ADVAITA-SAADHANAA
(Kanchi Maha-Swamy’s Discourses)
ADVAITA-SAADHANAA
(Kanchi Maha-Swamigal’s Discourses)
“What do you see within the broken fruit?”
Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 77
“Seeds,
and seeds, like small small particles”
“Well, my child, break that
seed also”
“Done”
“What do you see inside,
now?”
“Nothing, my Lord”
“The nothing that you are
referring to has an invisible subtle thing in it. “It is from that subtlety the
entire banyan tree springs out” says the sage Aruni, and it is at that point,
he addresses the child with affectionate warmth : “Saumya (Smart one), Believe
me. Have faith in what I say. *shraddhasva*” *shraddhasva* means
‘Have shraddhA’.
This is the mahAvAkya that
is at the lofty peak
of Vedanta that is taught
as the great first step to SanyAsis at the time of their taking sannyAsa. And
when this upadesha is being given first to that supremely qualified celibate
youngster, the Rishi finds it necessary to say *shraddhasva*. This just means
that one has to have shraddhA as his only armour even at the last moment
when the stark reality of Realisation of Brahman takes place.
Not only in the trust that
we place on the concepts and the like. The trust has to be also that, ‘by that
Guru who gives them to us one would also see the final gate open for us’. This
is very important. Even though he might be a JnAni, he has to play his
role of a human, just as God plays the part of an Avatara. Even that would be
only a way of showing the right path to some one. But when he involves himself
in some of these human activities, the disciple may land himself into a doubt
about whether his guru is indeed a JnAni. Once he starts doubting why
the guru is acting like an ordinary human, and whether such a personality can
ever deliver the spiritual release that he is seeking, there begins the
disciple’s downfall. That very doubt assumes gigantic proportions and like a
ghost occupying his brain, does not allow him to continue his SAdhanA.
The constant thought that one has been cheated devours him as well as the
dreams about his goal. “samshayAtmA vinashyati” (B.G. IV – 40) says the
Lord -- ‘He who doubts, goes to ruin’. And when He says this he adds the words
*ashraddha-dAnascha*, meaning ‘one who has no shraddhA’. In IX – 3, He
says
*ashraddha-danAH
purushhaaH nivartante mRtyu-samsAra-vartmani* --
‘the man without faith (is
ruined and) comes back to this transmigratory cycle again and again’. In fact
he frightens us with a warning, at the same time very compassionately. It is
not just a false warning; it will surely happen that way. We should not allow
it to happen. We have to develop an unshakeable faith in the thought ‘I have
come to this Guru. Let him appear to others in whatever way they think. As far
as I am Advaita-saadhanaa 78
concerned,
God will not let me down; He will certainly grace me, through this Guru, with
the Release that I seek’. The conviction and faith that we usually develop in
our Vidya-Guru (the teacher who instructs us with the basics of education) in
our early days, -- that same conviction and faith has to be there in the
dikshA-guru (the Guru who finally grants us the sannyAsa status). It is
important to cultivate this shraddhA-cum-bhakti-cum-sharaNAgati.
Of course it is true that
one should resort to a guru only after thorough enquiries about him. But
suppose you land yourself with a fake guru. Even then, if without losing faith
in him, if you surrender to him, the All-knowing Lord will bless you with
Enlightenment through that Guru, though he may not himself be a JnAni!
“Conviction comes only by
actual perception by ourselves as truth; instead of this if one goes on faith
by the shAstras and the Acharyas who repeat those shAstraic
statements, that cannot give a firm conviction” – such thinking is nothing but
absence of shraddhA. On the other hand shraddhA is the faith that
says: “By the very fact that something is not comprehensible to my little
intellect it must be higher than what can be revealed by my own inquiry; it
must be the truth revealed to the Rishis and passed on to us by the Shastras”.
One of the six accessories
to Vedic knowledge is called *niruktaM*. It was done by Yaska. It delves into
the word-meanings of words found in the Vedas. When dwelling upon the meaning
of the word ‘shraddhA’ he says it originated from the two root words
‘shrat’ (indicative of Truth) and ‘dhA’ (which means ‘fixing’). So the
integrated meaning of the word ‘shraddhA’ is to ‘fix something in the
mind as the truth’ – in other words, to believe in something with conviction.
In Chandogya Upanishad
(VII-19-1) there is a mantra which means: “This is the kind of shraddhA that
we should have in that fundamental invisible subject, that should always occupy
our mind; only then can we think right” -- *When there is shraddhA then
and there is right thinking*.
Brahma-vidyA (Knowledge
pertaining to the subject of brahman) should be taught only to those who have shraddhA
– says Mundaka Upanishad. Who are those so qualified? The Upanishad gives a
list of such qualifications. (III -2-10). Those who discharge their obligations
(karmas) in the right manner; *shrotriyas* (those who have excellent
scholarship of the vedas); those who have an intense anguish to be in brahman;
and those who have shraddhA. Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 79
In
Prashnopanishad also (I – 10) it says those who seek the Atman become eligible
to do so by their tapas (austerities), celibacy (brahmacharya), shraddhA,
and learning.
