Abhinavagupta was the main exponent of what has come to be known as Kashmir Shaivism. Not much is known about his life. If one were to examine the lineage of Abhinavagupta, one can trace it to the kula system. The kula system is in which the aspirant experiences and enjoys the state of kaama-kalaa, that is the conjunction of any two aspects of any sensation, not neccessarily sexual(as it is frequently misunderstood). The system was introduced in the fifth century by shrimachandanatha and reintroduced in the ninth century by sumatinatha, who is considered a great sage. Abhinavagupta was the disciple of sumatinatha's disciple, shambhunatha. The dates of Abhinavagupta are usually placed around 975-1025 AD.
Throughout his life, he visited many learned gurus and became well versed in all branches of Indian philosophy. He was regarded as an eminent scholar and is very famous for his work called Tantraloka (light on the tantra) which deals with both the ritualistic and practical aspects of Tantra. This book is quite big, and composed of thirty six big chapters, and as far as I know, no english translation of this complete work is available. This book is full of symbolism, and inner meaning that many feel that it is intended only for Tantric masters.
Probably abhinavagupta himself was aware of the complexity of his work that he wrote bodhapancadasika (fifteen verses of wisdom). He dedicates this work for disciples who do not have the intellect capacity or the time to master tantraloka. Another work which is considered quite important in kashmir shaivism is the parapraveshika(entrance into the supreme reality) written by his primary disciple, Kshhemaraja.
His philosophy, though non-dual, is different (on the surface) from the non-dual philosophy as expounded by Vedantist Adi Shankara. He considers the universe completely real, filled with infinite diversity and not different from Shiva (herein pointed to as the supreme consciousness). Kshhemaraja expands on this concept in his work and shows that the various levels of creation, from the subtlest to the grossest, are all the same and belong to the kingdom of Lord Shiva. He goes on to talk about the sacred mantra which "digest" the creation and views it as a whole.
Abhinavagupta has also contributed extensively to the field of aesthetics and his important works include Locana, and his commentary on Dhvanyaaloka. Both of these works has been translated and presented wonderfully by Ingalls, Masson and Patwardhan. The other commendable work is titled The aesthetic experience according to Abhinavagupta by Gnoli. The commentary on Natyasastra of Bharata Muni is extensive and is titled abhinavabharati. Among his numerous contributions, his analysis of rasa is very appealing and distinguishable from other interpretations. For example, Bharata talks about eight types of rasa, while distinguishing it from sthaayibhaava. One of the conclusions one arrives at after reading abhinavabharati and Locana is that bhoga is produced not only by the senses but also by the removal of moha (ignorance), and also that art and literature are not just vinoda (entertainment) but also are influenced by the ananda arising due to the knowledge of Brahman.
The present day lineage of Abhinavagupta continues. Lakshman joo is very well known, both in India and the West, as a sanskrit scholar and a jnani. Endowed with a photographic memory, he has been responsible for the preservation of the lineage and works to a great extent. He attained mahasamadhi in late 1991. Just before, he appointed an american teenage, Viresh Hughes, as his successor.
If one is interested learning more about him, the following can be used a start.
A good survey work on him is _Abhinavagupta, an Historical and Philosophical Study_ by K. C. Pandey.
The book by Pandey is authoritative and it is quite moving to learn the troubles he underwent in getting the manuscripts of abhinavagupta in Kashmir in 1930's.
The triadic heart of Shiva : tantra of abhinavagupta in the non-dual shaivism of kashmir by Ortega.
The trident of Wisdom {this contains the sanskrit and translation of Paratrisika-vivarana of Abhivanagupta}
In the first century AD, there lived a man called Bhagavan. (Auvaiyar was the contempary to an another great Tamil poet, Thiruvallur. His thirukural is one of the oldest texts in Tamil literature, nevertheless, one of the best). Appropriate to the name, he led a life of devotion and faith. Though a brahmin by birth, he married an outcaste named Adi. It was unheard of in those days. In devotion, caste, religion, creed, race or gender do not matter. What matters is only devotion.
Shortly after Adi became pregnant, Bhagavan left her and became a sanyas. Adi, unable to bear the taunts of the villagers, took a vow before Lord Ganesha that she would abandon her child and follow in her husband's footsteps. Adi, in the course of time, gave birth to a beautiful girl. When she saw the newborn, she could not think of leaving her and satisfying the vow. She was in a dilemma, should she took after her child or satisfy the vow. She was such a person that she did not care about herself but only about her child and the vow.
When dharmic people are in trouble, there is always God to help. The child spoke in her dream, 'My dear mother, who brought me forth in this world ? Can He ever forsake me ? The Lord has brought me forth and He will take care of me. Don't think you are the doer. Go, mother, go, and be without fear. The Lord protects us all.' Man is bitten by the snake of ignorance and thinks himself as limited, ignorant, and suffers from the notion of 'I am the doer.' By surrendering the notion of an individuality due to wise words by sages, he concludes that all happenings are due to the Divine Will and he is a mere actor in the script written by the Divine.
