Sunday, January 28, 2007

கும்பகோணத்து செட்டியார்


ஸ்வாமி விவேகானந்தர் எழுதிய கடிதம்.

பிரசுரிக்கப்படாத கடிதம்


Madras
the 15th February [1893]

Your Highness,

Two things I am telling your Highness. One—a very wonderful phenomenon I have seen in a village called Kumbakonam, and another about myself.

In the said village lives a man of the Chetty caste, generally passing for an astrologer. I, with two other young men, went to see him. He was said to tell about anything a man thinks of. So, I wanted to put him to the test. Two months ago, I dreamt that my mother was dead and I was very anxious to know about her. My second was whether what my Guru had told me was right. The third was a test-question—a part of the Buddhistic mantra, in Tibetan tongue. These questions I determined upon, two days before going to this Govinda Chetty. Another young man had one of his sisters-in-law given poison to, by some unknown hand, from which she recovered. But he wanted to know the author of that delivery.

When we first saw him, the fellow was almost ferocious. He said that some Europeans came to see [him] with the Dewan of Mysore and that since then through their ‘Dristee Dosham’ he had got fever and that he could not give us a seance then and only if we paid him 10 Rs., he would consent to tell us our ‘prasnas’. The young men with me of course were ready to pay down his fees. But he goes to his private room and immediately comes back and says to me that if I gave him some ashes to cure him of his fever he would consent to give us a seance. Of course I told him that I do not boast of any power of curing diseases but he said, ‘That does not matter, only I want [the ash]’. So, I consented and he took us to the private room and, taking a sheet of paper, wrote something upon it and gave it over to one of us and made me sign it and keep it into the pocket of one of my companions. Then he told me point blank, ‘Why you, a Sannyasi, are thinking upon your mother?’ I answered that even the great Shankaracharya would take care of his mother; and he said ‘She is all right and I have written her name in that paper in the possession of your friend’ and then went on saying, ‘Your Guru is dead. Whatever he has told you, you must believe, for he was a very very great man,’ and went on giving me a description of my Guru which was most wonderful and then he said ‘What more you want to know about your Guru?’ I told him ‘If you can give me his name I would be satisfied’, and he said, ‘Which name? A Sannyasi gets different sorts of names’. I answered, ‘The name by which he was known to the public’, and says, ‘The wonderful name, I have already written that. And you wanted to know about a mantra in Tibetan, that is also written in that paper.’ And, he then told me to think of anything in any language and tell him, I told him ‘Om Namo BhagavateVasudevaya’, and he said, ‘That is also written in the paper in possession of your friend. Now take it out and see’. And Lo! Wonder! They were all there as he said and even my mother’s name was there!! It began thus—your mother of such and such name is all right. She is very holy and good, but she is feeling your separation like death and within two years she shall die; so if you want to see her, it must be within two years.

Next it was written—your Guru Ramakrishna Paramahamsa is dead but he lives in Sukshma, i.e., ethereal body, and is watching over you, etc. and then it was written ‘Lamala capsechua’, in Tibetan, and then at last was written ‘In conformation to what I have written, I give you also this mantra which you would give me after one hour after my writing; ‘Om Namo Bhagavate etc.’; and so he was equally successful with my friends. Then I saw people coming from distant villages and as soon as he sees them he says—‘Your name is such and such and you come from such and such village for this purpose’. By the time he was reading me, he toned down very much and said—‘I won’t take money from you. On the other hand, you must take some “seva” from me’. And I took some milk at his house and he brought over his whole family to bow down to me and I touched some ‘vibhutee’ brought by him and then I asked him the source of his wonderful powers. First he would not say, but after a while he came to me [and] said—‘Maharaj, it is “siddhi of mantras” through the “sahaya” of “Devi”.’ Verily, there are more things on heaven and earth Horatio than your philosophy ever dreamt of—Shakespeare.

The second is regarding me. Here is a zamindar of Ramnath, now staying in Madras. He is going to send me over to Europe and, as you are already aware of, I have a great mind to see those places. So I have determined to take this opportunity of making a tour in Europe and America. But I can’t do anything without asking your Highness, the only friend on Earth I have.

