Kanchi Maha-swamigal's Discourses on Advaita Saadhanaa (KDAS-67)

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

For a Table of Contents of these Discourses, see

advaitin/message/27766

For the previous post, see

advaitin/message/33320

 

 

SECTION 50: ATMAN FULL OF LIFE;

NOT JUST AN ABSTRACTION (Continued)

Tamil Original: http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/dk6-124.htm

 

 

In order for that relationship and that life to show itself, the Acharya has

used the word 'svarUpa' in both places by saying 'sva-svarUpa avabodhaM' and

'sva-svarUpa-anusandhAnaM'. There is a double occurrence of 'sva' in

'sva-svarUpa'. The first 'sva' means "one's own". The second 'sva' means

"natural". So 'sva-svarUpa' means one's own natural form (rUpaM). It is

the natural, true, Atman, the form which is unmixed with mAyA, of the Jiva

that has an artificial form mixed with mAyA.

 

You may ask: Wherefrom did the Atman get a 'form'? Here 'rUpaM' does not

mean 'form' or 'shape'. Whatever is one's nature, that is called 'rUpaM'.

The derived word 'nirUpaNaM' (proof) is derived from the idea that proof is

nothing but a demonstration of the true nature.

 

[Note by VK: I am not translating here four or five lines

where the Mahaswamigal discusses the Tamil word 'uruvaM'

and its derivation from the Sanskrit word 'rUpaM']

 

However when we say 'rUpaM', our mind does not take it to be of an inert

nature but something which has life. For instance when we say "the musician

brought forth the 'rUpaM' of the rAga very well" we actually feel that the

rAga itself is a living soul. In fact we do that to every art form.

Science is never spoken of that way. Do we ever say "The Professor brought

forth very well the form of Physics"? The reason is that Science is not

thought of as a living thing like Art. I am saying all this because whenever

we speak of the nature of something in terms of 'rUpa', there is always some

connection with the concept of life. And when the prefix 'sva' is added and

it becomes 'svarUpa', it is generally taken to refer to something

substantial that has the Jiva-power. The very word 'Atma-svarUpaM' brings

to our mind something with life. The small word 'sva' indicates something

that is there naturally for oneself. And the words 'for oneself' also

connotes in our mind a sense of life for that thing.

 

We speak of life. Certain words have life! When we say sat-cid-AnandaM', sat

means that which is. The word 'is' means only 'is with life'. We speak of it

as 'Being', 'Existence' or 'Life'. The word 'Being' smacks academical and

may not have the connotation 'with life'. The word 'Existence' is still

more dry and metaphysical and appears to refer to life itself as inert. It

is the word 'Life' that indicates a living that is ticking and the word

itself has a poetic element in it. The word itself has life and so what it

represents also broadcasts the Jiva-essence. Similarly with the word

'svarUpa'. Mainly to make us understand that Atman is full of life, not a

dry principle, the Acharya has prescribed mumukShutA for the

*svarUpa-avabodha* (awakening to one's own natural state) and, after that

awakening, bhakti for the relationship of love of that *svarUpa* and the

continued mental communion (anusandhAnaM) with it.

 

Thus in both places the Acharya uses the word *svarUpa*. But further ahead

in shloka 32/33, he quotes a different opinion: "There are also people who

say that Bhakti is the 'anusandhAnaM' of the Atman-principle".

*svAtma-tattvA-nusandhAnaM bhaktir-ity-apare jaguH*

 

svAtma-tattvA-nusandhAnaM : The continuous reflection on the principle of

one's Atman.

 

bhaktir-ity-apare jaguH : Others say (it) is bhakti.

 

The very statement "Others say" shows that this is not the contention of the

Acharya. His own contention has been stated in the earlier shloka as

*sva-svarUpAnusandhAnaM* (the continuous reflection on one's own Natural

Self). Right now he is being fair to the other opinion-holders who say it

is not 'sva-svarUpaM' (one's own natural Self) but 'svAtma-tattvaM' (the

principle of one's Atman).

 

What is the difference? All along we have been saying 'Love' 'Life' and

'Warmth' .

 

[Note by VK: The Mahaswamigal uses the word *Iram* in Tamil.

The literal translation of this would be 'wetness' .

But this does not make any sense in the English language. It is

surprising that the corresponding word which gives the meaning

intended in the context is 'warmth'

(of the heart)!]

