Kanchi Maha-swamigal's Discourses on Advaita Saadhanaa (KDAS-63)

[Guest guest]

For a Table of Contents of these Discourses, see

advaitin/message/27766

For the previous post, see

advaitin/message/33169

 

 

Namaste.

 

SECTION 48: THE NAADI THAT GOES TO THE HEAD:

MISTAKEN NOTION (Continued)

Tamil Original : http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/dk6-122.htm

 

It is in that manner, when everybody was thinking that the mUrdha nADi that

goes to the head was itself the sushhumnA of the yoga-shAstra, it was at

that time that our Acharya manifested on Earth! He was all-knowing even at

birth. There was nothing which was not known to him. However, having

manifested as a human being to show the way to humans, he had to show that

he learnt everything only from the Guru. First he studied several shAstras,

as a Brahmachari, staying with a guru (*gurukulavAsaM*) and then from a

sannyAsi-guru he took over the Brahma-vidyA. Thereafter he wrote the

Bhashyas as per the orders of the Guru.

 

When he thus wrote the Bhashyas, he did something which demonstrates his

great humility. Though he was himself an all-knowing person as also one who

had the experience, he did not claim to say anything on the basis of his

own experience or knowledge. He always leaned on shAstras, tradition and the

regimens of elders' observance (*shishhTAchAra*) and the things approved by

them. "If I said things on my own authority, what guarantee is there that

things will happen to others in the same way it happened to me? Only by

declaring theories on one's personal authority did the Bauddha and Jaina

philosophies go wrong and it has been left to us to make the correction" -

this was the thought of the Acharya and accordingly he restrained himself

and made tradition do the talking. In matters unrelated to the growth of

spirituality, even when the traditional belief was not right, he thought

"Let me not touch it. Once I meddle with it, that will leave the precedent

for others to do the same and discipline will be lost" and thereby he spoke

only in conformity with tradition and its beliefs.

 

The matter of the heart and the NADis that Vedanta talks about is one such.

By knowing about them there is not going to be any gain of spirituality; nor

is there any loss by not knowing about them.There is a great difference

between the sushhumnA and other nADis that Yoga ShAstra talks about and this

(matter of the heart, etc.). The Yoga-shAstras say several things about how

you have to practise, how you have to generate the activity of prANashakti

in the nADis, make it ascend or climb, and you may reap such and such

results. Among these there are also included some for the growth of

spirituality. On the other hand, we cannot do anything with the heart or

nADis or the central gate, enunciated by our Vedanta shAstras and obtain any

result.It all depends on his life style, upAsanA, self-enquiry and

accordingly the Jiva-bhAva automatically goes and joins thosenADis or the

central seat of the Atman.That is all. In the YogashAstras, whatever

movement of the prANas that one creates through self-effort, that influences

and formulates the life and sAdhanA. In Vedanta, on the other hand,

depending on the life style, routine and sAdhanA, certain things happen,

beyond his control, in the nADis etc. And knowing those 'certain things' he

does not gain anything; nor does he lose anything by not knowing them.

 

The matter of the yoga-shAstra-nADis is like a careful climb up a ladder.

Every step there has to be done by self-effort. VedAanta-nADis are like an

elevator. It lifts you up by itself. You don't have to do anything. You

don't have to know how the lift works. Even if you have a wrong

understanding of it, it does not fail to do its job.

 

That is why when the Acharya wrote the Bhashyas, in the beginning days,

whatever general opinion was there about the nADis he also wrote the same

way and used the 'sushhumnA' accordingly. He did not elaborate on it, but he

did write briefly about it. Later when the matter came up more deeply in

BrihadAranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads and also in the Brahma-sUtra,

instead of using the word 'sushhumnA' he just said 'the nADi that goes to

the head' and stopped there. Even then he did not say explicitly that 'it is

not the sushhumnA'. Also he did not do any correction to his own usage of

'sushhumnA' in the previous Upanishads. Obviously he does not give

importance to insignificant controversies! Only I am making a big issue of

this!

 

But then why did he take up the matter of UttarAyana-dakshhiNAyana and

emphasize the right thing, that was contrary to general opinion? Of course

even the knowledge of that matter does not also profit you spiritually in

any way. However, by knowing it wrongly one wrongly concludes that some

non-entity who dies in the uttarAyaNa period as a great soul; but even this

thinking is excusable. It is the other opinion, namely, thinking of a

mahAtmA who had his final exit from the body in dakShiNAyana, as an ordinary

person destined to be born again - this is certainly unwholesome and that is

what made the Acharya emphasize the right thing.

 

Where he says why Bhishma was waiting for a death in Uttarayana, in the

Bhashya of Brahmasutra IV-2-20, we see the noble mind of our Acharya.

*AcAra-paripAlanArthaM*, says he - that is, for the purpose of conforming to

worldly practice.

 

Another interesting point to note. The name 'sushhumnA' itself was there

originlly only for the mUrdha-nADi, spoken of in Vedanta! The sushhumnA is

the first ray among the most import seven of the Sun. Appayya Dikshidar has

mentioned it in his stotra of the Sun. ('Aditya stotra ratnam': Shloka 4).

It is the Sun's rays that run through the nADis (that Vedanta speaks) that

run from the heart and spread through all the parts of the body and

produce the semi-physical juices which are the source for blood, bile and

flegm. Chandogya Upanishad (VIII - 6) has this matter. Of these nADis, the

nADi through which the Sun's sushhumnA ray runs is the one which goes from

the heart to the head. Therefore it is that one which was originally

called the sushhumnA nADi. The Yoga-shAstra people used that name for the

central nADi which is most important for their yoga. Though the source of

sushhumnA goes to the Sun, they gave that name to the agni-nADi because of

its centrality, in their shAstra, instead of giving that name to the

sUrya-nADi.

 

The fact that the Acharya who uses the name mUrdha-nADi in the

BrihadAranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads and in the Brahma-sUtra - in all

three of which the topic is elaborated - left the name of sushhumnA

uncorrected in the first three places where he used that name, probably has

the following explanation. He might have left it like that in order to

bring home to everybody the fact that it is the heart-nADi of Vedanta that

had the original name SushhumnA. But really what has happened is the

reverse. Scholars of later times have concluded that just because in those

three places it has been called sushhumnA, in the other places also it is

the sushhumnA of the mUlAdhAra that has been mentioned!

 

 

(To be Continued)

PraNAms to all students of advaita.

PraNAms to the Maha-Swamigal.

profvk

 

Latest on my website is an article on Kanchi Mahaswamigal. Go to

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/VK2/Seeing_a_JIvanmukta_in_blissfulstate.htm

l