shrI Shankara charitam: exposition by KAnchi ParamAchArya

[saidevo]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

pages 343-344

Since our shrI Shankara BhagavadpAdaL's avatAram was only for this purpose, it is not possible to remain without talking about the doShas--defects/deficiencies, in the other sidhAntas, that have been pointed out by him and the great people who came in the VedAnta sampradAya before and after him.

• As (I) told earlier, where the doSham is seen, it is not wrong to speak about it, and it must be spoken of. But the important thing is that even if doSham is talked about, there should be no dveSham--hatred/enmity.

Not to criticise those other matas--religions. By showing that those other matas criticising our matam is not correct, and to make people understand our mother religion as it is, we need to talk about all these things.

It is not enough to just mention some people who were the mata-sthApakas--religious founders, and siddhAnta-pravartakas--proponents of religious principles, which were in contradiction to Veda Dharmam, as the reason for the trend of this Kali Yugam, and stop at that.

• Just as there should be a seed for a thorny tree to grow, so for that seed to take root and grow, there should also be an appropriate bhUmi--ground?

Whatever siddhAnta seeds do the mata-sthApakas and prasArakas--propagandists, plant, only when the bhUmi--ground, of the state of mind of the jana-samUham--populace, does-poShaNam-of--nourish, them by feeding the bhUsAram--ground essences, they can sprout and grow well in that samUham?

Thus it transpired that people got a taste in general for the trends that were in virodham--opposition, to the Veda Dharmam, and because of it the avaidika-matas--non-Vedic religions, spread well among them. It was only this, which was mentioned as the asura-rAkShasas entering the buddhi--mind/intellect, of the people.

Kali PuruSha with much tact and skill had made a show that these religions too taught paths that were dhArmika--righteous, and those who did upadesham--teaching, of them as well as those who followed them, were both going in the path of dharma.

Even after Kali was born, because of the balam--strength/power, KRShNa ParamAtmA and VyAsAchAryAL had given, for about two thousand and five hundred years, after the vaidika-dharmAchAraNa--practice of Veda dharmam, was current, Kali PuruSha started showing his Adhikyam--superior authority, in utter rudeness, compensating for his earlier sleep during this interim period.

He started showing his kaivarisai--(Tamil) dexterity/sleight of hand, even as a person who slept for a long time suddenly wakes up thinking 'ayyO, we slept for a long time, there is so much to be done' starts doing things in rude fanfare. To give another another example, it was like breaking open a marble-sealed (goli) soda bottle that was pent up!

It is mentioned in the pustakas--books, that in that vegam--rush/dash, seventy-two matams--religions, appeared in contradiction to SanAtana Dharma. It is also mentioned that each one started in much uttaNdam--fierceness and cruelty.

All that is asaMdarbha--unreasonable/incoherent, will be born in rude fanfare. That which remains hitam--beneficial, and satyam--true, in vAstavam--reality, will be born in sAttvikam--auspiciousness, and shAntam--peace, and come up for action. Those that are not so, will only start with intemperate speech (athambikkoNDu) and rough-and-tumble (aDAviDiyAga).

It is there in the books that thus 72 religions appeared, as if to prove that Kali is adharma-yugam--an eon of adharma.

**********

 

[saidevo]

****************************************
Was Kali intended for adharma?
****************************************
pages 344-349

One thing should be clarified here. Isn't it only bhagavat-saMkalpam--divine will, that in the prapancha-nATakam--drama of the universe, in every chatur-yuga--four yugas, starting in complete dharmam in the KRta yugam, and then gradually declining in the TretA yugam and DvApara yugam, it should go completely adharma in the Kali yugam? Why blame it then? Why start reforming it when Kali has been earmarked as the yuga for adharma? Such a question might arise.

Although we cannot understand bhagavat-saMkalpam, when he informs us through the shAstras that Kali is an adharma yugam, it appears that we should not take it to mean that this yugam has been decidedly willed by him, for the lokam--world to go completely ruined in adharma.

• Lokam is a nATakam for him: The nATakam he writes the story of and directs. Although it can be said that just as a dramatist, for the rasa-vaisitAya-ruchi--taste of abiding feeling (in order to make changes in the kAvya-rasas--feelings of characters in the epics, to heighten their effect), does-kalnapa-of--imagines, scenes with (their predominant feeling as) raudra--anger/fury, bIbhatsa--disguest/loathing, and bhaya--fear, he might also be doing in the Kali, his compassionate heart will not allow it all to go beyond a limit.

If it becomes completely full of raudram, bIbhatsam and bhayAnakam--terror, what could be there in it to be spoken of as rasam? There would only be virasam--nauseousness/bad taste.

• Therefore, although he does not do-sRShTi--create, in this yuga, people as that much dhArmikas--righteous, and of deiva-shakti--divine powers, as in the case of pUrva-yuga-manuShyas--people of earlier yugas,

and although he has created giving them an inner ruchi--disposition, towards adharma,

he would not end it as a kolaik-kUththu--revelry of massacre, in which they get completely immersed.

• Although he keeps watching people to go on sliding as in a sliding board game, he would send strong mahAns who would support them at the bottom and save from a complete fall that would break their bones.

• He would ensure that although on one side, on account of the nature of this yuga, adharmas go on increasing,

on the other side, giving many things that make one think of dharma and keep at least some people in the jana-samUham as dhArmikas in continuence.

Thus, although we see today, on the one side, bribery, fraud, murder and clubs for gambling and other improper actions,

on the other we see pravachanam--expositions, bhajana--worship by singing sessions, kumbAbhiShekam--sanctification of temples, (and such good things) on the increase, right?

• Even when the Kali is to end, there is not going to be any complete astamana--going down, of people who lead good, vaidika and dhArmika life.

• It is mentioned that in the kaliyantam--end of Kali, BhagavAn will take avatAra as Kalki in the TAmraparNi tIram--banks of TambraparaNi river, that is, in our Tirunelveli jillA--district, as putra--son, to a sad-brAhmaNa named ViShNuyashas. This only means that even at that time there would at least be some sad-brAhmaNas who follow the vaidika-AchAras?

• The tyranny of Kali has indeed been exaggerated in the texts such as the PurANas. It would be narrated as all dharma having gone, completely destroyed.

• It is mentiond that even before our AchAryAL's avatAram, the Devas went to KailAsa and appealed to Parameshvara that the Veda dharma had gone completely destroyed.

• And yet, if we look at it later, we get to know that AchAryAL took avatAra, in a MalayALa brAhmaNa family that was for generations following the vaidika-anuShTAnam. He did abhyAsa--study, of all the vaidika-vidyAs in yadoktam--as specified, in the gurukulam.

• And men like PadmapAda, who had obtained samskAram--perfection, by good vaidika-anuShTAnams, had become his shiShyas--disciples.

Therefore, it is known that Veda Dharma--why say Veda Dharma? so far as we are concerned, Dharma means only Veda Dharma--was not completely destroyed ever.

"Isn't this Kali? The Atma-balam--spiritual strength of the people is very little! With that strength can the people perform well the agnihotra karmAnuShTAnam? Or do anuShTAnam of the sannyAsa ashramam without at all causing any bhangga--break, to it?" This question arose in the yuga-Arambha--beginning of the yuga, when the Dharma ShAstras were being formulated.

• agnihotram is a ritual that comes in the karma kANDam as pravRtti mArgam; sannyAsam is one that comes in the jnAna kANDam as nivRtti mArgam. So, if these two are gone, there is no way at all for the people to rise in spirit.

For the kali-kAla-manuShyas--people of the Kali age, who are alpa-shakta--of trivial strength, is this going to be the atogati--helpless state? This question arose.

What reply, that is, judgment, did the Dharma-shAstrakAras give it?

• Let there be no confusion as for Kaliyugam and KRtayugam. Until such time as there is varNa-vibhAgam--class distinctions, to at least some extent, until the time there is at least some veda-adhyayanam--chanting Vedas, till that time the agnihotram and sannyAsam can remain, was the judgment given by them.

Isn't it known by this that although these things get dim in Kali, they would still be burning-as-muNuk-muNuk--blinking, without being extinguished completely. When it gets to the stage of extinction, a MahA-PuruSha will come, pour some oil, trim the wick, and make it jvalita--lighted, again. It would go very well for sometime as if to let us think whether KRtayugam itself has set in. After that dimming again, and trimming again--in this fashion it would be going on.

• Including the avatAra-kAlam of AchAryAL, even in this Kali, there have always been some people who were good karmAnuShTaddhas (those who do it as karma yoga, instead of its being dry mImAMsA), people with good bhakti--devotion, and jnAnis full of jnAnam. They will be there in the coming times too.

• One thing called guru-parampara--succession of gurus, has always been there in-avichchinnam--uninterruptedly, in all the mArgas. If there is no guru, there would be no adhyayanam, no sannyAsa-dIkSha--ascetic initiation; so if these have always been there, it is obtained that in the paramparA-kramam--order of succession, there have also been gurus in avichchinnam, doing abhyAsam--practice, and upadesham--teaching, of these things.

• Since AchAryAL in many places in his bhAShyams has mentioned that there is value only for the 'sampradAya vidyA' which occurs in the guru-shiShya-parampara kramam, it is obtained that this (vidyA) has been practised in (uninterrupted) succession until his time.

• Not only that he got the advaita-vidyA in upadesham from Govinda BhagavadpAda in the paramparA-kramam, until his time there have been other advaita AchAryas: KASakRtsna, DrAviDAcArya, BrahmAnandin, BhartRprapancha, BhartRhari, Brahmadatta, Saundara pANDya--these people have taught advaita even before our AchAryAL.

• Similarly in those days, Alayas--temples, where pujas were conducted according to the vaidika-Agama rituals, had also not disappeared. Although it is mentioned that in his doing kShetrAdanam--going around sacred places, three times thoughout this desham--country, AchAryAL made the ugra-paddhati--fierce texts of rites, saumyam--cool/auspicious, and changed the avaidika tAntrika pujas to conform to the regular texts, it is not mentioned that he did so in all the Alayas. There were Alayas where the worship rituals were performed in the right way.

His own parents has obtained varam--boon, for him to take avatar (in their family), only by doing bhajanam--worship, in the TiruchUr temple.

 

[saidevo]

pages 349-350

Then why do the purANas scare us saying, "Gone, gone! Everything gone in the Kali! Whatever little (good) remains, even that would be gone in kAlakrama--course of time. All of it will become mRgaprAya--age of animals"? It is only to warn, rouse and caution us so we do not remain in Alasyam--idleness/sloth. Only when it is described as most dangerous, we will stir and rise from our idleness.

It is wrong to say, "As Kali is only an adharma-yuga, let us also be in adharma!"

• If the police sound the tom-tom that there is much danger of thieves in the town, what would we do? Would we throw our belongings on the street ourselves, so the thieves could take them away (without harming us) and keep quiet? Would we not take care to protect as much as we can? The purpose of the police tom-tom is only to warn in this way and let us safeguard our things to the possible extent?

• (In the same way), the shAstras sounding the tom-tom that Kali has started his rule of adharma is only for us to safeguard the dharma as much as possible and not give up what is remaining, with the thought that we can't do anything about it, and go wasted.

• Only if a man stands against the adharma-pravAham--gush of adharma, that occurs in this Yuga, can he get a-hundred-crore times of the phalas--fruits, of the dharmAnuSTAna--dharmic observances, that he might do in the other Yugas. Much of the honour is in standing against at times of opposition.

• (Laughing gently) In the other Yugas, a number of people would go and surround Ishvara; and it would not be possible for him to inquire each and everyone and do his anugraha--divine favour. In Kali (however) he would be waiting and looking out for people who might come to him. So even if we do a little yatnam--work, he would consider it worth a kOTi--crore times more, call us beside him and do his anugraha.

• Considering that just by saying "all gone, all gone", some people might tire and fall that their preventive efforts would only go nishprayojanam--useless, they have in the shAstras mentioned certain pratyeka anukUlas--specific advantages, and encouraged us.

