5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM -further elaborated

[Guest guest]

5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti-stotraM - further elaborated

 

dehaM prANam-api-indriyANy-api calAM buddhiM ca SunyaM viduH

strI-bAla-andha-jaDo-pamAH tvaham-iti bhrAntA bhRSaM vAdinaH /

mAyA-Sakti-vilAsa-kalpita-mahA-vyAmoha-saMhAriNe

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

 

viduH - (Those who) understand, know,

dehaM - the body

prANam-api - and/or the vital breath

indriyANy-api - and/or the senses

calAM buddhiM ca - and/or the momentary cognition, (technically called

kshaNika-vijnAna)

Sunyam - (and/or) emptiness, void

aham-iti - as the 'I "

(stri - women; bAla - children; andha - the blind; jaDa - the foolish;

upamAH - comparable)

strI-bAla-andha-jaDo-pamAH - (have attitudes) comparable to feminine

(fickleness), childish (immaturity), (unseeing like) the blind, and

(obstinate like) the foolish

bhRSaM vAdinaH - they only talk too much

bhrAntAH - confounded (are they)

(mAyA-Sakti - the Power of mAyA; vilAsa - expansion, expression, play;

kalpita - created; mahA-vyAmoha - grand delusion; saMhAriNe - to the

destroyer)

mAyA-Sakti-vilAsa-kalpita-mahA-vyAmoha-saMhAriNe -

to the One who destroys (by His teaching) the grand delusion created by

the play of the Power of mAyA

tasmai - to that

SrI guru-mUrtaye - the blessed personality of the guru

nama idaM - this prostration (be)

SrI dakshiNA-mUrtaye - the blessed form of dakshiNA-mUrti.

 

I am only supplementing the commentary already posted. In my experience,

two serious doubts arise in the minds of the learners of this verse. One

is the legitimate doubt about Sunya, which has been raised now. The other

is the reference to 'women' in what appears to be an uncomplimentary

reference. Throughout the religious literature of Hinduism whenever the

reference to 'women' appears in a similar strain it must be clearly

understood that the reference is not to women as such but to the natural

quality of an irrational fickleness that society ascribes to women, which

quality unfortunately may be present in anybody, man or woman, and it is

that quality that is talked about here and elsewhere. It is in the same

strain as the reference to the blind. It is not 'the blind' that is

referred to but the quality of their 'not being able to see' is what is

referred.

 

Now let us come to 'Sunya'. The question is: Why is the void not the Self?

The 'void' comes in the discussion because of a gradation of logical

alternatives. The body, the prANa, the senses, the mind - none of these

is the Self. Remember that those who contend that these are the Self have

started from the premise that there is no Self within, except one or more

of these. So when by logical argument you prove to them that the Self

which seems to be the motivating power within cannot be the body, cannot

be the senses cannot be the mind, - the next subtle contender for being

the Self is the concept of changing consciousness (kshaNika-vijnAna). That

is, the series of momentary cognitions. This could be the Self. But the

very fact that each instant it changes its awareness of things, denies it

the status of the Self. What is ceaselessly changing cannot be the Self.

And so now comes the proponent of Sunya who says: There is no Self at all.

In deep sleep there is nothing, there is only void -- neither the subject

of experience nor any object of experience. Therefore says the

Sunya-vAdin: The Self is 'nothing'. Sankara calls this also, a

misapprehension. To see the strength of his logic regarding Sunya let me

quote from various masters and experts. Each one contributes, in a

uniquely different way, to a better understanding.

1. TMP Mahadevan in his commentary on the sixth verse:

Advaita examines experience as a whole in its triple form - waking,

dreaming and sleep. The evidence of sleep is of special importance for it

is not obtainable otherwise. Sleep is not a state of emptiness. While in

waking and dreaming consciousness is related to a world of images and

objects, in sleep it shines as Existence unrelated to anything else.

Consciousness is not to be regarded as a characteristic of the mind,

because in sleep there is no mind, and yet there is consciousness. That

there is consciousness in sleep is clear because on waking up we say: I

slept happily, I did not know anything. Just as consciousness is required

for knowing the presence of anything even so it must be there for knowing

the absence of all things.

2.From 'Advaita-bodha- deepika' published by Ramanashram: (p.75)

Disciple: When according to your instructions I enquire into the five

sheaths and reject them as being non-self, I do not find anything left but

simple void. Where then is the Self?

