Search:
Bhakti List Archives

bhishma-stuthi-11

From the Bhakti List Archives

M K Sudarshan • June 27, 1997 


srimathE lakshmi-nrsumha parabrahmaNE namaha
sri vedanta guravE namaha

Dear "bhAgavatOttamA-s", 

In the last post, we analysed the first principal message (A) about
'avatara-rahasya' contained in the Lord's pronouncement in the 'Gita' verse
Ch.IV.5 which we translated as follows :

  " Many births have both you and I undergone, O Arjuna. I can remember mine
and yours --- every single one of them. But you, my valiant one, can and
will recollect none !"

The second salient feature of His "avatAra-s" the Lord implied in the above
verse has been pointed out to us by "pUrvAchAryA-s" and it is as follows :

(B) Krishna proclaims that while He can precisely remember and foretell
every single one of His own 'past' and 'future' "appearances", the same
'gnyAnam' or "knowledge" is simply beyond the reach or capacity of mere
mortals like Arjuna or ourselves.

This statement of the Lord is a reminder to us of the nature of
"para-brahmham" being different from that of "jivA" ---- the same difference
which, we saw earlier, Lord Varadaraja of Kanchi indicated Himself to
Sri.Tirukachi-Nambi in the terse statement of an Article of SriRamAnujA
Faith ("siddhAntham") : 
                         
                         "darshanam-bhEdamEvacha"

The point to be appreciated here is that "para-brahmham" is "sarvagnyan" ---
"All-Knowing and Self-Illumined". The "jIva", on the other hand, is
"a-gnyan" -- Ignorant and "one who is in dire need of the Grace of
illumination".

The Supreme One is "Knowledge itself" and there is nothing that remains to
be "known" by Him. Without Him nothing in the World of Creation stands
"known" or "apprehended"; only dark Ignorance ("a-vidyA") and Un-Wisdom
("a-vivEkam") prevail.

In His Presence, on the other hand, everthing extant stands "revealed".
 
What must further be noted here, most importantly, is that "para-brahmham"
by Himself does not need any part of the "knowledge" He bestows ! That is
why He is said to be "different" -- in the sense of "darshanam-bhEdamEvacha" !

"pUrvAchAryA-s" illustrate this esoteric aspect of the Lord's "avatarA" by
using the example of a candle-lamp.

A room enveloped in darkness requires a candle to be lit in order to have
its interior illumined. Now, when the candle is lit, "illumination arrives"
by itself --- we use the phrase "switched-on" ! However, the candle-flame
itself does not require any illumination, does it ?! No, indeed, and that's
because, as we know, the candle-flame is "self-luminous" in nature : while
it "illumines" its surroundings it is really in no need of "illumining
itself" !! By its own intrinsic nature, IT IS ILLUMINATION itself ! If it
did not "illumine" it would not fit the definition of a candle-flame, would it ?

Now, in ancient days, it is said a certain "tArkika-n", a dialectician, in
the course of a debate on the question of the Lord being fully
"knowledgeable" of past and future "births", once cavilled at the statement
that "para-brahmham" is "sarvagnyan" -- the All-Knowing One.

He posed a tricky question countering that statement from the 'Gita' and it
is worthwhile pausing a bit to study it in earnest. It might help us all in
clarifying some of the doubts we might silently entertain but are afraid to
air openly.

The "tArkika-n" raised a very valid question :

If you say Bhagavan is "sarvagnyan" --- He who "Knows" everything and
illumines everything -- then surely He must "know", too, His own Death !! 

We as mortals are called "agnyAni-s" because we lack the "knowledge" or the
"experience" related to our own respective deaths.(We can only "know" the
death of persons other than ourselves as when we watch them "dying"). But
Bhagavan, who is supposed to be "sarvagnyan", surely ought to "know" or be
able to "experience" His Own Death, isn't it ?!!

But if "sarvagnyan" did admit of "knowledge" of Death, then would He not be
trapped into an admission of His mortality ? 

The "tArkika-n", thus, cleverly sought to undermine the logical validity of
the Upanishadic statement on the nature of "para-brahmham" : "satyam gnyAnam
anantham brahmha".

If "brahmham" is said to be "sarvagnyAn", the dialectician argued, then He
ought to certainly "know" Death. If He "knew" Death, then, He could not be
said to be "anantham" i.e. eternal !

On the other hand, if He was truly "anantham", or Deathless, then 'brahmham'
could never be "sarva-gnynan" because, then, He would never be in possession
of the "knowledge" of Death !

Now, As per the rules of dialectics ("tarka-sAstra"), our "AchAryA-s" say,
the above argument seems faultless !

But if you look closely at the argument a fallacy in its logic will emerge.
It is as below :

Consider a statement such as : "I know" a thing ; or even, "I don't know" a
thing.

In both the cases, the statement pre-supposes a thing in existence, isn't it ?
                                 ---------------------------------            
One cannot "know" or "be ignorant" of a thing that does not pre-exist.

"Knowledge" or "Lack of knowledge" both ALWAYS relate to a thing "in existence".
"Knowledge" or "Lack of Knowledge" can never relate to a thing "in non-
existence" or to a "thing" which owes its "existence" only to a pure figment
of cerebral projection such as the Tamilian fantasy called "AhgAya-pandal"
("a pavilion in the clouds") or "sakkarai sottum thEn-mazhai" ("sugary
downpour of honey")!

The Lord in the 'Gita' proclaims His 'sarvagnyatvam' of His past, present
and future "births" on the ground that He is "ajOpi sann-avya-yAtmA" i.e. He
is Un-born. We also saw that the "rk" in the "purusha-suktam" uses the
phrase "ajAya-mAna-ha" to categorically state that He is "un-born".

In fact if one looks closely, neither in the "sruti" nor in the Gita is the
Lord referred to as the "deathless One" ! He is always referred to only as
the "birthless One" or the "unborn One" !

Now, if the Lord is "un-born", as per the above "pramaN-ic" sources, then it
is easy to conclude that His "death" is "non-existent" ! For, how can That
which is "un-born" ever experience Death ? Death cannot "exist" for such an
Un-born Being, can it ?! 

It is therefore proved, Q E D, that in the case of "para-brahmham" which is
"un-born", there is no question of Death at all. And since "gnyAnam"
(knowledge) can only relate to a thing that "exists", the question of the
Lord's "knowledge" of "non-pre-existent" Death does not arise at all ! 

Hence, there is nothing in the "tArkikan's" argument to invalidate the
Vedantic statement: "satyam gnyAnam anantham brahmha" ! 

Our "AchAryA-s" explain astutely, thus, that the "All-embracing knowledge"
or "sarvagnya-tvam" the Lord possesses is attributive only of "All Which
Truly
---------------
Exists" !!                                              
-------

That is why the Upanishad describes "para-brahmham" as not only "gnyAnam"
(Self-luminous illumination) but also as "satyam" (all that which truly exists)!

We cannot trifle, therefore, with "Supreme Knowledge" ("sarvagnyatvam") by
seeking to measure or "bench-mark" its essential nature against the
yardsticks of mere logical categories or dialectical discourse.

              ********************************************************

We will examine the other 4 aspects of the Lord's "avatara-rahasya" echoed
in the BhismAchArya-r's immortal phrase, "yat-Bhava-pravAha-ha", in the next
post.


srimathe srivan satagopa sri narayana yathindra mahadesikaya namaha
sudarshan