Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part IX –b)

[Guest guest]

Sridakshinamurtistotram

(Part IX –b)

 

Parabrhma-mAyesha-kAruNya-sindhum sva-mAyA-dhRR^itAngam sadA-bandha-

shUnyam |

KRR^itAdhyAtmikAbhyAsa-siddhyApti-lIlam bhavAcharya-matkRRitsnamekam

prapadye ||

(I seek refuge in Him alone, who is the Supreme Brahman, who is the

Lord of Maya, who is an ocean of mercy, who, by His own Maya, assumed

a body, who is ever bereft of any bondage, who enacted the divine

play of attaining perfection through recourse to spiritual practices,

who is the Guru of the world and who is my all – a verse composed by

a disciple in prayerful obeisance to his Guru, Sri Abhinava

Vidyaatheertha SwaminaH)

 

 

 

The various notions that are held owing to ignorance, are given

a `liberating touch' by the shastra wherein the bondage-causing

nature of the notion is turned into a liberating one.

 

The kaarya-kaarana bhava is taken up now for a brief analysis.

Ishvara, the Aparoksha jnani, is the Guru who, in His infinite

grace,, designs the suitable prakriya (construct) to the disciple

whom he has chosen to impart the teaching. The karya-kaarana vaada

held by the disciple is discussed and reformulated in the manner in

which it helps him, not binds, to see the error of the mistaken

notion and correct himself. The method by which this is done is

summarized in the `AparokshaanubhUti' by the Acharya:

 

One should first look for the cause by the method of difference and

again find the same as ever inherent in the effect, by the method of

agreement. One should verily see the cause in the effect and then

dismiss the effect altogether; thereby its causehood goes away. What

then remains, that the sage himself becomes.

 

In the above method it can be seen that the analysis will ultimately

lead one to the conclusion that Brahman is the Supreme cause of

everything in the world. Each object that is enquired into will be

seen to culminate in Its Primary Cause, Brahman.

 

The swa-swaami bhaava :

 

The servant-master relationship that is commonly seen in the world is

made use of by the shastra to recognize that the disciple is

the `servant' of only Bhagavan, his Guru – in the manner `tasya eva

aham' or `I am His alone' (I belong to Him only). Whether it is

recognized or not by him, the doer, the kartaa, is always

the `servant' of the Lord alone.

 

Says the Gita:

 

Even those who, devoted to other Gods, worship them with faith,

worship Me only, O! son of Kunti, but in ignorance. (IX 23)

 

The fruit desired by any doer is also ordained by the Lord alone

(Gita VII 22).

 

The culmination of the servant-Master attitude is found in the

realization that the servant is none other than the Master. This is

shown in the Gita V.10:

He offers all actions to Ishwara in the faith, `I act for His sake'

as a servant acts for the sake of the master; he has no attachment

for the result, even for Moksha.

 

Again, the Gita XI 55 says:

He who does work for My sake, who looks on Me as the Supreme, who is

devoted to Me, who is free from attachment, who is without hatred for

any being, he comes to Me O! Pandava.

 

A servant works for his Master, but he does not look upon that master

as the highest goal for him to reach after death, but My devotee

works for My sake and also looks on Me as the Supreme Goal. I am

this Supreme Goal.

 

Pitru-putra bhaava:

 

The commonly held relationship of father-son (parent-offspring), is

only a relative concept and the Father of anyone is Bhagavan

Himself. The Shastra sublimates this relative concept in the

Supreme feeling of `The Lord is my Father'.

 

The Lord, in the Gita (XIV 3,4 and IX 17) has said:

My womb is the great Prakriti, in that I place the seed which gives

birth to all beings, O Bharata.

Whatever forms are produced, O son of Kunti, in any womb whatsoever,

the great Prakriti is the womb, I, the seed-giving Father.

I am the Father of this world, the Mother, the Dispenser and the

Grandsire.

 

The above is in accordance with the Sruti `Whence indeed these beings

are born…'.

 

Pirtritva, Fatherhood, is affirmed of the Sadguru, the Ishvara, also

in the manner of the Prashnopanishad (6-8) where the disciples

worship the Guru and proclaim:

Tvam hi naH pita yo'smaakam avidyAyaaH param pAram tArayasi

 

And the bhashya thereon:

Thou, indeed, art our father, who does take us across to the shore

beyond ignorance. Thou art our Father, since, by bestowing

knowledge, thou art the creator of eternal, undecaying, deathless and

fearless body that is Brahman.