They have mentioned that in this Kali Yuga by easily uttering/chanting the name of BhagavAn, can be obtained the anugraha phala--fruits of divine favour, that is obtainable only by

‣ doing dhyAnam--meditation, along with the shrama-sAdhya kArya--very difficult task of mano-nigraham--mental restraint, in the KRta Yuga;

‣ subjecting the sharIram--body, to kaShTam--pain/exertion, by doing yAgas--fire sacrifices/oblations, in the TretA Yuga,

‣ and by doing archanA--worship, and pUja--rituals, in vistAraNam--elaboration, in the DvApara Yuga.

In the same shAstras where they have scared us, they have also comforted us in this way. (This is the reason that) VyAsAchArya has twice confirmed, 'kali sAdhu, kali sAdhu'--"Is the Kali a yuga of asat? Only that is a yuga of sat"!

 

[saidevo]

******************************
'shaMkara vijayam'
******************************
pages 350-351

We were looking at the time when that Kali had got himself entangled as an asAdhu--not honest/wicked. I told that it was mentioned in the books that 72 durmatas--evil faiths/cults, were confounding the people then. As to which the books are, the books that speak of AchAryAL's charitam--biography. They had the name 'shaMkara vijayam'. If a VIP visits a place we say that he made 'vijayam' there. 'vijayam' means 'jayam' with 'visheSham', that is, 'victory with distinction'.

• The kings going in every direction and conquering other kings is 'digvijayam'. Similarly, a sage going on a visit is mentioned as vijayam, with the meaning that he went to the place and conquered the hRdayas--hearts, of janas--people, by love.

• The charitram of mahAtmas like our AchAryAL gets the name 'vijayam' as they had accomplished a big victory called 'Atmajayam', by which the enemies called wrong thoughts could never raise heads within them throughout their life; and further (they had) conquered by love and knowledge, the minds of loka-janas--people of the world, from the paNDitas--scholars, to the pAmaras--rustics.

• Thus, many people have compiled many 'shaMkara vijayam's. In some of them has come this prastAvanam--exordium, of 72 matas--faiths/cults. In the 'aShTottarashatam' (108 names for doing archanA) on AchAryAL too, it occurs as "dvispatati matochChettre namaH"*. "One who made-nirmUla--eradicated, 72 matas" is the meaning.

Note:

द्विसप्तति मतोच्छेत्ता सर्वदिग्विजयप्रभुः ।
काषायवसनोपेतो भस्मोद्धूळितविग्रहः ॥१८॥

ॐ द्विस्पतति मतोच्छेत्त्रे नमः

dvisaptati matochChettA sarvadigvijayaprabhuH |
kAShAyavasanopeto bhasmoddhULitavigrahaH ||18||

oum dvispatati matochChettre namaH
--shrI shaMkarAchArya aShTottarashata nAmAvaliH

I bow to shrI shankara who through the advaita vedAnta uplifted many forms of religious worship by giving them a proper focus. dvisaptati is 72, mata means religion and uchChetta means uplifting. Many religious observances can be done with various goals, but if done with earnest intention of knowing the Self, these observances get a proper focus.

According to available extracts from the lost AnandagirIya shaMkaravijaya (e.g., in the commentaries on the popular mAdhavIya shaMkaravijaya) shaMkarAchArya reformed 72 different cults in the course of his travels in India.

******************************

 

[saidevo]

****************************************
Seventy-two matas--faiths/cults
****************************************
pages 351-355

Even after doing so much research, of those seventy-two, the names of many are not known! Once I say this, let it not be objected to, "You see? It is our custom to build stories without being able to show AdhAram--support/evidence. Only by doing so, we have written up everything as myth and not as history."

• Although the names of all the seventy-two (faiths) are not known, it is possible to discover very well, the names of forty to forty-five of them. For many of these, there are plenty of AdhAra pustakas--supportive texts. There is also firm evidence that they were in anuShTAna--observance, at a certain time.

• Of these, since the faiths like mImAMsA, nyAya and vaisheShika are somewhat supportive of our vedAnta mata, we teach them in our pAThashAlas--vedic schools, even today.

• The talk of seventy-two faiths has been there for a long time. Therefore, since we come to know of half--even more than half--of them, we can do-anumAna--infer, that the remaining faiths should also have been there at certain times, so it is not a concocted tale.

• In his charitra--biographical, texts that can very well be spoken of as the contemporaries of AchAryAL, mentioning the names of aneka matas--several faiths, it is elaborated that he did-nirAkaraNam-of--expelled, them.

• There were shiva-matas, viShNu-matas, even 'hairaNyagarbha-mata' that related to brahmA! indra-mata, kubera-mata, and then manmata-mata, yama-mata--in this way, there were matas holding these divine personalities as muzhu mudhal deivam--complete, sole god.

• In the same way, we find in-vichitram--a strange way, in those pustakas--texts, that there were matas related to the (worship of) pitRus--ancestors, related to the bhUta-vetAla--ghosts and spirits, and worshipping guNas as gods, and kAlam--time, as god.

• Apart from these about which much details are not known, there had been some twenty to twenty-five matas whose siddhAnta--principles, is known in-pUrNam--completely.

As to what these matas are:

• apart from the vedAnta that AchAryAL established with a new jIvan--life, the remaining five of the ShaD-darshanam, namely, sAMkhya, yoga, nyAya, vaisheShika and mImAMsA;

• pAshupatam, kAlAmukham, bhAgavata-pAncharAtram (these two would always be mentioned together in the AchArya bhAShyas), thus four;

• gANapatyam, kaumAram, shaivam, shAktam, vaiShNavam, sauram--the six that were followed as avaidikam--non-vedic, in the wrong way. (Only these six that AchAryAL did-sthApana-of--established, as the ShaNmata--six sects);

• bauddha and jaina that arose, completely objecting to any veda-sambandha--vedic connections;

• the lokAyuta matam, aka chArvAkam--as open nAstikam--atheism, and complete materialism without going into any Atma-viShaya--subject of the spirit, at all (the one that I spoke of as BArhaspatam);

thus there have been some twenty to twenty-five matas; if we add everything (these and the earlier ones spoken after their deities of worship), it might add up to forty or forty-five. (Of the remaining thirty or so out of the seventy-two, even their names are not known!) For some that are known by name, the mUla-pustakas--basic scriptures, are not available.

• Whatever be the way those matas were, of those seventy-two, not a single one is in anuShTAnam in our desham--country, today!

‣ Although bauddham spread to foreign countries and became one of the largest religions of the world, it is not followed in India, the country of its birth.

‣ and although jainam is there konjam-konjam--to a little extent, it only remains as a matam that has taken up many worship rituals of the hindumatam. Many of those who bear the name 'jain' are there as having koLvinai-koDuppinai--marital relationships, with the Hindus. In the AchArya bhAshyas, jainam was not analyzed with visheSham--importance. It would be surprising if I mention that in the AchArya bhAShyas, even the bauddha-mata-kaNDana--criticism of Buddhism, won't be much. We can look at this subject later.

• Although today in our desham--country, there are many matas--sects, as shaivam and vaiShNavam, the shaiva-vaiShNava matas that AchAryAL did kaNDanam of during his time were different than what prevails as them today.

‣ The later shaiva-vaiShNava mata sthApakas--founders, might have taken only some amShas--aspects, of their counterparts that he did kaNDanam of, and became obsolete.

‣ In the vaiShNavam of rAmAnujachArya, the pAncharAtra principles that AchAryAL did kaNDanam of, are found mixed up.

‣ The siddhAnta shaivam might here and there go embracing the pAshupatam that AchAryAL criticised.

May those things be whatever, these (shaiva vaiShNava) matas are only found today in the new rUpam--form, their later mata sthApakas gave them, which is (widely) different from the form they had during the time he criticised them.

• Although there are many texts for such matas as nyAya and mImAMsA, and there are people who read them to date, there is no one to follow them as an individual mata--sect, as 'nyAya matasta', 'mImAMsa matasta' after AchAryAL (took them on for criticism).

• And although a large number of yoga margas--yoga paths, have appeared today and many people do try them, they don't separate themselves from the hindumatam and call them 'yoga matasta', right?

• If many of those seventy-two have run away with even their names being not known, only AchAryAL has driven them away! We come to know of some of them from the pustakas--texts. Some are known because they are in vazakku--practice, in deshAntaras--other countries. We also discover from the damaged statues and maNDapas--pavilions, 'Oho! Earlier such a religion was in practice.'

If a man like AchAryAL had not come, we don't have to exert ourselves this much to find those matas--faiths! It would have happened for us to go searching after only the hindumatam!

**********

 

[saidevo]

******************************
AchAryAL's Ashcharya sAdhana
******************************
pages 355-356

That is, that single mUrti--personification/embodiment, has made those seventy-two matas--sects/cults, obsolete in this desham--country! That such a sAdhana--accomplishment, he has done is a suprise that grows as one ponders over it! If an ANDi--mendicant, has accomplished it using only his Atma shakti--power of Self, jnAna shakti--power of knowledge and vAda shakti--power of discussion, how can he be anyone other than an avatAra puruSha? That too the time he did vAsam--live, in the bhUlokam--earth, was for only thirty-two years!

• Of course, today it is not that all the people in this desham are those who follow him, as advaita sampradAyastas--traditionalists. There are people who belong to the sampradAyas established by rAmAnujAchArya, mAdhvAchArya, shrI kRShNa chaitanya, vallabhAcharya, shrIkaNThAcharya, and meykaNDAr. Even so, all these AchAryALs established these matas--sects, only many centuries after our AchAryAL.

• Except the advaita, all the matams (that we see) today are those that arose only after AchAryAL's time. Until then, only AchAryAL's matam had ruled, its flag fluttering, making all the earlier matas nonexistent!

• Any matam that came later could not cause a great naShTam--loss, to it. Whatever new matas came, there have always been a great number of people who followed AchAryAL as his sampradAyastas.

• Unlike AchAryAL's siddhAntam which made all the previously existing matas as nonexistent, no other siddhAnta that came later could do so. Just because rAmAnuja came, advaitam did not cease to exist. After him, because mAdhva came both advaita and vishiShtAdvaita did not cease to exist. In this way, when every new matam arose, although some people joined it, it was not the case of everyone joining it and any other matam becoming nonexistent.

• Only during AchAryAL's time, had everyone accepted his matam only. It was the same case, even after him for a few centuries. That was why a distinct honour of being a 'jadguru' and 'jagatAchAryAL' accrued for him.

• Only for him that the title 'jagadguru' remains as one that speaks of the truth in vAstavam--reality, without being a virudu--award, given in praise for the sake of upachAram--decoration!

• Just because it is termed as 'jagat', we don't have to think about the deshAntaras--other countries. Since only our desham--country, which is the karma-bhUmi--field of actions, suitable for vaidika anuShTAnam--vedic practices, is like the soul and heart of the entire jagat--world, if he is an AchAryAL for all this desham, then he is only a jagatAchAryAL.

• What we call bhArata desham--country, (today) was in pUrva kAlam--earlier times, known in more vistAram--extent, as bharata khaNDam--continent, and that there existed 56 deshas--countries, such as angam, vangam, kalingam and so on within it, resembling 56 mAhANangaL--states, today. If by going on digvijayam in all those fifty-six, and doing nirAkaraNam--driving away/expelling, of all the paramatas--other sects, did AchAryAL establish the advaita vedAnta, only that is jagadgurutvam--the quality of being a world teacher.

******************************

 

[saidevo]

**************************************************
The all-inclusive vaidikam is only AchAryAL's matam!
**************************************************
pages 357-358

Whether they profess to agree or not agree with the vedas, the matas--sects, that prevailed then, the matas established later by sages like rAmAnuja and mAdva, and then the anya--foreign, matas that are followed the world over,--in all these, whatever good aMshas--features, are there, they are all only those found in the vedas.

• Because of the kAla-desha-vartamAna--movement in time and place, although the foreign AchAra-anuShTAna do not seem vaidikam--vedic, including the matas--religions, in the deshAntaras--foreign countries, if we take the spirit, it would certainly be one that has AdhAra--base/support, in the vedas.

