|
shravaNa means hearing of course – but
it is not simply a matter of the physical act
of hearing. It is not meant that a mahAvAkya
such as tat tvam asi is some sort of a Sanskritized ‘abracadabra’ where,
as soon as those words are heard by a qualified
seeker, the veils of ignorance will magically
part and the Truth be revealed. ‘Hearing’ in
this case means ‘understanding’.
If you say e = mc2 to a novice student, he may have heard you
alright but he has not really ‘heard’ i.e. he has
not understood what you are saying. So the teacher has to unfold
the equation. Similarly, tat tvam asi has to be unfolded – what
is tat, what is tvam, and what is this aikyam [identitity]. In
what sense is one to understand this aikyam?
The student’s difficulty in understanding each of three
components must be carefully anticipated by a qualified teacher
so that this equation is communicated to the student with caution
and clarity. This entire process is shravaNa alone.
In the words of the pa~nchadashI:
"The mode of the introduction of the mind of the student
from parokSha [indirect] j~nAna to aparokSha [direct]
j~nAna is indicated in the sixth chapter of the chhAndogya upaniShad,
while Uddalaka Aruni instructs the student Svetaketu. While the
indirect knowledge of Brahman is declared in such statements
of the Upanishad as ‘Satyam-j~nAnam-Anantam Brahma,’ – Truth-Knowledge-Infinity
is Brahman – the direct knowledge of it is the theme of
the sixth chapter of the chhAndogya upaniShad, which expatiates
upon the great sentence, ‘Tat-Tvam-Asi’ - ‘That
Thou Art’. The demonstrative pronouns, ‘That’ and ‘‘Thou’,
refer to a remote object and an immediate object respectively,
as is well known. In this sentence, ‘That’ indicates
Ishvara, or God, and the word ‘Thou’ indicates jIva,
or the individual. The separative connotation of these two indicative
words may appear to prevent the identification of Ishvara and
jIva, since, at least from the point of view of the jIva, Ishvara
is a remote object who existed even before creation, and the
jIva is a subsequent manifestation posterior to creation. But
the inseparability of the cause and its effect requires the recognition
of an identical substance present both in God, the Creator, and
the individual, the created embodiment.
“The usual illustration offered to explain
this basic identity of this Supreme Cause with
the individual effect is the way in which we
recognize the identity of a person here and now
with the very same person seen somewhere else
at a different time. In the identification of
the single person in this manner, the associations
of the person with a different place and a different
time from the place and the time in which he
is recognized now, are ignored, and only the
person concerned is taken into consideration,
for instance, when we say ‘This is that
Devadatta’, indicating thereby that this
Devadatta who is in this place at this moment
is the same Devadatta who was seen at some other
time earlier in some other place. In a similar
manner, the identity of the basic Substance in
God and the individual is established by a separation
of this Substance from the limiting adjuncts
of remoteness and immediacy associated with God
and the individual - Ishvara and the jIva."
Once shravaNam has been completed the job of
the shastra and the guru is over. In the Kena
Upanishad, the student actually asks the Guru
after the teaching is concluded: “Sir,
please tell me about the Upanishad” and the guru confirms
that “I have already given you that instruction about
Brahman”!
Suppose a student says: I have completely understood tat tvam
asi – now what? Well, now you go back to class and hear
all over again! – why? Because you still have understood
nothing! If tat tvam asi is understood, it means I have understood
myself to be akarta [not a doer], abhokta [not an enjoyer],
nitya asa~Ngah [forever unattached], nitya shuddhi [ forever
pure], and nitya mukta [forever free] etc. If after this my
question is ‘what now?’, then with certitude this
understanding is incomplete.
Here, we need to understand the relationship between knowledge
and its result because there seem to be some misconceptions
about this in many people. This relationship is of two types:
chodya-chodaka sambandha and pratipAdya-pratipAdaka sambandha.
Suppose I am given a map from Google maps showing how to
reach Pittsburgh from Philadelphia . The knowledge gained
from this map does not actually get me to Pittsburgh. The
map has only informed or better prepared me for that particular
journey. In order to "experience" or "reach" Pittsburgh
I now need to act on that knowledge. Similarly, a cookbook
knowledge does not allow me to taste a gulab jamun [ a dessert
made with rosewater syrup]. I have to actually make it. These
are examples of the former type of knowledge (chodya-chodaka,
goal oriented).
Fortunately, this is not the case with brahmavidyA – this
is a extremely crucial point to bear in mind.
This type of knowledge belongs to the latter
type or pratipAdya-pratipAdaka. Here the knowledge
itself gives the result. How is this possible?
