shrI Shankara charitam: exposition by KAnchi ParamAchArya

[saidevo]

pages 389-392

The long upadesham--teaching, that BhIShma pitAmaha, lying on the sharakkUDu--bed of arrows, gives Dharmaputra occurs in MahAbhArata in two parvas, as shAnti parva and anushAsana parva.

• In that teaching, the two--pAncharAtram and pAshupatam--which are bhakti-upAsana matas--devotional religious sects,

and the other two--the sAMkhyam that remains as a tattva-shAstram--philosophical scripture, and the yoga that teaches a sAdhanam--means of inquiry, in kriyA-rUpam--form of action, on the basis of the sAMkhya tattvas--

that is, these four religious sects are separated from the Vedas and mentioned as different matas.

• It is mentioned there as sAMkhyam yogaH pAnchArAtram vedAH pAshupatam tathA. That is, 'sAMkhyam, yogam, pAnchArAtram, Vedas, pAshupatam--these five matas', is how it occurs there. If the Vedas are one of the five matas, it only means that the other four are not related to the Veda matam?

• In (MahA)bhAratam itself, in another place, yoga is mentioned using the name of Patanjali, the mUla-puruSha--founder, of that matam, as 'pAtanjalam'. It is mentioned in spaShTam--with clarity, as nAnA matAni--different religious sects.

• There is one text known as shiva mahimna stotram. Done by PuShpadatta. It is a very ancient stotram--hymn. One which is very prasiddha--well known, in the vaDa-desham--North India. In that (stotram) too, in this same manner, vedam, sAMkhyam, yogam, pAshupatam, vaiShNavam are mentioned as different matas.

त्रयी सांख्यं योगः पशुपतिमतं वैष्णवमिति प्रभिन्ने प्रस्थाने

trayI sAMkhyaM yogaH pashupatimataM vaiShNavamiti prabhinne prasthAne
--shiva mahimna stotram, 7

'trayI' means the Vedas. That is one matam--religious sect. 'sAMkhyam' is another matam. 'yogam'--that too is one matam, separately. 'pashupatimatam' is the pAshupatam that refers to SivaperumAn. That is also one matam. Finally, another is 'vaiShNavam'. These are mentioned as 'prasthAnas' that are 'prabhinna'--'mArgas--paths, that are different from each other' is the meaning.

There is great value for thus being mentioned in (MahA)bhAratam and shiva mahimna stotram.

• The story of BhAratam is one that goes in consonance with the story of KRShNa-paramAtman who is ViShNu avatAram. HarivaMsham, which remains as the anubandham--supplement of BhAratam, is one that speaks elaborately about shrI KSRhNa charitram--life.

Nevertheless, when the tantra called pAnchArAtram was done-anuShThAna-of--practised, as only referring to ViShNu, in virodham--opposition, to the samarasya-bhAvam--perception of equality, of the Vedas, belittling the other deivams--gods, and in contrary to the shruti-sMRti AcharaNa--practice,

BhAratam has mentioned it as a samayam--religion, which is external to the Vedas.

• In this same manner is the mention of the pashupati matam as an external samayam to the Vedas, in the 'shiva mahimna stotram', although it arose to speak only about Shiva mahimas--greatness.

As there is a satya-pramANam--testimony of truth, for mahAkavai-vAk--words of great poets, I shall narrate one such on this subject.

• One who obtained the gauravam--honour, of paNDita-samUham--society of scholars, is shrI HarSha kavi--poet. Those who do not have pANDityam--scholarship, cannot understand his pustakas--books. He had written the NaLa-charitram--life story of King NaLa, giving it the name NaiShadham.

• DamayantI svayamvara--self-choosing groom, scene in that text. NaLan has come to the svayamvara maNDapam--pavilion. Between him and DamayantI, parapara-prema--mutual love. So, she would only garland him.

• In this scene, as enhancing the kAvyach-chuvai--(Tamizh) epic sensibility, something puzzling happens in the 'NaiShadham' as in the case of the present day mystery/suspense stories. That is, instead of one NaLa, five NaLas are seated adjacent to each other!

• Only one of them is the (real) NaLan. The other four are Agni, Yama, VaruNa and Indra, who have come in disguise, tatrUpam--in the exact form, of him. DamayantI goes astonished as to who among those five men is the nija--real, NaLan.

Only when narrating this incident, Kavi (shrI HarSha) brings in the viShayam--subject, we were looking at. He brings it in the form of an upamAnam--simile.

