ADVAITA-SAADHANAA
(Kanchi Maha-Swamy’s Discourses)
47.
Correct meaning of Death in Uttaraayana
The idea of ‘Death in
Uttarayana’ has become well-known. But the general opinion about it is not
correct. What I am going to say may surprise you. But I am telling you only
what is in the Bhashyas of the Acharya. (B.G. VIII-24. Brahma-sUtraM IV
-3. Chandogya U. V-10-1. Maha-swamigal’s Discourses
139
Brihadaranyakam
VI-2-15 – Bhashyas of these by the Acharya). The Acharya never interpreted
‘Uttarayana-death’ as death in the six months of Uttarayana. Then how has he
interpreted it? The Yogi ( a desireless karmi and all upAsakas and bhaktas –
other than JnAni) goes to Brahma-loka by a divine path called devayAna
after the soul leaves the body through the nADi that goes from the heart to the
head. But before reaching the terminus there are several junctions! Each of
these is the seat of a devatA. First comes the seat of Agni. Then comes the
seat of the devatA for the daytime; then the devatA for the white fortnight and
then the seat for the devatAs of the UttarAyaNa period.
Mark this carefully! It is
not UttarAyana period. It is the devatAs of the UttarAyaNa period.
Thus the Acharya has
explained that it reaches the terminus after crossing several junctions. The
Lord also already has said in the Gita only in accordance with what has already
been said in the Upanishads of Chandogyam and BrihadAranyakam.and others. The
Brahma sUtra and the Bhashya of later times (later than the Gita) also
explains this point without the least possibility of any doubt.
In the same manner, the
dakshhiNAyana-death is wrongly associated with the result of having a next
birth. DakshhiNAyana-death does not mean that the time of death is
dakshhinAyana, but the seats of the devatAs associated with dakshhinAyana
constitute the path (*pitRyAnaM*) of the leaving soul.
Further, another matter.
This kind of passage through the path of the seats of the devatAs like those of
UttarAyaNa, then passing through junction after junction, finally arriving in
Brahma-loka, and then at the time of Grand Dissolution, becoming one with
Brahman – all this process has nothing to do with a JnAni. So by looking
at the date or tithi of the leaving of the body of a JnAni, it is not
right to conclude that “the time is not that of UttarAyaNa and so they have not
got mokSha”!
48.
Two different results of Karma-yoga
I mentioned many times that
for one who follows karma yoga well his mind gets purified on account of that
and he gets the eligibility to tread the jnAna path; and that, if such a
karma-yogi gets that mental purity and starts jnAna-yoga, either in this
birth or in one or two more births, he will obtain his advaita mukti in
that very life. How does this reconcile with the present statement that
karma-yoga is nothing but one of the many upAsanAs, and that instead of going
to the path of jnAnayoga he Advaita-saadhanaa 140
will
go to Brahma-loka and then he will get advaita-mukti only after several
crores of years when the Grand Dissolution happens?
Let me explain this. It all
depends on what he has been aiming at, what he has been keeping as his goal.
If he had had the goal as
advaita, and if however he started karmayoga-type of life just to get the
mental purity and eligibility for jnAna yoga, then that itself would
lead him to the path of jnAna, as soon as his mind is purified; and he
will also soon reach the destination of advaita mukti .
If, on the other hand, his
interest, taste or inclination not being in the jnAna path, he lives a
life of a karma-yogi (and nothing more) only with the thought “Let me be relieved
of this samsAra. Whatever possible, let me do the karmayoga right”, he
will obtain only the Brahma-loka as his result. As I said earlier, the Lord
does not voluntarily give what was not asked.
Let us analyse how we got
into this topic. We started analysing the question: “Is Bhakti an allowed
concept on the jnAna path? How is it a garIyasI sAmagrI (most prominent
accessory or instrument)?”. After one was told how to control the senses, mind
and intellect, bhakti was mentioned only for the control and destruction of
ahamkAra which is the basis of JIva-bhAva. It is the sword to cut
asunder the very root; that is the ‘garIyasI sAmagrI’. All this we saw. We
further saw how the (spiritual) heart is the seat of ego and how, if we make it
the seat of bhakti, and by that very bhakti if we dissolve the ego gradually
and thin it out, then it will go through the gate, the seat of Atman, in the
middle of the heart and the JIva-bhAva disappears and stays as the
Atman.
It was in that context, the
question arose: “If the JnAni goes like this, what happens to the
others? They also have their ego in the heart. If it does not go into the seat
of the Atman, then where will it go?”
And thus came all the other
matters in reply to this. “There are several nADis that emanate from the heart.
Among them are also those which end up in the nine gates of the body. The mind,
intellect and ego of all those whose karma-bondage has not been cut asunder
will remain fat, without getting thinned out, till the last breath. That last
breath carries that heavy luggage of the antaHkaraNaM and goes out by one of
those nine nADis. Later when another birth occurs, it enters that body. Besides
these nine, there is one nADi which goes to the head. Those who do not go by
the jnAna path, but still have the objective of the removal of the
bondage of samsAra and do the various upAsanAs, --for them the soul
leaves by that head-nADi and reaches Brahma-loka.” Maha-swamigal’s Discourses
141
49.
The NaaDi that goes to the head: Mistaken Notion
Another
matter. This is about the nADi that goes to the head. Just as there is an
incorrect opinion about uttarAyaNa-death so is the case with this. Even those
scholars who do know rightly about the UttarAyaNa death that it only means
passage through the various seats of the devatAs associated with UttarAyaNa,
even elder knowledgeable people, who have written commentaries and glosses on
the Bhashyas of Acharya in order to explain them better, -- even they, do not
hold the right opinion about the nADi that goes to the head. They all think
that it is the sushhumnA nADi spoken of in the yoga-shAstra.
But
this is not that sushhumnA.
That
sushhumnA of Yoga-shAstra starts from the mUlAdhAra at the base of the
spine and goes straight up to the head. The nADi that we saw and which is
spoken of in the Upanishads and Brahma-sUtra, starts from the heart. The
process of the ascent of prANa-shakti on the sushhumnA that starts from the
mUlAdhAra, is a matter that pertains to the yogis who perform SAdhanA for
that purpose. They hold on to the *lokAdhAra-shakti* and through that become
one with shivaM in the head. That is a particular yoga matter. Our Vedanta
which is based on Upanishads does not touch upon those things.
[Note
by R. Ganapathy: This is based on the prominent ten Upanishads
covered by the
Acharya Bhashya]
It will not go in a
roundabout way dealing with breath, shakti, etc. Vedanta shows the way only to
experience the goal by a proper intellectual enquiry, keeping a straight aim on
the target, namely the Real ‘I’ which is what subsists after the discarding of
the little ‘I’. The nADis that, according to the Upanishads, starts from the
heart, are related to the process of life as well as end of life, for the
entire humanity. Among them the most important one is the one that goes to the
head. Nowhere in the Upanishads or Brahma-sUtra is it called the
sushhumnA. They only say *mUrdha-nADi*, that is the nAdi which is in the head
or which ends in the head. In the Gita also (VIII – 12) *mUrdhny-AdAyAtmanaH
prANaM* where the reference is to the leaving of the body by bringing the PrANa
to the head, both in the text and in the bhAshya, there is no mention of
sushhumnA. As the Acharya was going on writing the BhAshyas for Upanishad after
Upanishad, only in the early Advaita-saadhanaa 142
bhAshyas,
namely, Kathopanishad, Prashnopanishad,and Taittiriyopanishad, has he mentioned
sushhumnA. Also in Taittiriya, he has referred to the heart (hRdayaM) as even
the physical heart all of us know. Let me explain why.
