[Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -61

[Anbu sivam2]

Sivaanandalahari -61 (5)continued from 61 (4)

Let us meditate on the parama kaashtai of the three bhakthis which
BhagavathpaadhaaL did siddhaantham as "chEthO:
vrutthirupEthyathishtathisadhaa".

Those who does upaasana to ParamEswara holding on to the view that at no
time can one becomes Paramaathma, and even if he attains mOksha there would
be the bhEdam of Jeevaathma and Paramaathma - are described by the two
examples "ankOlam nijabeejasanthathi: rayaskaanthOpalam soochikaa".  AnkOla
seeds even when the reach the tree from which they came continue the idea of
separateness so also the needle that reached the magnet.  In this way those
jeevaraasis that have anubhava buddhi that they are different from
ParamEswara cannot lend their aathmaprEmai to ParamEswara for aathmaprEma
can only be with oneself and not with an anyan. Yet they do consider
themselves to be dhukkaswaroopis because of maaya.  In such a situation this
upaasana cannot be called the kaashtai (goal) of bhakthi.

Likewise, those who do upaasana to Bhagavaan holding on to the view that the
jeevaathma even when he unites with Paramaathma, they both cannot become one
but continue to hold to the conviction (pragnyaa) that even though he has
united with Paramaathma he would never become Paramaathma - are described by
the two examples "saadhvee naijavibhum lathaa kshithiruham".  Even though a
pathivrathaa reached her barthaa she has the pragnyai that she is
pathivrathaa and he is the bharthaa.  In the same way the creeper even
though it winds itself to the tree has the pragnyai that it is different
from the one that supports it. So anyone holding to the view that a
jeevaathma is only an amsam of Paramaathmaa can only be said to have
ordinary bhakthi that does not have paramakaashtai.  Even in aikyam there is
bhEdha buddhi in the jeevan and in his case also maayai has hidden the
aanandhaamsam.  This must be clear on reflection.  What is the gain out of
this different version of bhEdhagnyaanam?  Only the complete destruction of
bhEdhagnaanam can achieve the total oneness is the view of the Vedhaanthis.
If aikyam is Sathyam there cannot be bhEdhagnaanam.  If there is
bhEdhagnaanam that aikyam cannot be Sathyam because Sathyam can always be
One only.  Just as if a person says: "I have seen a barren woman and she has
a child", the world will not accept that statement, we cannot accept that in
the state of unity there can be bhEdhagnyaanam.  So the aanandha one gets in
this unity cannot be the goal of bhakthi.  It can never be.

After describing the saamaanya bhakthi with the four examples AachaaryaaL
takes up those who do upaasana to ParamEswara holding on to the view that
the jeevathma  was already non-different from the nishkaLanga Paramasiva and
so much so would not be 'becoming' Paramasiva but in varthamaana kaalam
remains with the appearance of 'jeeva is different and Paramasiva is
different', the moola kaaraNam for which is moola agnyaana braanthi - are
described by the example "sindhu: sarivallabham".   To explain, the dharma
of a river is, howsoever it is dammed on its way, its object is to merge
with the ocean.  Before it was a river it was only the ocean that went up as
cloud and it rained on the hill setting off this pravaaham of the river.
Until it gets back to the ocean it remains as a river and has its pragnyai
as a river but the very moment it merges into the river its nadhignyanam is
lost. No one can separate the water as 'this is nadhijalam and this is
samudhra jalam'.

The point of fact is that the jeevaathma has never in the past been
different from the faultless Paramasiva nor would we say that he would be
different in the future. But due to moola-agnaana braanthi in the present,
he considers himself different from Parameswara. MOksham is the destruction
of this moola-agnaana braanthi. Those who do such upaasana for the
destruction of this moola-agnaana braanthi are referred to by AachaaryaaL by
the example of ‘sindhu: sarithvallabham’.

The bhEdham (the multitudes we see) remains real because of the
bhEdhagnyaanam and only to those afflicted with bhEdhagnaanam comes the
importance of gnaanOpadEsam.  Therefore the mahaavaakya "thaththwamasi" is
addressed to the agnyaani to tell him that he is Brahman and this
mahaavaakya is not to tell a gnaani that he is BrahmaN.  this mahaavaakya
"thaththwamasi" says to the agnyaani: "Do not think that aathmaa is
different from Brahman.  Do know that both are one and the same
'akhandaakaara aanandha vasthu'.  Just because these two are one you should
not also think that there were two and those two are becoming one.  You have
assumed there were two because of agnyaana.  The fact of the matter is there
has never been two."

(continued in 61 (6) )