You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Aug 2002

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00003 Aug 2002

 
Aug 2002 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]



> Dear friends,
> 
> In a short poem titled "nyAsa-dasakam", which contains earnest
> prayer as well as profound philosophy, Swami Desikan begins with a
> truly memorable stanza:
> 
> aham madh-rakshana-barO madh-rakshana-phalam tathA
> namama sripatEr-Eva AtmAnam nikshipEdh buDha-ha
> 
> The meaning of the stanza is: 
> 
> "Wise ones, knowing this to be Truth, say: The burden of preserving
> my self is not mine; whatever is to be reaped by self preservation
> is never mine. It is the Lord of "Sri" alone who bears and reaps
> from the burden of my self". 
> 
> In two pithy lines in one gem of a stanza, Swami Desikan evokes a
> grand essay on human psychology. The stanza begins with "aham" ---
> which is Sanskrit for the English "I". The second line begins with
> "namama" which is Sanskrit for "not-mine". Between "aham" and
> "namama", between "I" and "not-mine", stretches the whole Vedantic
> subject of man's Ego and Salvation. 
> 
> In Vedantic philosophy the human Ego is referred to as
> "ahankAram"/"mamakAram". The SriVaishnavite doctrine of
> spiritualism called "prappati" or self-surrender is also built
> around this very important concept. 
> 
> ******** ********** ***********
> 
> The human Ego as commonly understood by us is not the same as the
> larger sense in which Vedanta (and the doctrine of "prappati")
> deals with it.
> 
> Let us see how:
> 
> Without clothes a man is bodily naked. Similarly, in the day-to-day
> world, it can be said that without "ahamkAram"/"mamakAram" man
> would feel, psychologically speaking, just as naked. 
> 
> Just as it is said that "clothes maketh the man" in a physical
> sense (in Tamil, "aaL pAdhi, aadai pAdhi"), it can be said with
> equal validity that Ego, in a psychological sense, too maketh the
> man. For example, even if people knew nothing about a certain lady
> personally, she might yet have great social reputation thanks to
> the sort or style of clothes she is normally known to wear --
> whether shabby, showy or superb. Likewise, even if one knew nothing
> about the real character of a man, word usually gets around about
> how big or small his ego is. If he is overly submissive, timid or
> vulnerable it might be said of him, "That poor man is like a child!
> He has an undeveloped ego. He should be more self-assertive if he
> wants to get ahead in life". Conversely, it might also be said of a
> man, "That man has too big an ego. He is so autocratic and
> arrogant. If he doesn't curb his ego, he won't get far ahead in
> life". 
> 
> The inner self within Man is thus seen to be constantly asserting
> itself through the outward functioning of the Ego. In the ordinary
> world we see both the lack and the excess of "ahankAram/ mamakAram"
> manifested clearly in man's outward personality. We can understand
> this fact a little better if we grasp the message behind a rather
> humorous but quite profound Jewish parable of the modern times:
> 
> "A man goes to a tailor to try on a new custom-made suit. The
> first thing he notices is that the arms are too long.
> "No problem," says the tailor. "Just bend them at the
> elbow
> and hold them out in front of you. See, now it's fine."
> "But the collar is up around my ears!"
> "It's nothing. Just hunch your back up a little ... no, a
> little more ... that's it."
> "But I'm stepping on my cuffs!" the man cries in
> desperation.
> "No problem, bend your knees a little to take up the slack.
> There you go. Look in the mirror -- the suit fits perfectly."
> So, twisted like a pretzel, the man lurches out onto the
> street. Reba and Florence see him go by.
> "Oh, look," says Reba, "that poor crooked man!"
> "Yes," says Florence, "but what a beautiful suit."
> -- Arthur Naiman, "Every Goy's Guide to Yiddish"
> 
> Whether clothes fit well or ill, man must have his clothes.
> Likewise, whether big or small, for good or for bad, Man must have
> his Ego too!
> 
> In terms of normal human psychology, we can thus say that a man's
> Ego, i.e. his "ahankAram/mamakAram", provides his inner self a
> "beautiful suit" of personality as much as a custom-made coat gives
> sartorial protection ("rakshanam") to his body. But we must
> understand that in Vedanta and in the "prappati" doctrine (and in
> the way Swami Desikan spoke of it in the "nyAsa-dasakam" above),
> Ego is dealt with in a far profounder sense.
