Kanchi Maha-swamigal's Discourses on Advaita Saadhanaa (KDAS-66)

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

For a Table of Contents of these Discourses, see

advaitin/message/27766

For the previous post, see

advaitin/message/33298

 

SECTION 50: ATMAN FULL OF LIFE;

NOT JUST AN ABSTRACTION

 

That was the first half of the shloka. In the second half he gives the

definition of Bhakti:

 

*sva-svarUpAnu-sandhAnaM bhakti-rity-abhidhIyate*

 

Bhakti is said to be the unbroken union with one's own natural Self - the

Atman. *bhaktiH iti abhidhIyate* means 'it has been named bhakti'.

 

Do 'anusandhAnaM' of one's own natural state, says he. What is

'anusandhAnaM'? *sandhAnaM* means a unification or joining with something.

A meeting'! If that union stays continuously, it is 'anusandhAnaM'.

 

Does unification with the Atman mean that Atman is one thing, and the

JivAtman that fuses with it is another? No. No union or joining with the

Atman is possible. Even this kind of little or minute duality is not

permitted there. The merging, the fusing, the union -- all these are out of

place here. What happens is, having 'swallowed' .

 

[Note by VK: Would 'absorbed' or 'dissolved' or 'consumed'

be a better word here for the Tamil word *muzhungi-viTTu*

that the MahAswamigal uses?]

 

.. the Jiva that pines to unite, pines with love and anguish - in other

words, having swallowed the antaH-karaNa (inner organ), It stands alone. So

it is not a question of 'anusandhAnaM' of the Atman which is the Real

Nature. It has to be immersed in the constant memory of the Atman and the

filling up of the chittam with that - this is what we should understand by

'anusandhAnaM'. In the case of the intellect also this is what we did. It

was said that the intellect should be established and rested in

shuddha-brahman; but intellect cannot approach anywhere near shuddha-brahman

and so we understood it to mean that the intellect should dwell on matters

or teachings or the Shastras pertaining to Brahman. In the same way here

also, to say that one should do 'anusandhAnaM' on the Nature of the Atman,

is only to mean that the 'anusandhAnaM' (being in continuous union with the

Atman) is of the thoughts about the Atman.

 

This anusandhanaM begins well before sannyAsa. But it is further

strengthened and deepened after sannyAsa and in due course the sAdhaka gives

himself up totally, and the Atman alone shines thereafter.

 

Continuous fusion or merging is certainly the Bhakti out of Love.

 

One thing should be said about the para-brahman consuming the Jiva-bhAva snd

Atman alone remaining. It is not that the consumption is done in one go. It

consumes but then it also regurgitates. Again it swallows; again it

regurgitates. The state of being in samAdhi, and then coming down from

samAdhi - these are both the swallowed and regurgitated states. Everytime

the Jiva-bhAva is consumed and later spit out it comes more emasculated and

dissolved. But it still is. And those are the times when the anusandhAnaM

with bhakti has to continue with the hope of further dissolution.

 

When he talked about *mumukShutA* (in shloka 27) he mentioned *sva-svarUpa

avabodhaM*. Now when he is talking about bhakti, he says *sva-svarUpa

anusandhAnaM*. 'avabodhaM' means an awakening. MumukShutA was said to be to

desire that one should get Release for the sake of the awakening to the

Atman. In the beginning of the shloka (27) itself his reference is to the

'ahamkAra' that I have been talking about all along. The subtle ahamkAra is

the 'alphA' of the Jiva.

 

[Note by VK: The Mahaswamigaql says ahamkAra is the

'pillaiyAr chuzhi' of the Jiva. I

have translated it as 'the alpha of the Jiva'.

I hope it is acceptable]

 

Starting from that and ending with the physical body, everything is a

bondage, which is an imagination because of mAya; it is from this bondage we

have to get Release. Just a Release is not enough; "That Release is to be

obtained for the purpose of awakening to the Real Nature of one's Self (for

*sva-svarUpa avabodha*). If one pines in anguish 'for this awakening'

(*avabodhAya*), then one gets that awakening and by that itself

(*avabodhena*) one may get his Release - that is how we understood it. In

fact in shloka 27:

 

*ahaMkArAdi dehAntAn bandhAn-ajnAna-kalpitAN /

sva-svarUpAva-bodhena moktum icchA mumukShutA *//

 

the word *avabodhena* is to be in the context of the end stage, whereas what

begins with *avabodhAya* (for the awakening) ends with the awakening.

