Svarajya Siddhih Translated and Annotated Part 4

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 5
2 views
PDF
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Document Description
Translation and Annotation of 'Svarajya Siddhi' of Gangadharendra Sarasvati from the nineteenth century. This text is considered one of the five Siddhi texts, the other four being Naishkarmya Siddhi, Advaita Siddhi, Ishta Siddhi, and Brahma
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  PB June 2012 󰀳󰀲󰀶 Svarajya Siddhih:   Attaining Self-dominion Gangadharendra Saraswati ( Continued from the previous issue ) O 󰁢󰁪󰁥󰁣􀁴󰁩󰁯󰁮: Cannot it be presumed that persons like Janaka had taken sannyasa in their previous births and underwent sadhana like listening, cogitating, and meditating [on Upanishadic truths] but could not attain knowledge due to some ob- structions, and that in this birth they were freed from all impediments and attained knowledge immediately on listening to the scriptures? It is also said in the Bhagavadgita: ‘By that previous  practice alone, he is carried forward, even in spite of himself’, 􀀲􀀲  and ‘gradually gaining per- fection through many births, [the yogi] thereby reaches the highest goal’ (󰀶.󰀴󰀵). Reply: By these [shlokas] sannyasa alone is clearly referred to. Vividiṣā sannyāsa , sannyasa by the seeker, is mentioned in the scriptures: ‘Brahma Hiranyagarbha considers that san- nyasa is the means of liberation. Hiranyagarbha is indeed the Supreme. 󰀀e Supreme alone is Hiranyagarbha. Certainly [all] these [preced- ing] austerities set forth above are inferior. San- nyasa alone surpassed all.’ 􀀲􀀳  And also: ‘Having attained immortality, consisting of identity  with the Supreme, all those aspirants who strive for self-control, who have rigorously arrived at the conclusion taught by the Vedanta through direct knowledge, and who have attained purity of mind through the practice of the discipline of yoga and steadfastness in the knowledge of Brahman preceded by renunciation, get them- selves released into the region of Brahman at the dissolution of their final body’ (󰀱󰀲.󰀱󰀵). Vidvat  sannyāsa , sannyasa by the knower of Brahman, is also spoken of in the scriptures: ‘Knowing this very Self the brahmanas renounce the de- sire for sons, for wealth, and for the worlds, and lead a mendicant’s life.’ 􀀲􀀴  Some scriptural  passages also talk of krama sannyāsa , san nyasa by order, that is sannyasa after completing the other three stages of life—Brahmacharya, Griha stha, and Vanaprastha: ‘Aer completing the period of Brahmacharya, one may become a householder, aer being a householder one may become a Vanaprastha, and aer completing the  period of Vanaprastha, one may renounce.’  􀀲􀀵   Some other passages speak of sannyasa not fol-lowing the stages sequentially or sannyasa aris- ing out of tremendous dispassion: ‘Verily one  who has realised the (true) import of the Vedas may give up those things (previously enumer- ated) aer the investiture with the holy thread,  󰀳󰀲􀀷 PB June 2012 49 Svarajya Siddhih:  Attaining Self-dominion or he may do so even before that ceremony— (give up) his father, son, his sacrificial fires, and the holy thread, his works, his wife, and all else that he may possess.’  􀀲􀀶 Aer the discussion of many passages from the Shrutis and Smritis, it is established that the only way to liberation is knowledge [of the Atman] and that sannyasa is the means of such knowledge. However, those who are not fortu- nate to have a teacher following in the tradition of seers, have different ideas of liberation due to their wrong reading of the Shrutis and Smritis. 󰀀is is similar to the parable of the elephant and the four blind men so beautifully narrated by Sri Ramakrishna: ‘Once some blind men chanced to come near an animal that someone told them was an elephant. 󰀀ey were asked what the elephant  was like. 󰀀e blind men began to feel its body. One of them said the elephant was like a pillar; he had touched only its leg. Another said it was like a winnowing-fan; he had touched only its ear. In this way the others, having touched its tail or belly, gave their different versions of the elephant.  Just so, a man who has seen only one aspect of God limits God to that alone. It is his convic- tion that God cannot be anything else.’  􀀲󰀷  󰀀us, different people have different understanding of the scriptures and take to wrong paths for liber-ation. On account of their intense attachment to  worldly relations, like wife and children, they are unable to take sannyasa. 󰀀e succeeding three  verses denounce such people who consider ac- tions to be the means of liberation and establish that knowledge alone is the means of liberation.  