After Adi left, a poet saw the baby lying on the roadside. The poet was a great bhakta of Lord Ganesha (coincidence ? I think not.) and being childless, had frequently prayed to Lord Ganesha for a child. A poet discovers a child who is destined to become the poet among poets. No home in Tamilnadu (India) forgets the child, Auvaiyar. Every child in Tamilnadu is the poem of alphabet, aattichuDi, written by her, as their first lesson.
We do not know what name the poet gave her. At the age of four, while frolicking with other children, she heard a poet tell her father that he was looking for two more lines in his song. Though a child, she sat down and saw the poets discuss various options. The first two lines were 'If you do a good deed, when will it give the result ?' but the poets, try as they may, could not come up with appropriate two more lines. After a lot of struggle, they decided to give up. Then the child spoke, 'Uncle, it is very simple.' Angered the poets mockingly said 'What does a four year old know ?'
We should not disrespect persons because of their age or any other criteria. Every one knows a little and every idea is an insight. All inventions in this world has arose from a single thought in someone's mind. We are all capable of greatness. The child quickly said, 'Don't doubt whether it will give result. It is bound to result like the water that you offer at the foot of a cocunut tree gives you the result through the head.' The poem is
nanRi oruvarukku cheythakkaal annanRi enRu tharungkol enavENdaa - ninRu thaLaraa vaLar thengu thaaLuNda niirai thalaiyaalE thaan tharuthalaalThe poets gathered around were astonished. No, not just because the verse is beautiful and rhymed, but because the verse had several deep inner spiritual meanings. The verse elucidates the law of karma. What you sow, so shall you reap. When you offer water at the foot of a cocunut tree, it takes some time, but eventually, at the head of the tree, you will get the coconut. If you do a good deed, you will enjoy the consequences, whether it sooner or later. Similarly, one has to suffer for all bad deeds.
Even from a young age of three, she used to meditate on the mantra 'AUM vinaayaka siddhi vinaakaya.' Since her father was a big poet, she aspired to become a great poet too. Daily, early in the morning, she used to worship Lord Ganesha with four things: milk, honey, rice pudding (pasayam) and nuts. She used to pray 'I give you four things, please give me three (poetry, music and drama).' Devotion always starts on a bargaining system. I will give you this, if you give me that. Thus we bargain with the God. This is like a child saying to the mother, I will eat the vegetables, if you will allow me to play with MY toy. Actually, the mother knows she owns the toy, not the child but to please the child, she agrees. Such is the case of people. Everything is owned by God. Man possesses nothing, yet he bargains. Total surrender always starts from the simple bargaining. Any true devotee will eventually say, 'It is all divine will.' Until then, duality will persist and misery will follow.
Auvaiyar grew up to be a beautiful woman. Due to her devotion, she was extremely intelligent too. Naturally, lot of suitors asked her father for her hand in marriage. But auvaiyar had already surrendered her body and mind to the Lotus feet of vinayaka. How can lustful thoughts even enter her mind ? But, it is difficult to stand up to one's parents and say this.
Auvaiyar figured that her youth was the criteria which attracted people to her. Therefore, daily she used to sit before Ganesha and pray that she become an old woman. But her prayers were not answered. One day, in frustration, she decided to run away from home and kill herself. She prayed fervently and suddendly, there was a shower of flowers and she became an old woman with wrinkled skin and fading features. In the age which youth is given so much importance and the beauty of the body is considered of prime importance, here was a woman who threw all that away. One can ask why God did not answer her prayers instantly. When one prays and when there is pure devotion, the willingness to be with God should be great. A man who is held under water for a long times thinks of only air and gasps for it. One should gasp and long for God as much as the person under water.
After this incident, her foster father understood that she was no ordinary child. Thus, the young woman who looked old became to called auvaiyar. She began wandering the temples of South India and met several saints including the King Cheraman and the famous nayanmar Sundaramurthi (Please see the section on periya puranam below for information on nayanmars). One a king asked her where was she from and who her parents are. She replied, 'I have wandered so many places, and my legs are paining. But where I am from ? I am from God and no one else.' Someone gave a special gooseberry fruit to king atiyaman so that he can live long by eating it. But the king gave it to his dear friend 'Auvaiyar' so that she could live long and thereby serve Tamil language for a long period. There are many such incidents in her life. However, her many poems touch on the simple people she met in small houses, on the streets.
During her visit to a Shiva temple, she lay down due to tiredness. In her haste, she did not see that her legs were pointing to the shiva linga. The priest saw this and became angry. He asked Auvaiyar to remove her legs. Avviyar replied, 'Please show me a direction in which Shiva does not exist and I will point my legs in that direction.' By foolishness, man fails to look within and discover divinity. He thinks God resides only in churches, temples, and mosques. All he needs is to dive within his heart and rediscover the spirit he has forgotten. Then, he will not only see God in himself but in every atom that exists in this universe. Nothing, not even a blade of grass, moves without the will of the Divine. (Please see the incident of Namadeva below for a more clearer picture).
