Sridakshinamurtistotram
(Part IX –a)
Shrigurubhyo NamaH

tvat-sannidhAna-rahito mama mAstu deshaH
tvat-tattva-bodha-rahitA mama mAstu vidyA
tvat-paada-bhakti-rahito mama mAstu vamshaH
tvacchintayA virahitam mama mAstu cha AyuH
(Let no place be for me that is bereft of Your presence. I do not
seek any knowledge that is not the knowledge of You. I do not seek a
lineage that is devoid of devotion for Your Holy Feet. A life that
is devoid of contemplation on You is of no use to me.)

The Eighth stanza of the Hymn is of very profound importance since
here we find the consideration and negation of several notions that
we have accepted as true and go about in parlance. These notions
include: cause-effect, difference, connection/relationship, and the
like. The verse reads:

Vishvam pashyati kArya-kAraNatayA sva-svAmi-sambandhataH
ShiShyAchAryatayA tathaiva pitRR^I-putrAdyAtmanA bhedataH |
Svapne jAgrati vA ya eSha puruSho mAyAparibhrAmitaH
Tasmai ShrIgurumUrtaye nama idam shrIdakshiNaamUrtaye ||

(Obeisance to Him, the Supreme Self (Being), who deluded (not
deluded) by Maya sees in dream or in waking, the universe as
consisting of distinct entities variously related such as cause and
effect, servant and master, disciple and Preceptor, father and son
and so on, to that resplendent Dakshinamurti, incarnate in the
glorious figure of one's own Guru.)

The anvaya:
ya eSha puruShaH Svapne jAgrati vA mAyAparibhrAmitaH (sann), vishvam
kArya-kAraNatayA sva-svAmi-sambandhataH shiShyAchAryatayA pitRR^I-
putrAdyAtmanA bhedataH pashyati, Tasmai ShrIgurumUrtaye nama idam
shrIdakshiNaamUrtaye ||

In this verse, the Acharya explicitly states that it is the One
Supreme Being, Brahman, that owing to ignorance appears as a jiva
experiencing the world. The variety of the world is available only
in the waking and dream states. Hence only these two states are
mentioned explicitly; the causal sleep state has to be supplied. The
variety of the world is not just the objects that are experienced in
the waking, etc., but also the various notions underlying the
experiences. Thus we `relate' to a father, a son, etc. We have a
different kind of relationship, of the master-servant, with certain
other people. Again, there is this unique relationship
called `disciple-preceptor' with respect to some other individuals.
In all these relationships, there is an underlying `difference'
between us and others. Thus, only when we recognize that the other
is a different person from us, there arises some relationship with
the other. Again, we have recognized and accepted into our lives
another notion called `cause-effect' without which our parlance
cannot go on at all. This notion is so deep-rooted that every
endeavour of ours starts with the question: What will I get, or what
will result, from this endeavour?' There is a saying: `prayojanam
anuddishya na mando'pi pravartate' meaning: without motivated,
impelled by a `benefit' even a dunce will not act. Between objects
and persons also we establish this `cause-effect' relationship. We
nurture a cause so as to get an effect. Again, we try to avoid a
cause that could result in something detrimental to us. One might
ask `what is wrong in this?'. In the world, that is, in the
unenquired worldly existence, this is quite allright. But when one
tries to examine what this world is, and what could be a `better'
state than the worldly existence, one has to critically examine this
relationship. The most glaring effect or defect of this `cause-
effect' notion is: pravritti and nivritti. One takes up activity to
either obtain what is beneficial to him by nurturing the causal
factors to that benefit or takes up activity to avoid the causal
factors of that which is detrimental to him. This activity is what
all samsara is about.