• He says: "Just as bhramippu--(Tamizh) amazement/confusion, arises when Advaita, which is the real Veda matam, and the other four matas sAMkhyam, yogam, pAshupatam and pAnchArAtram, which wear the same Vedic disguise, are together,

when she looked at the four Devas in NaLa-veSham--NaLa's disguise, sitting with the nija NaLa, DamayantI went bhramita--astonished in confusion, as to who was the real NaLa among these five men."

panchama kOti mAtre ... matAnAm advaita tattva iva satya tarepi loka

In this manner at that time, in our desham--country, since time anAdi--beginningless, as there was belief among the majority of the panDita-pAmara--scholarly and ordinary, that only veda-vAk--words of the Vedas, was the Ishvara vAk--God's words, which is satyam--truth,

in vAstavam--reality, several matas which had avaidika principles and (the related) kriyA-kalApa--package of acts, were such as to describe themselves as only vaidika matas and attract people. Some among these attracted the learned, as being philosophical; and some as being deiva upAsana--divine worship, attracted the public.

• Not that all the upAsana mArgas were like this. There were also upAsana, that had arisen as vaidika in vAsatavam--reality, for each svAmi--god; but these had lost their lustre.

• Only those tantras which had remained avaidika but were in vaidika disguise were largely in prasAram--propaganda.

• Another thing should be mentioned here. There were also aneka--many, tantras in prasAram which declared, "What great authority are the Vedas? More than the Vedas, only the Agamas (that is, tantras that are upAsana mArgas) are the authority. Only this is what ParamAtman himself had done upadesham--teaching, and sthApana--establishment, of."

Is not the unique honour of the Veda matam is that it was established by BhagavAn himself?
• Whereas when some people said 'Only our tantra is what BhagavAn established', and wrote and showcased the kathA-purANas for that also,

and in addition, relaxing the adhikAra-bheda--differential ranks of the Vedas, created the shaTangas--rituals, to cater to the emotional tastes of people, many went after them with the curious intention of trying them.

**********

[saidevo]

****************************************
Revolutionary religions
****************************************
pages 392-394

Somewhere and always in the jana-samUham--public, in one corner for at least some people, the tendency--what is called 'revolutionary attitude' today--to break up everything that is old and try all things anew, won't be absent. Still, in the pUrva-kAlangaL--ancient days, people would have much hesitated to suddenly break up a tradition charged with vajram--strong core, and go for something new.

• In such a circumstance, if one or two men break away daringly, then, in-anusaraNam-of--following, those one-two revolutionists, many people will go out, just as when one or two small leaks form on the banks of a lake, that eats into (the surrounding barrier) and results in a large leak.

• In this way, at that time, when some people went out saying 'what is Veda? Only our shAstra--scripture, was created by God',

and some others, saying 'what is Veda? What is bhagavAn--God? We don't need any Vedas or bhagavAn. Only our scripture that has dispensed with the Vedas and bhagavAn is the right one', did-sthApakam-of--established, new matams--religious sects, as total revolution.

• I spoke about the bauddham, jainam and the chArvAkam that arose in this manner. Among these, there were not many takers for chArvAkam. Whatever it is, 'if there is no svAmi--God, there is nothing above deha-sukham--bodily pleasures, there is no need for matAcharaNam--religious conduct', most people can't accept it with courage. So, for this appaTTa--stark, lokAyatam--materialism, not much--only a little--support was given.

• Only for the bauddha-jaina matams much support was there. The AkarShaNam--attraction, Buddha and JIna had for taking the path of a tuRavi--ascetic, and did prasAram--propaganda, although born in rAja-kuTumbam--royal family; then in those matams many learned men appearing and giving nUlgaL--texts; and above all the great patronage from the kings those matams had--all these together gave them good growth.

• The bauddhas giving their mata-pustakas--religious texts, in prAkRta-bhAShA, the spoken language of the people, dispensing with SaMskRtam, and the shraMaNas--Jains, teaching all people in their mother tongue, setting up schools, became a reason for their popularity.

• People were not much worried about what those mata-upadeshas--religious teachings, were. Nor did they strive in visheSham--specifically, to live them in practice. Still, for the honour of having a common mata-shAstra--religious scripture, and schools (that taught them), people joined those religions.

• I already spoke about the mUrti upAsanam--image worship, that arose in those religions, so that the people were facilitated to join in greater numbers. For the populace, it is enough if they had this aspect.

• Of these two, it is known that during AchAryAL's--Shankara's, time, jainam--Jainism, was not that powerful. This is because, as said earlier, in his book, there is very little jaina-mata-khaNDanam--refutation of the Jain religion.

• Although about bauddham, there is khaNDanam here and there, even that is much less.

• Only the mImAMsA-khaNDanam is much more.

We will see the reason later.