• When I say spirit here, I do not just speak of the tattvas--principles, in the religions. I also speak about the ShaTangus--rites and rituals. Although the ShaTangus that are there in the anya-matas--foreign religions, do not seem to have any vaidika-vAsana--impressions of the vedas, the jIvan--core, of those ShaTangus that I speak as the spirit, will certainly not be one that is not found in the vedas.

• All the matas spoken of as vaidika and avaidika, knowingly or unknowingly, thus in tattvam, ShaTangu both, have formed only by taking one or two aMshams from the vedas. Just one or two aMshas, not in-pUrNam--completely.

• If we look at the vedas, many things are there as shiva-sambandha--related to shiva; there are many others that are viShNu-sambandha.

‣ The matas like vishiShtAdvaita and dvaita have left out the shiva-sambandha and taken only those that are vaiShNava.

‣ In the shivAdvaitam, shaiva siddhAntam it would be vice versa. In effect, they would be such as to leave one and grahita--grasp another, of those that are found in the vedas.

‣ The mImAMsakas took only the karma-mArgam and rejected the jnAna(-mArgam).

‣ The bauddham, took only the yama, niyama disciplines and the niShprapancha tattva from the veda dharma, but went developed them in a different dinusu--manner/fashion.

In this way, if we look at any matam--religion, it is such as to accept something from the vedas and reject something.

• It is only AchAryAL's matam that has accepted the entire vedas as such, in sampUrti--completely filled up. To put it rightly, it is not AchAryAL's matam at all, only the original veda matam. The original veda matam that AchAryAL did punaruttAraNaM--rescued and secured!

It is only the path that AchAryAL has given us that is pUrNam--complete in every respect, with karma, bhakti, jnAna, yoga, the niyama of discipline called dharma, saprapancham, niShprapapancham, and the sammata--consonance, of all the deivams unlike the shiva-viShNu bedha.

********************

 

[saidevo]

**************************************************
About itara matas--other Hindu sects and cults
**************************************************
pages 358-361

It is necessary to speak about the other apUrNa--incomplete, matas that he did-nirAkaraNam-of--repudiated.

• I spoke about the MImAMsAkas--followers of MImAMsa, who took only the karma KANDam (of the Vedas) for their doctrine.

‣ They did not consider that a person called Ishvara made sRShTi--Creation, of the lokam--world.

‣ They did not also agree that only he dispenses the karma-phala--effects of karma.

‣ Both saguNa Ishvara and nirguNa Brahmam were not there for them. There was neither IshvaropAsana--worship of God, nor any Atma-dhyAnam--meditation on the Self.

‣ They said only karmAnuShTAnam--performance of Vedic rituals was sufficient, and there should be nothing else as bhakti--devotion, or jnAnam--knowledge, to attain the svargam--heavens, or something above that they could not describe--the mokSham, which is the nityAnanda-padam--mark/sign of bliss.

‣ They went to the extent of saying that only they are the people who do-anusaraNa-of--follow, the Veda dharmam and that those who become sannyAsins--ascetics, giving up the karma--action of performing Vedic rituals, go in-virodha--against, the Vedas, so it is a pApam--misfortune/sin, to even sight a sannyAsin.

‣ Despite all such things, it was only these MImAMsAkas who, on par with the VedAnta, showed direct AdhAram--support/evidence, in the Vedas themselves, for their abhiprAyam and anuShTAnam--opinions and rituals, among the six darshanas which are described as Astika matas, that is vaidika matas that believe in veda-Adhara--Vedic suport.

‣ All the karmAnuShTAnas they performed were vedokta--mentioned in the Vedas. Only they brought out the meanings of the veda mantras in elaboration.

‣ NyAya, VaisheShika, SAMkhya and Yoga--they all ended with the limitation that they did not do-AkShepaNam-of--object, to veda prAmaNyam--establishment of Vedic proof. (Other than this) they could not show much AdhAra--support, in the Vedas for their siddhAntas--principles, or AcharaNas--practices.

Thus, although MImAMsA was a vaidika matam, it was a vaidika matam that was apUrNa--incomplete and mULi--(Tamil) deformed. Without understanding that even as a man goes from school to college, Veda has the arrangement of karma kANDam first and then jnAna kANDam, they tried to end it at the school level and establish that it was above all academic degrees!

**********

• In the SAMkhya matam, there will be a mention of twenty-four tattvas--first principles, starting with PrakRti--Nature as the passive power of creation, and ending with the pancha bhUtas--five elements.

‣ It is also mentioned therein that PrakRti is the pradhAnam--chief entity. Only this remains as the mUlam--root, for everything in this lokam--world, and even this lokam itself. Something like the power of Nature mentioned in these days.

‣ manas--mind, indriyas--senses, all these things are (originated) only from this PrakRti.

‣ Mixing in different vihitAchAra--ratios, the three guNas--sattvam, rajas, tamas-- which are its anga--parts, it creates the nAnAvidha prapancham--manifold universe.

‣ Still, it is only a jaDam--inanimate entity. As to what is chetana vastu--entity of consciousness, it is known as PuruSha. PuruSha is one that is self-contained, without getting mixed up with PrakRti. It won't do any kAryam--action. By only by its sAnnidhyam--presence/nearness, PrakRti does all these kAryas.

‣ That matam (SAMkhya) says that mokSha is the state of kaivalya--absolute isolation, where the jIva--individual soul, remains in solitude, after investigating and giving up all the twenty-four tattvas, and getting released from PrakRti.

‣ The PuruSha mentioned here is like the AtmA that is nirguNa, mentioned in the UpaniShads which are the jnAna kANDa (of the Vedas); and the PrakRti is like MAyA.

‣ Nevertheless, in contrary to what is mentioned in our VedAnta (which are the UpaniShads) that the same AtmA is the Brahmam spoken as the ParamAtmA; all the jIvAtmas are only this Brahmam; and all the jIvAtmas are only the veShas--disguises, this single Brahmam has taken up using MAyA, SAMkhya mentions that there are several PuruShas.

‣ When a single MAyA or PrakRti is the kAraNam--reason, for sakala jIva-jagat--all the world of beings, the AtmA or PuruSha, which is jnAyamaya--full of knowledge, and shAntamaya--full of peace, should also be singular? How can there be many (of It/Him)?

‣ As with MImAMsA, in SAMkhya too there is no Ishvara.

What is appropriate (however), is what VedAnta says:

that one which links Brahmam that is nirguNa and the jIva-jagat, is the SaguNa Brahmam known as Ishvara, who is the prabhu--lord, of MAyA;

and that it is only the NirguNa Brahmam which unites with MAyA and becoming SaguNa Brahmam, does the jIva-jagat vyApAram--performance/business.

‣ After saying that PuruSha remains with no sambandha--connection, with anything, and then saying that only by its sannidhi-visheSham the jaDa-PrakRti does all these things, has no sAram--real meaning/strength in it.

‣ Only by obtaining chitta-shuddhi--purity of mind, by niShkAmya karma--desireless action,

doing-upAsana-of--worshipping, Ishvara who is the phala-dAta--dispenser of karmic fruits,

and then doing jnAna-vichAram--inquiry of real knowledge, after having practised to stop the chittam on a single thought, can one get released from the cocoon/shell of PrakRti.

Whereas by ordaining that there is no karmAnuShTanam and no Ishvara, and instead of doing vichAram--inquiry, about the satyam--reality, to be attained, by investigating the twenty-four tattvas which are to be given up, how can the release be obtained?

‣ With just the mUla viddhyAsa--main difference, that the UpaniShads speak of the Brahmam which is chetana--sentient, as the jagad-kAraNa--cause of the world, whereas SAMkhyam speaks about the PradhAnam (PrakRti) which is achetana--insentient, as the kAraNam, AchAryAL has established that it cannot be a vaidika sampradAyam--vedic tradition.

‣ Although SAMkhyam says like VedAnta that for the tattvam--first principle, called PuruSha there is no kartRuvam--agency of action, that is, it has no kAryam--action, it also says that PuruSha has bhokRutvam--agency of enjoyment, and that only for the PuruSha's bhogam--enjoyment, the PrakRti does a thing like sRShTi--Creation; and this does not suit either the VedAnta or rationality.

‣ To enjoy the bhoga--possessions, is also a kAryam--action? The PuruSha tattvam which is without kAryam, how can it do only this kAryam?

‣ When the truth is that the AtmA which is PuruSha is neither a karta--performer, nor a bhokta--enjoyer, is what the anubhavins--Self-Realized, have discovered in their state of samAdhi,

to say that it is not a karta only but is a bhokta, is in virodham--opposition, to the pratyakSham--ocular evidence/direct perception.

**********

 

[saidevo]

pages 362-363

• Yoga is a matam--religious sect, that teaches the way to control the chittam--thinking/expansion of mind, and stay detached in the samAdhi state.

‣ It teaches the yoga sAdhana of aSTAnga, one that comprises of eight limbs. It is in-anuShTAna--followed, till today and also gives results.

‣ Neverthess, except that it accepts the One as Ishvara, in other respects it has only taken the SAMkhya mata abhiprAyas--opinions. So, the shortfalls of that matam are also found in this one.

‣ Even its acceptance of Ishvara is not in the manner that only he does the vyApAram--business, of the jIva-jagat--beings and world, and dispenses the karma-phala--effects of karma.

‣ He is accepted in that matam as the ideal which is Ishvara, who is without any blemish or suffering whatsoever, so it is of-prayojana--useful, to the sAdhaka--seeker, who wants to accomplish chitta-nirodha--control of mind expansion, to anchor the chitta--expanding mind, in some lofty lakShyam--aim/target, without letting it scatter over the many.

• The NyAya and VaisheShika are only buddhi-ArAychchigaL--intellectual research.

‣ NyAya is tarka-vAda--doctrine of reasoning. If the VedAnta says that only Brahmam is the satyam--Reality, so we must dissolve by jnAnam--knowledge, the veSha--disguise, it has taken up by MAyA and become That itself (that is, Atman/Brahman itself),

these matas teach that both the jIva and the jagat are satya, and not veSha, and that unlike an eka-paramAtma--One Supreme Brahman, there are aneka--many, Atmas--souls.

‣ VaisheShika, which goes in anusaraNa-of--conformity to, NyAya, explores the visheSha guNas--specific characteristics, of each of the many, as the kAraNam--cause, for the differences in the jIva-jaDa prapancham--animate and inanimate universe. Since it explores the visheSha--specifics, it has the name VaisheShika.

‣ In this siddhAnta--doctrine, there is no striking out by jnAnam, of the jIva-bhAva--mental identity with the ego, and the jagat--world. Its principle is that the jIva-jagat are made up of aNUs--atoms, that are indestructible.

‣ It does-vistara--elaborates, how the aNUs and paramANUs--sub-atomic particles, combine in various ways and create the vastus--objects.

‣ If the SAMkhya teaches that just by researching the twenty-four tattvas--principles of creation, the jIva is liberated from them and attains mokSha--deliverance,

in VaisheShika, it is taught that by researching its principle of atomicity, and the special distinctions called padArtha, a jIva sets apart its sharIram--body, and the viShayas--sensual objects, it experiences, as just an assembly of aNUs--atoms, which are merely jAda--inert, gets to know the AtmA that is chaitanya--consciousness, and obtains liberation from the samsAra--worldly life.

‣ The doShas--deficiencies, we saw above in the SAMkhya would also apply here. By doing much buddhi-vAda--intellectual reasoning, and getting to know about the vastus--objects, how can the karma-nAsha--dissolution of karma, and mano-nAsha--destruction of mind, arise? Without these, how can there be the liberation from saMsAra--worldly life?

• Since like the SAMkhya which teaches the achetana pradhAna--insentient matter, as the jagat-kAraNam--cause of the world, the NyAya-VaisheShikas teach the achetana paramANUs as the jagat-kAraNam, AchAryAL has shown that this darshan too is opposed to the UpaniShad matam, that is the Vaidika matam, that teaches chetana Brahmam as the jagat-kAraNam.

Such are the Astika (vaidika) darshanas--Veda-based systems of philosophy.

*****

 

[saidevo]

pages 363-368

• The Bauddha and Jaina matas are new avaidika matas--religions, that do not conform to the Vedas, which arose with a resolve not to accept the Veda pramANa--authority of the Vedas.

