Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part VIII – b)

[Guest guest]

(A Note to the Readers: This part of the delineation of the Stotram,

in particular, contains an especially lucid exposition of the method

of 'cognizing' the Truth even in our objective experience. It offers

a very effective, easy-to-understand, material for the practice of

Brahma darshanam. My prayerful pranams to the Revered Author.)

 

Sridakshinamurtistotram

(Part VIII – b)

shrutimastaka-bhUShAyamANapAda-saroruham |

natArtiharaNam kurve sharaNam deshikAruNam ||

(I seek refuge in that Sun among preceptors whose lotus-like feet are

decorated by the Upanishads and who removes the afflictions of those

who pay obeisance.)

(A verse composed by Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha SvaminaH in prayerful

praise of His Guru, Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati SvaminaH)

 

 

After having ascertained that the whole of samsara that the jiva

experiences is a superimposition, the hymn proceeds to show the way

out of this situation. In our daily lives we employ the means of

recognition to a very great extent. For example, when a friend is

encountered, we know him as 'It is he'. Herein is involved the

recognition, 'the one present before me now is the same as the one

whom I know of for the last …many years'. This recognition is

termed 'pratyabhijnaa'. This tool is used to the advantage by the

hymn in enabling us to recognize the Self in all transactions. The

basic idea is: in order to effect a recognition, one must have

experienced the person/place/thing. The one present at all times and

is available to recognize the various objects even though they keep

changing, is the very Self. The changing in the objects is due to

upadhis. But the pratyabhijna accomplishes the dispelling the

upadhis and bringing to light the unchanging entity, the Self. Thus,

the act of recognizing does the function of eradicating the

differences and showing up the unchanging underlying entity.

Satpadartha alone revealed by pratyabhijna pertaining to an object:

The pratyabhijna pertaining to an external object may be exemplified

by a moving body. Though associated with changing states (position

and motion at an instant constituting a state), the body is

recognized to be identically the same. Here the recognition pertains

only to the individual i.e, the body as such divested of the

incidental association of time, position and motion, which are thus

only superimposed on the body. The Sutrabhashya 2.1.6.18 brings out

the meaning clearly:

 

Nor does a substance become another substance merely by appearing

under a different aspect. Devadatta may at one time be seen with his

arms and legs closely drawn up to his body, and another time with his

arms and legs stretched out, and yet he remains the same substantial

being, for he is recognised as such. (unquote)

 

Again, says the same Sutrabhashya :

 

The fundamental cause of all appears in the form of this and that

effect, up to the last effect of all, just as an actor appears in

various robes and costumes, and thereby becomes the basis for all the

current notions and terms concerning the phenomenal world.

The Manasollasa tika on the current verse says:

Thus all those that are spoken of as products are various

dispositions – appearing and disappearing because of the ancillary

means of the parts of what abides in all of them. Thus in all the

various particularities persisting through all of them and fit to be

referred to as this, that etc., the material cause of all of them is

the Sat only i.e, Brahman and none other. (unquote)

This Satpadartha alone is real as the one that does not at all

deviate from the 'form' in which it has once been ascertained;

whatever deviates from the 'form' in which it has been once

ascertained is unreal. This is brought out by the Taittiriya Bhashya

(2.1) on the word 'Satyam' of the Upanishad.

 

A look at the Gita bhashya (II.16) in this regard is much rewarding:

….in all cases there is the experience of two awarenesses, viz the

awareness of reality, and the awareness of unreality. [in all cases

of perception two awarenesses are involved: one is invariable, and

the other is variable. Since the variable is imagined on the

invariable, therefore it is proved that there is something which is

the substratum of all imagination, and which is neither a cause nor

an effect.] That in relation to which the awareness does not change

is real; that in relation to which it changes is unreal. Thus, since

the distinction between the real and the unreal is dependent on

awareness, therefore in all cases (of empirical experiences) everyone

has two kinds of awarenesses with regard to the same substratum: (As

for instance, the experiences) 'The pot is real', 'The cloth is

real', 'The elephant is real'-(which experiences) are not like (that

of) 'A blue lotus'. [in the empirical experience, 'A blue lotus',

there are two awarenesses concerned with two entities, viz the

substance (lotus) and the quality (blueness). In the case of the

experience, 'The pot is real', etc. the awarenesses are not concerned

with substratum and qualities, but the awareness of pot,of cloth,

etc. are superimposed on the awareness of 'reality', like that

of 'water' in a mirage.] This is how it happens everywhere. [The

coexistence of 'reality' and 'pot' etc. are valid only empirically-

according to the non-dualists; whereas the coexistence of 'blueness'

