Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: 'adhyAtmavidyA' in Synthesis: 7. The Last Answer

  1. #1
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    'adhyAtmavidyA' in Synthesis: 7. The Last Answer

    सर्वे वेदा यत् पदम् अमानंति, तपांसि सर्वाणि च यद्वदन्ति ।
    यद् इच्चन्तो ब्रह्मचर्यं चरन्ति, तत् ते पदं संग्रहेण ब्रवीमि--
    औम् इति एतत् ॥


    sarve vedA yat padam amAnaMti, tapAMsi sarvANi cha yadvadanti |
    yad ichchanto brahmacharyaM charanti, tat te padaM saMgraheNa bravImi--
    aum iti etat ||


    YAMA, Lord of Death, Ruler of the next Vorld into which souls are 'born' after 'dying' out of this; than whom, as Nachiketa said, there could be no better giver of assurance against mortality, no truer teacher of the truth of life and death; gives this last answer:

    "That which all the scriptures ponder and repeat; that which all the shining, glowing, burning, lights (ascetic holy souls) declare; that for which the pure ones follow Brahmacharya, life of virtue, study, sacri-fice to Brahman; that do I declare to thee in brief--it is AUM."

    The above quote is from the Katha-Upanishad, I.ii.15. Besides the special significance of AUM, (pronounced as OM) expounded here, one of its ordinary meanings, as of its Arabic and English transformations, AMIN and AMEN, respectively, is 'yes', 'be it so'.

    In Gita (8.11), the first line of the verse is replaced by,

    यद् अक्षरं वेदविदो चदन्ति, विशन्ति यद् यत्यो बीतरागाः ।

    yad akSharaM vedavido chadanti, vishanti yad yatyo bItarAgAH |

    "the Imperishable One Whom the knowers of the Veda declare, Whom the passionless sinless self-controllers merge themselves into."
    All-Including Aum

    What is the meaning of this mysterious statement, repeated over and over again in a hundred ways, in all Samskrt literature, sacred and secular? Thus:

    The Prashna-Upanishad says: "This, O Satyakama, desirer of truth, is the higher and the lower Brahman--this that is known as the AUM. Therefore, strong-based in this as his home and central refuge, the knower may reach out to anything that he deems fit to follow after, and he shall surely obtain it."

    एतद्वै, सत्यकाम! परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोण्*कारः ।
    तस्माद्विद्वानेतेनैवायतनेनैकतरमन्वेति ॥

    etadvai, satyakaama! paraM chaaparaM cha brahma yadoN^kaaraH |
    tasmaadvidvaanetenaivaayatanenaikataramanveti ||
    (5.2)

    The Chhandogya says: "The AUM is all this; the AUM is all this."

    औंकार् एवेदं सर्वमोंकार् एवेदं सर्वं ।

    auMkAr evedaM sarvamoMkAr evedaM sarvaM | (II.xxiii.3)

    The Taittirya says: "AUM is Brahma(n); AUM is all this."

    औमिति ब्रह्म, औमितीदं सर्वं ।

    aumiti brahma, aumitIdaM sarvaM | (I.viii)

    The Mandukya says: "This, the imperishable AUM, is all this; the unfolding thereof is the past, the present, and the future; all is AUM."

    औमित्येदक्षरमिदं सर्वं, तस्योपव्याख्यानं,
    भूतं भवद्.ह् भविश्ह्यदिति सर्वमोंकार एव;

    aumityedakSharamidaM sarvaM, tasyopavyAkhyAnaM,
    bhuutaM bhavad.h bhavishhyaditi sarvamoMkAra eva;
    (i)

    The Taara-saara repeats these words of the Mandukya, and says again: "The AUM this is the imperishable, the supreme, Brahma(n); it alone should be worshipped."

    औमित्येदक्षरं परं ब्रह्म तदेवोपासितव्यम् ।

    aumityedakSharaM paraM brahma tadevopAsitavyam | (ii.1)

    Patanjali says: "The declarer of It is the Pranava; japa-litany of it is (not mere mechanical repetition of the sound, but) exploring, discovering, realising, its full significance."

    तस्य वाचक्ः प्रणवः; तज्जपः तदार्थभावनम् ।

    tasya vAchakH praNavaH; tajjapaH tadArthabhAvanam |

    The word pra-Nava is a name for the sound AUM; it means. etymologicaliy, 'that which makes new, rejuvenates' everything including mind's outlook. It is the life-breath of the universe. It has many names in Samskrt: tAraka or tAra, udgitha, sarva-vin-mati, sarva-jna, prAtibha, etc. Many of these have been collected, and the special etymological significance of each indicated, in my Samskrt compilation, Manava-Dharma-Sara.
    The Mysterious Word-Sound, Its Intepretation

    Such quotations may be multiplied a hundredfold. What is the meaning of these very fanciful-sounding utterances? Many profound and occult interpretations of this triune sound have been given expressly in the Upanishads themselves, also in Gopatha Brahmana, and in the books on Tantra; but the deepest and most luminous of all remains implicit only.

    The reader may feel inconsistency between the decrial of 'mystery-mongering' at p.104 supra (where the author refers to Hegel's "shallow, supercilious, self-conceited criticism of the Vedanta of Bhagavad-Gita, and of Sufism"), and the reverence shown for riddle-like scripture-texts here.

    The differentiating test is in the motive. Where there is wish to swindle, to gain money, or 'kudos' and blind worship, or both, from gullible followers, there we have the 'charlatan'. (It arouses mixed feelings to remember that the 'great philosopher' Schopenhauer calls the 'great philosopher' Hegel a 'charlatan'.

    Where there is affectionate wish to arouse only deeper, more earnest, genuine curiosity and search for the highest and most consoling Truth, as in the case of loving parents and teachers, there the temporary mysteriousness is justified, nay, desirable, or even necessary; for the too easily gained is often not appreciated, is even equally easily thrown away; 'easy come, easy go'.

    In the case of the Logion, here endeavoured to be expounded, this risk is really serious. Some will think, 'Mere tautology, truism, trash!'; others 'Only an ingenious juggle with words'. Few will ponder sufficiently deeply to realise its very great significance.

    Therefore Yama wished to avoid the subject, when questioned by Nachikita (p.1. supra), and told him, 'Earnest seeker is even rarer than wise teacher; very subtle and evasive, difficult to seize, because so very simple, is the Truth; marvellous is it, therefore the speaker of it wouders, and the listener wonders more'.

    But times and circumstances change; as explained in The Mahatma Letters and H.P. Blavatsky's writings, Spiritual Wisdom has itself to go out, at special junctures in human history, which recur periodically and cyclically, seeking worthy 'vessels', receptacles for itself, facing ridicule and rebuffs.
    For if the above seemingly exaggerated statements are to be justified in all their fullness, then, in view of all that has gone before, AUM must include within itself, the Self, the Not-Self, and the mysterious Relation between them which has not yet been discovered in any of the preceding answers--that mysterious Relation, which, being discovered, the whole darkness will be lighted up as by the Sun; the Relation wherein will be combined Changelessness and Change.

    If it does this, then truly is the Indian tradition justified that all knowledge, all science, is summed up in the Vedas, all the Vedas in the Gayatri, and the Gayatri in the AUM; then truly are all the Vedas and all possible knowledge there, for all the World-Process is there.