‣ adhyayanas--Vedic chanting, vaidika karmAnuShTas--Vedic sacrifices and rituals, UpaniShads, and varNAshramas--classes and stages of life,--these two religions rejected all of these as totally unnecessary.

‣ They also rejected Ishvara--personal God, and IshvaropAsana--worshipping a personal God.

‣ What was ordained as sAdhAraNa dharma--normal disciplines of life, for sakala-jana--entire populace, (namely) ahiMsa--non-violence, satyam--truth, asteya--not stealing, brahmacharya--continence, and aparigraham--non-acceptance beyond the necessaries of life--only these disciplines (of life) they taught, and yet, without having any flexibility according to the pakvam--maturity, of each person, they ordained them strictly as a must for everyone.

‣ Although in Jaina (matam), making a distinction between harsh and not so harsh niyamas, it is ordained that the BhikShus--mendicants, should have 'mahA-vratam'--great penances, and others can have 'aNu-vratam'--tiny penances, in the absence of varNAshrama vibhAgam--varNa and Ashrama classifications, even that aNu-vratam was-shrama-sAdhya--could not be accomplished by exertion, for the common anuShTAnas--observances, of the populace.

‣ Since that matam (Jaina) considered that only by giving shramam--exertion, can the karma be reduced, it has the very name shramaNa (chamaNa in Tamizh).

• Looking at siddhAnta--philosophy, as the end of the religion, in Buddha having left it saying only something (about the Truth), as if he thought, "Let us not say anything decisive; let everyone experience it and get to know it", it happened later that even that something got elaborated in many ways, and there arose in the Bauddham:

‣ VaipAshikam--followers of the unchanging reality philosophy,
‣ SautrAntikam--followers of the Buddhist sUtras,
‣ YogAchAram--followers of the 'mind only' philosophy, and
‣ MAdhyamikam--the middle way between the other two,

as many sampradAyas--traditions, as differing from each other.

‣ As two different sects opposing each other, in the name of that same religion two sects arose, as MahAyAna and HInayAna.

‣ The YogAchAram and MAdhyamikam came under the MahAyAna. The SautrAntikam and VaipAshikam came under the HInayAna.

‣ Although there appeared in each of these philosophies, experienced people who had contemplated deeply, under the many traditions that arose with contradictory principles, it all ended up in giving much scope to clash in vAda--debates, rather than in anubhavam--experience.

• When it comes to anubhavam--experience, what happened was that--did I not mention before that Buddha that said only something (of the Truth) and left the remaining (for the sAdhakas to find out in experience)?

And that was his taking only the amSham--share, that shows this lokam--world, as mAyA--illusion, in the UpaniShads, and his leaving out the fact that as AdhAram--support, for this mAyA, there is a satyam--Truth, behind.

• Therefore, the bauddha-siddhAntas--Buddhist philosophy, instead of teaching that

‣ the jIva's--soul's, lakShyam--goal, is to obtain the anubhUti--knowledge and perception, of the Brahman or Atman that remains as a satyam--Truth, characterised by nitya-shuddha-buddha--eternal and pure awareness, and sat-chit-Ananda--existence-consciousness-bliss, and become pUrNa-vastu--abiding in fullness, and only this is mokSham--liberation;

‣ came up with the teaching that getting released from the mAyA-pravAham--illusory currents, of this world that is changing restlessly without any AdhAram--support, and merging into the nothingness of the shUnya--vacuity, is the mokSham called nirvANam.

‣ How can the anubhavam--experience, obtained by doing dhyAnam--meditation, on the nishchayam--inquiry/conviction,

that there is no satya-vastu--Entity of Truth, (which is) shAshvata-vastu--Entity of Eternity, and everything is shUnyam--emptiness,

be the great state of bliss of brahmAnandam--bliss of Braman, a term known even in the spoken language of the people?

• "There is no lokam--world, no jIva--soul, no Atman, no Brahman, all that appears as happening are nothing but some kind of a bhrama--giddiness/dizziness. Since only those samAcharas--happenings, that appear and disappear then and there are going on continuously, the bhrama--dizziness, arises that there is in nijam--reality, a stream of life. Like blowing out (the flame of) a burning lamp, to blow out all these things is the mokSham of nirvANam."

Thus, in toto, Bauddham ends only in getting (a seeker) into a shUnya--emptiness.

• (On the other hand,) VedAnta speaks of the lokam--world, and jiva--soul, becoming false, when the jIvAtmA unites in aikyam--oneness, with the paramAtman who is the pUrNam--fullness, (not emptiness,) of Brahman.

‣ It also mentions that this worldly life of dvaitam--duality, that appears (as real), in the state where that aikyam--unity, has not happened, was caused to happen by Brahman itself, when it remains as Ishvara who is united with the mAyA shakti;

‣ and adds that Ishvara conducts the jagat--world, with a plan; which is why this jagat, although it becomes asatyam--untrue/false, in the end, moves on in a discipline with kAraNa-kArya-vidhis--rules of cause and effect.

• Bauddham, without accepting Ishvara and a tatkAla-satyavat--immediate/temporary reality, for the run of the world,

‣ saying on the one side that everything simply appears and disappears,

‣ and on the other accepting the principle of karma that (strictly) remains within the kAraNa-kArya-vidhi and the principle of reincarnation,

do not match in each other.

• Jaina matam also does not speak that there is One known as Brahman which is satya-vastu, and it conducts the world becoming Ishvara by uniting with mAyA.

‣ It leaves out everything without coming to a conclusion, teaching that nohting can be considered as existing or non-existing. This has the name syAdvAdam--assertion of possibility or non-possibility. That is, to leave things in antaram--(Tamil) supportless state, saying, "it could be such:", and not "it is such" with a conclusion. That is, to say "may be"! In saying 'may be', 'may not be' is also hangs on it.

• That is, to be indecisive about the satyatvam--truth, of the vastu--entity, is syAdvAdam. This may-be-may-not-be doctrine, would branch out into sapta-bhangi--seven branches. It would be like a strange puzzle to listen to! What those seven are:

‣ one is syAd-asti--it may be there;
‣ two, syAd-nAsti--it may not be there;
‣ three, syAd-asti-nAsti--it may be there, or it may also not be there;
‣ four, syAd-avaktavya--it may be that it is indescribable;
‣ five, syAd-asti-cha-avaktavya-—it may be there and it may be indescribable;
‣ six, syAd-nAsti-cha-avaktavya-—it may not be there and its not being there may be indescribable;
‣ seven, syAd-asti-cha-nAsti-cha-avaktavya—-it may remain as being there and not being there and it may be indescribable.

If one keeps on going with these assertions, to what nishchayam--certainty, can one come to?

• Although it is mentioned in Jainam that AtmA--soul, is jnAna-mayam--full of knowledge, chaitanya-mayam--full of consciousness/intelligence,

Jainam also mentions that the AtmA becomes commensurate with whatever sharIram--body, (it takes); ant-size within the body of an ant; elephant-sized within the body of the elephant; if the ant reincarnates as elephant, the AtmA that was ant-sized earlier, now becomes elephant-sized!

‣ It says that karmas become paramANUs, enter the AtmA and shrinks and binds it; and if the ties are removed, the AtmA gets released and in that state of liberation flies to the apex of AkAsha--space, and remains there in saukhyam--welfare/comfort.

‣ To remove those ties, that is, to prevent the karma-paramANUs from entering the AtmA and spoil it with ties and shrinkage, it says that the strict vratas--religious observances, ordained in the religion must be in-anuShTAnam--practised.

• The Jaina matam would lay much stress on ahiMsA--non-injury, and dAna--charity. It would show much hatred on worldly life. Although these are uttama--lofty, principles, it would be shrama--difficult/requiring exertion, for the majority of people. And thereby, they would happen to violate the regulations of their own religion.

• If it is not arranged for them, as in our religion, giving respect as gRhastha-dharma--householders' dharma, to family life,

giving a raised status as puruShArthas--aims of life, to the artha-kAma--wealth and desire,

and encouraging the majority of people to lead their life in dharma with utsAham--happiness,

there would not be any saMtoSham--satisfaction/happiness, at all for them obtained in daily practical life.

‣ With not enough pakvam--maturity, to lead an Adharsha--ideal, life, would lead to deceptively have such disguise and then go astray, and the samUham--society, itself would deteriorate.

‣ Or, instead of maturing step by step and giving up desires, and (finally) becoming a ripe fruit, seeking to give up desires out of hatred (for worldly life) would result in riping prematurely and falling.

In both Jainam and Bauddham, this danger is there.

******************************

 

[saidevo]

******************************
Concept of God
******************************
pages 368-373

Amuzedly, the PUrva-mImAMsA that spoke only of vaidika karmAnuShTAnam--Vedic rituals, did not talk about Ishvara; and the Bauddha-Jaina matas which totally objected to vaidika karmAnuShTAnam did not also talk about Ishvara!

Even more amuzing is: let the vaidika karma be on one side. Don't we speak about a 'Karma Theory'? That--'Every action has a reaction. Every cause has an effect. No one can escape from this. There is an effect for every good and bad action that we indulge in. These effects must necessarily be experienced. Only for this that although maraNam--death, happens in one sharIram--body, the need arises for a jIva--soul, to take up another janma--birth, in another sharIram and experience (the effects), and thus the wheel of samsAra--worldly life, goes rotating on'--is the Karma Theory.

• The Christian and Islam religions do not speak of (the jIva) thus taking several janmas--births, for karma-phala-anubhogam--enjoyment of the fruits of karma. Still, although this principle (of karma) is not there in those religions now, it was present in the root forms of those religions; or the Karma Theory was after all present in the Hebrew religions that preceded those religions in those countries, they say.

This subject is not in-sambandham--related, to us now. There is nothing in AchAryAL's charitam--biography, related to the Christian and Islamic religions.

• But then as to why I came to speak about the Karma Theory is that all the three--MImAMsA, Bauddham, and Jainam--which are well related to AchAryAL--related in kanDana rUpam--by way of his criticising them, have accepted the Karma Theory.

• Although these three do accept the Karma Theory, their not accepting Ishvara who remains as the karma-phala-dAtA--dispenser of karmic fruits, is what is most amuzing (in them)!

• Karma is an achetana--inanimate, jaDa vastu--inert thing. How can it organize a plan and make arrangements for such and such phala--fruit/result, for such and such action, with such decisiveness/finality, and control?

‣ Still, on the one side, the MImAMsakas said, denying (the existence of) Ishvara, 'karma causes to ensue its own fruits'.

‣ And on the other side, the completely avaidika--non-Vedic, Bauddha-Jainas too, without explaining how and by whom are the karma-phala are caused, doing nirIshvara-vAdam--argument against a personal God, and saying that there would be janmAntara--future births according to karma-phala, raised a building of siddhAnta--doctrine, without an astivAram--(Tamil) foundation!

• It is said in Bauddham that only the state of shUnya--emptiness, called nirvANam is the mokSham--liberation; all these loka-vyApAram--transaction of worldly life, only seems such, as many samAchAras--(Tamil) affairs, coming together as happenings in some sort of a stream of mAyA, so all that is nothing but falsity.

‣ Thus when everything remains entirely as false, as combining and separating as whatever things they seem, how can it happen, deciding with such precision, an inescapable result as such for every karma?

‣ Without dismissing everything as 'some sort of a stream of mAyA', it only enables us to guess, that a mahA-mati--great intelligence/mind, resolves and arranges for the cause-effect happenings? Only Ishvara is that mahA-mati.

One thing must be mentioned here. An important thing.

• Since AchAryAL has also stated, "All these loka-vyApAram--transaction of worldly life, is mAyA; only Brahmam is the satyam", by this some people think that it was copied straight from Bauddham.

• These people should understand an important difference. When AchAryAL says that this lokam is mAyA, he does not say that it was some sort of a headless, tailless flow of many things coming together, as the Bauddhas say.

‣ AchAryAL has only established that an Ishvara, who has either this mAyA as his guNa--attribute, or has this mAyA-shakti--power of illusion, has created the appearence called this lokam--world, from Brahmam itself, and also conducts its affairs, and dispenses the karma-phala--fruits of karma.