and 'lotus' is real according to the dualists.]

Of these two awareness, the awareness of pot etc. is inconstant; and

thus has it been shown above. But the awareness of reality is not

(inconstant). Therefore the object of the awareness of pot etc. is

unreal because of inconstancy; but not so the object of the awareness

of reality, because of its constancy. (unquote)

 

The Kathopanishad bhashya (2.3.12) makes a significant observation on

the One Existing Entity, the Satpadartha:

Also, if the universe had no ultimate existing cause, then the

effect, being inseparably connected with the cause, would be

apprehended as non-existing. But this is not so; it is perceived as

existing only, just as a pot, etc., made by earth etc., is perceived

in association with earth etc. Therefore the cause of the world,

Atman, must be known as existing.

 

Pratyabhijna, recognition, is employed in deciding that the Supreme

Brahman, the Akasha, is to be regarded as that in which are combined

the denials of the conception in respect of It, that are found in

various Upanishads.

 

All changing states and subsidiary states pertain to Brahman the One

unchanging Satpadartha:

 

Again, in refuting the Buddhistic ideas of total annihilation without

leaving any trace of each individual in a series, pratyabhijna,

recognition, is made use of to point out that the individuals can

have no such destruction as to leave no trace of recognition or to

become non-existent for under all circumstances the common Substratum

is seen, through a process of recognition, to persist

uninterruptedly. Where such recognitions are not obvious, the

persistence of a common Substratum can be inferred from the fact of

its perception elsewhere. This is what is suggested in the phrase '

sarvAsvavasthAsvapi vyAvR^ittaasvanuvartamaanam'. Taken by itself,

this phrase would refer to all the states of Sat, Brahman; and taken

as related to each of the states and subsidiary states within them,

it would refer to Brahman that persists throughout the changing

phenomena.

 

Revelation of Chit by Pratyabhijna:

 

We saw above that the Pratyabhijna, recognition, reveals the

Satpadartha alone. It has been shown by the Acharyas that not just

the Sat aspect is revealed but also the Chit aspect is also revealed

by a pramana. When it is said that a pramana reveals an entity, it

only operates to remove the ignorance veiling Brahman, the

Substratum, on which the name and form of the entity are

superimposed. Any pramana has only this purpose to serve. On the

removal of the veiling ignorance, what manifests is this Brahman on

which name and form are superposed. This is pointed out by the

Sambandhavartika 1002:

 

ato'nubhava evaiko viShayo'ajnAtalakShaNaH |

akShAdInaam svataHsiddho yatra teShaam pramANatA ||

 

While all the pramanas operate to remove the veiling pertaining to

the existence-aspect of Brahman, the Substratum of an object,

perception which is inclusive of pratyabhijnaa operates to remove the

veiling of the shine-aspect as well. (The reference here is to a

knowledge had from say, inference. In inferential knowledge, as in

the case of inferring the unseen fire from the seen smoke, only

the 'existence' aspect of Brahman (fire) is revealed. But in the

case of directly perceiving a pot, for instance, placed in front,

the 'existence' aspect as well as the 'shine' aspect are revealed.)