    The Self, the Not-Self, and their mutual Relation--these three, the Primal Trinity, the root-base of all possible trinities, exhaust the whole of thought, the whole of knowledge, the whole of the World-Process.

    There is nothing left that is beyond and outside of this Primal Trinity, which, in its Unity, its tri-une-ness, constitutes the Absolute which is, and wherein is, the Totality of the World-Process--the World-Process, which is nothing else than the Self or Pratyag-Atma, the Not-Self or Mula-prakrti, and their lIlA or Interplay; the Three-in-One constituting Param-Atma.

    Anagogy

    But how can these three be said to be expressed by a single word? The immemorial custom of summing up a series, or of expressing a fact, in a single letter, and then of joining letters, thus significant, into a single word of which many examples are to be found in the Upanishads gives the clue here. Each letter of this word must be the expression of a fact, and the juxtaposition of the letters must signify the relation between the facts.

    This ancient method of expressing a profound truth by assigning to each of its factors a letter, and then writing down the letters as a word, meaningless, a mere sound, except for the meanings thus indicated, is perhaps not familiar to, and therefore may not commend itself to, modern thought.

    These 'mystic words', of which so many are found in ancient writings, and, later, in Gnostic and Kabbalistic works, are regarded as jargon by the modern mind. Yet in these same words, ancient wisdom has imbedded its profoundest conceptions, and AUM is just such a word.

    The method is known as akshara-mushti or akshara-mudra, 'handful' or 'diagram-seal' of letters. (World-War II began in Sept. 1939 in Europe, and closed there in May 1945. with the surrender of Germany; it began in Asia in Dec. 1941, and closed in Aug.-Sep. 1945, with the surrender of Japan; it has created scores of such code-words, temporarily; thus, USOWI means United States Office of War information).

    But OM as pure humming sound also, has deep significance; it is the primal sound-continuum of Nature, the first garment of God, the first sensuous manifestation of the Self; it is probably what is meant by 'the Word', in the Christian Bible, where it says that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".
    The first letter of the sacred word, A, signifies the Self; the second letter, U, signifies the Not-Self; and the third letter, M, signifies the everlasting Relation, the unbreakable nexus--of Negation, by the Self, of the Not-Self--between them.

    According to this interpretation of the AUM, the full meaning of it, would be the proposition, Ego--Non-Ego--Non (est), or I--Not-I--Not (am), which sums up all the three factors of the World-Process into a single proposition and a Single Act of Consciousness.

    The False Encircled by the True

    A plain example of this method occurs in the Chhandogya: "The name of Brahman is Truth, or the True, satyam, which consists of three letters, sa, ti, and yam. Sa is the Unperishing; Ti is the Perishing; Yam holds, binds, Relates the two together."

    एतस्य ब्रह्मणो नाम सत्यमिति ।
    तानि ह वा एतानि त्रीणि अक्षराणि, स, ति, यं, इति ।
    तद्यत्स तदमृतम्, अथ यत्ति तन्मर्त्यम्, अथ यद्यं तेन उभे यच्च्हति ।

    etasya brahmaNo naama satyamiti |
    taani ha vaa etaani trINi akSharaaNi, sa, ti, yaM, iti |
    tadyatsa tadamRutam, atha yatti tanmartyam, atha yadyaM tena ubhe yachchhati |
    (VIII.iii.4-5)

    • The 'unperishing' here means nothing else than the unlimited universal Self, Pratyag-Atma;

    • the 'perishing' is the endlessly perishing, ever-renewed and ever-dying, everlimited Not-Self or Mula-prakrti;

    • the nexus, that which holds and binds the two together, is the unending relation of Negation by the One of the Many-Other, in which Relation, the two are constantly and inseparably tied to each other, in such a way that the two together make only the 'number-less' Absolute, in which the three, two, and even one, all disappear in the number-transcending and all-number-containing circle of the cipher.

    A similar statement, again using almost the same words, is made in the Brhad-Aranyaka (V.v.1): "Truth, satyam, verily is Brahman. ... The gods contemplate and worship the truth, satyam, only. Three-lettered is this satyam; sa is one letter, ti is one letter, and yam is one letter. The first and the last letters, imperishables, are true; in the middle is the false and fleeting. The False is encompassed round on both sides by the True. The True is the more, the greater, the prevailing. He that knoweth this he may not be overpowered by the False."

    सत्यं ब्रह्मोति सत्यं ह्येव ब्रह्म ।
    ते देवाः सत्यमेवोपासते ।
    तदेतत् त्र्यक्शरं सत्यमिति ।
    स इत्येकमक्शरं, ति इत्येकमक्शरम्, यमित्येकमक्शरं ।
    प्रथमोत्तमे अक्शरे सत्यं, मध्यतो अनृतं तद 'एतद' अनृतं उभयतः
    सत्येन परिगृहीतं सत्यभूयमेव भवति ।
    नैनं विद्वांसमनृतं हिनस्ति ॥

    satyaM brahmoti satyaM hyeva brahma |
    te devAH satyamevopAsate |
    tadetat tryaksharaM satyamiti |
    sa ityekamaksharaM, ti ityekamaksharam, yamityekamaksharaM |
    prathamottame akshare satyaM, madhyato anRutaM tada 'etada' anRutaM ubhayataH
    satyena parigRuhItaM satyabhUyameva bhavati |
    nainaM vidvAMsamanRutaM hinasti ||


    Here sa, the first truth, is Being; and yam, the second truth, is Nothing, for both are imperishable; the middle is Becoming, the ever-fleeting and ever-false. In other words, the Self is reality; the Negation, of the Not-Self by the Self, is also reality; the Not-Self is not reality, it is only appearance, illusion.

    How Know All at Once?

    The Devl-Bhagavata (I.xv.51-52) says: "Why, by what means, from what substance, has all this world arisen? How may I know all at once, by a single act of knowledge?--Thus Mukunda-Vishnu pondered within himself, in the beginning. Unto him that sovereign Deity, Bhagavati, uttered that which giveth all explanations in a single half-verse, viz.: 'I, Not Another, is (i.e., am) alone verily this eternal all.'"

    This, it seems, is the plainest statement available in the Purana literature, after the Veda, in which an endeavour is expressly made to sum up the World-Process in a single sentence.

    And again (VII.xxxii.2), "'I (alone was, in the beginning)-Not-Another (i.e., no-thing-else,, O Lord of Mountains!)'--such is the form or nature of the Self, which is called Consciousness or Para-Brahma."

    The Vishnu-Bhagavata (II.ix.32) (commonly known as Shrimad Bhagavata, or simply as Bhagavata) also has some verses in almost the same words:

    The orthodox commentator, it is true, explains this as meaning: "I alone was in the prime of time, and nothing else, neither the existent, nor the non-existent, nor even Prakrit which is beyond both; I was afterwards also, and I am all this, and what remains behind, that also am I."

    But the preceding and succeeding verses, saying: "This is the deepest and the highest secret, guhya and rahasya; knowing it you will not fail in spirit throughout the ages," seem to permit of a more 'secret' meaning and unusual interpretation, thus: 'I-(alone was in the beginning)-not-another (which might be existent or non-existent or other than both); in the end also I; i.e., after that which is known as This has been negated, that which remains, that am 1."

