Preceptors of advaitham contd part 9 10 24 KR IRS KALIDASA
*by* K. Chandrasekharan M.A., B.L. Describing Kālidāsa Śrī Aurobindo said, “He is a true son of his age in his dwelling on the artistic, hedonistic, sensuous sides of experience, and pre-eminently a poet of love and beauty and joy of life. He represents it also in his intellectual passion for higher things, culture, the religious idea, the ethical ideal, the greatness of ascetic self-mastery; and these too he makes a part of the beauty and interest of life and sees as admirable elements of its complete and splendid picture”.Further, according to him, Kālidāsa, ‘in creed was a Vedāntist and in ceremony perhaps a Śiva-worshipper’.[2] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62912.html#note-e-32935> The term Vedanta has become identified with Advaita, and thus great intellectuals like Śrī Aurobindo have hardly doubted in dubbing Kālidāsa an Advaitin. Any careful student of the poet will not fail to discern his deeper convictions based on Advaitic thought, though none can dogmatise his having passed through the discipline of a systematised philosophy. Advaita itself was later much developed into an unshakable system by no less a *Draṣṭā* and Master-mind than Śaṅkara. Some of the axiomatic doctrines of Advaita like *brahma satyam, jagan mithyā,* (Absolute is real; World is an illusion); or the process of elimination in arriving at Truth by the method of *‘neti, neti’* (Not this, not this), rarely receive any echo in the poet’s phraseology or philosophical dissertations. Nevertheless, one cannot escape the conclusion that no other poet of the classical age has so much elevated the spirit in man as of an indivisible part of the One Supreme Reality. The one sovereign thought ever ruling him was that of the immanence of Spirit *(sarvātmabhāva)* . Kālidāsa has picturesquely expressed what the *Chāndogyopaniṣad* has proclaimed in no equivocal terms as: *esho’ṇima aitadātmyamidam sarvam tat satyam sa ātmā.* (The subtle essence, all this is of the nature ol That. That is Truth, That is the Self). We find him, in his eulogy of Brahma, bringing home to us the idea of the All-pervading Spirit as actuating everything of the manifest Universe: *dravaḥ saṃghāta-kathinaḥ sthulaḥ sūkṣmo laghurguruḥ, vyaktāvyaktetaraśchāsi prākāmyam te vibhūtishu*.[3] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62912.html#note-e-32936> (You are in liquid form as well as in the hardest material; you are perceptible to the senses as well as too subtle and beyond perception; you are light as well as heavy; you are the cause as well as the effect; you are thus manifest in everything, according to your own pleasure). Nothing in animate or inanimate nature, neither human nor animal, strikes him as of a different origin or existence from an all-powerful Reality. Hence his further elaboration of the same thought when he perceives an unity of spirit in every object and substance: *tvameva havyam hotā cha bhojyam bhoktā cha śāśvataḥ, vedyam cha veditā chāsi dhyātā dhyeyam cha yatparam*.[4] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62912.html#note-e-32937> (You are the oblation as well as the sacrificer; you are the food as well as the eternal enjoyer of it; you are the aim of knowledge as well as the knower; you are the supreme object of meditation as well as the meditator), Needless to remind ourselves of a parallel passage in the *Gītā* where the Lord tells Arjuna how the same Supreme Brahman dwells in all: *brahmārpaṇam brahmahavir-brahmāgnau brahmaṇā hutam brahmaiva tena gantavyaṃ brahma-karma-samādhinā.*[5] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62912.html#note-e-32938> (The oblation, the act of offering, the fire, the officiating priest every work is the same Ātman and tends towards the same goal). It is not by a process of ratiocination that Kālidāsa reaches the kernel of Advaita. He does not proceed by the established path but ever crosses to his destination by the green meadow of poetry. In the language of simile and metaphor, by imagery and example, he makes us believe in a higher existence than what meets our eye here below. Again he will not be satisfied with salvation for the individual alone but for the entire universe. Insentient beings like trees and rivers appear to him possessed of the Universal Spirit. Otherwise he would not have drawn so much upon them for enlivening our conception of the beauty of life. To him both Ūrvaśī and a gliding river happen to present the same engrossing content for decorations of his imagination: *taraṅgabhrūbhaṅgā kṣubhitavihagaśreṇi-raśanā vikarshantī phenam vasanamiva samraṃbha-śithilam, padāviddham yāntī skhalitamabhisandhāya bahuśo nadībhāveneyam dhruvamasahanā sā paṛṇatā.