Sridakshinamurtistotram Part VI (second half)

[Guest guest]

Sridakshinamurtistotram

(Part VI-second half)

Om namaH pranavaarthaaya shudda-jnanaika-yogine |

Nirmalaaya prashaantaya Dakshinamurtaye namaH ||

(Obeisance to Sridakshinamrti, the Ever Pure, the Ever Peaceful, the meaning

conveyed by the Pranava 'Om', and is ever One with the Pure Consciousness.)

 

Who Am I?

 

In the foregoing, all the other views born out of delusion were mentioned and

their untenability also shown. Now, the position of the Vedanta remains to be

clearly set forth. Even though a sentient Atman was agreed upon by some views

like the Mimamsa and Tarka, yet none of them has recognized the most vital

aspect in explaining the sentient Atman, the Witness, the Sakshi. This Sakshi

is pointed to only by the Upanishads. The first verse of the Acharya's

'Dashashloki' says this in a concise manner:

 

Na bhumir na toyam na tejo na vayuH

Na kham nendriyam va na teshaam samuhaH |

Anekantikatvaat sushuptyeka-siddhaH

Tadeko'vashishtaH ShivaH kevalo'ham ||

 

(I am neither the earth, nor the water, nor the fire, nor the air, nor the

space, nor any organ, nor their aggregate, because they are variable by nature,

while Atman is that whose existence is proved by the unique experience of deep

sleep. I am that One, Auspicious and Pure which alone remains over.)

 

Here, aham means 'the seat of I-consciousness'. EkaH means 'without a second'.

AvashishtaH means 'unsublated even on the sublation of all duality'. ShivaH

means 'of the nature of supreme joy and knowledge, that itself being of the

nature of auspiciousness and kevalaH means 'devoid of attributes'. Thereby it

is meant that the only sound view is that of the Upanishads namely that the seat

of the I-consciousness is the One without a second which is unsublated by any of

the pramanas and is supreme joy and knowledge. The Siddhantabindu, a commentary

on the Dashashloki gives an elaborate account of the deep meaning embedded in

this decad of verses. The various views not based on the correct interpretation

of the Sruti and those not having the Sruti as the basis are all refuted as

those born of delusion.

 

Negation in the manner 'Not this, Not this':

 

By His exposition, the Acharya Sri Shankara instructs the seeker to seek out

Atman, by showing him that It is not to be acquired afresh (as the subsequent

use of the word 'avasishtah' meaning 'that which remains over'), but one has

only to abide in the pure Atman by negating all superimpositions in the manner

'Neti, Neti', adopted by the Sruti itself and shown to be the best and the only

method for the purpose. Throughout the Dashashloki this method is adopted

wherein it is also declared that to affirm anything about Atman is to attempt

the impossible as the Atman is beyond the pale of words – 'katham

sarva-vedanta-siddham bravimi' 'How shall I express in words the ultimate

purport of the Upanishads?'. The outpourings of a Jnani are similarly put in

the manner of 'neti, neti' by the Acharya in His other works too, for example,

'na aham deho, nendriyaani..' etc. in the Advaitapanchakam and

'mano-buddhyahankara-chittaani na aham …chidaananda-rupaH Shivoham Shivo'ham'

etc. in the Nirvaanashatkam.

 

The method of the Dashashloki was taken up as it comes handy in explaining the

method used by the Acharya in the present fifth verse of the Sridakshinamurti

stotram. Against the ignorant utterings of all the other schools as to the

nature of Atma, the position of Vedanta is expressed as just 'silence', no

uttering. This is the significance of Sridakshinamurti, the Teacher of Silence,

who teaches in silence. And only the aspirant who has trained himself to be in

silence can grasp this silent teaching.

 

The Vivaranaprameya-sangraha (1-4) says of the Vedantic position:

 

All the Vedanta texts are to be understood as having the taintless

Brahman-Atman as their purport. Bhagavan Badarayana, the aphorist Himself, will

make clear in various places that the reasonings and texts mentioned by those

who maintain that Atman is taintless Brahman are valid and those mentioned by

others are fallacious. And this being the case, a person seeking liberation,

not having 'heard' and studied this Shastra through enquiry, thinks himself

learned and clings to one or the other of the views – viz., that the body is the

Atman etc., ending with the view that Isvara is different from Atman. Such a

seeker will not attain liberation which is to be attained by true Knowledge and

cannot be obtained through erroneous knowledge. Nor is there expiation for that

most sinful person. Thus erroneous knowledge is the most heinous sin according

to the dictum – 'He who understands Atman not as It actually is, but otherwise,

by that thief who has robbed himself of his own

Self, is there any sin that has not been committed!'. Therefore the Sruti

declares that he who imposes the unreality of Atman which is of the nature of

Existence, Consciousness and Bliss and thus kills himself, attains miserable

worlds: 'Those worlds are called demoniac, enveloped in blind darkness; to these

worlds go after death, those people who are killers of their own Self'.

