The beauty of the vlna and the proficiency of one playing on its chords serve but to please an audience; they do not , by themselves , ever prove sufficient to confer full sovereignty .
In using analogies, nobody has yet come to the field of philosophy who can rival Sankara's efficiency and perfection. According to him, the schools of philosophy which argue emphatically, describe beautifully and enunciate exhaustively, discussions that give clear intellectual pictures of the why and wherefore of this universe, are all nothing but the beauty of the words or the eloquence of the speaker.
The player of an instrument with his proficiency may entertain the largest conceivable audience and for the time being, the listeners may even consider him the king of artistes. Yet, in effect, he can never gain sovereignty, permanent and complete, over the audience through the instrument.
Similarly, the various schools of philosophy are intellectual entertainments no doubt, yet the seeker cannot gain the status of godhood by merely dabbling in philosophy. A king might entertain himself and his friends by playing the vina. But his empire is not consolidated, nor is order maintained among the people nor is royal dignity nourished through his proficiency in the instrument.
Acharya Sankara wants to emphasize that any amount of philosophical studies, even a mastery over all the six schools of philosophy, cannot bring about a complete evolutionary fulfilment.
Sankara says one who studies apara vidya also is vidvan. Vidvan means vidyavan. One who studies para vidyā is also a vidvan. Because by definition vidvan means the one who has vidya. Apara vidya also makes a person vidvan; para vidya also makes a person vidvan.
Even though the words are similar, their consequence, results are totally different. To convey this idea; Sankara gives an example. What is that example? He says the word Raja,
The word Raja is derived from ranj, from the root ranj. The meaning of the word ranj is to please a person, to give joy; to give happiness. And Ranjanat Raja. A king is called Raja because he has to satisfy the people over whom he is ruling. Whatever is required, he should provide and he should keep the citizens happy.
Sankara says: suppose there is a person who has got a wonderful veena. you know veena is a musical instrument; He has got expertise in playing and therefore people have become happy because of his veena playing. Therefore, what he has done through his concert; he has done jana ranjanam.
Therefore, according to grammar rules, he also can be called; what; Rṇja; jana ranjanat, raja. So, what is the difference.
Even though he can claim himself to be a raja, what is the difference; that raja, the original one has got samrajyam, he has got a sovereignty over the kingdom; empire, whereas the vidvan does not have sovereignty over even his wife perhaps, we do not know or the people around or the small family. Therefore, the word raja remaining the same, one has freedom; another has no freedom.
Similarly, Yoga, Sankhya, Karma, Upasana etc. are all good, they can purify you to some extent but ultimately, it is the realization of the absolute, freedom from Samsara which makes one the real master, the real King, Shehanshah of Shehanshah(s), emperor of emperor(s).
The term 'samrajya' has a reminiscent flavor of Upanisad in ancient literature. This term is used for the kingdom of God within, in the heart of every individual.
Love
No comments:
Post a Comment