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

[Guest guest]

I am sending this to you once again, since I don't find it in your digest

of 17th, though I have sent a copy (of the same) of what I sent to

advaitin. I presume that the copy I sent to you must have miscarried.

Kindly see that this does not get duplicated in tomorrow's digest. Sorry

for the mess-up.

 

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.