Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part IX –a)

[Guest guest]

Sridakshinamurtistotram

(Part IX –a)

Shrigurubhyo NamaH

 

tvat-sannidhAna-rahito mama mAstu deshaH

tvat-tattva-bodha-rahitA mama mAstu vidyA

tvat-paada-bhakti-rahito mama mAstu vamshaH

tvacchintayA virahitam mama mAstu cha AyuH

(Let no place be for me that is bereft of Your presence. I do not

seek any knowledge that is not the knowledge of You. I do not seek a

lineage that is devoid of devotion for Your Holy Feet. A life that

is devoid of contemplation on You is of no use to me.)

 

The Eighth stanza of the Hymn is of very profound importance since

here we find the consideration and negation of several notions that

we have accepted as true and go about in parlance. These notions

include: cause-effect, difference, connection/relationship, and the

like. The verse reads:

 

Vishvam pashyati kArya-kAraNatayA sva-svAmi-sambandhataH

ShiShyAchAryatayA tathaiva pitRR^I-putrAdyAtmanA bhedataH |

Svapne jAgrati vA ya eSha puruSho mAyAparibhrAmitaH

Tasmai ShrIgurumUrtaye nama idam shrIdakshiNaamUrtaye ||

 

(Obeisance to Him, the Supreme Self (Being), who deluded (not

deluded) by Maya sees in dream or in waking, the universe as

consisting of distinct entities variously related such as cause and

effect, servant and master, disciple and Preceptor, father and son

and so on, to that resplendent Dakshinamurti, incarnate in the

glorious figure of one's own Guru.)

 

The anvaya:

ya eSha puruShaH Svapne jAgrati vA mAyAparibhrAmitaH (sann), vishvam

kArya-kAraNatayA sva-svAmi-sambandhataH shiShyAchAryatayA pitRR^I-

putrAdyAtmanA bhedataH pashyati, Tasmai ShrIgurumUrtaye nama idam

shrIdakshiNaamUrtaye ||

 

In this verse, the Acharya explicitly states that it is the One

Supreme Being, Brahman, that owing to ignorance appears as a jiva

experiencing the world. The variety of the world is available only

in the waking and dream states. Hence only these two states are

mentioned explicitly; the causal sleep state has to be supplied. The

variety of the world is not just the objects that are experienced in

the waking, etc., but also the various notions underlying the

experiences. Thus we `relate' to a father, a son, etc. We have a

different kind of relationship, of the master-servant, with certain

other people. Again, there is this unique relationship

called `disciple-preceptor' with respect to some other individuals.

In all these relationships, there is an underlying `difference'

between us and others. Thus, only when we recognize that the other

is a different person from us, there arises some relationship with

the other. Again, we have recognized and accepted into our lives

another notion called `cause-effect' without which our parlance

cannot go on at all. This notion is so deep-rooted that every

endeavour of ours starts with the question: What will I get, or what

will result, from this endeavour?' There is a saying: `prayojanam

anuddishya na mando'pi pravartate' meaning: without motivated,

impelled by a `benefit' even a dunce will not act. Between objects

and persons also we establish this `cause-effect' relationship. We

nurture a cause so as to get an effect. Again, we try to avoid a

cause that could result in something detrimental to us. One might

ask `what is wrong in this?'. In the world, that is, in the

unenquired worldly existence, this is quite allright. But when one

tries to examine what this world is, and what could be a `better'

state than the worldly existence, one has to critically examine this

relationship. The most glaring effect or defect of this `cause-

effect' notion is: pravritti and nivritti. One takes up activity to

either obtain what is beneficial to him by nurturing the causal

factors to that benefit or takes up activity to avoid the causal

factors of that which is detrimental to him. This activity is what

all samsara is about.