So kindly give your opinion about it. I only want to make a short tour in those places. One thing I am certain of, that I am [an] instrument in the hands [of] a holy and superior power. Myself, I have no peace, am burning literally day and night, but somehow or other, wherever I go hundreds and, in some [places] as in Madras, thousands would come to me day and night and would be cured of their skepticism and unbelief but I—! I am always unhappy!! Thy will be done!! Therefore, I don’t know what this power requires of me, to be done in Europe. I cannot but obey. ‘Thy will be done’!! There is no escape.

I congratulate your Highness on the birth of a son and heir. May the infant prince be quiet like his most noble father and may the Lord shower his blessings always on him and his parents.

So I am going over in two or three weeks to Europe. I can’t say anything as to the future of the body. Only I pray to your Highness if it be proper to take some care of my mother that she does not starve.

I would be highly obliged to get a reply soon, and pray your Highness to keep the latter part of this letter, i.e., my going over to England etc., confidential.

May you be blessed all your life, you and yours, is the prayer that is day and night offered up by,

Vivekananda
C/o. M.Bhattacharya Esq.
Assistant Accountant General
Mt. St. Thome, Madras

3 comments:

ஜடாயு said...

எழில்,

சுவாமிஜியின் இந்தக் கடிதம் The Complete Works நூலின் இணையப் பதிப்பில் கடைசியில் தரப் பட்டுள்ளது (அங்கிருந்து தான் எடுத்திருக்கிறீர்கள் என்று நினைக்கிறேன் :))

சுவாமிஜி இதில் அந்த ஜோதிடரின் அசாதாரண திறன் பற்றி வியக்க்கிறார்.. அந்த ஜோதிடரும் உண்மையில் ஒரு உயர்ந்த ஆன்ம ஞானி என்பதும் இதில் தெரிகிறது.. இன்றைக்கு வார பலன் எழுதும் ஆசாமிகள் ரகம் அல்லர் அவர்!

ஆனால் சுவாமிஜி ஜோதிடம் பற்றிய எதிர்மறைப் பார்வையே கொண்டிருந்தார். "ஆன்மிகப் பார்வையில் அடிபடும் ஜோதிடம்" (!!) என்ற என் பழைய பதிவின் இது பற்றி எழுதியிருக்கிறேன் -
http://jataayu.blogspot.com/2006/08/1.html

எழில் said...

நன்றி ஜடாயு, நன்றி நேசகுமார்,

எழில் said...

My dear friend Bala Gangadhara wrote in Abinavagupta forum...

thus...

--
Dear Sunil,

If we want to grasp the nature of the discussions in the Indian traditions,
there is much we need to do beforehand: (a) identify the entity they were
talking about; (b) identify the specific questions they were answering; (c)
identify the generic questions that defined both the outlines of the
acceptable answers and the formulation of the specific questions; etc. (The
'cetera' indicates that I do not know how to enumerate all the things we
need to grasp.) In the case of the propositions you have formulated, I
assume that 'God' is Vishnu (or even Krishna) and not, say, Shiva or Brahma
because you are talking about the Madhvas. However, to keep the discussion
faithful to your formulations, I will use the word 'God' to refer to Vishnu.

Your proposition 1: "Creation is a spontaneous activity of God, just like a
blissful person spontaneously breaks into a song without any rhyme or
reason."

Apparently, this is answering the specific question 'why' (in the sense of
'KaaraNa', mostly translated as 'the reason why') God created (the
Universe?). The analogy to a blissful person is a very strict one. That is,
in exactly the same way a blissful person does not break into a song for a
reason, God does not create for a reason. The underlying thoughts are these:
normally, one sings a song to express some emotion or the other or even
because he/she is feeling some motion or another (love, sorrow, devotion, or
whatever else), that is, the person "intends" to express something. The
blissful person does not need to express anything; he/she is not in need of
anything, including the need to express the bliss. That is what bliss
(ananda) is all about.

So, the assumption is that 'bliss', something we human beings experience, is
what God also feels. The only difference is that God feels this all the
time, whereas only some of us can (either occasionally or after some
tremendous effort) feel that bliss. (Additional claims that God's Bliss is
our bliss raised to "the power of infinity" and such like tell us the same
thing: there is no difference in kind but, at best, a difference in degree,
between God's emotion and ours.)

In other words, the analogy explicates the nature of spontaneity (and the
meaning of that word), whether it is God's spontaneity or human spontaneity:
doing something not because one is in need of (or lacks) something. There is
no difference in kind between us human beings and God but only one of
degree. Your next proposition elaborates on this.

Your proposition 2: "The creation of the world does not serve any purpose of
God. He is "AptakAma" - there is nothing he does not have nor is there
anything he will ever need." (The 'he' here must also be read strictly:
Vishnu is sexed and he is a 'male'.)

This further tells us that creation (of something by human beings) serves
some purpose or another. Consequently, one might be inclined to say that God
is "in need" of something that he does not have, and hence the creation.
This proposition tells us that God has "everything": he is more beautiful
than the most beautiful; stronger than the strongest; richer than the
richest; the teacher of teachers; braver than the bravest, etc. Again, these
are all differences in degree: he has more of everything we "desire", he is
"more" than any of us or other 'gods'; and so on. He really does not need
anything; he is bliss personified. Therefore, creation should not be seen as
making up for some or another lack in God. In this sense, creation does not
serve any purpose: one should say that God has "no purpose" in creating. He
just creates. In other words, there is no intention behind God's creation.
Spontaneity is the absence of intention or purpose of any sort, and the
analogy drawn in the first proposition shows that action without intention
is typical of a blissful person. Because God is bliss personified, God's
creation does not exhibit his purpose or express his intention. (Should it
do so, then God needs to express his purpose, which makes God into someone
"in need" of such an expression.) Hence the notion of creation as God's
"lila". That is to say, creation is completely without purpose. To use a
modern terminology, to speak of the universe as an expression of God's
intention or God's purpose is to commit a category mistake.

Your proposition 3: "The 'creation' of the universe is just the
transformation of the prakriti from its "avyakta" state to "vyakta" state.
All the laws of the universe are an expression of prakriti's innate triguna
svabhAva."

Therefore, God 'functions' as a catalyst (to use this term from high-school
Chemistry) in the process of creation. This function enables the
'potentiality' of Prakriti to become 'actuality'. The laws of the universe,
consequently, do not express what God 'desires' or God 'wants' but express
the 'nature' of prakriti. That is, the universe retains its character of not
being the product of God's intention or God's plans or God's purpose.
Universe expresses what universe is like, what it always has been and always
will be: namely, "it is in the nature of the universe to be what it is". God
has added nothing to the universe that was not already there, nor has he
taken away something that was there earlier. "This is the way universe has
been, is, and will be, because it belongs to the nature of the universe to
be the way it was, is, and will be."

Your proposition 4: "God is at all times impartial and as an antaryami
immanent spirit, He is the power behind all the 'being' and 'becoming' (ie,
expression of their individual svabhAvas) of souls as well as prakriti".

Because God is bliss personified, he cannot be attached to anything or
anybody. Therefore, he is strictly impartial. He is the 'power' behind
everything and is everywhere: both in the individuals and in 'the universe'
(using 'the universe' for 'prakriti'). He must be an 'antaryami' (present
internally in everything and everywhere) because he would not "have
everything" if he was not. Were he not to be in a gnat or an ant, he would
lack something, namely "what it feels to be like a gnat or an ant". So, he
has to be everywhere.

Now, we can begin to sense the generic question behind these propositions:
If this is what 'bliss' is, that is, not lacking anything, and if this
entity is bliss personified and is present in each one of us (and elsewhere
too) are 'we' not, in reality, or in our essence, also identical to this
entity? Tat Tvam Asi, 'thou art that': is not this what one of the mahAvAkya
tells us? 'Aham Brhmasmi", as another of the mahAvAkya also tells us. Does
it really matter what you call this 'blissful entity' as? And so on.

From these propositions, if you draw the inference, which you want to,
"hence, he governs the Universe", you need to understand 'governing' as (a)
an impartial act; (b) by the 'power' in the 'core' of each one of us and (c)
present in the rest of the Universe. One could also identify oneself with
one's 'core', and hence with the 'power' present in that 'core', and become
an advaitin. Alternately, one could differentiate this 'power' from oneself
and postulate 'another' entity: and hence the dvaita traditions.

In other words, the generic question behind these propositions brings us to
the Indian debates and Indian traditions, which are far, far removed from
the Semitic theological debates. The Biblical God is distinct from, and
alien to, the creatures He has created; he has plans and purposes in
creation; His intention (or will) expresses itself as the laws of the
Universe; we cannot know (or ask) why He created the Universe; even when He
tells us (through His revelation) why He did what He did, we do not
understand it adequately, and so on and so forth. This is what Jakob was
trying to tell you.

Friendly greetings

Balu.