When the person who treads
the path of jnAna, at the apex of his SAdhanA, resorts to bhakti
for the extinction of his ego, the mind and intellect come into the
semi-physical heart, the seat of the ego; the heart is filled up by love in its
subtle form and the ego thins out and then goes and shrinks into the central
gate -- all this process takes place (involuntarily) without his knowledge! The
Atman is attributeless, so the mind has no hold on it or has only a vague hold.
So as the Guru has told him he holds on to what appears as the root or source
of breath and thought and he concentrates at that ‘point’. That is all. The
Guru might have told him and he would have learnt that it is the center of the
heart. Still in actuality, his cittam (antaHkaraNaM) will not be drawn into it permanently
in its entirety then and there. To a certain extent he has located something
like that and his cittam stations itself there for the moment. All the vAsanAs
have to be exhausted, ego has to be totally extinguished; only thereafter, it
stands there for good. Here ‘stands’ has two connotations: one is, ‘stops,
halts’; the other is ‘endures, abides, belongs’. So here what happens is, the
process begins with the first meaning and ends with the second. The whole
process which thus takes place in relation to the heart and the nADis is not in
his knowledge. His attention is not there. His only attention, and all his
thought, is – and should be -- in the Atma-sphuraNaM (Sparking of the Atman) at
the seat or locale that he has caught hold of almost as a bhAvanA (attitude).
His concentration is all on the goal of Realisation. If he thinks of anything
as a ‘path’ now, it will be a distraction. Attention to the path will stray you
from the goal; and then the path will also disappear! And you will be left back
with the straying mind; back to square one!
Suppose somebody tells us
that Ambal (Mother Goddess) has manifested somewhere in your vicinity. What
would we do immediately? Mentally we get a kind of locale for Her and we rush
on the road to find it in reality. And as we rush, do we pay attention to the
track that we pass through – whether it is a country road or a macadamised road
and so forth?
Therefore, if we accost an
enlightened JnAni and ask him about the heart, the nADis and the Gate
that Vedanta talks about, he may not tell us anything! He does not know about
what is happening to himself; wherefrom would he know about the other persons,
devotee or layman? How do you expect somebody who does not know how he came
here to know what kind of shops or buildings were there on his way?
Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 143
But
then how did the enlightened Rishis mention these things in the Upanishads?
After they got their enlightenment, after again they got the siddhi that never
slips at all, the paramAtmA Himself, in token of His appreciation, makes the
mysteries of His creation and other secrets known to them and also tells them
about all the processes related to upAsakas as well as laymen. Revelling in the
sweetness of those leelAs and miracles, they have made it known to others also.
But after all the
information reached others, they have also done some blurring. Doesn’t the
touch of MAyA come everywhere? That might be the reason! If we go to
some JnAni to resolve the perplexity, he is not knowledgeable! Or
perhaps, he knows only to that little extent that the Almighty has opened out
for him! Probably he (the JnAni) does not himself want to know anything
more! Nor does the seeker , who just received the information just because the JnAni
condescended to tell him something, develop any further interest in it, to
seek more knowledge! In this state of affairs, the vague knowledge itself
becomes and remains the complete knowledge!
It is in that manner, when
everybody was thinking that the mUrdha nADi that goes to the head was itself
the sushhumnA of the yoga-shAstra, it was at that time that our Acharya
manifested on Earth! He was all-knowing even at birth. There was nothing which
was not known to him. However, having manifested as a human being to show the
way to humans, he had to show that he learnt everything only from the Guru.
First he studied several shAstras, as a Brahmachari, staying with a guru
(*gurukulavAsaM*) and then from a sannyAsi-guru he took over the Brahma-vidyA.
Thereafter he wrote the Bhashyas as per the orders of the Guru.
When he thus wrote the
Bhashyas, he did something which demonstrates his great humility. Though he was
himself an all-knowing person as also one who had the experience, he did not
claim to say anything on the basis of his own experience or knowledge. He
always leaned on shAstras, tradition and the regimens of elders’
observance (*shishhTAchAra*) and the things approved by them. “If I said things
on my own authority, what guarantee is there that things will happen to others
in the same way it happened to me? Only by declaring theories on one’s personal
authority did the Bauddha and Jaina philosophies go wrong and it has been left
to us to make the correction” – this was the thought of the Acharya and
accordingly he restrained himself and made tradition do the talking. In matters
unrelated to the growth of spirituality, even when the traditional belief was
not right, he thought “Let me not touch it. Once I meddle with it, that will
leave the precedent Advaita-saadhanaa 144
for
others to do the same and discipline will be lost” and thereby he spoke only in
conformity with tradition and its beliefs.
The matter of the heart and
the NADis that Vedanta talks about is one such. By knowing about them there is
not going to be any gain of spirituality; nor is there any loss by not knowing
about them.There is a great difference between the sushhumnA and other nADis
that Yoga ShAstra talks about and this (matter of the heart, etc.). The Yoga-shAstras
say several things about how you have to practise, how you have to generate
the activity of prANashakti in the nADis, make it ascend or climb, and you may
reap such and such results. Among these there are also included some for the
growth of spirituality. On the other hand, we cannot do anything with the heart
or nADis or the central gate, enunciated by our Vedanta shAstras and
obtain any result.It all depends on his life style, upAsanA, self-enquiry and
accordingly the JIva-bhAva automatically goes and joins thosenADis or
the central seat of the Atman.That is all. In the YogashAstras, whatever
movement of the prANas that one creates through self-effort, that influences
and formulates the life and SAdhanA. In Vedanta, on the other hand,
depending on the life style, routine and SAdhanA, certain things happen,
beyond his control, in the nADis etc. And knowing those ‘certain things’ he
does not gain anything; nor does he lose anything by not knowing them.
The matter of the yoga-shAstra-nADis
is like a careful climb up a ladder. Every step there has to be done by
self-effort. VedAanta-nADis are like an elevator. It lifts you up by itself.
You don’t have to do anything. You don’t have to know how the lift works. Even
if you have a wrong understanding of it, it does not fail to do its job.
That is why when the Acharya
wrote the Bhashyas, in the beginning days, whatever general opinion was there
about the nADis he also wrote the same way and used the ‘sushhumnA’
accordingly. He did not elaborate on it, but he did write briefly about it.
Later when the matter came up more deeply in BrihadAranyaka and Chandogya
Upanishads and also in the Brahma-sUtra, instead of using the word
‘sushhumnA’ he just said ‘the nADi that goes to the head’ and stopped there.
Even then he did not say explicitly that ‘it is not the sushhumnA’. Also he did
not do any correction to his own usage of ‘sushhumnA’ in the previous
Upanishads. Obviously he does not give importance to insignificant
controversies! Only I am making a big issue of this!
But then why did he take up
the matter of UttarAyana-dakshhiNAyana and emphasize the right thing, that was
contrary to general opinion? Of course even the knowledge of that matter does
not also profit you Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 145
spiritually
in any way. However, by knowing it wrongly one wrongly concludes that some
non-entity who dies in the uttarAyaNa period as a great soul; but even this
thinking is excusable. It is the other opinion, namely, thinking of a mahAtmA
who had his final exit from the body in dakShiNAyana, as an ordinary person
destined to be born again – this is certainly unwholesome and that is what made
the Acharya emphasize the right thing.