‣ To put it in other words, he has said that the Brahmam which has no kAryam--action, or guNa--attribute, is NirguNa Brahman, and that the same Brahman, combining with mAyA-shakti becomes Ishvara the SaguNa Brahman, who has kAryam and guNam, and does the loka-vyApAram--transaction of worldly life.

‣ To escape from this, by attaining the NirguNam from the SaguNam, and to become aikyam--united, with it in abhedam--absence of distinction, is the lakShyam--goal, of his advaitam.

‣ For that he has organized (for us) a sAdhanA-mArgam--path of seeking, to progress in the advaita jnAna mArgam, which stipulates doing Ishvara-bhakti as a first step, since it requires the anugraham--divine favour, of mAyA-sahita-Ishvara--Ishvara conjoined with mAyA, and who is the SaguNa Brahman.

• There is another difference. If it is mAyA, it does not mean that it is totally false. AchAryAL would call that which is totally false as atyanta-asat--absolute unreality. Brahmam is that which is pUrNa satyam--absolute reality. That which is called prAtibhAsika satyaM--a temporary apperance as reality, is what is in between.

‣ That is, (this prAtibhAsika satyaM is) one that looks real in practical vyavAhAra--worldly life, but would disappear with the arrival of jnAnam.

‣ AchAryAL has only said that the mAyA-lokam--the world as it seems, is such a temporary appearance as reality called prAtibhAsika satyaM; and not as the atyanta-asat which is totally unreal.

‣ Thus the jagat--world, is not asatyam--unreality, but a tatkAla-satyam--temporary reality called mithyA.

• Thus, only when giving the jagat an intermediate reality, it becomes possible to classify (actions) as good and bad and say that Ishvara who is mAyi dispenses the phala--fruits.

‣ So it becomes possible to say that only by doing good, one can obtain chitta-shuddhi--purity of mind, through it by Ishvara anugraham, and then proceed in the nivRtti (jnAna) mArgam. What is doing good? To remain in self-control and act in dharma.

‣ In Bauddham, after saying, 'There is a mokSham which is shUnyam. Everything else is a stream of mAyA that is false', when controls such as ahiMsA--non-violence, and satyam--truth, are emphasized, it remains impossible to answer when questions are raised, such as, 'when it is said that everything is false, what for is hiMsA or ahiMsA? satyam or asatyam? why should there be dharma and self-control?'

‣ Whereas in AchAryAL's siddhAnta--doctrine, it is possible to reply (to such questions), by assigning an intermediary reality as mithyA to the mAyA-jagat, that only when a jIva--soul, acts in self-control and dharma, would Ishvara, who administers the world giving fruits according to karma, give it chitta-shuddhi and raise it to the jnAna-mArgam.

‣ As an upAyam--means, that helps this discipline of dharma, AchAryAL also accepted the vaidika-karmAnuShTAna that MImAMsA teaches.

• The very greatness of AchAryAL's matam--doctrine, lies in his approving of the karmAnuShTAnam of the MImAMsA, the mAyA doctrine of Bauddha, and the ahiMsA principle of Jaina, giving them a place at the appropriate stage!

In summary, what I came to tell you is to show that both the Bauddha and ShramaNa (Jaina), accepting the doctrine of karma alone (without an Ishvara), and ordaining as its angam--part, the disciplines of dharma, seems like raising a buiding without an astivAram--foundation.

Whether one dismisses as Bauddham does, that all this life are only the flow of falsity, or decides like Jainam does, that nothing can be said in certainty about anything, in both (these approaches) it is not possible to obtain an explanation, for the arrangement of running in continuity the samsAra-chakra--wheel of worldly life, by intertwining with such decisiveness/finality, the fruits of every karma.

In general, a matam--religion, that has no Ishvara, does not stick with the jana-samudhAyam--populace.

******************************

 

[saidevo]

************************************************************
bauddha-jaina religions and the peoples' attitude
************************************************************
pages 373-378

The people are not bothered about the tattva-siddhAntas--religious philosophies. Only some great Shakti--power, has created this world and is running it; and to that Shakti known by the name SvAmi, pray for fulfilment of their kAmanas--desires/wishes;--only this is the religion of the common people.

• In addition, it is the svabhAvam--nature, of the common people to obtain a sense of fulfilment in the declaration that they belong to the path taught by that sage who turned up to earn their honour and respects and taught them a path, in the belief 'if this man says it, then it should be right'.

• The mata siddhAnta--religious philosophy, that he teaches is what is deemed as his 'path'. What it involves would not at all be known in visheSham--specifics, to the people. Nor would they ever strive to make what little they know about it, their svanta-anubhavam--personal experience, by doing-anuShThAnam-of--practising, it.

• Nevertheless, the people would continue with the attitude: 'let it be whatever, if this man--this elderly sage--teaches it, it should be right, so let us remain as his followers, and whatever little we can in what he teaches, let us try to practise'. This is also applicable to the followers of AchAryAL's matham--religion.

Let us have a look at the bauddha-jaina religions in this angle.

• Which other religion has not taught the codes of conduct prescribed in those religions, such as ahiMsA--non-injury, satyam--truth, aparigraha--non-accumulation of wealth?

‣ In the 'Manu Dharma shAstra' the section on sAdhArana dharma for sakala jana--dharma common to all people, starts only with these codes.

‣ It is not that a shAstra should prescribe it: whoever doesn't know that he should be disciplined?

‣ Still, desires catch and draw a person, preventing him from being disciplined. When they thus draw him, to do tattva-vichAra--spiritual inquiry,--either according to the VedAnta, or the bauddha-jaina, or the sAmkhyAdi-siddhAntas--philosophies of SAMkhya, etc.--in some manner researching the tattvas--spiritual principles, obtain anubhavam--experience, and by that experience control the desires, would be sAdhya--possible, for only one or two in a hundred or a thousand.

‣ The others would be such as to accept anything, only if it teaches that one should surrender to an Ishvara--personal God, who is karuNAmUrti--embodiment of compassion, pray to him, and by his grace, have the bad things removed and the good accrue.

• In the bauddha-jaina religions, there is no Ishvara at all. Whereas for the people, there is no interest in the codes prescribed in those religions at the anuShThAna--practice, level. Nor do they have the shakti--ability, to go in the path taught by the philosophy of those religons at the anubhava--experience, level.

• So what should be done to make those religions popular as mass religions? And those religions declared themselves to be common for all the (classes of) people!

‣ Saying 'declared themselves' does not dhvani--sound, that well. In vAstavam--reality, both Buddha and JIna were men who thought about a mass religion, giving all the rights and privileges to all classes of people. Teaching that the Hindu religion which has varNa-vyavasta--class bindings, was doing pakShapAtam--siding with/being favourable to, only some people, they gave sama-adhikAra--equal rights, in their religion to all the people.

‣ Still, in what they thought to give as a mass religion, if the natural religion of deity worship that has mass appeal is not included, how can it go as intended?

• If their religions spread among the people during the time of Buddha and Jina, the reason was different.

‣ If a Buddha or a Jina did a new prasAram--propaganda, saying that the Veda matam that existed till then was making a distinction among the people, and teaching, 'we would do it right and give equal elevation to everyone', then there would arise an attraction in it for the people?

‣ Questions like what principle did they teach, whether it could be understood, and whether it could be followed, would not have risen then.

‣ Further, since Buddha and JIna who taught that way, belonged to a lineage that had a status/rank, and were full of discipline, love and sacrifice in their own life, their personal magnetism did-AkarShaNa-of--attracted/drew towards, the people.

• I don't say this for only those religions; it applies to all religions.

‣ In the Hindu matam itself, as far as the common people are concerned, they have no bother for its various siddhAntas. People have always done it--going behind him--if someone with special honour, came to teach a (specific) siddhAnta--philosophy.

‣ Even in the vishayam--case, of our AchAryAL, I am not at all prepared to say that all the jana-samUham--multitude of people, followed him only after understanding the Advaita he taught.

‣ Many people would have embraced his matam, only by interest arising towards him based on that individual manuShya's--man's, guNas--good qualities, "this man is a great mahAn--sage, he would only teach the good to us", and the faith born out it. Let it remain (on one side).

After Buddha and JIna had gone, how to make the people remain interested in those religions?

• 'Saying merely discipline, discipline, evokes no interest; the philosophy also does not reach. The common people are not bothered about mata siddhAnta--religious philosophy, or sAdhAnA-mArgam--spiritual path. Only with a living God like Ishvara can they retain their interest'--when it is such, there arose a compulsion for the bauddha-jaina religions to cater to what the people liked.

‣ Therefore, they decided to provide for mUrtis--images, for worship, in some way, although they did not teach about Ishvara, which their philosophy did not give room for.

‣ What they did was--they did not of course establish an image as SvAmi (Ishvara); but then they made arrangements for worship of the mahAns--sages, they considered having attained pUrNatvam--liberated fullness, going by the philosophy of the bauddha-jaina religions, and established for those elders, all the requirements such as Alayam--temple, mUrti--image, and pUjAkrama--worship regulations.

‣ The reason they attributed for such worship was similar to the concept of Ishvara in the Yoga shAstra as an ideal. That is, by worshipping their religious elders--such as the buddhas, bodhisatvas, tIrthaMkaras--who have attained the lakShyam--goal, the people would take the states attained by these elders as the ideal, and try to follow them.

• But it is highly doubtful as to whether it happened as desired.

‣ There is no saMdeham--doubt, that once they established bigger and bigger vihAras--temples, and mUrtis--images, they would have attracted the people and made them do the worship.

‣ But then people would never have bothered themselves, thinking of the ideal of a lakShyam--goal, "we too should become like this man, a buddha, bodhisatva or an arhat".

‣ Instead, the people would only have stopped with the prayers to these (bauddha-jaina) mUrtis, that in their worldly life, 'I need this, I need that, and my afflictions should be removed', or at the loftiest, 'I should get the jnAnam, obtain the vairAgyam'.

They would not have started with 'we too should practise their ideals'. Such is the attitude of the common people.

• If it is to obtain boons in this way, then there should necessarily be an Ishvara as the karma-phala-dAta--dispenser of karmic fruits. One who gives the phala for the karma, only he can give the fruits we seek?

• In other words, although those two religions established their pUjA-mUrtis as lakShya-puruShas--goal-models, who guided the path to the lakShyam--goal, and not as the Ishvara, the karma-phala-dAta,

the people, however, worshipped those mUrtis only for their iShTa-kAmya-phala--fulfilment of personal wishes, thinking them as the aneka mUrtis--many images, of Ishvara in the Hindu religion.

• As things went on this way, later, those religious leaders had to as far as the tasks of establishing different deities for their people for different fruits, as it existed in the Hindu religion.

‣ It even transpired that they had to take into their religion, the Hindu gods, either by changing the names, or as such.

Although uddesham--stipulation, and practice are different, if it amounts to the pretence of going according to the uddhesam, but bending the regulations to be practical, is it not a great shortcoming for a religion? Is it not a kuRai--(Tamizh) flaw/deficiency, too, for those who claim to belong to that religion? It existed in this manner, during that time, 2,500 years ago.

************************************************************

 

[saidevo]

****************************************
Barefaced lokAyatam--materialism
****************************************
pages 378-379

Apart from these religions, there existed barefaced nAstikam--atheism, in the name of chArvAkam.

In all the religions mentioned till now, samsAram--worldly life, is spoken of as a bandham--binding, and solutions are given to obtain nivRtti--escape/liberation, from it. It is not that each one of these religions did not have its own lofty principles.

• In contrary to all these religions, without saying that samsAram is a bandham and to obtain mokSham--liberation, from it is the lakShyam--goal,

the religion that said 'kaNDadhE kATchi, koNDadhE kolam'--(Tamizh) seen is THE sight, worn is THE form' was the ChArvAkam.

• 'chAru' means lovely, pleasing, and 'vAkam' is vAkyam--speech/statement. 'The statement which is pleasing to hear' is thus chAruvAkam.