 

The kaarya-kaarana bhaava is not absolutely true as was seen in the

discussion pertaining to this in the first stanza of the hymn. To

make a quick review, it could be seen that the Vedantic view of cause-

effect is that it is accepted only on the relative plane. The effect

is non-different from the material cause. This was shown on the

basis of the Chandogya Upanishad : `Vaachaarambhanam vikaro……'. The

Sruti further proceeds to teach that any effect in the universe is

non-different from the Ultimate Material Cause, the Sat. This is

none other than Brahman. The question of `origination' of the

universe is taken up and after analysis shown that the concept of

origination is only an adhyaropa. When the Shruti talks about

origination, srishti, the idea is only on an`as though' basis; in

reality, there can be no question of origination at all. By

delineating srishti, the Shruti is making an opening to know the

originator, Brahman, by pointing out that Brahman is the Creator, the

origin, of the universe. This `originator' or `source' status of

Brahman is not absolute, but only a superimposition, adhyaropa, by

the Shruti, tatasthalakshana, of Brahman. The concept helps

to `identify' Brahman first and later drop the assumed status of

originator and know the essential nature of Brahman, the svarupa

lakshana. In Vedanta, the tatasthalakshana is the adhishtanam, the

substratum of the appearing universe. In essence, kaaranatva,

causehood, of everything is traced to Brahman. Depending upon the

ease to understand the concept, different constructs like `yugapat

srishti', simultaneous projection like in a dream and `krama

srishti', sequential projection, are taught.

 

Notion of `difference' a myth:

 

Talking of cause and effect, one has to encounter two other concepts:

the `sambandha', relationship, between karya and kaarana and `bheda',

difference, between kaarya and kaarana. This verse of the hymn shows

that these concepts are also a myth. So is it in general, of bheda

and sambandha pertaining to any two entities whatsoever. The Srutis:

Neha naana asti kinchana (Brihadaranyaka Up. IV.4.19) (In It there is

no diversity, whatsoever), mrityossa mrityum aapnoti (Br.Up. IV.4.19)

(He goes from death to death, who sees diversity, as it were, in

It.), Naatra kaachana bhidaa asti (Nr.Ut.T.Up.) (In this there is no

difference of any type) and the Mandukya kaarika III.15 naasti bhedaH

kathanchana (on no account there is any diversity) emphasize this

point. The so-called `bheda', difference, cannot be revealed by any

pramana, pratyaksha, anumaana, etc. (It may be noted that pratyaksha

can reveal only form, colour, sound, smell, touch and

taste. `Difference' does not come under any of these categories.

Anumana, inference, has to depend on pratyaksha. So, even by

inference, difference is not known.) It is not experienced as being

other than the objects that are regarded as different. Difference

between the drik, the cognizing Self and drishya, the inert object,

cannot be perceived for the simple reason that the drik is not

perceptible. Even the difference between two inert objects is

presented by pratyaksha, for the supposition that it is so presented

does not stand, as it can neither be established that pratyaksha

apprehends the bare difference without the object that is different,

nor the difference along with the object.

 

Also, the notion of difference, though employed extensively in

parlance, involves self-contradiction. It cannot be affirmed whether

it is identical with the object to which it is attributed or

different. To regard it as mutual non-existence would not also clear

the issue. Difference, thus, is not revealed by any pramana, nor

supported by reason. It is not, however, to deny that seeming

differences are perceived. It is to be regarded as revealed by the

Witness-Self, Sakshi-bhaasya, (as taught in the work: Bheda-

dhikkaara), much in the same way as the rope-snake or the shell-

silver. (The `snake' perceived in a rope is not the result of the

operation of the ocular organ. The eye sees just the object, the

rope, there. The `snake' is concocted by the mind. The content of

the mind is revealed by the Sakshi. This is the point made here.) It

is thus to be regarded as illusory – mithya. The Kathopanishad

bhashya (2.1.11) refers to avidya as naanaatva-pratyupasthaapika

(cause of the perception of difference) and the Sutrabhashya

(2.1.6.14) says: Multiplicity is conjured up by false knowledge.

 

Notion of sambandha, relation, a myth:

 

Similar to the above is the case with relation, sambandha, which

presupposes difference. For, only when a difference is perceived,

one proceeds to establish a relation. Again, difference, for itself

to be perceived, depends upon multiplicity. At least two objects

have to be there to see a difference between them. But our cause-

effect analysis shows that Brahman, the Sat, alone is appearing as

the various objects. When difference itself cannot be established,

where is the question of relation? We have to conclude that this

also is an illusion. But then, the entire parlance, vyavahara, is

dependent on these two illusions: difference and relation. If these

are enquired into, we find that these drop off as mithya objects.