> 
> Let us examine it further.
> 
> ******** ******** *********
> 
> Man is naturally endowed with 5 sense-organs ("indriyas"), a unique
> faculty called Intelligence ("buddhi") and a strong, inalienable
> sense of selfhood called "ahankAram/mamakAram" -- Ego. This Ego is
> very dear to Man as it is the seat of his "survival instinct" ---
> that powerful instinct which wills him to self-preservation
> ("rakshana-bAram" or "rakshana-phalam", as Desikan calls it). 
> 
> When life begins to pass away from the body, the 5 senses and
> "buddhi" begin to take leave of Man. The dying man then has little
> control over their departure. They all simply fade away and the man
> who is dying is helpless about it. It is not so in the case of the
> Ego. Even in the last throes of death, man finds it extremely
> difficult and painful to give up his deep-rooted sense of self
> called "ahankAram/"mamakAram". He claws and clings to it in
> desperation since it is the last and most precious vestige of
> conciousness remaining with him before Death finally claims him. 
> 
> The late U.VE. Sri. Mukkur Lakshminarasimhachariar Swamy used to
> recount a parable illustrating the power of Man's
> "ahankAram/mamakAram" on a death-bed even. 
> 
> In a village somewhere in India a wealthy old merchant was in the
> throes of death. The old man had lived a full life. He had sired a 
> dozen children, amassed wealth and lived the life of a successful
> and respected gentleman in his community. He had had no desires
> left unfulfilled. But towards the end of his days the merchant
> contracted some incurable disease. It racked his body and spirit to
> no end. Everyone around him pitied him. Soon the merchant was a
> pale ghost of his old self. His sickness made him rapidly lose zest
> in life. Even humdrum workaday living filled him with loathing 
> ("virakti") for the world. He raved and ranted beseeching the gods
> to release him from earthly plight.
> 
> At last the fatal day arrived. The merchant, now frail and
> comatose, was laid out on a death-bed to breathe his last. Everyone
> was relieved that the sick old soul would soon be put out of its
> misery. 
> 
> Now, one well-meaning relative of his, who was present at that
> time, was eager to solemnize the merchant's departure with divine
> absolution. He hoped the dying old man, filled as he was with 
> utter disgust for the world and himself? "virakti?, he hoped the
> old one could be made to pass away at complete peace with himself.
> This he thought was possible if the old man were somehow enabled to
> take his thoughts away from personal misery and instead focus on
> the divine. He hoped to somehow make the dying man take the holy
> name of "Narayana" upon his lips in the terminal moments on earth.
> 
> Fortunately the last child of the old merchant was a lad of 10
> years 
> with the name of 'Narayana'. So the good relative took hold of the
> lad and leading him to the death-bed bade its occupant to open his
> eyes and look at the young visitor. The relative hoped the old
> merchant would do so, recognize the lad, be urged perhaps in the
> moments before demise to utter the holy name of "Narayana" and be
> lead unto the blissful consciousness of God rather than of the
> self. 
> 
> "Sire, O Sire!", yelled the relative into the dying man's immobile
> face, "Sire, open your eyes and look at who's come to visit you!".
> 
> After a few minutes of similar coaxing, the dying merchant stirred
> and 
> slowly opened his eyes. Although his faculties were rapidly
> failing, the old man seemed to recognize the dim outlines of the
> person beside him.
> 
> Greatly encouraged in his efforts, the relative persevered further.
> He 
> now drew the son closer to the dying man and asked again, "Sire, do
> you see who is before you? Can you recognize him? Can you name him 
> please?!".
> 
> The dying man, gasping for breath, once again turned his eyes on
> the lad and shook his head feebly as if to say, "Yes, I know who
> this is!".
> 
> "Name him! Name him, Sire", pleaded the good relative with
> desperate 
> urgency, sensing now that the end was very near. "Say it out aloud,
> this lad's name! For the sake of God, please! What is his name? Cry
> his name out, Sire, please! And say it now!".