The kaarya-kaarana bhaava is not absolutely true as was seen in the
discussion pertaining to this in the first stanza of the hymn. To
make a quick review, it could be seen that the Vedantic view of cause-
effect is that it is accepted only on the relative plane. The effect
is non-different from the material cause. This was shown on the
basis of the Chandogya Upanishad : `Vaachaarambhanam vikaro……'. The
Sruti further proceeds to teach that any effect in the universe is
non-different from the Ultimate Material Cause, the Sat. This is
none other than Brahman. The question of `origination' of the
universe is taken up and after analysis shown that the concept of
origination is only an adhyaropa. When the Shruti talks about
origination, srishti, the idea is only on an`as though' basis; in
reality, there can be no question of origination at all. By
delineating srishti, the Shruti is making an opening to know the
originator, Brahman, by pointing out that Brahman is the Creator, the
origin, of the universe. This `originator' or `source' status of
Brahman is not absolute, but only a superimposition, adhyaropa, by
the Shruti, tatasthalakshana, of Brahman. The concept helps
to `identify' Brahman first and later drop the assumed status of
originator and know the essential nature of Brahman, the svarupa
lakshana. In Vedanta, the tatasthalakshana is the adhishtanam, the
substratum of the appearing universe. In essence, kaaranatva,
causehood, of everything is traced to Brahman. Depending upon the
ease to understand the concept, different constructs like `yugapat
srishti', simultaneous projection like in a dream and `krama
srishti', sequential projection, are taught.

Notion of `difference' a myth:

Talking of cause and effect, one has to encounter two other concepts:
the `sambandha', relationship, between karya and kaarana and `bheda',
difference, between kaarya and kaarana. This verse of the hymn shows
that these concepts are also a myth. So is it in general, of bheda
and sambandha pertaining to any two entities whatsoever. The Srutis:
Neha naana asti kinchana (Brihadaranyaka Up. IV.4.19) (In It there is
no diversity, whatsoever), mrityossa mrityum aapnoti (Br.Up. IV.4.19)
(He goes from death to death, who sees diversity, as it were, in
It.), Naatra kaachana bhidaa asti (Nr.Ut.T.Up.) (In this there is no
difference of any type) and the Mandukya kaarika III.15 naasti bhedaH
kathanchana (on no account there is any diversity) emphasize this
point. The so-called `bheda', difference, cannot be revealed by any
pramana, pratyaksha, anumaana, etc. (It may be noted that pratyaksha
can reveal only form, colour, sound, smell, touch and
taste. `Difference' does not come under any of these categories.
Anumana, inference, has to depend on pratyaksha. So, even by
inference, difference is not known.) It is not experienced as being
other than the objects that are regarded as different. Difference
between the drik, the cognizing Self and drishya, the inert object,
cannot be perceived for the simple reason that the drik is not
perceptible. Even the difference between two inert objects is
presented by pratyaksha, for the supposition that it is so presented
does not stand, as it can neither be established that pratyaksha
apprehends the bare difference without the object that is different,
nor the difference along with the object.

Also, the notion of difference, though employed extensively in
parlance, involves self-contradiction. It cannot be affirmed whether
it is identical with the object to which it is attributed or
different. To regard it as mutual non-existence would not also clear
the issue. Difference, thus, is not revealed by any pramana, nor
supported by reason. It is not, however, to deny that seeming
differences are perceived. It is to be regarded as revealed by the
Witness-Self, Sakshi-bhaasya, (as taught in the work: Bheda-
dhikkaara), much in the same way as the rope-snake or the shell-
silver. (The `snake' perceived in a rope is not the result of the
operation of the ocular organ. The eye sees just the object, the
rope, there. The `snake' is concocted by the mind. The content of
the mind is revealed by the Sakshi. This is the point made here.) It
is thus to be regarded as illusory – mithya. The Kathopanishad
bhashya (2.1.11) refers to avidya as naanaatva-pratyupasthaapika
(cause of the perception of difference) and the Sutrabhashya
(2.1.6.14) says: Multiplicity is conjured up by false knowledge.