 

In contrast the other opinion-holders contend that, keeping the Atman as an

abstract principle, continuous reflection on that principle (tattva) is

Bhakti. They do not hold the Atman, the goal, to be a living entity worthy

of being loved, nor do they hold the sAdhaka as a soul who dissolves in that

universal Soul; instead they hold that Bhakti is the continuous thinking of

that philosophical principle. One may ask: "When they do not agree with the

relationship with something that is living, how can they say that this

thinking of a principle is bhakti". Their answer comes from a narrow

interpretation of bhakti, which they hold to be only a one-pointed

involvement in one thing and nothing more.

 

RupaM is inherent nature. Tat-tvam is also the same. In fact it is

'tat-tvaM' that directly means 'inherent nature'. However,

'sva-svarUpa-anusandhAnaM' has an implied sense of internal dissolution of

the individual soul in the Universal source, which sense seems to be absent

in 'svAtma-tattva-anusandhAnaM'. It looks as if some inaccessible principle

is being experienced from a distance,

 

Whatever it be, The vote of the acharya is not for this. So why worry about

it? Let us not take just a dry involvement as bhakti, but take it as

something which is Love of a Living entity.

 

All this has been said by the Acharya just to show the second opinion

prevalent among advaitins themselves. In fact, it is this second opinion

that has been more popular! Many devotees of the Acharya and many disciples

do to that opinion! Indeed I myself started all this discussion by

asking the question: "How come he is talking about Bhakti in JnAna path?"

and am going through all this explanation !

 

The bottom line of all this explanation is: The thinking about the Atman is

to take place in the fashion of a relationship of Love. But the relationship

is not supposed to continue for ever. Instead of that purpose which involves

duality, the real bhakti is to desire to get dissolved in that non-dual

Ultimate.

 

I hope you have now understood what it is to have bhakti towards nirguNa.

Also you would have understood why bhakti is the 'garIyasI sAmagrI' (the

heaviest accessory) for mokSha.

 

(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]

Professor-ji!

 

Pranamas!

 

It is always a pleasure to go through the KDAS series first thing in

the morning it is a kind of 'meditational' !

 

Professorji, you mentioned about the owrd 'ANUSANDHANAM' and

interestingly enough , you translated it to mean 'communion ' .

 

Professorji ! iS not 'Anusandhanam' an effort to 'discover'

the 'Oneness' OF THE SELF OR AWAKENING OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS .

 

tHE word 'anusandhanam' is used very frequently to describe many

centres ( kendras) in India - these centres are involved

in 'research' or discovery efforts ! i , myself, used to work in

such a research institure called 'ARTHASHASTRA ANUSANDHAN KENDRA'

after my post graduation from Delhi School oF Economics.

 

Yes! A good word for the tamizh word 'muzhukirathu'

is 'drowning 'in the ocean of cosciousness. . Also, those

paramajnanis or paramabhaktas ( at the point of realization both are

the same)have heart regions that are 'red' - the seat of love and

compassion. Such jnanis or saints are warm-blooded individuals who

are kind and compassionate .

 

may i please share what Sri Ramana bhagwan has to say on 'bhakti'?

 

"Bhakti is not different from mukti. Bhakti is as being Self

(svarupa). One is always That. He realises it by the means he

adopts. What is bhakti? To think of God. That means only one thought

prevails to the exclusion of all other thoughts. That is of God

which is the Self or it is the self-surrender unto God; When He has

taken you up, nothing will assail you. The absence of thoughts is

bhakti. It is also mukti."

 

 

 

"Take the case of bhakti. I approach Isvara and pray to be absorbed

in Him. I then surrender myself in faith and by concentration. What

remains afterwards? In the place of the original 'I' perfect self-

surrender leaves a residium of God in which the 'I' is lost. This is

the highest form of parabhakti (supreme bhakti), prapti (surrender)

or the height of vairagya."

 

Once again, thank you for a wonderful series .

 

with watmest regards

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

[Guest guest]

ProfVK garu,

 

Thanks for this excellent series.

 

I am unable to fully comprehend the last sentence of your KDAS-67 post.

 

"Also you would have understood why bhakti is the 'garIyasI sAmagrI'

(the heaviest accessory) for mokSha"

 

Would you kindly eloborate the sentence, specially the words "Heavy"

and "Accessory"

 

Thank you again

 

Sudesh

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

> Also you would have understood why bhakti is the 'garIyasI sAmagrI'

(the heaviest accessory) for mokSha.

>

> (To be Continued)

> PraNAms to all students of advaita.

> PraNAms to the Maha-Swamigal.

> profvk

>