*[6] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62912.html#note-e-32939> (The wavelets reminding quivering eye-brows, the flock of white cranes in serried flights appearing like the girdle of pearls round the waist, the foam-embroidered waters flowing back as if the frills of her skirt are withdrawn, the winding zig-zag course reminding her quick steps indicating exasperation at my lapses— all these make me believe Ūrvaśī has assumed the form of the river). Kālidāsa has here represented Purūravas, the hero, as searching for his sweetheart and mistaking the river for his partner. Apart from the beauty of the imagery, one cannot be lost to a sense of sameness in both Ūrvaśī and the river that the king entertains by this comparison. Kālidāsa could feel with as much intensity of sympathy for true lovers in their pangs of separation as he would for the Chakravāka pair lost to each other by the blinding darkness of the night. They only forcibly remind us of the poet’s expansive heart ready to embrace the entire life within him. A truer Advaitin in experience is hard to imagine. One may perhaps dismiss this as pure imagination, beautiful no doubt, but possessing nothing more in it to convey a consciousness of the Unity of Spirit in all life around. Still, one can provide stronger evidences to prove how Kālidāsa unmistakably tries to show that life around is one and the same except that it has assumed different forms and shapes. Everything proves, on ultimate analysis, to be permeated by no less a spirit than what the human beings imagine they exclusively possess. A situation is created by the poet in the play, *Śākuntalam,* when the kokil's voice is chosen in reply to the sage’s request by the forest creatures, especially trees, to shower their benediction on the young wife leaving her parental abode for her husband’s. *anumatagamanā śakuntalā tarubhiṛyam vanavāsabandhubhiḥ, parabhṛtavirutaṃ kalaṃ yathā prativachanīkṛtamebhīrīdṛśam*.[7] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62912.html#note-e-32940> (Śakuntalā has been permitted to take her leave by these her kinsfolk of forest-dwelling trees; with the kokil’s sweet note, the reply of these trees has been signified). It is worthy of notice that the words used are *vanavāsabandhubhiḥ,* the forest-dwelling trees who are her kin. They certainly convey the normal attitude of the poet towards insentient beings as having very little of a difference so far as their behaviour is concerned, from that of the humans. In this context it may be fruitful to recollect the verse in the *Śrīmad Bhāgavata* where Vyāsa while chasing his son Śuka cries ‘My son’, ‘Oh my son’, which cry was replied to by the trees, which bespeaks of their identification with the sage Śuka owing to the indwelling spirit being the same: *putreti tanmayatayā taravo’bhineduḥ.* The consciousness of an immanent Spirit in all creatures, dumb as well as vocal, animate as well as inanimate, influenced the poet’s outlook so much that whenever an opportunity presented itself for his emphasis of it, he showed no tardiness or indifference to declare it. He did if in his own way, which is the poetic way, singularly refreshing both in its choice of subject and picture of portrayal. To add one more instance how nature and man reciprocate each other and how sympathy in joy and sorrow can be shared w *i* th each other, we can take the scene where Aja, at the sight of his queen’s sudden passing away, was plunged in the deepest gloom, while the birds in the neighbourhood were affected by his pathetic condition. *ubhayorapi pārśva-vartinām tumulenārtaraveṇa vejitāḥ, vihagāḥ kamalākarālayāḥ samaduḥkhā iva tatra chukruśuḥ. (Raghuvaṃśa,* 8-39) (When the attendants about the royal pair raised their wail of pain, the frightened birds dwelling in the nearby lotus-pools expressed by their clamorous sounds their sympathy in his bereavement). It is Kālidāsa’s own inimitable method of comparing the beauty of the human with that of other beings in nature, point by point even, and with a sense of adequacy in having comprehended all life by such a soulful survey. We know that the Yakṣa, pining for his beloved in a distant land, could not but decipher his love’s varied charms distributed, as it were, among many objects in nature. *śyāmāsvaṅgam chakitahaṛṇīprekṣaṇe dṛṣṭipātam vaktrachchhāyām śaśini śikhinām barhabhāreshu keśān*, *utpaśyāmi pratanuṣu nadī-vīchishu bhrūvilāsān hantaikosmin kvachidapi na te chaṇḍi sādṛśyam asti. (Meghasandeśa)* (Oh thou petulant one! Nowhere do I find all the different charms gathered up in a single being as in you; because the tender creepers bear only the delicacy of your figure; the deer share the tremulousness of their eyes alone with yours; the moonlight partakes the glow of your ivory cheeks; the burden of the peacock’s plumes reminds your heavy tresses, the ever dancing wavelets have caught the quiver of your brows). Unless one has experienced so great an intensity of life as to feel an absence of completeness without actively mixing in spirit with all, he could not