avidyavritti, is their common substrate

namely the Witness Consciousness. Thus comes about the presentation

of the illusory silver. Thereby is explained the mutual

superimposition of the shell and the illusory silver.

 

Avidya constitutiveof Adhyasa; other factors incidental:

 

The common belief is that the efficient cause like defective eyes or

faintness of light is adequate to explain illusion. But there is

need to seek a material cause also for the emergence of objects

having their own specific being. This cause is Avidya, which in its

concealing aspect, conceals the true nature of the object

misapprehended and in its diversifying aspect, gives rise to the

illusory object like 'silver'. Defects like imperfect eye-sight, dim

light, biliousness etc., and other factors like similarity, the

operation of the mental traces (vasanas), etc., are not common to all

illusions. In the case of illusions like the blue of the sky, no

such factor can be brought in. The other factors are all incidental,

while Avidya is constitutive of the error. The material cause of

error, the apramaa, which consists in the reciprocal superimposition

of two things of unequal reality whether in respect of their

existences (svarupa), relations (samsarga) or cognitions (jnana), is

Avidya which is of the nature of (a) an existent - bhAvarUpa, (b)

beginningless - anAdi and © indeterminable - anirvAchyA. It would

be pertinent to learn what Sri Sureshwaracharya says in this regard

in his Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Vartika:

 

apaviddhadvaye tattve sarvadaivAtmarUpake |

viparyayo'nabhijnAnaat tataH kAmaH kriyAstataH || 7 ||

 

Erroneous cognition (viparyaya or adhyaasa) arises on account of the

ignorance (anabhijnaanaat or ajnaanaat) of Brahman which is always of

the nature of the Self and which is devoid of duality. From that

arises desire, and from desire arises action. (The causal nexus from

ignorance to bondage is set forth here).

 

Illusion being an unaccountable experience, it cannot be defined as

existent or non-existent. If it could be defined as the one or the

other, then it would no longer be an illusion, and no knowledge could

remove it – a conclusion which is opposed to experience. What is,

is; and what is not, is not; that is all. (The Bhagavadgita II.16 'na

asato vidyate bhaavaH, na abhaavaH vidyate sataH' has this for its

purport.). The Vedantic analysis of the illusion clearly recognizes

this, as is seen by its retaining Avidya which is inexplicable,

anirvachaniya, as the basic 'entity' involved in the entire

situation. The sublating cognition, a valid experience, however,

liberates one from the entire situation by showing that it is

imaginary and that there has been no problem at all. This is the

only way out. The apparent construct provided by Vedanta is a

concoction to secure this end. It points to the entity, the

Adhishthana, which, though apparently involved, is in reality not at

all involved. Also the relation between them is a superimposed one,

being not at all real in the whole game. It also points to the

Sakshi, the Witness consciousness, which 'knows' both the illusion

and the sublation and thus remains unchanged. The concept of

ignorance implies its necessary sublation by a subsequent right

knowledge along with which the illusion collapses.

 

Error, as has been seen, is thus 'illegitimate transference' or

adhyasa as the opening sentence of the Sutrabhashya puts it. Also

wherever there is adhyasa, there is a confusion between two orders of

reality, which presupposes ignorance. In this connection may be

recalled the Sutrabhashya (I.iv.1.6):

 

 

For as long as Nescience remains, so long the soul is affected with

definite attributes, &c.; but as soon as Nescience comes to an end,

the soul is one with the highest Self, as is taught by such

scriptural texts as 'Thou art that.' But whether Nescience be active

or inactive, no difference is made thereby in the thing itself (viz.

the soul). A man may, in the dark, mistake a piece of rope lying on

the ground for a snake, and run away from it, frightened and

trembling; thereon another man may tell him, 'Do not be afraid, it is

only a rope, not a snake;' and he may then dismiss the fear caused by

the imagined snake, and stop running. But all the while the presence

and subsequent absence of his erroneous notion, as to the rope being

a snake, make no difference whatever in the rope itself. Exactly

analogous is the case of the individual soul which is in reality one

with the highest soul, although Nescience makes it appear different.

 

Again says the Sutrabhashya (II.i.6.14)

We therefore must adopt the following view. In the same way as those

parts of ethereal space which are limited by jars and waterpots are

not really different from the universal ethereal space, and as the

water of a mirage is not really different from the surface of the

salty steppe--for the nature of that water is that it is seen in one

moment and has vanished in the next, and moreover, it is not to be

perceived by its own nature (i. e. apart from the surface of the

desert 1)--; so this manifold world with its objects of enjoyment,

enjoyers and so on has no existence apart from Brahman.

(says the same Sutrabhashya)

And with reference to the matter illustrated by the instance given

(viz. the highest cause, Brahman) we read, 'In that all this has its

Self;' and, again, 'That is true;' whereby it is asserted that only

the one highest cause is true. The following passage again, 'That is

the Self; thou art that, O Svetaketu!' teaches that the embodied soul

(the individual soul) also is Brahman. (And we must note that) the

passage distinctly teaches that the fact of the embodied soul having

its Self in Brahman is self-established, not to be accomplished by

endeavour. This doctrine of the individual soul having its Self in

Brahman, if once accepted as the doctrine of the Veda, does away with

the independent existence of the individual soul, just as the idea of

the rope does away with the idea of the snake (for which the rope had

been mistaken). And if the doctrine of the independent existence of

the individual soul has to be set aside, then the opinion of the

entire phenomenal world--which is based on the individual soul--

having an independent existence is likewise to be set aside.

(unquote)

 

The 'Tattvashuddhi' concludes the discussion thus: Thus though the

Witness-Self which is the Substratum of the illusory distinctions

like the knower, the known, the knowledge and the means namely the

pramana thereof, is apparently involved in them, It is, in reality,

Brahman Itself.

 

Thus, we have a situation where the entire 'happenings' of the

parlance (triad of states, birth, death, childhood, youth, old age,

disease etc.) is a superimposition, the never-affected substratum

being the Atman which is none other than Brahman Itself.

 

The way out of such a situation is shown by the Hymn in the current

verse. This shall be taken up in the sequel.

 

(End of Part VIII - a)

Om Tat Sat