Master: To say that there is nothing left behind the five sheaths, is like

saying 'I have no tongue to speak'

D. How so?

M. Unless one has a tongue one cannot say that one has no tongue to speak

with. Similarly unless there is the seer of the void one cannot say there

was nothing left. Otherwise one must not say anything. On the contrary

since the speaker says that nothing is seen, it is obvious that the Self

remains there revealing nothing besides Itself.

3. From Swami Chinmayananda's explanation of Verse 51 in Atma-bodh:

When a lighted lamp is put on a table, no doubt its glowing illumination

plays upon the surfaces of the various objects in the room and in varying

degrees of intensity it illumines the objects. But as soon as the lighted

lamp is slowly and carefully lowered into a pot or a jar, the light of the

lamp must come to illumine only the inner space of the jar. Similarly,

Consciousness, while playing through the equipments, no doubt gets

reflected upon the objects and provides us with their knowledge; but when

we have withdrawn the Consciousness from the vehicles into Itself, it can

illumine only Itself.

4. Swami Prabhavananda and Isherwood in their explanation of Patanjali's

Yoga sutra I - 38 in 'How to know God "

In dreamless sleep the two outer coverings are removed and only the causal

sheath, the ego-sense, remains. It follows therefore, that we are nearer

to the Atman in dreamless sleep than in any other phase of our ordinary

unspiritual lives; nearer - yet so far, for what separates us is the

toughest covering of the three, the basic layer of our ignorance, the lie

of otherness. And this sheath can never be broken through by mere

sleeping. We cannot hope to wake up one morning and find ourselves united

with Reality. Nevertheless, some faint hint, some slight radiation of the

joyful peace of the Atman does come through to us in this state and

remains with us when we return to waking consciousness.

5. From Panca-daSi (by Vidyaranya Swami) I - 5:

supto-thitasya saushupta-tamo-bodho bhavet-smRtiH /

sA cA-vabuddha-vishayA avabuddhaM tat-tadA tamaH //

Meaning: The knowledge of ignorance caused by sound sleep, becomes a

memory (the technical name for this is pratyabijnA; this is taken up in

the 6th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM) when the individual wakes up.

That memory has as its substance only what has been experienced.

Therefore, when one sleeps, certainly there has been cognition of 'absence

of perception', also called 'ignorance'.

Explanation: When we go into a dark room without light, we know there is

darkness. In other words we 'see' darkness. In sound sleep we know we are

unaware of everything and it is this cognition of ignorance that becomes

the memory: 'I did not know a thing when I slept' .

6. From one of millions of Sri Ramana's observations:

Is dreamless sleep empty of all consciousness? That may be what you feel

after waking from sleep. You do not do so in sleep itself. That in you

which now feels that sleep is unconsciousness is your mind. But it was not

present in your sleep and it is natural for the mind to be ignorant of the

consciousness there is in sleep. Not having experienced sleep, it is

unable to remember what it was like and makes mistakes about it. The state

of deep sleep is beyond the mind. The waking mind cannot judge of sleep.

7. From Sloka No.12 of Sad-darSanam, translation of Ulladu-nArpadu, by Sri

Ramana.:

Neither sleep nor the cognition of objects is knowledge;

In the true state, which is different from both, there is no awareness of

objects.

But consciousness alone shines. Hence it is not void.

8. Adapted From the explanations by Swami Nikhilananda and Swami

Ghambirananda of Sloka No.IV-83 of MANDUkya-kArikA:

There are four alternatives. Either Atman exists independently as

different from us -- and in order to make it different from impermanent

objects as a jar, it is said to react diversely, sometimes happily and

sometimes sorrowfully. The changeability is the fault of this theory. Or

the Atman does not exist differently that is, it is inactive, because of

its constant nature. This theory makes the denial of existence a

constant feature and so, consciousness of our own self has to be denied

and this is the fault. Some assert the state of both existence and

non-existence; this has a double fault, namely both the faults of the

earlier two theories. Then there is the total non-existence of the Self on

account of everything ending in absolute negation or void; this is the

nihilist view. The fault of this is one has to deny the very existence of

oneself by this. So all these theories are delusions, says the sloka which

goes as follows:

asti nAsty-asti nAstIti nAsti nAstIti vA punaH /

cala-sthiro-bhayA-bhAvaiH AvRNotyeva bAliSaH //

Meaning: Childish (note the usage of this word here) persons verily

cover It (fail to know It) by predicating of It such attributes as

existence, non-existence, existence and non-existence and absolute

non-existence, through ideas of changeability, unchangeability, both

changeability and unchangeability, and non-existence.