have set a great store by the companionship and sympathy with others, even if they happened to be insentient beings. Sage Kaṇva is represented as one whose power was in no way less than that of a Viśvāmitra, if he wanted to create things. But what happened actually was, the spirits of the forest endowed Śakuntalā with costly silks, fine cosmetics and bright jewels—all because of their eagerness to participate in the parental fondness of Kaṇva for bestowing on his loving daughter, at her departure, the good things of life. Not satisfied with the gifts of the forest-spirits to the maiden whose parting caused such a wrench in the hearts of the forest dwellers, the poet would move us to the core by the rarer gift of sympathy from the mute world around, when he makes the deer swallow not their mouthfuls of grass, the peacocks complete not their dances and the creepers restrain not their tears in the falling of leaves on the ground. *udgalita-darbha-kavalā mṛgyaḥ parityaktanartanā mayūrāḥ, apasṛta-pāṇḍupatrāḥ munchantyaśrūṇīva latāḥ. (Śākuntalam,* iv-12) This is Kālidāsa in his fullest measure of comprehension of the one Universal Spirit pervading all life. May be an unimaginative critic or a stickler for accuracy will require more specific instances to show the poet’s unshakable belief in the Advaitic thought. We can satisfy all such doubters by pointing to them the many verses of his where he refers to the One indivisible and inscrutable Ātman, which yet for *t* he sake of apparent manifestation assumes the Trimūrti aspects of creation, protection and annihilation. *namo viśvasṛje pūrvam viśvam tadanu bibhrate, atha viśvasya saṃhartre iubhyam tredhā sthitātmane. (Raghuvaṃśa* 10-10) (You create the world first, then you strive to guard it against danger and finally destroy it—all these are your own triple aspects.) Again he describes the Supreme Spirit in these words: *rasāntarāṇyekarasam yathā divyam payo’śnute deśe deśe guṇeshvevam avasthāstvam avikṛyaḥ. (Raghuvaṃśa* 10-17). (Just as the rain, however tasteless, acquires varied tastes by falling on different spots of the earth, so also changeless as you are, you still assume attributes according to your own pleasure). One can perceive that this idea is not far removed from the statement in the *Kaṭhopaniṣad* (ii, 15): *yathodakam śuddhe śuddhamāsiktam tādṛgeva bhavati evam muner vijānata ātmā bhavati gautama.* (O Gautama, as pure water poured on pure water becomes verily the same, so also does become the Self of the man of knowledge who understands). If Advaita postulates the supreme merit of knowledge as by itself the goal of all life’s strivings, then Kālidāsa unerringly suggests such an achievement. When he wrote of Raghu campaigning against the Persians and leading his army by the land-route, he observes: *pārasīkān tato jetum pratosthe sthalavartmanā, indṛyākhyāniva ripūn tattvajñānena saṃyamī*. (*Raghuvaṃśa,* 4-60). (Then he set out to conquer the Persians by the land-route even as a disciplined person would seek to conquer his senses by the power of reasoning and deliberation). Mark the word *tattva-jñānena,* (by knowledge of Truth) used by the poet. No greater indication is required to prove that the path of knowledge *(vichāramārga)* was preferred by the poet. Apart from the knowledge of geography he had, the fact of the existence of perhaps a sea-route also to reach the same place gives the further emphasis of a choice by him of the route which was less risky or more advantageous to travelling. Captivated by solitude and environmental tranquillity, the poet never tires of taking his kings to the forest for a life of rest and meditation after they had had their fill of worldly enjoyment and material comforts. Moreover fascinated by yoga as a sure disciplinary method for the attainment of liberation, he invariably talks of some of the monarchs resorting to the practice of yoga for attaining ultimate release from all earthly bonds: *anapāyipadopalabdhaye ragkurāptaiḥ samiyāya yogibhiḥ. (Raghuvaṃśa,* 8-17) (For securing the timeless life, Raghu sought the company of Yogis of genuine calibre). One can trace a suggestion in the *Pañchadaśī* of Vidyāraṇya, that Yoga may be equated to an *upāsanī* tor reaching the *Nirguṇa-Brabman* (Formless One). *nirguṇabrahmatattvasya na hyupāsterasaṃbhavaḥ, saguṇabrahmaṇīvātra pratyayāvṛttisaṃbhavāt.* *(Upāsanā* is not impossible because of its application to nirguṇa Brahman. For, as in the case of Saguṇa, *Upāsanā* can be practised, but only by the method of frequent and repealed dwelling upon it.) For obtaining self-knowledge, Śāstra requires the seeker to attempt first total destruction of all *pūrva-saṃskāras* (past deeds) by the fire of one’s own knowledge. Kālidāsa very pertinently points out how Raghu tried to have himself purified in the fire of his own thought. *itaro dahane svakarmaṇām vavṛte jñānamayena vanhinā. (Raghuvaṃśa* 8-20). (The other [Raghu] attempted to bum out every bit of his accumulated past *saṃskāras* in the fire of his knowledge). One has only to remember the *Gītā* verse in order to be convinced of the accuracy of the poet’s observation. *yasya sarve samāraṃbhāḥ kāmasaṃkalpavarjitāḥ, jñānāgnidagdha-karmāṇam tamāhuḥ paṇḍitam budhāḥ* . (4-18) (One whose actions have all no personal motives of self-advance and whose past deeds have all been burnt in the fire of knowledge, him alone would the wise call a sage, the best-equipped). The road to salvation is not a smooth one. It is beset with many a pitfall. The traveller needs poise of mind and a balanced judgment if he has to tread it with safety and sureness of purpose. The mind of a Sthitaprajña has been deemed as of utter need if one wants even in this life the satisfaction of Realisation. For that he must strive to be unaffected by both joy and sorrow, gain and loss, pleasure and pain. Kālidāsa has made a *Sthitaprajña* of Raghu by his constant reminder of the idea of gold and mud as of no different consequence to him. *raghurapyajayat guṇatrayam prakṛtistham samaloṣṭakāñchanaḥ, (Raghuvaṃśa,* 8-21). (Raghu with equal disdain of both gold and a clod of clay, conquered the three *Guṇas by* adopting a changeless outlook). Perhaps it may be said that Kālidāsa felt sannyāsa-āśrama as of dire need for a seeker of the Immortal Self. Otherwise he would not have referred to the king’s taking to sannyāsa: so *kilāśramamantyamāśrito nivasannāvasathe purādbahiḥ, (Raghuvaṃśa* 8-14) (Having entered upon the last āśrama [sannyāsa], he began staying away from the city outskirts). We are not sure whether Kālidāsa shared the view of some of the Advaitins who have chalked out a course of preparation wherein Sannyāsa occupies prominence for attainment of liberation. *ātmajñāna-śeṣatvāchcha saimyāsasya sarvatrātmajñānaprakaraṇe sannyāsasya vihitatvāt śravaṇādyaṅgatayā cha ātmajñānaphalatā sannyāsasya siddhā. (Vivaraṇa,* Calcutta Sanskrit Series, p. 694) (It is affirmed that for Self-realisation in its context the efforts of listening, contemplating, etc., will have their fulfilment only through sannyāsa). One senses even a crowning thought in Kālidāsa towards the state of *Brahma-bhāva.* Speaking of a later monarch of the Raghu line by name Kauśalya, he writes describing his final resolve to become a *Brahmaniṣṭha* by pursuing meditation and tapas. *yaśobhiḥ ābrahmasabhaṃ prakāśaḥ sa brahmabhūyaṃ gatimājagāma. (Raghuvaṃśa,* 18-28) (With his fame reaching even the Brahmaloka, he followed the path to become actually one with Brahman). Detachment and selfless action which alone can lead one gradually to the acquisition of the true spirit of Advaita are frequently dwelt upon by this national poet of India. In two epithets he describes Dilīpa, the earliest king of the Raghu line, thus: *agṛdhnuvādade so’rtham asaktaḥ sukhamanvabhūt (Raghuvaṃśa,* 1-21) (One who earned wealth without avarice and enjoyed life without attachment). He feels detachment is the only passport to the shining land lit by the eternal sunshine of Ānanda. Unique as was Kālidāsa’s perception of love, his sense of values did not abandon him even in a situation of conflicting ideals. It is evident, from his narration of the love-episode of Śiva and Umā having its summation in a spiritual union, how the moorings of his culture aided him on to prefer purity to the appeal of the flesh, constancy to the lure of passion. At the same time he was not for renunciation and austerity without the necessary preparation of a mature mind. In a verse of his where Vaśiṣṭha counsels Aja to get reconciled to the inevitability of fate’s workings, there is an intriguing thought expressed by the poet in the line: *tadalabdhapadaṃ hṛdi śokaghane pratiyātamivāntikamasya guroḥ.* (His heart crushed under the sorrow did not receive the words of consolation; they [the words of advice] returned, as it were, to the preceptor himself). Evidently Kālidāsa was amused at the sage advice of Vaśiṣṭha without his finding out whether premature consolation would work its way into the heart of the king, lacerated as it was by grief. Further, it is clear that the poet wants to impress on his readers that however wise Vaśiṣṭha might be, he could not really comprehend the depth of true love practised as a Yoga by both Aja and Indumatī. Otherwise the poet would not have ended their love episode as having its culmination in their regained union in the halcyon bowers of svarga. The purpose of Kālidāsa in presenting the picture of Aja’s love may be to remind us that mere austerity and renunciation by themselves will not always take one to any great Understanding. There may be other paths such as that of love which should not be forgotten by those who pin their faith on Knowledge. Tolerance has, according to him, a place in any scheme of striving for the higher life, especially to one imbued with the spirit of Advaita. Even as Vālmīki and Vyāsa before him had conceived of a greater glory awaiting man treading the straight path of Dharma, Kālidāsa harped on the significance of a full life, which would not discard intense living and yet would care for the watch-word of ‘Ripeness is All’. Ānandavardhana, the arch-priest of literary criticism, has not in vain placed Kālidāsa along with the two epic poets. It is true Kālidāsa like Shakespeare lifts his head to the Heaven of heavens and only “spares the cloudy border of his base to the foiled searching of mortality”.[8] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62912.html#note-e-32941> In appreciating Kālidāsa we cannot forget the culture in which he was born and brought up. Dr Radhakrishnan recalls the culture that was given to Kālidāsa thus: “This culture is essentially spiritual in quality. We are ordinarily imprisoned in the wheel of time, in historicity, and so are restricted to the narrow limits of existence. Our aim should be to lift ourselves out of our entanglement to an awareness of the real which is behind and beyond all time and history, that which does not become, that which is, absolute, non-historical being itself—The end of man is to become aware by experience of this absolute reality”.[9] <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/preceptors-of-advaita/d/doc62912.html#note-e-32942> No other poet known to us in Sanskrit had so well benefited by this culture. No other thinker ever has enabled generations after him to ruminate with profit on this superior culture which gave Kālidāsa insight into a world that is seemingly diversified, yet remains One. JNANADEVA *by* A. G. Javadekar M.A., D.LITT. Jñānadeva (1275 A.D. to 1296 A.D.) was one of the greatest geniuses of Mahārāṣṭra. In him we find a rare combination of first rate poetry, lofty philosophy, deep mystical experience and exalted saintlihood. All this appears to be almost a miracle when we take into consideration that he lived a short span of life of less than twenty two years. He ended his life with a sense of fulfilment of his mission by voluntarily entering into yogic samādhi in the presence of a multitude of relatives, friends, and followers. Jñānadeva was a contemporary of the king Rāmadevarāya of Yādava dynasty. Devagiri — the present Daulatabad — was Rāmadevarāya’s capital, and he ruled from 1271 to 1309 A.D. Jñānadeva’s ancestors were Kulkarṇīs of Apegaon (eight miles from Paiṭhan, a great centre of Sanskrit learning) whose duty was to look after the revenue. The king Rāmadevarāya as well as this family were worshippers of Śrī Viṭṭhal of Paṇḍarpur. To understand the background of Jñānadeva’s birth under unusual social conditions, one must go back to the life of his father Viṭṭhalpant. Viṭṭhal was a well-educated clever boy with ascetic tendencies. While alone on a pilgrimage, he happened to halt at Āḷandī, thirteen miles from Poona, on the bank of Indrāyaṇī. Sidhopant, the Kulkarṇī of the place, seeing this bright chap gave his daughter Rukmiṇī to him in marriage. As, the parents of Viṭṭhalpant did not live long, the young couple lived in Āḷandī. Viṭṭhalpant was more interested in the life of the spirit than of the household. One day be left the home without his wife’s permission, and took Sannyāsa initiated by Rāmāśrama, also known as Śrīpāda, of Benares. He was renamed as Chaitanyāśrama. While on pilgrimage to Rameśvara this Rāmāśrama visited Āḷandī. There he happened to see a pious woman circumambulating an Aśvattha tree. She saw this revered sannyāsīn and bowed down to him who, as is customary, blessed her that she would give birth to sons. On hearing this she burst into tears, as she was verily the wife of Viṭṭhalpant, pining for her husband. Rāmāśrama suspected from the enquiries made that the recently initiated sannyāsin was no other than this woman’s husband. Instead of proceeding further on his pilgrimage he went back to Benares and ordered Chaitanyāśrama to go back to his wife. Rukmiṇī got her husband back and was naturally overjoyed. But a sannyāsin reverting to household life was never known or heard of before. The couple was excommunicated and they had to live a very wretched life outside the town. They gave birth to three sons Nivṛtti, Jñānadeva, Sopāna, and daughter Muktābaī. They were indeed spiritual gems each excelling the other in a way, yet the whole family was subjected to great harassment and humiliation. Viṭṭhalpant sought from the Brahmins atonement for his transgressing the traditional stages of life. They advised him to give up life! In the hope of securing happiness for their innocent children, both Viṭṭhalpant and Rukmiṇī obeyed the Brahmins by deserting the children and throwing their own selves in the sacred Ganges. The plight of the young children however, did not at all improve. They were asked to bring a certificate of purification from the Pandits at Paiṭhan. They