**********

[saidevo]

**************************************************
The inevitable circumstances for an avatar to take place
**************************************************
pages 394-396

In toto,--as the sAram--essence, for all that is discussed thus far in detail and with fanfare--as to how was the prevailing situation in the desham--country, then

• the vaidika matam which is pUrNam--complete, was very much kSheNa--weakened;

• matams that called themselves vaidika but were not so in reality, tAntrika matams that said only they were in reality born in-anusaraNa-of--following, ParamAtman's AGYa--orders, and the avaidika matams that had totally disapproved vedam-paramAtman both--all these told, there were seventy-two religions/sects.

• The durbhAgyam--misfortune, that no one born as manuShya--human, could set right the situation had arisen for our purAtana--ancient, mata nAgarikam--religion and civilization. As a great bhAgyam--fortune, in this itself, it also became necessary that only Ishara should take an avatar.

• This is where KRShNa ParamAtman arrives. Only him I referred to much in the beginning?

We now come to the link responsible for it--shrI KRShNa's connection in BhagavadpAda's avatAram.

************************************************************
avAtara tattvam--the principle of an avatar
************************************************************
pages 395-396

shrI KRShNa said that the SanAtana Dharma he gave in upadesham--teaching, in Adi--the beginning, to SUrya--Sun God, after being very well in anuShThAnam--practice, initially for many Yugas, going through the lineage of familes through their sons, later declined, and only that (SanAtana Dharma) he was now teaching Arjuna. We also had a look at the GItA shlokas that mention this. In the veil of ignorance he had created with his mAya, coming in naraveSham--human guise, shrI KRShNa had totally made Arjuna forget that He was bhagavad-avatAram!

So, when He told him thus, Arjuna asked him: "What is this KRShNa! You were born now, whereas SUrya was born in an ancient time. (Although SUrya was there in Arjuna's time too, since (KRShNa) BhagavAn said that only He taught SUrya, who in turn passed that upadesham to IkShvAku who lived countless yugas before, Arjuna says thus.) When it is this way, what is the meaning of your saying that you taught SUrya?"

अपरं भवतो जन्म परं जन्म विवस्वतः ।
कथमेतद्विजानीयां त्वमादौ प्रोक्तवानिति ॥ ४.४ ॥

aparaM bhavato janma paraM janma vivasvataH |
katham-etad-vijAnIyAM tvam-Adau proktavAn-iti || 4.4 ||

Your birth was later, Vivasvat's birth was earlier.
How am I to understand that you proclaimed to him in the beginning?

To that BhagavAn said: "Countless janmas--births, have happened for me before this birth. Not only for me, for you too. I know all about those pUrva-janma samAchAram--information about earlier births, but you do not know."

बहूनि मे व्यतीतानि जन्मानि तव चार्जुन ।
तान्यहं वेद सर्वाणि न त्वं वेत्थ परंतप ॥ ४.५ ॥

bahUni me vyatItAni janmAni tava chArjuna |
tAnyahaM veda sarvANi na tvaM vettha paraMtapa || 4.5 ||

(to continue)

[saidevo]

pages 396-399

He did not stop by saying this. Even if he had stopped, Arjuna, who was thinking him as a manuShya--human, would not have raised a question against it.

• Thinking, 'Just as there were aneka--many, previous janmas--births, for me who is a manuShya, this KRShNan too had them. But then somehow he is remembering all those janmAntara--former lives', he would have left it at that.

• Even if he had raised a question, instead of asking, 'How and why did pUrva janmas--previous births, arise for you?', he would have only asked, 'How come you happen to remember your pUrva janma samAchAra--information?'

• For us it is not at all something that matters. He cannot fool us into thinking that he is a manuShya! So the question as to how there was jnApakam--memory, for that BhagavAn who is sarvarjna--omniscient, would not arise for us.

• But then another big question would arise for us. "Since Arjuna was a manuShya, as per his karma, he had aneka pUrva janmas and was now born as Arjuna. Whereas this man is BhagavAn. What karma could be there for him? What for, how and why does he take many janmas? Just as he is born now for his nara-lIlA--sport in human form, would he have born earlier too?"

• He knows that we would ask in such manner. Would he not know that whatever he does-upadesha-to--teaches, Arjuna, would be read by us after VyAsAchArya wrote it down in bhAratam? Only for that (purpose) did he give his upadesha? Therefore, even if Arjuna did not ask any question, expecting that we would ask, he started replying to this:

अजोऽपि सन्नव्ययात्मा भूतानामीश्वरोऽपि सन् ।
प्रकृतिं स्वामधिष्ठाय सम्भवाम्यात्ममायया ॥ ४.६ ॥

ajo&pi sannavyayAtmA bhUtAnAmIshvaro&pi san |
prakRutiM svAmadhiShThAya sambhavAmyAtmamAyayA || 4.6 ||

[4.6: Although my imperishable Self is unborn, although I am Lord of beings, relying on my own nature, I am born by the creative power of my Self.]

