Sloka - 41 and 42
Hari OM,
SLOKA 41:
GYaatR^iGYaanaGYeyabhedaH pare naatmani vidyate .
chidaanandaikaruupatvaaddiipyate svayameva tat.h .. 41..
Pada artha:
Jnaatru: knower
Jnanaa: knowledge
Jneya: object of knowledge
Bhedaha: (these)differences
Pare: supreme
Na: not
Aatmaani: the Self
Vidhyate: is
Chidaananda eka roopavaat: because of (the being) of the nature of knowledge and bliss
Deepyate: shines
Swayam: by itself
Eva: alone
Hi: verily
There are no distinctions such as “Knower”, the “Knowledge” and the “Object of Knowledge” in the Supreme Self. On account of Its being of the nature of endless Bliss, It does not admit of such distinctions within Itself. It alone shines by Itself.
The knowledge referred to here is the intellectual knowledge. Our intellect is capable of perceiving objects other than itself. Hence all our knowledge is constituted by the knowledge of things other than ourselves. But for the Brahman which is verily knowledge as the Chandogya Upanishad says “Satyam Jnanam Anantham Brahma”, there is no duality of knower nor the object to know or the knowledge.
Also for any action or specifically for knowledge, there should be an ignorant subject, a means of getting knowledge and the object of knowledge and knowledge itself. Thus for the Self which is verily knowledge and self luminous, there can be no action of knowledge. Being nondual and eternal, it cannot have any distinction such as the subject and the object. Like the sun that shines by itself and needs no other torch to illumine it, Atman is self luminous.
As we have learnt in the previous slokas, when the ignorance of the nature of Self has been destroyed by knowledge of Brahman, there is nothing but Self. To such a knower of Brahman for whom everything such as names and forms are merged in Self and has become Self, how can there be the difference of knower, known and knowledge?
Just as how a fire does not burn itself, similarly the Self cannot know itself. When the knower of Brahman who has discriminated the real from the unreal, there exists only the subject, one without second.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. second chapter speaks in detail about this as:
“When the object of understanding is not there, what is there to understand? When there is no more of such an object then how can there be knowing of anything? And because that object of knowledge has become knowledge itself, so there is no such thing as knowing ‘anything’. Where everything is Self of knowledge, there can be nothing that the Self can know except its own Self and through what instrument should one know the knower? Everything hence is known by the knower of Brahman.” This is propunded by the famous statements: “tat kena kam abhivadet, tat kena kam manvita, tat kena kam vijaniyat? ; “Yenedam sarvam vijanati, tam kena vijaniyat?”
Thus, Acharya here is explaining to us that for the knower of Brahman who is verily Brahman, there can be no distinctions of the knower, known and knowledge.
Pardon all for the long break in between, praying to Lord to guide through all obstructions, lets move on to the next sloka.
SLOKA 42:
evamaatmaaraNau dhyaanamathane satataM kR^ite .
uditaavagatirjvaalaa sarvaaGYaanendhanaM dahet.h .. 42..
Pada artha:
Evam: thus
Aataaranav: in the arani (wooden piece) of the Self
Dhyanamathane: churning in the form of contemplation
Satatam: constantly
Kruthe: when done
Uditaavagati: knowledge which is born
Jwala: the flame
Sarva ajnaana indhanam: all the fuel of ignorance
Dahet: shall burn
When this the lower and the higher aspects of the Self are well churned together, the fire of knowledge is born from it, which in its mighty conflagration shall burn down all the fuel of ignorance in us.
In this sloka Acharya is explaining that when there is a constant churning of knowledge, the continuous thought of “I am Brahman” are nourished by the meditation, the fire of knowledge is churned in oneself and by process of discrimination and by this knowledge all ignorance fades away. In such a fire of knowledge that the ignorance is burnt down just as fuel is consumed by fire. In the explanation given by Swami Chinmayananda, the lower and higher aspects of Self indicate the intellect and the absolute Self.
Acharya is here explaining the need of constant contemplation by giving us a beautiful example. Fire is produced by friction of two wood pieces. By rubbing a piece of wood over another constantly the all consuming fire can be produced. Acharya here is comparing the pieces of wood to the two aspects of Self. The lower piece to the aspect of Self associated with illusory ignorance and antahkarana which is lower and the higher piece of wood to the Self which is the absolute reality or Brahman.
This churning of knowledge is described clearly in Kaivalyopanishad as
aatmaanamaraNiM kR^itvaa praNavaM chottaraaraNim.h
GYaananirmathanaabhyaasaatpaapaM dahati paNDitaH ..
“ A sage thinks of this mind as lower piece of sandalwood, and OM as the upper wood. Through the practice of constant friction between them, he kindles the fire of knowledge which burns up the impurities of mind.”
Thus making the Atman as the lower piece of wood and OM (symbolic representation of Brahman or Supreme Self) as the upper piece of wood, through repeated friction of knowledge, a wise man burns all the bonds.
Acharya is here thus describing the effect of intense mediation. Meditation is but unbroken thought towards an object. Just as how fire can be produced by constant rubbing of two pieces of wood, knowledge is churned out by constant meditation on reality. i.e. when the one constantly contemplates on the Brahman as nature of Self, by this constant contemplation or meditation which is compared to the friction here, the Self knowledge arises. It is this knowledge alone that burns all the desires and bonding and ultimately liberates one from all duality and hence sadness. Hence a seeker must constantly contemplate on the real nature of Self and only with such intense sadhana can one acquire the Self knowledge.
Lord also mentions the same in Gita fourth chapter 19th sloka as “The wise call him learned whose actions are all devoid of all desires and their thoughts and whose actions have been burnt away from the fire of wisdom”. Thus Lord Krishna is thus explaining that the actions, and ignorance that causes them are incinerated by the fire of knowledge and such a one is called by the wise as the learned one.
Such a wise one whose ignorance is burnt by the intense fire of knowledge becomes verily Existence-Consciousness-Bliss alone.
Hari OM
With regards,
Mallika R
What you have is God's gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to God
SLOKA 41:
GYaatR^iGYaanaGYeyabhedaH pare naatmani vidyate .
chidaanandaikaruupatvaaddiipyate svayameva tat.h .. 41..
Pada artha:
Jnaatru: knower
Jnanaa: knowledge
Jneya: object of knowledge
Bhedaha: (these)differences
Pare: supreme
Na: not
Aatmaani: the Self
Vidhyate: is
Chidaananda eka roopavaat: because of (the being) of the nature of knowledge and bliss
Deepyate: shines
Swayam: by itself
Eva: alone
Hi: verily
There are no distinctions such as “Knower”, the “Knowledge” and the “Object of Knowledge” in the Supreme Self. On account of Its being of the nature of endless Bliss, It does not admit of such distinctions within Itself. It alone shines by Itself.
The knowledge referred to here is the intellectual knowledge. Our intellect is capable of perceiving objects other than itself. Hence all our knowledge is constituted by the knowledge of things other than ourselves. But for the Brahman which is verily knowledge as the Chandogya Upanishad says “Satyam Jnanam Anantham Brahma”, there is no duality of knower nor the object to know or the knowledge.
Also for any action or specifically for knowledge, there should be an ignorant subject, a means of getting knowledge and the object of knowledge and knowledge itself. Thus for the Self which is verily knowledge and self luminous, there can be no action of knowledge. Being nondual and eternal, it cannot have any distinction such as the subject and the object. Like the sun that shines by itself and needs no other torch to illumine it, Atman is self luminous.
As we have learnt in the previous slokas, when the ignorance of the nature of Self has been destroyed by knowledge of Brahman, there is nothing but Self. To such a knower of Brahman for whom everything such as names and forms are merged in Self and has become Self, how can there be the difference of knower, known and knowledge?
Just as how a fire does not burn itself, similarly the Self cannot know itself. When the knower of Brahman who has discriminated the real from the unreal, there exists only the subject, one without second.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. second chapter speaks in detail about this as:
“When the object of understanding is not there, what is there to understand? When there is no more of such an object then how can there be knowing of anything? And because that object of knowledge has become knowledge itself, so there is no such thing as knowing ‘anything’. Where everything is Self of knowledge, there can be nothing that the Self can know except its own Self and through what instrument should one know the knower? Everything hence is known by the knower of Brahman.” This is propunded by the famous statements: “tat kena kam abhivadet, tat kena kam manvita, tat kena kam vijaniyat? ; “Yenedam sarvam vijanati, tam kena vijaniyat?”
Thus, Acharya here is explaining to us that for the knower of Brahman who is verily Brahman, there can be no distinctions of the knower, known and knowledge.
Pardon all for the long break in between, praying to Lord to guide through all obstructions, lets move on to the next sloka.
SLOKA 42:
evamaatmaaraNau dhyaanamathane satataM kR^ite .
uditaavagatirjvaalaa sarvaaGYaanendhanaM dahet.h .. 42..
Pada artha:
Evam: thus
Aataaranav: in the arani (wooden piece) of the Self
Dhyanamathane: churning in the form of contemplation
Satatam: constantly
Kruthe: when done
Uditaavagati: knowledge which is born
Jwala: the flame
Sarva ajnaana indhanam: all the fuel of ignorance
Dahet: shall burn
When this the lower and the higher aspects of the Self are well churned together, the fire of knowledge is born from it, which in its mighty conflagration shall burn down all the fuel of ignorance in us.
In this sloka Acharya is explaining that when there is a constant churning of knowledge, the continuous thought of “I am Brahman” are nourished by the meditation, the fire of knowledge is churned in oneself and by process of discrimination and by this knowledge all ignorance fades away. In such a fire of knowledge that the ignorance is burnt down just as fuel is consumed by fire. In the explanation given by Swami Chinmayananda, the lower and higher aspects of Self indicate the intellect and the absolute Self.
Acharya is here explaining the need of constant contemplation by giving us a beautiful example. Fire is produced by friction of two wood pieces. By rubbing a piece of wood over another constantly the all consuming fire can be produced. Acharya here is comparing the pieces of wood to the two aspects of Self. The lower piece to the aspect of Self associated with illusory ignorance and antahkarana which is lower and the higher piece of wood to the Self which is the absolute reality or Brahman.
This churning of knowledge is described clearly in Kaivalyopanishad as
aatmaanamaraNiM kR^itvaa praNavaM chottaraaraNim.h
GYaananirmathanaabhyaasaatpaapaM dahati paNDitaH ..
“ A sage thinks of this mind as lower piece of sandalwood, and OM as the upper wood. Through the practice of constant friction between them, he kindles the fire of knowledge which burns up the impurities of mind.”
Thus making the Atman as the lower piece of wood and OM (symbolic representation of Brahman or Supreme Self) as the upper piece of wood, through repeated friction of knowledge, a wise man burns all the bonds.
Acharya is here thus describing the effect of intense mediation. Meditation is but unbroken thought towards an object. Just as how fire can be produced by constant rubbing of two pieces of wood, knowledge is churned out by constant meditation on reality. i.e. when the one constantly contemplates on the Brahman as nature of Self, by this constant contemplation or meditation which is compared to the friction here, the Self knowledge arises. It is this knowledge alone that burns all the desires and bonding and ultimately liberates one from all duality and hence sadness. Hence a seeker must constantly contemplate on the real nature of Self and only with such intense sadhana can one acquire the Self knowledge.
Lord also mentions the same in Gita fourth chapter 19th sloka as “The wise call him learned whose actions are all devoid of all desires and their thoughts and whose actions have been burnt away from the fire of wisdom”. Thus Lord Krishna is thus explaining that the actions, and ignorance that causes them are incinerated by the fire of knowledge and such a one is called by the wise as the learned one.
Such a wise one whose ignorance is burnt by the intense fire of knowledge becomes verily Existence-Consciousness-Bliss alone.
Hari OM
With regards,
Mallika R
What you have is God's gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to God
posted by vedanta | 5:50 AM
2 Comments:
HARI AUM
Prostrations to all.
Please find some comments inline.
There are no distinctions such as “Knower”, the “Knowledge” and the “Object of Knowledge” in the Supreme Self. On account of Its being of the nature of endless Bliss, It does not admit of such distinctions within Itself. It alone shines by Itself.
Believe it is not "endless Bliss" but "knowledge and bliss" which Sankara mentions as chidaananda.
as the Chandogya Upanishad says “Satyam Jnanam Anantham Brahma”, there is no duality of knower nor the object to know or the knowledge.
"Satyam jnaanam anantham brahma" doesn't occur in Chandogya but in Taittiriya - maybe we should refer quotations properly than messing up with the quotation-upanishad pairing.
Thus, Acharya here is explaining to us that for the knower of Brahman who is verily Brahman, there can be no distinctions of the knower, known and knowledge.
We can see this sloka from a different perspective - Sankara is not mentioning about the effect or fruit of realization of Brahman here but he is mentioning that there is no duality whatsoever in Brahman. We cannot find any word in the sloka which tells us that "after realizing, you will become like this" but just the nature of the Self is mentioned. Even though mentioning the nature of Brahman means that if we realize that Brahman, we will have that nature only -- but still here it is not to do with fruit or phala of moksha instead it is svaroopa of Brahman that is mentioned here.
Another apt quoting to prove the first line of the sloka is "Neha nana asthi kinchana" which basically denies duality entirely.
Prostrations to all.
HARI AUM
Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God
HARI AUM
Prostrations to all.
In the sloka 42:
In the below mail, "meditation" and "contemplation" have been used for one another or Mallika is pointing out that "meditation" and "contemplation" is one and the same (though she might not have thought and mentioned it but it could be a loose usage as such).
As far as the limited intellect is concerned, both are not the same. We cannot really find Sankara or advaitins using them intermittently. Meditation or DHYAANA requires a particular asana, control of the mind, one-pointedness of the mind etc. whereas contemplation or nidhidhyaasana doesn't have any such limitations. Contemplation can be done sitting anywhere & while doing any activities whereas dhyaana cannot be done that way.
Yes, very well admit that vidyaranya explains nidhidhyaasana as dhyaana only in the first chapter of panchadashi but that could be "vedantic dhyaana" which is nidhidhyaasana and not the same as Patanjali's dhyaana (dhyaana or meditation of yogic system). Ramana himself doesn't use the word dhyaana while explaining about continous flow of thought like that of oil and pure like that of water in Upadesa Saram.
Thus "personal" conclusion is that dhyaana and nidhidhyaasana or contemplation are not one and the same. Balakrishnan Nair also points out the same only -- maybe if we try to analyze the words of sankara in his bhashya, some light might be thrown -- will try to find out the same.
Till this is clarified or clear, it would be better if we use the word dhyaana and nidhidhyaasana separately --- sankara might have used the word dhyaana in order to meet the chandas or metre of the work & not intentionally. Being students of Vedanta, we ought to use words a bit carefully and not loosely. Will try to find out material and send a separate mail about dhyaana of Patanjali and nidhidhyaasana of vedanta.
Pardon if there has been any confusion or doubts created because of this reply to Mallika's posting.
Prostrations to all.
HARI AUM
Thanks
Hariram
Let a moment not pass by without remembering God
Post a Comment
<< Home