undertook the journey only to find themselves ridiculed at their hands. It is said that Jñānadeva made a passing buffalo to recite Vedas, whereafter they were given the required certificate without the need of performing the thread ceremony. While returning from Paiṭhan, the children halted at Nevase in the Ahamadnagar district. *Jñāneśvarī,* a unique Marāthi commentary on the *Bhagavadgītā,* was written here. Writing this at the age of fifteen is the greatest of Jñānadeva’s miracles. Chāṅgadeva, a haṭhayogin came to see Jñānadeva at Āḷandī As the legend goes, while he came riding on a tiger with a serpent as a whip in his hand and uprooting trees on his way by the yogic powers, these children were enjoying early sunbath sitting on a small wall. In order to humble the pride of the yogin, Jñānadeva is credited with another miracle of making the wall walk. Some other miracles also have been attributed to him. Jñānadeva met Nāmadeva, a tailor at Paṇḍarpur, a great devotee of God Viṭṭhal. With Nāmadeva these brethren had great intimacy and all of them travelled upto Benares and visited many holy places. Their other famous contemporary saints from different social positions were—Goroba the potter, Sāṃvatā the gardener, Chokhā Meḷā the untouchable, and Parisā Bhāgavata the Brahmin. Jñānadeva expressed his wish to enter voluntarily into Samādhi, having felt that his mission of life was over. A great festival was arranged at Āḷandī. Jñānadeva sat on the Āsana prepared and cleaned by the sons of Nāmadeva. *Jñāneśvarī* placed in front, he closed his eyes, bowed down thrice and was engrossed fully in the Divine love. Nivṛttinātha put the slab on the entrance to the place of Samādhi. Besides *Jñāneśvarī,* also known as *Bhāvārtha-dīpikā* (a title given by Janābāi, a maidservant of Nāmadeva), Jñānadeva also wrote *Amṛtānubhava, Chāṅgadeva-Pāṣaṣṭhī, Haripāṭha, Namana* and other miscellaneous *Abhaṅgas.* There are other works regarding which Jñānadeva’s authorship is doubtful. *Jñāneśvarī* was delivered extempore and taken down by Sachchidānanda Bābā. It contains about nine thousand Ovis. This is the first great work in Marathi as yet unexcelled in its felicity of expression, beauty of poetic imagination, grandeur of philosophic thought and extremely enchanting in style. Many languages have their own great works, for reading which, one must learn but those languages. Similarly if it is only to read *Jñāneśvarī* one should learn Marathi. The object of *Jñāneśvarī* is to spread divine joy, to annihilate the dearth of discriminative intelligence and to enable the sp *i* ritual aspirant to have a glimpse of the Highest Reality. Jñānadeva divides the *Gītā* in the following way. The first three chapters deal with the path of action. From fourth to eleventh describe devotion through action. Twelfth to fifteenth are devoted to the path of knowledge. The *Gītā* proper, according to him, ends here. The 16th Chapter classifies the qualities which help or hinder knowledge. The last two chapters deal with some incidental questions. Of these the eighteenth is regarded as *Kalaśādhyāya* which sums up the whole Gītā. Though Jñānadeva extols each of the paths of *Karma, Bhakti, Jñāna* and Pātañjala yoga as if it were the path, he is truly himself when he describes Devotion in rapturous terms. *Jñāneśvarī* and *Gāthā (Abhaṅgas* or devotional lyrics) of Tukkārāma are the two gospels of lakhs of Wārkarīs who regularly visit Paṇḍarpur. Unlike *Jñāneśvarī* , which is bound by the teaching of *Gītā,* Jñānadeva’s *Amṛtānubhava* forms his independent work written at the initiation of Nivṛttinātha, who was his elder brother as well as Guru in the lineage of the Nātha Sampradāya. It originates with Śiva and passes through Śakti, Matsyendranātha, Gorakhanātha, and Gahinīnātha by whom Nivṛttinātha was initiated at Tryaṃbakeśvara in the mountain of Brahmgiri. Through Nivṛttinātha the influence of Nātha-saṃpradāya came down to Jñānadeva. *Amṛtānubhava* contains over eight hundred Ovis. Its original name is *Anubhavāmṛta.* It is an exposition of the Immortal Nectar of Divine experience. It describes the spiritual experience of the realized soul from the Absolutistic standpoint. Jñānadeva advocates a theory of Sphūrtivāda and refutes all Dualism, subjective Idealism, the Buddhistic Nihilism and the Vedāntic Nescience. As a matter of fact, more than one third of the work deals with the refutation of Ignorance. The work concludes with the delineation of the secret of *Akṛtrima bhakti* or natural or spontaneous devotion. The work is of such a great philosophical significance that about a dozen commentaries (mostly in Marathi) have been written on it. No other work in Marāthi has received such a privilege. The earliest commentary was written by Ekanātha (1533—1599 A.D.) but is not available though some quotations from it are found in Kibe’s commentary *Jyotsnā.