"It is not that I should get stuck in karma and take janma for that. I am a birthless vastu--reality, aja; not a jIva--individual soul, that suffers various kinds of changes due to the vikAra--changing nature, of manas--mind, and prakRti cheShTitam--manner of life due to movement of Nature. I am the changeless Atma-vastu--reality of the Self: avyayAtman--imperishable. I am the Ishvara--Lord, of sakala bhUta--beings: bhUtAnAm Ishvara. Although it is in this manner--api san means 'although it is in this manner'--I do-sambhava--cause my own/take birth, taking in my vasham--control, by my mAyA--power of illusion, prakRti--Nature, which is the AdhAra kAraNam--fundamental reason, for the appearance of the prapancham--universe; that is, I take janma--birth:prakRutiM svAm adhiShThAya sambhavAmi Atma mAyayA'

• Just as he makes the prapancham--universe, appear by his mAyA, he also causes his appearance as one who takes janma--birth. The jIva-jaDa-prapancham--sentient, insentient universe, are all only the appearances he has taken. There is nothing except Him. But then he plays in a way that prakRti takes control of the jIva-jagats--beings and worlds, and rules over them. Because of that (his play), these do not know that they are only He.

• Getting stuck in the sattva-rajo-tamo guNas of prakRti, the jIva goes on making karma of various kinds, and to do-anubhava-of--experience, them, goes on taking janma after janma.

• Whereas He, without thus coming under the vasham--control, of prakRti, remains as one who takes control of prakRti and rules over it, but still takes janma like us. That is called avatAram.

As to why and how He takes janmas, reply has been given here for the how. Only then he gives us the kAraNam--reason, as to why he too takes janma. That is the link for our (Shankar)AchArya charitram. He says in two shlokas that are suprasiddha--well known:

यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत ।
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम् ॥ ४.७ ॥

परित्राणाय साधूनां विनाशाय च दुष्कृताम् ।
धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय सम्भवामि युगे युगे ॥ ४.८ ॥

yadA yadA hi dharmasya glAnirbhavati bhArata |
abhyutthAnamadharmasya tadAtmAnaM sRujAmyaham || 4.7 ||

paritrANAya sAdhUnAM vinAshAya cha duShkRutAm |
dharmasaMsthApanArthAya sambhavAmi yuge yuge || 4.8 ||

[4.7: Whenever there is a decline in dharma, O BhArata, and a rise in adharma, then I send forth myself.
4.8: For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the evil-doers, and for the purpose of establishing the dharma, I come into being from age to age.]

• He started only with the statement that he knew all about the janmas he had already taken, which Arjuna did not know. That is, he talked about only his pUrva janmas--earlier births.

• Then, explaining how he takes janma in general, he now explains as to why and what for--not only in the pUrvam--earlier times, but at all times--he took and is going to take janma.

What does he say?

• Whenever there comes hAni--decline/deficit, in dharma: yadA yadA hi dharmasya glAnir bhavati

‣ What would happen if there is hAni for dharma? There would be abhivRddhi--growth/increase/prosperity, for adharma. He says that in: abhyutthAnam adharmasya.

‣ Thus, when dharma becomes kShINa--weakened/destroyed, and adharma rises over it, at whatever times this happens, then--tadA: at that time,

I cause my own birth: AtmAnaM sRujAmyaham.

• What would happen when dharma is in kShINa?

‣ The janas--people, who are sattva--pure and good, would be restless. The sAdhus--sages, would get caught among the duShTas--wicked, and experience kaShTa--pain and suffering.

‣ ParamAtman would think to do-rakSha--guard/protect, these sattva jana and do-shikSha--punish/discipline, the duShTas--wicked: paritrANAya sAdhUnAM vinAshAya cha duShkRutAm.

‣ BhagavAn would think to protect and nourish the sAdhus well, and destroy and do-saMhAram--kill, of the duShTas.

(to continue)

[saidevo]

pages 399-401

(BhagavAn, in taking avatar, would think...)

• This should not end as a kAryam--work, done only for that time. It should be done, that even after that time, for a pretty long time to come, dharma stands well sthApita--established, the sAdhus--wise people, live in peace, and the duShTas--wicked, don't raise their heads.

• Of course, it is not possible to make dharma that has undergone shaithilyam--dimunition/weakness, to be prakAsha--shining, forever in the lokam--world.

• The very loka-nATakam--drama of the world, is in the opposing shaktis==forces--called pair of opposites--fighting with each other, and gaining upper and lower hands alternatively.