The first and foremost characteristic of perception is its immediacy

and directness. This immediacy is verily the immediacy of Reality,

the Consciousness, which is direct. Says the Vedantaparibhasha (1):

pratyakShapramA cha atra chaitanyameva, 'yat sAkShAdaparokShAd

Brahma' iti shruteH |

 

The sole Reality which is Infinite Consciousness is conceived of as

threefold, the pramatru chaitanya, the pramana chaitanya and the

vishaya chaitanya. Only the upadhis that are accidental differ, but

not the underlying Reality. This unobstrusive and pervasive identity

escapes us. Space in which finite bodies are located and move is

quite unnoticed, the bodies engrossing all our interest and

attention. Pure Existence in which entities appear is neglected as

it serves no practical interest of ours – avyavahaarya. This

underlying universal Consciousness is the Great Normal, ever the same

and not admitting of any novelty. It is the Infinite Normal

Background on which all abnormalities appear for a time, only to

disappear for ever. It is no surprise, therefore, that It is unable

to stimulate the curiosity of the ordinary man who is attracted only

by the out-of-the-way and the abnormal. There is no knowledge,

however insignificant, in which Reality or Unity is not incipient.

The function of any vritti consists in manifesting the ever-present

non-difference between the pramatru chaitanya and the vishaya

chaitanya. Every time an object is cognised, this non-difference,

apparently sundered, is made manifest, vindicated as it were. Says

the Vedantaparibhashaa:

ghaTAderviShayasya pratyakShatvam tu pramAtrabhinnatvam.

 

But the non-difference thus brought about by the vritti is by its

nature limited. When an object is known, it is the Consciousness, as

determined by the object, that is known. The experience of

Consciousness as Infinite is not experiencing a large number of

perceptions of empirical objects, nor a collection of them. The

Infinitude thus achieved is spurious, it is a sort of endlessness, a

mere repetition, not a true whole. Only that knowledge in which the

empirical upadhis do not appear constitutes the experience of the

Infinite, Akhanda, which alone sublates the world-illusion. Thus

every object is Brahman, the Consciousness, on which are superposed a

name and a form which constitute, so to say, a 'state' of Brahman.

The expression 'sarvaasu avasthaasu api' occurring in the present

verse is conveying this aforesaid idea. Further, we see from the

above analysis the great truth contained in the words of our

Acharya 'pashyannapi na pashyati moodhaH' (despite seeing the Truth,

the ignorant does not see It). Alas! What great a blow has delusion

dealt on us!

 

The immediacy of Brahman, the Consciousness Itself, is direct whereas

the immediacy of upadhis pertaining to each of Its 'states' like a

cloth etc., is because of its superposition on 'Brahman'.

The 'Prakaashikaa' tika (on the Vedantaparibhashaa -1) puts it

thus: paTaadInaam aparokShachaitanya-adhyAsAt aparokShatA,

chaitanyasya svata eva.

 

Pratyabhijnaa as pointer to the Subject – Always valid:

 

Following the above analysis pertaining to the external objects

which, when perceived, reveal the Sat and Chit aspect of Brahman

alone, it may now be seen how 'recognition', pratyabhijnaa, reveals

the identity of the very knowing subject. In fact, the ultimate

import of any pratyabhijnaa whatever, lies, as the Vedanta points

out, in the identity of the subject; the predicates are free

accidental attributes, upalakshana. Here it may be noted that it is

quite possible that one may be mistaken about the identity of another

person say, Devadatta; he may not be the same individual, appearances

may be misleading. But the identity of the person who makes the

judgement about Devadutta's identity is necessarily implied in his

being in a position to make any such judgement, false or true. Says

the Bhashya on the Sutra – anusmrteshcha (2.2. 4.25):

 

It may be conceded, however, that in the case of an external entity,

there may be the possibility of doubt of the form 'It may be either

that very thing or one similar to that', since in the case of an

external entity there is scope for delusion. But in the case of the

cognizer himself there can never by such a doubt as 'I may be either

that very person or one similar to him', for there occurs a definite

recognition of identity, as in 'I who saw yesterday, am remembering

today.' (unquote. What great clarity in expressing! Glory to the

Acharya, the unmatched Shankara!!)

 

More generally, the analysis of every experience pertaining to an

object, idam, is always seen to reveal some aspect of the

experiencer, aham.

 

(end of Part VIII-b)

(To be continued)

Om Tat Sat