    Elsewhere, the work repeats: ahamevAsmevAgre nAnyat kiMchAMtaraM bahiH | (VI.iv.47). The same Purana repeatedly describes the Supreme in phrases or by epithets which find their full significance only in the Logion expounded here, thus:

    AtmA&anAnA-matyupalakShaNaH, "the Self whose character is 'the not-many consciousness', (III.v.23); or

    tad brahmA tad hetuH ananyada ekam |, "It is Brahma(n), It is the Supreme Cause, the One, the Not-Another', (VI.iv.30); or

    puruShaM yad rUpamanidaM tathA, "the Supreme whose form is not-This", (X.ii.42) or

    tvaM brahma pUrNaM ... avikAram ananyad ananyat, "Thou art the ever wantless, changeless Brahma(n), Not-Another, Other-than-all-This", (VIII.xii.7).

    The Yoga Vasishtha says: "I, pure consciousness, subtler than space, am not anything limited--such is the eternal buddhi (idea) that freeth from the bonds of samsara, the World-Process."

    akiMchinmAtra-chinmAtra-rUpo&sim gaganAd aNuH--
    iti yA shAshvati buddhiH sA na saMsAraMbadhani |


    -- Nirvana-prakarana. Purvardha, cxviii.9.

    The Antibhuti-prakasha-sar-oddhara has also a shloka (157) which describes Brahman as an-idam, Not-This:

    ityevam anuidam rUpaM brahmaNaH pratipAditam |
    nirnAmanastasya nAm etat satyam satyamiti shrutam |


    'An-Idam', Not- This, has been declared to be the form, the nature, of Brahman. Such is the name of that which is Nameless. Such is verily the truth. So have we heard."

    Its Living Comprehensiveness

    The Yoga and Sankhya systems describe the supreme consciousness of kevala-tA, kaivalyam, Soleness, One-ness, L-one-(li)-ness, On(e)li-ness, (their word for moksha), as being of the nature of the awareness that Purusha (the Self) is other-than-sattva (i.e., Prakrti, sattva being the finest representative thereof).

    vivekakhyAtiH or satvapuruShaAnyatAkhyAtiH |

    The 'great hymn' addresses the Supreme thus:

    "Thou whom the dazzled scripture doth describe
    As being Negation of what Thou art Not."

    अतद्व्यावृत्त्या यं चकितमभिधत्ते श्रुतिरपि ।

    atadvyaavRuttyaa yaM chakitamabhidhatte shrutirapi |
    -- Shiva Mahimnah Stotram, verse 2

    Glta also has a verse which may be literally translated: "Than the I anything Other is Not; in the I is all This woven, as gems are strung on a thread.'

    मत्तः परतरं नान्यत् किंचिदस्ति, धनंजय ।
    मयि सर्वमिदं प्रोतं, सूत्रे मणिगणा इव ॥

    mattaH parataraM naanyat kiMchidasti, dhanaMjaya |
    mayi sarvamidaM protaM, sUtre maNigaNA iva ||
    (7.7)

    Put into one sentence, such descriptions can take no other form than that of the logion, Ego-Non-Ego-Non (sum). (More texts are gathered together in a Note at the end of this chapter.)

    Such are a few of the utterances of sacred literature that at once become lighted up when the light of this summation is brought to bear on them.

    • Thus does the Pranava, the AUM, the sacred word, embody in itself the universe;
    • thus does it include all previous tentative summations;
    • thus is it the very heart and essence of the scriptures;
    • so only is the tradition justified that all the universe is in the Pranava.

    • Herein we find that what before were the parts of a machine, apart and dead, are now assembled, powerful, and active as an organism.
    • Herein we find the two great scripture-texts combined into one statement, that gives a new and all-satisfying significance to them.
    • Herein we see all Hegel, and far more; and the three propositions of Fichte compressed into one, which is a re-arrangement of his second.

    See p.85, supra.

    ahaM brahma asmi

    "This (self) was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman'. Therefore It became all." -- Brhad-Aranyaka Upanishad (1.4.10);

    [i]na iha nAnA asti kiMchana[/u]

    "Through the mind alone (It) is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever in It. He goes from death to death, who sees difference, as it were, in It." -- Brhad-Aranyaka Upanishad (4.4.19);

    Katha. 4.11. See also p. 47 supra.

    "It is difficult to find a single speculation in western metaphysics which has not been anticipated by archaic eastern philosophy. From Kant to Herbert Spencer, it is all a more or less distorted echo of the Dvaita, Advaita, and Veantic." -- H.P.Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, I.49.
    Pantheon of Philosophies

    And it is not only a rearrangement of it, though that is important enough, but more. If the statement that "Being is Nothing" is not only external to us but unintelligible and self-contradictory, the statement that "Ego is not Non-Ego" is not yet quite internal, though certainly consistent and intelligible.

    It does not yet quite come home to us. The verb 'is', and the order of the words in the sentence, make us feel that the statement embodies a cut-and-dried fact in which there is no movement, and which is there, before us, but away from us, not in us.

    The negative 'not' entirely overpowers the affirmative 'is' and appropriates all the possibility of significance to itself, so that the rhythmic swing between the Ego and the Non-Ego, between us and our surroundings, which would be gained by emphasising and bringing out the force of the affirmative 'is' also, is entirely hidden out of sight, and only a bare, dead, negation is left.

    'Is' Means 'Am'

    But now we change the order of the words; and the spirit of the old languages, the natural law underlying their construction, comes to our help.

    We place the Ego and the Non-Ego in juxtaposition, and an affirmative Relation appears between them first, to be followed afterwards by the development of the negative Relation, in consequence of the negative particle.

    And, more than this, we replace the 'is' by 'am', the 'est' by 'sum', as we have every right to do; for, in connection with the Self, with I, Aham, 'is' has no other sense than 'am'; and in place of Non-Ego, An-aham, we substitute 'This', Etat, for we have seen their equivalence before (Ch.IV. p.38, supra) and will do so again later, in the section on Mula-Prakrti.

    Our logion therefore now runs as "Aham Etat Na", "I This Not (am)". In the Samskrt form the word corresponding to 'am', viz., asmi, is not needed at all, for it is thoroughly implied and understood.

    But as soon as we have the logion in this new form, "Aham Etat Na", we see that there is a whole world more of significance in it than the dry statement of the logical law of contradiction, "A is not not-A", "Ego is not Non-Ego".

    It is no longer a mere formal logical law of thought; it is Transcendental Log-ic, Supreme all-comprehending Law of all Being; Thought which is identical with All Reality. The one law of all laws, the pulse of the World-Process, the very heart-beat of all life is here, now. The rhythm between the Self and the Not-Self, their coming together and going apart, the essence of all Change, is expressed by it, when we take it in two parts; and yet, when we take the three constituents of it at once, it expresses Changelessness also.

