Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part IX –g)

[Guest guest]

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Sridakshinamurtistotram

(Part IX –g)

 

Yasya prasAdamAsAdya sadgatim bahavo gatAH|

tamaham pratyaham vande shuddhAnanda-padam gurum||

(I bow every day to the Guru who is the abode of pristine Ananda, by

taking recourse to whose benevolent grace many have attained the

Supreme Beatitude.)

(An invocatory prayer by Sri Anandagiri in his gloss to Acharya

Shankara's work: `AtmajnAnopadesha-vidhiH')

 

Some prakriyAs, constructs, pertaining to creation:

 

In contrast to the srishti-drishti-vAda (creation prior to

cognition), the view that has been advanced by the Vedanta is the

drishti-srishti-vAda, in which any object, be it the entire world,

must be deemed to arise co-terminously with the cognition pertaining

to it – drishti-sama-samayA srishti. This prakriyA liberates one

from the clutches of the plethora of assumptions indulged in to

accommodate the aspirant of the low order. The reasoning developed

here is in support of the Srutis which provide the pramana in

respect of this vAda (Brihadaranyaka Up. II.i.20):

 

//As from a fire tiny sparks fly in all directions, even so from

this Atman come forth all organs, all worlds, all gods, all

beings. //

 

The KauShItaki Upanishad 3.3 too speaks in the same vein. The

Brihadaranyaka Up. 4.5.15 says:

//There is no second, nothing else different from him that he could

know (in sleep).//

 

This is the pramana for dissolution during sleep.

 

This same Up. says in IV.iii.31, 32 that the Self is all `alone' in

sleep. The Bhashya on this is pertinent here:

 

//When in the waking or in the dream state there is another beside

Self, as it were, presented by ignorance, then one thinking of

oneself as different from that other – although there is nothing

different from Self, nor the Self different from it – can see the

other..can know the other. When, however, that ignorance which

presents things other than Self is at rest, in that state of

profound sleep, there being nothing presented by ignorance as

separated from Self, what should one see… or know and through what?//

 

The Kaivalya, Mandukya, Chandogya and Prashna, along with the above

quoted Srutis, all agree that in sleep there is no duality. The

Bhashya on the Sutra I.iii.30 quotes the KauShItaki up. in support

of its statement:

 

//In the sleeping and the waking tates, dissolution and origination

take place as known from Sruti.//

 

The intention of the Bhashya is to convey that the Sruti gives

expression to the construct: drishti-srishti-vAda, `when cognition,

then origination'; and `when no cognition, then dissolution' – since

that which has been concocted as in a dream has no proof of

existence other than the cognizer.

 

The VichArasaagara (p.220) too expresses this view.

 

Avidya one or many?

 

In respect of this ignorance (that brings forth objects as though

they are real), how is it decided as to whether it is one or many?

The answer is provided by the VedAnta-siddhAnta-muktAvaLI - 8:

 

//Since in respect of this ignorance there is no evidence – worldly

or Vedic – if it is postulated to account for its effects (this

world) then in accordance with the law of parsimony, it could be one

only.//

 

The commentary on the above says:

//As in the case of dreams, arising from the one defect, viz., sleep

which is seen to produce a variety of objects, so in this case,

presumptive evidence (arthApatti), seconded by the law of parsimony,

is satisfied in the acceptance of one Avidya possessing manifold

powers.//

 

Srutis such as `ajAmekAm …'(Shve.up.4.5), `mAyAm tu

prakritim…'(Shve.up.4.10) give expression to `One AvidyA only' that

is trigunaatmikA, of three gunas, which is the same as MAyA as

pointed out by the NyAyaratnAvaLi on the SiddhAntabindu (1).

 

However, the pluaral in srutis like: `indro mAyaabhiH…'( Br.Up.

II.v.19) [The Lord because of the manifold powers of Maya is

perceived variously.] and `parA asya shaktiH vividhaiva

…'(Shve.Up.6.8) [His great power alone is described in the Vedas to

be of various kinds.] gives expression to the manifold powers of

Maya.

 

The VedAnta-siddhAnta-muktAvaLI -16 says in its commentary:

 

//Hence the view that Avidya is the source of things is consistent;

whence what follows viz, that the world presented by Avidya is

strictly contemporaneous with the cognition of the world is also

sound, for such is the experience in the case of the rope-snake, the

shell-silver, castles in the air or the dream world.//

 

MUlAvidyA, etc. concocted as beginningless:

 

If it is sought to be pointed out that the five – mUlAvidyA, its

relatedness to Brahman, Ishwara, jiva the difference between jiva

and Ishwara mentioned along with Pure Consciousness, in the shloka:

 

jIva Isho vishuddhA chit tathA jIveshayor-bhidA

avidyA tacchitor-yogaH ShaDasmAkam anAdayaH

 

must all be regarded as beginningless like the pure Consciousness,

which would mean that they stand outside the framework of `drishti-

srishti-vAda', the answer would be that these five are also illusory

as they belong to the category of the object of knowledge – jneya.