 

Thus mumukShutA is the desire for relief from the bondage of the ego; after

the mumukShutA he places bhakti in the logical sequence. This bhakti

emasculates the power of the ego. Among the mind and intellect and the ego

(which together make up the antaHkaraNa), the mind is tamed by shama, dama,

etc., the intellect by shraddhA and samAdhAna, and then the ego is

controlled by mumukShutA and tamed (reduced) by bhakti - so goes the logical

sequence.

 

Actually When the Atman-awakening takes place - the Atman is certainly awake

all the time; but since we don't know it, we name the time when we know it

as the time of Atman-awakening - at that time, the individual sAdhaka

vanishes!. But it is not true to say we vanish. "Even the self-luminous

Atman appears to sleep for us who are overcome by mAyA; Let us wake up" - if

and when this thought is there, then we are there. A vague sense of the

Atman-awakening, it is only an imagined perception, that cannot be described

as this or that - such a thought also persists. In fact it is beyond all

description. But a thought persists about the Atman-Brahman, as a

something which is Infinite, something that is perfect and pure, something

that is Existence-Knowledge-Bliss. In fact the conception of either the

Infiniteness or the sat or the cit may not be precise or well-defined;

however there will be an idea of them all. Until the antaHkaraNaM totally

vanishes, some thought or other will continue; and certainly the opinion or

bhAvanA about the Atman will also continue to exist. When such an

Atman-awakening is imagined, one should not think of it as just an

abstraction, but conceive it as a living principle. And then lay down this

little soul to That; having got to this state, thereafter the continuance of

that same bhAva is bhakti. This is the *anusandhAnaM* after the

*avabodhaM*. It is like waking up after sleep; after the awakening, next

comes the setting up of a relationship! Even the relating should go and give

place to the relationship which keeps the goal of an identification!

 

Do not have any notion (of the Atman) this way or that way. Whatever it is

in reality let it show, let it take over. Keep only a watch. Don't give

attributes to it like sat, cit or infinite. Leave it 'As is'. Yes, it is

difficult to leave it like that and be quiet. But it is not impossible at

this advanced stage. When one keeps on conceiving it in terms of this or

that attribute, involuntarily one may come to the stage of thinking: "Why

all this build-up? Let us see it as it is". When one sees it without any

preconceived notion, there is the danger of it appearing as dry and void

nothing. So even though you may not have any other conception (of the

Atman) you should not leave off the basic truth that the Atman is not a

void, it has life. The word 'life' reminds us that since we are also living,

at the base we are also life and so there is an automatic relationship. And

relationship means there is scope for love. We must make it true love. It

should not be a wrong love that expects something for this little soul from

that universal soul. Instead 'this' should go and unite with 'that' and

'that' should consume 'this'. This anguish should become a true love.

 

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/Jivanmukta.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

'kti' suggests a connection and immersion. 'bha' connotes shine and

effulgence. Can we therefore extend Acharyal's interpretation to

conclude that 'svasvarUpa' is self-shining, whereby bhakti means

totally and irrevocably getting lost in the self-shining or self-

evident Self?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

>

...........

In the second half he gives the

> definition of Bhakti:

>

> *sva-svarUpAnu-sandhAnaM bhakti-rity-abhidhIyate*

>

> Bhakti is said to be the unbroken union with one's own natural

Self - the

> Atman. *bhaktiH iti abhidhIyate* means 'it has been named bhakti'.

>

> Do 'anusandhAnaM' of one's own natural state, says he.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

> 'kti' suggests a connection and immersion. 'bha' connotes shine and

> effulgence. Can we therefore extend Acharyal's interpretation to

> conclude that 'svasvarUpa' is self-shining, whereby bhakti means

> totally and irrevocably getting lost in the self-shining or self-

> evident Self?

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ________________

Namaste Nair-ji

 

Yes, your interpretation seems to be right. You will get a further

concordance with the Mahaswamigal's mind when you read today's posting

(KDAS-67).

Thanks for the input.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk