[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Advaita in the Vishnu Purana?
I came across a translation of the Vishnu Purana and found therein
an episode which was very, very much like Advaita in its pristine form.
No wonder Adi Sankara referred to it.
The story is so beautiful that it's not possible to be unmoved by it
spiritually...
I'm referring to the Book 2, Chapter 14 of the Vishnu Purana...
--------------------------------------------
A prince asks the question of the Sage Parasara,"...It now remains of you to
keep your promise and tell me the story of king Bharata...How a monarch
like him, residing constantly at the holy place Salagrama, and engaged in
meditation of Vasudeva, failed to obtain final emancipation; how it was
that he was born again as a Brahmin; and what was done by the magnanimous
Bharata in that capacity..."
Sage Parasara narrates-...The illustrious monarch, Maitreya, resided for
sometime at Salagrama, his thoughts wholly dedicated to God, and distinguished
by kindness and every virtue...and gained entire control over his mind.
The Raja was ever repeating the names Achyuta, Govinda, Madhava...nothing else
did he utter even in his dreams; nor upon anything but those names and their
import did he ever meditate. He accepted fuel, flowers and holy grass for the
worship of the deity, but performed no other religious rites, being engrossed
by disinterested, abstract devotion.
On one occasion, he went to the Mahanadi for the purpose of ablution...
there came to the place a doe big with young to drink of the stream...Whilst
quenching her thirst, there was heard on a sudden the roaring of a lion...
on which the doe, alarmed, jumped out of the water onto the bank.
In consequence of this great leap, her fawn was suddenly brought forth and fell
into the river; and the king, seeing it carried away by the current, caught
hold of the young animal and saved it from being drowned. The injury received
by the deer proved fatal and she lay down and died; which being observed by
the royal ascetic, he took the fawn in his arms and returned with it to his
hermitage. There , he fed it and tended it everyday...it frolicked about the
cell and grazed upon the grass in the vicinity...every morning it sallied forth
from home, and every evening returned to the thatched shelter of Bharata.
The mind of the king was ever anxious about the animal...and he was unable
to think of anything else. He had relinquished his kingdom, his friends, his
children, and now indulged in affection for a fawn...."The earth is embrowned
by the impressions of its hoofs. What has become of the deer, that was born
for my delight? How happy I should be if he had returned from the thicket,
and I felt his antlers rubbing against my arm. These tufts of sacred grass,
of which the heads have been nibbled by his new teeth, look like pious
lads chanting the Sama-Veda." Thus the Muni meditated whenever the deer was long
absent from him...The firmness of the his mind became unsteady, and wandered
with the wandering of the deer... In course of time, the king became subject
to its influence...He died, watched by the deer, with tears
in his eyes, like a son mourning for his father; and he himself, as he expired,
cast his eyes upon the animal, and thought of nothing else...
In consequence, he was born again...in the Jambumarga forest as a deer,
with the faculty of recalling his former life...which recollection brought
in him a distaste for the world, and he left them and went to Salagrama...
Subsisting upon dry grass and leaves, he atoned for his acts which had led to
his being born as in such a condition; and upon his death, was
born as a Brahmin, still retaining memory of his previous existence...
He was born to an illustrious family of ascetics, who were rigid observers
of devotional rites ...possessed of true wisdom, he beheld the
soul as contradistinguished from matter(Prakriti). Imbued with the knowledge
of the self, he beheld the gods and all other beings in reality the same...
It did not happen to him to undergo investiture with the Brahminical thread,
nor to read the Vedas with a spiritual preceptor, nor to perform
ceremonies, nor to study the scriptures...
When spoken to, he would reply incoherently and in ungrammatical and unpolished
speech...his person was unclean and saliva dribbled from his mouth...
and he was treated with contempt by all...Regard for the consideration
of the world is fatal to the success of devotion. The ascetic who is
despised of men attains the end of abstractions. Let therefore a holy man
pursue the path of the righteous, without association with mankind.
This, the counsel of Hiranyagarbha did the Brahmin call to mind, and hence
assumed the appearance of a crazy idiot in the eyes of the world. His food
was raw pulse, potherbs, wild fruit and grains of corn. Whatever came in his
way, he ate, as part of a necessary, but temporary infliction(as a Kala
Sanyama, a state of suffering or mortification lasting only for a season;
or, in other words, bodily existence; the body being contemplated as a sore,
for which the food is the unguent; drink the lotion; and dress, the bandage)...
Upon his father's death, he was set to work on the fields by his brothers
and nephews, and fed by them with vile food...he was a slave of those that
chose to employ him...
The head servant of king Sauvira, looking upon him as an indolt, untaught
Brahmin, thought him a fit person to work without pay (and took him into
his master's service to assist in carrying the palanquin)...
The king, on one occasion, was proceeding to the hermitage of Kapila
on the banks of the Ikshumati river...to consult the sage, to whom the
virtues leading to liberation were known, what was most desirable in a world
abiding with care and sorrow.
Among those that carried the palanquin was the Brahmin...who, endowed with
the only universal knowledge, and remembering his former existence, bore the
burden as the faults for which he was desirous to atone...
...he went tardily along and the king, feeling the litter carried unevenly,
exclaimed how irregularly he was going," Are you weary? You have carried
your burden but a little way; are you unable to bear the fatigue? And yet
you look robust."
The Brahmin answered," It is not I who am robust, nor is it by me that
your palanquin is carried. I am not wearied, prince, nor am I capable of
fatigue."
The king said," I clearly see that you are stout and that the
palanquin is carried by you; and the carriage of a burden is wearisome to
all persons."
The Brahmin replied," First tell me, what it is of me that you have
clearly seen, and then you may distinguish my properties as strong or
weak. The assertion that you behold the palanquin borne by me or placed by me,
is untrue. Listen, O prince, to what I have to remark. The place of both the
feet is on the ground; the legs are supported by the feet and the thighs rest
upon the legs; the belly reposes on the thighs and the chest is
supported by the belly and the arms and shoulders propped up by the chest.
the palanquin is borne on my shoulders and how can it be considered to be
my burden? This body which is seated in the palanquin is called Thou;
thence what is elsewhere is called This, is here distinguished as I and Thou.
I and Thou and others are constructed of the elements; and the elements,
following the stream of qualities, assume a bodily shape; but qualities, such as
goodness and the rest, are dependant upon acts; and acts, accumulated in ignorance,
influence the condition of all beings. The pure imperishable soul, tranquil,
void of qualities, pre-eminent over nature(Prakriti) is One, without increase
or diminution, in all bodies. But if it be equally exempt from increase
or diminution, then with what propriety can you say to me, "thou art robust"?
If the palanquin rests on the body, the body on the feet, the feet on the
earth, then the palanquin is borne as much by you as by me. When the nature
of men is different, either in its essence or its cause, then it may be said
that fatigue is said to be undergone by me. That which is the substance of
the palanquin is the substance of you and me and all others, being an aggregate
of elements, aggregated by individuality."
Having thus spoken the Brahmin was silent, and went on bearing the
palanquin. But the king leaped out of it, hastened to prostrate himself
at the Brahmin's feet,saying," Have compassion on me, Brahman, and cast
aside the palanquin. Tell me who Thou art, thus disguised under the appearance
of a fool." The Brahmin answered," Hear me, Raja. Who I am is not possible
to say : arrival at any place is for the sake of fruition; and enjoyment of
pleasure, or endurance of pain, is the cause of the production of the body.
A living being assumes a corporeal form to reap the results of virtue or vice.
The universal cause of all living creatures is virtue or vice: why therefore
inquire the cause(of my being the person I appear)."
The king said," Undoubtedly virtue and vice are the causes of all existent
effects, and migration into several bodies is for the purpose of receiving
their consequences; but with respect to what you have asserted, that it is
not possible for you to tell me who you are, that is a matter which I am
desirous to hear explained. How can it be impossible, Brahman, for anyone
to declare himself to be that which he is? There can be no detriment to
one's self by the application to it of the characteristic word 'I'."
The Brahman said,"It is true that no wrong is done to that which is
one's-self by the application of the word 'I'; but it characteristic of error,
of conceiving that to be the self (or soul) which is not self or soul.
The tongue articulates the word 'I', aided by the lips, the teeth and the
palate; and they are the causes of the production of speech. If, by these
instruments speech is able to utter the word 'I', it is nevertheless improper
to assert that speech itself is 'I'. The body of a man, characterised by
hands, feet and the like, is made up of various parts; to which of these
can I properly apply the denomination 'I'? If another being is different specifically
from me, most excellent monarch, then it may be said, "this" is I, "that"
is the other: but when only one soul is dispersed in all bodies, it is then
idle to say, "Who are you?", "Who am I?". Thou art a king; this is a palanquin;
these are the bearers; these are the running footmen; this is thy retinue;
yet it is untrue that all these are said to be thine. The palanquin on which
thou sittest is made of timber derived from a tree. What then? Is it denominated
either timber or tree? People do not say that the king is perched upon a tree,
nor that he is seated upon a piece of wood, when you have mounted your
palanquin. The vehicle is an assemblage of pieces of timber, artificially
joined together: judge for yourself in what the palanquin differs really from
the wood. Again, contemplate the sticks of an umbrella in their separate state.
Where then is the umbrella? Apply this reasoning to a thee and me.
A man, a woman, a cow, a goat, a horse, an elephant, a bird, a tree, are names
assigned to various bodies, which are consequences of acts.
