shrI Shankara charitam: exposition by KAnchi ParamAchArya

[saidevo]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

**********