That is the reason behind saying that the vyavahara is only

relatively true but not absolutely. On another note, it would be

appreciated that while all the first three purusharthas, artha, kama

and dharma, have for their basis difference and relation, the fourth,

Moksha purushartha, is unique by its shedding the avidya-based

concept of bheda and sambandha. That is what is termed by the

Mandukya Upanishad seventh mantra after negating all the three

earlier paadas, as Shaantam, Shivam, Advaitam.

This stanza of the hymn declares that all types of internal and

external relations are indulged in by the one who is deluded by Maya,

maayaa-paribhraamitaH. The examples given by the hymn, as a

representative, are: the karya-karana, sva-svaami sambandha, the

difference between shishya and acharya, father and son, etc.

 

Jiva, Brahman Itself Deluded as it were:

 

In this verse, the words `svapne jaagrati vaa ` meaning, in the state

of dream or waking…, we see that jagrat, waking, is put on par with

svapna, dream. Again, in the manner of the `pravesha-shruti' of the

Taittiriya upanishat, `tat srishtvaa tadeva anupraavishat'

meaning, `having created it, It entered it ..' and also in accordance

with the statement:

 

Brahmaiva sva-avidyayaa samsarati iva, sva-vidyayaa muchyata iva ,

 

the so-called deluded person is, in reality, none other than the

adhishthana tattva that is the Gurusvarupa as given expression to in

the refrain:

Tasmai ShrIgurumUrtaye nama idam shrIdakshiNaamUrtaye ||

The Kathopanishad (II.i.5,6) shows that all the experiences that are

available in the waking and the dream state constitute the

experiences of the One Conscious Being.

 

Difference, etc., are mere words for the undeluded:

 

The Manasollasa (viii.5 – 8) on this verse gives the purport in a

succinct manner:

Imagining in the One self-luminous Existence, Parameshwara, distinct

entities like cause, effect, their relationship and other things of

various sorts, is just like imagining the one as two distinct things

because of the mere use of words, as for example, the head of Rahu,

empty space of akasha, my self, the body of an idol, etc. Ishwara

assumes Himself assuming, of His own accord, the forms of the

worshipper and worshipped, of teacher and disciple, of master and

servant and so on. He who is a son with reference to his father is

himself the father with reference to his son; one alone, indeed, is

imagined in various ways according to the mere words employed to

denote them.

 

It is obvious from the above that the import of the verse is to drive

home to the disciple that though the entities mentioned therein are

regarded as perceived and answer to the empirical requirements in

that manner and thereby regarded as being real in parlance and

described as anirvachaniya from the standpoint of reason, the fact is

that none of them exists, it is tucchaa and the words used refer to

mere concoctions. In a dream, for example, all the various entities

like people, their relationships, objects, time, space, events, the

reactions of people to those events, etc. are all seen to be the

projection of one Conscious entity alone. There is no substantial

difference between these entities. They are all akin to toys made of

sugar or wax. The material is one but the forms and names are

myriad. Apart from the different names that are given to each of the

content of the dream, there is nothing that can be shown as a

differentiating factor.

 

The disciple is thus made aware of the fact that from the point of

view of the Jnani no entity spoken of in parlance exists. The eighth

stanza is also interpreted as referring to a Jnani by adopting the

reading:

 

Svapne jAgrati vA ya eSha puruSho mAyA-aparibhrAmitaH,

(Neither in jagrat or in svapna does he lose sight of the fact that

he is Brahman.)

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (v.iii.20) says: When he thinks `this

(universe) is

Myself, who am all' that is the highest state. Commenting on this,

the Vartikasaara says: The experience `I am all' is not an illusion

even if it be in the dream state. How can this plenary experience

which is the result of the means of valid knowledge (the Sruti

pramaana) pertaining to the Absolute, be an illusion?

 

Next, the various `bhavas' spoken of in the verse may be taken up for

a closer look.

 

(End of Part IX . a)

(to be continued)

Om Tat Sat