Where he says why Bhishma
was waiting for a death in Uttarayana, in the Bhashya of Brahmasutra IV-2-20,
we see the noble mind of our Acharya. *AcAra-paripAlanArthaM*, says he – that
is, for the purpose of conforming to worldly practice.
Another interesting point
to note. The name ‘sushhumnA’ itself was there originlly only for the
mUrdha-nADi, spoken of in Vedanta! The sushhumnA is the first ray among the
most import seven of the Sun. Appayya Dikshidar has mentioned it in his stotra
of the Sun. (‘Aditya stotra ratnam’: Shloka 4). It is the Sun’s rays that run
through the nADis (that Vedanta speaks) that run from the heart and spread
through all the parts of the body and produce the semi-physical juices which
are the source for blood, bile and flegm. Chandogya Upanishad (VIII – 6) has
this matter. Of these nADis, the nADi through which the Sun’s sushhumnA ray
runs is the one which goes from the heart to the head. Therefore it is that one
which was originally called the sushhumnA nADi. The Yoga-shAstra people
used that name for the central nADi which is most important for their yoga.
Though the source of sushhumnA goes to the Sun, they gave that name to the
agni-nADi because of its centrality, in their shAstra, instead of giving
that name to the sUrya-nADi.
The fact that the Acharya
who uses the name mUrdha-nADi in the BrihadAranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads
and in the Brahma-sUtra – in all three of which the topic is elaborated
– left the name of sushhumnA uncorrected in the first three places where he
used that name, probably has the following explanation. He might have left it
like that in order to bring home to everybody the fact that it is the heart-nADi
of Vedanta that had the original name SushhumnA. But really what has happened
is the reverse. Scholars of later times have concluded that just because in
those three places it has been called sushhumnA, in the other places also it is
the sushhumnA of the mUlAdhAra that has been mentioned! Advaita-saadhanaa 146
50.
Bhakti of the path of JnAna superior to Bhakti of the path of Bhakti
We
started with the question: “Is there something like bhakti even in the path of jnAna?”.
We pursued the inquiry and finally we have arrived at the understanding:
“It
is this (jnAna-mArga) bhakti that helps to obtain even the most
permanent advaita-mokSha (non-dual Release) right in this very birth. It helps
the JIva to identify and become one with the Brahman, the basic Truth.
On the other hand, the bhakti talked about by the path of Bhakti, comes to an
end with the unification of the JIva with what turns out to be just a
charade adopted by the substratum of Truth together with MAyA. However
much the qualities of saguNa-brahman (brahman with attributes) are extolled
superlatively, it is only a charade or disguise. Here the word ‘unification’
itself is a misnomer. There is no unification here. It is only a kind of unison
that experiences the union by being separate. For crores of years in a kalpa
one may enjoy it, still it does not become a permanent (*shAshvata*) mokSha –
though the originators of that path may claim it to be so. One day when the
saguNa brahman itself is taken into the nirguNa (attributeless) brahman, this
whole thing ends and thus this bhakti is useful only to obtain an impermanent
mokSha”.
The devotee might say “Let
me keep on continuously doing this bhakti”. But Bhagavan (saguNa brahman) says:
“It cannot be so. I am done with this charade. How can I carry on this charade
for ever? At some point or other I have to be what I am. And that point of time
has come. I am tired of this play. For whatever time I have carried on this
drama, that much time it is going to be only rest hereafter” and terminates the
show by throwing off His MAyA and remains nirguNa. Without MAyA and
Ishvara where is the question of a JIva? So he also has to go for
advaita mokSha along with Him! That is the only permanent mokSha. For a whole
period of time equal to BrahmA’s lifetime the paramAtman rests, that is, stays
alone in its nirguNa status, and then again Creation begins; but now the one
who had reached advaita mukti earlier would not now be born again in
this new creation.
So what we have learnt now
is that bhakti is that which dissolves by Love the ego at the base and unifies
it with the Source. But the destination being nirguNa, there is no scope for
our melting in the varied rasas (quintessences, dispositions) of quality of
Bhagavan, it turns out that the melting is in the unfragmented infinite
Consciousness that transcends all qualities. Infinite Consciousness means a
living entity that is not circumscribed by definitions. The taproot for the JIva-bhAva
is the concept of I-hood. This feeling has to be dissolved in the Infinite
Consciousness. This goal of dissolution is the only thing in the mind of
Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 147
the
seeker on the jnAna path. In fact he thinks so without recognising that
that very thought is the true bhakti. In his thinking, it is not a union with
something of which we do not know a thing, nor is it a union with the void, nor
is it a path towards annihilation because there is nothing to be united with.
Instead of any of these, his is a positive thinking, whereby the longing is to
unite with the living fullness of sat-cid-AnandaM. This is how any sAdhaka who
has cared to learn the advaita-vidyA would do his SAdhanA. ‘This life
has to be dissolved in That which lives’ – this very concept is Love; even if
he does not recognise it as such, Love sprouts by itself. “Such a good thing as
Love – why should it be done without recognising it to be so? Just because of
the ignorance of this fact, one thinks of Brahman purely by a philosophical
intellect and allows himself to be drawn away by the intellect. It may open up
the heart to show Love and by that very act close up the only route to cut
asunder the root of ego that has anchored itself there”. It is with these
thoughts, perhaps, the Acharya decided to explicitly proclaim loudly :
*mokSha-kAraNa-sAmagryAM bhaktireva garIyasI* (Among the instruments of moksha,
bhakti is the most important).
I said bhakti is the union
with the universal Source by the dissolution of the ego through Love. Generally
it is understood that to do exactly that with the saguNa form of that Universal
Source is bhakti and that such bhakti is different from the bhakti path of the jnAna-finder.
Whence came this understanding?
An attitude or a
disposition does not show up in all its brightness so long as it remains the
same way only as an attitude, like a nail pinned to the wall. Only when that
disposition shoots forth new and newer branches and manifests in action through
the JIva, does it brighten up. The swaras ‘sa’ and ‘ri’ alone however
much they are emphasized, will not be palatable to the ears, until all the
seven svaras show up. Barring the silent samAdhi that takes place after the
mind fully rests, the various dispositions of even little little activities of
the mind will not show up unless they take new and newer forms. ‘Not showing
up’ does not mean they are not visible to outsiders; even to the individual
himself they will not be felt in his consciousness.
Bhakti in the NirguNa
implies an anguish of the indivudal soul to dissolve in the Universal Soul.
That one-pointed anguish is like extending a single svara. There is no scope
for new and newer colours in it. Whatever new is done is the action of the
mind. But this individual is set towards the goal of the extinction of the
mind. He has already disciplined it by shama and dama. As far as he is
concerned, to know about it (activity of the mind) is an undesirable matter
that comes under ‘ego consciousness’. Therefore he himself would not recognise
the bhakti Advaita-saadhanaa 148
aspect
in all its brightness. Why talk of outsiders? They will have no idea of his
bhakti!
The
thing towards which bhakti is being directed -- does it at least do anything to
cause an explicit showing up of the bhakti? No! Not at all! How can the
nirguNa-brahman react? The saguNa Ishvara who administers the activities
of the entire universe is the one who admires his bhakti and causes him to
mature to higher and higher levels of perfection. The Lord’s intention however
is not to direct him to a saguNa (worship) and so He does whatever He does,
only implicitly. Thus the bhakti is taking place in a one-sided way, even
without that ‘one side’ knowing it!. This is the true bhakti that dissolves the
ego. Even then it does not show up! In addition to its function of dissolving
the JIva, this bhakti dissolves itself without itself being visible to
external perception! It is a bhakti which imparts to him an extreme
renunciation, and is itself a renunciate!