kesâef  ÛelkeâcezJe keâecÙees efpPeleceg  efoleheoØeehlÙegheeÙeb Øeleerlee  mleÛÛeesheeef  mble Ûe ceg  keäleew ef  ceef  ueleceLe  hejs meeOeveb meb efiejvles ~ DevÙes leg  %eevekeâceexYeÙeef  ceef  le ceefleefYe:mJeeefYe®lØes#eceeCee:  %eeveeosJes efle JeekeäÙeeÉÙeefcen menmee  veeÓveg  cevÙeecens leeved  ~~ 8 ~~ Some [a group of followers of Kumarila Bhatta and followers Pra bhakara] are convinced that  performing actions [ nitya and naimittika ] with- out desires is the means of liberation. Others [followers of Bhartriprapancha and Bhaskara] say that the performance of both actions and  worship [of  prana  and so on] are means of liber- ation. Some others [another group of followers of Kumarila Bhatta] believe that both actions and knowledge are means of liberation. 󰀀ey hold on to their own opinions [giving up the meaning of the Vedas and the path shown by teachers who have the mystic knowledge of the Self]. [Because of the presence of Shruti passages like] ‘󰀀rough knowledge alone [liberation is attained]’, we will not readily accept their opin-ions [regarding the means of liberation]. Now, let us see the opinion of a group of the followers of Kumarila Bhatta and the fol-lowers of Prabhakara, who are the first group spoken of in this verse. 󰀀e first sutra of the  Mimamsa Sutra  is: ‘  Athāto dharma jijñāsa ; next therefore (comes) the enquiry into dharma.’  􀀲󰀸    Jaimini proceeds with the enquiry of the duty enjoined in the Vedas and their results. In the next sutra he says: ‘ Chodanālakṣaṇo’rtho dharmaḥ ; dharma is that which is indicated by (known by means of) the Veda as condu- cive to the highest good’ (󰀱.󰀱.󰀲). Here the pri- macy of Vedic injunction is established by the definition of dharma. Later Jaimini says: ‘ Tadbhūtānāṁ kriyārthena sāmāmnāyo’rthasya tannimittatvāt  ; (in the sentence) there is only a  predication (or mention) of words with defin-ite denotations along with a word denoting an action, as the meaning (of the sentence) is based upon that (the meaning of the words)’ (󰀱.󰀱.󰀲󰀵). In the second chapter Jaimini puts forth the  view of the  pūrvapakṣa , opponent: ‘  Āmnāyasya  kriyārthatvād-ānarthakyama-tadarthānāṁ tasmād-anityamucyate ; (objection) the purpose of the Veda lying in the enjoining of actions,  PB June 2012 󰀳󰀲􀀸  Prabuddha Bharata 50 those parts of the Veda which do not serve that purpose (like passages of praise) are use-less, in these therefore the Veda is declared to be non-eternal (unreliable)’ (󰀱.󰀲.󰀱). 󰀀is objec-tion is quashed later: ‘ Vidhinātv-ekavākyatvāt-  stutyarthena vidhīnaṁ syuḥ ; being construed along with injunction they (Vedic passages of  praise) would serve the purpose of commend- ing those injunctions’ (󰀱.󰀲.􀀷). 󰀀us, the texts that eulogise and are called  arthavāda  have been considered to be parts of the injunctive texts, because both kinds of texts have the same inten- tion of impelling one to action. In this manner, the authority of the entire Vedas in stipulating injunctions and prohibitions for actions to be done and actions to be avoided is established. Vedic passages dealing with the Atman distin-guished by a sense of doer-ship, and the like, and inducing a person to do actions and giving a pic- ture of the fruits to be enjoyed from performing such actions by a qualified person; or passages that talk of the Atman associated with the per- formance of actions like a yajna are considered authoritative according to a group of Kumarila Bhatta’s followers and Prabhakara’s followers. Since Vedic passages known as Vedanta speak of the unattached, unaffected Atman and do not induce one to perform actions, how can they be held to be authoritative? Further, such mean- ing of the Vedic passages cannot be upheld be- cause it is in conflict with the meaning of the  passages in the earlier portions of the Vedas.  When an adult listens to the sentence ‘bring a  pot’, the person brings a pot. Seeing this, a child is convinced that this sentence is the cause of the action of bringing the pot and that the induce- ment to perform such action is brought about only by hearing this sentence and by nothing else. 󰀀us, the child understands the relation be- tween the sentence and the inducement to per- form a particular action. 󰀀erefore, when the child later listens to the sentence ‘take away the  pot, bring a cow’, it understands the meaning by the method of insertion of words,  āvāpa , and re-moval of words, udvāpa . 󰀀is has been explained clearly in the argument of Prabhakara’s follow- ers presented by Gangesha in his Nyaya treatise Tattvachintamani : 󰀀e child, hearing A say ‘Bring the pot’ to B, sees that B brings a pot. 󰀀us, he begins by ob- serving B’s specific activity. 