Each of these must be regarded as anAditvena-kalpita – concocted as

beginningless. The situation has been spelt out in detail in the

SiddhAnta-lesha-sangraha (2) thus:

 

//Since the stream of concoctor and concoction, in which no

particular concoction can be regarded as the first, is

beginningless, every subsequent individual avidya etc., are

concocted by the Consciousness delimited by the avidya previously

concocted. Neither can it be doubted whether avidya etc., being

beginningless, can be concocted. Just as in dream, some such as a

tower etc., are concocted as already existing and some others as

originating then, likewise, in waking as well, some are concocted as

having a beginning and some others, as beginningless. Thus is the

distinction between the beginningless and those that have a

beginning maintained. //

 

Ekajiva-vAda:

 

This ajnAna which is inert is held to be the delimiting adjunct,

upadhi, of jiva whose essential ature is Consciousness. The

SiddhAnta-lesha-sangraha (1) says:

 

// It is because of ignorance that the changeless Brahman Itself is

regarded as jiva, just as the son of Kunti is mistaken as the son of

RAdhA, as has been shown in the BrihadAranyaka Bhashya, `Brahman

itself gets bound in the world because of Its own avidya and secures

liberation by Its own realization' by the illustration of the prince

brought up in a hunter's family. Also the VArtika says : when, for

the prince, there is the recollection (of his princehood), the idea

that he is a hunter, is removed; even so for him who is ignorant of

the Self, results Self-realization through the Mahavakyas like `That

thou art'.

 

Since in this manner, Brahman Itself, as jiva because of Its own

avidya, is the concoctor of the entire world, even Ishwara

characterized by Omniscience etc., is concocted by jiva, in the

manner of a God seen in a dream.//

 

The Mandukya karika (2) says:

// II-12. The self-luminous Self, by Its own Maya imagines Itself by

Itself and It alone cognises all objects. This is a settled fact of

the Vedanta-texts.

II-16. First of all, He imagines the Jiva (individual soul) and then

(He imagines) various objects, external and internal. As is (a

man's) knowledge, so is (his) memory of it.

II-17. Just as a rope, the nature of which is not known in the dark,

is imagined to be things such as a snake, a water-line, etc., so too

is the Self imagined (as various things).

II-19. (The Self) is imagined as infinite objects like prana etc.

This is the Maya of the luminous One by which It itself is deluded,

(as it were).

II-18. As when the (real nature of the) rope is known, the illusion

ceases and the rope alone remains in its non-dual nature, so too is

the ascertainment of the Self. //

 

The concept of Ekajiva vAda (one embodied being only) is elaborately

discussed in the Vedantic texts like:

The VedAnta-siddhAnta-muktaavaLi (and its commentary)

The Kaivalya Upanishad , the SUtasamhita, the `NArAyanI' gloss to

the Siddhaanta-bindu, the Advaita-siddhi-siddhAnta-sAra, etc.

 

The essential nature of jiva, who, in the throes of avidya forges

the universe, is Pure Consciousness which is thus the locus of

avidya. Avidya is like darkness (within, e.g., a house) which, has

for its object, i.e., conceals, the very space wherein it is

located. That is, the locus and the object of avidya are one and

the same, namely, Pure Consciousness. The Sankshepa-shArIraka (1 –

319) too says:

 

// Undifferentited Consciousness is the locus as well as the object

of avidya. Those (jiva and Ishwara) that come into being subsequent

to avidya can neither be the locus nor the object of avidya which

exists prior to them.//

 

It would be pertinent to look into the Mandukya karika and Bhashya:

 

III-10. All aggregates (such as body) are created like dream by the

Maya of the Self. Whether they be superior (to another) or equal,

there is no ground to prove their reality.

 

//Like the pot etc., (in respect of one ether delimited by it), the

aggregates of body etc., (in respect of one witness self delimited

by them) are projected by the Maya of Atman, similar to bodies seen

in dream or conjured up by a magician This Maya of Atman is avidya.

The meaing is that the bodies etc., concocted because of avidya, do

not exist in reality. If it be argued (in order to establish their

reality), that there is superiority in respect of the aggregates of

body and organs constituting gods etc., as compared to lower

beings, or that they are all equal, the answer is that there is no

reasoning that can establish their creation or reality. As such

they are mere concoctions of avidya and do not exist in reality.//

 

In the next part some more aspects of this view `Ekajiva vaada' will

be discussed.

 

(End of part IX – g)

(to be continued)

Om Tat Sat