Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: guru upanyAsa manjarI

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

    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

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

    Re: guru upanyAsa manjarI

    From guru kripA vilAsam Vol. 3
    1 (13 Jun 1927, Mon)
    pp.243-246

    Some people inquire into when our AchAryAL (Adi Sankara) was born. What use can be had by this? What if he was born whenever? What guNam (good quality) would accrue to us by that? Whatever to say of the manuShya (humans) who do the useless vichAram of when he was born, instead of experiencing the fruits obtained by reading the granthas (texts) BhagavadpAda has authored in lokopakAram (benefit of the world)? Can the nirNayam (complete ascertainment) of that subject be done nissaMdeha (without a doubt) now? This aside, they do vIN kAlakShepam (useless time-passing) inquiring into when the Vedas came into existence. What prayojanam (use) would accrue by doing this vyartha kAlaharaNam (unprofitable destruction of time) instead of knowing what is told in the Vedas and reaping its fruits?

    The vichAram (inquiry) we mentioned earlier into what is right between the NAstika-Astika matams (faiths), which requires us to do niShkarSha (extract the truth), is not one such vichAram that is nirArthaka (meaningless). If the NAstikam is right, then we would get much pleasure. If the dehAntaram, lokAntaram (another body, another world) is not there, we can be comfortable and yathechCha (as it pleases us), without doing the karmAs advised by the Astikas, right? Or, if the Astikam is right, benefit is obtained both by us and the NAstika. He too comes to know about the mArga towards kShemam (mokSham) and attains good gati (passage).

    Let us see. Let us see by thinking it out, if what the NAstika says--that there is no janmAntaram, no Ishvara and that the Vedas are not pramANa--is right. We can say with certainty that there is janmAntaram (another birth or life). As to what the fruits of this (certainty) are: if the AtmA has a Paralokam, would it not become possible to do good acts and earn the prosperity there, and have fear about and remove the bad acts that can deprive us of the Paraloka kShemam?

    That there is dehAntaram (another body) is mentioned in many places in the Vedas.

    योनिमन्ये प्रपद्यन्ते शरीरत्वाय देहिनः ।
    स्थाणुमन्येऽनुसंयन्ति यथा कर्म यथा श्रुतम् ॥

    yonimanye prapadyante sharIratvAya dehinaH |
    sthANumanye&nusaMyanti yathA karma yathA shrutam ||

    --Katha Upanishad, 2.2.7

    ["Some jivas enter the womb for assuming bodies; others go into the unmoving, in accordance with their karma and with their knowledge."]

    तद्य इह रमणीयचरणा अभ्याशोह यत्ते रमणीयां
    योनिमापद्येरन् ब्राह्मणयोनिं वा क्षत्रिययोनिं वा वैश्ययोनिं
    वाऽथ य इह कपूयचरणा अभ्याशोह यत्ते कपूयां
    योनिमापद्येरन् श्वयोनिं वा सूकरयोनिं वा
    चण्डालयोनिं वा ॥

    tadya iha ramaNIyacharaNA abhyAshoha yatte ramaNIyAM
    yonimApadyeran brAhmaNayoniM vA kShatriyayoniM vA vaishyayoniM
    vA&tha ya iha kapUyacharaNA abhyAshoha yatte kapUyAM
    yonimApadyeran shvayoniM vA sUkarayoniM vA
    chaNDAlayoniM vA ||

    --ChAndogya Upanishad, 5.10.7

    ["Among them, those who have good residual results of action here (earned in this world and left as residue after the enjoyment in the region of the moon), quickly reach a good womb, the womb of a Brahmana, or of a Kshatriya or of a Vaisya. But those who have bad residual results of action quickly reach an evil womb, the womb of a dog or of a hog or of a Chandala."]

    If this Veda pramANa is talked about, the NAstika is not going to agree with it. Why? For him the Vedas are not pramANam (proof, evidence) at all. So, only by giving him yuktis (other types of reasoning) that he can be corrected. This is because, even the NAstika can accomplish his conclusions that there is no dehAntaram, no lokAntaram and Vedas are not pramAnas, by only giving yuktis. So only when we give him yuktis that are also sammataM (agreeable) to him that he would accept (our points); for, his saying that the body is the AtmA, there is no paralokam are also based on his own yuktis.

    Since the paralokam (other world) is not visible to the eyes, it can be known by yuktis. The cows for their deha-rakShaNarthaM (physical care) do the required tasks on their own. How is that the calf that was just born takes sthanya-pAnam (milk of the udder)? At least in the country we might say that men train the calf to feed that way. Who comes to the araNyaM (forest) and does this kAryam (act)? No one! Sometimes, when its mother is on one bank and the calf on the other, the calf swims across the river on its own and reaches the bank of its mother, how is that? Who taught the calf to swim immediately after it was born? For such yuktis, questions have been asked in SrI Sankara vAkyam:

    कस्चिद्दुःखी स्वजन्मप्रभृति सुखयुतश्चापरः कस्य हेतोः
    कस्मादाद्या प्रवृत्तिस्तनुरपि च कुतः किन्नवेत्ति प्रमीतः ।
    स्वाभाव्यं हेतु साम्ये सममिति विदितं दीपबीजाङ्कुरादौ
    वैषम्यं कर्मयन्यं यदि जदसि जनेः पूर्वपुण्यात्मसिद्धिः ॥

    kaschidduHkhI svajanmaprabhRuti sukhayutashchAparaH kasya hetoH
    kasmAdAdyA pravRuttistanurapi cha kutaH kinnavetti pramItaH |
    svAbhAvyaM hetu sAmye samamiti viditaM dIpabIjA~gkurAdau
    vaiShamyaM karmayanyaM yadi jadasi janeH pUrvapuNyAtmasiddhiH ||


    For such questions, what reply can the NAstika give? Let it go. Leaving aside the animal clan, if we look at the humans, there too it is the same thing. Among the humans some are blind; some deaf; some intelligent; some of dull wit; for some, one kind of taste, for others, other kinds; some lame; some of the right gAtra (limbs); some sick, while some wouldn't know even a headache. If the sharIraM (body) is the AtmA (soul), where should this sickness come from? How did it come?

    Since a human is janya (born) of the mAtA-pitA (mother and father), it may be said that the sickness came from them. If that be so, how is that we have seen children who are sick in some cases and children who are healthy in others, are born of healthy parents? Further, to the same (healthy) parents, there are some children who are sick and others who are healthy? In the same way, there is difference in the buddhi-visheShaM (intelligence) too. One has great knowledge, another is clearly stupid; one has love for mathematics, another for the ShAstras; one is never taught by whatever pains taken, but another grasps it the first time. Further, one has liking for sour food, another for hot food, yet another for sweets.

    So it can't be said that the son takes after his father. In fact, he does not take after his father (in many cases). HiraNyAkSha was a parama viShNu dveShin (extremely hostile to VishNu); and the PurAnAs say that PrahlAda, a parama bhAgavata (supreme devotee) was born of him. To the father who was a dharmAtmA, Asamanjan, who took pleasure in the suffering caused by his doing harm to others, was born. Considering his evil nature, it was necessary to exclude him from succeeding the throne. Therefore, it is siddha (decided) that a son does not take after his father. Some other reason has to be attributed for the difference.
    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

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

    Re: guru upanyAsa manjarI

    The Sandhya Worship

    Here is a link to an enlightening satsangha about worship and its nature.
    http://www.srisharada.com/QA/Sandhya%20Worship.htm
    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

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
  •