9. viveka-cUDAmaNiH Sloka No.218:

asau sva-sAkshiko'bhAvo yataH svenA-nubhUyate /

ataH paraM svayaM sAkshAt pratyagAtmA na cetaraH //

Meaning: (This sloka comes after one has negated the five sheaths as

not-self). Whatever experiences the non-existence of everything else has

itself as the witness to this experience. Therefore the Inner Self is the

Absolute; nothing else is.

10. Extracted from Sankara's bhAshya on the gItA for Slokas X111 -1 and

XVIII -50:

On XIII-1: (kshetrajnaM cApi mAM viddhi …) That the changeless

actionless Self is the knower is only a figure of speech. Fire has the

property of heat. But just as we give it the agency of the action of

burning; so also the Self has been given the agency of knowing. This

agency is actually our superimposition on the actionless changeless Self.

So when we say the Self is conscious of being aware of nothing in sleep,

it should be understood in the same manner of speaking. It is in this

sense that the Lord says: 'Who thinks of This as the killer …' (ya enaM

vetti hantAraM …) (II-19) ;'He does not take anybody's sins …' (nAdatte

kasyacit pApaM … ) (V - 15).

On XVIII-50: ( … yathA brahma Apnoti … ) How does one know the Self?, is

the disputant's question. The contention is 'both Consciousness and the

Self are formless and changeless; how does knowledge take place?'. Some

think that the body is the Self. Some think it is the senses. Some think

it is the mind. Some think it is still deeper, it is the avyakta, the

unmanifest factor. All these have the stamp of the Consciousness that is

the Self. That is why the confusion arises whether these are themselves

the Self. None of these is the Self. We have only to discard all this

non-self, which have name and form. We do not have to be conscious of

anything extra. It is the consciousness that is felt along with everything

that is non-self. It is because of this that there is also a contention

that there is nothing other than these feelings of cognition and so there

is no Self other than the feelings. They contend that these feelings are

self-validating, and so needs no other proof. In reality, therefore,

what we have to do is only to discard the non-Self; we do not have to take

any more effort to 'understand' or 'know' brahman. The tragedy here, is

that the differentiations are nothing but names and forms stipulated by

Ignorance and this has misled our discretion and intellect - the

consequence being what is most explicit in us looks implicit, what is

well-known to us appears unknowable, what is nearest seems distant, what

is our own self turns out to be something other than ourselves.

A meagre Summary of all the above: (The summary is mine; if the summary

is not appealing, pardon me, discard the summary and go back to the

original):

Even the absence of everything has to be 'cognized'. The cognizer is

consciousness. It first of all illumines its own presence without any

external help - just as we know;'I am'. If in sleep we do not feel this

illumination it is because of the presence of the ego in us. The 'memory'

of unawareness that was there in sleep is 'pratyabijnA', which is an

internal phenomenon, not of the mind, but of the ego - because of its

faint contact with the radiation of joyful peace which is natural to us

and with which we have an 'asymptotic' contact, as it were, during sleep.

It is this natural peace which we discover after we have discarded

everything else, thus ending, not with void, but with the Self.

 

 

Regards and praNAms to all advaitins and all Ramakrishna devotees.

Profvk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

The URL of my website has been simplified as

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access both my books from there.

[Guest guest]

We are very grateful for the lengthy explanation given by Prof V K about the

role of

sunya.

 

I thank him on behalf of all on the list.

 

jay

 

 

 

 

V. Krishnamurthy <profvk

advaitin <advaitin >

Cc: Ramakrishna <Ramakrishna >

17 October 1999 09:37

[ramakrishna] 5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM -further

elaborated

 

 

> " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk

>

>5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti-stotraM - further elaborated

>

>dehaM prANam-api-indriyANy-api calAM buddhiM ca SunyaM viduH

>strI-bAla-andha-jaDo-pamAH tvaham-iti bhrAntA bhRSaM vAdinaH /

>mAyA-Sakti-vilAsa-kalpita-mahA-vyAmoha-saMhAriNe

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

>

>viduH - (Those who) understand, know,

>dehaM - the body

>prANam-api - and/or the vital breath

>indriyANy-api - and/or the senses

>calAM buddhiM ca - and/or the momentary cognition, (technically called

>kshaNika-vijnAna)

>Sunyam - (and/or) emptiness, void

>aham-iti - as the 'I "

 

<snip>