• Nevertheless, in the vichitra--strange, run of sRShTi--creation, as it sometimes happens, that without this (fight) being in sama-balam--equal strength, the adharma that is Asura--of wicked nature, is given the ALumai--(Tamizh) dominance, the nATaka rasam--prevailing sentiment/character of the drama, suffers and it becomes virasam--bad/unpleasant.

• It is, when it thus gets much worse, that the situation is set right by taking an avatar. But then upon my returning after thus doing shiShTa rakShaNam--protection of the disciplined and wise, and duShTa shikShaNam--punishment of the wicked, and establishing the rule of dharma, very quickly would the Asuras try to raise their head and make the head of shiShtas bow to them. That is, for the adharma-shakti, there would be efforts of an abhyutthAnam--spring back, quickly.

• So, while giving a birth to me, by myself, and going all the way there to set right things, it should be done in such a way that it does not go waste quickly. Although it is not possible to make dharma permanent for all times, I should, without letting it be a temporary measure that fizzles out soon after, establish dharma for a somewhat long time to come.

He would think to do a deep saMsthApanam--firm establishment, not just a sthApanam--ordinary establishment. Therefore, dharma saMsthApanArthAya--to establish dharma firmly.

• However firm and well it is established, it cannot be done-sthApana-of in shAsvatam--perpetually? So after a kAla-kaTTam--(Tamizh) period of time, passes, adharma will only become dominant, right?

• "Let it become dominant. Whenever it happens, I said I would be born at that time! I repeat, sambhavAmi yuge yuge--in every such saMdarbham--occasion, I take avatar."

• For the yuge yuge, one should not take literal meaning and think that he would take avatar only once in a Yuga. The meaning should be made as BhagavAn saying, "However many yugas does sRShTi--Creation, takes place, alukkAmal sallikkAmal--without getting tired or fed up, for dharma sthApanam, I would again and again take avatar."

‣ In the beginning, without mentioning any time measure of Yuga, he only said yadA yadA--at whatever times? Would he change it in his very next shloka and make it only once in a Yuga?

• So, BhagavAn only said that at whatever times does dhamra declines and adharma dominates, to save the sat--good, and destroy the asat--wicked, in the name of avatAram, he would take janma--birth.

• By his very saying, paritrANAya sAdhUnAM--for protection of the sAdhus--wise and good, it becomes clear that however much does adharma dominate, even at that time, without dharma being completely gone, sAdhus who do anuShThAnam--practice/perform, dharma, would be living, at least in small numbers.

• He said that there is no janma--birth, for him like the manuShayas--humans, who are stuck in prakRti--Nature; only for the loka rakShaNam--protection of the world, he takes janma, controlling the prakRti.

*** *** ***

[saidevo]

pages 401-403
avatAra rahasya sUchana: pointers to the secret of taking avatar

Why did he say, "taking vasham--control, of prakRti--prakRutiM svAmadhiShThAya"?

• In another place in the same GItA, in this same meaning, he says, prakRutIM svAm avaShTabhya (9.8). What he said as adhiShThAya here, there he says as avaShTabhya. The meaning for both is only 'taking vasham--control]. Only in that manner has AchAryAL (in both the places as vashIkRutya) done-bhAShyam--commented.

• He who says about his taking janmas--births, here, there speaks about his giving janmas to other people again and again.

• He speaks (there) about doing vashIkRutyam of prakRti at the end of the pralaya kAlam--time of dissolution, and again releasing all the beings whose souls were shrunk in the kalpa pralayam, and making them born again and again.

प्रकृतीं स्वामवष्टभ्य विसृजामि पुनः पुनः ।
भूतग्राममिमं कृत्स्नमवशं प्रकृतेर्वशात् ॥ ९.८ ॥

prakRutIM svAmavaShTabhya visRujAmi punaH punaH |
bhUtagrAmamimaM kRutsnamavashaM prakRutervashAt || 9.8 ||

[On the basis of my own original nature, I emit again and again the entire multitude of beings inexorably, by the power of my original nature.\

• He could have left it here by saying, "I take, for dharma-saMsthApanm, avatAra janmas". There again, he could have left it with, "I make the beings that were shrunk in the kalpa pralayam, to take birth again and again, so they would experience their karma". Why should he say, in both places, "I do it this way, taking vasham of prakRti"?

• It is here that the avatAra rahasyam is revealed. What the sUkShma--subtle, truth about avatar is, is known. Only to convey it has he dropped a sequence of words in this manner.

Why shouldn't it be by saMkalpa mAtram--only by will?

To look at what it is, a big question as pUrvAnggam--preliminary:

• "sari--Alright, dharma diminishes in the lokam--world. ParamAtman, with parama kAruNyam--supreme compassion, thinks 'Let it not go waste in this manner. Let it live again in dharma'. Wouldn't it be enough if he does such a saMkalpam? And the bhagavat saMkalpam would be fulfilled on its own!