This is possible ONLY when the thing to be attained
is already a given, is already pre-attained,
but we are unaware of it due to ignorance. The
best example of this is also Adi Shankara’s
favorite example of the tenth man. Ten men cross
the river and each of them tries to get a head
count to verify that all ten men reached the
other bank safely. But in the process, each forgets
to count himself and so always falls short by
one. A competent person in whom these men have
faith tells the man who is counting that ‘you
alone are that tenth man’. Here, the knowledge
conveyed by the words “That thou art” itself brings
about the end of the search.
pratipAdya means 'that which is to be revealed',
while pratipAdaka means 'that which reveals'.
The moment we catch the implied meaning, (not
the primary meaning) of tat tvam asi, that very
moment the Truth is as though attained. So, knowledge
gained from shravaNa alone is primary. Hence
alone does Shankara begin the brahmasutra bhAShya
with his famous treatise on adhyAsa because,
without establishing adhyAsa as a fact, there
is no way to establish the knowledge gained from
the mahAvAkya-s, which is direct and immediate,
as the means to liberation or mukti. And, once
it is established that the only and immediate
means to mokSha is understanding of the mahAvAkya-s,
then there is only one primary means to mokSha
and that is shravaNa. If someone thinks that,
after getting knowledge one has to perform some
actions or sAdhanA, then more shravaNa is needed,
till the real implication has been correctly
and comprehensively understood. Hence alone does
shraddhA assume paramount importance – for
the words to reveal themselves, one must surrender
to them and allow them to work.
Now there is a misconception among many (even within the fold
of Vedanta) that the knowledge of ‘tat tvam asi’ so
gained is only ‘indirect’ or ‘intellectual’ – parokSha
j~nAnam - and it has to be converted by meditation into direct
knowledge or aparokSha j~nAnam. Or that mere book knowledge
only produces j~nAnam and what is needed is put that into practice
to gain vij~nAna! Some stock examples will also be provided,
such as that one will not get a taste of a mango fruit by mere
book knowledge - only by tasting it can it be known. Shankara
categorically dismisses this (in his upadesha sAhasrI):
18.201
(objection)
The Bliss of liberation is not obtained after ascertaining
the meaning of the sentence (tat tvam
asi) unlike the satisfaction which is felt by eating.
(Sankara's reply)
Indirect knowledge, it is true, is the result produced by the
sentences regarding the non-Self but it is not
so in the case of those regarding the Innermost self. It is,
on the other hand, direct and certain knowledge like that in
the case of the tenth boy.
Proponents of such types of misconstrued and misconceived
views of Vedanta will say shravaNam is hearing the mahAvAkya,
mananam is understanding these words and nididhyAsanam is
intensely meditating on those words till a mystic experience
of the Atman – Atma
sAkShAtkAra [realization of Atma] - is attained… at
some point in time. What leads to mokSha, then, is the actual
special Atman "experience" brought about by the meditation
(nididhyAsana), not the understanding of the mahAvAkya (shravaNa)
itself!
Once again, this is extremely misleading. Using the tenth man
example, parokSha j~nAnam or indirect knowledge is simply the
instruction that the tenth man very much is alive – confirming
the presence of the tenth man. So when the shruti talks about
brahman as the substratum, as satyam, that ‘sarvam khalvidam
Brahman’ [all this Brahman alone] etc, that is parokSha
j~nAnam. What then is aparokSha j~nAnam? The understanding
that ‘that’ Brahman is ‘me’ alone!
- in other words the understanding of ‘aham brahmAsmi’.
Again, going back to the tenth man example, when the true identity
of the tenth man is revealed and that too as myself and when
this is understood, that alone is aparokSha j~nAnam.
Once I have gained the conviction based on my
shraddhA [faith] in the shabda pramANa [scripture
as a source of knowledge], the sense of closure
to my seeking alone is the freedom resulting
from the knowledge that I am what I was seeking.
Shankara affirms this as much in the vAkya vRRitti: “When,
as explained above, the mutual identity between
the two words ‘thou’ and ‘that’ is
comprehended, then the idea ‘I am not Brahman’,
entertained by ‘thou’, shall immediately
end.” And again the same text goes into
great length to provide a template, as it were,
for the teacher to unfold the intended meaning
of the mahAvAkya so as to confer this liberating
knowledge. So once again, the mahAvAkya itself
and hence shravaNa alone is the primary means
to mokSha.
Without shravaNa, without gaining a clear and complete and
comprehensive understanding of the words of the mahAvAkya-s
(which the Upanishads or shruti itself says is the only means
to know Brahman, e.g. Br. Up 3.9.26: I ask you of that puruSha
who is to be known ONLY from the Upanishads), there can be
no j~nAnam. And without j~nAnam, there can be no mokSha. Once
this understanding (and to say ‘intellectual’ understanding
is a tautology, since there is no other kind of understanding)
has taken place, there is nothing more to be known, and nothing
more to be done.