* Śivakalyāṇa’s commentary (1635 A.D.) is known as *Nityānandaikya-Dīpikā* . According to him *Amṛtānubhava* goes beyond the viewpoints of Pariṇāmavāda and Vivartavāda. It could be understood by those who have attained perfect vision. Śivakalyāṇa in interpreting *Amṛtānubhava* takes the standpoint of the great Advaita work *—Saṃkṣepaśārīraka* of Sarvajñātman. Pralhādbuvā Badve (died 1718 A.D.) has written Sanskrit verses on *Amṛtānubhava,* the gist of which is the self-illumination of the Reality which is self-proved and is beyond any Pramāṇas as well as transcending the dualism implicit in knowledge and ignorance. Vīreśvara Vallabha wrote in 1795 A.D., following Śaṅkara in his interpretation of the *Amṛtānubhava.* Viśvanātha Kibe writing his commentary *Jyotsnā* in 1882 has shown how Jñānadeva differs from Śaṅkara and Vidyāraṇya in not accepting illusion as the cause of the universe. Harihara’s commentary called *Rāṣṭrabhāṣya* (date not known) partly in Sanskrit and partly in Marāthi is written from the standpoint of Brahmavilāsa, Nirañjana (1782—1855 A.D.) in his introduction to his commentary says that *Amṛtānubhava* is written for a *Jīvan-mukta.* By this perhaps he means that the work is written from the standpoint of a *Jīvan-mukta* for whom no upādhis exist. Jīvanmukta—yati writing a Sanskrit commentary in 1919 AD. says that Jñānadeva’s aim in refuting Māyāvada is to establish Ajātivāda. There are other more recent works by - Jog, - Sakhare, - Kene Rajaramabuva Brahmachari, - Dasganu, - Khasnis, - Garde, - Panduranga Sharma, - Dr Londhe, - Pangarkar, - R. D. Ranade, - S. V. Dandekar, - Dr. Pendse, - V. M. Potdar, - N. R. Phatak, - Chapkhande, - Gulabrao Maharaj and others. A recently published work *Divyāmṛtadhārā* by Moreshvar or Babamaharaj Joshi is worth mentioning. That is an excellent commentarv on the first nineteen Ovis of the twelfth chapter of the *Jñāneśvarī.* Of these Pāṇḍuranga Sharma thinks that Jñānadeva's philosophy is more in the line of Rāmānuja. According to Ranade Sphūrtivāda is Jñānadeva’s original contribution to philosophic thought. Londhe labels Jñānadeva’s philosophy as ‘dual monism’ and Dandekar as perfect monism, being more thorough-going than Śaṅkara’s. Dr. Pendse opines that Jñānadeva exposes only Śaṅkara’s philosophy in a poetic way. Similar is Pangarkar’s view. Potdar shows the similarity of Jñānadeva’s philosophy with that of *Yogavāsiṣṭha.* Though from the above brief sketch some idea of Jñānadeva’s philosophy can be formed, a summary statement is essential. Jñānadeva rejects all pramāṇas including the śabda which for all the Vedāntins is the only efficacious one for the revelation of Reality. He relies on his own exalted experience. The so-called valid sources of knowledge derive their illumination from Reality, and not vice versa. Sun enlightens everything and so does the self-luminous Reality. The Absolute does not prove itself by any means of proof, nor allows itself to be disproved. It is self-evident, beyond proof or disproof. It is therefore groundless to believe that the word can gain greatness by enabling the Ātman to experience itself. *(Amṛtānubhava* VI, 93-95). If it be said that word is necessary to remove Nescience which covers Reality, Jñānadeva says that as the very name *avidyā* declares, it is not vidyamāna, i.e. existent. Therefore to destroy a thing which does not exist is like breaking the hare’s horn or plucking the sky-flowers. The word is futile both ways. It can destroy neither the non-existent nescience nor can reveal the self-luminous Reality. It is comparable to a lamp lit up at daytime. The designation of the Ultimate Reality as *Sat, Chit* and *Ānanda,* though true so far as it goes, cannot be regarded as metaphysically adequate. These are human modes of apprehension, not the thing-in-itself. The three terms stand for the same reality, but they indicate more what Reality is not than what it is. The dualism of *Sat* and *Asat* , *Chit* and *Achit, Ānanda* and *Duhkha* are alike transcended in the Absolute. This Absolute is not, therefore, to be regarded as a void as the Mādhyamika holds. Criticising Śūnyavāda, Jñānadeva says: if the extinguisher of the lamp is extinguished along with the lamp, who will understand that the lamp is extinguished? A man sound asleep in a lonely forest is neither perceived by others nor by himself, but he still exists. Absolute is the foundational pure self-consciousness beyond the relative dualism of knowledge and ignorance, subject and object, being and nothing. The self-luminous Reality and its self-awareness form as it were a twin designated by Jñānadeva as God *(Śiva)* and Goddess *(Śakti)* who give birth to the whole universe, *without undergoing limitation (Nirupādhika*). As the ocean assuming the form of garlands of waves, enjoys itself, so Reality naturally manifests itself in the two forms and enjoys itself. Knowing oneself or enjoying oneself requires only an epistemological dualism which does not violate the ontological unity of consciousness or Reality. The reference to God and Goddess which are two names for the same Reality are not to be identified with the Sāṅkhya Puruṣa and Prakṛti nor the Vedāntic Brahman and *Māyā.