• "Instead, why should he, who has no janma, take a janma, he who has no nAma-rUpam--name and form, pile them upon him, arrive as an avatar, do many yatnas--efforts/exertion, like us, engage in saNDai-kiNDai--(Tamizh) battle-rattle, and in that (fight) himself take aDi-udhai--(Tamizh) blows and kicks, and and suffer?

• "In avatAram, he too suffers all the pains that we do! Not just the kaShTas--pains/difficulties, that come from outside. He who is described as the sachchidAnanda svarUpam, in his avatars, behaves likes us: gets angry, cries, and does shRnggAram--erotic acts. What for are all these?

• "Let him do dharma saMsthApanm. But then why not do it from his uchcha sthAnam--peak position, remaining in Kailash, VaikuNTham, whatever, by saMkalpa mAtram? Why take janma as an avatAram? This question arises."

It is vAstavam--true, that SvAmi--God, can do anything just by saMkalpam. But then if we do-Alochanam-of--consider, it thoroughly, if he is to do anything thus by saMkalpa mAtram, you know what he would have to do ultimately?

• It would only come to his willing against any sRuShTi--creation, and close everything! [laughing] Doing a single saMkalpam, 'let there be no sRShTi', he would happen to stay peaceful!

[saidevo]

pages 403-406

• That he should not remain peaceful is why he has with priyam--fondness, made the sRShTi--creation? In the Adi--beginning, only he was there, as sachchidAnanda brahmam? That peace was not enough (for him) which is why (with the intention) 'to play, to revel', he has gathered mAyA on himself, made the sRShTi and produced us as asaDus--(tam)dunces?

• Even if in the (kalpa) pralaya, all the jIvas get shrivelled and concealed, and although he remains quiet for a thousand chatur-yugas letting that laya--(dissolution) stay as such, (thereafter) again as punar-sRShTi--re-creation, pulling up everything, he starts whirling the carousel round and round?

• His manas--mind, his chittam--intention, will never be known to us. Never be understood however much we contemplate on it. Although it would seem to us, 'without remaining himself as ekam-evadvitiyam--one without a second, why should he do such a thing as sRShTi', for whatever purpose he has done it, what can we do about it?

• Although parama-vedantam says 'no such sRShTi is there; everything is only kalpana--creating in mind, mAyA--illusion', that kalpana or mAyA, why should it arise in the first place?

This is why it is customary to finish it (any such discussion) in one word, as some sort of lIlA--sport/play!

• We would not know or understand SvAmi's purpose. So, although we think, 'why make this sRShTi, spoiling his peace', he is indulging in all the revelry there can be, himself always remains peaceful, in a state of prashAnta--calm and removed, as AtmArAma--rejoicing in one's self!

• Since by doing his revelry his peace does not leave him, he would never end the kUtthu--revelry and close the sRShTi! Only he with his own volition, inaugurated it, and is conducting it with all pomp and glory!

Therefore, in his plan, except for the time as pralaya, meant for dissloution and concealment, he would not at any other time, close it for whatever reason.

Let it be such. If asked why he should not do dharma saMsthApanam--regulation of dharma by saMkalpa mAtram--mere will, without taking avatar, what is the meaning of the reply that instead of doing it so, he could as well close the sRShTi?

As to what the meaning is...

• Let us suppose that when the state arises wherein adharma would destroy dharma, and SvAmi does the saMkalpam, 'let the dharma saMsthApanam occur'. Can he do saMkalpam to let this dharma saMsthApanam be shAshvatam--permanent?

• No, he can't. Because, if the entire lokam--world becomes dharma-mayam--filled with dharma, and stays as such, for what rasa-bheda--variety of different tastes, he has made the jIva sRShTi, that would no longer be there!

• If it is lIlA--sport, it would be exciting, only when it goes on getting stuck in many different emotions, with two teams remaining opposite in a tug-of-war, or two opposite teams kicking the ball here and there, falling and gathering, win and loss, disappointment and luck, anger and contentment, crying and happiness?

• If it is lIlA-nATakam--drama of sport, shouldn't there be navarasam--nine kinds of tastes, in that play? If the sarva-jana--all people, doing dharmAnuShThAnam--observance of dharma, and becoming shAntas--peaceful people, stay shAshvatam--permanent, where is the lIlA-vichitram--varied wonder of sport, in that? Where is the nATaka-rasam? It will be a bore for SvAmi!

• The very name of this world is mishra-lokam--world with diversity. That is, this is a world that he has made-uddesha-of--prescribed as a mixture of good and evil.

