[Prev][Next][Index]
Hari stuti of Sankara - Part 2
Hari stuti with translation based on Anandagiri's commentary
------------------------------------------------------------
The previous verse said that ParameSvara (Hari) is the
cause of the world. This has also been established by
Sruti. The view of the sAnkhya school that the PradhAna
consisting of the three guNas is the cause of world is
being refuted.
Verse 3:
--------
sarvajno yo yaSca hi sarvah sakalo yo
yaScAnando' nantaguNo yo guNadhAmA |
yaScAvyakto vyastasamastah sadasadya
stam samsAradhvAntavinASam harimIDe ||
Hari is sarvajnah, one who knows everything, or omniscient.
The Mundaka Upanishad says (1.1.9):
yah sarvajnah sarvavit
He (Brahman) is omniscient and knows everything in detail.
It is impossible for the nonsentient and non-independent
(PradhAna) to be the creator of the diverse world. Such a
creator must necessarily be sarvajna, omniscient.
Hari is verily everything, as the Chandogya Upanishad says,
(3.14.1): "sarvam khalvidam brahma", verily all this is
only Brahman.
Hari is sakalah, infinite.
"pUrNamadah pUrNamidam", that Brahman is infinite (complete)
and this world is infinite (complete). (Br. Up. 5.1.1).
He is Ananda, of the nature of bliss. Anando brahmeti
vyajAnAt, he (bhRgu) knew Bliss as Brahman. (Tai. U. 3.6.1)
yo'nantaguNah, Hari possesses endless attributes. Even so,
He is anantamapAram, endless and infinite. (Br. Up. 2.4.12)
Hari is limited by or controls mAyA endowed with
the three qualities (sattva, rajas, and tamas) and hence
He is called guNadhAmA.
mAyAm tu prakRtim vidyAn mAyinam tu maheSvaram,
mAyA is material nature (prakriti), and the controller
of mAyA is MaheSvara (God). (Sv. Up. 4.10)
Why is it that the Magician or controller of mAyA is not
perceived? Because, He is avyakta, unmanifest and beyond
reach of the senses, although He as the AtmA is the cause
of perception. The Bhagavad Gita says (2.25):
avyakto'yamacintyo'yamavikAryo'yamucyate |
tasmAdevam viditvainam nAnusocitumarhasi ||
This AtmA (soul) is unmanifest, inconceivable, and
changeless. Knowing him thus, you should not lament.
Hari is beyond the reach of sense organs; but this does
not mean He is merely fanciful imagination, like the horns
of a man. He is not a nonexistent entity. This universe which
is vyastasamasta, spread out in all directions, is also His
form.
Hari is both sat, existence and asat, nonexistence.
satyam cAnRtam ca satyamabhavat, the absolute truth (Brahman)
became both the empirical truth and untruth. (Tai. Up. 2.6.1)
tam samsAradhvAntavinASam harimIDe, etc. as in previous verses.
Next, (Sankara) refutes the opinion of VaiSeShikas who say that
atomic particles are the material cause of the world. But
Hari as the ParamAtmA is not just the efficient cause
of the world, as the following verse shows.
Verse 4:
--------
yasmAdanyad nAstyapi naivam paramArtham
dRSyAdanyo nirviShayajnAnamayatvAt |
jnAtRjnAnajneyavihIno 'pi sadA jna
stam samsAradhvAntavinASam harimIDe ||
yasmAdanyad nAsti, there is nothing (in the universe) which is
different from Hari.
sadeva somyedamagra AsIdekamevAdvitIyam |
O Somya! Before creation this Brahman was sat, existence. That
Brahman as sat was One without a second. (Ch. Up. 6.2.1)
naivam paramArtham, there is no truth higher than Hari.
Hari is the pAramArthika sattvam, the Absolute Existence, because
He is dRSyAdanyo, different from what is perceived here in the
world. Whatever is cognized here in the world is ultimately
mithyA, not real, just as the appearance of silver in the
oyster-shell is not real. But Hari is different from what is
cognized in the world, which is mithyA.
The BRhadAraNyaka Upanishad (3.7.23) says:
adRShTo draShTA aSrutah SrotA amato mantA avijnAto vijnAtA ;
nAnyo'to'sti draShTA nAnyo'to'sti SrotA nAnyo'to'sti mantA
nAnyo'to'sti vijnAtA, eSha ta AtmAntaryAmyamRtah, ato'nyad
Artam; tato hoddAlaka AruNirupararAma ||
He (Brahman) is not seen, but He is the Seer; He is not
heard, but He is the Hearer; He is not thought about, but He
is the Thinker; He is not known, but He is the Knower. There
is no seer other than He; there is no Hearer other than He;
there is no thinker other than He; there is no knower other
than He. He is your own Self (AtmA), the Inner Controller
(antaryAmin) and immortal. Everything else is full of sorrow,
and perishable. After saying this, Uddalaka, the son of Aruna,
became silent.
From this it follows that the appearance of the world as the
effect produced by the cause, Hari, is also not the Absolute
Truth. Why is Hari different from anything that is cognized?
Hari is nirviShayajnAnamaya, knowledge which does not
pertain to any object. The BRhadAraNyaka describes Him as
"vijnAnaghana", a mass of Consciousness, (2.4.12). Hari is
understood to be of the nature of knowledge that does not
require any object.
Hari who is kUTasthajnAna, immutable knowledge that is
Self-centered, is also sarvajna, omniscient. How?
jnAtRjnAnajneyavihIno 'pi sadA jnah, Even though Hari as Brahman
is pure knowledge devoid of any notion of jnAtR, cognizer, jnAna
knoweldge, or jneya, the cognized object, due to the limiting
adjunct (mAyA) He is sadA jnah the omniscient (ISvara).
(Note: Suresvaracarya, in his Naishkarmya siddhi, points
out that none of the triad- the cognizer, the cognized and
the cognition- has light of its own. They cannot know
themselves nor can they know each other. They are revealed
by the kUTastha caitanya, the immutable consciousness.)
apANipAdo javano grahItA paSyatyacakShuh sa SRNotyakarNah |
sa vetti vedyam na ca tasyAsti vettA tamAhuragryam puruSham
mahAntam ||
The Supreme Purusha is without hands or feet. Yet He moves
very swiftly and holds (objects). He is without eyes, but
sees everything; He is without ears, but He hears everything.
Whatever is to be known is known by Him, but nobody knows
Him (completely). They call this chief God the Supreme
Purusha. (Svetasvatara Upanishad 3.19)
tam samsAradhvAntavinASam harimIDe, etc. as in previous verses.
(To be continued)
Note: In translating some of the quotes, I have taken the
liberty of including some of the context in which the quote
appears in the Upanishad/Smriti. This will not affect the
intended meaning of the commentary in any way.
Anand