    Joy of Finding

    As a man seeking for the vale of happiness, may toil for days and nights through a maze of mountain-ranges, and come at last to a dead wall of rock, and find himself despairing, and a sudden casual push of the arm may move aside a bush, or a slab of stone, and disclose a passage through which he may rush eagerly to the top of the highest peak, wondering how he had failed to see it all this while it looks so unmistakable now and may behold, spread clear and still before him, the panorama of the scenes, of his toilsome journey, on the one side, completed and finished by the scenes of that happy vale of smiling flowers and fruits and crystal waters, on the other such is the finding of this great summation. All the problems that bewildered him before, now receive easy solution, and many statements that puzzled him formerly, in the scriptural literature of the nations, begin to become intelligible.

    After finding the truth of this great logion for himself, the enquirer will find confirmation of it everywhere in the old books, as well as in the world around him.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: 'adhyAtmavidyA' in Synthesis: 7. The Last Answer

    Note I: No 'Appeals to Scripture'

    It should be noted here that the references to the Upanishats, Puranas, etc., are not made with any idea of supporting the logion by 'appeals to scripture'.

    Rather, the intention is to suggest a new way of working with the sacred books, which may be of use to some readers; for few will doubt that it is a great joy to find that what is dear to us has been and is dear to others too.

    Whether any definite proofs will or will not be found by experts and scholars, that the logion was really meant by the AUM, to the ancients, does not affect its importance as an explanation and summation of the World-Process.

    The logion came to the present writer first in 1887, as the needed explanation of the universe, in the course of his studies in Indian and Western philosophy. He then endeavoured to find confirmation of it in Samskrt works, but vainly, for thirteen years. Till the summer of 1900, when these chapters were first drafted, it remained for him only a guess and a possibility that the AUM meant the logion.

    This guess was justified, for him, in the autumn of 1900, in a most remarkable manner, the story of which has now been told in the Preface to The Science of the Sacred Word, a summarised English version of the Praqava-Vada of Gargyayaqa, the three volumes of which were published respectively in 1910, 1911 and 1913, while the first edition of The Science of Peace was published in 1904. As to whether that 'remarkable manner' will prove convincing to others, is for the future to decide.

    In the meanwhile, it should be repeated here that the logion should be judged on its own merits, and that the main purpose of quotiing from the Upanishats, etc., is to help on the thought of the reader, by placing before him the thought, embodied in those quotations, as at least working in the direction of the logion. To those interested in the method of thinking outlined here, the work will serve as an introduction to the Pranava-vada where they will find many illuminative details.

    More Ancient Texts Stating the Logion

    In view of the vital importance of the Logion as well as the strange-ness of it, some more texts are recorded below, in support.

    Vishnu Purana, I.22.86

    ahaM hariH sarvaM idam janArdano na anyat tataH kAraNa kArya jAtaM
    IdRu~g mano tasya na bhUyo bhavAdRuvAH dvaMdva gadAH bhavati |


    Literal translation would be : "I, Hari, all, this, Janardana, not, other, from which, cause-effect-product, (mass, multitude) such, mind, whose, not, his, (i.e., to him), any more, Becoming-born (i.e., world-born), pair-ills, happen". The current commentary by Ratna-garbha summarily explains this as, "From the understanding that Vishnu (Hari, Janardana) is all the world, there results cessation of samsara (process of births and deaths)".

    If the reader is satisfied with this, well and good; if not, then he may give special attention to the words 'I', 'This', 'Not Other', and arrange the sentence (as he can, without any violation of Samskrt grammar) thus: "I not this-OtherI (is the Supreme Consciousness or Idea), from which (and in which, arises and proceeds all) the mass and multitude of causes and effects (which constitutes the World-Process)--he whose mind is (become identified with) such (Consciousness), for him there are no more any (mental) ills produced by the countless pairs of opposites that are born from (and make up the World-Process of) Becoming; (such) I (is) Hari (harvatiduhkham iti HariH, who destroys all sorrow), and Jan-Ardana (janam ardayati, ends all rebirth)."

    Opposites conflict; conflict distresses; as Buddha said in his first sermon, on the Four Great Truths, "To meet what we dislike, causes misery; to lose what we like causes misery ". Conflict of dual, polar pairs, is the root of all misery, k1esha.

    anAnAtvaM AtmanH ... ahaM eva na matto&nyaH iti bhudyadvaM a~jjasA |
    --Bhagavata, 11.13.22-24

    na tatra shoko na jarA na mRutyuH ... yacchitto&daHkRupyA an idaM vidAM |
    Op. cit. 2. 2. 27; also Chhandogya, 8. 4. L

    "('The Self is Not-Many') Not-Many-ness is the Self's ... Only I-Not-Other-than-I understand this well. ... There is no sorrow, no age-ing decay, no death, (i.e., no fear of these), in the heart, chitta , of those who, by the blessing of the Self, have realised (the Self as) Not-This."

    Chhandogya

    yo vai bhuumaa tatsukhaM naalpe sukhamasti bhuumaiva sukhaM
    bhuumaa tveva vijiGYaasitavya iti bhuumaanaM bhagavo
    vijiGYaasa iti ||
    (7.23.1)

    yo vai bhuumaa tadamR^itamatha yadalpaM tanmarty (7.24.1)

    "There is no Joy in the (or in being and feeling) small; only (the feel of) Utmost Greatness, bhUmA , is Bliss. Where (and when, the Self) sees Not-Another, hears Not-Another, knows No-Other (than It-Self), that is bhUmA , Maximus Ultimus, (In-fini-ty beyond compare).

    Where (the small individualised personalised Self) sees, hears, knows, An-Other, (feels that there is An-Other, that there are Others, than it-Self, which is and are independent of it and limit it, hem it in, on all sides), that is (the feeling of being) small, (the finite). In-fini-tude, bhUmA, is Im-mortality; the small (the limited) is mortal."

    Brhad-Aranyaka

    AtmA eva idam.h agre AsIt.h purushhavidhas.h |
    sas.h anuvIkshya na anyad.h Atmanas.h apashyat.h |
    sas.h aham.h asmi iti agre vyAharat.h |
    tatas.h ahaMnAma abhavat.h |
    (1.4.1)

    mad.h anyad.h na asti | (1.4.2)

    "The Self al-one was, (and was aware of It-Self even) as a man, puru-sha, person (is, and is aware). It looked round. It saw None-Other-than-Self. It said I am; Its name therefore became ah-am. It thought Non-Else-than-I (is there)."

    Bhagavad Gita

    Let the reader carefully consider the meaning in the Glta, of an-anya-chetAH (8.14), ananyayA (8.22; 11.54), ananya-manas (9.13), ananyAH (9.22), ananya bhAk (9.30), ananyena (12.6), ananya yogena (13.10).

    Of course there is the prima facie simple devotional meaning, 'whole-hearted devotion to Krshna only and no other'. For the temperaments which are content with this, and seek no further, there is nothing more to say.

    For the unsatisfied and further-enquiring spirits, there is the other meaning also, beneath the surface, implying the Logion. Let the reader reflect carefully whether this latter brings any special comfort to his questioning, arguing, intellect, his head, as well as to his (partly selfish and partly unselfish) heart.

    Puzzle-Words of an Upanishat

    Let the reader similarly dwell upon the puzzle-words of the Katha Upananishad

    ananyaprokte gatiratra naasti (2.8) and
    kastaM madaamadaM devaM madanyo GYaatumarhati (2.20)

    Shankaracharya, in his Bhashya, gives three or even four alternative and doubting explanations of the first sentence; he reads it with gatiH, and again with agatiH. After pondering on those, let the reader endeavour to see if the following interpretation throws any light into the obscurity:

    "It is not unapproachable, approachable, not inapprehensible that Supreme Mystery, subtler than the subtlest atom; if It be described by (or as) Not-Another".

    Our-Self must apprehend the Self; It must be seen with one's own eyes, not-with-another's; and It must be apprehended as I-Not-Another.

    Shankara's plain, simple, straightforward explanation of the second sentence is, "Who other than I (Yama, who am instructing you, Nachiketa) is of sufficiently subtle intelligence, to know that God, Deva, who is the reservoir of all contradictions, who is Mada, Elation, Pride, Joy, as well as a-Mada, Non-elation, Depression, Sorrow, both at once?!"

    Such a claim, such a challenge, seems to imply lack of due modesty, and plenitude of undue aggressiveness, which are not worthy of a teacher of Vedanta! One expects such to be benevolent and reverend! Yama could scarcely have been so conceited when dealing with such a solemn subject!

    (It must be admitted, though, that some of the teachers of Brahma-vidya, in the Upanishats, behave very vulgarly and rudely, e.g., 'Raikva of the cart'; and Yajna-valkya, in particular by the descriptions of his doings in the Upanishats as well as the Puranas, which descriptions cannot be explained 'mystically'--was a very aggressive and now and there even criminal person, though, no doubt, of great intellectual power and influence. Yoga-Bhashya and Bhagavata and other Puranas tell us that remnants of rajas-tamas persist for some time even after the vision of the all-embracing Self. Even after the supply of fuel has been cut off, embers continue to smoulder for some time. This is plain psychology; nothing mysterious; so long as the body lasts, the wisest and most self-controlled sage remains liable to fits of passion).

    Let us translate this second sentence as follows: "Who Else-than-I can know that God who is Mat (I)--A-(Not)--A-Mat (Not-I); how otherwise than as I-Not-Another can that God be known?" The very out-of-place pugnacious challenge becomes transformed into the declaration of a profound truth.

    Allegories and 'Blinds'

    H. P. Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine throws precious light into the dense darkness of many 'allegories' and 'blinds' of the Vedas and Puranas, and also of the scriptures of other dead and living religions. She has indicated (op.cit. I,314-315; V,371, etc., and in her other great work, Isis Unveiled, and other writings also)

    • that the works now going under the name of Shankara are not all written by the original first or Adi Shankara-acharya!;

    • that much 'sacred writing' on 'occult' subjects has been withdrawn and hidden away, for historical reasons, by the custodians of matha-s (abbeys, convents);

    • that new compositions have been substituted by later Shankar-acharyas (the name has become the official designation of all the successive heads of a number of matha-s, like 'Pope');

    • and that even in the genuine writings, 'blinds' are often used to mystify the in-alert student, who is not in deadly earnest, is therefore easily thrown off the scent, does not question persistently, and even gives up the study in disgust as worthless twaddle.

    The Secret Doctrine says that the first Shankar-acharya appeared eighty years after Buddha's disappearance. The list of successors maintained at the Sharada-Pitham of Dvaraka (Gujerat) supports this.

    Let us pass on to other texts.

    ahaM eva sukhaM na-anyat | -- Varaha Upanishat, ii.7

    "I al-one (am and is) bliss, Not-Another."

    so ahaM eva na me anyo asti | -- Maha-bharata, Anu-shasana-parva, ch. 168.

    'That I on(e)-ly (is and am), there is Not-Another than I'.

    Riddling Nyaya-Aphorism

    In terms of anyat, there is a very curious and remarkable, riddling, jingling, alliterative, abracadabra-like aphorism, in the Nyaya-Sutras:

    अन्यद अन्यवस्माद् अनन्यत्वाद् अनन्यद इत्यन्यता अभावः ।

    anyada anyavasmAd ananyatvAd ananyada ityanyatA abhAvaH | (2.2.30)

    The context, in which this is set down, is a discussion as to whether 'sound' is nitya, eternal, or a-nitya, non-eternal, temporal; and the authoritative commentary, Vatsyayana's Bhashya, tries to explain it very briefly in relevance to the context; but the obscurity is not lighted up, at least for the present writer.

    Another interpretation is therefore suggested here, after putting a semi-colon after the first two words, and another after the next two: '(The Self is) Other Other-Than-Other, (i.e., the Self is Self alone, is not anything other than It-Self); because there is No-Other-Than-It, therefore is It (describable as) Not-Another; thus, there is Negation of Otherness (i.e, the Self is Negation of all Other-than-Self)'. In other words, the Self is 'I-this-Not'.

    Compare this with a literal word for word translation: 'Another, than another, because of not-other-ness, Not-another, such, absence of other-ness'; or, if we read the last word as, not a-bhAva but, bhAva, then, in the translation, the last three words would read 'presence or being or existence of other-ness'.

    Mandukya Karika and Buddha

    The Mandukya-karika-s are 100 verses by Gauda-pada. They expound the meaning of the Mandukya Upanishat. Gauda-pada was the guru of Govinda, who was the guru of the ShankarA-charya, (seventh or eighth century CE) whose Bhashyas on the Karika-s etc. are current. The last two verses belong, it seems, to the same class of 'mystical' utterances as the texts above dealt with. They are:

    kramate na hi buddhasya GYaanaM dharmeshhu taayinaH |
    sarve dharmaastathaa GYaanaM naitad.hbuddhena bhaashhitam.h || 99||
    durdarshamatigambhiiramajaM saamyaM vishaaradam.h |
    bud.hdhvaa padamanaanaatvaM namaskurmo yathaabalam.h || 100||


    Word-for-word translation is: "Steps (proceeds, moves successively step after step), not, Buddha's knowledge, in (or amidst) dharma-s (functions, attributes, properties, qualities), Tayi's, all, dharma-s, also, knowledge, Not, this, by Buddha, said; Difficult to see, very profound, unborn, same, skilful (proficient or famous), having known, the condition (state, status, pada), Not-Many-ness, salutation, we make, as our strength (is or allows)."

    Shankara puts in supplementary words to fill up gaps, and construes the verses in his own way, which is not clear and satisfactory to the present writer. He winds up by saying that "Buddha has not said this, which has been expounded here (by Gauda-pada, and which is the genuine Vedanta), which Buddha has only come near but did not quite attain."

    Shankara avoids the fact that one technical designation of Buddha, in Mahayaana Buddhism, is Taayi. The word is explained by Prajna-kara-mati, in his commentary, Panjikaa, on Shanti-deva's Bodhi-charya-vatara (3. 2). It means 'Spreader of knowledge (from Skt. tay, to spread, protect, preserve), who does not actually enter into the Nirvana or Pari-nirvana state, though able to do so, but continues to keep in touch with the human world in order unremittingly to help souls and guide them on the Upward Path.'