󰀀e child next seeks the cause of B’s activity and concludes that the cause of that activity is B’s understanding that a pot is to be brought (not knowledge in gen- eral, which is irrelevant). But he cannot dis- tinguish the different meanings of the specific  words used by A. 󰀀ese he learns by a process of assimi lation (  āvāpa ) and discrimination ( udvāpa ). First he observes bringing, and a pot, and assumes there are words for these in what  was said. 󰀀en he may hear another speech ‘bring the book’, and finds someone bringing a book. Likewise he hears ‘remove the book’ and observes a different activity. In this way he learns to distinguish the different meanings of the constituent parts of the speech acts. 􀀲􀀹 󰀀e Mimamsa point of view of the process of learning the meaning of words has been lucidly explained by a recent scholar: Language learning (vyutpatti) occurs in two stages: one for children, to whom language is introduced for the first time, and the other for adults. Children learn words and their mean- ings when adults, without using complete sentences, communicate to them through non-  verbal means, such as by frequently pointing to objects in the external world. Physical sur- roundings or contexts provide learning situ- ations for children. … It is called the ostensive method. But it is to be noted that at this stage, although children are provided only physical contexts, on interpretation we find that the sentential contexts, too, are present in inex-  plicit form.  󰀳󰀲󰀹 PB June 2012 51 Svarajya Siddhih:  Attaining Self-dominion Of course, by means of ostension a word can be used in isolation. But when we utter the  word ‘cow’ in the presence of a child and point to an object ‘cow’ sensibly present there, the child’s understanding is in the form ‘this is a cow’. It is true that the child is not able to ex- press understanding in a syntactically correct and complete sentence. Mimamsa, in general,  will never accept that a child learns the meaning of a word by the ostensive method, for when we simultaneously utter a word and point to an ob- ject in the child’s presence, it is never clear what  we want to convey. Instead of understanding a sound-sequence, say ‘cow’, to stand for an ob-  ject ‘cow’, the child may understand it to mean anything seen in the physical context there, for example, the child’s understanding may be in any of the following forms: ‘this object is red’, ‘this object is hard’, ‘this object is static’, and so on. 󰀀ere is every likelihood that the child  will understand by this method any one of the  properties of the object, rather than the object as a whole, that is, including its substance, at- tributes, and relations. 󰀀erefore, the only pos- sible and correct way of learning the meaning of a word, says Mimamsa, is in the context of a sentence followed by a physical act. 􀀳􀀰 󰀀e different stages of the understanding of the meaning have been explained: Prabhakarans give the account of the language- learning situation as follows. A child learns the meanings of words by the method of in-clusion (avapa, anvaya, pratisthapana) and elimination (udvapa, vyatireka, visthapana), through hearing the linguistic usage of one  person followed by the physical behavior of another. 󰀀e child’s learning becomes easier  when sentences are in the imperative mood, because this usage proves to be the most ef- fective means for accomplishing this purpose. From the utterance of an imperative sentence, such as ‘bring a cow’, and the subsequent ful- fillment of obedience-conditions (pravrtti), and again, the utterance of another imperative sentence ‘bring a horse’ and the subsequent fulfillment of obedience-conditions, a child learns the meanings of the words, ‘cow’, ‘horse’, and ‘bring’ by eliminating the word ‘cow’ from the first sentence and including another word ‘horse’, in the second sentence. In other words, when a child (who is neutral, tatastha) watches an elder (prayojaka  vrddha, uttamavrddha, one who gives a command) giving a command to another elder (prayojya- vrddha, madhyamavrddha, one who obeys the command), as in the example above, and when the same process is repeated again and again in the case of other similar commands, the child learns the meanings of the words that occur in the uttered sentences through a method of elimination and inclusion of the words in-  volved. 