 

The Guru, the Lord, is the pitaa as He is janma-pradhvamsi-

janmaprada, the giver of such a `birth' which destroys birth once and

for all. Thus, here again can be seen a relationship that stems from

ignorance between father and son is sublimated by the shastra by

showing that this relationship should be on such terms only and not

on ignorant terms.

 

In the word `pitru-putrAdyAtmanA' is found the word `aadi' = `etc.'

which stands for other types of relationship apart from those

mentioned in the stanza. In every case the procedure is the same.

The preceptor finds the disciple entangled in such relationships and

proceeds to liberate him by suitable pratikalpanas.

 

Some examples of other types of relationships:

 

Other relationships, for example, the bhoktaa-bhogya (enjoyer-

enjoyed) relationship, the sakhya-bhaava (between friends) are all

found to be mentioned here and there in the scriptures. In the Gita,

for example,. We find:

 

I am the Goal, the Sustainer, the Lord, the Witness, the Abode, the

Refuge, the Friend, the Origin, Dissolution and Stay, the Treasure-

house and the Seed Imperishable. (IX 18)

 

I am the very Enjoyer, as also the Lord of all sacrifices (IX 24)

 

On knowing Me, the friend of all beings, he attains peace (V 29)

 

The Panchadashi (XIV 6,7) puts the enjoyer-enjoyed relationship in a

deeply significant manner:

Atman is said to be of two kinds: the individual self and the Supreme

Self. Consciousness identified with the three bodies is the

individual self, the `experiencer'.

The Supreme Self – Existence, Consciousness and Bliss – identified

with name and form is the `experienced'. Seen as distinguished from

the respective limiting adjuncts, there will be neither (the

experiencer nor the experienced).

 

The Kaivalya Sruti says,

I the Pure Consciousness and ever-auspicious am the Witness distinct

from the experienced, the experiencer and the experience, in all the

three states.

 

The Bhashya on the Kathopanishad I.3.4 says:

 

The wise say that Atman is association with the senses and the mind

is the enjoyer.

The wise call Atman combined with the body, the senses and the mind,

the enjoyer i.e., one subject to transmigration, for, pure Atman is

certainly not the enjoyer; its enjoyment is only the product of its

conditions such as intellect etc.; accordingly also, other Srutis

declare that pure Atman is certainly not the enjoyer, `dhyAyati iva,

lelAyati iva' `It seems to think and to move.'

 

The Supremely Compassionate Mother, the Sruti:

 

The Acharya in the Kathopanishad (1.3.14) bhashya says: Arise, awake,

and learn by approaching the excellent Ones (Teachers)..

The Upanishad says out of compassion, like a mother, that this should

not be neglected…

 

In another place the Acharya says: the Sruti is more compassionate

than even a thousand mothers…

 

Here, in the Shatashloki 8, He says:

Just as a mother, in order to pacify her child that has been crying

for a very long time, places before it grape, date, mango or good

plantain fruit, so well has the Upanishad, by various teaching

expedients enlightened the utterly ignorant mind wandering

restlessly, being in the throes of its deep rooted blind tendencies

acquired in numerous lives.

 

It can be thus seen that any and every bhaava that is entertained can

be sublimated to culminate in Brahma-Atma aikya jnana, that is, the

Knowledge of identity of Brahman and Atman.

 

To secure this jnana for the disciple is the endeavour of the Guru.

The Guru adopts the manner indicated by the Sruti. The VaakyapadIya

of Bhartrihari says:

 

For the purpose of easy comprehension by the students taking the

instruction, various teaching devices are employed. Reality is

sought to be attained by taking to a course that, however, is unreal.

 

The Shishya-Acharya sambandha – knowledge of `Real' from `unreal':

 

The Tattvasudha considers an objection that is commonly raised:

In case nothing other than Brahman exists, how can there be the

parlance (vyavahara) of instruction in respect of the Supreme Truth?

There is none who is bound for whose emancipation instruction is to

be offered since there is nothing whatever that can cause bondage.