> 
> Then as everyone around watched with mute amazement, the old man 
> suddenly opened his eyes wide, raised himself slowly on the bed and
> then turning to Narayana, his youngest son, clasped him to his
> bosom. They heard the old man cry out loud and clear, "Of course, I
> know who this is.! This ? this is the youngest of MY one dozen
> sons"!
> 
> In the very next instant they saw him slump dead!
> 
> The moral of the story:
> 
> Even in the terrifying moments of death what was foremost in the
> mind of the the old man was not thoughts about the Divine; it was
> possessive kinship ("ahankAram/mamakAram") which prevailed over all
> other thoughts. 
> 
> ********* ******* ***********
> 
> Thus, "ahankAram", Vedantic psychology teaches us, not only
> influences man's behaviour and personality, but is at the very core
> of Man's being. Take away a man's sense of his self, his identity,
> and you destroy him completely... You might kill his sanity even.
> 
> "mamakAram" too is no less powerful than "ahankAram". It is man's
> sense of possessiveness... It is what gives Life earthly meaning
> and purpose. If a man were never able to say, "This is my life",
> "This is my home" "This is my family", "This is my country" or even
> "This is my God, my Faith", he would find himself living in a world
> that is terrifying void and dark emptiness. If there was nothing he
> could claim as his very own in the world, existence would cease to
> have any meaning for Man. 
> 
> Which is precisely the reason why, even on the death-bed, a man 
> resigns himself to giving up everything else in life -- wealth,
> wife, kith, even his 5 senses and the unique "buddhi" -- but he is
> never, never willing to let go of his precious Ego. 
> 
> Without a strong sense of "I" ("ahankAram") man would indeed never
> be able to navigate across the sea of life. We can understand how
> deeply and inalienably man is rooted within that sense of "I-ness"
> by reflecting for a moment on the way English language rules how
> the pronoun in first person singular should always be used. "It's
> odd, and a little unsettling, to reflect upon the fact that English
> is the only major language in which "I" is capitalized; in many
> other languages "You" is capitalized and the "i" is lower case". --
> Sydney J. Harris.
> 
> ******* ********** ********
> 
> We may now ask: If Man's Ego is such an inalienably intimate part
> of him, what does Swami Desikan mean by saying that the burden
> ("bAram") of "ahankAram/mamakAram" is "namama" -- "not-mine", but
> that of God ("sripati:")?
> 
> aham madh-rakshana-barO madh-rakshana-phalam tathA
> namama sripatEr-Eva AtmAnam nikshipEdh buDha-ha
> 
> The clue to understanding Desikan's statement lies in the story of
> the Mahabharata.
> 
> The epic Mahabharata deals comprehensively with all matters
> discussed so far above viz. Man's ego, death, his salvation, God...
> even "clothes"! We need to only recall the incident of Draupadi's
> humiliation in the Court of Hastinapur. 
> 
> In the court of the royal Kauravas, Draupadi was subjected to the
> humiliation of being disrobed in public. As the villain DushAssan
> kept peeling away her clothes ("vastram") one by one, Draupadi
> appealed to her 5 husbands, the Pandava brothers, to save her. The
> husbands forsook her. Then she turned pathetically to King
> DritarAshtra for sovereign protection. The King was blind and hence
> conveniently "looked" the other way. 
> 
> In man's moment of death too, as life slips away much as Draupadi's
> clothes did, the departing 5 senses and "buddhi" behave in exactly
> the same way as the 5 Pandava brothers and DritarAshtra did.
> Everything and everyone begins to forsake a man in the hour of
> death.
> 
> Every piece of Draupadi's clothes was removed until finally there
> was virtually nothing left she could protect herself with. Moments
> before the last stitch was ripped from her body, Draupadi realized
> her sense of personal modesty, that precious birth-right womanhood
> cherishes, that too would soon be removed. It was the moment
> Draupadi's "ahankAram/ mamakAram", her innate sense of personal
> identity too would be lost. Therefore, when Draupadi kept clinging
> on to her clothes, she was actually clinging, in a deeply
> instinctual sort of way, to preserve her sense of self -- precisely
> the 'aham' and 'mama' which Desikan alludes to in the phrase "aham
> madh-rakshana-barO ...namama...".