On
the other hand what about saguNa-bhakti? There is a tremendous scope in it for
branching off into new and newer types of tastes and methods of exhibitions
according to the attitudes that spring up towards the saguNa-mUrti who keeps
performing ever-new miracles and leelAs.
Over
and above all, it is here that the relationship of love shows its exhuberance.
A relationship of Love of the JIva with the nirguNa brahman is like
setting up a rapport with one who is in the samAdhi-nishhTA, who is unaware of
even the strike of lightning on him! On the other hand with a saguNa-mUrti it
is possible to direct our bhakti through a relationship with Him in several
ways as the Lord, as a Son, as a Mother, as a Friend, as a Husband. And that
attitude shows up in multifarious actions like dancing, singing, bhajans,
sankirtana, pilgrimage, festivities, discourses etc. The lifeline of this path
is to do bhakti and so all this is done very consciously.
As
the crowning glory of it all, the recipient of this bhakti, namely, the Lord
Himself, does react to it. Maybe He does not do it to all devotees. But to
those who have reached some peaks of excellence, He gives darshan, He performs
varied miracles and reciprocates with a Relationship of divine love towards
them that is million times richer than their own bhakti towards Him. Sometimes
He makes them cry in despair, He scolds them to the extreme and among all this
crying and faulting, He showers His nectar of Love through His divine play!
Just to hear stories and songs of such LeelAs of His towards these devotees –
that itself gives a great bliss, to all others, of companionship with Him. Even
to all of them He keeps pouring His Grace, rather subtly, but Maha-swamigal’s
Discourses 149
certainly in a way that imprints itself in their minds and reminds
them of His proximity to them.
Thus
the bhakti-bhAva shines explicitly even when one is only having a dualistic
relationship with the saguNa brahman and this is the reason for this being
called a bhakti path and the one doing this being called a bhakta.Accordingly
the two are distinguished from a JnAni and the jnAna path.
However
when it comes to a self-effacing offering to the Absolute it is the jnAna-pathfinder
that soars higher than the bhakta of the bhakti path.! The bhakti path-finder
certainly has extinguished for himself the ego as far as the worldly matters
are concerned. Even within himself his own mental inclinations have mellowed
his ego. However, deep within himself, there is the ego which is the taproot
for the existence of the JIva; he has not willed to extinguish that. For
doing bhakti, for enjoying that experience of the blessed qualities of the
Divine, for the bliss of tasting that relationship, he thinks he has to have
that individuality of his JIva-ego. Earlier we distinguished between
ahamkAra and aham-bhAva. Of these only the latter has been sacrificed by him,
but not the former.
Therefore,
though it is in the bhakti literature that surrender has been emphasized, the
bhakti pathfinder, instead of making a total self-effacing surrender, he
surrenders only part of his self and has kept the remaining ego of the JivAtmA for
the purpose of experiencing the paramAtmA. It is not a total surrender. It is
the jnAna-path-finder, who does not use such words, but who has offered
his JivAtmA as a camphor in the Fire of the Absolute. This is the true and
complete Atma-nivedanaM, SharaNAgati, Bhakti , Prapatti etc.
Bhakti
is thus the most internal accessory for the achievement of advaita. And the
Acharya has chosen the words pregnant with this meaning, when he says:
*mokSha-kAraNa-sAmagryAm bhaktireva garIyasI*.
50.
Atman full of life, Not just an Abstraction
That was the first half of
the shloka. In the second half he gives the definition of Bhakti:
*sva-svarUpAnu-sandhAnaM
bhakti-rity-abhidhIyate* Advaita-saadhanaa 150
Bhakti
is said to be the unbroken union with one’s own natural Self – the Atman.
*bhaktiH iti abhidhIyate* means ‘it has been named bhakti’.
Do ‘anusandhAnaM’ of one’s
own natural state, says he. What is ‘anusandhAnaM’? *sandhAnaM* means a
unification or joining with something. A meeting’! If that union stays continuously,
it is ‘anusandhAnaM’.
Does unification with the
Atman mean that Atman is one thing, and the JivAtman that fuses with it is
another? No. No union or joining with the Atman is possible. Even this kind of
little or minute duality is not permitted there. The merging, the fusing, the
union -- all these are out of place here. What happens is, having ‘swallowed’
/’consumed’ the JIva that pines to unite, pines with love and anguish –
in other words, having swallowed the antaH-karaNa (inner organ), It stands
alone. So it is not a question of ‘anusandhAnaM’ of the Atman which is the Real
Nature. It has to be immersed in the constant memory of the Atman and the
filling up of the chittam with that – this is what we should understand by
‘anusandhAnaM’. In the case of the intellect also this is what we did. It was
said that the intellect should be established and rested in shuddha-brahman;
but intellect cannot approach anywhere near shuddha-brahman and so we
understood it to mean that the intellect should dwell on matters or teachings
or the Shastras pertaining to Brahman. In the same way here also, to say that
one should do ‘anusandhAnaM’ on the Nature of the Atman, is only to mean that
the ‘anusandhAnaM’ (being in continuous union with the Atman) is of the thoughts
about the Atman.
This anusandhanaM begins
well before sannyAsa. But it is further strengthened and deepened after
sannyAsa and in due course the sAdhaka gives himself up totally, and the Atman
alone shines thereafter.
Continuous fusion or
merging is certainly the Bhakti out of Love.
One thing should be said
about the para-brahman consuming the JIva-bhAva snd Atman alone
remaining. It is not that the consumption is done in one go. It consumes but
then it also regurgitates. Again it swallows; again it regurgitates. The state
of being in samAdhi, and then coming down from samAdhi – these are both the
swallowed and regurgitated states. Everytime the JIva-bhAva is consumed
and later spit out it comes more emasculated and dissolved. But it still is.
And those are the times when the anusandhAnaM with bhakti has to continue with
the hope of further dissolution.
When he talked about
*mumukShutA* (in shloka 27) he mentioned *sva-svarUpa avabodhaM*. Now when he
is talking about bhakti, he says *sva-svarUpa anusandhAnaM*. ‘avabodhaM’ means
an awakening. Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 151
MumukShutA
was said to be to desire that one should get Release for the sake of the
awakening to the Atman. In the beginning of the shloka (27) itself his
reference is to the ‘ahamkAra’ that I have been talking about all along. The
subtle ahamkAra is the ‘alphA’ of the JIva.
Starting from that and
ending with the physical body, everything is a bondage, which is an imagination
because of mAyA; it is from this bondage we have to get Release. Just a
Release is not enough; “That Release is to be obtained for the purpose of
awakening to the Real Nature of one’s Self (for *sva-svarUpa avabodha*). If one
pines in anguish ‘for this awakening’ (*avabodhAya*), then one gets that
awakening and by that itself (*avabodhena*) one may get his Release – that is
how we understood it. In fact in shloka 27:
*ahaMkArAdi dehAntAn
bandhAn-ajnAna-kalpitAN /
sva-svarUpAva-bodhena
moktum icchA mumukShutA *//
the word *avabodhena* is to
be in the context of the end stage, whereas what begins with *avabodhAya* (for
the awakening) ends with the awakening.
Thus mumukShutA is the
desire for relief from the bondage of the ego; after the mumukShutA he places
bhakti in the logical sequence. This bhakti emasculates the power of the ego.