• After having made his sRShTi of asura-lokam with everything as evil, deva-lokam with everything as happiness, tapolokam, satya-lokam ityAdi with everything as shAnti--peace, in order that he does not get bored in them, making our world as mishra-lokam, giving the jIvas some amount of svAtantrayam--freedom of the will, to do their karma--actions, he witnesses the play.

• Therefore, if the svArasyam--naturalness, of the jIva-svAtantrayam goes away completely, and everyone becomes dharmiShTha--very virtuous/righteous, this very lokam would become mechanical in BhagavAn's view!

• It should (thus) remain as mishra-lokam. Instead, if it becomes a dharma-lokam which is amishra--unmixed, he should only close it (right)?

[saidevo]

pages 406-408

• If everyone acts according to dharma, no new karmas would accumulate. Staying in this mAyA-loka-saMsAram--life in the world of mAyA, until their old karmas are exhausted, they would get released from this sRShTi--creation. If all the people thus attain mokSham, the sRShTi should close down, shouldn't it?

• Instead of people doing it, it would be natural if the sRShTi-kartRu--maker of the creation, who created them as well, thinks to close it? (laughing) It would only occur to him, "Who are these people to annul the sRShTi I brought up? Let me do it myself!", right?

• Thus, as the sRShTi-lIlA is necessary for him, he would not think of doing dharma saMsthApanam--regulation of dharma, in-shAshvatam--permanently. This is why the saying that instead of doing-saMkalpam--willing, that the lokam--world, go on in dharma permanently, he would as well think about closing down the sRShTi.

Alright, in that case let him not do the saMkalpam 'May there be dharma saMsthApanam in shAshvatam. Let it be so only when a very bad situation arises.' He can will it this way? Instead, why should he take avatar?

• If he does a saMkalpam in this way, he would need to repeat it as adharma gets upperhand again and again? Our very saying, 'why should he take avatar? why not do it by his will?' is out of our thought, 'why should he exert himself'. Even if he is to will it without taking avatar, he cannot stay with the peace that we think he needs.

• Since he would then be doing only a temporary saMkalpam, he would need to inspect the status of the world restlessly, will it again and again and thereby exert himself.

• It is only by not requiring the peace we think he needs, he piles upon himself the task of sRShTi, and thereby voluntarily takes up the tasks of giving us AhAram--food, making an account for the karmas of all the people, and giving them the wages? So it seems that he cannot avoid repeated saMkalpam, however much we think about reducing his workload.

Therefore he thinks that instead of doing saMkalpam as a mere thought--he is a lIlA-priyA--one who likes sports, mind you--he should disguise himself as an avatar, do the lIlA and regulate dharma (by making his presence felt).

• Everything is only (due to) his saMkalpam. But then he shows that an instrument did it in kArya-rUpam--form of action/performance.

• If on occasions adharma gets upperhand, even that is his saMkalpam. But then have we read anywhere, 'Sitting somewhere as ParamAtman, he (just) did a saMkalpam; and suddenly the lokam--world became adharmic'?

• As the asuras--evil spirits, rAkShasas--demons, duShTa rAjAs--wicked kings, people who do-prasAram--spread wrong principles as matam--religion, and many others such as thieves, killers, forgers do anekam--many things, in kArya-rUpam, adharma raises its head.

• In kali(yuga), if the manas--mind of the people seeks evil things, even that is a kAryam--task, done with the mind, although it is not a task done by the hand or leg. After the mind thought of something bad, to experience that bad thing, the hand and leg starts doing the bad thing as an external action.

• When thus everything happens in the world by karaNa-kArya--instrument and action, (not only the bad, also the good--except that he conducts everything with karaNa-kArya, although it is all his saMkalpam, he never shows it to happen saMkalpa-mAtram--due his will;--when it goes on this way),

that is, when he conducts them in such a manner, when the big rise of adharma too happens in this same manner, how could it be said that the renaissance of dharma alone take place by his saMkalpa-mAtram?

• If he does not show the karaNa-kArya for that too, it would be like doing away with an exciting aMsham--share of action, in his sport!

Therefore, when dharma diminishes, he would send mahAns--great sages, like dUtas--messengers, to do-abhivRddhi--make it rise (again). When a stage is reached that it wouldn't be effective, he would himself become a karaNa--instrument, and take avatar.

*** *** ***

[saidevo]

Humanity and divinity in an avatAra
pages 409-412

When thus taking an avatar with the lakShyam--goal, of doing dharmottAraNaM--rescuing and securing dharma, he has kept kneaded inside, aneka viShayas--many things, that are the sAram--essence.

• In addition to doing-upadesham--teaching, dharma, he should also set an example of it in his life. The dharma that is not soaked in life, won't be useful, however elegantly it is taught.