In the Gita, Bhagawan
explains in one whole chapter the details of divine qualities as against the
‘asura’ (undivine) qualities and when he finishes this chapter, says: “He who
transgresses the rules and regulations of the Shastras will get neither success
nor happiness; therefore, O Arjuna, keep the Shastras as your pramANa (basic
law) and decide on what to do and what not to do”. Having said this, right in
the beginning of the next chapter he says there could be an inborn shraddha,
totally unrelated to Shastraic issues, and this could be in three different
kinds, namely, rajas and tamas which are not desirable, but also a desirable
sAtvic shraddhA. All this only shows the importance that one has to
attach to the concept of shraddhA.
The Acharya keeps emphasizing,
in all his works, the shraddhA in Shastras and the words of the Guru.
He has added ‘shraddhA’
as one of the ‘shamAdi-shhaTka-sampat’ (the treasure-sextad beginning
with shama), along with shama, dama, uparati, titikshhA, samAdhAna.
But he has not added it as a sixth, following the five mentioned. The first
four are mentioned in that order in Brihad-Aranyakopanishad; he keeps that
order and now adds shraddhA as the fifth. So shraddA comes after titikshhA
but before samAdhAna.
The word ‘samAdhAna’
has several meanings. One of them is the establishment of truth after meeting
doubts. Usually the proponent of one school makes a claim and the opponent from
the other school raises objections to the claim. These objections and the
arguments laid in support of the objections are collectively called
‘pUrva-pakshhaM’. Now the original proponent meets all these objections, and
establishes his proposition. This process of meeting objections is called
‘samAdhAnaM’. And the established proposition is ‘siddhAntaM’. When one listens
to the arguments of the purva-pakshha side, even the disciples of the proponent
himself, may begin to doubt the truth of the proposition of their own master.
In other words their faith in their own master’s proposition would waver. This
loss of faith, which is the opposite of shraddhA, is what is ‘pacified’
by the ‘samAdhAna’ of their own guru.
When the Acharya includes ‘shraddhA’
as one of the components of SAdhanA, the implication is there is what is
called ‘ashraddhaa’ (the opposite of shraddhA, namely, lack of faith).
To conquer that lack of faith is ‘shraddhA’. Having conquered that, one
reaches the ‘samAdhAna’ stage. Just like Peace after War. When faith has
to duel with lack of Advaita-saadhanaa 80
faith,
more faith (shraddhA) is needed. Afterwards, when there is no more duel,
it is the ‘samAdhAna’ stage.
All this means that ‘samAdhAna’
has to be preceded by ‘shraddhA’.
That is why when the
Acharya decided to to keep ‘shraddhA’ – the basic prerequisite for any
spiritual venture – also as a component of SAdhanA at the higher stage
of entering sannyAsa, he decided to keep it before ‘samadhAna’. Because ‘samAdhAna’
is the stage when the mind is settled enough to receive the sannyAsa rigour. So
naturally it comes after the first four, namely, shama, dama, uparati and titikshhA.
The SAdhanA components
though sequenced thus do not turn out to be that sequential. I already told you
how they have all to be practised simultaneously. By continued practice of the SAdhanA,
one rises on the spiritual ladder but one also slips. Very often it happens
that the fall through a slip is more than the rise. You rise by two steps, but
you also fall by four steps! So further practice of SAdhanA makes you
rise by two steps but you now fall only by three or two steps! Practise
further. Practise, practise, practise. This persistent and consistent practice
gives even more than the expected success, if it is coupled with the intensity
of the SAdhanA, the strength of the will to do it, and the power of the
Lord’s Grace. One may even jump like a frog from a lower step of the spiritual
ladder to a step several steps higher!. And for all this it is the shraddhA that
gets things done. And that is why shraddhA is kept before ‘samAdhAna’.
The Acharya himself has given
a deep meaning for ‘samAdhAna’. But we shall come to it later. Before
that we shall see how he has defined ‘shraddhA’. And still before that,
just as we saw how it comes before ‘samAdhAna’ we shall also see how it
comes after ‘titikshhA’.
We were going to see why shraddhA
has been kept after titikshhA.
The discretionary enquiry
about the transcendental and the ephemeral (nitya-anitya-vastu-viveka)
results in a certain conviction about what is impermanent; but the conviction
is not so strong about the permanent. Isn’t the permanent one the Atman? Unless
one has an experience how can conviction about it be strong? But the experience
of the Atman is to be had right at the very end. By all the enquiry, by all the
listening to the teachings of one’s Masters, by all that reading of the various
works of the Acharya, and by all that exposure to the Upanishads and other
philosophical works, one intellectually arrives at the conclusion that there is
certainly a thing called Atman and it must be of the nature of the fullness of
sat-cit-AnandaM. But the conviction in this conclusion will Maha-swamigal’s
Discourses 81
not
be as strong as the conviction that arises about the impermanence of the
universe of objects, because the latter is experiential. The clarity with respect
to the Atman cannot be expected to be that perfect. In other words, we are more
knowledgeable about what is to be discarded rather than about what is to be
merged in. Thus a disgust-cum-dispassion starts with what is to be discarded.