Among the mind and intellect and the ego (which together make up the
antaHkaraNa), the mind is tamed by shama, dama, etc., the intellect by shraddhA
and samAdhAna, and then the ego is controlled by mumukShutA and tamed
(reduced) by bhakti – so goes the logical sequence.
Actually When the
Atman-awakening takes place – the Atman is certainly awake all the time; but
since we don’t know it, we name the time when we know it as the time of
Atman-awakening – at that time, the individual sAdhaka vanishes!. But it is not
true to say we vanish. “Even the self-luminous Atman appears to sleep for us
who are overcome by MAyA; Let us wake up” – if and when this thought is
there, then we are there. A vague sense of the Atman-awakening, it is only an
imagined perception, that cannot be described as this or that – such a thought
also persists. In fact it is beyond all description. But a thought persists
about the Atman-Brahman, as a something which is Infinite, something that is
perfect and pure, something that is Existence-Knowledge-Bliss. In fact the
conception of either the Infiniteness or the sat or the cit may not be precise
or well-defined; however there will be an idea of them all. Until the
antaHkaraNaM totally vanishes, some thought or other will continue; and
certainly the opinion or bhAvanA about the Atman will also continue to exist.
When such an Atman-awakening is imagined, one should not Advaita-saadhanaa 152
think
of it as just an abstraction, but conceive it as a living principle. And then
lay down this little soul to That; having got to this state, thereafter the
continuance of that same bhAva is bhakti. This is the *anusandhAnaM* after the
*avabodhaM*. It is like waking up after sleep; after the awakening, next comes
the setting up of a relationship! Even the relating should go and give place to
the relationship which keeps the goal of an identification!
Do not have any notion (of
the Atman) this way or that way. Whatever it is in reality let it show, let it
take over. Keep only a watch. Don’t give attributes to it like sat, cit or
infinite. Leave it ‘As is’. Yes, it is difficult to leave it like that and be
quiet. But it is not impossible at this advanced stage. When one keeps on
conceiving it in terms of this or that attribute, involuntarily one may come to
the stage of thinking: “Why all this build-up? Let us see it as it is”. When
one sees it without any preconceived notion, there is the danger of it
appearing as dry and void nothing. So even though you may not have any other
conception (of the Atman) you should not leave off the basic truth that the
Atman is not a void, it has life. The word ‘life’ reminds us that since we are
also living, at the base we are also life and so there is an automatic
relationship. And relationship means there is scope for love. We must make it
true love. It should not be a wrong love that expects something for this little
soul from that universal soul. Instead ‘this’ should go and unite with ‘that’
and ‘that’ should consume ‘this’. This anguish should become a true love.
In order for that
relationship and that life to show itself, the Acharya has used the word
‘svarUpa’ in both places by saying ‘sva-svarUpa avabodhaM’ and
‘sva-svarUpa-anusandhAnaM’. There is a double occurrence of ‘sva’ in
‘sva-svarUpa’. The first ‘sva’ means “one’s own”. The second ‘sva’ means
“natural”. So ‘sva-svarUpa’ means one’s own natural form (rUpaM). It is the
natural, true, Atman, the form which is unmixed with MAyA, of the JIva
that has an artificial form mixed with MAyA.
You may ask: Wherefrom did
the Atman get a ‘form’? Here ‘rUpaM’ does not mean ‘form’ or ‘shape’. Whatever
is one’s nature, that is called ‘rUpaM’. The derived word ‘nirUpaNaM’ (proof)
is derived from the idea that proof is nothing but a demonstration of the true
nature.
[Note
by VK: I am not translating here four or five lines
where
the Mahaswamigal discusses the Tamil word ‘uruvaM’
and
its derivation from the Sanskrit word ‘rUpaM’]
However when we say
‘rUpaM’, our mind does not take it to be of an inert nature but something which
has life. For instance when we say “the Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 153
musician
brought forth the ‘rUpaM’ of the rAga very well” we actually feel that the rAga
itself is a living soul. In fact we do that to every art form. Science is never
spoken of that way. Do we ever say “The Professor brought forth very well the
form of Physics”? The reason is that Science is not thought of as a living
thing like Art. I am saying all this because whenever we speak of the nature of
something in terms of ‘rUpa’, there is always some connection with the concept
of life. And when the prefix ‘sva’ is added and it becomes ‘svarUpa’, it is
generally taken to refer to something substantial that has the JIva-power.
The very word ‘Atma-svarUpaM’ brings to our mind something with life. The small
word ‘sva’ indicates something that is there naturally for oneself. And the
words ‘for oneself’ also connotes in our mind a sense of life for that thing.
We speak of life. Certain
words have life! When we say sat-cid-AnandaM’, sat means that which is. The
word ‘is’ means only ‘is with life’. We speak of it as ‘Being’, ‘Existence’ or
‘Life’. The word ‘Being’ smacks academical and may not have the connotation
‘with life’. The word ‘Existence’ is still more dry and metaphysical and
appears to refer to life itself as inert. It is the word ‘Life’ that indicates
a living that is ticking and the word itself has a poetic element in it. The
word itself has life and so what it represents also broadcasts the JIva-essence.
Similarly with the word ‘svarUpa’. Mainly to make us understand that Atman is
full of life, not a dry principle, the Acharya has prescribed mumukShutA for
the *svarUpa-avabodha* (awakening to one’s own natural state) and, after that
awakening, bhakti for the relationship of love of that *svarUpa* and the
continued mental communion (anusandhAnaM) with it.
Thus in both places the
Acharya uses the word *svarUpa*. But further ahead in shloka 32/33, he quotes a
different opinion: “There are also people who say that Bhakti is the
‘anusandhAnaM’ of the Atman-principle”.
*svAtma-tattvA-nusandhAnaM
bhaktir-ity-apare jaguH*
svAtma-tattvA-nusandhAnaM :
The continuous reflection on the principle of one’s Atman.
bhaktir-ity-apare jaguH :
Others say (it) is bhakti.
The very statement “Others
say” shows that this is not the contention of the Acharya. His own contention
has been stated in the earlier shloka as *sva-svarUpAnusandhAnaM* (the
continuous reflection on one’s own Natural Self). Right now he is being fair to
the other opinion-holders who say it is not ‘sva-svarUpaM’ (one’s own natural
Self) but ‘svAtma-tattvaM’ (the principle of one’s Atman). Advaita-saadhanaa
154
What
is the difference? All along we have been saying ‘Love’ ‘Life’ and ‘Warmth’ .
[Note by VK: The Mahaswamigal
uses the word *Iram* in Tamil.
The literal
translation of this would be ‘wetness’ .
But this does not
make any sense in the English language. It is
surprising that the
corresponding word which gives the meaning
intended in the
context is ‘warmth’
(of the heart)!]
In contrast the other
opinion-holders contend that, keeping the Atman as an abstract principle,
continuous reflection on that principle (tattva) is Bhakti. They do not hold
the Atman, the goal, to be a living entity worthy of being loved, nor do they
hold the sAdhaka as a soul who dissolves in that universal Soul; instead they
hold that Bhakti is the continuous thinking of that philosophical principle.
One may ask: “When they do not agree with the relationship with something that is
living, how can they say that this thinking of a principle is bhakti”. Their
answer comes from a narrow interpretation of bhakti, which they hold to be only
a one-pointed involvement in one thing and nothing more.
RupaM is inherent nature.