󰀀is process of learning is unconscious and natural. Prabhakara would say that we can talk in general of word meanings in isolation where the sentential context is inexplicit, but a word gets its specific and actual meaning, and is infused  with designative power, only in the context of the sentence in which it occurs. For Mimamsa, the empirical world is the foundation of truth conditions on the basis of  which the construction of sentences is done. In other words, the structure of language in gen-eral coincides with the structure of the world. Empirical sentences (of course, meaningful) in any mood contain object-words that have their corresponding counterparts, for which they stand. In the ultimate analysis, each word in its atomic form refers to a fact, a state of affairs. 󰀀at is how our understanding of a sentence, irrespective of its mood, is possible (ibid.). 󰀀us, the true meaning of words is under- stood and the proper action is performed, and the power of the words to induce one to perform actions is also established. 󰀀e authority of the  words of the Vedas is established only because they induce the performance of actions. Actions alone lead to liberation. A contrary view will go  PB June 2012 󰀳󰀳󰀰  Prabuddha Bharata 52 against Shruti and Smriti texts, which is insignifi- cant. Since the Vedanta passages do not induce  performance of actions, they are like a desert in the Vedas. 󰀀is is the opinion of the first group. Now, we see the opinion of the second group, the followers of Bhartriprapancha and Bhaskara. 󰀀ey believe that the purport of the Vedas is the performance of actions alone. In the begin- ning of the Vedas physical actions are spoken of, and in the Upanishads mental actions in the form of worship are spoken of. Further, here and there, the Vedas clearly give injunctions for the worship of Prana and the like. Numerous Vedic statements like, ‘󰀀e Self alone is to be meditated upon’, 􀀳􀀱  ‘One should meditate only upon the world of the Self’ (󰀱.󰀴.󰀱󰀵), ‘󰀀ere are two kinds of knowledge to be acquired ’, 􀀳􀀲  and ‘Know it to be established in the intellect (of the enlightened ones)’  􀀳􀀳  give injunctions to at- tain Self- knowledge. 󰀀erefore, wherever Vedic  passages are not explicit about Self-knowledge, like ‘thou art 󰀀at’ or ‘I am Brahman’, the words ‘is to be meditated upon’ have to be introduced and the meaning of meditation or worship lead- ing to knowledge has to be understood as the injunction of the Vedas. Vedic passages like ‘He  who knows it thus and he who does not know, both perform actions with it. For knowledge and ignorance are different (in their results). What- ever is performed with knowledge, faith, and meditation becomes more effective’  􀀳􀀴  establish the conjunction, the  samuccaya  of worship and actions. 󰀀e Vedic statement ‘He who meditates only upon the world called the Self never has his work exhausted ’  􀀳􀀵 contradicts the loss of re-sults for actions done coupled with knowledge, and so the conjunction of actions and worship, upāsana-karma samuccaya , is the means of lib- eration. 󰀀is is the opinion of the second group. ( To be continued  ) References  􀀲􀀲.  Bhagavadgita , 󰀶.󰀴󰀴. 􀀲󰀳.  Mahanarayana Upanishad , 󰀷󰀸.􀀱󰀲. 􀀲􀀴.  Brihadaranyaka Upanishad , 􀀳.󰀵.􀀱. 􀀲􀀵.  Jabala Upanishad , 󰀴.􀀱. 􀀲􀀶.  Aruneyi Upanishad , 󰀵. 􀀲􀀷. M, e Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna , trans. Swami Nikhilananda (Chennai: Ramakrishna Math, 󰀲󰀰󰀰󰀲), 􀀱󰀹􀀱. 􀀲􀀸.  Mimamsa Sutra , 􀀱.􀀱.􀀱.  􀀲􀀹.  Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies , ed. Karl H Potter, 􀀱􀀳 vols (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 󰀲󰀰󰀰􀀱), 󰀶.󰀲󰀸󰀸.  󰀳􀀰. Hari Shankar Prasad, ‘e Context Principle of Meaning in Prabhakara Mimamsa’,  Philosophy  East and West  , 󰀴󰀴/󰀲 (April 􀀱󰀹󰀹󰀴), 􀀳􀀱󰀷. 󰀳󰀱.  Brihadaranyaka Upanishad , 􀀱.󰀴.󰀷. 󰀳􀀲.  Mundaka Upanishad , 􀀱.􀀱.󰀴. 󰀳󰀳.  Katha Upanishad , 􀀱.􀀱.􀀱󰀴. 󰀳􀀴. Chhandogya Upanishad , 􀀱.􀀱.􀀱󰀰. 󰀳􀀵.  Brihadaranyaka Upanishad , 􀀱.󰀴.􀀱󰀵. I n the universe , Brahma or Hiranyagarbha or the cosmic Mahat first manifested himself as name, and then as form, i.e. as this universe. All this expressed sensible universe is the form, behind which stands the eternal inexpressible Sphota, the manifester as Logos  or Word. This eternal Sphota, the essential eter- nal material of all ideas or names is the power through which the Lord creates the universe, nay, the Lord first becomes conditioned as the Sphota, and then evolves Himself out as the yet more concrete sensible universe. This Sphota has one word as its only possible symbol, and this is the ytü  (Om). And as by no possible means of analysis can we separate the word from the idea this Om and the eternal Sphota are inseparable; and therefore, it is out of this holiest of all holy words, the mother of all names and forms, the eternal Om, that the whole universe may be supposed to have been created. — The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda , 󰀳.󰀵󰀷
Similar documents
View more...
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks