guru upanyAsa manjarI
From guru kripA vilAsam Vol. 3
1 (13 Jun 1927, Mon)
pp.241-243
If something has to be talked about, then it should only be of shAstrIya viShaya (scriptural subjects). There is no prayojanaM (use) at all in talking about the laukika viShaya (worldly subjects).
As mentioned:
शास्त्रीयेषु व्यवहारेषु यद्यापि बुद्धिपूर्वकारी ।
ना निदित्वात्मनः परलोके सम्बन्धमधिक्रियते ॥
shAstrIyeShu vyavahAreShu yadyApi buddhipUrvakArI |
nA niditvAtmanaH paraloke sambandhamadhikriyate ||
--Sankara's BrahmasUtra bhAShya
"One acting as has been enjoined in the ShAstras is called intelligent ('buddhipUrva') and is credited with knowledge of some kind of the immortal soul not altogether remote."
the ShAstras talk about paraloka viShaya (spiritual worlds). They tell the ways to do sampAdya (earn, accomplish) of shreyas (welfare, mokSha). What is said in the ShAstras about how to do sampAdya of kShemaM (happiness and peace) and how to do vRuddhi (augment) of shreyas is that we should have the adhikAraM (authority, eligibility) to know those ShAstras correctly, paddhati prakAra (systematically). All of us are not adhikArins of the same kind. There are multiple authorities of different kinds. It is not sAdhyaM (possible) to teach them equally, with the same kind (of teaching). Nevertheless, since teaching through upanyAsas is the mArga (way) of tatkAlaM (the present day), and while 'doing avalambina' (rest upon, depend on) of it, it is possible only teach the sAmAnya vazhi (common way) that is the same for everyone. If we know Brahmam as such, we don't need any ShAstras or anything else even. If it is possible to know (It) through our svaya-buddhi (one's own intelligence), we wouldn't be requiring Shastras in the first place. Since It is not known that way, ShAstras are required for us.
If we need to have knowledge about anything, we need AstikyaM (believing nature). What is AstikyaM? The desire to know is common to us. (If we are) to know something, (then) is it not obtained that there is some thing to know?
Astika is one who says that there is one such vastu (thing). Astika is one who says asti (it is existent, present). (Thus) AstikyaM is a word that came from the shabda (word) asti that gives the artha (meaning) 'it exists'. Astika is one who says 'It exists'.
As said:
नैव वाचा न मनसा प्राप्तुं शक्यो न चक्षुषा ।
अस्तीति ब्रुवतोऽन्यत्र कथं तदुपलभ्यते ॥
अस्तीत्येवो-पलब्धव्यस् तत्त्वभावेन चोभयोः ।
अस्तीत्येवो-पलब्धस्य तत्त्वभावः प्रसीदति ॥
naiva vAchaa na manasA prAptuM shakyo na chakShuShA |
astIti bruvato&nyatra kathaM tadupalabhyate ||
astItyevo-palabdhavyas tattvabhAvena chobhayoH |
astItyevo-palabdhasya tattvabhAvaH prasIdati ||
--Katha Upanishad, 2.3.12,13
if It is there, What is there? The nAstika (non-believer) says It does not exist. About What does he say that It does not exist? The NAstika too agrees that some vastus (things) do exist. He says that this dehaM (body) is the AtmA (soul), its nature is svatantra (self-dependence). By this, he does not become an Astika.
In the same way, the Astika too says that some vastus do not exist. He says that there is no prapanchaM (universe), it is all mithyA (appearence, illusion). By this he does not become a NAstika.
The NAstika-Astika vyavasthA (condition, decision) does not occur by the things mentioned above. As to what it occurs with, is due to the Astika saying as existing what the Nastika says is not existing and thereby comes the Nastika-Astika difference.
For the NAstika, the dehaM is the AtmA, there is no janmAntaraM (another birth or life), and the pratyakShaM (before the eyes) is the pramANaM (evidence, proof). Vedas are not pramANa, there is no Ishvara. No paralokaM (afterworld). Whereas for the Astika, the dehaM is not the AtmA, Vedas are the pramANa and there is janmAntara, paralokaM and Ishvara.
Which one of these two kakShis (parties) is right? Both of them can't be right. Since both are nEr-viroddha (directly opposed), one against the other, only one of them can be right. Therefore, it becomes avashyaM (necessary) to 'do vichAraM' (inquire into) which one is right.
Although there is nyAyaM (logic) for the vichAraM (inquiry), if there would be no phala (fruits) by the vichAraM, the vichAraM would become nirarthaM (vain, useless), so we need to think about the fruits due by the inquiry.
In the tatkAlaM (present day), some vichAras that are niShprayojana (unnecessary) are in vogue. Such inquiries as to "काकस्य कति वा दन्ताः--kAkasya kati vA dantAH--how many teeth does the crow have?" are of no use.
As said in "नास्ति चेत् नास्ति मे हानिः अस्ति चेत् नास्तिको हतः--nAsti chet nAsti me hAniH asti chet nAstiko hataH", if it is certain that It does not exist, then we (the Astikas) have never had any loss. But if it is certain that It does exist, then the Nastika gets lost.
Suppose I believe that there is a tiger in there, I ran away from the spot and get secure. If the Nastika goes near it saying it is not there, he would certainly to be killed. In the same way, if the Astika goes to some place believing that kShemaM (peace and security) would be there, he might get it there. Thinking that there is no kShemaM, the Nastika is not going to do any pratyanaM (persevering effort) towards it. Therefore, by AstikyaM, there would be kShemaM.
रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥
To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.
--viShNu purANam
Bookmarks