Tat-tvam is also the same. In fact it is ‘tat-tvaM’ that directly means
‘inherent nature’. However, ‘sva-svarUpa-anusandhAnaM’ has an implied sense of
internal dissolution of the individual soul in the Universal source, which
sense seems to be absent in ‘svAtma-tattva-anusandhAnaM’. It looks as if some
inaccessible principle is being experienced from a distance,
Whatever it be, The vote of
the acharya is not for this. So why worry about it? Let us not take just a dry
involvement as bhakti, but take it as something which is Love of a Living
entity.
All this has been said by
the Acharya just to show the second opinion prevalent among advaitins
themselves. In fact, it is this second opinion that has been more popular! Many
devotees of the Acharya and many disciples do subscribe to that opinion! Indeed
I myself started all this discussion by asking the question: “How come he is
talking about Bhakti in JnAna path?” and am going through all this
explanation !
The bottom line of all this
explanation is: The thinking about the Atman is to take place in the fashion of
a relationship of Love. But the relationship is not supposed to continue for
ever. Instead of that purpose which involves duality, the real bhakti is to
desire to get dissolved in that non-dual Ultimate. Maha-swamigal’s Discourses
155
I
hope you have now understood what it is to have bhakti towards nirguNa. Also
you would have understood why bhakti is the ‘garIyasI sAmagrI’ (the heaviest
accessory) for mokSha.
51.
Bhakti of the path of JnAna, enunciated by the Veda itself
In the path of jnAna the
direct SAdhanA that finally takes you to the destination is called
‘nidhidhyAsanaM’. It is also considered as belonging to dhyAna-yoga. When
considered like that, it is thought of as continuous reflection on the tattvaM,
without the notions of life, relationship, etc. But it is not so. It has to be
practised only as dhyAna-yoga in which the bhakti yoga of self-surrender
through a relationship with the Universal Life is imbedded. In Vivekachudamani
itself the Acharya has made this explicit in another place. He doesn’t talk of
it as his opinion alone. He says the commandment of the Veda itself is this:
(Shloka 46/48)
*shraddhA-bhakti-dhyAna-yogAn
mumukShoH
mukter-hetUn vakti
sAkShAt shruter-gIH /*
A basic shraddhA,
over and above it a mix of Bhakti yoga and dhyAna-yoga – which means dhyAna
yoga in which the Bhakti attitude is imbedded -- this is what leads to mukti
for a mumukShu. Thus says the Veda itself. *shruteH gIH* means “the word of
the Veda”.
“Is that so? Does the Veda
itself say that in the path of jnAna there is also bhakti? Where does it
say so? In Kaivalya Upanishad. It occurs in Krishna Yajur Veda. The beginning
itself of its teaching says
*shraddhA-bhakti-dhyAna-yogAd-avaihi*
meaning, By shraddhA,
bhakti and dhyAna-yoga (reach brahman).
It is these words of
Upanishad that formed the basis of the Acharya’s own statements.
52.Even
in Sutra BhAshya
It is not only in
Vivekachudamani that the Acharya has talked about Bhakti as an ‘antaranga SAdhanA’
of jnAna. Even in (Brahma-)Sutra-Bhashya he has said the same thing. Why
did I say “Even in”? Among Advaita-saadhanaa 156
the
various Bhashyas, expository works and stotras in the name of the authorship of
Acharya, there are many questions raised about whether it was he who wrote it.
Though people ask such questions of one another, one thing that all of them
unanimously agree about is his authorship of Brahma-Sutra Bhashya. Further,
among all his works on advaita shAstra, it stands at the peak. So
whatever is said there has a high value.
In Brahma-sUtra, the
means of achieving Brahman-experience is called *samrAdhanaM* . (III -2-24).
The word gives the same meaning as ‘ArAdhanaM’ or ‘samArAdhanaM’. The worship
through bhakti is called ‘ArAdhanA’ in general. Here, worship through jnAna is
called ‘samrAdhanaM’. When the Acharya elaborates on the word in his Bhashya,
he says
*bhakti-dhyAna-praNidhAnAdi
anushhTAnaM*.
*praNidhAnaM* is a word
synonymous with ‘samAdhi’ or ‘samAdhAnaM’ ; it means a complete one-pointed
unification. Whenever we think of jnAna-SAdhanA for the purpose
of Brahman-experience, we always think, in line with the Acharya’s teachings,
that it is a discipline of meditation by making the antaHkaraNaM totally
one-pointed. But the same Acharya here gives priority to bhakti and then only
mentions dhyAna and recommends a praNidhAna (profound meditation) in both cases
and by both means.
Like ArAdhanA, upAsanA also
generally refers to worship of something with attributes. Not just ‘generally’.
In Vedas and Vedanta ShAstras it is so referred. Instead of Karma-Bhakti – JnAna,
the Vedic scholars call it Karma- UpAsanA – JnAna.
In Brahma Sutra (IV – 1 –
1) it says, one has to repeatedly recall (mananaM) the teaching that was learnt
– in other words, one has to think about it, analyse it and confirm it . Here
in the original sutra there is no mention of upAsanA done with bhakti, or the jnAna-SAdhanA
based on the intellect. It is just a general mention of necessity for
mental repetition. But it is clear from the organization of the Sutras that go
before and after that the repetition recommended in the context is for a
mumukShu who has formally obtained the MahAvakya teaching.
The Acharya has clearly
emphasized this point in his commentary.
But when he finishes the commentary
on this particular sutra, he himself takes up the matter of the upAsanA path
and demonstrates how Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 157
the
Upanishads talk about both the process of upAsanA and the process of knowing as
the same without any distinction between them.
DhyAna is the continuous
dwelling mentally on the meaning of something which has been repeatedly already
analysed (manana) by the mind after hearing it (shravaNa) as taught; in the
same way if a disciple dwells his mind without break on his guru we call it
guru-upAsanA; if a subject does the same thing to his Lord the King, we call it
upAsanA of the King; a chaste wife does the same thing to her husband and we
call it ‘pati (husband) upAsanA’ -- thus demonstrates the Acharya. Thus he
delineates the highest bhAvas among all bhakti-bhAvas -- AtmanivedanaM
(offering up of one’s self), dAsyaM (servitude), mAdhuryaM (Love) . Only after
doing all this, he comes to the Upanishad matter of knowing and worshipping and
says they have been spoken of as the same and also offers two examples in this
context (ChandogyaM IV-1-4 and IV-2-2 for the first example; ChandogyaM III –
18-1 and III – 18 – 3 for the second example).
Of the two, the first
example is a great support to what we have been talking all along. Instead of
keeping the goal as just an abstraction, it should be figured as a living
entity and it should be contemplated on with love and devotion. Let me tell you
what it is. One hamsa bird, as it flies along in the sky, tells another hamsa
bird about a JnAni named Raikva in a most complimentary manner:
“Whatever every one knows is all subsumed by what he knows”. This shows that he
should be a brahma-JnAni. A King by name Janashruti, who was relaxing in
the balcony of his house heard this statement of the bird and sets out to find
this JnAni. And here comes our topic. He goes to request that JnAni to
teach him that Knowledge which he knows. But when he goes there, he does not
say: “Please teach me the Knowledge of Wisdom that you know”. Instead he says:
“Please teach me about the Deity that you worship (do upAsanA)”! in other
words, it is very clear that what we call Philosophical enquiry, research or
contemplation, in Vedanta tradition is to be done with the attitude(bhAva) of a
worship of a living mUrti (icon, deity). This is of great significance, since
it is straight from the Upanishads, and our own Acharya has specifically quoted
it, in almost what looks as an out-of-context mention.