Nor can there be the contingency of emancipation by enlightenment as

there is nothing like the means for it, such as the Guru and the

Shastra.

 

The answer is also given therein:

Just as the dream of a person who is asleep vanishes on his being

awakened by the terror caused at the sight of a tiger in the dream,

so also along with its potentialities, ignorance – of one who, though

in reality, Brahman Itself, imagines otherwise, deluded by Maya, the

source of all calamities – vanishes on the dawn of knowledge due to

the Guru, the Shastra and reasoning, also set up in his delusion.

Thereby being emancipated, he rests ever delighting in his own Self,

the Sacchidananda, the treasure of unbounded excellence. Therefore,

though, in reality, everything is Brahman alone, because of the

illusion due to Maya, all parlance is rendered plausible.

 

The Bhashya of Sri Acharyapaada on the Brahmasutra 2.1.6.14 relating

to the above may be studied for further appreciation of the subject.

A portion relevant to the above topic is reproduced hereunder:

(quote)Other objections are started.--If we acquiesce in the doctrine

of absolute unity, the ordinary means of right knowledge, perception,

&c., become invalid because the absence of manifoldness deprives them

of their objects; just as the idea of a man becomes invalid after the

right idea of the post (which at first had been mistaken for a man)

has presented itself. Moreover, all the texts embodying injunctions

and prohibitions will lose their purport if the distinction on which

their validity depends does not really exist. And further, the entire

body of doctrine which refers to final release will collapse, if the

distinction of teacher and pupil on which it depends is not real. And

if the doctrine of release is untrue, how can we maintain the truth

of the absolute unity of the Self, which forms an item of that

doctrine?

 

These objections, we reply, do not damage our position because the

entire complex of phenomenal existence is considered as true as long

as the knowledge of Brahman being the Self of all has not arisen;

just as the phantoms of a dream are considered to be true until the

sleeper wakes. For as long as a person has not reached the true

knowledge of the unity of the Self, so long it does not enter his

mind that the world of effects with its means and objects of right

knowledge and its results of actions is untrue; he rather, in

consequence of his ignorance, looks on mere effects (such as body,

offspring, wealth, &c.) as forming part of and belonging to his Self,

forgetful of Brahman being in reality the Self of all. Hence, as long

as true knowledge does not present itself, there is no reason why the

ordinary course of secular and religious activity should not hold on

undisturbed. The case is analogous to that of a dreaming man who in

his dream sees manifold things, and, up to the moment of waking, is

convinced that his ideas are produced by real perception without

suspecting the perception to be a merely apparent one. (unquote)

 

It is the Vedantic scheme in which the sacred relation between the

Shishya and the Acharya is retained till the final consummation,

Advaita-saakshaatkaara. It is this very sambandha, relation, that

enables all else to be sublimated along with itself and whereby the

Guru in His infinite mercy confers on the disciple His own Svarupa.

There is this famous statement attributed to Sri Rama in the

Yogavaasishtha (6.128.102 to 105):

By Thy grace, this individual (called Ramachandra) is no longer bound

by injunctions or prohibitions. Yet, Thy word is ever to be obeyed.

O Great Sage ! everywhere – in the Vedas, aagamas, puranas and

smritis – it has been prescribed that the word of the Guru is the

injunction and what is contrary to it is the prohibition.

The commentary:

Having submitted thus, Sri Rama, not being able to see any other way

of repaying the debt of benefaction of the attainment of the Supreme

Goal conferred on him by his Guru, offered himself to his Guru by way

of placing the Guru's sacred feet on his own head; and instructed, in

order to steady the faith, all the people assembled, about the

unrivalled supremacy of the glory of Knowledge and the glory of the

Guru, directly experienced by himself. Having submitted thus, he

devoutly placed on his head the sacred feet of that great Vasishtha.

This is in the spirit of the famous ShaTpadI-stotram (3) of Sri

Acharya:

Even though there is nothing such as difference between Thee and me,

I belong to Thee O ! Lord and not Thou to me; the wave is of the

ocean and not the ocean, of the wave.

Some aspects of Maya will be taken up for study in the sequel.

 

(End of IX-b)

(to be continued)

Om Tat Sat