MOkshasaadhanam (Means of Liberation) – 16

by Krishna Sastri

Avidya is very powerful and it is like an iron wall that surrounds you. Only the Grace of the Guru can destroy it. 'Gu' means avidya and 'Ru' means the destroyer. Hence the word 'Guru'. In Kandar Anubhoothi, Arunagirinaathar describes the Grace of Muruga as "நெஞ்சக் கனகல்லும் நெகிழ்ந்துருக". நெஞ்சம் means the heart or the intellect which is the source of avidya . The Grace of the Lord melts even the hardest heart! The same is echoed by Adi Sankara when he says: ' jadaanam chaitanya-stabaka-makaranda-sruti jhari '. Here Sankara goes a step further to describe the new transformed heart to ' chaitanya-stabaka-makaranda-sruti jhari '. The Grace of the Lord transforms the hardest heart into an ecstatic smelling fresh flower dripping with the sweetness of the nectar of sentience! He is of course a poet par excellence! Another poet Bharathiar almost says the same thing: "வள்ளிக் கணவன் பேரை வழிப்போக்கன் சொன்னாலுமே உள்ளம் குழையுதடீ கிளியே ஊனும் உருகுதடி".

It is due to avidya the mutual superimposition between the body and the Self takes place. The intellect uses its power of logic to reinforce avidya . The Guru uses the very same intellect to defeat it!

Now let's get a bit of recapitulating.

In the previous posting ( MOkshasaadhanam – 15) the sishya saw that in a superimposition such as can be found in the example - snake and the rope - the snake was superimposed on the rope by a person who in the twilight mistook the rope for a snake and got frightened. But when a light was brought in then he could see that it was merely a rope and the snake that was superimposed vanished. In other examples such as man and the post or the silver and the shell the sishya found that whatever was superimposed was found to be non-existent on verification. This made him conclude that if the body and the Self were mutually superimposed on each other then they both would be proved to be non-existent on verification. Such would be a nihilist point of view.

So the sishya posited that the body is superimposed on the Self (instead of mutual superimposition) in which case he would be compelled to conclude that the body would be non-existent which was not an acceptable proposition for him. So he proposed that the body and Self are mutually superimposed on each other for mutual benefit.

The Guru points out to the sishya that if the mutual benefit theory is conceded then the Self being eternal would require the body to be eternal which is not the case. Or on the contrary as the body is ephemeral then mutual benefit theory would find eternity in the Self as purposeless.

This prompts the sishya to ask of the Guru if a person can accept mutual superimposition of the body and of the Self without realizing the existence of the Self. To this the Guru says that at no time is a person unaware of his Self!

Let us now continue with the Guru Sishya Samvaadham.

Sishya: GurO! By the mere fact that I see, I hear and so on that my body’s existence is known. I think, therefore I am! Would that not make the absolute non-existence of the body a contradiction of sense perception?

Guru: The existence of the body in the Self is not known by these evidences (of sense perception). The body is not known to exist in the Self by perception etc. like a fruit in a tree, ghee in the milk, oil in the peanut or a picture painted on a wall.

The existence of the body in the Self is therefore the reverse of what you say. Your conclusion should be: I am, therefore I see; I am, therefore I hear; I am, therefore I think!

(contd.)