A few years passed, the reputation of Auvaiyar grew. She was known all over for her songs, her wisdom and her devotion. A person should avoid fame at all costs, and if there is fame, one should recognize that all this is God-given and not take credit for it. But it is difficult not to be involved in the ego-game. Auvaiyar became proud of her accomplishments. That had to be corrected. So, the birthless one who took care of her from the day she was born enacted a lila.
While travelling through an orchard, she noticed a jambu fruit tree. As everyone knows, Ganapati's favorite fruit is jambu. Thinking of this, Auvaiyar had an inkling to eat the fruit. She noticed a young boy perched on the tree. She asked him to give her some fruits. The young boy asked 'Do you want hot jambu fruits or cold jambu fruits ?' Auvaiyar was stuck, she did not that there were two kinds of jambu fruits. She prayed to Lord Ganesha for help, but the all intelligent one, the one who clears all obstacles refused to answer. When one does not know the answer, one should say so and not pretend that we know the answer. But, auvaiyar did not want to admit defeat to a young boy. So, she pretended to know the answer and said, asked for "suDAda paZaM" (cold fruit) and when the boy shook off some fruits she picked up one ripe fruit and began to blow air over it to shake off the sand; it was then, the boy confronted her : " You asked for cold fruit . Why are you taking hot fruit and blowing air over it to make it cool?( By 'sutta pazam the boy meant 'ripe fruit and by 'suDada pazam' unripe fruit). There are no hot or cold jambu fruits. There are only ripe and unripe jambu fruits. Auvaiyar immediately recognized that this was no ordinary boy who had come to teach her a lesson in humility. When she sang a song in the honor of the boy, the boy revealed himself to be kartikeya.
Kartikeya, in his sweet voice, said 'Grandmother, I was just pulling your leg. I wanted to hear your voice and wisdom. I have four questions for you. Please answer them for the benefit of the world. What is hard ? What is sweet ? What is big ? What is rare ?'
Auvaiyar replies to each of this in a long song. In short, 'poverty is hard, harder still is poverty in young age, harder is a faithless spouse, and the hardest is to take food from a person who does not love you. Solitude is sweet, sweeter is worship of Lord, sweeter than that is the company of the Guru and still more sweet is the abiding in the Self day and night. The world is big, but the world is creation of Brahma, but Brahma is from the navel of Vishnu and Vishnu resides in the heart of the devotee, the devotee is the biggest. Rare is the human birth, rarer still is the human birth interested in wisdom, still rarer is one who is interested in wisdom and possessed of charity and penance.'
Anyway, one day she saw her dear friends, the king Cheraman and the nayanmar sundaramurthi of the periyapurana, ascending to Kailas. Auvaiyar was performing puja on Ganesha and started reciting mantras hurriedly. Ganesha appeared before Her and asked her why she was performing the puja hurriedly. She said that her friends were ascending to Kailas and she wanted to be with them. Ganesha smiled and said 'Don't worry, do your puja slowly, and I promise you will reach Kailas faster than they do.' So, she sang the vinaayaka ahaval, a beautiful poem and her last song in the mortal frame. It ends with
'Make me experience in my heart the innermost meaning of the five letters. Restore me to my real state and rule this unreality now, O Master of Wisdom. Vinaayaka : Your feet alone, your feet alone are my sole refuge.'After she finished the song, Lord Ganesha lifted her up and kept in Kailas and She reached it faster than Sundaramurthi and Cheraman.
But this incident also has an inner significance. Auvaiyar, sundaramurthi, cheraman never left south India. How did they go to Kailas ? Vinakya is the lord of the muulaadhaara chakra. Since our consciousness usually is in the mulaadhaara chakra, Ganesha is invoked before any puja or any event. Only if the Kundalini in that chakra is awakened, then Kundalini can "travel" to the other chakras. When one meditates on Him with fervor, he will raise you to Kailas (on the sahasra chakra) in no time. There is no need to hurry. All we need is the earnestness and fervor. If we surrender our body, mind, ego to the Divine feet and do our dharma with dedication, devotion and discrimination, there is no chance of rebirth. The life of Auvaiyar and other saints in this page makes that extremely clear.
This is the story of the prince Bharata, in honor of whom the country India is named Bharat. What is narrated below is pure advaita philosophy and is from the Vishnu purana. The following was taken from a translation of Vishnu purana by HH Wilson which was posted on soc.religion.hindu by Kartik.
The illustrious monarch, Maitreya, resided for sometime at Salagrama, his thoughts wholly dedicated to God, and [Salagrama is a holy place of pilgrimage for Vishnu. Somehow, people have forgotten the place. Saligram is a holy stone and is an ammonite which is found near the Gandhak river in Nepal. Thus, Salagrama would be either that place or the place where the Gandhak river joins with the Ganges.] 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. [Then he relinquished the kingdom, family, became a sanyas and set up a small hermitage].
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... [Ramana Maharshi often quoted this to show that even persons looking like madmen may be jnanis and thus we should treat everyone with respect] 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 indolent, 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 denominate 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'."
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."
Go to the next page on biographies.
Back to Thoughts PAGE