‣ If it is said, "vratas--vows, are not necessary, upavAsa--fasting, is not necessary; and there is no need to get confused, contemplating the tattvas--spiritual philosophy. Just eat well, drink well and enjoy the pleasures of life", it would only be pleasing to hear, right? That is why the name, chAruvAkam.

‣ "There is nothing like sAmi--God, bhUtam--elements, or Atman--Self; are they visible to the eyes? To the eyes, this sharIram--body, is visible, this lokam--world is visible. So, take whatever you can from this world that is saukhyam--comfortable, to the body, and enjoy life. Apart from this, we don't need any matam--religion, or maNNAngkaTTi--(Tamizh) clod", is what that religion says.

• They would say that only the devaguru BRhaspati, in order to ensure that the Asuras did not turn to the ways of goodness, created such a religion and spread it among them. Therefore it had the name BArhaspatam, which I mentioned earlier.

‣ Since it ends with this lokam--world, without any talk about paralokam--future worlds of afterlife, they would generally refer to it as lokAyatam! In Tamizh, 'ulakAyatam'--what they call 'materialism'.

This religion, which was created in uddesham--consideration, of the Asuras, prevailed to a small extent in our desham--country, in this KalikAlam--Kali yuga age, among the people in whom the Asura-vRttis--evil tendencies, have entered.

****************************************

 

[kahanam]

In Kali (Yuga), the group of Asuras and the RAkShasa jAti do have not a separate existence. That is, as such outside the manuShya jAti--human race. Understand it, no? Only inside the brains of the manuShyas--humans, have the Asuras and RAkShasas entered! In this Yuga, the adharma shakti--evil power, instead of remaining outside in bautikam--as living beings, and attacking people, have entered their buddhi as evil chitta-vRttis--mental modifications!

How true! Our Maha Swamigal has expressed his feelings in anguish so that one can redeem oneself! But who is listening?

 

[saidevo]

************************************************************
Matas--sects, that agreed with the Vedas, but not with the VedAnta
************************************************************
pages 379-381

Instead of doing-AkShepaNam--objecting, to the Vedas right from the basis (like the bauddha, jaina and chArvAka sects), there were matas, which said that they agreed with the veda pramANam--testimony/authority (that is, what Vedas say is the satya-pramANa--testimony of the truth), took only one aMsham--share, from them, did siddhAnta--doctrine, that this was the entire purport, and did-kaNDanam-of--thrashed, the other aMshas.

• Generally, people of these sects will not agree to what is explained in the VedAnta as the parama-tAtparyam--ultimate purpose, of the Vedas: the jIva-brahma aikyam--unity of the individual and universal soul, and that mokSham--liberation, is nothing but having-anubhavam--experiencing, that aikyam--unity, in Atma-sAkShAtkAram--intuitive perception/realization of the Self.

• These matas, arose doing-bhanggam-of--breaking, the cohesiveness of SanAtana Dharma, that gave a method from the root to the top, as integrated, saMyukta--united, starting at the kAryas--actions, meant for those who cannot at all understand about Atman--Self, and they had spread in different degrees at that time.

• Among these (sects), were the five, which had distinction in the manner of vishaya-ArAychchi--investigation of things: SAMkhya, Yoga, NyAya, VaisheShika, and MImAMsA.

• In the Yoga (sect), along with the vishaya-ArAychchi of SAMkhya, a sAdhanA-mArgam--way of spiritual practice, too is there, as an added distinction. Still, all these sects are those that do not approach the sAra-tattvam--essential principle, of SanAtana Dharma.

• Among these five, the MImAMsA, which was reproached by KRShNa ParamAtma himself (in the GItA), was again becoming popular. The other four, namely, SAMkhya, Yoga, NyAya and VaisheShika, were only being followed by some intellectuals.

• The MImAMsA alone, which is karmAnuShTa-maya--full of rites and duties, was in anuShTAnam--practice, to a considerable extent, in the brAhmaNa-samUham--brahmins class.

• Since in that shAstra--scripture, (of MImAMsA) that speaks of karmas such as agnihotra and yajnas, there was, in addition, abundant intellectual investigation about inquiring the meaning of the Vedas, it is known that there was a good following to that sect among the brahmins.

• It is also known that in that jAti--caste, (of brahmins), there was another part that had embraced the bauddha-matam.

• Since it was a time when VedAnta, being much withered although not completely gone, was holding its breath in hands, brahmins who could not attain fulfilment in karmas--ritual actions, alone, and wanted to get involved in what they call metaphysics, those truths that are bhautika-atIta--beyond the physical, as there was scope in bauddham for abstract meditation (unadulterated, svachCha--wholesome, dhyAna-vichAram--inquiry by meditation), went in that route.

As many among the brAhmaNas who were, since AdikAlam--the beginning of times, mukhya--chief, adhikArins--authority, for the karmAnuShTAnas, abandoned it and sought bauddham, in the (works called) 'Sankara Vijayas' it is mentioned, in some atishayokti--exaggeration/hyperbolical language, that the Devas at that time went and complained to Parameshvara, that a durdashA--bad situation/misfortune, had come about, when everyone would close their ears (with hands) if they heard about the word 'yAgam'--sacrifice.

**********

 

[saidevo]

****************************************
Worship methods of those days
****************************************
pages 381-384

As far as the public are concerned, did we not see that only Alaya-pUjA--worship in temples, is the matam--religion? As to how this was in those days:

• krUra-upAsana--bloody worship, in the names of kApAlikam, kAlAmukham, bhairavam had obtained a new lease of life.

• In shakti-upAsana--worship of Goddess, ApAsamAna--(Tamizh) obscene, anuShTAnAs--religious practices, in the name of vAmAchAram raised their heads.

• Such samAchAras--practices/customs, were also part of the some vaiShNava tantras.

From what I say as '(ApAsamAna) anuShTAnm', giving it a high name, you can understand how in this Yuga, the bad takes on the appearance of good!

• Even for such things as giving a bali--a victim (in a sacrifice), toddy nivedanam--offering, and strI-puruSha anubhogam--man-woman enjoyment, sticking a label as lofty principles, it had come to pass that this was a mArga--path, for Amta-shreyas--good/better state for the soul.

Since the day the manuShya jAti--human species, appeared, there would certainly have been two classes as those who were refined and those who were not. And those who lacked refinement would have done worship with bali, toddy and carnal revelry. Why say 'would have'? We see it in the case of the AdhiVasis--aboriginals, of all deshas--countries, so as to make us say 'there were'. Even today there are such people.

• Whoever it is, when it seems that there should be a shakti--power, which is the mUlam--root, for us and this lokam--world, and when it is thought to worship that shakti, it happens that the shakti is seen with such rUpam--form, as preferred, given such nivedanam--offering, as preferred, and do such other upachAras--services, as preferred. It is in this that those who lack refinement do worship in a peculiar way.

• The vEDikkai--amusing part, of this is that as with the manuShya jAti, in the deva jAtis--deva species, too, there are devatas who lack refinement. Ishvara, in his sport, makes these kind of people have bhakti--devotion, towards these kinds of devatas, and worship them in a way they both like, which is, however, disgustful to those who are refined.

• It cannot be said that such worship is wrong at that level. Still, even when we say ugra-devata--ferocious god, kShudra-devata--mean/wicked god, we call it a 'devata' and not an asura-janma--demonic birth. So, with whatever lack of refinement the worship happens to be, if there is hiMsA--injury/harm, and revelry in it which go to the extent of being described as asuratvam--demoniac, it is certainly wrong.

What happened in the time I mentioned was that shAstras--texts, were made describing the upAsana--worship, methods that lacked refinement, as Atma-shreyo mArgas--spiritual welfare paths, in order to make them appear as refined.

• Without stopping at the uncivilized people doing something within themselves, prayatnas--efforts, were made to give them a civilized appearance and attract the civilized society towards it.

Some sAdhanas--means of spiritual advancement, which seem loathsome, cruel and disgusting to us are mentioned in some tantra, yoga shAstras. Doing abhyAsam--practice, of them, some might have, in vAstavam--reality, obtained a shakti--power, or a siddhi--spiritual accomplishment. They might even get some prayojana--use, that are Atma-sambandham--related to the Self, in this way.

• But this is a mArgam--path, that resembles an activity where maraNam--death, is certain, if the karaNam--action such as a somersault, fails due to some fault.

• Just as in krUra-devatA upAsanA, where even a slight mistake is enough for the krUra-devata to kill (the performer), with these types of yoga sAdhana too, even if a slight mistake arises, there is bound to be Atma-hAni--damage to the soul, altogether.

• It would be a highly shrama-sAdhya--laborious accomplishment, to master, without any sort of vikAram--(Tamizh) perversity, arising in the manas--mind, the abhyAsas--practices, that could make the sAdhaka--practitioner, slip in a sudden fall, totally into mere indrya-sukham--sensual pleasures.

Such sAdhanas, which are like walking on the razor's edge, are not at all avashya--necessary.

To say that it is like walking on the razor's edge, makes it appear as a gaurava sAdhana--respectful practice. The UpaniShad has spoken about our very brahma vidyA sAdhana which is vedAnta--end of the Vedas, as walking on the razor's edge.*1

• So, instead of giving it a honourable mention, we can say as RAmakRShNa ParamahaMsa said: "Although one can reach the lakShyam--goal, by these ways, it would be like entering a house through the garden, scale a wall and then get in through the kakkUse--(Tamizh) lavatory, instead of entering through the frontal threshold as per the custom"!

• Although for some people, (bizarre) paths such as these were avashya--necessary--and they could get the results thereof following a sAdhana which is shrama-sAdhya for their progress, without getting their hand or leg broken, without slipping and falling in the amedhya--faeces/excrement--even then they should not make these things bahirangga--public knowledge, which are hetu--cause, for getting Atma-hAni--soul-damage, for other people to try.

• Nevertheless, in the time we are now having a glance at, since they would not have any prAbalyam--popularity by predominance, or antasthu--status, if they do anuShTAnam--practise, only for themselves, many people started for doing prasAram--propaganda, of these tantras that are Apad--dangerous, to the public.

Note:
waling on razor's edge: kaThopaniShad

उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत प्राप्य वरान्निबोधत ।
क्षुरस्य धारा निशिता दुरत्यया दुर्गं पथस्तत्कवयो वदन्ति ॥ १.३.१४ ॥

uttiShThata jAgrata prApya varAnnibodhata |
kShurasya dhArA nishitA duratyayA durgaM pathastatkavayo vadanti || 1.3.14 ||

1.3.14: Arise, awake, and learn by approaching the excellent ones. The wise ones describe that path to be impassable as a razor's edge, which, when sharpened, is difficult to tread on.

It is remarkable that SvAmi VivekAnanda chose this mantra for his famous slogan "Arise, Awake and stop not till the goal is reached."

**********

 

[saidevo]

pages 384-386

What was most vichitra--strange, in this was, although Buddha left without teaching anything about SvAmi--God, since the populace could not afford it without worshipping gods, later in that matam, keeping Buddha himself as a SvAmi in a way, we saw that they erected large vigrahas--images, for worship, in such sizes as not seen for any SvAmi in the Hindu matam, right?

• At least let that go. For whoever the person, if those vigrahas which remain in parama-shAntam--supreme peace, are seen, it would be most unlikely that the manas--mind, would not focus for at least a kShaNa-kAlam--one moment in time, and a peace would not arise within.

• But then without stopping at this, what happened on another side was that, in that matam, without considering the pakvam--maturity, and yogyatAMsham--ability, they admitted people in large crowds in the name of bhikShu-sangham. This could be due to the reason that only when there are saMnyAsins--ascetics, in large numbers, it would give prestige for a matam--religion.

• What happened as a result was that, for many who became bhikShus at that time, in an AkarShaNa--attraction, since their viveka-vAirAgya--discretion and dispassion, were not sufficient, later couldn't stand the severe rigours of saMnyAsam. There arose chalanas--temptations, that were wrong. As an outlet to satisfy them, in the gaurava--respected, name of matAnuShThAnam--religious performances, they started creating AbhAsa--obscene, tantras.

