DakshiNa-mUrti ashTakam Verse 2

[Guest guest]

Verse No.2

 

bIjasyAntarivAnkuro jagadidaM prAng-nirvikalpaM punar-

mAyA-kalpita-deSa-kAla-kalanA-vaicitrya-citrI-kRtaM /

mAyAvIva-vijRmbhayaty-api mahA-yogISvarecchayA

tasmai SrI-guru-mUrtaye nama idaM SrI-dakshiNA-mUrtaye //

 

Translation:

 

To Him, who like a magician or a great yogin, displays, by (the power of)

His own Will, this universe, which earlier was undifferentiated like the

sprout in the seed, but which later was made differentiated under the

varied conditions of space, time and causation created by mAyA, to Him of

the form of the Guru, the blessed dakshinA-mUrti, is this prostration.

 

Commentary:

 

This verse dwells on the concept that the Absolute is also the material

cause of the universe in addition to its being the efficient cause. But the

analogy of the tree and the seed should not be carried too far. From the

seed comes out a tree, from the tree

again there is another seed. From brahman 'sprouts' the universe, of

course, but from the universe there does not shoot forth a brahman! That is

why brahman is called 'bIjam avyayam' (Gita: 9 - 18) (= the non-perishing

seed). The analogy of the yogi is more apt here. The use of the words 'prAk'

(earlier), and 'punaH' (again), is not to indicate a passage of Time, but is

to show the difference between the unmanifest state and the manifested

state. Time starts only in the manifested state. In the unmanifested state,

Time itself was - our language itself is failing us here! Why did we say

'was'? - unmanifest! Just as manifestation of the Absolute is a phenomenon

of mAyA, Time also is a phenomenon of mAyA. The Absolute doing the Creation

of the Universe out of Itself is indeed a difficult concept. But there is

very heavy scriptural authority for this. In fact one can give at least

seven such evidences:

 

1. Only if brahman is the material cause of the world it is possible to know

everything of the universe through the knowledge of brahman which is what is

asserted in the following passages:

 

kasmin nu bhagavo vijnAte sarvam-idam vijnAtam bhavati

Mundaka-Upanishad: I-1-2

What is that, knowing which, everything becomes known?

 

yat-jnAtvA neha bhUyo'nyat jnAtavyam avaSishyate /

bhagavad-Gita: 7 - 2

Having known which, nothing else remains to be known.

 

yena aSrutam Srutam bhavati, amatam matam, avijnAtam vijnAtam

Chandogya-Upanishad VI-1-3

By which unheard becomes heard, uncognized becomes cognized, unknown becomes

known.

 

ekena mRt-piNDena sarvaM mRNmayaM vijnAtaM syAt,

vAcArambhanaM vikAro nAma-dheyaM mRttiketyeva satyaM

Chandogya-Upanishad VI-1-4

By one handful of earth, all earthen articles become known,

so everything that is earthen is only a play with words (and forms), what is

true is only earth.

 

2. bahusyaM prajAyeyeti, (May I be many, May I grow forth), says

taittirIya-Upanishad, II - 6.

This in so many words says that He Himself became the multiplicity of

created things.

 

3. The next statement in taittirIya-Upanishad, tad-AtmAnaM svayaM akuruta,

says more. It means: That itself manifested itself. Here the use of the two

words 'AtmAnaM' and 'svayaM' both meaning 'itself' shows that there exists

no other cause. So the Universe is only a modification of brahman. What kind

of modification it is, is the only thing that the two major schools of

Philosophy debate about. For an elaboration of this point, go to the

paragraph beginning with 'To sum up' in Difference and non-Difference.

 

4. There is a standard statement in the Upanishads that 'all these beings

were born from this', the word that is being used here for brahman, being

'yat'. cf.

 

taittirIya-U. III-1:

yato vA imAni bhUtAni jAyante

 

This word is a connective pronoun like 'which' used to indicate an

antecedent noun. 'Yat' is a self-substituting entity. Panini's grammar gives

a special meaning to this word, as prakRti. We know prakRti is the power of

brahman, which is what becomes the universe in the presence of brahman.

 

5. The classical statement: (Chandogya-Upanishad, VI-2-2):

 

ekaM eva advitIyaM brahma /

brahman is One only, with no second.

 

This says there is no supporting entity, therefore there is no other

efficient cause; and secondly it says there is nothing other than brahman,

therefore there is no other material cause.

 

6. MuNDaka-Upanishad gives three analogies for the relationship between the

universe and brahman. For details go to page 2 of The Absolute As It Is.

 

7.The Chandogya-Upanishad (I-9-1) explains what happens at the time of

dissolution.

 

sarvANi ha va imAni bhUtAni, AkASAdeva samutpadyante,

AkASaM pratyastaM yAnti /

All these elemental principles emanate from Space

and they finally dissolve into Space. :

 

In the taittirIya-Upanishad also, after the statement that they all come

from 'yat' it is said (III-1) that they finally dissolve into 'yat'.:

 

yat prayanty-abhisamviSanti /

 

A thing may be said to be produced from its efficient cause but it cannot

return to that at dissolution unless it is also the material cause. This

verse rejects the theory of the philosophy of NyAya and the philosophy of

sAnkhya. The former holds that

the atomic elements are the material cause of the universe. The latter holds

that the three guNas satva, rajas, and tamas constitute the material casue

of the universe. Both are rejected and this verse establishes that just as

the plant was in the seed so also the universe was in its latent state in

the Atman-brahman and by its inherent mAyA power it appears as manifest.