DAKSHINAMURTI ASHTAKAM SHLOKA NO.2
बीजस्यान्तरिवाङ्कुरो जगदिदं प्राङ्निर्विकल्पं पुनः
मायावीव विजृम्भयत्यपि महायोगीश्वरेच्छया
तस्मै श्रीगुरुमूर्तये नम इदं श्रीदक्षिणामूर्तये॥
bIjasyAntarivA~Nkuro jagadidaM prA~NnirvikalpaM punaH
mAyAvIva vijRRimbhayatyapi mahAyogIshvarecchhayA
tasmai shrIgurumUrtaye nama idaM shrIdakshhiNAmUrtaye ..
To Him, who like a magician or a great yogin, displays, by (the power of) His own Will, this universe, which earlier was undifferentiated like the sprout in the seed, but which later was made differentiated under the varied conditions of space, time and causation created by mAyA, to Him of the form of the Guru, the blessed dakshinA-mUrti, is this prostration.
This verse dwells on the concept that the Absolute is also the material cause of the universe in addition to its being the efficient cause. But the analogy of the tree and the seed should not be carried too far. From the seed comes out a tree, from the tree again there is another seed. From Brahman 'sprouts' the universe, of course, but from the universe there does not shoot forth a Brahman! That is why Brahman is called 'bIjam avyayam' (Gita: 9 - 18) (= the non-perishing seed). The analogy of the yogi is more apt here. The use of the words 'prAk' (earlier), and 'punaH' (again), is not to indicate a passage of Time, but is to show the difference between the unmanifest state and the manifested state. Time starts only in the manifested state. In the unmanifested state, Time itself was - our language itself is failing us here! Why did we say 'was'? - unmanifest! Just as manifestation of the Absolute is a phenomenon of mAyA, Time also is a phenomenon of mAyA.
The Absolute doing the Creation of the Universe out of Itself is indeed a difficult concept. But there is very heavy scriptural authority for this. In fact one can give at least seven such evidences:
1. Only if Brahman is taken as the material cause of the world it is possible to know everything of the universe through the knowledge of Brahman, which is what is asserted in the following passages:
Mu.U.: I-1-2 kasmin nu bhagavo vijnAte sarvam-idam vijnAtam bhavati
What is that, knowing which, everything becomes known? B.G.: 7 – 2 yat-jnAtvA neha bhUyo'nyat jnAtavyam avaSishyate /
Having known which, nothing else remains to be known. Ch.U. VI-1-: yena aSrutam Srutam bhavati, amatam matam, avijnAtam vijnAtam By which unheard becomes heard, uncognized becomes cognized, unknown becomes known. Ch.U. VI-1-4 :
ekena mRt-piNDena sarvaM mRNmayaM vijnAtaM syAt,
vAcArambhanaM vikAro nAma-dheyaM mRttiketyeva satyaM
By one handful of earth, all earthen articles become known, so everything that is earthen is only a play with words (and forms), what is true is only earth.
2. bahusyaM prajAyeyeti, (May I be many, May I grow forth), says T.U. II - 6. This in so many words says that He Himself became the multiplicity of created things.
3. The next statement in T.U., tad-AtmAnaM svayaM akuruta, says more. It means: That itself manifested itself. Here the use of the two words 'AtmAnaM' and 'svayaM' both meaning 'itself' shows that there exists no other cause. So the Universe is only a modification of Brahman. What kind of modification it is, is the only thing that the two major schools of Philosophy debate about. For an elaboration of this point, see 6.4.
4. There is a standard statement in the Upanishads that 'all these beings were born from this', the word that is being used here for Brahman, being 'yat'. --T.U. III-1 -- yato vA imAni bhUtAni jAyante-- This word is a connective pronoun like 'which' used to indicate an antecedent noun. 'Yat' is a self-substituting entity. Panini's grammar gives a special meaning to this word, as prakRti. We know prakRti is the power of Brahman, which is what becomes the universe in the presence of Brahman.
5. The classical statement: (Ch.U. VI-2-2) ekaM eva advitIyaM brahma, meaning,
Brahman is One only, with no second. This first says there is no supporting entity, therefore there is no other efficient cause; and secondly it says there is nothing other than Brahman, therefore there is no other material cause.
6. Mu. U. gives three analogies for the relationship between the universe and Brahman. For details see 6.2.
7. Ch.U. (I-9-1 explains what happens at the time of dissolution:)
sarvANi ha va imAni bhUtAni, AkASAdeva samutpadyante,
AkASaM pratyastaM yAnti /
‘All these elemental principles emanate from Space and they finally dissolve into Space’. In the T.U.also, after the statement that they all come from 'yat' it is said (III-1) that they finally dissolve into 'yat'. yat prayanty-abhisamviSanti. A thing may be said to be produced from its efficient cause but it cannot return to that at dissolution unless it is also the material cause. This verse rejects the theory of the philosophy of NyAya and the philosophy of sAnkhya. The former holds that the atomic elements are the material cause of the universe. The latter holds that the three guNas satva, rajas, and tamas constitute the material casue of the universe. Both are rejected and this verse establishes that just as the plant was in the seed so also the universe was in its latent state in the Atman-Brahman and by its inherent mAyA power it appears as manifest.
OVER TO SHLOKA NO.3