Following that, instead of running after the impermanent non-Self, one, through
that very dispassion, engages oneself in the control of the senses and the mind
– shama and dama. In due time the craving for the ephemeral objects of the
universe disappears and the mind becomes empty. This is uparati. But even here
there is no experience of the Atman. The misery of experience of the non-self
is not there, but still the bliss of the fullness of experience of the Atman is
also not there. Then comes the stage of titikshhA – the unaffectedness
by the happiness and misery of the outside world. Even here the progress is
only on the side of the discarding of the non-self, and not on the side of the
experience to be.
Another point has to be
noted here. A shadow, a trace, of the bliss of the Atman will however be there
right from the beginning, just as one feels a cool breeze slightly sneaking
through a hot summer day, because of a distant rain somewhere. That trace of
bliss is the grace of the Almighty. And that grace increases to light showers –
but not a downpour. Hot sun, and off and on some cool air, now and then some
showers. This is how it goes, because the bliss of the Atman comes only after
numerous lives. We forget the fact that through all that journey through
several lives we have been immersed in the non-self. We think we have not been
compensated well enough after all the SAdhanA we have done in this life.
We feel a sense of disappointment and there is an intense anguish. By the steps
of our SAdhanA we think we have achieved quite a bit of tolerance and
endurance (titikshhA), but this anguish for the blissful experience of
the Atman comes from nowhere, as it were. It actually comes because the Lord
Himself is testing you. This is the time when you need shraddhA so that
you don’t leave off your SAdhanA. That is the reason for shraddhA,
the higher level shraddhA, being kept after titikshhA.
The definition that the
Acharya gives to shraddhA is:
shAstrasya guru-vAkyasya
satya-buddhyA-vadhAraNA /
sA shraddhA kathitA sadbhiH
yayA vastU-palabhyate //
(Verse 25/26 of
Vivekachudamani)
“The noble ones say: ShraddhA
is the conviction arising through the intellect that shAstras and
the words of the guru are indeed true; by this shraddhA is the Reality
attained”. Advaita-saadhanaa 82
Ordinarily
we take faith or shraddhA to be that which discards the function of
intellect (and takes things on faith). Here it says the ShAstras and words of
the guru are taken to be true by an analysis of the intellect -- *buddhyavadhAraNA*.
There is no contradiction. Because, analysis or confirmation by the intellect
does not mean one takes shAstras and words of the guru as true only if
the intellect confirms them after an analysis. Then what does it mean? It is
the intellect that has to decide after an analysis: “I cannot expect to know
everything. It is not possible to offer a judgement all by ourselves. Regarding
matters connected with after-life and with the Self, things incomprehensible to
us, but intuited by the jnAna-dRRishhTi (intuited wisdom) given by the
Lord Himself and by one’s own experience by the authors of the ShAstras and the
Guru who knows the ShAstras; what they say have to be accepted by us without
further inquiry”. To arrive at this conclusion by use of one’s intellect is
what is called “buddhy-avadhAraNaM”. It is not that the intellect is
used to decide on the Truths; the intellect decides that there is no place for
intellect here!
Mark! This is not what a
stupid who has no power of the intellect accepts anything without question. Such
a one will get cheated. When we said ‘nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekaM’, we
did mean the process of discriminating between the good and the bad and that
would certainly imply the use of the intellect. In order to discriminate, one
has to develop and train one’s intellect to become sharp. On the other hand
when the Shastras and the Guru are saying something which is not comprehensible
by that intellect, he has to accept that without allowing the intellect to
intervene. It is more difficult not to allow the intellect to intervene, rather
than allow it to do its function. This is possible only if there is modesty to
the extreme. One has to develop that kind of modesty. Instead of having a
stupid man’s faith, one has to cultivate an intelligent faith in the words of
the Guru and of the Shastras, without countering them by objections – this is
the shraddhA that is being talked about.
*avadhArana* has two
meanings. One is ‘a deep conviction’. The other is ‘a limitation’. Both the
meanings have to be integrated here. The intellect limits itself by concluding
that this is ‘beyond my own jusrisdiction’ and therefore is determined to
consider Shastras and Guru-words as true. By shraddhA one can reach the
Truth is what is implied by *yayA vastu upalabhyate*. ‘She’ (*sA*) is
called shraddhA – the word is feminine – by which the Absolute Reality
(*vastu*) is obtained (*upalabhyate*).