Then what role does manana and nididhyAsana play? Their need
arises from the fact that there may be lack of either clarity,
or conviction, in this knowledge. Lack of clarity is in the
form of doubts. After all, the Universe is 14 billion years
old and I am lucky if have 14 more years to live! How can I
possibly resolve this Universe into myself? Solar and nuclear
powers – so immense – and yet the Upanishad says
I verily am the Source of this power… when I cannot
bench press 50 pounds! Isn’t this all quite far-fetched?
is it possible all this could be a farce? In what way can I
understand myself to be equated to God? How can God be dismissed
as being unreal? Many, many such doubts may be thrown up again
and again by the mind and this is the job of yukti [reasoning]
or mananam. It is not an independent logical analysis but a
progressive and gradual removal of these internal intellectual obstacles
by taking recourse to the teaching already assimilated during
the process of shravanam - by a constant dwelling on the Vedantic
teaching and by means of questioning the guru as well.
Finally nididhyAsana is needed, fully to internalize and assimilate
the teaching. In other words, anubhava [personal experience],
which involves assimilating the knowledge as one's own. Once
again this anubhava is confused by people as meaning some kind
of mystic experience that comes and goes. One keeps on waiting
for the Atman experience – that grand ‘promised’ mega-spectacle
when the elusive Atman finally reveals itself in all its glory
and majesty as a reward for years of effort - which once and
for all and forever will end this sense of duality. Sadly this
itself is one of the biggest obstacles.
My waiting itself is a sign of my habitual notions
holding sway over my antaHkaraNa [mind – seat
of thought and feelings]. We may keep getting
plagued by our saMsAric anubhava as in ‘I
am limited’, ‘I am small’, ‘I
am mortal’, ‘I am inadequate’, ‘the
world is a source of grief unto me’. From
beginningless time, these vAsanA-s have led to
a buildup of habitual notions which do not easily
and readily go away. As Shankara says in the
Br. Up 1.4.10: "Moreover, false notions
do not arise in a Realized Man… however
sometimes memories, due to the impressions of
false notions antecedent to the dawning of knowledge,
simulating those notions, suddenly appear and
throw him into the error of regarding them as
actual false notions."
What is the remedy then so that I can abide
in the pUrNatvam, the wholeness that is ever
my True intrinsic nature?? Directing my thoughts
at all times towards the knowledge of my true
nature, that which has already been doubtlessly assimilated
by me (through the process of shravaNa) will alone enable
an abidance in that knowledge, which is in the form of full
freedom from all limitations. Until when? Until it is spontaneous
and the saMsAra bhAvana [
the experience of 'saMsAra' as something real ] goes
away. What should be clear here is that, for nididhyAsana, the
understanding of tat tvam asi already needs to be complete! One
cannot NOT know and do nididhyAsana. There is no enquiry, no
vichAra involved here. ‘’Aham BrahmAsmi’ has
to be already completely understood and known to me as a fact.
The job of nididhyAsana then is only this: to not allow my
habitual tendencies to come in the way. As Shankara says
in the Br.Up1.4.7, the j~nAnI needs to “regulate the
train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self (Atma vij~nAna
smRRiti) by means of renunciation and dispassion.” And
hence alone does
vairAgya and saMnyAsa become critical, nay indispensable, here.
Now suppose one takes a position: OK, I have
no interest in shravaNa, in scriptural teachings,
I will resort to some other means to control
the mind and its flow of thoughts so that they
be directed inwards. Won’t I gain a vision
of the Atman? Shankara categorically dismisses
this: "for it is not a means to liberation...
there is no other means for the control of mental states except
the knowledge of the Self and the train of remembrance about
it"
Note here the very crucial point that knowledge
of the Self must already be present for nididhyAsana
to occur. An ignorant jIva – one
lacking in self-knowledge – cannot do nididhyAsana. Hence,
there is no equating nididhyAsana with meditation - Yogic,
etc or any other method that has not been preceded by vedAnta
shravaNa-manana. The steady recollection of Self-knowledge,
by a constant flow of the mind towards the Self, enabled with
renunciation and dispassion, serves to counter the residual
effects of prior karma. When I have a thought, it is consciousness
plus the content of the thought. My attention previously being
focused solely on the content, the consciousness was as though
hidden. Similarly, when I perceive an object, it is existence
plus name and form. But my attention was previously exclusively
on the name and form and the existence aspect is as though
hidden. nididhyAsana then is an abidance on my part in the
Atma, which is ever-experienced; in the recognition that, at
all times, the existence principle or consciousness principle
is in and through all thoughts and all perceptions, being of
the nature of one’s own Self which is limitless.
Then, as the bhaja govindam says: yasya brahmani ramate chittam
nandati nandati nandatyeva – He alone is in Bliss, whose
mind is steadily established in Brahman.
Hari OM Shri Gurubhyo namah, Shyam
Return to list of topics in Discourses by Teachers and Writers .
See the list sorted by Topic.
See the list sorted by Author.
|