The Acharya, though he
writes elaborately in his commentaries, usually makes all that elaboration only
to explain what is there in the original; he never goes about in a roun-about
way or take unnecessary digressions. Even Vinobha has said: “The commentaries
that he makes for the sUtras are themselves crisp like the sutras
themselves. *vyartha-vistAr kahIm nahIm karte* (he nowhere does unnecessary
elaborations)”. If such is the nature of our Acharya and here he appears to be
drawing something out Advaita-saadhanaa 158
from
a total out-of-context source, it only means it is of great significance.
At the same time he is a
great supporter of Tradition. So probably he thought it not fit to explicitly
mention and elaborate bhakti in his advaita shAstras and create
confusion in the minds of unknowing people. So he might have left it for
disciples to learn from their respective gurus at the appropriate time.
However, when it comes to Viveka Chudamani in which he condescends to explain
as if this is his final upadesha (teaching), in the manner of *eshha AdeshaH,
eshha upadeshaH, etad-anushAsanaM* (This is the commandment, this is the
teaching, this is the order), he talks about bhakti and mentions it as the most
important of all the accessories to jnAna-yoga.
54.
JnAna itself is Bhakti: Krishna
More than the idea that
bhakti is an important accessory for jnAna, Lord Krishna has shown that jnAna
itself is Bhakti. He mentions four categories of devotees and in naming
them he lists ‘ArtI, jijnAsu, arthArthI and jnAnI’ (B.G. VII – 16: Arto
jijnAsur-arthArthI jnAnI ca bharatarshabha). ‘Arta’ means the distressed
sufferer. ‘jijnAsu’ means the one desirous of knowledge, that is, the one who
wants to know the Truth and makes effort to know. ‘ArthArthI’ means one who
desires wealth, money, possessions, property, power etc. The fourth is JnAni
himself. The formal order among these should be ArtaH, arthArthI, JijnAsu
and jnAnI. For the purpose of metre requirements, the order has been changed in
the Gita verse. Our business here is the mention, namely, the jnAnI as the
topmost devotee. Why can’t we take him as a dvaita (dualistic) JnAni? –
may be a quixotic question here. But this has been met with already by the
Lord’s statement in the next verse : He has one-pointed devotion
(*eka-bhaktiH*). The Lord caps this by the further statement *JnAni-tvAtmaiva
me mataM* (JnAni and Myself are One – that is my final opinion). Later
when he dwells on ‘bhakti-yoga’ itself and teaches the upAsanA (dualistic
saguNa upAsanA) he only uses the words *atIva priyaH* (XII – 14 – 20) (most
dear to Me), he never says “he is Myself”; from this it is clear (when he talks
about this JnAni here) he refers only to the advaita-JnAni. In
the teaching of bhakti-yoga he says: “The nirguNa-SAdhanA gives
difficulties (klesha) and dukha (unhappiness) for those who are conscious of
their body” and then goes on to teach the saguNa-upAsanA. In other words, for
those who are too conscious of their body, the jnAna path is not easy to
attain and that is why he teaches the saguNa upAsanA to them; not with the idea
that the saguNa upAsanA is superior to the jnAna path. Let that be.
Later when he starts talking about the qualities of the Bhakti upAsaka from the
Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 159
shloka
*adveshhTA sarva-bhUtAnAM …* (The one who has no hate towards any being ,,,,)
through seven or eight shlokas and winds up the chapter with “Such people are
dearest to me”, it will be clear to any neutral observer that whatever
qualities he has described here apply only to a JnAni. Nowhere has he
said in Bhakti yoga, about revelling in the multifarious qualities of Bhagavan,
weeping, laughing, dancing, singing, going into unconscious trance,
establishing relationship with God through various moods like, servitude,
filial affection, etc. or enjoying the ritual bathing (abhisheka) or decoreating
the deity, etc. The qualities that He enunciates, viz., love and affection to
all beings, getting rid of the feelings of ‘I’ and mine, equanimity with
respect to happiness and misery, fear and delusion, contentment with whatever
one gets and being independent of possession and property – all these qualities
are only those of the JnAni! There is also one shloka which describes
devotees:
Mac-cittA madgata-prANAH
bodhayantaH parasparaM /
Kathayantashca mAM nityaM
tushhyanti ca ramanti ca // B.G. X – 9
Those who have turned all
their mind toward Me, who have reposed their very lives in Me, who are
constantly enlightening each other and talking about Me and for whom that is
the satisfaction and that is the delight! But note that this statement does not
come in Bhakti Yoga or about those generally termed to be bhaktas. It comes
under ‘ VibhUti Yoga’ where the Lord’s Glory and Power is declared to be
manifested in the whole universe. In short He says those who see such Godly
Power and Glory in everything repose their mind and life in the Lord and revel
in thinking and talking about Him. However they are not dry philosophers, but
‘bhAva-samanvitAH’, that is, knowledgeable people (budhas) who are involved in
God with Love. In other words they are like JnAnis as described by the
Acharya. Further on when the Lord continues, He does not propose to give them
Bhakti Yoga. He specifically promises to Grace them with the path of JnAna,
that is, buddhi yoga; and burn any remnants of darkness of ignorance in
them by the Lamp of Wisdom (jnAna deepena).
In the final chapter also
He says “bhaktyA mAm abhijAnAti” – by bhakti one knows Me right; and thus
emphasizes the jnAna angle. The root ‘jnA’ gives rise to both the words
‘jnAnaM’ as well as ‘jAnAti’. ‘Through Bhakti one knows Me as I am,
thereby enters Me and by My Grace obtains the eternal Immortal position’ -- so
ends His message in the advaita fashion. In pursuance of the same, while giving
it to Arjuna, He says ‘Adopt Buddhi Yoga’ – not Bhakti Yoga!
Thus there is no ringing of
bells, no offering of flowers, no relationship in several moods. However it is
the mood of Love with which one gives Advaita-saadhanaa 160
Himself
up to the Universal Life-Source and this apex bhakti is what plays an important
role in the path of jnAna.
55.
Third Stage
Once we have passed the SAdhanA-set-of-four,
we come to the third stage, the final stage. No one here (in this audience) is
likely to go to that stage. Because it is a stage to be performed after one has
renounced all wealth, possession, property and kinship. So possibly it may not
have to be explained here. But still, since I have said so much about advaita-SAdhanA,
let me just touch upon it for the sake of completion.
Three things come there.
Listening to the teaching; confirming what one hears by repetitively thinking
about it; and keeping the antaHkaraNa in that thing and meditating on it. These
three are always to be practised right from the basic stage all through the SAdhanA,
according to the necessity and capability of the sAdhaka. Therefore I should
not leave out telling you about it.
56.
SannyAsa
Even though no one here may
(or should have to) reach that stage, I have to talk about it since the very
first part of true advaita sAdhanA starts with sannyAsa. All links and bondages
have to be cut asunder completely. It is not so for others. All seekers,
however, have to work for reducing their attachments to a certain extent. It is
therefore good to learn about the SannyAsa stage at least to the extent of
hearing about it.
If we have to know about
the Atman, we have to be constantly thinking about it as the only task and only
goal. The grand goal being Brahman, one has to totally dedicate oneself to that
goal and be attached to that only task. If we have other attachments, interests
and also try to do this, that mAyA and this jnAna cannot coexist. We cannot
succeed in fanning a fire by simultaneously pouring water on it. It is the
renunciation of all other tasks and goals that is called SannyAsa.