In the Tamil region we use
“vAstavaM” and “nijam” for something true. The word “nijam”
does not mean that “nijam” means ‘what is in its own nature’, or ‘what
belongs’. Probably our usage that gives the meaning ‘true’ to it must have
arisen thus. When we dress up for a particular role Maha-swamigal’s Discourses
83
in
a drama we play the role, don’t we? That is only a role, a pose, a disguise.
When we are off the disguise, we become what we are usually. So a disguise or a
role presents only a falsity, whereas when we take off the role we become our
true personality, whatever we are. Since a disguise means falsity or untruth,
its opposite, namely, the role to which we naturally belong, -- that is our ‘nijam’
– is taken to denote truth. This is how ‘nijam’ must have come to stand
for ‘truth’! But let that be.
But the meaning of ‘vAstavaM’
as something that is true, is a correct one. The word has been derived from ‘vastu’.
The nature of ‘vastu’ is ‘vAstavaM’. ‘vastu’ means a
‘thing’ ordinarily; but its most important connotation is ‘that which truly
exists’. Things and objects are not in our imagination; they actually exist and
that is why a thing is called ‘vastu’. Thus ‘vastu’ means
something that truly exists and so we also use ‘vAstavaM’ the property
of ‘vastu’ for ‘truth’.
In the defining shloka for
‘shraddhA’ that we were discussing, it says, ‘by means of shraddhA is
the reality obtained’ *yayA vastu upalabhyate*. Ordinarily though we
call everything that exists in the operational world as ‘vastu’, when
enlightenment comes upon us all these will be known as existing only in our
imagination, because it is the absolute Brahman only that really exists in the
absolute sense. That is the ‘vastu’ ultimate. And that ‘vastu’ is
obtained only by shraddhA.
In this definition of shraddhA,
it is the intellect that realises its limitation and gets the conviction that shAstras
and the words of the guru are true and this conviction is shraddhA,
says the Acharya. But in his ‘aparokshhAnubhUti’ he does not even rely on this
role of intellect to voluntarily limit itself. There he does not give any such
leeway to the intellect and accordingly he gives the simple definition in the
commonly understood way:
*nigamA-chArya-vAkyeshhu
bhaktiH shraddheti vishrutA *
meaning, ShraddhA is
the exhibition of bhakti (faith and dedication) towards the words of the Guru
and of the ShAstras.
It is very customary to
link the two words bhakti and shraddhA. ‘bhakti’ denotes the aspect of
love and liking and ‘shraddhA’ denotes the aspect of faith. But if we
think about that, faith or trust comes only if there is a liking and the liking
comes only if there is a trustworthiness. The two are inseparable. In the words
of the guru and the ShAstras, we should have this faith coupled with liking and
this love coupled with trust. That is shraddhA. Love is what involves
our heart in the thing. Such Advaita-saadhanaa 84
involvement
of a heart-felt trust in the guru and the shAstras is shraddhA.
23.
Samaadhaana
After Shraddhaa the Acharya
lists *Samaadhaana* as the sixth item in the sextad of spiritual
accomplishments. The words *samaadhaana* and *samaadhi* have the same meaning.
The six ‘treasures’ starting with ‘shama’ are known as ‘shamAdi shhaTkaM’
[shama-Adi (beginning with shama) – shhaTkaM (sextad)] and this ‘shamAdi
shhaTkaM’ terminates with ‘samAdhi’ !
SamAdhi is the final goal.
The final aim is brahman. To be totally immersed in brahman is samAdhi. Being
the final goal it cannot be termed as a part of the SAdhanA. It is the
final state of accomplishment. Accordingly the Acharya does not also mention it
in the second stage of jnAna path, namely, the SAdhanA-chatushTayaM
(the four components of SAdhanAa) . Thereafter, in the third stage,
where one adopts the renunciate stage, when one goes through the regimen of
shravana, manana and nididhyAsana, this is not mentioned as one of those
exercises. Because it is just the end-result of all this SAdhanA. In the
state of samAdhi one experiences it and does not do anything by one’s effort .
Thus it is that the Acharya never mentions samAdhi as a component of SAdhanA.
However, --
There are two grade-levels
in shraddhaa, as there is in bhakti. The samAdhi I talked about just now is the
higher grade; there is another one of a lower grade. The lower grade samAdhi is
the ‘samAdhAna’ of the ‘shamAdi-shhaTkaM’ spoken by the Acharya. ‘samAdhi’ has
generally the connotation of being in unison with the goal of brahman; so in
order to make a distinction he calls this as ‘samAdhAna’.
I told you already how the
Acharya adds ‘shraddhaa’ to the five accomplishments mentioned by Rishi
Yajnavalkya in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. And Yajnavalkya calls the person who
possesses them as ‘shAnta, dAnta, uparata’, etc. The Acharya calls the
accomplishments defining them as ‘shama, dama, uparati’, etc. and makes them as
components of the SAdhanA. Yajnavalkya names the one who has the last
(the fifth) accomplishment as ‘samAhita’. That which makes him a ‘samAhita’ is
named by our Acharya as ‘samAdhAna’. ‘sama’ + ‘Ahita’ is ‘samAhita’. ‘sama’ +
‘AdhAna’ is ‘samAdhAna’. The two words ‘Ahita’ and ‘AdhAna’ have the same
meaning; namely, ‘to unify, confirm, establish, in one place’. What is supposed
to be established, confirmed? Where? Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 85
‘sama’
means equality – no high, no low. There are other meanings also. What is full
or complete is also said to be ‘sama’. ‘samAdhAna’ means to unify the mind and
establish it completely in one place.