    The Maha-yaana tradition is that, for this purpose, Buddha wears a body of subtle ethereal matter, formed by his own will-and-ideation, nirmANa-kAya; (Secret Doctrine, V. 364 et seq.); and gives the needed help mostly by spiritual thought-force, shubha-anu-dhyAna; sometimes by over-shadowing and inspiring a specially qualified human being, Avesha, and 'spreading knowledge' through him; rarely, by actually taking birth in a human body, avatAra.

    Gauda-pada may well have had access to some of the lore subsequently lost, in the turmoil of foreign invasions, and by changes in the public's tastes and interests. One school of Vedantins says that Tayi means 'thief', and Buddha is called so because he stole the esoteric knowledge from his brAhmaNa guru-s and published it to the world; (Secret Doctrine, ibid.). The word tAyu occurs in the Veda in the sense of thief.

    It will be remembered that the word 'Buddha' means 'enlightened with spiritual wisdom', 'wise', 'he who has known', generally; and also Gautama, 'the wise one', 'the enlightened one', specially. Shankara explains 'Buddhasya tAyinah', of the first line, in the general sense: 'The knowledge of the wise man who has seen the Highest, does not move to other dharmas , but remains fixed in its own dharma, as light in the sun'; (the man in the street would think that the light of the sun does nothing else than spread to all quarters and to far distances!); 'it is tAyi, continuous, like AkAsha, space. TAyinah, which means santAna-vatah, may also mean pUjA-vatah, or it may mean prajnA-vatah; i.e. it may mean 'spreading', or receiving or giving honor and worship, or possessing subtle intelligence and insight or intuition'. Such are Shankara's explanations of the first line, various, alternative, doubtful. But he cannot avoid taking 'Buddhena' of the second line in the special sense.

    To the present writer, the 'mystical' and real and consistent sense of the verses seems clear, if attention is fixed on the words 'Na-Etat' and 'A-Naana-tvam', 'Not-This' and 'Not-Many-ness':

    "The Awareness, the Consciousnes, of the enlightened soul, as of Buddha the Taayi, is moveless, un-moving, does not move in successive functionings, na dharmeshu kramate, (as the personal mind does, experiencing cognitions, emotions, volitions or actions, one after another). Buddha declared that (the Consciousness, 'I-Am-) Not-This' includes, once for all, all functioning, all knowing.

    Such is the very subtle, very profound, Truth, very difficult to see--the Truth of the Unborn, Undying, Self-luminous, Ever-the-Same-ness. It is the High State of Being whose sole all-comprehending characteristic is the Consciousness "(the One I is and am) Not-Many (i.e. not these countless This-es)". Unto that Supreme State of Consciousness, we make reverent salutation, and we direct and open our minds to It with all our power of concentration and devotion".

    Logion in the 'The Secret Doctrine'

    Mme. H.P.Blavatsky does not appear to have made anything like a specific mention of the Logion, but hints of the Idea are to be found scattered here and there in The Secret Doctrine. Thus she quotes (IV,197) a reference made in a Hebrew mystic book, to "the Negatively Existent One". The only way to bring home to ourselves, the sense of this sense-less-seeming expression, seems to be to interpret it as 'the One Self, I, who exists, i.e., realises Self-Existence, by Negating Not-Self.'

    A Word Surpassing AUM?

    It has been repeatedly indicated before, that the firm and clear apprehension of the nature of, and of the distinction between, succession-less Eternity and succession-full Time (past-present-future), is utterly indispensable for the comprehension of the Logion.

    H.P.B. has some very significant sentences which clearly suggest this; "It must not be supposed that anything can go into Nirvana which is not eternally there; but human intellect, in conceiving the Absolute, must put it as the highest term in an indefinite series. ... Those who search for that highest must go to the right source of study, the teachings of the Upanishads, and must go in the right spirit." (V,533).

    As the Upanishads say brahma eva san brahma bhavati |. Being already Brahma, he becomes Brahma. To become Brahma, to attain moksha, is only to remember what had been forgotten, that one is Eternally Brahma, is Eternally Free; or, in terms of Time, that one has always been, is now, will always be, 'Naught-Else than Brahma', Free from all limitations."

    Incidentally, H.P.B. writes (V,395): "He (a Brahm-Atma) alone could explain the meaning of the sacred word AUM. ... But there existed, and still exists to this day, a Word for surpassing the mysterious monosyllable, and which renders him who comes into possession of its key, nearly the equal of Brahman."

    It is difficult to make sure whether this is to be taken literally; and what the last word 'Brahman' means, whether Brahmaa or Brahma.

    It is well known that H.P.B. was fond of quizzing, mystifying, testing, her followers and questioners. It is not impossible that she casually threw out the idea of "a Word far surpassing" etc., to see whether her readers had steadiness enough to secure and make sure of what was within reach, and would study the Upanishats to find 'the highest'; or would fickle-mindedly run off after a 'far surpassing' will-o'-the wisp.

    There are sects in India today which teach their followers that their deity is fourteen degrees higher than the Vedanta's Para-Brahma. The Upanishats make no mention of any such word 'far surpassing AUM'.

    Of course, as merely sound (an intensification, modulation, of this same primal 'seed'-sound, so to say), there may be another sound, more 'powerful' for purposes of producing practical effects, as the roar of a steam-siren is more powerful than the hum of a bee. But so far as metaphysical significance is concerned, Tri-Une AUM is exhaustive and Supreme, once for all.

    Outside the Infinite Eternal Changeless sole Subject, the pseudo-infinite ever-continuingly temporal changeful multitudinous Object, and the affirmative-negative Relation between them--outside these, there is nothing left to know. nothing left to know. But, of course, the details of particular subjects and objects and relations are endless, exhaustless; they require the totality of in-numer-able physical and super-physical (both Material-and- Psychical) sciences and un-count-able able Time and im-measur-able Space, to master and exhaust.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: 'adhyAtmavidyA' in Synthesis: 7. The Last Answer

    Buddha and Esoteric Science

    Buddha, shortly before passing, said to Ananda: "I have preached the truth without making distinction of exoteric and esoteric. In respect of truths, I have no such thing as the closed fist (baddha-mushti) of those teachers who keep something back"; Maha-pari-nibbana Suit Suita, 32.

    But, on an earlier occasion, "While staying at Kosambi in a grove of trees, he asked his disciples: Which are the more, these leaves which I hold in my hand, or those on the trees in the whole of the grove?" They answered: "Of course, those on the trees are immensely more." Then he said: "So too is that much more which I have learned and not told you, than that which I have told you. And I have not told you because it would not profit you ; would not increase your moral purity, self-control, self-effacing philanthropy; would not conduct you to of selfishness" Samyutta, v.437.

    The reconciliation is that what Buddha taught openly was the fundamental principles of Metaphysics and of the Ethics issuing out of that Metaphysics--Unselfishness because of the Universality of the Self the principles most indispensably and vitally needed for righteous individual and social life; he did not thus publicly teach the details of any 'occult' sciences and arts of yoga-siddhis, which were taught only to these few who had been tried and tested and prefected in virtue.

    Should the ethico-philosophical principles and practices of good citizenship be taught broadcast, or the methods of making 'atom-bombs'?

    The Logion in 'Charaka'

    Let us now examine another old text--this time an utterly plain and direct statement of the Logion. It occurs in the great work of Ayur-Veda Medicine, Charaka, so named after its author.