• In other words, in-vichitram--strangely, in that matam in which it was ordained that there was no need for worship, as many methods of worships as could be there, including the obscene methods, arose!

• Later, since at that time everything was taking a slide, as if should our matam lag behind them, in the Hindu matam too, many people appeared and introduced such viparIta upAsana--perverse methods of worshipping.

• When looked at in the perspective of bhakti-upAsana--devotional worship, without giving occasion to blame as krUra--bloody, or AbhAsa--obscene, there were also in prasAram--propaganda, one sampradAya--tradition, in pAshupatam as shaivam, and another bhAgavata-pAncharAtra sampradAya as vaiShNavam.

• Two sects arose as vaidika pAshupatam and avaidika pAshupatam, and worship that was saumya--auspicious, was ordained only in the vaidika pAshupatam.

• There is also an abhiprAyam--opinion, that a good mArgam--path, called kAshmIra shaivam, which goes in high philosophy, could also have been there, in a somewhat slight, Arambha-sthiti--beginning stage.

Still, even all these sects did not reflect as it was, the pUrNa--complete, final, tAtparyam--purport, of the Vedas.

• All these sects were those which did-AkShepam--objected, to some extent, the parama-tAtparyam--supreme purport, "bhakti-upAsana is only there as pUrvAnga sAdhanam--initial efforts, to obtain chitta-aikAgrayam--oneness of mind, for the advaita-jnAnam--knowledge of Non-duality; in the end, the upAsaka--worshipper, the deivam that is done-upAsana-of--god that is worshipped, and the upAsana--worship, should all merge in unity."

• Even kAshmIra shaivam went nearer and nearer to advaita only, and could not become advaita that is svachCha--clear/transparent/white. It was only opposed to that.

Thus, the anekavidha--of many kinds, bhakti-sampradAyas--devotional traditions, although they spoke of themselves as vaidika--Vedic, in vAstavam--reality, were such as to go against the advaita-lakShyam--goal of non-duality, which was the end of vaidikam--Vedas; still, they were such as to seek honour and influence for them, taking the name of the Vedic tradition that is anAdi--beginningless, and one that has been in prakAshaNam--giving light, here.

**********

 

[saidevo]

************************************************************
Would be vaidika only with complete veda-sammata--agreement with Vedas
************************************************************
pages 386-389

If something is to be designated as vaidika-matam--vedic religion, it is not enough if it agrees with only certain things taught in the Vedas and develops those things. More mukhyam--important, than this is that it should not do-AkShepa--object to, anything taught in the Vedas.

If it is argued that

• there are sUktas--hymns, in the Vedas about Shiva; so the matams like the pAshupatam, which took and developed it are vaidika;

or, in the same manner,

• since there are ViShNu sUktas in the Vedas, the vaiShNava matas that have arisen out of that foundation, such as the bhAgavata pAncharAtram are vaidika;

it is not a correct vAdam--argument.

In the Vedas, Shiva and ViShNu are stuta--adored, without any distinction between them. Where each of them is referred to, that one is mentioned as the parabrahmam--brahman.

Therefore, although there is nothing wrong, that is avaidikam--unvedic, in the rise of the shaiva matas which mention Shiva as the primordial and ultimate God, or in the same manner, the vaiShNava matas which take ViShNu as primordial and ultimate,

these matas, without stopping at adoring only Shiva or ViShNu which are the iShTa-deivam--preferred deity, for them,

• if the shaiva matas say, 'ViShNu is not the primordial and ultimate god, he is only below Shiva' and

• the vaiShNava matas say, 'ViShNu alone is the primordial and ultimate god, Shiva is inferior to him',

then they only go in muraN--(Tamizh) contrary, to the Vedas. Therefore, they become avaidika.

• It would be alright if they stop at holding on to what they prefer. But if they seek to attack what they don't prefer, it amounts to attacking a portion of the Vedas. So such a matam cannot be one that is vaidika.

This is saying it somewhat in a broad outlook. Those who speak more strictly, would say

• "In the Vedas are mentioned the yajnas for all svAmis--gods. In a single yajna, there is prescription to give yajna-bhAgas--share of the vedic sacrifice, to many gods. Only he who performs all those things without any distinction is the real vaidika. (On the other hand) one who says, 'I will perform only that which relates to one god. I will not perform those related to the other gods', cannot be a vaidika.

Let him remain with atyanta-bhakti--intimate devotion, towards what is an iShTa-mUrti--preferred image, at the level of the manas--mind. When it comes to pUja, yajna and such in kAryam--religious performances, only when they are done as found in the shruti-smRti, without entertaining any deiva-bhedam--deity distinction, it would mean vaidikam."

• "One should follow only the forty saMskAras--ceremonies, given by the smRtis, in-anusaraNa-of--following, the shruti.

If a matam says that only if one does some specific saMskAram that is not found among them, one can become their follower, then that matam is simply one which is different from the veda matam.

For udAharaNam--example, among the forty saMskAras, there is nothing as having mudrA-dhAraNam--symbol-wearing, as tapta-siMha--branded marks (on the body), either the shangkha-chakra--conch-disc, or the shUla-RShabha--spear-bull. If it is said that only if one undergoes such a saMskAra, one can become a follower of a matam that is ViShNuparam--ViShNu as superior, or Shivaparam, he cannot be called a vaidika", would say the people who are strict (in their definition).

• In addition, "Whoever it is, only when there is varNAshrama-anuShThAnam--class-observance, he would be a vaidika. If one says 'For us only bhakti is mukhya--imporatant. We don't need the varNAshrama-vyavastas--class-bindings', it would be avaidikam", they would say.

It is the same for those that are matas which do tattva-chodana--philosophical inquiry, instead of being bhakti-matas.

• That is, it is not enough if they inquire into only certain tattvas, in veda-adhAram--vedic support. It should be noted as to whom at what stage are these tattvas are done-upadesham-of--taught.

• What the Vedas have prescribed in the case of those who cannot reach that stage, should not be totally discarded as 'these are not avashya--necessary.'

• On the other side, it should not be maintained that the tAtparyam--purport, of the Vedas has become pUrta--complete, with what they have selected, discarding what is taught in the Vedas for stages above that level.

• Even those who have such (philosophical) abhiprAya--opinion, should not go snipping away, 'We go teaching only as philosophy? So, there is no sambandham--relation, between us and the varNAshramam, which is the social practical samAchAram--custom'.

Only on these bases, even in the MahAbhAratam, it is done-nirNaya--determined/ascertained/settled, as to what is vaidika matam and what is avaidika matam.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Dear Friend,

Excellent service. I wish people would study your translation and chew it.

 

[saidevo]

pages 389-392

The long upadesham--teaching, that BhIShma pitAmaha, lying on the sharakkUDu--bed of arrows, gives Dharmaputra occurs in MahAbhArata in two parvas, as shAnti parva and anushAsana parva.

• In that teaching, the two--pAncharAtram and pAshupatam--which are bhakti-upAsana matas--devotional religious sects,

and the other two--the sAMkhyam that remains as a tattva-shAstram--philosophical scripture, and the yoga that teaches a sAdhanam--means of inquiry, in kriyA-rUpam--form of action, on the basis of the sAMkhya tattvas--

that is, these four religious sects are separated from the Vedas and mentioned as different matas.

• It is mentioned there as sAMkhyam yogaH pAnchArAtram vedAH pAshupatam tathA. That is, 'sAMkhyam, yogam, pAnchArAtram, Vedas, pAshupatam--these five matas', is how it occurs there. If the Vedas are one of the five matas, it only means that the other four are not related to the Veda matam?

• In (MahA)bhAratam itself, in another place, yoga is mentioned using the name of Patanjali, the mUla-puruSha--founder, of that matam, as 'pAtanjalam'. It is mentioned in spaShTam--with clarity, as nAnA matAni--different religious sects.

• There is one text known as shiva mahimna stotram. Done by PuShpadatta. It is a very ancient stotram--hymn. One which is very prasiddha--well known, in the vaDa-desham--North India. In that (stotram) too, in this same manner, vedam, sAMkhyam, yogam, pAshupatam, vaiShNavam are mentioned as different matas.

त्रयी सांख्यं योगः पशुपतिमतं वैष्णवमिति प्रभिन्ने प्रस्थाने

trayI sAMkhyaM yogaH pashupatimataM vaiShNavamiti prabhinne prasthAne
--shiva mahimna stotram, 7

'trayI' means the Vedas. That is one matam--religious sect. 'sAMkhyam' is another matam. 'yogam'--that too is one matam, separately. 'pashupatimatam' is the pAshupatam that refers to SivaperumAn. That is also one matam. Finally, another is 'vaiShNavam'. These are mentioned as 'prasthAnas' that are 'prabhinna'--'mArgas--paths, that are different from each other' is the meaning.

There is great value for thus being mentioned in (MahA)bhAratam and shiva mahimna stotram.

• The story of BhAratam is one that goes in consonance with the story of KRShNa-paramAtman who is ViShNu avatAram. HarivaMsham, which remains as the anubandham--supplement of BhAratam, is one that speaks elaborately about shrI KSRhNa charitram--life.

Nevertheless, when the tantra called pAnchArAtram was done-anuShThAna-of--practised, as only referring to ViShNu, in virodham--opposition, to the samarasya-bhAvam--perception of equality, of the Vedas, belittling the other deivams--gods, and in contrary to the shruti-sMRti AcharaNa--practice,

BhAratam has mentioned it as a samayam--religion, which is external to the Vedas.

• In this same manner is the mention of the pashupati matam as an external samayam to the Vedas, in the 'shiva mahimna stotram', although it arose to speak only about Shiva mahimas--greatness.

As there is a satya-pramANam--testimony of truth, for mahAkavai-vAk--words of great poets, I shall narrate one such on this subject.

• One who obtained the gauravam--honour, of paNDita-samUham--society of scholars, is shrI HarSha kavi--poet. Those who do not have pANDityam--scholarship, cannot understand his pustakas--books. He had written the NaLa-charitram--life story of King NaLa, giving it the name NaiShadham.

• DamayantI svayamvara--self-choosing groom, scene in that text. NaLan has come to the svayamvara maNDapam--pavilion. Between him and DamayantI, parapara-prema--mutual love. So, she would only garland him.

• In this scene, as enhancing the kAvyach-chuvai--(Tamizh) epic sensibility, something puzzling happens in the 'NaiShadham' as in the case of the present day mystery/suspense stories. That is, instead of one NaLa, five NaLas are seated adjacent to each other!

• Only one of them is the (real) NaLan. The other four are Agni, Yama, VaruNa and Indra, who have come in disguise, tatrUpam--in the exact form, of him. DamayantI goes astonished as to who among those five men is the nija--real, NaLan.

Only when narrating this incident, Kavi (shrI HarSha) brings in the viShayam--subject, we were looking at. He brings it in the form of an upamAnam--simile.

• He says: "Just as bhramippu--(Tamizh) amazement/confusion, arises when Advaita, which is the real Veda matam, and the other four matas sAMkhyam, yogam, pAshupatam and pAnchArAtram, which wear the same Vedic disguise, are together,

when she looked at the four Devas in NaLa-veSham--NaLa's disguise, sitting with the nija NaLa, DamayantI went bhramita--astonished in confusion, as to who was the real NaLa among these five men."

panchama kOti mAtre ... matAnAm advaita tattva iva satya tarepi loka

In this manner at that time, in our desham--country, since time anAdi--beginningless, as there was belief among the majority of the panDita-pAmara--scholarly and ordinary, that only veda-vAk--words of the Vedas, was the Ishvara vAk--God's words, which is satyam--truth,

in vAstavam--reality, several matas which had avaidika principles and (the related) kriyA-kalApa--package of acts, were such as to describe themselves as only vaidika matas and attract people. Some among these attracted the learned, as being philosophical; and some as being deiva upAsana--divine worship, attracted the public.

• Not that all the upAsana mArgas were like this. There were also upAsana, that had arisen as vaidika in vAsatavam--reality, for each svAmi--god; but these had lost their lustre.

• Only those tantras which had remained avaidika but were in vaidika disguise were largely in prasAram--propaganda.

• Another thing should be mentioned here. There were also aneka--many, tantras in prasAram which declared, "What great authority are the Vedas? More than the Vedas, only the Agamas (that is, tantras that are upAsana mArgas) are the authority. Only this is what ParamAtman himself had done upadesham--teaching, and sthApana--establishment, of."

Is not the unique honour of the Veda matam is that it was established by BhagavAn himself?
• Whereas when some people said 'Only our tantra is what BhagavAn established', and wrote and showcased the kathA-purANas for that also,

and in addition, relaxing the adhikAra-bheda--differential ranks of the Vedas, created the shaTangas--rituals, to cater to the emotional tastes of people, many went after them with the curious intention of trying them.

**********

 

[siganeswarie]

that great information

 

[saidevo]

******************************
Revolutionary religions
******************************
pages 392-394

Somewhere and always in the jana-samUham--public, in one corner for at least some people, the tendency--what is called 'revolutionary attitude' today--to break up everything that is old and try all things anew, won't be absent. Still, in the pUrva-kAlangaL--ancient days, people would have much hesitated to suddenly break up a tradition charged with vajram--strong core, and go for something new.

• In such a circumstance, if one or two men break away daringly, then, in-anusaraNam-of--following, those one-two revolutionists, many people will go out, just as when one or two small leaks form on the banks of a lake, that eats into (the surrounding barrier) and results in a large leak.

• In this way, at that time, when some people went out saying 'what is Veda? Only our shAstra--scripture, was created by God',

and some others, saying 'what is Veda? What is bhagavAn--God? We don't need any Vedas or bhagavAn. Only our scripture that has dispensed with the Vedas and bhagavAn is the right one', did-sthApakam-of--established, new matams--religious sects, as total revolution.

• I spoke about the bauddham, jainam and the chArvAkam that arose in this manner. Among these, there were not many takers for chArvAkam. Whatever it is, 'if there is no svAmi--God, there is nothing above deha-sukham--bodily pleasures, there is no need for matAcharaNam--religious conduct', most people can't accept it with courage. So, for this appaTTa--stark, lokAyatam--materialism, not much--only a little--support was given.

• Only for the bauddha-jaina matams much support was there. The AkarShaNam--attraction, Buddha and JIna had for taking the path of a tuRavi--ascetic, and did prasAram--propaganda, although born in rAja-kuTumbam--royal family; then in those matams many learned men appearing and giving nUlgaL--texts; and above all the great patronage from the kings those matams had--all these together gave them good growth.

• The bauddhas giving their mata-pustakas--religious texts, in prAkRta-bhAShA, the spoken language of the people, dispensing with SaMskRtam, and the shraMaNas--Jains, teaching all people in their mother tongue, setting up schools, became a reason for their popularity.

• People were not much worried about what those mata-upadeshas--religious teachings, were. Nor did they strive in visheSham--specifically, to live them in practice. Still, for the honour of having a common mata-shAstra--religious scripture, and schools (that taught them), people joined those religions.

• I already spoke about the mUrti upAsanam--image worship, that arose in those religions, so that the people were facilitated to join in greater numbers. For the populace, it is enough if they had this aspect.

• Of these two, it is known that during AchAryAL's--Shankara's, time, jainam--Jainism, was not that powerful. This is because, as said earlier, in his book, there is very little jaina-mata-khaNDanam--refutation of the Jain religion.

• Although about bauddham, there is khaNDanam here and there, even that is much less.

• Only the mImAMsA-khaNDanam is much more.

We will see the reason later.

**********

 

[saidevo]

**************************************************
The inevitable circumstances for an avatar to take place
**************************************************
pages 394-396

In toto,--as the sAram--essence, for all that is discussed thus far in detail and with fanfare--as to how was the prevailing situation in the desham--country, then

• the vaidika matam which is pUrNam--complete, was very much kSheNa--weakened;

• matams that called themselves vaidika but were not so in reality, tAntrika matams that said only they were in reality born in-anusaraNa-of--following, ParamAtman's AGYa--orders, and the avaidika matams that had totally disapproved vedam-paramAtman both--all these told, there were seventy-two religions/sects.

• The durbhAgyam--misfortune, that no one born as manuShya--human, could set right the situation had arisen for our purAtana--ancient, mata nAgarikam--religion and civilization. As a great bhAgyam--fortune, in this itself, it also became necessary that only Ishara should take an avatar.

• This is where KRShNa ParamAtman arrives. Only him I referred to much in the beginning?

We now come to the link responsible for it--shrI KRShNa's connection in BhagavadpAda's avatAram.

************************************************************
avAtara tattvam--the principle of an avatar
************************************************************
pages 395-396

shrI KRShNa said that the SanAtana Dharma he gave in upadesham--teaching, in Adi--the beginning, to SUrya--Sun God, after being very well in anuShThAnam--practice, initially for many Yugas, going through the lineage of familes through their sons, later declined, and only that (SanAtana Dharma) he was now teaching Arjuna. We also had a look at the GItA shlokas that mention this. In the veil of ignorance he had created with his mAya, coming in naraveSham--human guise, shrI KRShNa had totally made Arjuna forget that He was bhagavad-avatAram!

So, when He told him thus, Arjuna asked him: "What is this KRShNa! You were born now, whereas SUrya was born in an ancient time. (Although SUrya was there in Arjuna's time too, since (KRShNa) BhagavAn said that only He taught SUrya, who in turn passed that upadesham to IkShvAku who lived countless yugas before, Arjuna says thus.) When it is this way, what is the meaning of your saying that you taught SUrya?"

अपरं भवतो जन्म परं जन्म विवस्वतः ।
कथमेतद्विजानीयां त्वमादौ प्रोक्तवानिति ॥ ४.४ ॥

aparaM bhavato janma paraM janma vivasvataH |
katham-etad-vijAnIyAM tvam-Adau proktavAn-iti || 4.4 ||

Your birth was later, Vivasvat's birth was earlier.
How am I to understand that you proclaimed to him in the beginning?

To that BhagavAn said: "Countless janmas--births, have happened for me before this birth. Not only for me, for you too. I know all about those pUrva-janma samAchAram--information about earlier births, but you do not know."

बहूनि मे व्यतीतानि जन्मानि तव चार्जुन ।
तान्यहं वेद सर्वाणि न त्वं वेत्थ परंतप ॥ ४.५ ॥

bahUni me vyatItAni janmAni tava chArjuna |
tAnyahaM veda sarvANi na tvaM vettha paraMtapa || 4.5 ||

(to continue)

 

[siganeswarie]

Something great

 

[saidevo]

pages 396-399

He did not stop by saying this. Even if he had stopped, Arjuna, who was thinking him as a manuShya--human, would not have raised a question against it.

• Thinking, 'Just as there were aneka--many, previous janmas--births, for me who is a manuShya, this KRShNan too had them. But then somehow he is remembering all those janmAntara--former lives', he would have left it at that.

• Even if he had raised a question, instead of asking, 'How and why did pUrva janmas--previous births, arise for you?', he would have only asked, 'How come you happen to remember your pUrva janma samAchAra--information?'

• For us it is not at all something that matters. He cannot fool us into thinking that he is a manuShya! So the question as to how there was jnApakam--memory, for that BhagavAn who is sarvarjna--omniscient, would not arise for us.

• But then another big question would arise for us. "Since Arjuna was a manuShya, as per his karma, he had aneka pUrva janmas and was now born as Arjuna. Whereas this man is BhagavAn. What karma could be there for him? What for, how and why does he take many janmas? Just as he is born now for his nara-lIlA--sport in human form, would he have born earlier too?"

• He knows that we would ask in such manner. Would he not know that whatever he does-upadesha-to--teaches, Arjuna, would be read by us after VyAsAchArya wrote it down in bhAratam? Only for that (purpose) did he give his upadesha? Therefore, even if Arjuna did not ask any question, expecting that we would ask, he started replying to this:

अजोऽपि सन्नव्ययात्मा भूतानामीश्वरोऽपि सन् ।
प्रकृतिं स्वामधिष्ठाय सम्भवाम्यात्ममायया ॥ ४.६ ॥

ajo&pi sannavyayAtmA bhUtAnAmIshvaro&pi san |
prakRutiM svAmadhiShThAya sambhavAmyAtmamAyayA || 4.6 ||

[4.6: Although my imperishable Self is unborn, although I am Lord of beings, relying on my own nature, I am born by the creative power of my Self.]

"It is not that I should get stuck in karma and take janma for that. I am a birthless vastu--reality, aja; not a jIva--individual soul, that suffers various kinds of changes due to the vikAra--changing nature, of manas--mind, and prakRti cheShTitam--manner of life due to movement of Nature. I am the changeless Atma-vastu--reality of the Self: avyayAtman--imperishable. I am the Ishvara--Lord, of sakala bhUta--beings: bhUtAnAm Ishvara. Although it is in this manner--api san means 'although it is in this manner'--I do-sambhava--cause my own/take birth, taking in my vasham--control, by my mAyA--power of illusion, prakRti--Nature, which is the AdhAra kAraNam--fundamental reason, for the appearance of the prapancham--universe; that is, I take janma--birth:prakRutiM svAm adhiShThAya sambhavAmi Atma mAyayA'

• Just as he makes the prapancham--universe, appear by his mAyA, he also causes his appearance as one who takes janma--birth. The jIva-jaDa-prapancham--sentient, insentient universe, are all only the appearances he has taken. There is nothing except Him. But then he plays in a way that prakRti takes control of the jIva-jagats--beings and worlds, and rules over them. Because of that (his play), these do not know that they are only He.

• Getting stuck in the sattva-rajo-tamo guNas of prakRti, the jIva goes on making karma of various kinds, and to do-anubhava-of--experience, them, goes on taking janma after janma.

• Whereas He, without thus coming under the vasham--control, of prakRti, remains as one who takes control of prakRti and rules over it, but still takes janma like us. That is called avatAram.

As to why and how He takes janmas, reply has been given here for the how. Only then he gives us the kAraNam--reason, as to why he too takes janma. That is the link for our (Shankar)AchArya charitram. He says in two shlokas that are suprasiddha--well known:

यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत ।
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम् ॥ ४.७ ॥

परित्राणाय साधूनां विनाशाय च दुष्कृताम् ।
धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय सम्भवामि युगे युगे ॥ ४.८ ॥

yadA yadA hi dharmasya glAnirbhavati bhArata |
abhyutthAnamadharmasya tadAtmAnaM sRujAmyaham || 4.7 ||

paritrANAya sAdhUnAM vinAshAya cha duShkRutAm |
dharmasaMsthApanArthAya sambhavAmi yuge yuge || 4.8 ||

[4.7: Whenever there is a decline in dharma, O BhArata, and a rise in adharma, then I send forth myself.
4.8: For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the evil-doers, and for the purpose of establishing the dharma, I come into being from age to age.]

• He started only with the statement that he knew all about the janmas he had already taken, which Arjuna did not know. That is, he talked about only his pUrva janmas--earlier births.

• Then, explaining how he takes janma in general, he now explains as to why and what for--not only in the pUrvam--earlier times, but at all times--he took and is going to take janma.

What does he say?

• Whenever there comes hAni--decline/deficit, in dharma: yadA yadA hi dharmasya glAnir bhavati

‣ What would happen if there is hAni for dharma? There would be abhivRddhi--growth/increase/prosperity, for adharma. He says that in: abhyutthAnam adharmasya.

‣ Thus, when dharma becomes kShINa--weakened/destroyed, and adharma rises over it, at whatever times this happens, then--tadA: at that time,

I cause my own birth: AtmAnaM sRujAmyaham.

• What would happen when dharma is in kShINa?

‣ The janas--people, who are sattva--pure and good, would be restless. The sAdhus--sages, would get caught among the duShTas--wicked, and experience kaShTa--pain and suffering.

‣ ParamAtman would think to do-rakSha--guard/protect, these sattva jana and do-shikSha--punish/discipline, the duShTas--wicked: paritrANAya sAdhUnAM vinAshAya cha duShkRutAm.

‣ BhagavAn would think to protect and nourish the sAdhus well, and destroy and do-saMhAram--kill, of the duShTas.

(to continue)