[Note by VK: I have
used the word ‘mind’ here
for the Tamil word
‘cittaM’ that
the Mahaswamigal
uses in this chapter.
But as he goes
along he explains the usage
of ‘cittaM’ for
‘manas’ (Mind).
This explanation
will come in the next post.]
It should not be allowed to
move this side or that side. We all know the mind thinks of several things at
the same time. To converge it into one place and firmly establish it there is
‘sama AdhAnaM’ or ‘samAdhAnaM’. The one who has so established the mind by
fixing it in one place is a ‘samAhita’. By doing this the perturbations of the
mind are all calmed and it becomes focussed completely at one place. By such a
‘samAdhAna’ the peace of a calm restful mind is obtained.
What is that one thing into
which the mind is to be focussed without running into all directions?
*shuddhe brahmaNi* : ‘In
the pure unmixed Brahman’. To establish the mind always and in all manner,
completely in Brahman is ‘samAdhAnaM’.
*samyak AsthApanaM buddheH
shuddhe brahmaNi sarvadA /
tat-samAdhAnam-ityuktaM ….
//*
This is how the Acharya
defines it in Vivekachudamani shloka 26 (27).
‘samyak’ means ‘correctly’
or ‘completely’. Here both meanings have to be taken in. ‘AsthApanaM’ means ‘
the establishing of’. ‘The intellect has to be always (*sarvadA) established
completely in Brahman in the right manner (*samyak*); this establishing is said
to be (*ityuktaM*) samAdhAnaM’.
Brahman is the only thing
which is unmixed with MAyA. What is referred to as the substratum of the
entire universe is Brahman; the same thing when referred to as the substratum
of the jIva is called Atman. Brahman which is the same as Atman is the only
thing which is untouched by MAyA. Hence it is called ‘shuddha brahman’ –
that is why the shloka has ‘shuddha Brahmani’. Even a little mixture of MAyA
will make it different. Ishvara Himself has such a mixture of MAyA.The
universe which is totally mixed with that MAyA is being administered by
that Ishvara, who has MAyA with him (*MAyA-sahita Ishvarah).
Brahman does not do any Advaita-saadhanaa 86
such
thing as administration of the universe. Brahman has nothing to do with the
universe or its affairs. Of course it is the substratum, basis of the universe;
but from that Brahman it was MAyA that produced the vision of the
universe. Brahman is not related to the universe.
The dim light produces the
vision of the snake from the rope, but the rope in reality has no relationship
with the snake. It is an unmixed rope all the time.
That kind of unmixed thing-in-itself
is what is called shuddha Brahman. Instead of the saguna form of Ishvara,
if the mind is focussed on nirguna Brahman, that is said to be ‘samAdhAnaM’.
Our SAdhanA is Atma-SAdhanA.
The SAdhanA is for the Realisation of Brahman which is attributeless
(nirguNa) and which is the Atman . Therefore it is necessary to keep the mind
unshaken in the Brahman which transcends the MAyA, instead of in the Ishvara
with His MAyA.
By Ishvara is meant
all the different forms of God. Originally it was one such form that was
worshipped by us and that is why the mind was trained to focus itself on one
thing.That was the first stage. In this second stage, the mind has to have its
‘AdhAna’ in the Brahman without form.
Off and on one will recall
the saguna form of Ishvara. When it comes, don’t think of Him as the
administrator of this mAyic universe but think of Him as Grace Personified (*anugraha-svaruupaM*)
which granted us the thought that we have to transcend this MAyA. And
with the determination that ‘It is He (that saguNa form) who shows us the path
of JnAna towards the nirguNa Brahman and so we should no more cling to
the saguNaForm of His’, one should turn one’s mind towards the Atman principle.
He is the One who shines as our Atman. So holding on to the Atman is as good as
holding on, doing bhakti, to Him. The mind should always be turned towards the
nirguna brahman; even if the memory of the saguna Brahman recurs, knowing that
the basis of that saguNa one is only the nirguna brahman, we should dissolve
the saguna in the nirguna.
I have been telling you of
‘the mind’ so far. But the Acharya has referred to ‘buddhi’, the
intellect. *samyak AsthApanaM buddheH* are his words – namely, ‘the intellect
must be caught hold of and fixed in Brahman’.
The intellect (*buddhi*)
is only one particular aspect of the mind. Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 87
Cit
is Knowledge. The organ that the JIva has that is associated with
knowledge is ‘cittaM’. This is an internal organ; called ‘antah-karaNaM’. By
‘Knowledge’ is not meant just what is done by the intellect (buddhi).