Notion of sambandha, relation, a myth:

Similar to the above is the case with relation, sambandha, which
presupposes difference. For, only when a difference is perceived,
one proceeds to establish a relation. Again, difference, for itself
to be perceived, depends upon multiplicity. At least two objects
have to be there to see a difference between them. But our cause-
effect analysis shows that Brahman, the Sat, alone is appearing as
the various objects. When difference itself cannot be established,
where is the question of relation? We have to conclude that this
also is an illusion. But then, the entire parlance, vyavahara, is
dependent on these two illusions: difference and relation. If these
are enquired into, we find that these drop off as mithya objects.
That is the reason behind saying that the vyavahara is only
relatively true but not absolutely. On another note, it would be
appreciated that while all the first three purusharthas, artha, kama
and dharma, have for their basis difference and relation, the fourth,
Moksha purushartha, is unique by its shedding the avidya-based
concept of bheda and sambandha. That is what is termed by the
Mandukya Upanishad seventh mantra after negating all the three
earlier paadas, as Shaantam, Shivam, Advaitam.
This stanza of the hymn declares that all types of internal and
external relations are indulged in by the one who is deluded by Maya,
maayaa-paribhraamitaH. The examples given by the hymn, as a
representative, are: the karya-karana, sva-svaami sambandha, the
difference between shishya and acharya, father and son, etc.

Jiva, Brahman Itself Deluded as it were:

In this verse, the words `svapne jaagrati vaa ` meaning, in the state
of dream or waking…, we see that jagrat, waking, is put on par with
svapna, dream. Again, in the manner of the `pravesha-shruti' of the
Taittiriya upanishat, `tat srishtvaa tadeva anupraavishat'
meaning, `having created it, It entered it ..' and also in accordance
with the statement:

Brahmaiva sva-avidyayaa samsarati iva, sva-vidyayaa muchyata iva ,

the so-called deluded person is, in reality, none other than the
adhishthana tattva that is the Gurusvarupa as given expression to in
the refrain:
Tasmai ShrIgurumUrtaye nama idam shrIdakshiNaamUrtaye ||

The Kathopanishad (II.i.5,6) shows that all the experiences that are
available in the waking and the dream state constitute the
experiences of the One Conscious Being.

Difference, etc., are mere words for the undeluded:

The Manasollasa (viii.5 – 8) on this verse gives the purport in a
succinct manner:
Imagining in the One self-luminous Existence, Parameshwara, distinct
entities like cause, effect, their relationship and other things of
various sorts, is just like imagining the one as two distinct things
because of the mere use of words, as for example, the head of Rahu,
empty space of akasha, my self, the body of an idol, etc. Ishwara
assumes Himself assuming, of His own accord, the forms of the
worshipper and worshipped, of teacher and disciple, of master and
servant and so on. He who is a son with reference to his father is
himself the father with reference to his son; one alone, indeed, is
imagined in various ways according to the mere words employed to
denote them.

It is obvious from the above that the import of the verse is to drive
home to the disciple that though the entities mentioned therein are
regarded as perceived and answer to the empirical requirements in
that manner and thereby regarded as being real in parlance and
described as anirvachaniya from the standpoint of reason, the fact is
that none of them exists, it is tucchaa and the words used refer to
mere concoctions. In a dream, for example, all the various entities
like people, their relationships, objects, time, space, events, the
reactions of people to those events, etc. are all seen to be the
projection of one Conscious entity alone. There is no substantial
difference between these entities. They are all akin to toys made of
sugar or wax. The material is one but the forms and names are
myriad. Apart from the different names that are given to each of the
content of the dream, there is nothing that can be shown as a
differentiating factor.

The disciple is thus made aware of the fact that from the point of
view of the Jnani no entity spoken of in parlance exists. The eighth
stanza is also interpreted as referring to a Jnani by adopting the
reading:

Svapne jAgrati vA ya eSha puruSho mAyA-aparibhrAmitaH,
(Neither in jagrat or in svapna does he lose sight of the fact that
he is Brahman.)

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (v.iii.20) says: When he thinks `this
(universe) is
Myself, who am all' that is the highest state. Commenting on this,
the Vartikasaara says: The experience `I am all' is not an illusion
even if it be in the dream state. How can this plenary experience
which is the result of the means of valid knowledge (the Sruti
pramaana) pertaining to the Absolute, be an illusion?

Next, the various `bhavas' spoken of in the verse may be taken up for
a closer look.

(End of Part IX . a)
(to be continued)
Om Tat Sat