• Only in the case of Adarsha puruShas--illustrious men, who live their own life in dharma and thereby guide the others, the thought, "Oh, how much shuddha--pure and shAnta--peaceful are these people! Living in happiness themselves, they also impart that happiness to the world! We should also try doing it this way", would arise in the people.

• To conduct such an Adarsha life and guide the people, it becomes necessary that he has to come as an avatar.

Nevertheless, can an avatAra puruSha, for the sake of being Adarsham remain at the peak, denying all the tendencies that are in the common people?

• Can he always remain at the atIta--superior level where our clashes of emotions, and any of our desires are not there for him?

• It should not be. If it is such, he will never be a guide, a model. How can a person who is always at the atIta level be a lakShya puruSha--role model, for those in other levels?

• If a sANDO--Samson/strong man, lets an elephant stand on his chest lying down, we would be happy clapping our hands and be amazed at it; but would we think about doing it ourselves? We would only say, "He can do it. How can it be possible to us?"

• If an avatAra puruSha keeps doing everything in parama dhArmikam--in supreme conformity with dharma, remaining at his top level, without any of our bhUloka vAsanas--worldly impressions, thinking that 'This man certainly does not belong to our manuShya jAti--human species. He does not have any of uncertain struggles of mind or the Asha-pAshas--desires and ties, that we have', we would do a number of namaskAras--prostrations, to him and not get the utsAham--strength of will/resolution, that we might also go in his way and try it.

Therefore, by controlling him to some extent in manuShyatvam--being human, and acting it out that he is just like us, but still when it comes to a struggle between the wrong and the right, going only in the right and avoiding the wrong, he would set an example to us that 'Only what is dharma needs to be done. Only that would give us lasting happiness and peace.'

• Although being like us in many aMshas--parts/aspects, he would set an example by passing where we usually fail.

• Only if he stays such a person, would we get the utsAham--resolution, 'we too can conduct ourselves like him--and live in dharma; and pass in the lesson given to us by the shAstra--scripture.'

(At the same time) If someone remains a sAmAnya--ordinary, all through, we will not notice what he does or whether he goes in dharma or not. Even now, here and there, there could be many people who are good, and who go in dharma, but stay anonymous. But then how this could be a motivating force to the world?

• Would Gandhi be the only person who tried being aligned to satyam--truth and act according to manas sAkShi--conscience, in samIpa-kAlam--recent times? There would have been many (like him). Still, as he was one who did his kAryas--tasks, for the entire desham--country, a path arose (known) as 'GAndhIyam' for others, and during his time, many people actually strived to go in that path.

• Therefore, when SvAmi--God, takes avatAra, although he would remain mAnuSham--belonging to mankind, on one side, he would acquire to some extent, divyAMshas--divine aspects, and deiva shaktis--divine powers, to do-AkarSha--attract, manuShyas--people towards him, so that it does not happen that it (his avatar) ends with his time, but its influence is felt in the time to come.

• He would do a kAryam--act, that is asAdhyam--impossible (for others). Remaining as a bAlaka--boy, he would do-vatam--kill rAkShasas--demons like TADaka and SubAhu (killed by shrIRAma).

• Or doing a tyAgam--forsaking something that is impossible for us--on the very day when his paTTAbhiShekam--consecration as king, was decided, if someone said, "Go to the jungle", setting out with a smiling face and the reply "AhA--alright"--he would do-AkarShaNam of the people.

• But (at the same time), without letting us ignore him as "This man is deivAMsha--of divine aspect, so what he does can't be a model to us", this man himself would, like us, let his nostrils fill with sorrow, and show us as being in a quandary, mourning (his wife SItA's loss with words such as), "O good tree, did you see her? O good husk of the tree, did you see her?"

• Thus, by remaining as deivam--divinity, and as mAnuSham--human, in turn, he would give us the stimulus to walk the path of dharma.

Of course, to the deiva-shakti--divine power, manuSha-shakti--human power is less. Men are less powerful than the Devas. But not to the extent of people thinking of themselves as alpa-shaktas--of trivial power.

• If they do-indriya nigraham--restrain senses, and lead a shuddha--pure life, the manuShyas--people, too can do kAryas--acts, with so much power.

• If they become yogeshvaras--experts of yoga, they can do-sampAdanam--acquire/earn, shakti which is like the Devas', or even greater than that.

In order to instil hope and utsAham--strength/power, to the manuShyas--human people, who are thinking much less of themselves, that they too can accomplish big tasks becoming this much shaktas--powerful,

BhagavAn--God, instead of doing dharma saMsthApanam--regulation of dharma, remaining as BhagavAn, arrives as a manuShya and does it.

**********