Only after taking up
SannyAsa one gets the eligibility and right to receive the teaching of the
mahAvAkyas that the Vedas proclaim in forms like “This Jiva itself is Brahman”.
Brahman also means Veda. Since the Vedas which are verily Brahman themselves
declare Jiva as Brahman the mahAvAkyas get that exclusive spiritual power. Just
by knowing well that Jiva is brahman and by meditating on that will not make
that goal a fact of experience. That declaration has to be repeated as a japa
through Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 161
the
conglomerate of the letters of these veda-mantras and has to be meditated upon
as a regimen; that is what makes the goal accessible. ‘Accessible’ does not
mean ‘easily accessible’! I only said it in a comparative sense. To hope to
obtain Brahman-realisation by just continuous thinking about it is like a man
who wants to have a bath, starts all the way from digging up a well for the
purpose. But to reach the same goal through the mahAvakyas of the Upanishads is
like drawing water from an alreadyt constructed well. Of course you have to
draw the water – not like opening a tap and using the downpour from it. The
drawing of sufficient water from the well depends on the size of the bucket or
the pail, the depth of the well and other factors. The Samskaras of the
individual influence the efforts to be made just as the smallness of the bucket
will force you to draw water several times. But when you compare this with the
process of our digging up of a well – well, that is the comparison I mentioned.
Moreover this is protected
water. There is a watchman! Only if he allows you, you can draw water. That
watchman is called the Guru!
The conglomerates of sound
vibrations called mantras suck in several ways the Power and Grace of the
Absolute, that is permeating the entire space and produce for us the many
beatifics of this world and the world beyond. Among such mantras the mahAvakyas
that identify the JivAtmA with the ParamAtmA without any distinction are at the
peak. The Acharya speaks of them (in Aitareya Upanishad Bhashya 1.3.13) as
sounds that wake you up to Atma-jnAna, the advaita jnAna that lies dormant in
the JivAtmA that is sleeping in Ignorance. It is the Guru that trumpets the
drum of the MahAvakyas, wakes you up, as it were, from your sleep, thus waking
you up to Enlightenment.
That Guru takes care to
dispense the mahAvAkya teaching only after checking the Sishya’s eligibility
and after initiating him into SannyAsa. That eligibility is nothing other than
the progress, to a certain extent, in Viveka (Discrimination), VairAgya
(Dispassion), shama (sense control), dama (mind control), etc. in the
SadhanA-set-of-four.
The Vedas have 1180 shAkhAs
(branches). Each ShAkhA has an Upanishad of its own and every Upanishad has a
mahAvAkya. Though there are thus more than 1000 mahAvakyas, four of them, one
for each Veda, have been held as important. It appears from
‘Visveshvara-smRti’, which details the SannyAsa Dharma, ‘Nirnaya-sindhu’, an
anthology of Dharma ShAstras, and from other authoritative sources for Dharma
ShAstra, and knowledgeable tradition that at the time of SannyAsa dikshhaa
(formal initiation) these four mahAvakyas are to be formally transmitted from
the Guru to the initiate. And there is also scope for the teaching of other
mahAvakyas. Also there is a tgradition that the new Advaita-saadhanaa 162
SannyAsi
who is getting the dikshhaa must also get the additional mahAvakya that occurs
in the ShAkhA to which he belonged before he took SannyAsa. There is also a
further tradition that first the PraNava (“Aum”) is taught and then the
mahAvakyas.
To hear and listen to such
mahAvAkya teaching is what is called ‘shravaNa’ in Brahma-VidyA-shAstra. The
direct meaning of ‘shravaNaM’ is ‘hearing/listening’.In the Tamil Tirumandhiram
Verse #139, Tirumoolar means by this word ‘Receiving the mahAvakyopadesha’.
Tayumanavar, in one of his songs, refers to the three processes, ‘shravaNa,
manana and nidhidhyAsana’. Tirumoolar follows the ‘shravaNa’ word by
*guru-vuru-cintittal* meaning the memorisation of the mantra taught by the
guru. The Tamil word *uru* here means mantra-japa that is manana. By thus
memorising and repeating the mantra one is automatically led on to the next
stage of ‘nidhidhyAsana’.
There is an old saying
*sannyasya shravaNaM kuryAt* -- one should do the ‘listening’ part only after
taking up sannyAsa.
The object of this shravaNa
is to obtain mukti as nirguNa-brahman right where you are without having to go
anywhere. Inferior to this is the union with saguNa-brahman by going to
Brahma-loka along the path of the Sun. Even for that, according to
Mundakopanishad (1.2.11) a mature Jiva – who is learned and also accomplished
with the qualities of shama, dama, etc. has to leave home, go to the forest,
and do penance, living by bhikshA. So does it not mean that one who receives the
teaching on NirguNa-brahman has to take SannyAsa first? The next mantra talks
about him. He examines the whole world-experience and decides: “Everything
revolves around karma. Our goal of the Atman will not be accessible to/by any
karma. So let me abandon all karma”. In other words he is ready to take up
SannyAsa. But it has to be done only through a guru. So he goes in search of a
guru. The words ‘only through a guru’ is because of the emphasis *guruM eva* in
the Upanishad. The Acharya explains why *guruM eva* occurs there: “Even a
scholar who is knowledgeable on everything should not make his own efforts and
hope to independently obtain Brahma-jnAnaM”.
Later in the same Upanishad
(III-2.4) it says, ‘It is not only by a man devoid of spiritual strength or a
man overcome by delusion that the Atman is unattainable, it is not attainable
even by one who is doing the austerities but who is ‘alinga’, that is, one
devoid of the symbol that represents sannyAsa’. This is the way the Acharya
comments on the word ‘alinga’ in the Upanishad.
In BrihadAraNyakaM also
(IV-4-22) the qualifications for sannyAsa are enunciated: “The one who wants
the spiritual world, renounces the Maha-swamigal’s Discourses 163
present
world and his home. Because that is how in ancient times the learned ones whoi
studied the spiritual vidyA just discarded the desire for kith and kin, desire
for wealth and property and desire for the other worldly attractions and they
left home literally as beggars”.
In every work there are
always expressions of different opinions but following them there is also the
reconciliation passage that comes later. So also in this BrihadAraNyakaM,
earlier to this passage in (III-5 ) it says “AtmAnaM viditvA”, that is,
cognising the Atman, ‘discarding desires for kith and kin, wealth and property
and the other world, they run away as beggars’. Here the words “AtmAnaM
viditvA” looks like saying ‘after one has cognised the Atman’. It appears that
this means, in contrast to what was said earlier, namely the earning of eligibility
for SannyAsa for the sake of earning the Atma-jnAna, it is now said that
sannyAsa takes place after the acquisition of jnAna. This is a legitimate
question; but the answer comes if we carefully examine the context. In the same
mantra, the question is raised: “How will a jnAni behave?”. And the answer
comes; “Howsoever he may behave, he is just such, he is a jnAnai”.In other
words he is not regimented by any shAstra or regulation. For such a person ,
where is the need for the rule that he should adopt the fourth Ashrama among
the four Ashramas? So we should not interpret “AtmAnaM viditvA” to say “after
learning by experience” but should interpret it as “understanding by the
intellect”.It is clear therefore “He who confirms by his intellectual understanding
that what he has heard and learnt from the advaita-shAstras is true, now throws
away all his desires and becomes a sAnnyAsi” is what is said here.
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