The Lord (The Saguna Parameswara) along with creation of " i, you" and everything else, also prescribed certain duties to be performed as a kind of a command. These are termed "vidhis".
Even while doing these duties, to eliminate even a trace of "doership" - as that would trigger a cause-effect karma cycle, an intent is expressed almost clearly inferring that all is done to obey His Vidhi seeking His kindness / favor, without a trace of doership.......... ....- "Parameswara preethi artham part" .
But when this is stretched & done for any particular purpose to (a) mitigate hardship or (b) seeking a boon etc, in the secular realm -- even while fully conscious of the ultimate reality of these being ephemeral and just part of His dream -- this intent takes the form of a "samkalpam"--- namely " this is good for me & I need those"-- kind of mindset. Invariably a "Diety" is invoked which has the jurisdiction of giving such boon or mitigating hardships. One hears lakshmi prasaadena, or anjaneya, subrahmanya prasaadena etc., after parameswara preetyartham part.....
This samkalpam then goes on to list out all that one wants from the particular ritual being undertaken, and yet maintaining the noble negation of 'doership" with that Parameswara preethi artham part.
An, interesting or perhaps to re-assert the "I am not the doer" sentiment, the word "i" does not find any mention in the samkalpam. Verbs like "karishye" "upaashishye" etc denoting a "Thou shall do it" rather than a more direct karishyami, establishing "doership", are the ones which are used ( I may be wrong as my samskrit gyan is very limited). Let me however come back to this later.....
And instead presently come to the contradiction part. Once you have iterated the intent namely seeking the Lords favor, If one is keen to ask for a boon or ask for forgivance of a sin, one would expect a list of these, along with seeking all kinds of blessings invoking some deity being iterated. But no not really; take the Upakarma, or a Amavasya Tharpanam, or a ganga dip samkalpam, Immediately after the parameswara preethi artham, without any further ado, or a pre-amble, one starts off with "apavithara .... ending with Sri Rama smarana eva part". These being without a context,& being unconnected statements, appear to me quite illogical. Instead if I were to say that with (a deity's) blessing I want such & such boon, and so I am doing such & such karma/pooja etc., stop there & then freshly start off with this "apavithra etc" part, it would make for a more logical sequence..... is my feeling.
Are you all still there? Even if "no", I am going further & dwell on the doership part. As I had observed earlier, there is no mention of "i" in any samkalpam, even while asking for boons etc. It is my faith/trust that as one does all prescribed "vidhis" in such a manner regularly, he/she would slowly evolve to the stage where one would start feeling a lesser need to do with these result oriented samkalpams, & thence slowly to that stage of dispensing with even the mandatory Parameswara preethi part as "i"having no separate identity from that non-dual "I"kind of realization, slowly makes an entry into our sub-stratum.
From there one gets to that stage where even the Parameswara (the saguna & an easily relate-able Lord "I" have created) ceases to have an identity. Only "brahmn" remains: Not surprisingly at the end our performing His Vidhis, "i" suddenly finds a mention, Karomi / samarpayaami etc., are clearly indicative of "i". And so "i" do that & end with OM Thath Sath.......all different words for that non-dual Brahmn in which "i" merge.
Seers are not jokers, I am simply fascinated by the depth of their understanding, imparting every complex reality into such simple vidhis etc., & yet doubts persist at every stage of our lives, regarding the true nature of self. I am sure my anguish about "rama smarana eva" piece will also get resolved one day......
May God bless
Ekalavya alias Vichu
Vichu,
ReplyDeleteSince you have elevated your doubt or "anguish" about the Sri Rama smaranena eva "piece" to the level of persistent doubts that arise in one's search for the true nature of the Self, I am inclined to leave that piece for Grace's intervention whenever it chooses to for you. Just some clarification in regard to grammar.
Karishye and Karishyaami are first person singular verbs in the future tense, of the same root Kri which means "to do". They carry no "Thou shall do it" command. Karishye interestingly is Aatmanay padam which is quite the opposite of your dissociating this from the 'i'. Karishyaami is parasmai padam which is supposed to declare that the action being done is for others or in its highest sense the Para vastu. I have never been able to decipher the significance of these usages. For instance stotraas freely use both these verbs. Vidyaarambham karishyaami, Bhooyo Bhooyo namaami aham, Namaami Vighneshwara..., but then Krishnam vande Jagadgurum, Vande aham Sheetalaam deveem etc.are common too. We could of course speculate that Aatmanay means the Supreme Self and all that. Incidentally Kri is Ubhaya padam so it has both forms.
As for the 'i' not featuring in the sankalpaas or in the concluding Kaayena vaacha, more often than not it does not feature. It does appear that when the verb is in first person singular the subject is considered redundant. May be to make the ritual complete Sandhyaavandanam concludes with Abhivaadaye which is as elaborate an identification of the performing 'i' as one could do.
Gulpa
Thanks, for the corrections. I had got carried away as many of the pieces are in that "command" mode and though karishye did not appear to be one, I just hoped I was right. For instance take Prasanna vadanam dyayeth.... (Think of prasnna vadanam Pillyar it says & not dyayaami) Take the Atma Pooja, (soham bhaavena poojayeth & not pujayaami). I believe we have to mentally say the latter as we do the pooja.
ReplyDeleteEven in gayathri, Prachodayaath (let it inspire has to be translated to I am inspired kind of bhaavam is implied I believe)
Jignyaasaa continues......
Vichu