 

Vichara, Enquiry, to obtain the True Vision:

 

The view that 'the body is the Atma' is particularly chosen to be denounced as

this is the view that is found to be in the majority of the people, both the lay

and the learned.

There is a Smriti:

Even the sin of killing crores of cows is nothing in comparison with the sin

of identifying oneself with the body, since the killer of cows becomes redeemed

through expiation (praayaschittam).

 

The Vivekachoodamani 397 says:

So long as man identifies himself with his body that is but a corpse, he is

impure and also thereby suffers from his enemies as also from birth, death and

disease here and goes to hell hereafter. But when he realises beyond doubt

himself to be the Pure Auspicious one of the nature of Bliss, then indeed does

he become free from those sufferings. The Sruti also says so.

There is not even the talk of emancipation even for the learned one who does

not give up his mistaken identity with the body, organs, etc., which are unreal,

be he ever so erudite in the ultimate reaches of the Vedantashastra. Even such a

one is not qualified for liberation as long as he does not renounce this wrong

identification. Hence, by incessant contemplation, nididhyasana, all

misapprehensions, viparitabhaavana, must be got rid of.. This is the purport

of the Vivekachudamani, 164. The disciple is directed to adopt the method of

enquiry which is the easy means for this purpose. Says the Vivekachudamani 165:

Just as you do not identify yourself with the shadow of your body, with its

reflection (in a mirror), with the dream body or the body which you imagine in

your mind, so too, do not identify yourself with the living body.

 

The idea is that the knowledge that these are seen to be different from Atman,

the Seer, is common in all these cases.

 

The Advaitamakaranda 8 puts the same idea in the form of experience of the

realised:

 

It is the matter of direct experience that none of these – the body, the

organs, the vital airs, the mind and the intellect – is Atman. Inferences also

show that they are not Atman since they are being embraced as 'mine' and are

cognised as 'this' like a pot, etc. Also no organ, being an instrument like an

axe, is Atman.

 

The Vedantic texts give other reasons as well. The body, the senses, etc.,

are not of the nature of Atman because they cease to exist after destruction –

were not in existence sometime ago, exist at particular places only and are

distinguishable from one another. Therefore, they are not Atman but

indescribable entities concocted by the beginningless Avidya (which is itself

indescribable) as existing in Atman which is of the nature of Self-effulgent

Consciousness, the Secondless. This is the secret of the Vedanta doctrine.

 

The ' I ', Atman, of the Vedanta is further described to facilitate our

understanding. The Advaitamakaranda (13,14,15 and 22) gives an account based on

reasoning:

 

I, the cogniser of the external objects which are subject to the six-fold

changes, am changeless; otherwise the cognition of the changing objects would be

impossible.

A changing object appears and disappears along with those changes, again and

again; this being so, how can it be a witness of these changes?

None can be a witness of one's own origination or destruction, they being the

last and the first moments of one's own prior non-existence (praagabhava) and

destruction (pradhvamsa-abhava), respectively.

Existence is my very nature, just like the skyness of the sky and not an

attribute nor the category termed universal, since nothing else other than

Myself, exists.

 

The Siddhantabindu gives further reasons:

A person waking up from deep sleep recollects that he was completely ignorant

and knew nothing then. As such, how can the Atman said to be invariable? The

reply is: Atman being the witness of the state of deep sleep, He is not

non-existent in that state, otherwise the recollection 'I was ignorant' cannot

be accounted for. The knower, pramata, the means of knowledge, pramanam and the

object of knowledge, prameya, all vary. The witness of their presence as also

their absence remains invariable in all the three states.

 

It could be argued that since the One invariable attributeless Witness cannot

be apprehended by any pramana, means/instrument of knowledge, let us hold that

such an Atman does not exist at all. In this case, there is the Sruti, the King

of pramanas, that has anointed and installed this Atman as the Witness of

everything by statements such as: 'Everything shines after Him who alone

shines', 'All this shines by His Light', 'Thou canst not see the Seer of the

sight', 'He is the unseen Seer', 'There is no Seer other than He'.

 

A word of Caution:

 

It is of utmost importance to realise that the ego, which is the pramata, the

doer and the enjoyer, is not at all the Atman. In fact, at one extreme we have

the identification with the body and take it as Atman. In the other extreme

there is this identification with the ego which passes for the Atman. This,

too, is a serious hurdle to cross over, nay, the most serious one. This is

because, in the case of the body, there are occasions where we experience it as

'it', 'this body', 'my body' etc. But in the case of the ego, it is not

cognised as 'mine' or ''this'. The two, Atman and the ego, are not one and the

same; the former abides in such states as deep sleep, Samadhi, etc., while the

ego does not. The reasoning applied in the case of the body, etc., is to be

applied in the case of the ego as well and a determinate effort has to be

exercised to separate the ego from the Atman.