Man( the term in this and the preceding clause is Puman; here used generically,
there specifically ) is neither a god nor a man, nor a brute, nor a tree; these
are mere varieties of shape, the effects of acts. The thing which in the world
is called a king, the servant of a king, or by any other appellation, is not
a reality; it is the creature of our imaginations: for what is there in the
world that is subject to vicissitude, that does not in the course of time go
by different names. Thou art called the monarch of the world; the son of thy
father; the enemy of thy foes; the husband of thy wife; the father of thy
children. What shall I denominate thee? How art thou situated? Art thou the
head or the belly? Or are they thine? Art thou the feet? Or do they belong
to thee? Thou art, O king, distinct in thy nature from all members! Now then,
rightly understanding the question, think who I am; and how it is possible
for me, after the truth is ascertained(of the identity of all), to recognise
any distinction, or to speak of my individuality by the expression 'I'."
Parasara continues- Having heard these remarks, full of profound truth, the
king was highly pleased with the Brahman, and respectfully thus addressed him:
" What you have said is no doubt the truth; but in listening to it, my mind
is much disturbed. You have shown 'that' to be discriminative wisdom which
exists in all creatures, and which is the great principle that is distinct
from plastic nature; but the assertions-"I do not bear the palanquin-
the palanquin does not rest upon me-the body, by which the vehicle is
conveyed, is different from me- the conditions of elementary beings are
influenced by acts, through the influence of the qualities, and the qualities
are the principles of action"- what sort of positions are these? Upon these
doctrines entering into my ears, my mind, which is anxious to investigate truth,
is lost in perplexity. It was my purpose, illustrious sage, to have gone to
Sage Kapila Rishi to inquire of him what in this life was the most desirable
object: but now that I have heard from you such words, my mind turns to you,
to become acquainted with the great goal of life. The rishi Kapila is
a portion of the universal Vishnu, who has come down upon the world to
dissipate delusion; and surely it is he who, in kindness to me, has thus
manifested himself to me in all that you have said. To me, thus suppliant,
then, explain what is the best of all things; for thou art an ocean overflowing
with the waters of divine wisdom." The Brahman replied to the king,
" You, again, ask me what is the best(Sreyas) of all things, not what is the
great goal(Paramartha) of life; but there are many things which are considered
best, as well as those which are the great ends (or truths) of life.
To him who, by the worship of the gods, seeks for wealth, prosperity,children
or dominion, each of these is respectively the best. Best is rite or
sacrifice, that is rewarded with heavenly pleasures. Best is that which
yields the best recompense, although it be not solicited. Self-contemplation,
ever practised by devout ascetics, is to them the best. But the best of all
is the identification of soul with the Supreme spirit. Hundreds and thousands
of conditions may be called the best; but these are not the great and true
ends of life. Hear what those are. Wealth cannot be the true end of life,
for it may be relinquished through virtue, and its characteristic property
is expenditure for the gratification of desire. If a son were the final
truth, that would be equally applicable to a different source; for the son
that is to one the great end of life, becomes the father of another.
Final or supreme truth, therefore, would not exist in this world, as in
all these cases those objects which so denominated are the effects of
causes, and consequently are not finite. If the acquisition of sovereignty
were designated by the character of being the great end of all, then finite
ends would sometimes be, sometimes cease to be. If you suppose that the objects
to be effected by sacrificial rites, performed according to the rules of
the Rik, Yajur, and Sama Vedas, be the great end of life, attend to what I
have to say. Any effect which is produced through the causality of earth
partakes itself of clay; so any act performed by perishable agents, such as
fuel, clarified butter, and the Kusa grass, must itself be transitory.
The great end of life (or truth) is considered by the wise, to be eternal;
but it would be transitory if it were accomplished through transitory
things. If you imagine that this great truth is the performance of
religious acts from which no recompense is sought, it is not so; for such
acts are the means of obtaining liberation, and the truth is the end,
not the means. Meditation on the self, again, is said to be for the sake
of supreme truth; but the object of this is to establish distinctions
(between soul and body), and the great truth of all is without distinctions.
Union of self with the supreme spirit is said to be the great end of all,
but this is false; for one substance cannot become substantially another.
Objects, then, which are considered most desirable, are infinite.
What the great end is, you shall, monarch, briefly learn from me.
It is soul : one ( in all bodies ), pervading, uniform, perfect, pre-eminent over
nature(Prakriti), exempt from birth, growth and decay, omnipresent, made up
of true knowledge, independent, and unconnected with unrealities, with name,
species and the rest, in time present, past or to come. The knowledge that
this spirit, which is essentially one, is in one's own and in all other
bodies, is the great end, or true wisdom, of one who knows the unity
and the true principles of things. As one diffusive air, passing through the
perforations of a flute, is distinguished as the notes of the scale(Sharga
and the rest), so the nature of the great spirit is single, though its
forms be manifold, arising from the consequences of acts. When the
difference of the investing form as that of god or the rest, is destroyed,
then there is no distinction."
Book 2, Chapter 15
Parasara continued," Having terminated these remarks, the Brahman repeated
to the silent and meditating prince a tale illustrative of the doctrines
of Unity. "Listen, prince, to what was formerly uttered by Ribhu, imparting
holy knowledge to the Brahman Nidagha..." ...
--------------------------
sincerely,
Kartik