Though what is done by the intellect is part of this Knowledge, ‘cittaM’ is not
just that. The feelings that arise in the mind (manas) is also part of it. The
work of the mind, the work of the intellect, what the mind thinks, feels, what
the intellect knows – all these together constitute what is called ‘cittaM’.
Because of this combination of works of both the mind and intellect, it is
customary in advaita works to refer to the process of cleaning up the mind and
the intellect and of
focussing them as
‘citta-shuddhi, citta aikAgriyaM’.
There are four: cittaM,
manas, buddhi, ahamkAraM.The four together constitute ‘antah-karaNaM’.
‘Thought’ is something that is common to all the four. But its source is
‘cittaM’. The ‘cittam’ that produces thought associates itself with the other
three. Manas is the instrument of feeling. It does not know good and bad. It
drowns itself in all kinds of feelings. It is the intellect that is the
instrument of discrimination between good and bad. Only the intellect has the
power of judgment.Ahamkaara is the mood (bhAva) that arises first in all
thoughts. The thought of separate jIva as differentiated from the ParamAtmA,
with an ‘I’ of its own, is what is known as ahamkAra (Ego). When and only when
that is destroyed then only the separate JIva-hood will go and the
status of the Atman in its Realisation of one-ness with the ParamAtmA arises.
This destruction/end of the Ego is the apex of SAdhanA.
When he defines ‘samAdhAna’
the Acharya talks of the intellect (buddhi) – the role/pose of ‘cittaM’
when it exercises the power of discrimination –and says that this intellect has
to be fixed in Brahman.
Ordinarily, cittam is
equated with manas (mind). In the same manner, what is to be monitored and
controlled with effort is the manas (mind) – this is the common understanding.
Even if we do not understand the meaning, we are in the habit of saying ‘The
mind does not have samAdhAna (peace or rest)’ or ‘Rest your mind, pacify the
restlessness of the mind’. In ritual mantras they say ‘manas samAdhIyatAM’ in
the sense of ‘Let the mind rest in peace’. And in reply to that prayer, one
says *samAhita-manasaH smaH*. Note that in all this, it is the mind (manas)
that is talked about.
In other words, we equate
‘manas’ and ‘antaH-karaNaM’ in all our ordinary exchange of ideas. ‘Control the
mind, Let the MAyA covering the mind be removed, May the dirt of the
mind be erased’ – these are the statements in the literature of spirituality
and Atma-SAdhanA. The reason for all this is that it is the mind (manas)
that draws the JIva by its Advaita-saadhanaa 88
feelings
into all directions. When the Acharya defined ‘shamaM’ in this sextad, he says
it is “the state wherein the mind (manas) is anchored to the goal (lakshyaM) of
the Atman” -- *svalakshhye niyatAvasthA manasaH shama ucyate*.
The next one ‘damaM’ is
also the controlling of the mind’s agents, the senses. ‘uparati’ is also
another component of mind-control. Holding back the channels (vRtti) from
proceeding to outside attractions is ‘uparati’ and the channels are nothing but
flows of the mind. The tolerance or patience implied in ‘titikshhaa’ is also a
work of the mind. Thus all that we have seen so far are SAdhanAs that
correct the mind.
Here when he talks of ‘samAdhAna’
he talks about the ‘fixing’ of the intellect (buddhi). We have heard
many speak “The mind has to become still; the mind has to be drawn and made to
be fixed on one thing; it is the mind that has to be anchored ..”. In this kind
of environment it will be odd if I tell you to do such things with buddhi;
I did not want to appear different, right from the start. So I tried to be
smart and without saying it is the mind or the intellect that should be brought
under control, I mentioned ‘cittaM’ which is common to both. Also the Acharya
himself has shown me the way for that. In AparokshhAnubhUti (Verse #8) he says
“The unitary focussing of cittaM on the goal of Absolute Reality (*sat*) is
said to be ‘samAdhAna’*:
*cittaikAgRyaM to
sallakshhye samAdhAnam-iti smRtaM*.
Having made all this
introduction, we shall now see why the Acharya has mentioned the intellect here
(instead of simply, the mind).
When he was talking about shraddhA
earlier, though he made it clear that buddhi (intellect) has to be
kept aside and it is only the mind that has to posit the faith, still he said
that it is the confirmation by the intellect (*buddhy-avadhAraNaM*) that is
called shraddhA. And we explained by saying that it is the intellect
itself that has to decide that it has to play no role and thus make way for the
mind to accept the words of the Guru and the Shastras.
The present context where
he says that buddhi (intellect) has to be focussed on brahman, and that
is samAdhAnaM, is being done in the same strain .Without being swayed by
emotion, it is the intellect as the component of the internal organ that weighs
truth and falsity and makes judgments in all worldly matters. That same buddhi
has now to be withdrawn from that function and coordinated to converge on
matters relating to Brahman. He says that is samAdhAnaM. It is not only the
feelings of the mind that run helter-skelter; the intellect also does the
Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 89
same.