 

Samsara only to the Ego:

 

The co-presence of the ego and the samsara in the waking and the dream states

and their co-absence in the deep sleep state which is a matter of experience, is

to be recognised, even as the Atman abides in all the three states and the

unchanging Witness.

 

The Gitabhashya (Ch. 18, verse 50) has this profound truth to convey:

Buddhi being as pure (clear and subtle) as Atman, it can put on the semblance

of the Consciousness-'aspect' of Atman. Manas puts on a semblance of buddhi,

the organs put on a semblance of manas; and the gross body again puts on a

semblance of the organs wherefore the common people look upon the mere gross

body as the Self. ….Everywhere, from buddhi down to the gross body, the cause of

the illusory identification of each with Self is its wearing a semblance of

Atman-Consciousness.

 

The Disputations about the nature of Atman is due to the play of the

vikshepashakti of Maya. Maya with its concealing power and diversifying power

in its myriad aspects concocts the display of the universe in its multifarious

forms as also the delusion in respect of Atman. Coming under the spell of these

powers of Maya, the various wrong identifications arise. It is pertinent to

note that all these 'vaadins' exist in ourselves. When we examine ourselves, we

are able to see how we entertain one or many of all these views at one time or

the other.

 

Guru, the dispeller of the mighty delusion:

 

The Tattvasudha, a commentary on the Stotram, says in respect of the words:

Maaya-shakti-vilasa-kalpita-maha-vyamoha-samharine :

 

Those who have faith in the Veda and worship the Lord by performance of Karma

as ordained in Sruti and Smriti, they are not overpowered by delusion since they

have secured the grace of the Supreme Lord. The beginningless indescribable

power, Mayashakti, of the Supreme Lord deludes all. The endless unfathomable

mighty delusion concocted by one aspect namely the diversifying power of Maya,

produces the false indentification of Atman in the body etc. It is the very

nature of the Sriguru to destroy this delusion. Obeisance to Him. So says the

Bhagavata (2.7.42) also: Those on whom the Lord that transcends all limitations

whatsoever bestows His Grace, since they surrender wholeheartedly and cling with

might and main to His feet, it is they that transcend His power of Maya which is

difficult to overcome. They do not entertain the notions of ' I ' and 'mine' in

this body which is fit to be the food of dogs and jackals. The Gita says:

Whosoever seek Me alone, they cross

over this illusion.

 

Mithyatma and Gaunatma:

 

The i-ness is not only mistakenly seen in the body, mind, senses, etc. which

are termed 'mithyaatma' but it also encompasses the others outside the body

like the wife, son, wealth, friend, servant, etc. termed 'gaunaatma'. While

it is relatively easy to shut out the gaunatma by discriminating, because it is

easily seen as separate from oneself, the excluding of the mithyatma is the most

difficult as the distinction is not apparent. Great effort is needed to

separate the body, mind, etc. from the Pure Consciousness. which has been

erroneously identified with these. The distinction based on the method of

classifying all these as 'idam' = 'this' and putting the Pure Consciousness, the

Sakshi, in the 'aham' will have to be gainfully employed towards achieving the

desired end of salvaging the True Aham, the Atma, the Pure Consciousness from

the admixture.

 

The 'idam' is verily a forest and the way out of this forest is made possible

by the Grace of the Sriguru which alone enables us to realise the idam-free

aham as our True Self. This is the I free from the five sheaths, the

panchakoshas. This is the Eye of Wisdom. It is the substratum of the entire

idam that is only a superimposition.

 

We shall conclude the study of the fifth verse by seeing the method of the

spiritual ascent as described in the Sutasamhita (4), Sutagita, in a stepwise

manner:

 

The instruction of the Acharya based on the Shastra and enquiry at His feet

in conformity with the Shastra.

Acquiring the knowledge with utmost certainty that Atman is the Witness of

everything.

Being firmly established in this knowledge, realising whatever was seen as

different from the Self as nothing but his own Self.

Thereupon himself deciding with certainty that the Secondless Atman is Pure

Brahman.

By dint of this experience, dissolving of even the mental mode pertaining to

this certainty, in Himself, the Pure Consciousness that is changeless and

non-dual.

 

Dawn of Knowledge – Maya fled for ever:

 

Once True Knowledge dawns by the grace of the Sriguru, ignorance vanishes for

ever and can no more delude the sage either with its charms or ugly features.

Obeisance to the Self-effulgent Lord Sridakshinamurti who is without body,

organs or prana, who is never an object of any pramana and who, in essence, is

Consciousness and Bliss:

 

Tasmai Srigurumurtaye nama idam Sridakshinamurtaye.

 

Om Tat Sat

(End of Verse Five)

(End of part VI second half)

 

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+

countries) for 2¢/min or less.