> 
> A wise man once said, "Death is only one of the many ways of
> dying", and in the Mahabharatha, for Draupadi, the terrifying
> moment of death arrived when she was about to be stripped naked in
> full and open view of the large assembly at the royal court of
> Hastinapur -- forsaken by husbands, King, kith and kin... everyone.
> In clinging to the last shred of fabric covering her body she
> fought to preserve ("rakshanam") the last remnant of Ego -- the
> sense of "aham", "I-ness", that she believed was still her very own
> ("mamakAram").
> 
> ****** ****** *******
> 
> Considering all the above, Man is compelled to ask finally :
> 
> # If I am not "I" ("aham"), and this self (Ego) which for long I
> had regarded to be the real me, is "not mine" at all ("namama"),
> then who or what really am I?
> 
> # If "I" am not the preserver/protector of my "self" (as Draupadi
> in the Mahabharata found out), then who is to preserve/protect me
> in my ultimate hour of crisis i.e. death? If I am to be ultimately
> stripped of even my sense of "I-ness" ("ahankAram/mamakAram")--
> just as Draupadi was stripped of her "clothes" -- what else in life
> is there left for me? Nothing but Void? 
> 
> # If it is only God ("sripatEr-Eva", as Swami Desikan says) who
> bears the burden of preserving my "self", who is He?
> 
> All these are familiar but nagging questions of eternal puzzlement
> to Man. But Draupadi, according to the Mahabharatha, found answers
> to them immediately when, in the final moments of her crisis, she
> chose to voluntarily let go off not only the last shred of fabric
> she was clutching but her Ego too. Reposing all faith in the
> Almighty, she raised her hands to the heavens and surrendered the
> burden of her self unto Him ("bAra-samarpaNam", "saraNagati", as
> per the doctrine of "prappati) :
> 
> sri shanka-chakra gadhA pANe, dwArakA nilayAchyutha
> gOvinda pundareekAksha rakshamAm saraNagatam
> 
> The epic narrates how Draupadi was then saved, at the nick of the
> moment, by a great miracle wrought by the avatar of Lord Krishna.
> In the climactic moment of that miracle, Draupadi came face to face
> with the presence of God and witnessed His infinite Power and
> Glory!
> 
> ******** ******** ********
> 
> Draupadi may well have finally found answers to the troubled
> questions of Man, "ahankAram", of death and salvation. But what
> about the fate of ordinary folks like us? Where are we to go for
> answers? 
> 
> The Upanishads tell us that the journey of human life is nothing if
> not an unceasing quest for answers to such questions. The answers
> shall be revealed to us no less clearly and surely than they were
> to Draupadi (or Swami Desikan) but only if we willingly subject
> ourselves to the same intense practice or experience as hers -- the
> experience of what lies beyond the 'burden of the self'. Giving up
> "ahankAram/mamakAram" -- i.e. giving up the "clothes" of our Ego as
> Draupadi did -- is a central part of all such intense practices.
> Giving up the Ego is required not only in the banal sense in which
> ordinary men and women of the world know it; "ahankAram/mamakAram"
> has to be given up in a more profound Draupadic sense too. Then,
> and only then, shall we see the miracle of "I" being "not-I",
> "mine" becoming "not-mine", "aham" becoming "namama". The Upanishad
> declared it to be so too in a famous verse:
> 
> "jyOtir-jwalati brahmA~ham~asmi 
> yO~ham~asmi brahmA~ham~asmi 
> aham~asmi brahmA~ham~asmi 
> aham-EvAham mAm juhOmi svAhA-a " II 
> 
> ("taittiriya mahAnArAyana upanishad")
> 
> "I am of that Supreme Light! I am of that supreme Light of Brahman
> that shines as the inmost essence of all that exists. I am of the
> same infinite Brahman too even when I am experiencing myself as
> finite self due to Ignorance. Now with the onset of Knowledge I
> know I am really of that Brahman which is my true nature!"
> 
> ******** ********* ********
> (concluded)
> 
> Regards,
> dAsan,
> 
> Sudarshan


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list