    The current tradition, (much disputed by orientalists), is that Patanjali (born in the north-west of India, in 2nd century BCE), began as a brahmana follower of the Veda-dbarma; and, as such, wrote his Maha-Bhashya, 'Great Commentary', on Paniini's Aphorisms of Grammar, and also re-arranged and renovated the old Yoga~Sutra-s, Aphorisms of Yoga; and then, discarding Vedic ritualism, became a follower of Buddha, and, under the name of Charaka, 'the wanderer', wrote the great work on medicine, largely utilising pre-existing material. ('Charaka' has other meanings also).

    In Charaka, as also in the equally famous, equally classical, equally honored and studied, but much older work on Medicine, Sushruta, the principles of Sankhya-Yoga (almost a synonym for Vedanta in those days, vide Gita) are made the basis of the principles and practice of Medicine; because mind and body, psyche and physique, are inseparable, and act and react on each other constantly. Charaka utilises the psychological and metaphysical principles of Sankhya-Yoga-Vedanta, which were only refreshened by Buddha, who had studied Sankhya with Alara Kalama, and Yoga with Rudraka or Uddaka Ramaputra.

    We find these two very remarkable verses in Charaka:

    sarvaM kAraNavad duHkhaM, asvaM, cha anityaM eva cha;
    na cha AtmakRutakaM tad hi; tatra cha utpadyate svatA,
    yAvan na udpadyate satyA buddhir, 'na etat ahaM' yayA,
    'na etat mama' iti vij~jAya j~jaH sarvaM adhitiShTate |


    Translation, in accord with the standard commentary of Chakrapaani is: "All this world, which appears and disappears, which is born and dies, all this is a perpetual series of causes and effects. All that results from a cause has a beginning and therefore an ending; being limited at one end, it has a limit at the other end also; and, being transient, is painful, is inseparable from misery; it is Not-Self, a-svam; it is non-Eternal: it has not been created by the Self, which is only a Spectator and not an actor, which is only a Witness of the Show. A feeling of identification with this phantas-magoria, a feeling of its being 'I' and 'Mine', svatA, arises through a-vidyA, Primal Error; and it (the feeling) persists only so long as the buddhi the vidyA, the right knowledge, does not arise, viz., the Consciousness 'I-am-Not-This', Na-Etat-Aham, and 'This-is-Not-Mine', Na- Etat-Mama, by means of which Consciousness, i.e., having recovered which Consciousness, the Knower, jnah, transcends, rises superior to, becomes sovereign overcoming This'. In other words, his Inner Peace cannot be exhaust any more by the turmoil of the 'world', a-midst which his body lives; in his mind, heart, soul has become free, emancipated, from all doubts and he, is a Jivan-mukta, and is no longer enchained, bound by, subject to, the 'This', i.e., this 'object'-world, or anything in it.

    'Charaka' and Sankhya-Yoga

    The first of the two verses above quoted, is only a version in slightly varied words, of aphorism 2.5, of Yoga-Sutra.

    anitya-ashuchi-duHkha anaatmasu nitya-shuchi-sukha-atmakhyAtir avidyA |

    "The khyAti (awareness, feeling, sense, notion, thought, idea, consciousness), belief, that the perishing-impure-miseryful-Non-Self (body) is the Eternal-Pure-Blessed-Self this is A-Vidya, Ne-Science, Primal Error, Original Sin".

    Another aphorism, very germane to the subject under treatment, is,

    taarakaM sarva-vishhayaM sarvathA-vishhayaM akramaM cha iti viveka-jaM j~jAnaM |

    The authentic comment can be studied in Vyaasa's Bhashya. Without contradicting it, the following rendering may perhaps be found to throw some more light upon it:

    "The Awareness, the knowledge, that results from Discrimination, viveka, (between Purusha and Prakrti, I and This, i.e., from negation of the latter by the former), is devoid of succession is a-krama, and comprehends at once, all objects and all ways (i.e., manners, methods, of the workings of all objects) that knowledge is Taaraka, deliverer, emancipator, which carries the soul across (the ocean of doubts and fears and miseries)".

    Taaraka is one of the many names of the Pranava, AUM; (see fn., p. 109 supra). There are a fair number of quite technical words (and, of course, ideas) which are common to Yoga-Sutra and Bhashya and books of Mahayana Buddhism, and some of these latter throw much light upon the obscure sentences of the former. That it is so, is natural, after Buddha's studies, mentioned before, of Sankhya and Yoga.

    Yoga Vasishthta repeats again and again,

    na ahaM deho, na me dehaH |

    'Not-I-(This-) Body, Not-Mine, (This) Body.'

    The Logion Declared by Buddha

    Finally, we find, in Buddha's own words, the origin of the Charaka-verses. In a discourse to his Bhikshu-s, in the town of Shravasti, Buddha says:

    I had noted down long ago, on the margins of my personal copy of The Science of Peace, 2nd edn., p.110, the English translation from some book; but had inadvertently omitted to note down the name of the book and the pages. My very worthy friend, Acharya Narendra Deva, very learned in Buddhist Pali and Sanskrt literature (Principal of the non-official National College, Kashi Vigya-Piitha, of Benares, and member of the Legislative Assembly of the United Provinces, who has spent many years in jail as political prisoner, and has been released only in June 1945), has very kindly hunted up, at very short notice, and supplied me with, the original Pali texts and Skt. translations.
    rUpaM, bhikkhave, anicchaM; yad anicchaM taM duHkhaM; yaM duHkhaM tad anattA;
    yad anatthA taM netaM mama, nesohamAsmi, na meso attAti |


    -- Samyutta Nikaaya, Pt.Ill, Khandha-Vagga, pp.22-23; repeated in the same words at pp.44-45.

    The Samskrt form of these Paali words is:

    rupaM, bhikShavaH, anityaM; yad anityaM tad duHkhaM; yad duHkhaM tad anAtmA;
    yad anAtmA tat na etan-mama, na eShaH ahaM asmi, na mai saH AtmA iti ||


    (eShaH is the masculine, etat is the neuter form of the same word).

    'Bhikshus!, form is not-eternal; the not-eternal is the painful; the painful is the Not-Self; the Not-Self is Not-This-Mine, I-This-Not; This-is-Not-My-Self'.

    Buddha Misunderstood

    Buddha has, for some centuries now, in bis own homeland, and therefore naturally in the west, been debited with the absurd view that the Self is only a stream of sensations, etc.; that there is no Supreme Eternal Self; and that Nirvana means complete annihilation; (see fn. pp.33-34, supra).

    William James seems to have propounded the same view, in modern times, viz., that the Self is only a stream, as a challenging jeu d'esprit, rather than seriously; his own firm belief in a permanent ultimate Self has been proved above by his own words; (pp. 122-3, supra).

    Careful orientalists are now beginning to see the light, and to understand that what Buddha 'denied' even as Vedanta 'negates', is the small self, the ever-changing personality.

    Mrs. Rhys Davids, in the new edition of her Buddhism (1934, H.U.L, series), has candidly admitted the mistake of her earlier view; has well explained the causes which gave rise to the extraordinary misunderstanding in India and passed thence to the west; has shown that Buddha always tacitly assumed, as undeniable and indisputable, the Being of the Universal Self, Brahma of the Upanishats; and has ably propounded the right view, that, to Buddha, Nirvana meant only the annihilation of the small selfish-self, i.e., of selfishness; (see especially, her pp.198-210). What element of truth there is in the very human craving for, and belief in, 'personal immortality', will be discussed in a later chapter.