* The lover himself has become the Beloved. Though they appear as two, there is only one Divinity, just as the word is one though the lips are two, or the fragrance is one though the flowers may be two, or sound is one though the sticks are two, or the sight is the same though the eyes are two. Śiva is eternally accompanied by Śakti because they are not two but one. The one Reality manifests itself in the triad of the knower, the known and the knowledge. That is the origin of the universe. While for Śaṅkara this differentiation is due to Nescience and is illusory, for Jñānadeva that is the natural expression of Reality. Refutation of Ignorance is almost of central importance in his philosophy. Śaṅkara’s doctrines of *Māyā* and *Adhyāsa* and *Vivarta* which reduce God, man and the world to phenomenal status have raised severe reactions among the Vedāntic schools. Jñānadeva has taken great pains to criticise *Ajñāna.* For him knowledge and ignorance are relative terms and hence there cannot be a prior ignorance to be later on destroyed by knowledge. The very description of ignorance depends upon knowledge. The existence of ignorance is illusory like the light of a glow-worm. It is incapable of enlightening either in light or in darkness. Knowledge which is said to be destroying ignorance is but a reappearance of ignorance in another form. Both are fictions of the mind. The further points in the refutation of Ajñāna are as follows: Ignorance has no foundation, is unknowable and ineffective. It can neither co-exist with knowledge nor can be independent. It cannot be proved by any pramāṇa. It cannot dwell in pure Ātman. It cannot be inferred from the experience of the objective world. If ignorance has power of presentation, it is futile to call it ignorance. The word *Ajñāna* is constituted by prefixing ‘A’ to Jñāna. Thus to understand Ajñāna in terms of Jñāna or vice versa is malapropism. Ignorance cannot be born out of knowledge, but if it did it will be a still birth. Śruti declares that the world is illuminated by His light *(tasya bhāsā sarvamidaṃ vibhāti*), Ātman cannot meet ignorance even as Sun cannot meet darkness. Jñānadeva maintains that the world is the sport of Ātman *(chidvilāsa).* He expands himself and shines forth as the world. The observer, in the guise of the objects comes to visit Himself. The universe including the individual selves is not an enchanting deception, of *Avidyā,* but the expression of the Divine Love and Joy. World is not a diminution but a unique expression of the fulfilment of perfection. Jñānadeva says that the diversity found in the world results in the deepening of the unity. The enrichment of gold is through the golden ornaments. The finiteness of the individual implies that the Reality determines itself in order to realize itself in various forms. So the aim of the individual life is to realize this status of dignity and act up to its real worth. Advocating ‘natural devotion’ Jñānadeva says that it consists in realizing how God manifests Himself through one’s being. It is a culmination of Yoga and Jñāna and transcends them. Bhakti has an intrinsic or absolute value. What is termed *svasaṃvitti* by philosophers, and Śakti by the Śaivas is better termed Bhakti for Jñānadeva. Bhakti or love is the very nature of God. The present writer is of the opinion that Jñānadeva’s philosophy is a development mainly from the combination of Śaṅkarāchārya’s Advaitism and Gorakhanātha’s *Siddha-siddhānta-paddhati,* though anti-illusionist thinking of others might also have influenced him. Refutation of *ajñāna* is not the same as the refutation of *Māyā-vāda.* Standing on the Absolutistic plane even Śaṅkarāchārya would not accept *ajñāna.* But a philosopher’s task is to explain also the every day experience of the common man. It is a difficult task to show logically the consistency between Brahman on the one hand and the world on the other. To the extent that it is an emanation from Brahman it could be regarded as *Chidvilāsa.* But no thinking person will give the world-experience the same value as Brahman. To explain this deficiency in value one intelligent method is that of postulation of a mysterious *māyā.* What is *chidvilāsa* to the transcendentalist is *māyā* to the phenomenalism They can appreciate each other’s truth only by exchange of their standpoints and thus there is no antagonism between the two positions. As a matter of fact these are the two view-points within one Absolutistic system. K Rajaram IRS 91024 Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZopxv4s3tc0n6eXn%2BmUik3%3DDioD2iBxs__eLbQKQ4jhnXA%40mail.gmail.com.