But we usually think it is the play of emotional feelings that is bad; we do not
think in that manner of the goings-on of the intellect. In the name of ‘Pursuit
of Knowledge’, the intellect goes in search of all sorts of information and all
of us are in the habit of praising such action. It is generally an acceptable
thing to say: “We should know everything; all arts and science. Even thieving
is an art. (Recall the Tamil saying: *kaLavuM katrumaRa*). Even the Acharya got
the award of ‘sarvajna’ (all-knowing)”. In fact I myself have told you many
times the same things. But note that such things are not told to a spiritual
sAdhaka who is advancing in the second stage. They were all said to one who is
far behind; that was the stage when the intellect has to be sharpened. It is
that sharpness of the intellect that had to be used to do the
‘nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekaM’ (the discrimination between the ephemeral and the
transcendent). This viveka (discrimination) is totally a function of the
intellect. After having become an ‘Atma-sAdhaka’ (seeker of spirituality) he
does not need any more outside knowledge. The only knowledge that he needs is
Self-Knowledge. His intellect should not any more digress into other matters.
The only subject to which it should now be anchored is the pure Brahman.
The Gita (V -28) says
*yatendriya-mano-buddhiH* that is, not only the senses and the manas,
but the intellect also should be controlled. Intellect has to be stationed in
brahman, without tossing itself into several objects.
This fixing of intellect in
brahman has been called *brahmaNi buddheH sthApanaM* by the Acharya. But the
Upanishads on the other hand say that we cannot reach brahman by our
intellectual power. In two Upanishads, namely, Kathopanishad (II – 23) and
Mundakopanishad (III-2.3) it says emphatically * na medhayA* (not by
intelligence). Neither by mind, nor by speech, nor by intellect can the Atman
be obtained – is well-known.Then why did the Acharya say so? It means he is not
talking about the final Realisation stage of ‘samAdhi’; he is only talking of
the lower stage, *samAdhAnaM* and thus let us remember he has distinguished
both.
So neither by intelligence
nor by Vedic scholarship can the Atman be obtained. If that is the conclusion
of those two Upanishads then by what shall one obtain the Atman? You have to
‘choose’ it. This process is called ‘varaNaM’. What does one mean by ‘varaNaM’?
What is ‘varaNaM’?. ‘vara’
means ‘best’. When a bridegroom is chosen for an eligible daughter; the
bridegroom is called ‘varaH’ in Sanskrit and ‘varan’ in Tamil. Also another
meaning is one who has been chosen from among several. This choice is inbuilt
into the word ‘svayamvara’ where a bride (usually a princess) chooses her match
from an assembly of several princes who consider themselves eligible bachelors
for the princess. She Advaita-saadhanaa 90
chooses
whomsoever she likes best. The act of choosing is ‘varaNaM’. We look for a
proper guru, finally choose one and seek him as our guru – this is
‘guru-varaNaM’. Accordingly there is ‘sishhya-varaNaM’ also.
In a similar manner we have
to choose ‘Atman’, by discarding everything else. We have to keep praying
“Please reveal yourself, O Atman. You are nothing but my self; but I am not
able to recognize it. All this mind, speech, and intelligence (medhA) which
think of myself as ‘I’, cannot recognize you. Therefore please reveal yourself
by yourself”. A continued prayer like this will one day flash the truth. It
will nullify the intellect, manas and speech and produce a Self-realisation as
the Atman itself.
This is ‘Atma-varaNaM’. The
reciprocal process by the Atman, is beautifully described in the Upanishads and
called *vi-varaNaM*. The word means ‘revelation of what is inside or hidden’.
In sum, the sAdhaka has to
do only this. He should understand that intellectual smartness will not work
with Brahman. What will work is only a constant prayer, after having discarded
everything else, to Atman itself, to be the chosen goal,. The word ‘varaNaM’
which is the process here, includes in it the concept of ‘prayer’ also; that is
how the Acharya has constructed his Bhashya for those mantras of the
Kathopanishad.
The same Acharya here says:
“Establish the buddhi (intellect) in shuddha Brahman”. What is meant by
this? I think it is only this: The intellect should dwell, not on shuddha
brahman, but in a one-pointed way on what has been said by the Guru and the
Shastras about Brahman.
To allow buddhi or
intellect to be drowned in the ocean
of Brahman comes at the
end of the third stage: samAdhi.
Here it is ‘samAdhAnaM’.
‘BrahmaNi’ does not mean ‘in Brahman’ here but ‘in matters pertaining to
Brahman’ – what the ShAstras and the Guru say about it. This is the right way
to understand it. The purport is that we should direct the intellect to dwell
always on the philosophical implications of Brahma VidyA.
In the exercise of shraddhA,
we made the intellect to confirm (avadhAraNa) the faith in what the ShAstras
and the Guru say. In continuation of the same , as a logical conclusion, the
Shastra of the Atman has now to be learnt, by the intellect itself, without any
doubts raised by the intellect. The Guru might add something of his own, which
may not be in the ShAstras. That also has to be absorbed in the same way.
Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 91
Realisation
or Experience of Brahman (*brahmAnubhava*) comes much later. That is the true
Enlightenment. Right now whatever has to be learnt through the intellect has to
be absorbed as ‘buddhi-jnAnaM’. The total force of the intellect
has to focus on this now. This is the *samyak AsthApanaM* (Right fixation). And
this has to be done always. This is the ‘samAdhAna’ of the intellect.
Now the Sadhaka has not yet
matured to sit in dhyana and have his intellect dissolved in the Atman. At this
stage the intellect keeps on doing its functions. Use that intellect only in
those functions which help you rise in spirituality. And what could be those
functions except to know well the ShAstras about the Atman? Except for the
formal initiation (upadesha) into the mahAvakyas (which has to be done only at
the time of taking Sannyasa), everything else has to be learnt now by proper
study.
They have to be learnt at
the feet of a guru. This is the VidyA-guru.The one who later gives him the
sannyAsa and initiation into the mahAvAkyas is the Ashrama-guru. It goes
without saying that the latter has to be a SannyAsi himself. Probably he might
have been the Vidya Guru earlier. Or probably he might be a scholarly
practitioner of the Vaidic Karmas.
24.
Who is qualified to receive the teaching of the Upanishads?
There is an opinion that
only SannyAsis have the right to study the Upanishads. In other words only a
SannyAsi should teach Upanishads and that too to SannyAsis only. They say that
the others such as, a Brahmachari, a householder, etc. may learn Vedanta from
other expository books. When a brahmachari goes through the study of the
Veda-recitation, he also learns to recite the Upanishads. Certainly. Among the
various vidyAs and upAsanAs therein, many are intended for householders. Even
then, without concentrating on the learning of the meanings, one can learn to recite.
If desired, one can get to know the content of them in outline. But a deep
study in detail of the meanings of the Upanishads is only for the SannyAsis.
This is their opinion.
But what appeals to me is
what tradition has handed over to us. Whether one is a brahmachari or a
householder, they have been learning, in fact deeply, all the Upanishads. So I
think only the initiation into the mahAvAkyas is to be postponed to the event
of taking over SannyAsa. Advaita-saadhanaa 92
Of
course in the recitation of the Upanishad itself, the mahAvAkyas will come. But
it is only the SannyAsi who can use it for a japa. For this he has to receive
by the process of DikshA, the mahAvakya mantra from the SannyAsa Guru only.
Otherwise, all those who
are eligible to learn the vedas, in whatever stage of life they are, can learn
the Upanishads from a guru. This, I think, is the opinion of the learned and
this has been in vogue for a long time.
As support to this one may
state that originally those who gave out the Upanishads or were the recipients
of the Upanishads were themselves not SannyAsis. But I don’t like to lean on
that point. For when the yugas change, the dharmas also change. The spiritual
strength of people of the earlier yugas does not subsist in those of the later
yugas. That is why dharma shAstras prohibit certain things which were in
vogue in the earlier yugas. We should not transgress those injunctions of the shAstras.
Therefore it is not a valid point to quote instances from the Upanishadic times
in support of the continuance of those practices. Of course the SmRti does not
specifically say that Upanishads are only for Sannyasis. But instead of taking
my stand on this, I would rather go by what has been handed to us by tradition.
There is what is known as ‘ShAnti
pAThaM’ consisting of certain mantras and invocatory shlokas, prescribed for
being recited at the beginning of every Upanishad class. One of those mantras
says: “ Who once created Creator BrahmA and taught Him the Vedas, that Almighty
is the One who enlightens my intellect; being a seeker of MokSha, I surrender
to Him”. The word used here for the seeker of MokSha is ‘mumukShu’. Only the
advanced seeker is called mumukShu. In Svetasvataropanishad, which, though not
among the ten topmost Upanishads, has been commented upon by the Acharya, it is
said that this Upanishad was taught to advanced SannyAsis. People who advocate
that SannyAsis are the only ones to be taught the Upanishads usually quote this
fact. But our Acharya has mentioned in his commentaries that several portions
in the Upanishads are only for the manda-adhikAris (those who are not fully
qualified). Certainly a mumukShu is not a manda adhikAri. So I go by the
traditional viewpoint, namely, instead of saying that Upanishads can be learnt
only after one is advanced in jnAna-acquisition, I would say only by the
learning of the upanishads one would advance in the acquisition of jnAna.
Traditional practice has legitimately adopted this relaxation.
Om Tat Sat
(Continued...)
(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of H H
Kanchi Mahaswamy, great devotees and Advaita Vedanta dot org for the collection)
0 comments:
Post a Comment