    Besides these causes there was another and far worse cause. This was the wicked and wilful perversion of Buddha's teachings, under the stress of bestially sensualist appetites, by some sects of his followers. The worst and most infamous of these is the Vajra-yaana sect; its professions, i.e., theories, are much the same as those of the Charvaka-materialists, 'there is no soul, no life after death, no right and no wrong, no sin and no merit, therefore eat, drink, and be merry as you best can, while you are alive'.

    Such a theory is obviously indispensable to justify the sect's practice, which is the same as that of the Vaama-maarga Taantrikas, the 'Black Magicians of the Left-hand Path'; vide the Guhya-Samaaja-Tantra or Tathaa-gata-guhyaka, (Baroda Oriental Series).

    Such sects have grown up within the pale of every religion, dead or living, even as darkness gathers, under the lamp. Accumulation of immense wealth in the vihAra-s, matha-s, (Christian) abbeys, 'Vatican'-s, (Muslim) Khaaniqaah-s, dargaah-s, etc., has always led to such foul consequences in religious 'palaces', even as in secular.

    Orientalists' Confession

    As to the Self, which his later sensualist followers denied, Buddha is reported to have said, on one occasion: 'The material form is not your-Self, not the Self; sensations are not the Self; conformations and predispositions are not the Self; the consciousness is not the Self'; (Vinaya, 1. 23). The word Self, repeated so often, is specially noteworthy; the word 'consciousness' here means particular consciousness of particular things.

    Elsewhere, again, Buddha says na ... piyataraM attanA kkachi; Samyutta Nikaaya, 1.75, (Udaana, 47). In Sanskrit, na priyataraM AtmanA (AtmanaH) kachit (kiMchit); 'there is nothing anywhere which is dearer than the Self'. This is only what the Upanishad said much earlier:

    Atmanastu kAmAya sarvaM vai priyaM bhavati; Atmaiva shreShTashva |
    -- Brhad-Aranyaka Upanishad (II.iv.5)

    'All that is dear, is dear for the sake of the Self; the Self is the Best and the Dearest'.

    George Grimm, in his book, The Doctrine of the Buddha--The Religion of Reason (pub: 1926, by Offizin W. Drugulin, Leipzig) describes Saariputta as saying to Yamaka (pp.166,167):

    "All corporeal form whatsoever, ...all sensation, ...all perception, ...all activities of the mind whatsoever, ...all consciousness, is not Atma, the Self; the correct view, the highest knowledge, is: 'This is not mine; this am I not; this is not my Ego, Atma'..."

    Grimm does not mention references; but the first part of the translation seems to be of a text of Samyutta Nikaaya, Pt.Ill, op. cit., from the Dialogue of Saariputta and Yamaka, p.115; and the second part is a translation of the Buddha's words, quoted before.

    The two seem to have been mixed up by Grimm; not surprising, since the first part is also only a repetition by Saariputta of what he had heard from Buddha. The vital words (italicised by me) 'This I am Not' are there; so too 'the highest knowledge'; but did Grimm realise the Infinite significance that blazes up in those very same words if we read them with capital initials and arranged as 'I-This-Not (am)'?

    Buddha Re-taught True Vedanta

    On pp. 500-502 of his book, Grimm writes: "The Buddha has not become untrue to Indian thinking; rather is his doctrine the flower of Indian thought. He is ' the true Brahmin' (brAhmaNa) who has completely realised the Upanishads ... What would it mean to deny the Atta (Atma), to deny thereby my-self, me (My-Self, Me), the primary fact which alone I cannot doubt? For am I not the most real thing of all for my-self (My-Self), so real that the whole world may perish, if only I, this all and one (A11-and-One, All-One, Al-One) for every single individual, remains unaffected by the general ruin?" This is all good and sound. It indicates the new trend towards the true interpretation of Buddha's 'view', darshana, as identical with that of the Upanishads.

    The battle between Vidya and A-Vidya, Truth and Error, gods and titans, angels and devils, cor-rect-ors and per-vert-ors, is ever-lasting. When the Not-Self threatens to black out the Light of the Self altogether, the Self shines out strongly in Krshna-s and Buddha-s and Shankara-s, and Negates and brushes aside the Not-Self.

    Buddha's Last Words

    Many verses of the Dhamma-pada relating to ths Atma, read almost like translations of Gita-verses. One famous counsel to his Bhikshus, uttered on other occasions also, is said by tradition to have been repeated by him, as his last words, just before his Immortal Atma cast away Its mortal frame, to those who gathered round him at that time. With that great laudation of the glory of the Suprerne Self, and also, repudiation of the Not-Self, of all Other-Than-Self, this note may properly be closed.

    attadIpA, bhikkhave! viharath, attasaraNA, dhammadIpA, dhammasaraNA, ana~j~j-saraNA |
    -- Samyutta Nikaaya, ibid., p.42; MahA-pari-nibbaana Sutta, 2.26.

    In Sanskrit:
    AtmadIpAH, bhikShavaH! viharatha, Atma-sharaNAH, an-anya-sharaNaH; dharma-dIpAH, dharma sharaNAH, an-anya-sharaNaH |

    'Go to the peoples of the earth, my mendicant missioners!, doing the duty of your mission, gently persuading men and women into the blessed eightfold Path of Virtue! Be your One Light, the Self; be your Sole Refuge, the Self; let No-Other than the Self be your Refuge. Be Dharma, which is Brahma-in-Practice, Theory-at-Work, Principle-in-Application, be such Dharma your Lamp; be such Dharma, your Refuge; be Naught-Else your Refuge. Be ye Self-reliant; Not-Other-dependent.'

    Nirvana is the extinction of selfishness, and of all doubts and fears, all evil thoughts and passions, which all inevitably spring from selfishness, from clinging to the body, only. It is the extinction of all restlessness and discontent of mind. It is attainment of inner reposefulness, equ-animity, equ-ability, serenity, undisturbable calm.

    In the living Emancipate, still wearing a body, it has degrees; it grows more and more towards perfection; therefore the books speak of Brahma-vid, Brahma-vid-vara, Brahma-vidvarishtha, 'knower of Brahma', 'better knower of Brahma', 'best knower of Brahma'.

    Nirvana is not power to perform any so-called miracles, to 'see' what is going on in Sirius or Canopus, or make a continent sink beneath the ocean by a mere fiat, any more than it is to make an aeroplane rush 500 miles per hour, or blast a whole town with a single atom-bomb.

    Nirvana is recognition of, realisation of, reliance on, the Universal Self, Brahma, Param-Atma, which pervades and includes all selves; and the consequent or rather simultaneous recognition of, reliance on, and steady pursuit of the Dharma which is the 'active' aspect of the 're-cognition', viz., the constant endeavour to serve all, and help all to the same realisation of Brahma and Dharma. Hence, 'Be Atma and Dharma your Light and your Refuge; and Naught-Else'.

    ===========================================================================

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •