VirOdhaparihAra
This
work of Desika is for the sake of the aspirant who wishes to clarify the doubts
regarding the real purport of the three Rahasyas, namely, Moolamanthra, dvayamanthra
and the charamasloka.
The
three principles of visishtadvaita, thathva, hitha
and purushartha are the essential requisites for an aspirant of
knowledge that lead him to salvation.
1.Thathva -is the knowledge of the three reals, namely, jeeva,
the sentient, jagath, the insentient and Isvara, Narayana, the Brahman
of Visishtadvaita.
2.Hitha-the means of realisation, that is, bhakthi
and prapatthi.
3.PurushArtha- the goal to be attained , moksha.
To
the one who strives to understand the above through the means of knowledge, perception, inference and
scritural testimony, there is bound to be certain doubts due to the
profoundness of the subject and the limitation of the human intellect. Unless
these doubts are cleared the knowledge will not arise
and the one without knowledge is like an animal says Desika, 'mumukshooNAm avasyajnAthavyEshu arTHEshu pratheeyamAnAnAm virODHANAm
aprasamanE "jnAnEna heenah pasubhissamAnah"ithyavasTHA bhavEth.'
Desika
further says that when it appears to an uninitiated student that there are
contrdictions in the scriptural statements it has to be clarified because if,
only those which agree with one's own view point is accepted by rejecting
others, it will land us in advaita and accepting both kinds of texts will
result in bhedhabhedha philosophy while rejecting them because they seem to be
self contradictory, is tantamount to accepting the views of those outside the
pale of the vedas like buddhists and the like. So the Acharyas proceed to
clarify the doubts that may arise in the mind of the aspirants and first the Moolamanthra
is taken up for discussion.
Desika
says the ashtakshara manthra is sArathamam, the essence of vedas with their angas,
'thrayO
vEdhAh shadangAni cchandhAmsi viviDhAh svarAh;, sarvam ashtAntharAnthasTHam yaschAnyAdhapi
vAngmayaam,'(Naradheeya kalpa-1-9), and
therefore the doubts that may arise regarding the moolamanthra are only like a
piece of grass that is found in drinking water which can be easily discarded
before drinking .
MoolmanthrADHikAram
1. anAdhikAlAnuvrttha samsAra
duhkhasahithAn kshEthrajnAn sarvajnathvAdhi guNasambhavEapi anuddharan Isvarah sarvarakshakah
ithi vyavahArah kaTham ghatathE?
When
the Lord is not redeeming the jivas who suffer in the samsara inspite of their
real nature being all knowledge etc. how can He be called sarvarakshaka,protector of all?
The
answer is given by Desika:
svaroopasya svabhAvasya niyamEnaiva rakshaNATH
anishtavAraNAdhEscha yOGythvAth nithyrakshakah.
He
is indeed sarvarakshaka , protector of all, because of
His protection of the essential nature of all souls by rule and His removal of
the suffering as far as the individual
soul deserves.
There
are two kinds of protection by the Lord.
(i).sarvavishayasatthAdhirakshaNaroopamEkam
nithyarakshakathvam.
The
protection of the very existence,satthA, the
essential nature of the individual self. Just because He extends His protection
to the essential nature and existence the released to soul is able to regain
its natural state on attaining moksha.
(ii)
samsArivishayE api anishtanivAraNAdhi rupam
kAdhachitkam.
The protection from suffering of the jiva in the
state of samsara only when asked for. In fact the jivas are experiencing duhkha due to their karma and
making them exhaust their karma by experiencing it, is also a kind of
protection and when the jiva approaches Him with bhakthi or prapatthi the Lord
will redeem the jiva through His grace. Thus His protection from suffering is yathkinchithvyAjasApEksham,
depends on the effort on the part of the jiva.So in all ways He is the
sarvarakshaka.
2.paragatha-athisaya-ADHAna icchayA-upAdhEyathvam
Eva yasya svarupam sa seshah, parah seshee ithi sribhAshyakArAh niraNaishuh;thaTHA
cha sathi bhagavathah svathassiddhAthisayathvatm kaTHam upapadhyathE?
The
Lord has been denoted as seshee and everything else both permanent
and impermanent as sesha to Him, by Sri Ramanuja.This means that the sentient
and insentient beings are dependent on Him and exist for His use and enjoyment
and controlled by Him.So if all beings exist for His use and enjoyment, how can
He be called svathssiddhAthisaya, one who possesses wonderful and natural glory, not
relying on anything else to add to His eminence, is the question.
Desika
gives the answer to this as
svathO athisayithasyApi jnANAdhyaih
nikhilaih guNaih
yuktham guNa vibhoothyAdhEh api sarvAthisAyitha.
When
one who has natural beauty wears ornaments it not only enhances the beauty but
even the ornaments are made beautiful by his wearing them. The Lord who is
naturally endowed with jnAna, Anandha etc., His seshithva, AdhEyathva and other qualities in connection with the
universe, which is His sesha, only enhances His glory is like that of a gem which
is invaluable, is enhanced by its lustre, while its value is natural to it and
not due to its lustre. 'svayAdheepthyA ratnam
bhavadhapi mahArgham na viguNam na
kunTasvAthanthryam bhavathi cha na cha anyAhithaguNam'(sri guNa.31) Moreover
the sentient and the insentient, permanent or impermanent, form part of the
glory of the Lord by the very reason that they owe their existence to Him.
3.Nanu Ekasyaive sarvaseshithvam sasthrathah
prathipAdhyathE;aTHah kaTHam ubhayAdhishTAnathvAm Ekam seshithvam ithi?
The
sasthra declares that the Lord is the seshi to everything other than Himself.
If so, how can the divine couple, the Lord and Sri are ascribed seshithvam
together?
visvam prathi thu seshithvam mAthA pithrOriva
dvayOh
pathnyAscha pathiseshathvAth sarvaseshee parah
pumAn
Desika
points out that even in the wordly sense all the possessions like house etc are
sesha, or property of both father and mother of the family and because the wife
is the sesha of the husband the Lord is said to be sarvaseshi.' athO
bhagavathah sarvaseshithva vyavasTHApanAth lakshmyAscha bhagavathvyathiriktha
sarvaseshithvavyavastTHApanAth cha na upaplavAvakAsah.That is, the
Lord is the sarvaseshi and Lakshmi is the seshi of all except the Lord and
hence there is no contradiction to say that Ekaseshithvam belongs to
both of them together.
4. Ittham sarvEsvarasya svAbhAvikE sarvasEshithvE 'parijana-paribarhA-bhooshNAnyAyuDHAni'
ithyAdhyuktha prkArENA tasyApyAsritha seshathva-kaTHanam kaTHamiva
upapadhyathE?
In
VaradarAjasthava it is said that the Lord along with His weapons, ornaments
auspicious qualities etc. becomes the sesha of His devotees.The doubt is raised
as to how can He become a sesha to His devotees while
He is the sarvaseshi.
The
answer to this is given as follows.
satthAdhibhirupAdhAnAth svArTHam chidhachidhOrapi
seshithvam seshabhAvasthu guNAdhEva upapadhyahE
The
upanishads say that the Lord creates sustains and controls the sentient and the
insentient for His own use and hence the seshithva of the Lord. But the
seshathva towards His devotees is due to His looking after them without
expecting anything in return.So both seshithva and seshathva apply to Him and
the seshathva is not due to dependence but because of the attraction by the gunas of the
devotees.This was the reason He became ready to do the bidding of Visvamitha in
RamAvathAra and that of Yudhishtira in KrishnAvathAra.This is not in any way
undermines His seshithva.
5.jeevasya bhagavanthamprathi sEshathvasya
svabhAva siddhathayA nithyathvE 'niranjanah paramam sAmym upaithi,' ithi
mukthAvasthAyAm paramsAmyavachanam pralObhanamAthram syAth; athah yAvan
mokshameva seshathvam ithi vAdhah parigrAhyhah.
As
the seshithva of the jiva to the Lord is said to be natural and eternal, the
statement of the upanishad that the jiva attains paramam sAmyam
, equal status with the Lord in released state cannot be true. Hence the
seshathva is to be ascribed to the jiva only till he attains moksha.
Desika
refutes this saying
bhOgamAthrasamAnathvAth jagathvyApAravarjanAth
EkadhEsEna sAmyam syAth suvarNa
silayOriva.
In
Brahmasuthra we have the statement 'jagathvyApAravarjam prakaraNAth asannihithathvAth
cha, (BS.4-4-17), The released soul does not have
any part in the functions like creation etc. which are exclusively belong to
the Lord.This has been declared by the sruthi.' Hence the equality, sAmya is
only in respect of knowledge and bliss. The brahmasuthra also says,'bhOgamAthrasAmyalingAccha,there is equality in enjoyment only.' Therefore the
seshathva continues even in apavarga, release.Desika says that the
equality is as in the case of gold and stone when weighed as equal,
that is only in form and not in any other qualities. 'thoolAdhrtha-suvarNa-vyApAra-nyAyEna
EkEnApyAkArEna paramasAmyam aparENa cha AkArENA vaiDharmyam,' equality
is in one respect and difference in another.
6. Evam seshatvasya nithyathvE thaththulya nyaya siddhasya
pArathanthrasyApi mukthAvasthAyAm anuvarthamAnathvAth 'sa svarAt bhavathi' ithyAdhi
sruthisiddham svAthanthryam kaThamiva anuvarthathE?
If
the seshathva is eternal
then the dependence also being continued in the state of release,
how can the statement of the sruthi ' he becomes his own sovereign 'will be
applicable to the jiva?
The
reply is given as
sruthisidhasya jeevasya pARathanthryavyavasThayA
svAthanthryam apavargE thu kainkaryAthmasu
karmasu.
The
jiva who stands in relation of AdhEya,viDHEya and
sEsha,with the Lord, that is, being supported
by , controlled by and belonging
to Him, has independence in the state of release which is in respect of service
to the Lord.
The
relationship between the jiva and the lord is one of sarira-sariribhAva, that
of body and soul. Hence as the body is always dependent on the soul there is no
absolute independence but he has the freedom in the setrvice of the Lord like
the one belongng to the retinue of the king and subject to the will of the Lord,
he is free to move about and discharge his duties as ordained by the Lord. The
freedom consists in being free from the shackles of karma.
7.Athmasabdha-vAchyA-dhEva-thiryang-manushya-sTHAvarAdhikam
sarvamapi bhagavath dhAsathvEnadhrsyathE.thath kaTHam Ethath upapadhyathe?
As
the Lord is the self of both sentient and the insentient even the animals and
the plants are said to be His dasas. How is this appropriate?
In
Manthrarajapadhasthothra it is said that 'dAsabhoothA svathassarvE AthmAnah
paramAthmanah,' all beings serve the Lord by their nature
,(being His body.) The doubt here is that even though it may be true of humans
but how can this be applied to animals who have no
discrimination and the plants which are insentient.
The
answer is
dAsathvam khalu sEshathva-jnAnArhathvam nigadhyathE
pasvAdheenAm tu thathjnAnam bhavEth
janmAntharEshvapi.
The
intention to serve may not be present in the animals and plants but they will
have the fitness for seshathva and the knowledge of it in subsequent lives because
they are like sleeping sentient selves who are unaware of their nature.Since
there is no certainty that they will be born only as animals or plants in their
next life they are also fit to be called dAsas of the Lord. Their service to their masters is for this
life only and hence it is not permanent whereas they are the seshas of the Lord
in their whole existence and hence His dasas.
8.katham cha chEthanAchEthanayOh bhagavantham
prathi ananyArhaseshathvam abhilapyathE?
How
can the sentient and insentient entities be sesha for the Lord only?
This
question arises because it is seen in the world that the sentient beings such
as servants of a master and the insentient like houses etc are seshas , that is belonging to the human beings due to their
karma and also for the released souls and everfree souls the sentient and the
insentient become sesha , that is, enjoyable, due to the will Of the Lord. Hence
they cannot be termed as solely existing for the service and enjoyment of the
Lord.
The
anwer is given by Desika as
nirupADHika sesham hi visvamEthath sriyah pathEh
karmAdhyupADHiniyathaseshathvamitharAn prathi
The seshathvam is of two kinds, svAbhAvikam, what is natural and
aupADHikam, conditional.The seshathva of all beings to the Lord is
unconditional while the seshathva to others is conditional,depending
on other circumstances such as the fruit of karma ,will of the Lord etc. The
seshathva to the Lord is unconditional and eternal and hence there is no
contradiction.
9.sEshathva avaDHAraNAth sareerAthmasiddhEh ithi
vAchOyukthih anupapannA
How
can the sarira-sariribhAva explained in terms of seshathva?
Ramanuja defines sarira as a substance which a sentient
soul completely supports, aadhara-aadheya bhava, and
controls, niyantha-niyaamya bhava for serving its own
purpose and which is subordinate to the sentient soul, sesha--seshi
bhava..
The
world of cit and acit
form the sarira of Brahman because they are supported, controlled
and used by Brahman. The entry of Brahman into the cit and the acit in order to
diversify them into name and form is supported by the sruti 'tadhaikshatha
bahusyaam prajaayeya' Hence they exist in an inseparable
relation with Brahman similar to the body and soul.
This
is what is referred to here as 'seshathva avaDhArNAth sarirAthma siddhi'
The
appropriateness of sarira-sariribhAva resulting from seshathva is establshed by
Desika thus:
vyavacchEdhAdhayOgasya sareerAthmathvamishyathE
anyayOgavyavachEdhah nirvEdhAdhEsthu kAraNam
In
the moolamanthra 'a' stands for the Lord and 'u' is explained as none
else while 'm' refers to the jiva. So the praNava of the moolamanthra indicates
that the jiva is sesha to the Lord and to no one else. Thus the the meaning of
'u'kAra and 'm'akAra imply a dative case
ending to 'a'kAra, that is, 'a' denoting Narayana, the word 'for' is affixed to
it giving the meaning that the individual soul is sesha only to Narayana. The
seshathva can be explained in two ways, namely, through ayOgavyavacchEdha
and through anyayOgavyavacchEdha.What the 'a'kAra of the praNava denotes
is the seshathva in the former sense,which is
seshathva for no reason but natural one. Being such it has to be eternal.
anyayOgavyavacchEdha on
the other hand is what is denoted by the 'u'kAra o the praNava, that is
seshathva to no one else.The doubt arises on account of misconception of one
with the other.
The
sarira-sariri bhAva through seshathva is questioned for the following reason.
All things of a person may belong to another but his sarira cannot
be that of another.If it is argued that the sole criterion of sarira being that it cannot belong to another it will
apply even in the case of the wife of a person, this is not so because even the
wife or his own sarira can be made sesha to others but it does not mean
that it has become the sarira of
another. So seshathva cannot imply sarirathva.
This
confusion, says
Desika is due to the inability to distinguish between ayOgavyavacchEdha
and anyayOgavyavacchEdha.Sarira is something which never ceses to belong
to the sariri and hence the sentient and the insentient which can never be said
not to belong to the Lord through ayOga vyavacchEdha, must be His sarira.
anyayOgavyavacchEdha is that the jiva is not sesha to any one else
except the Lord which is implied through the 'u'kAra. This knowledge comes to
the jiva through nirvEdha,that is, the sorrow born out of being slave to
others, like the indhriyas so long, and he attempts to change this state of
affairs through the means of prapatthi denoted by 'namah' in the
moolamanthra.Thus the 'a'kAra of the praNava denotes sarira-sariri bhAva
through aYogavyavacchEdha and the 'u'kAra implies the regret through the
knowlege of anyayOgavyavacchEdha impelling the jiva to rsort to upAya, the means
of salvation denoted by the word 'namah.'
10.jeevEsvarayOh ubhayOrapi vibhuthvam
aNuthvam cha pramANEshu kaTHyathE.kaTHam asya aNUthvam Isvarasya vibhuthvam EVa
ithi niyamah upapadhyathE?
Sasthra has established that both jiva and the Lord
are atomic, aNu, but all pervading,vibhu. But vedantha
has shown the Lord only as vibhu. If vibhuthva is due to the ability to entry
into all beings and pervading all for an atomic entity like the jiva inspite of
its being aNu why could not that be the case for the Lord
as well?
This
could not be accepted, says Desika.
vibhuthva aNuthva bhEdhEna jeevEsaniyamAth
sruthou
smrthisuthrAnusArAccha nANuthvam brahmaNi sTHitham.
From
sruthi smrthi and Brahmasuthra it could be seen that Brahman is not aNu because
the difference between the jiva and Isvara has been ascertained in terms of
vibhuthva and aNuthva.
The
sruthi says, 'ArAgramAthro hyavarOhi dhrshtah,(Svet.5-8)
the individual self which is as small as the tip of the goad,is seen to be
different from Brahman. The smrithi also affirms the vibhuthva of the Lord in 'mayA
thatham idham sarvam jagadhavyakthamurthinA,(BG.9-4)
all this universe is pervaded by Me in unmanifest form.' Brahmasuthra confirms
the aNuthva of the jiva and the vibhuthva of Brahman.'nANuh athacchruthEh
ithi na,itharADhikArAth, (BS.2-3-22) If it is said
that it is not atomic because of scriptural statement as otherwise, it is not
so, as the subject matter of those texts is Brahman.'
This
refers to the text 'sa vA Esha mahAn aja AthmA, (Brhd.4-4-22) that self
is infinite and unborn,' which could prove that it is not atomic
But
the suthra refutes this by saying that it is Brahman who is referred to in
those texts as can be understood from the context, the subject matter of which
is Brahman. But the reference to Brahman as being atomic as in the statement 'anOraneeyAn,'
smaller that the atom or as in dhaharavidhya,where Brahman is said to
abide in the small space within the lotus of the heart (Chan.8-1-1) is for the sake of upAsana.Desika says this
matter can be understood from the study of Sribhashya 'vistharasthah bhAshyE
Eva anusanDHEyah.'
11.Ekasmin sarirEpANipAdhAdhishu
sarvathra sukhaduhkhOpalambhAth sarva upalambha viruddhamaNuthvam.
The
soul being atomic there cannot be the experience of pain and pleasure in all parts of the
body.
This
is not so, says Desika.
vibhthvE api hi jeevasya jnAnAdhEva
sukhAdhikam
anyaTHA sarvagam thathsyAth jnAnam chEdhiha
thathsamam
The pain and pleasure is only due to the dharmabhuthajnAna,
attributive consciousness of the self and is felt where it operates as
otherwise the jnAna being everywhere it will be felt all over.
If it is claimed that the jiva is vibhu, all-pervading or occupies
the whole body, there is no reason for the pain and pleasure being felt in one
place only. Hence it is only appropriate to accept that the individual self is
atomic as declared by the sruthi and the pain and pleasure is felt in other
parts of the body due to the vyApthi, pervasion, of the dharmabhuthajnAna. This
is compared to the light of the lamp which pervades the whole place though the
lamp is situated in one place only, or like the light of the eye being inside
the organ of sight is able to illuminate everything everywhere or like the mind
which is able to cognise anything in the world through the power of yoga and so
on.
12. SoubhariprabrtheenAm nithyANAm mukthAnAm cha anEka sariraparigrahE sarvathrApi
sarirEshu svrupasAnniDhyAbhAvAth bAhyEshu vishayEshu iva aham buddhih na sambhAvyathE.
The
yogis like soubhari, the released and etrnal souls are suppose to occupy
several bodies at the same time in which case the soul cannot be present in all
bodies and so even if the experience in all bodies can be had through the
dharmabhuthajnAna, ahambuddhi, the notion of 'I' cannot exist in all bodies.
Desika
says the ahambuddhi is present in all sarira.
ahambuddhih yaTHaikasmin sarirEpi cha samsThithA
sarvathra vyavahArArhA thaTHAnyathrApi
dhrsyathAm
The
concept of 'I' exists only in the self but is extended to the whole body.
Simlarly in the cases stated above the concept of 'I' is seen in all the bodies
assumed.
Desika
asks the opponent whether the concept of 'aham' is all-pervading like the jiva
or restricted to one part only.It could not be the first because it is due to
nescience which is not accepted as all pervading
even by the opponent (who is assumed to be advaitin) and it could not be the
latter either because the aham buddhi is seen with respect to all parts of the
body.If it is argued that it is due to the mind going to the parts, even the
mind is atomic and the same objection holds good. Hence as shown in the suthra 'pradheepavath
AvEsah thaTHA hi dharsayathi,(BS.4-4-15) which means that as the
light of the lamp pervades all the place, the released soul, though atomic is
able to enter into all bodies to enjoy the bliss.
13. sruthisvArasya anurODHEna jeevasya
aNuthvam ithi AmOkshasTHAyee ithi
nirNEthavyam.
As
declared in the sruthi it should be accepted that the atomic nature of the jiva
is only till the release.
This
argument is based on the sruthi text 'vAlAgrasathabhAgasya sathaDHA
kalpithasya cha; bhAgO jeevah sa vijnEyah sa cha anathyAya kalpathe,(Svet.5-9)
the size of the individual self is of the tip of the hair divided into hundredth of its hundredth
part and yet it is infinite.
The
self is declared as atomic by sruthi texts such as 'ArAgrmAThra,' etc.
and that it is changeless, kootastha, ' nithyO nithyAnAm
chEthanaschEthanAnAm, he is the eternal of all the eternals and sentient of
all sentients.' (Kato.2-5-13) The suthra 'pradheepavath'(BS.4-4-15)
shows how the atomic self is able to occupy all the bodies through the
pervasion of the dharmabhuthajnAna at the state or release.The question as to how
the dharmabhuthajnana becomes infinite in the state of release is answered by
Desika by citing the example of the rays of the sun which pervades the whole world
at once. Similar to this the natural jnAna of the jiva becomes infinite through
the will of Isvara in the state of release.Just as the lustre of the gem is not
created through cleaning it the natural jnAna which is infinite shines in the
state of release like the rays of the sun or the light of the lamp.
14.EkasminnEva bahu sarirapaigrahE sarvANyapi sarirANi
ekEnaiva aDHishTithAni ithi vakthum sakyathE ithi EkajeevavAdhah prasajyathE.
If
one self is able to take many bodies it would amount to EkajeevavAdha.
Eka
jeevavAdha is that there is
only one real self and all the rest is an illusion.
The
reply to this is given by Desika as follows:
sukhaduhkhAdhi bhEDHE thu nanAthva vyavasTHithih
anthahkaraNabhEdhEna prathisanDHA nirAkrthih
If
there is only one soul the sukha and duhkha in one sarira will be experienced in all the sariras.
But this is not the case.It cannot be argued that due to the difference of mind
and intellect in different bodies the experience is different as there is no
valid proof for the same.So it is only reasonable to assume that the souls are
different in different bodies.
15. Ekasya upAdhibhEdhAth prathisanDHAna abhAvasya anangeekAre rAmakrishNAdheenAm EkEsvara
avathArarupathvam na yujyathe.
If
it is not accepted that one soul is experiencing through different bodies due
to the difference of mind and intellect, the incarnations like Rama and
This
objection is raised on account of the words of Rama 'AthmAnam mAnusham
manyE rAmam dhasaraTHAthmajam , I consider myself as a human being , Rama,
the son of DhasaraTha,' when he had to be reminded of his divinity.
(Ram.6-120-11,13) Since Rama did not have the
knowledge of his Narayanasvarupa it seems as though the self in the incarnation
is different like all the individual selves.
But
this is the argument of the ignorant, says Desika ,
since the actions and words in the incarnations are nothing but play-acting of
the Lord.
svathanthrasyEsvarasyApi karmavasyathvanAtakam
thEna vanchayathE lokAnithyAdhyaih
abhiDHeeyathE
The appearance of the result of karma in incarnations of the Lord who is independent, is
only a play by which He deceives the world into thinking that He is human.
The reference is to the sloka in MahabhAratha,
thEna vanchayathE lOkAn mAyAyogEna kEsavah
yE thamEva prapadhyanthE na thE
muhyanthi mAnavAh (Maha.uddhyoga.65-25)
where
Sanjaya tells DhrtharAshtra about
The
sentence referred to is as follows:
jaradhgavam kambalapAdhukAbhyAm
dvArisThithO gAyathi badhrakANi
tham brAhmaNee prcchathi puthrakAmA
rAjan rumAyAm lasunasya kOrgah
This
makes no ense as it is a jumble of unconnected things mentioned together. It
means, old cow with blankets and foot wear, the one at the gate sings good
things and the brahmin woman who wishes for a son askes him, oh king,in Ruma,
what is the price of garlic.
This
is mentioned to denote the inappropiateness of the Lord experiencing duhkha in
His incarnations.When He is said to grieve on account of His mercy seeing the
suffering of bhakthas, 'vyasanEshu manushyANAm brsam bhavathi duhkhthah' it
is to induce bhakthi out of His pity for those who are caught in the wheel of
samsara, which has a semblance of grief.
16.Evam rAmakrishnAdheenAm karmavasyathva
abhinayamAthra svekArE sathi AvEsAvathArathayA pratheeyamAnAneshu api nirathisayaAnandhayOgE parasurAmAdhishu sAkshAth
avathAramEva vakthum sakyam.---anyaTHA thathra prathishTArchnvachanamapi thathra
na sanghatathE.
If
it is said that all the actions in the incarnations which appear to be due to
karma are only play-acting on the partof the Lord why should the AvEsa
avathAras, where the manifestation of
divinity was said to be present for short time, be not considered as real
incarnations and not partial as otherwise the worship of these forms is not possible?
The
AvEsAvathAras are proved by the sasthra, says Desika, as otherwise all entities
will have to be considered as incarnations.
bahupramANa siddhathvAth yuktham AvEsakalpanam
anyaTHA vibhavE sarvam Avishtasya sriyah
pathEh
The
AvEsAvathara has been mentioned as such in the texts such as 'srshtim thathah
karishyAmi thvAm Avisya prajApathE, (after creating the cosmos) I will
enter in you and do the creation,oh, prajApathi (vishnudharma.68-54) and 'anupravisya
kuruthE yathsameehitham achyuthah, the Lord enters into the jivas and do
what He wants,' (Vishnudharmam.108-50) If this is not accepted as such, all the
entities mentioned in the tenth chapter on vibhuthi yOga in Bhagavat gita will
be the incarnations of the Lord., because the Lord says "it is I" in
all those entities mentoned therein.
In
prathardhanavidhya of the upanishad Indra tells
Prathardhana to meditate on him as Brahman. There it is the Lord who is the
innerself is meditated upon and not Indra.Similarly in the AvEsAvathAras the
worship etc. for the form is to the Lord who is the inner self and there is
nothing contrary to the concept of taking them as AvEsAvathAras.
17. ajnAna duhkhithva karmavasyathvAdhi
yukthAnAm samsAriNAm jnAna Anandha amalathvAdhikam nithysiddham ithi vachanam
viruddham Eva.
While
the misery due to karma caused by ignorance is real for the souls in
transmigration, to say that knowledge, purity and bliss is the permanent nature
of the self is inappropriate.
There
is no contradiction here also, says Desika.
jnAnAnandhAmalathvAnAm svarupE samprdhAraNath
thadhanyavishyAjnAnaduhkhAdhyam kim na uchyathe
Knowledge,bliss and purity are always present in the jiva. the suffering is due to different cause, namely ajnAna and
hence it is not self-contradicting.
The
duhkha is only due to the connection of the soul with the body which is the
effect of karma and the sukha and duhkha do not adhere to the self which is
jnAnAnandha svarupa.
18. 'nirvANamaya EvAyam AthmAjnAnamayO amalah
duhkhaajnAnamayAdharmAh
prakrhtEh na chAthmanah'
ithi vachnOdhitha svarupasya jeevasya
duhkhAjnAnAdhikam anthahkaraNmEva ArOpiththayA pratheeyathE na thu paramArTHa
svarupam ithi vakthum yuktham ithi. (Vishnu PuraNa.6-7-22)
VishnupurAna
says that the self is free like the eternal souls having bliss and knowledge
as his essential nature and the duhkha and ignorance is
only the attributes of prakrthi and not of the self.
Hence they should be attributed to
the mind and intellect and not to the self.So how can they be said to be real,
in the state of samsara?
Desika
replies as
svabhAvAth sooritulyasya karmOpAdhivasAviha
duhkhithvam thannivrtthischa thadhupADHi
nivrthithah
Even
though the jiva is equal to the eternal selves by nature he experiences duhkha
due to the adjunct( of karma) and becomes free from it
when the adjunct is removed.
'
Just
as the jasmin flower appears white and sometimes red due to the association
with the kimsuka flower, the jiva gets duhkha and ignorance due to the
contraction of dharambhuthajnAna, attributive consciousness, caused by karma.
When the karma is exhausted the natural knowledge and bliss is regained like the eternal souls. The expression that the duhkha and ajnAna belong to prakrthi means
that it is due to the connection with prakrthi.
19. nanu svarupajnAna abhAvAth
anAdhikAla prayuktha dhEhAthma bhrAnthi vasAnAm jeevAnam Athmasvarupam
svaprakAsam ithi vachanam upalambha viruddham ithi.
It
is highly improbable that the real nature of the self is present always to the
jiva, as he is devoid of the knowledge of his real nature and also has
beginningless delusion that he is the body.
Desika
answers that
aDHishTAnapratheethih khalu ArOpasya upayujyathE
thasmAth svarupE bhODHEna bhrAnthih naiva
viruDHyathE
The
delusion arises out of the existence of a substratum and hence the illusory
knowledge is not contradicting that of the reality.
When
there is a delusion of snake in a rope, the rope is perceived but due to the
non-cognition of the difference of it from the snake the delusion arises. Hence
bhranthi or illusion can only result from the perception of a real thing which
is mistaken for something unreal.Here also the real nature of the self is perceived but not
cognised due to the defect of avidhya. This gives rise to the illusion that
self is the body.So the the real nature is present but not cognised and as this
gives rise to the dhEhAthmabhrama it is not a self-contradiction at all. The
concept of independence to the jiva is due to the non-cognition of the
seshathva and other attributes because only the nature of self is presented
which is misconstrued as something else but the attributes like seshathva,
AdhEyathva etc. are not present.
20.EvamAthmanah jnAnasvarupathvE
svayamprakAsathve cha susushupthAyAm api prakAsah prasjyEtha.
If
the Athman is self-illumined it should be present even in deep sleep.
But
it does not, the usual experience being
"I did not know anything" and this is confirmed by sruthi also, as
the statement 'svam apeethO bhavathi' denotes only apyaya
or dissolution.Hence the expression that the self is of the nature of knowledge
which is self -illuminating is only aupacharikam,mentioned in a secondary sense.
In
the passage referred to, the text is 'yathra Ethath purushah svapithi nAma sathA soumya thadhA sampannO bhavathi svayam apeetho
bhavathi, (Chan.6-8-1) when a man
sleeps he becomes united with Brahman and attains dissolution in his own
nature.
Desika says that it is not aupacharikam but has
direct meaning only.
jnAthrthvam jnAna rupathvam dhvayam
sruthyaiva gamyathE
svarupam jnAyatE supthou vaisishtyam thu na
buddhyathE
Sruthi shows proof for jiva being jnAnasvarupa, of
the nature of knowledge as well as jnAna gunaka,having
knowledge as an attribute. 'Esha hi dhrashtA sprshtA srOthA ghrAthA rasayithA manthA
boddhA karthA vijnAnAthma prushah, (Pras.4-9) this jiva is the seer,one who
touches,listener,smeller,taster,thinker, feeler and doer. He is of the nature
of knowledge.Thus the jiva has the attributive consciousness that cognises the
sense impressions and also the essence of knowledge.Thus in sleep the nature of
the self as knowledge alone is manifest and not the attributive
consciousness.Hence he is not aware of himself as sleeping.The statement "I did not know anything all this while
," shows the absence of objective experience while the statement "I
did not know myself," denotes that the awareness of one's self as
distinguished by the particular characterestics
is absent.The experience that "I slept well " is the proof of
the presence of the natural state alone.Therefore there is no inconsistancy.
21.jeevasya
jnAnasvarupathvE jnAthrthva vAdhAnAm cha aoupachAArikathvam nyAyyam. na khalu dharmabhoothajnAnasya jnAnasvarupasya jnAthrthvam
upalabhAmahe.
Since the self is of the nature of knowledge,
knowership is attributed to it only as aoupachArika, in secondary sense, since
it is accepted that the dharmabhuthajnana has no jnAthrthva.
Desika replies to this as
upalambhasya sAmarthyAth sruthi
thaAthparyathOpi cha
EkajAtheeyayOh dharma-dharmithvam
kim na yujyathE
Through apprehension
and through the purport of the scriptures the attribute and the attributed, dharma-dharmithvam, can apply to the same
thing though the two belong to the same class.
For instance when one
wakes up from sleep there are two kinds of cognition. One is that of having
slept well in the form of 'sukhamaham
asvApsam,
I slept
well,' and the other is the cognition ' EthAvantham kalam na kinchith aham ajnAsisham,
I did
not
know
anything all this while.' The former is of the nature of the self as knowledge
and the latter denotes the absence of the dharamabhuthajnana in sleep. Thus
both the dharmi and dharma aspects are denoted.The sruthi also declares the
self as jnanasvrupa as well as possessing jnAthrthva.
Brahmasuthra also confirms this by 'jnO atha
Eva' (BS.2-3-19) That is, this
self knows objects and hence he is the knower. To raise the question that since
the Self and the dharmabhuthajnAna are both knowledge how can one be the possessor of the attrbute,knower and the other the
attribute knowledge, is nonsensical .says Desika.'EkajAtheeyasya
dharma-dharmibhAvah na ghatathE ithi chOdhyah mandhapralApa Eva,' because
it is found everywhere that between dharma and dharmi, attribute and the
attributed, there is certain aspect similar to the class they belong to while
they differ in other aspects. It is however established that there is no
knowership attributed to the dharambhuthajnAna as it is only attributive and an
attribute,dharma, cannot be independent of the
attributed, dharmi just as the light of a gem, sun and a lamp has no existence
of its own.
22. dhEhAdhivilakshaNathvena
vibhakthasvaroopasya jeevasya karthavyAntharam na upalabhAmahe;
athah svarupAnubhanDHi
varNAsramAdhirAhithyavedhinah purushAh kaTHamiva karmADHikAriNah bhavishyanthi?
There
is no karma for the jiva who is different from body etc. and therefore how can those, who know that they are the self which is beyond
The reference here is to the slokas in
Vishnupurana and Mahabharatha that declare the self as different from embodied
beings.
pumAn nA dhEvO
na narO na pasurna cha padhapah
sareerAkrthibhEdhAsthu bhoopa
EthE karmayOnayah
(VP.2-13-98)
Oh king! the jiva is not a
deva, man,an animal or even a plant.These differences are due to that in the
physical bodies caused by karma.
nAyam dhEvO na marthyO va na thiryak sthAvaropi vA
jnAnAnandhamayasthvAthmA seshO hi paramAthmanah
(Maha.AsvamEdhika.43-13)
This jiva is neither a deva, nor a man ,nor animal nor a plant. He is of the nature of bliss
and knowledge and a sesha to the Lord.
hence thereis no karma for the
jiva who has the knowledge of his reakl self.
Desika refutes this view saying that it will apply
only to ChArvAkas, the materialists. Since they do not believe in a life after
death they do not follow the karma enjoined in the vedas.For others, especially
those who have the knowledge of the self,
dhEhAthmanOH vivEkE api dhEhasambandhayOginAm
karthavyam dhrsyathE yadhvath grhakshEthrAdhisAlinAm
Even after attaining the discrimination that soul is
different from the body the karma is to be performed as the owners of the house
and land do their karma.
All karma is according to varnAsrama which stays
till death and cannot be avoided as the eating and drinking because of the
connection with the body.The discrimination between the body and the soul does
not preclude the karma that is to be done. Desika cites the example of where
the man owning house and land which are different from him discharges certain
duties according to the mandate of the king.Here the karma enjoined by the
vedas are mandatory because it is ordained by the Lord who is the king of kings,rajAdhirAja, whose command should be followed by all beings,
till death,says Desika. 'Abrahmakeetam akhilairapi
anuvarthaneeya-sAsanasya rAjADhirAjasya bhagavathah sarvEsvarasya sasanamapi yaTHADHikAram
yAvaddhEhapAtham anuvarthaneeyam ithi prAmANikAnAm panTHAh.'
23.aTHApi,
yasyAythmarathirEva syAth Athmathrpthascha
mAnavah
AthamnyEva cha
santhushTah thasyaKAryam na vidhyathE
(BG.3-17)
ithyukthaprakArENa AthmAnubhavathrpthasya na
kinchidhapi karthavyam.
The sloka quoted means that for the one who revels
in the Self, contented with the Self and enjoys the bliss of the Self , there is nothing to be accomplished, that is, he has
no karma.
Desika says in answer to this,
karthvyasya uparOdhasthu yogE
mukthou cha sambhavEth
anyaTHA bhOjanOnmEsha nimEshAdhi kaTHam
bhavEth
In the state of yOga and release only there is no
karma.Otherwise even the actions like eating or blinking will not take place.
The statements in the sruthi and smrthi regarding
the non-performance of karma applies only
while doing yoga and after mukthi.If all the karma are denied in the embodied
state even the ordinary actions like eating, clothing, breathing etc would not
take place.So the actions enjoined by the scriptures have to be performed till
death even by the man of knowledge. Visishtadvaitha does not accept the concept
of jeevanmukthi of the advaita.
The one who is 'nArAyaNaikanishta,' that is, a
paramaikAnthi with ananyabhakthi towards the Lord Narayana, does all the nithya
naimitthika karma as bhagavdhArADhana, dedicating all his actions to the Lord
and performing them as worship.This attitude is his japa.The perception of the
Lord in everything is the dhyAna,meditation. the water that washes the feet of such a pure
soul, who purifies the place where he is,becomes the holy water which purifies
all.This is deemed as bhAgavathasnAnam and the remainings of the food which he
offers to the Lord as naivEdhya and partakes himself , becomes the prasAdha for
his children and disciples.
24.BhAgavathAnAm EthadhananyArha sEshathvajnAnEna
svarupayAthAthmyajnAnavathAm anyasEshathvaprApakaagneendhrAdhivyAmisrakarmANi
akarthavyAnyEva.
To the devotees of the Lord who have the knowledge
that they are seshas only to Him, the performance of the karmas that propitiate
other devas like agni and Indra become prohibited as
they imply anyasEshathva, that they are sEshas to these deities.
This is answered by Desika thus:
AjnAthilanganAyOgAth
antharyAmithva dharsanAth
sAkshAdhapi avirOdhAccha
karmakarthavyam ishyathE
It is not a transgression of command because of the
perception of the Lord as the indweller and also of direct connotation which
removes any contradiction and hence the works enjoined in the vedas like yajna
are to be performed by the paramaikAnthins also.
A paramaikanthin does all the karma as the offering to Lord
Narayana only and therefore even when he performs yaga etc with respect to
other deities like Indra and agni, his action is
directed only to the Lord who is the indweller of those deities. It is like
garlanding a person on his shirt ,which is towards the
person only and not the garment. When the Lord is meditated as the whole world
consisting of insentient beings, it is not directed to the world but to the
Lord whose sarira is the world. Similarly here all the activities propitiating
the other deities are
directed only towards the Lord. It denotes anyasEshathhvam only when these deities
are worshipped for their own sake expecting them to yield the desired
fruit of the karma instead of the Lord who is the indweller of them.
The Lord says in the Gita, 'aham hi
sarvayajnaAnAm bhOkthA cha prabhurEva cha, (BG.9-24) I am the enjoyer in all yajnas
and the giver of fruit. Prabhu means phalapradhah, one who gives the result of the karma.
Brahma suthra ascribes the etymological meaning of all words denoting the
deities to the Lord only.The suthra 'sAkshAdhapi avirODHam jaiminih' (BS.1-2-29) declares that the words denoting Indra
Varuna etc have direct connotation to the Isvara only and therefore there is no
contradiction and so considers Jaimini.
Therefore
to those who do all the actions as offering to the Lord till the end of their
lives there is no possibilty of seshathva to other deities.All the nithya
naimitthika karmas have to be done through out life and the prohibition refers
only to the desire - motivated activities.
25. Nanu jnAnasvarupathayA cha jnAnaguNathayA cha pramANasiddhasyApi
jeevasya jnAnothpatthivinasayoh prathyakshAdhipramAna siddhathvath jnAna
nithyathvavAdhah sarvadhA na sanghatatha.
Of
this self, who is of the nature of knowledge and has knowledge as his attribute,the attributive knowledge, dharmabhuthajnAna originates and is destroyed, as seen from
pramAnas such as perception and hence it cannot be permanent.
Desika
says that the dharmabhutha jnAna is eternal as declared by sasthrapramAna.
yaTHA na kriyathE jyOthsnA ithyAdhi
vAkyAnusArathah
jnAnam nithyam avasTHAbhih
uthpatTHyAdhisthu kaTHyathE.
As
it is said that the light is not produced the knowledge is eternal and its
appearance and disappearance is due to the different states in which it is
experienced.
The
reference here is to the sloka in Vishnudharma.
YaTHA na kriyathE jyOthsna malaprakshAlanAth
manEh
dhOshaprahAnAth na jnAnam Athmanah kriyathE thaThA
(Vishnu Dharma.104-55)
The light of the gem is not produced by cleaning it.
Like wise the knowledge is not created in the self through the removal of the
defect (due to ignorance) that is, it only manifests which is already there.
Therefore the appearance and the disappearance is due to the contraction and the expansion of the
dharmabhutha jnAna which is permanent.
26. aTHApi
svathah prakAsasyApi jnAnasya kEnApi thirODHAnEna aprakAsathva angeekAre
mrshAvAdhimathAvathArah prasjyEtha.
If the knowledge which is self luminous is accepted
to have been concealed at times it would land one in the school of advaita.So
the knowledge when it is not manifest should be considered as having become
extinct.
Desika disagrees and says,
jnAnanithyathvavAdhasya sruthyaivaprathipAdhanAth
svaprakAsathvam Ethasya vishayagrahanE
sathi
That knowledge is eternal has been established by
sruthi and the dharmabhutha jnAna operates only when it illuminates an object.
In sleep the dharmabhuthajnAna seems to be absent
due to the non-existence of objects to cognise.This is known by the experience
that "I did not know anything." The self illuminating character of
the dharmabhuthajnAna consists in the fact that it does not need another knowledge to manifest itself
27. asthu,
jnAnasvarupah AthmA,Anandhasvarupam thu na mrshyAmahE.
It could be accepted that knowledge is the nature of
the self. But it is not appropriate to say that the self is of the nature of
bliss.In the world the joy is experienced only as an attribute as in the
statement 'aham sukhee, I am happy,' Hence it is only being the dharma, attribute of the self,
how can it be the nature of the self?
Desika says that as in the case of knowledge here
also there is no contradiction.
AnandhadhvayasadhbhAvAth
virOdhO nOpalabhyathE
sruthirEva hi sarvathra pramANam ithi manmahE
There is nothing that is incompatible because of the existence of two kinds
of joy.For this sruthi alone is the
valid authority.
There are two kinds of joy, one experienced as the essence of
the self and the other due to that rising out of contact with the world.The
latter arises out of the dharmabhuthajnAna. The bliss experienced naturally by
the self is the same always whereas the joy that arises out of wordly objects
change.So the natural bliss which is the svarupa of the self and the joy that
is the attribute of the self are not contrdictory to each other.
28.Evam
AthmasvarupAnandhasya nithyaprakAsathve
sathi anAdhikAlam aprakAsithasvarupAnandhah yOgadhasAyAm mukthidhasAyAm cha
prakAsatha ithi vachanam apahAsyam.
If the bliss that is the nature of the self is ever
manifest, the statement that
the bliss which is unmanifest from the beginning of existence manifests itself in the state of
yOga and of release is ridiculous.
Desika says that it is not so.
vishayadviDHasambhEdhAth thirOdDhAnaprakAsayOh
Anukoolyam purAvyaktham
yOgAdhEvAvabhAsathe
The manifestation of the bliss and its absence occur
in respect of different circumstances and hence there is no contradiction
between them. The joy which is unmanifest due to the will of the Lord because
of Karma becomes manifest in the state of YOga.Though the natural bliss is
always present it is not experienced due to karma and becomes manifest in the
state of release.
29.sabdhAdhi
vishayAnubhavarahithathaya bhagavdhanubhavarahithathayA cha
kEvalasvrupAnubhavamAthram purushArTha mokshAbhyAm saha kaThamiva
purushArThathayA paTithum yujyatha?
The experience of the self alone (called Kaivalya)
without the sense experience and without the experience of the Lord is
mentioned as the salvation (that is, the paramapurushArTha, identical with
moksha). How is it possible, is the question.
The mukthi is said to be the state where the soul is
experiencing bliss which is his real nature along with the Lord. Hence how can the state of kaivalya where the soul is experiencing his
real nature alone can be cited as the state of release?
Desika says,
sruthvAnukoolyam AthmasThamdhrshtvA vA
yOgadharsanE
thadhanucchEdhasakthasya purushArTHathva
vAgiyam
Hearing about the self through the scriptures and on
medtitating on it in Yoga one experiences the bliss of the self and continues
in that state. This is known as kaivalya
and denoted as the purushArTHa (moksha ) This is only oupachArikam, says Desika,
like the statement 'thamEvam vidhvAn amrtha iha bhavathi,' knowing Him (Brahman) one
becomes immortal here itself,' which is only laudatory.
30. nanu
'kaivalyam bhagavantham cha manthrOyam sAdhayishyathi'(brhd.Haritha.smrthi.3-40)
ithi svarupAnubhavE kaivalyasabdhaprayOgAth, 'mukthih kaivalya nirvANa srEyo nissrEyasAmrtham,'(amarakosa-1-5-6)
ithi kaivalyasya mukthiparyAyathvEna paTanAth nyAyabhooshaNAdhimathEshviva
svAthmAnandhAnubhava Eva sAkshAth mokshah. bhagavadhanubhavasthu
svAthmAnandhAnubhava siddhEhupAyavisEsho asthu
In BrhadhhAreethas smrthi it is said that the mantra
specified therein will secure the exclusive experience of the self and the
Lord. In Amarakosa, the word kaivalya is denoted as being synonymous with mukthi,
nirvANa,srEyas nissrEyas, amrtha, apavarga and moksha.Hence the word kaivalya
should mean mukthi only, as claimed by the NyAya school to whom the release
from duhkha is the bliss or moksha.The experience of the Lord is a means to
attain kaivalya.
Desika refutes this saying,
sruthsmrtheethihAsAdhyaih vishNusEvA vimukthathA
kaivalyavyavahArasthu sarvakarmanivrtthithah
Sruthi, smrthi and purAnas etc. declare that the
vishNusEva, experiencing the joy of service to the Lord alone is mukthi. It may
be denoted as kaivalya only in the sense that in that state all karma has been
destroyed and the self alone (kEvalam) remains.
The real moksha, sAkshAth mOkshah, is defined by Desika as
follows:
By examining what has been said in the sruthi etc.
one can conclude that mOksha is 'svarupaAvirbhAva poorvaka paramAthma
prApthirupa paripurNa bhagavadhanubhavarasa parivAharupa bhagavathkainkaryaprApthih.
That is, the moksha consists in the service of the
Lord while being immersed in the essence of the complete experience of the Lord
induced by attaining Him which precedes the manifestation of one's own
nature.This can be termed as kaivalyam in as much as it is the exclusive
experience of the Lord after the removal of karma caused by ajnAna and hence the
self is free form embodiment and stays by itself alone.
31.Ye
thu sishtAh thryo bhakthAh phalakAmA hi thE mathAh
sarvE chyavanadharmANah prathibuddhasthu
mOkshabhAk
ithyuktha prkArEna aisvaryavath
AthmAnubhavamAthrasyApi kshudhraphalathvAth chyavanadharmathvAccha nithyathvam
thAvath Asankithum api na sakyathE.
The three kinds of
devotees who are desirous of results. Hence the swerve from the path to mOksha
and only the fourth, the jnani attains mOksha.(MB.Shanthi.350-35)
According to the above smrthi, even the desire of AthmAnubhava is
declared as being impermanent like worldly prosperity,the state of kaivalya
cannot be permanent one. But at the same time since one attains kaivalya only
after the destruction of all karma he cannot lapse back to samsara. So it would
mean that he finds himself neither here nor there.
Desika says that it is not so.
dhvAiviDhyamkevalasyAsya bhukthvaikO mOksham
ApnuyAth
anyasthu bhukthvA thadhbhOgamvishayam
punarasnuthE
There are two kinds of kaivalya. In one the aspirant
experiences the self through spiritual discipline and as long as he is in that
state he will not lapse back to samsara, but this experience is not permanent
and he may lapse back to samsara. there is another
kind of aspirant who has moksha as his goal and from the experience of the self
he also attains the bhagavadhanubhava and moksha. Those who practise
madhuvidhya, for instance, are said to live in other lOkas and then proceed to
paramapadha. This is of course possible only to those who have also done
bhakthiyOga along with jnanayOga.The mention of the path of light (archirAdhi)
for one who is only striving for the experience of the self is acquired through
brahmavidhya such as dhaharavidhya etc., that is the meditation on Brahman
inside the lotus of the heart which has been elaborated in Sribhashya by
Ramanuja.
The attainment of paramapadha is ordained only for
those who acquire paravidhya, the knowledge of Brahman.this is confirmed by
EkAnthinah sadhA
brahmaDhyAyinah yOginO hi yE
thEshAm thathparam sThAnam yadhvai pasyanthi
soorayah
Those yogis, whose minds are always turned towards Brahman alone,
attain the supreme state which is witnessed by the eternal souls.
32.
nanu kaThamiva bhAgavathasEshathvam
abhiDHeeyathE?
How can the seshathva to
the devotees of the Lord , bhAgavatha sEshathvam be justified as it would
be against the exclusive seshathva, bhagavacchEshathvasya ananyArhathvam to the Lord.The opponent
cites an example of a born-slave of a king becoming slave to another which will
be the betrayal of loyalty to the king.
Desika says,
rAjadhAsasyarAjAjnAsiddhA dhAsasya vAsathA
thadhvath thadhbhakthasEshathvam yujyathE
bhagavathDHiyA
Just like the dhasatva to other dhasas of the king
is effected by the command of the king himself here
also through the will of the Lord the bhAgavathsEshathva becomes appropriate.
As ThiruppAnAzvar says in the pAsuram 'amalanAdhipirAn
adiyArkku ennai Atpaduttha,' the Lord Himself makes one experience the seshathva to His devotees and
it happens through His grace only. Desika says 'athra
bhAgavathasEshathvasya bhagavathsEshathvAdhapi bhOgyathayA Eva bhagavathsEshathvajnAnarasikaih
bhAgavathaih anugrahapalathvEna anusanDheeyamAnathvAdhapi bhAgavathasEshathvam
purushArTHa rupamEva.'
This means, the bhAgavathsEshathvam is more enjoyable than
even bhagavthsEshathvam because it causes interaction between those who know
the joy of bhagavthsEshathva. The blessing of the bhAgavathas is the goal of
life, purushArTha as it aids the attainment of the Lord which is paramapurushArTha.Only the seshathva to
people other than bhagavAn or bhAgavathas has to be condemned.
33. Evam tharhi
karmavasAth bhAgavatha vyathirikthEshu loukika vaidhika maryAdhAbhyAm
avarjaneeyE sEshathvE kaTham nirvAhah?
If this is so, what would be the fate of those who
become seshas to others, either in the worldly sense or as enjoined by the scripture
through the effect of karma?
The question is about one who has the knowledge of
his sEshathva to the Lord but due to circumstances he is forced to serve others
either for his livelihood or on account of performing the vaidika karma in
which he has to be the sEsha of whichever deity enjoined in the karma.If he serves
others who are the sEshas of other deities it is said to be worse that serving
the deity himself. Such a person may find himself neither in the group of
Bhagavathas, because of his swerving from bhAgavathadharma,nor
he will join the opposite group due to his knowledge acquired of his sEshathva
to the Lord.
There is no cause to fear ,says
Desika.
vinivArayathE vishNuh avrjyAm
anyasEshathAm
kEnApyupAyabhEdhEna vinathA dhAsya
bhangavath
The Lord Himself will remove the anyasEshathva by
some means as in the case of the removal of the slavery of Vinatha, (by Garuda,
her son.)
Even if the anyasEshathva is due to prArabdhakarma,
the Lord will remove it for the one who has the knowlege of ananyasEshathva to Him. Desika compares
this to the story of Vinatha , mother of Garuda, who
became the slave of her co-wife Kathru because of a wager which she lost due to
the devious means adoped by the latter. VainathEya, (Garuda) freed her by
fulfilling the condition laid out by the serpents, sons of Kathru, to fetch
amrtha. Or else, as in the case of RavaNa and VibheeshaNa the Lord will effect release by causing the death of the master. This has
been proclaimed by the Lord Himself in Gita by saying ' macchitthah
sarvadurgANi mathprasAddhAth tharishyathi, with his mind absorbed in Me one will get rid of all obstacles.' All that one has to
do is to pray to Him to remove the anyaseshathva by some means and the all-merciful Lord
will do so Himself.
34. Bhagavathvathiriktha
sEshaithvam sopAdhikam bhagavath sEshithvam nirupAdhikam ithi pramANasiddhE
sathi nirupADHika miTHuna sEshathvam kaTHam sEthsyathi?
The sEshithva, being the master of all, is
unconditioned in the case of the Lord, while for others (like bhAgavathas) it
is with condition. (of being the sesha of the Lord and
awarded the seshithvam by Him) Thus it is stated in the scripture and hence how
can it be said that
both the Lord and Sri together are seshi to all?
The answer is given as,
upalakshaNamAthrathvAth EkOkthE sruthyabhADHanAth
nirupAdhika sEshathvam
dhvayOrathyupapadhyathE
Through implication and by sruthi both are one and
hence the conditionless sEshithva is common to both.
ParAsara bhatta says, 'thadhantharbhAvAth thvAm na
prThagabhiDhatthE sruthirapi,'(SriguNa.28) that is, the sruthi does not
distinguish the Lord from Sri because she is included in Him.
The oneness of both is in no way contradictory to
His being sarvaseshi and Sri being HIs sEsha as His pathni, He being the
punisher and she being His purushakarabhootha, instilling mercy on Him. The
Lord is the qualified and she the qualifier and hence there is no less
importance attributed to Her as the attributive aspect
is the essence of the Lord. Ramanuja in Sribhashya refers to the Lord as
SrinivAsa in the invocatory verse implying Sri as the visEshana, qualifying
entity who forms the partand parcel of the Lord. The
sEshithva attributed to both is like that of offering havis to the deities Agni
and Soma in the sacrifice of agnishOmeeyam.
35. For
those who have become bhagavthkainkaryaparas, that is, involve in the service
of the Lord and his devotees, the worship alone is the requisite dharma. So
should they follow the other varNAsramadharmAs, the activities enjoined for
their
Desika says that kainkaryam means abheeshtakaraNam,
doing what the master wishes and not mere worship.
svAminObheeshtakaraNam kainkaryam
abhiDheeyathE
vishnOrabheeshtam akhilam
sAsthrAdhEvAvagamyathE
The meaning of kainkaryam is doing what is pleasing to the
Lord and that is known only through the sasthras.
The kainkaryam is of two kinds ,
namely,AjnA,command and anujnA,permission. The actions enjoined in the veda like soucha, inner and outer purity,
Achamana, sipping of water as a
ritual,snAna,
bath, sandhyavandhna and upasana, that is, japa or meditation come under AjnA and to
one who does not observe all this is not fit for any karma, says the sasthra,
which precludes him to do even those actions like worshipping, that come under
anujnA. The latter is done to please the Lord who permits His devotees to do
them but it would be displeasing to Him if the former actions are not done.
36.Evam
thadheeya paryanthakainkaryapravaNasya kArthayuga dharmabhootha paramaikAnthi
dharmAnushTAnam kalibalakalushEshu purushEshu kaThamiva jAghateethi.
The dharmas enjoined in the pAnchrAthra and other
sasthras for the paramaikAnthis seem to pertain to krthayuga and hence how far
they are relevant in kaliyuga?
Sri Ramanuja has said in his NithyagranTha 'aTha
paramaikAnthinah bhagavadhArADhanaprayOgam vakshye, I am going to elaborate
on the details of bhagavadhArAdhana for the paramaikAnthis.' The doubt is how
far this can be done in kaliyuga and whether it is enough if one does the duties enjoined in the
vedas according to
Desika says,
kalAvapi bhavEth
dharmO govindhAsakthachEthasAm
paramaikAnthinAm prOkthah
pAnchrAthrikavarthmanA
The dharma for the paramaikAnthins mentioned in the
pAnchrAthra will be the dharma to be followed even in kaliyuga as in krthayuga
for those whose minds are engrossed in Govindha.
In Vishnudharma it is said ,
kalou
krthayugam thasya kalisthasya krthE yugE
yasya chEthasi
govindhah hrdhyE yasya nAchyuthah
(Vishnudharma-109-57)
To him, who has Govindha in his heart, the kali
becomes krtha and to one in whom Achyutha is not, krtha becomes kali.
Hence, says Desika, 'parbhakthi-parajnAna-paramabhakthi-paripurNa-aDHikArisambhavAth
paramaikAnthi dharmAnushTAnam karthavyamEva,'
That is, the fitness for being paramaikAnthi occurs by highest
devotion and knowledge filled with complete devotion to the Lord and hence the
dharma of paramaikAnthi is to be followed in kaliyuga also.
The statement that the krthayugadharma is not to be
followed in kali,'yasthukAthayugadharmah na karthavyah,' in Vishnudharma denotes
only the rarity of finding one fit for being a paramaikAnthin, as mentioned in
the Gita,
bahoonAm janmanAm
anthe jnAnavAn mAM prpadhyathE
vAsudhEvassarvam ithi sa
mahAthmA sudhurlabhah
(BG.7-19)
A man of knowledge attains Me
after many lives and to find such a great soul who considers VasudhEva is
everything to him is very rare indeed.
This means that if there are men who are good in kaliyuga they
are to be considered as those belonging to krthayuga and vice versa as it could
be seen in the case of Ravana and Hiranyakasipu who followed kalidharma evn in
the other yugas.
The statement
in Vishnupurana 'kalou jagathpathim vishnum sarvasrashtAram isvaram
nArchyishyanthi,' which says that in kaliyuga men will not worship Vishnu is about
those who fall into evil ways and
does not denote a general rule.
37.Evam
nithyAdhi-prathipAdhitha-paramaikAnthidharma-parAyaNaasya-svAdhikAranurupa-sakalkarmAnushTAne
apiprAtharArabhya-yAmamAthram abhigamanam----ithipAnchakAlika niyama siddhih
kaTHam bhavathi?
As made out in the Nithyagrantha and other works
there are dharmas exclusively for paramaikAnthis but why should these rituals
be done at the specified times for five times a day?
The reference here is to the five duties enjoined
for a paramaikAnthin, namely,abhigamanam,upAdhAnam,ijyai,svAdhyAyam and yogam.
abhigamanam- worshipping the feet of
the Lord and praying to Him to guide one in all the duties of the day.
upAdhAnam- gathering the appliances
for worship like flowers sandal etc.
ijyai-performing arAdhana of the Lord.
svAdhyAyam - spending time in
enjoying the bhagavatkaTha by reading ithihsa, Azvar sukthis etc.
yOgam- contemplating on the
Lord's beauty quality etc.
These functiona are to be followed at specific
times. The question is that why should any specific time be prescribed for doing these.
Desika replies that eventhough like picking up the
mango fruit whenever it falls down the bhagavtkainkarya can be done whenever
one wishes, the observing the rituals at the specified times is necessary
because it is enjoined in the sasthras.
Desika quotes the example of the attendents and the
courtiers of a king who serve the king at the scheduled time while those close
to him do the functions according to his wish and those who live away need
written document to instruct them the mode of discharging the duties.
Similarly the nithya suris who are close to the Lord
need no sasthras to tell them what to do as they do their work according to the
wish of the Lord then and there. But to us the sasthra is the only guidance as
it is stated 'sAsthram hi vathsalatharam mAthApithrsahsrathah, the sasthra is more caring than thousands
of parents.'
If the karma could not be performed in the specified
time it should be done in the next allotted time.If the ritual perescribed in
the day is left out it should be done in the first yAma of the night. If not,
prAyaschittha should be done.
38.Bhagavth
bhAgavatha kainkaryAbhyam AchAryakainkaryam abhyahitham ithiabhiyukthA vadhanthi
-------athah kaTHam dhEvathAntharavishaya thandulAdhi pradhAne bhagavathvishayathandulAdhi
apradhAne vA parithyAjya Eva ayam achyaryah?
It is said that AchArya kainkaryam is more important
than bhagavath-bhAgavathakainkaryam. If so, how can one leave his AchArya even
when he serves other deities or fails to serve Narayana?
This doubt arises because if one cuts himself away
from his AchArya he is cut off from his guruparmpara and subsequentlyfrom the
Lord Himself.
Desika replies,
gurou aikAnthya rahithE
gurOrantharavasTHitham
harimEva gurum vindhyAth gurum rahasi
bhOdhayEth.
If the guru swerves from his state of paramaikAnthya
the sishya, if he is well stablished in paramaikAnthya, should direct his
kainkarya to the Lord who is the indweller of the guru and try to direct him
secretly to the right path. This is also the kainkarya to be done to the
guru.If the sishya tries to turn his guru towards the Lord both the guru and the
sishya will attain salvation by the grace of the Lord.
39. Evam chEthanasya
sEshathvE api 'svayam mrthpindabhoothasya
parathanthrasya dhEhinah' ithi achEthanavath athyantha pArathanthrye
sasthravasyathA kaTham ghatathE?
Accepting that the jiva is sesha to the Lord, according to
the statement that the jiva is like a clot of mud and completely manipulated by
the Lord, how can he be influenced by
the sasthras?
Further the opponent questions that when the jiva
has no freedom of action it is not appropriate to say that he is bound by his
karma which rsults in his subsequent entreaty to the Lord for freedom from the
samsara.
Desika replies:
nAchidhah sAsthravasyathvam na svathanthrasya
thadhbhavEth
karmavasyavisEshaya sasthravasyathvam
ishyathE
There can be no influence of the sasthras on the
insentient,nor for the independent. It is only those who are
under the influence of karma, sasthra can exert its influence.
The sentient being, the jiva, has the ability to
know and to do.So he has the freedom to act and hence he is influenced by the
sasthra.Jiva is dependent on the Lord to be able to know or to act and to
experience the result of the act. That is why he is mentioned as a puppet on
string in Mahabharatha. the vedantha texts also
confirm that the jiva has the jnathrthvam, knowership,karthrthvam, doership and bhOkthrthvam, capacity to enjoy. Thus
he is different from the insentient, for which there is no relevance to
sasthras and from the eternal souls who do not need the sasthras.
40.Jeevasya
sarvasareeriNam bhagavantham prathi ADHEyathva-viDHEyathva-sEshathvAdhishu
avisEshathayA anusanDHEyEshu sEshathvamEva praDHAneekrthya kimarTham
anusanDHeeyathE?
The jiva being supported by (ADHEyathva)dependent on His will(viDHEyathva) and a sesha to the Lord,
all three states being of equal importance, how is it that only seshathva is
held as most important than the rest?
Desika gives the reason as
antharangam hi seEshathvam
avikArAdhishu thrishu
thasmAth sEshathvamEvAhuh AchAryAh praTHamam
guNam
Seshathva being the
innermost of the three which are all unchangeable. Therefore the acharya
has declared the seshathva to be the foremost.
The AdhEyathvam defines the existence and nature of
the jiva which shows him to be fit for moksha. That is ,
by knowing his own nature he becomes
qualified for attaining mukthi. ViDHEyatrthva, the ordaining his activities according to the will
of the Lord shows the means of attaining mukthi. But both of these will be of
no help to the
jiva if thereis no aspiration to attain the Lord which is provided by the
knowledge of his seshathva to the Lord, which makes him engage himself in the actions that would please
the Lord, His kainkarya.The seshathva is not something to be endured but it is
to be experienced with joy and with love for the Lord. This alone fetches the result, that is mukthi. As the knowledge of the end and
means of attaining it, though present, will not help a man unless he makes an
effort, the seshathva helps one to attain the end. Hence it is stressed by
Yamunacharya also who says in his sthothrarathna that he does not care for anything
else which is not sesha to the Lord, not his body nor praANa
and not even his soul.
41. NanvEvam sEshathvasya prADHAnyEna moolamanthrE
sEshathvam praTHamam abhiDHEEyathE----'manniyAmyathayA maddhAsyaikasvabhAva
Athmasvarupah' ithyAdhi pArathanthrasya praTHamAbhiDHAnam na
yujyathE.
When the seshathva is mentioned first in the
ashtAkshara and the pArathanthrya later, "the nature of the self being My sEsha because of the dependence on Me" is
not proper.
The reference here is to the sentence in
saraNAgathigadhya of Ramanuja where it is said that the individual self is the sesha
of the Lord because of his dependence,pArathanthrya,
on the Lord, thus
putting the pArathanthrya first and sEshathva getting secondary importance.
The reply to this is ,
bhagavathpArathanthryENa sEshathvamapi
siDHyathi
ithi vakthum kvachith poorvam
pArathanthrasya varNanam
The sEshathva happens only due to the dependence,pArathanthrya, of the jeeva to the Lord and the mention of
the pArathanthrya first in some places is to denote this only.But this is not in anyway undermining the importance of
sEshathva and wherever parathanthrya is mentioned first, it emphasises only the
importance of sEshathva. The attitude of sEshathva to the Lord removes the
mamakAra, the idea of
'mine' because when one is sEsha to the Lord all that he has, also belongs to the Lord.
42.Evam
tharhi sareerAdheenAm oupADHikasEshathvE jnAnAdheenAm cha nithyasEshathvE
jAgrathi nishpannajnAnasyApi aDHikAriNah thEshu mamakAravicchEdhabrAnthih
bhavishyathi
The sarira which is due to karma and the jnana and anandha which is
natural to the jiva belong to the jiva only and if the sense of belonging
(mamakAra) is given up there will be confusion.
Desika denies this saying,
jnAnadhEhadhivishayamamakAra nivarthanE
na bhrAnthirapramAmoola-mamakAranivarthanAth
Abandoning the mamakAra, the concept of 'mine,'
there is no confusion because the mamakAra in respect of the knowledge,the body etc. are
not true in the real sense of the term.
To the aspirant the mamakAra which is not conducive
to the service of the Lord is to be removed completely. That is, the body,
knowledge and other things are to be used for the kainkarya of the Lord. The
Lord has provided all the things, grha-kshEthra-puthra-kaLathrAdhi,house,land, son and wife etc., that create mamakAra to be used in His
service. Hence the devotee should feel that everything is given to him by the
grace of the Lord when there is no cunfusion.
43.Evamapi
Isvarasya nirapEksha-svAthanthryam Asritha pArathanthryam cha kaTHamiva
sanghatatha?
How does the absolute independence NirapEkshasvAthanthryam, of the Lord and His
doing the bidding of His devotees, Asritha pArathanthryam, can go together?
Desika says,
Parathanthryam SvakeeyEshu
svathanhryasya ramApathEh
svAthanthrasya-kAshTArupathvAth guNakotou nivEsyathe.
This pArathanthrya of the Lord towards His devotees
is to be considered a praiseworthy quality as it is done by His own free will
and denotes the height of His independence.
Desika gives an example of a king who, though all
powerful, obeys the command of the people he loves like His wife and son.Similarly
the Lord also out of His love does as he is told by His devotees, like being
the charioteer, messenger or obeying the gopis , getting bound feigning fear
etc., which only enhances His charm. Here it is significant that Desika uses
the term Ramakantha to denote Bhagavan which is highly suggestive of the
meaning of His pArathanthrya.
44.thadheeyAnAm
anyOnyaseshasesheebhAvasthu itharEthara AsrayadhOshagrasthah
The sesha- seshi bhAva between two
bhagavathas which is mutual is self-contradicting as one cannot be sesha and
seshi at the same time.
Desika replies,
anyOnya -sEshabhAvE thu nAnyonyAsrayathA
bhavEth
AkArabhEdhAth ubhayam
ubhayaishAm hi yujyathE
The mutual sesha-seshi bhava is not contradicting, but
appropriate, says Desika , because of the different
role of each one towards the other at different times.
That is, when one is doing service to the other the
first one becomes the sesha and the second becomes seshi and when the role is
reversed the sesha-seshibhava is aslo reversed. Hence there is no inconsistency
in the mutual service.This idea is brought about in Gita, where
'macchitthA madhgathprANA bhoDHayanthah parasparam
kaThayanthscha mAm nithyam thushyanthicha
ramanthicha'
Those who is engrossed with the thought of Me, who
exist for Me,relate to each other about Me and my
actions and talk only about it, happy and revelling in it.
45.bhAgavathAnAm
bhAgavathsEshathvaniyamEsishyANAm api bhAgavathathvATHA chAryasyApi
sishyasEshathvam prasajyEtha
If bhagavathas are sesha to other bhagavathas then
sishya also being a bhagavatha the acharya should also be a sesha to his
disciple.
There is nothing amiss, says Desika.
prathipannam parArThathvAm
sishyadhEsikayOrapi
upakAraprbhEdhEna thayOh vrtthih
vyavasThitha
Acting for the sake of the other is befitting even
between guru and sishya. The service to each other differs though according to
their relative positions.
The service to each other is seshathva which exists
even between the Acharya and the sishya. The seshathva of Acharya consists in
imparting knowledge to him to the best of his ability and doing it as a
kainkarya while that of the sishya is serving the acharya to the best of his
ability.In this respct they are both sesha and seshi to each other.
46.aThApi
namasi nishiDhyamAnasyAdhEh kaTHam pAramArTHikathvam? Athmanah nithya-nirlEpathvEna
sasthrEshu pratheetyamAnathvath
When the self is said to be eternal and unattached
by the sasthras, how can the impurities be removed by the 'namah' in the ashtAkshara?
The 'namah' part of the ashtAkshara is to be understood as 'na mamah' to mean 'not me, not
mine.' Hence the awareness of one's own pArathanthrya by saying namah removes the ahamkAra and mamakAra and makes the jiva pure
by removing ajnAna.The opponent is asking as to how the ajnAna, which has never
been there because the self is said to be eternal and untouched by defects in
reality, be removed by namah. The poorvapakshin refers to the sankhya
philosophy according to which the purusha is free and eternal by nature and has
no action of his own but due to the association with prakrthi the bondage is
superimposed on him.
Desika dismisses this as ajnavAdha, argument of the
ignorant.
virOdhyaparamArThaTHvam prathyAkshAdhyaih
viruDhyathe
thasmAth virODHiDHeeDhvamsah namasA samyaguchyathE
To say that the jiva is free from avidhya in the
state of samsara is against all valid means of cognition like perception etc.
Hence the removal of the misconception due to avidhya is accomplished through 'namah.' This misconception is
not the action of prakrthi but it is the jiva's own making, due to avidhya. If
the samsara is not real and jiva is always pure and free, there is no necessity
of the upAyas of bahkthi and prapatthi etc.
47.kvachith
'purushah sukhaduhkhAnAm bhOkthrthvam hEthurychyathE(BG.13.20) kvachiccha 'panchabhoothAthmakaih bhOgaih
panchabhoothAthmakam vapuh , ApyAyathE yadhi thadhA pumsO bhOgoathra kim
krthah.' ittham viruddhayOh pramANayOh kaTham athra nirvAhaha?
It is said in the Gita that the individual self is
the cause of the sukha and duhkha while in the sense experience the prakrthi is
the cause. But some other pramAna says that the body consisiting of the five
elements is the enjoyer of the sense experience which also consists of the five
elements and hence the soul cannot be the enjoyer. These two are contradictory.
Desika says,
bhOkthrrupasya jeevasya bhOkthrthvam
na nishiDhyathE
thEna prakrthisambanDhah prayukthathvam
viDHeeyathE
The denial of bhokthrthva for the jiva is in respect
of the body which is impermanent and to denote that the sukha and duhkah that
arise out of the connection of the soul with the body do not affect the one who
has the knowledge of the real nature of the self.
48. chidhachidheesvarAthmaka-thathvathrayasya
svarupanithyathvam
thulyam, athah kaTHam achidhah Eva nasvarathvam?
When there are three reals ,
namely, chit, achit and Isvara, sentient self, insentient matter and the Lord,
why is the achit alone said to be non-eternal and the other two eternal?
After the discussion on the 'namah' sabdha now the poorvapkshin turns to
the Narayanasabdha.
Desika says,
svarupENa svabhAvEna rupAnthara viDhAyinee
na dhrshtA vikrthih nATHE thasmAth
The chances are due to svarupa, nature and svabhava,character and both are absent in the Lord whih is denoted
by the '
Changes in form and state are seen in the insentient
matter as in the case of pot which changes from mud to pot to potshreds and to
potdust etc. in different states. The jiva is changeless in its svarupa but
there are changes in svabhava due to the different states, according to the
extent of contraction and expansion of the dharmabhuthajnana. This can be seen
in the different states of knowledge for different individuals.The jiva is
called 'nara' which denotes changelessness in as much as it is free from the changes
as compared to the insentient matter.In
the case of the Lord however there is no change either in svabhava or in
svarupa and the modifications in His
manifestations are by His own will.Therefore
the narayana sabdha denotes that the sentient and the insentient (nArAh) arose from Him, while nara denotes the eternal
soul.'narasamoohO nArah;narAth jAthAni thathvAni nArANi.'
49.asthu nara sabdhArTHah, nArAyaNa sabdhah
kaTham?
The word nara has been explained but the opponent
raises a question on the narayanasabdha.The word is derived as 'nArAh
ayanam yasya, whose abode is the sentient and the insentient ' The quetion is that how
can the Lord who is all pervading have the sentient and the insentient as His
abode.
Desika denies any inconsistency regarding this.
antharyanthuh bhagavathah visvam
chidhachidhAthmakam
dhEhinO dhEhavath DhAryam vAsasTHAnam itheeryathE
The whole world consisting of chith and achith has
the Lord as its innerself and controlled by Him from within. Just as the sarira
is said to be the abode of the individual self the world of the sentient and
the insentient, which is the sarira of the Lord, is said to be His abode. They
owe their existence to Him but not vice versa.
50.aTHApi
aNuroopANAm jeevAnAM anthah nASthi;vibhoonAm cha kAlAdheenAm bahirapi thaTHA;
athah kaTHAM 'aNOraNeeyAn mahathO maheeyAn' ithyAdhibhih aNOraNeeyathvam
mahathO maheeyathvam cha srooyathE?
The individual self is said to be atomic and hence
there cannot be anything smaller and be inside it. Similarly the all pervading
substances like the time cannot have anything outside themselves.So how can the
Lord be described as smaller than the atom and greater than the greatest, is
the question.
Desika says,
aNOrapi aNUthAvAdhO vibhOrapi vibhuthvavath
thaththadhvasthu pradhEsEshu
thadhrAhithya nivrtthay
The expression 'smaller than the atom and greater
than the greatest' with respect to the Lord is to denote that there is no space
without His presence.
Where there is the existence of the atomic soul,
there, the Lord also exists. Similarly even the entities like time which are
all-pervading pervade along with the Lord. There is no space devoid of the
presence of the Lord. It is not like saying that in the interspace of the
threads the cloth does not exist or when a pot is inserted in water, though the
watrer exists in and out,
it is not in the substance of the pot.Therefore where jiva exists
there the Lord also exists.
51. Evam bhagavathah
sarvavyApakathvE sathi hEyarupEshvapi anuvarthamAnathvath
akhila-hEya-prathyaneekathvam aghatitham.
Accepting that the Lord is all- pervading, it follows
that He is present also in avoidable things of the world and so how can the
epithet 'free from all impurities' be applied to Him?
The reply is given as follows:
vishEshaNagathathvEna vikArah purushArTHayoh
sarvAntharyAmiNah vishNOh
yukthaivObhyalingathA
The modifications (like changes in nature and in mind ) are pertaining to the world of sentient and
insentient being which form the modes of the Lord and hence both the epithets (ananthakalyANa gunavisishtathvam and hEyaprathyaneekathvam) apply to the Lord.
The physical and natural changes (birth, growth,
tranformation,decay and destruction) belong to the prakrthi, the insentient
matter and the mental modiifications like sukha and duhkha, caused by its
association with the prakrthi,pertain to the jiva.Both of them do not affect
the Lord who is the inner self of them all. not only
He is free from impurites but he frees the individual soul also from evil and
hence in both ways the epithet suits Him.
52. Evam leelayA jagathvyApAre mOkshapradhAnE
cha thadhubhayaleelArasasya poorvam avidhyamAnathvAth
svayathnasADHyathvAth cha
avApthasamasthkAmathvam bhagavathah kaTham vA abhiDheeyatha ?
The Lord is suppose to do creation and other
activities as a
sport for His own enjoyment. But He is termed as avApthasamasthakAma, one who has had all desires fulfilled. How can this
quality exist before creation etc. as the desires will be fulfilled only after
the action?
Desika replies,
icchAvighAtharAhithyam isvarasya ApthakAmatha
nithyAnandhOpi bhagavAn srshtyAdhyaih
abhinandhathi
The meaning of ApthakAma, desires
fulfilled, is that there is nothing to
obstruct the wish of the Lord.
Eventhough He is always blissful the Lord pleases Himself by creation and other
activities.
Being
sathyasankalpa, of true will, the Lord gets whatever He desires and that
is what is meant by avApthasamasthakAmathvam, and not that He has
already has all His desires fulfilled. Hence the activities
like creation is undertaken as His sport is not contradictory to His avApathasamasthakAmathva. the
leelarasa, joy in His sport is ever existent as the creation etc. are beginningless.Even
giving mukthi is leelarasa for Him.
53.Evam
svaleelArThamEva jagathsrshtyAdhikaraNE krpayA jagathsrshtyAdhikam
mOkshadhAnamapi kriyatha ithi vachasah nirvishayathvam.
If the activities like creation is for the sport of
the Lord, to say that He is doing these and giving mukthi also out of mercy
will have no meaning.
Desika says,
kreedEyam krpayAjushtA kreedayA duhkhadhAraNath
kreedAnubanDHiyukthAnAm apunarjananAdhapi
His leela is only filled with mercy. to remove the sorrow and also to give mukthi is all His
leela only.
It is like a king giving payasam to the lame, blind etc for his own satisfaction. It
is a playful action on the part of the king, that is, it is effortless but it
is beneficial to the recipient.Similarly the Lord creates and sustains etc. He
also gives the jnana to approach Him and removes the sorrow for those who
surrendered to Him at the right time according to their karma.
54.nanu
kaThamsarvavishyiNee krpA bhagavathah sambhavathi;bhagavalleelayA khalu
madhukaitabha-hiraNya-rAvaNa-sisupAla-kamsa-narakAdheenAm maraNAni anishtAni
prApithAni.
How can it be said that the mercy of the Lord
extends to all as MaDhukaitabha and others faced death at His hands.
The reply is given by Desika as,
guNadhOshavyavasTHA hi lOkAdhEva
avagamyathE
thasmAth dhandaDHarasyAsya sTHAnE dhandO
guNAyathE
The gunas and dhoshas are to be understood as in the
world.It is a merit for the man of justice to give punishment where it is
necessary. The chastisement by the father, for instance, of a son, is only for
his own benifit. So too the retribution of the Lord is for redemption.
If there is no suffering there is no need for mercy.
The Lord due to His mercy towards the good and the devoted, has to punish the
wicked who torment them.The mercy is without a cause ,that
is natural, whereas the punishment is for a purpose only.
If it is objected that to punish one to protect another
does not absolve the Lord of cruelty,Desika says that even those who aspire for
mukthi were once desirous of enjoying worldly pleasures and due to their suffering
only they acquire the wisdom to strive from release from the samsara and hence
to give suffering is also a way of correcting them and hence an act of mercy
only. But the punishment lasts only till the jiva acquires jnana and hence the
nigraha, retribution is only temporary whereas for the released and the
eternally free souls the grace of the Lord extends forever making them enjoy
eternal bliss and hence His anugraha is permanent.As the anugraha exists in
this world which is His leelavibhoothi for His devotees and also in the state
of release where they enjoy etenal bliss which is His bhOga vibhoothi, which is
unconditioned by time or place.His nigraha on the other hand is limited to the
existence in this world only and limited by time and place.
55. nanvEvamAsrithArTHanAm
sarvavyApArANAm leelAthvE -------kAchith leelAvibhoothih aparAcha
bhOgavibhoothih ithi vyavasTHA kaTHam ghatathE?
When everything is in the control of the Lord and all
is His leela why should be there be a distinction between leelAvibhoothi and
bhOgavibhoothi?
It is like this, says Desika.
avathAraih anEkaih svaih paravyAmOhanAth
kvachith
leelAthvam itharathrApi bhOgO mOhanivAraNAth
By His incarnations he deludes others by His
mAya.This is His leela.In the eternal state there is no delusion but only
enjoyment. This is His bhOga.
As the actors put on different costumes the Lord
makes the jiva put on different costumes as a deva, manushya etc. and act on in
the world. Without knowing this the jiva is deluded into believiing that the
body he is occupying is real.Similarly the Lord also puts different costumes
and appears as Rama, Krishna etc. in His incarnations. and
deludes the world. This is known as His leelavibhoothi. In bhOga vibhoothi the
released and eternally free souls have their knowledge and bliss as their
essence and there is no delusion but unalloyed bliss only This
is His bhOga vibhoothi.
56.Evam
sarvEsvarasya leelOpakaraNabhoothasya samsarathah jeevasya bhADhakathvEna
avasTHithAnyEva mukthidhasAyAm anukoolathayA prathibhAsantha ithi ko ayam viruddhavadhah?
The same things that stand as obstacles to the jiva
in transmigration become favourable to a released soul. Is this not
self-contradictory?
No, says Desika.
puNyapApAnurODHEna prakrthih viviDHA purA
svAmi leelOpayOgithvasAkshAthkArAth
sukhAyathE
The favourable and unfavourable quality of things is
due to one's puNya and pApa. To the one who sees everything as the playthings
of the Lord and perceives the Lord as the inner self of all, there is nothing
but joy.
There is nothing exclusively favourable or
unfavourable in this world.To the one who is in the midst of mist the rays of
the sun gives comfort but the same in a hot afternoon is discomforting.Similary
the food which gives happiness in hunger becomes unpalatable in illness.So the
quality of giving joy or sorrow depends on the karma which is the cause of the
situation one finds himself.On the other hand when the karma is exhausted and both punya and papa are extinguished, the
same thing which gave suffering becomes enjoyable as in the case of one who is
cured of bile, the milk becomes sweet again This is why in the state of release
everything contributes to the joy of the soul through the grace of the Lord.
57. DramidOpanishad
DhEsikaih 'thvAm vinA nAhamasmi nArayaNa,mAm cha vinA
thvam nAseeh,' ithi vAkyam prayujyathE. PramANabhoothayoh
anyOnyaviroDHithayA prathibhAsamAnayOh anayOh arTHAnukoolyam kaTham.
The reference here is to the AzvAr sukthi in which NammAzvAr says,'nAn
unnai anri ilEn kandai nAraNane,nee yennaiyanri ilai, I do not exist without
You nor do You exist without me.'
The opponent says that this sentence cannot possibly
mean the identity between jiva and the Lord as it is against sruthipramANa,
according to which the jiva and the Lord are different.Neither it can be taken
in the sense of sesha-seshithva as there is no word to support this in the
verse.
Desika replies thusL:
ADHArENa vinA ADHEyam vinA mAnEna mEyaDheeh
nAStheethi vadhithum yuktham thvAm vinA
nAhamAdhikam
Without the support there is no such thing as the
supported; without the means there is no object of cognition.This is the
meaning of non-existence of 'thvam' and 'aham,' one without the other.
The first sentence means that without the Lord who
is the self, the jiva who is His sarira becomes non-existent.The next sentence
means that without the jiva knowing the Lord He will not be known. The valid
cognition of the Lord is through the scriptural texts like 'yathO vA
imAni bhoothAni jAyqnthE yEna jAthAni jeevanthi yasmin abhisamvisanthi, from whom all this
arises by whom all this is sustained and into whom all this merge back,' and
the cognising subject is the jiva, without whom the cognition of the vibhoothi,
the glory of the Lord will not be known.Thus the jiva owes his existence to the
Lord whose validity in
turn is proved by the jiva.
The derivation of the word Narayana is done in two
ways. One is through bahuvreehi compound which is explained as 'nArAh ayanam yasya, whose abode is the
world of sentient and insentient beings. Second derivation is according to thathpurusha
compound which is nArANAm ayanah, the abode of the world
of sentient and insentient beings.' The first derivation
explains the second sentence of the Azvar sukthi 'nee yennai anri ilai,' and the seond derivation explains the first
sentence,' nAn unnai anri ilEn.'
58.jnanAnandhEshu
vidhyamAnEshu thairEva svarupaniroopaNam kriyathAm; kaTham vibhoothyA svarupaniroopaNAbhAvE
svarupasya asiddhih uchyathE?
When the Lord is proved by jnana anandha etc.(sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma etc.) why should the proof
depend on His vibhoothis?
Desika says,
vyAvrtthih sarvahEthuthva
sarvAntharyAmithAdhibhih
prathipadhyEtha thadhvisvam vishnOh
nithya niroopakam
The Lord being the cause of everything and the indwelling
self of all is the distinguishing mark which alone becomes the permanent proof.
The knowledge, bliss etc are also the
characterestics of the jiva and will not be the sole proof of the nature of the
Lord. The omniscience,infinite bliss and all pervading
quality is known only through His being the sole cause and the indwelling self of all beings, which is
His vibhoothi. This is why the word Narayana is explained that as the nArAh,
the sentient and insentient beings sprung from Him and hence He is called
Narayana, thus emphasising His causality of the world.
59. Evam eesvarasya
sarvajagath srshti samhAra karaNathva sarvAntharyAmithvAdhi sadhbhAve api jeevAnAm anyonyarakshakathvam lOkaprasiddham---ThaTHA sathi
'karthum ishtam anishtam va kah prabhuh vishNunA vinA' ithyAdhi pramANArTHAh
kaTHamiva samghatanthE?
Even though the Lord is the creator,annihilator of the world and its sole cause, the jivas are
seen to protect one another ,attack one another, lead one another and so on. So
how can the statements of the sasthras to the effect that the Lord alone is the
doer, protector and killer etc. be valid?
The reference is to the texts like 'Ekah sAsthA na dhvitheeyO
asthi,
(MB.Asva.parva.-27-1)there is only one ruler without a second and 'kah kEna
hanyathE janthuh kah kEna parirakshyathE, (VP.1-18-31) who is killed by whom and who is protected by whom.'
There
is nothing incongrous in this, says Desika.
bhAdhakathva-niyanthrthva-rakshakathvAdhikam thrishu
eesvarAyattham EthasmAth kah kEnaEthyAdhiyujyathE.
Attacking,
controlling and protecting
, all these three are only through the command of the Lord and
that is why it is said 'by whom and who,' etc.
The
Lord alone is the sarvakarthA, doer of all. The jivas actions are
influenced by their karma and hence not independent. Protected by one or harmed
by others happen according to one's puNya or pApa in the poorvajanma.Through
His grace only a jiva follows the path of devotion or prapatthi. The Lord os
the kartha and kArayitha because through His will only any effort
is taken by the jiva.But at the same time the Lord is also udhAseena,
unconcerned as He is the cause of all actions and has no likes and
dislikes.When the jiva starts an action the Lord becomes the anumanthA,
one who permits, and initiates the jiva to continue the action. He is the sakshi,
witness as nothing happens without his knowledge. As He aids in all endeavours
He is the sahakari, the helper. He is the phalapradha, bestower
of the fruit of endeavour.In short as Ramanuja has declared in his
nithyagrantha 'thasmAth sarvAthmanA bhagavathparthanthra Eva ayam jeevah,' jiva
is dependent on the Lord in all respets.
60.NanvEvambhakthi-prapatthi -prasootha
-prasAdhAth anishtanivrtthou sahaja souhArrdhAdhEva uttharotthara athisaya
prApthih, gadhyE 'kEvalam madheeyayaiva dhayayA' ithyAdhinA krpAyAh
anishtanivarthakathvam prasAdhasya uttharsiddhi prapakathvam cha kaTHam uchyathe
It
is said that due to the Lord getting pleased by bhakthi and prapatthi the
suffering is removed and due to His natural affection one attains liberation.
In saraNAgathi gadhya Ramanuja says it is other way round, that is, the mercy
of the Lord removes the suffering while His pleasure is the cause of mukthi.
How can these two statements be reconciled?
Desika
explains thus:
krpAnishtanivrttheecchA prasAdhah svaccha mAnasam
krpAprasAdhayoh thasmAth gadhyE hEthuthvam uchyathE
The
word krpA means here the grace which removes the obstacles and the word
prasAdha denotes the natural affection of the Lord and hence there is no contradiction.
The reason for the Lord getting pleased with bhakthi and prapatthi is His
natural mercy which results in His will to remove the obstacles in the path of
His devotees.This again is denoted by His natural affection.
61.nanu sarvajnasyApi bhagavathah
svAsritha dhOsheshu 'avijnAthA' ithyAdhibhih avijnAthr vachanam kaTham
aviruddham?
When
the Lord is omniscient how can it be said that He is oblivious of the faults of
His devotees?
The
reference is to the name 'avjnAthA,' in Vishnusahasranama which is
explained as 'the one
who does not know the faults of His devotees.'
There
is nothing untoward in calling Him so, says Desika.
avijnAthrthvam eesasya sarvajnasyApi yujyathE
kEnApyupAyabhEdhEna svAsrithAgha nivAraNath
The epithet avijnAtha quite appropriate
because He removes the faults of His devotees by some means or other.
The
Lord destroys the sins committed prior to prapatthi and does not mind those done
inadvertently after prapatthi and evenwhen the prapanna does something wrong intentionally
the Lord frees him from that also either
by making him atone for it or by punishing him to cure him of the sinful
intentions.Hence even though He is fully aware of the sins committed by His
devotees He acts as though He does not know by redeeming them from their sin.
KoorEsa mentions this in his Varadarajasthava by saying 'yathO dhOsham
bhakthEshu iha varadha naivAkalayasi, that is, the Lord Varada does not mind the faulrs of HIs devotees.This
denotes the vAthsalya, affection of the Lord towards His devotees.
62. athra anyE vadhanthi ayanasabdhEna
karaNavyuthpatthya upAyathvam karmavyuthpatthyA upEyathvam ithi bhavadhbhih
abhiDheeyatha;thath kaTHam upapadhyathE?
The
word 'ayana' in Narayana is explained in the sense of both upAya and
upEya, that is, the means and the end. How is this possible for the same entity
to be both upAya and upEya?
The
word ayana can be derived as 'eeyathe anEna' attained through Him
which is karaNavyuthpatthi, that is, in the sense of His being instrumental in
attaining the result. But when it is derived as eeyathE asou,
that is, He is attained, He becomes the fruit Himself. The opponent says the
means and the end cannot be the same.
Desika
replies,
upAyOpEya rupathvam EkasyApi cha sambhavEth
AkArabhEdhayOgEna virOdhah shAnthim
ApnuyAth.
The same entity can be both upAya and upEya and there is no
contradiction due to AkArabhEdha, difference of form or state.
The Lord is the means,upAya, to attain
Himself.Through His mercy and affection to the devotee He makes it possible for
the devotee to attain Himself.Since the goal of prapatthi or devotion is to
attain the Lord, He becomes the upEya.So there is no contradiction here, says
Desika, referring to the words of the poet Murari in his work anargha raghavam,
where the Lord is being described as both the means and the end. "sa svEnaiva phalapradhah phalamapi svEnaiva
nArAyanah,' In the asvamedhayaga performed by Dhasaratha, the Lord was the giver of the fruit , namely the
progeny and He himself became the fruit by being born as the son of Dhasaratha.
63. Evamphalabhoothasyaiva phalpradhatvEna upAyathvam
bhakthiprapatthyOh sAdhAraNam;Evam cha sathi kaTham prapannAdhikAri
vishayE visEshENa bhaagvathah upAyathvamanusanDHEyam ithyuchyathE?
When the Lord is said to be both means and the end
because the one who is to be attained bestows the fruit of attaining Him, it is
common to both bhaktha,one who follows
bhakthiyoga and prapanna,one who surrenders to Him.Then why is His upAyathva is
specifically mentioned with respect to the prapanna only.
Desika
replies,
upAyathvam visEshENa thulyathvEpyupapadhyathE
upAyAntharasADHyasya svayamEvOpapAdhanAth
Even
though both are equal for the prapanna the Lord Himself becomes the upAya in
the place of the other(bhakthiyoga)
The
one who surrenders gets the same result as the one who does bhakthiyoga without
the effort of the latter and hence as the Lord gives him the fruit of
bhakthiyoga HImself without any effort on the part of the prapanna, He is said
to be the upaya specially for the prapanna.
64.Bhakthischa
bhagavthprasAdhavyavaDhAnEna phalam dhadhAthi na thu sAkshAth phalahEthuh;athah
vyAjamAthram Ethadhapi praptthEh thulyam;Evam cha sathi prapatthih anupAyah bhakthisthu
upAyah ithi vadhathAm ko va abhiprAyah?
Even
bhakthiyoga becomes fruitful only through the grace of the Lord and hence it is
equally a cause for the attainment of the goal as prapatthi. So why should
there be distinction between the two regarding one being the upaya(bhakthi)
and the not the other(Praptthi, because the Lord Himself is the upaya)?
The
reply is given thus:
bharavinyAsa rupathvAthvEdhyAkArE visEshathah
anupAyathvam Ethasya mOkshOpAyasya yujyathE
The
praptthi is not an upaya in the sense that the prapanna surrenders the
responsibility and the fruit to the Lord so that He himself becomes the upAya for moksha and
the fruit.
In
the method of performing
both differ as in Bhakthi yoga there is a lot of effort like
worship and other austerities where as in the prapatthi only requisite is the
total surrender, saying , 'ThvamEva upAyabhoothO mE bhava, You be the
means to attain Yourself.' the Lord accepts the responsibility and gives Him
the fruit of bhakthiyoga, Himself taking the role of the upaya , that is,
bhakthiyoga. This is why it is said that prapatthi is not a
upaya.
65.'sarvam paravasam duhkham sEvA shvavrtthih
AkhyAthA' ithyAdhyukthaprakArENa parasEvA rupasya kainkaryasya kaTHam
purushArTHathvam?
It
is said (in Manusmrthi-4-6,4-9) that to serve others
brings sorrow and service is mentioned
as dog's life. Hence how can the state of being a servant can be a purushArTHa?
Even
though a released soul attains bliss by enjoying the presence of the Lord, he
is also said to be doing the kainkarya of the Lord. How can it be mentioned as
a purushArTha, the goal to be achieved?
Desika
says that this is the argument of those who do not understand what is
purushArTha.
AthmAbhimAnAnuguNa purushArTha vyavasTHithEh
kimkarathvaparijnAnAth kainkaryam abhinandhyathE
The end sought depends on the attribute of the inividual.To the one who has a
proper understanding of service it brings joy.
Starting from the world of Brahma the notion of happiness is
relative, according to one's own attitude. To those who are aware of their
dependence and seshathva to the Lord the service to HIm gives happiness. The
comparison of service to a dog's life is with reference to serving others who
do not desrve it and does not include the service to Acharya and the Lord.
Serving one's parents and elders is accepted by the dharmasasthra.It is
mentioned in Vishnuthatthva 'VichithrA dhEhasampatthih eesvarAya
nivEdhithum; poorvamEva krthA brahman hasthapAdhAdhisamyutha,'
which means that we have been endowed with hands and feet and other limbs
only to be used in the service of the Lord.
66. Evam asEvya sEvAyah nivarthaneeyathvE 'yOgakshEmArTham
eesvaram abhigacchEth,' ithyAdhyuktham prbhooNAm abhigamanam kaTHam vA upapadhyathE?
When
it is said that the service to others except to the Lord is to be avoided, how
can the statement 'one should
approach the king for the
well being,' be appropriate?
It
is said in Gouthama dharmasuthra that one should approach the king for getting
wealth and to protect it.How can this be true when only serice should be to the
Lord, is the question.
Desika
says,
prabhooNAm bhADHashAnthyarTHam
kvachith jnAnam viDheeyathE
vinA thEnApi kEshAmchith
vrtthih bhAgyavathAm bhavEth
The
people like a king have to be approached for protection from trouble but the
fortunate ones are able to lead their lives without them.
The
patronage of powerful personages like kings is needed only for those who want
to acquire worldly things and to protect them. The parmaikAnthis who are
endowed with sathva can live in places inhabited by saintly souls if they can,
and this is the lot of a fortunate few.
67.Evam vidhyamAnadhasAyam
bhagavthkainkaryasya purushArThathvE api mOkshAvasThAyAm kvachith anubhavah
purushArTham ithyabhiDHeeyathE kvachith cha thathkainkaryam; Evam cha
parasparaviruddhayOh vAkyayOh kaTHam avirODHah?
While in samsara the service to the Lord may be the purushArTHa
but in the state of release, according to some pramAna the purushArTha consists
in enjoying the presence of the Lord while in other pramANas it is said that
doing kainkarya to the Lord is the purushArTha in moksha. How can these two
statements be reconciled?
Desika says that the two, namely kainkarya and the anubhava go together.
pramANAth purushArTHathvam jnAnakainkaryayOh
dhvayOh
Ekasyaikathra kaThanAthitharasyOpalakshaNam
The
purushArThathva is common to both kainakarya, the service to the Lord and anubhava, enjoyment
of His presence, according to the pramANas.When one is mentioned the other is
understood.
'sAyujyam prathipannA yE theevrabhakthAh thapasvinah
kimkarA mama thE nithyam bhavanthi nirupadhravAh'
(Paramasamhitha-30-94)
The
meaning of the verse is that those who do bhakthi or prapatthi earnestly will
attain sAyujaya and will be doing service to the Lord and will never revert
back to samsara. The same idea is expressed by Ramanuja in saranAgathi gadhya
by 'bhagavadhnubhavajanitha anavaDhika
athisayapreethikArithA asEshAvasthOchitha asEshasEshatha ekarathirupa
nithyakinkaro bhavAni.'
The
meaning is as follows:
Ramanuja in his saranagathigadhya prays that he will be the eternal
servant to the Lord on attaining Him and the love for service is created by the
wonderful and unlimited love on experiencong the joy of the presence of the
Lord.
68.Nanu Evamapi vishNulokAdhikam
prApthAnAm ----kAlavisEshanirdhEsam sathyapi
----bhagavantham prApthanAm kaTham apunarAvrtthih srooyathE?
For
those who reach the world of the Lord Vishnu, the stay there is restricted, though unimaginably
long. But why is it that on attaining the Lord there is
said to be no return?
The
reference here is to the words of the Lord in the Gita, 'mAmupEthya thu
kounthEya punarjanma na vidhyathE,(BG.8-16) on reaching Me there is no rebirth.'
Desika
distinguishes between Vishnuloka and parampadha(vaikunta).
sambhavEth punarAvrtthih vishnulOkAdhivAsinAm
nithyam chApunarAvrtthih vaikunTE thu
nigadhyathE
Jivas reaching all the lokas including that of Vishnu are liable
to return to earth when their punya is exhausted. But on attaiining Vakunta
there is no return.
Here the vishnuloka means the realm of the trinities and does not
indicate that of the Lord. The abode of the Olrd narayana is the paramapadha or
vaikunta.
69.Evam punarAvrtthyabhAve sathi
mukthAnam 'imAn lOKAnkAmannee kAmarupyanusancharan' ithi ihalOka sanchAravachanam nOpapadhyathE
In
the event of non-return for those who attain release, the statement that the
released soul moves about in all the worlds as he wishes taking the form he
wishes will not be aooropriate.
In
Taiitiriya upanishad it is said that the realised soul leaving this body attain
the blissful self and afterwards gets the power to move about in the worlds as
he wishes in the form he wishes doing sAmagana.'asmAth
lOkAth prEthya----Etham Ananadhamayam AthmAnam upasankramayya;imAn lOkAn kAmAnnee
kAmarupee anusancharan;EthathsAmagAyannAsthE.'(Taitt.Brgu.10-5)
There
is nothing incongruous in this, says Desika,
mukthasya punarAvrtthih vAryathE karmasambhavA
na thu vArya thathO vishNOh anusancharaNAdhikam
The
return to samsara alone is denied and not the coming to the earth by their own will like the Lord does on His incarnations.
The
free movement to whereever they want, is granted for
the released souls as that for the eternal souls like Garuda and Anantha but
while this is natural for the latter it is only happens after release for the
former.
70.Evam tharhi eesvaraparathanthrathayA
sarvathra varthamAnasya mukthasya 'svAthanthryam athulam prApya thEnaiva saha
mOdhathe,' ithyAdhi svaccahandhavihAravachanam nirvishayam Eva syAth
When
the individual soul is always under the control of the Lord how can he be said to act as he
likes in the state of release as per the declaration by the sruthi that he
attains equal status of independence as the Lord and is happy with Him?
Desika
says,
asvathanthrasya mukthasya mukthou
svAthanthryamuchyathE
bhOgakainkaryayOh shakthya svathanthrEsvaraniGhnaya
The independence for the released soul who is
always dependent on the Lord means that in the state of release he has the
freedom to enjoy what he wants and serve the Lord as He likes.
This
is because the Lord never curtails the wishes of the released soul and he has
all his wishes fulfilled regarding his enjoyment of the presence of the Lord and in doing
His kainkarya, alike the eternal souls, for whom however this freedom is
eternal.
71.thaTHApi sarvOpADHivinirmukthathvAth
sarvEshAmapi mukthAnAm phalam EkarupamEva samuchitham;Evam cha
sathi------mOkashavishaya sAlOkya sArupya sAmeepyAdhibhEdhavachanam kaTHam
upapadhyathE?
Only
after becoming free from all adjuncts one attains mOkasha and hence the
experience must be the same for all in the state of release. If so, why the
different states of mOksha are mentioned like sAlOkya,sArupya
and sAyujya etc.?
sAyujyam is the real meaning of moksha.says,Desika.
mOkshah sAyujyamEvAthra sAlOkyAdhou thu
thadhvachah
aoupachArikamithyEva nischinvanthi vipaschithah
The
real mOksha is sAyujya only and the words sAlokya etc are used to denote mOksha in a
complimentary sense.
It
is said in Bhagavatha,
LokEshu vishnOh nivasanthi kEchith
sameepam rcchanthi cha kEchidhanyE
anyE
thu
rupam sadhrsam bhajanthE
sAyujyam anyE sa thu mOkshaukthah
'some
live in the same realm with the Lord which is sAlOkya; others live very close
to Him, that is, sAmeepya; Yet others acquire a form similar to Him known as
sArupyam; Some others enjoy the same pleasures with the Lord, that is sAyujya
which alone is called mOksha.'
Those
who reach Vaikunta attain the Lord and experience sAyujya which includes
sAlOkya and the other states. But those who reach the vishnulOka enjoy only the
states other than sAyujya. Among the states of sAlOkya,sArupya
and sAmeepya each one is higher than and includes th previous one.
72.sAyujyam khalu EkeebhAva Eva thaTHA
cha parabrahmana-Ekeebhoothasya jivasya kaTHam sEshathvam kaTham vA kainkaryam?
sAyujaya means becoming one with the other and hence once the jiva merges into
the Lord how is it possible for him to be sEsha of the Lord or do kainkarya to
him?
Desika
replies
EkeebhAvo na sAyujyam
sabdhasAmarthyavarjanAth
bhOgyasAmyam thu sAyujyam pramAnaih avaDhAraNAth
Sayujayam does not mean to become one with as the word
has a different meaning.It is derived as 'sayujO bhAvah sAAyujyam.' As
yoga means joining, it denotes the two entities join together (without shedding
their identities) as the word saha means 'together.' sAyujyam is to be
taken in the sense of 'mama sADHarmyam AgathAh, (BG.14-2) they become
similar to Me,' and 'anEna sAmyam yAsyAmi,(MB.shanthi.312-34) I
am going to be like the Lord,'Sruthi also confirms this by the texts like 'dhvA
suparNA sayujA sakhAya,' (Mund.3-1-1)
where the jiva and Brahman are mentioned as closely united. The word
sayujya is used only in this sense everywhere.(Cf.sAyujayam
parathipannAhi-----question67)
This
is why the jiva is mentioned as enjoying the same pleasures with the Lord in the
released state by the sruthi text 'sOasnuthE sarvAn kAmAn saha;brahmaNA vipaschithA.' (Taitt.Anandha.2)The example
quoted in the upanishad to denote the state of attaining Brahman
, namely that of rivers joining the sea also does not indicate absolute
identity of the rivers with the sea, but only denotes that the two are
inseparable. For instance, when the water from two pots are mixed the
waterlevel rises showing that they are two and not one.Therfore the equality of
enjoyment is the meaning of sayujya.
73.Evam parathanthrasEshabhoothasya
mukthasya svathanthraswAminah bhagavathascha kaTHam bhOgasAmyam?
when
the jiva is dependent on the Lord how can there be equality in enjoyment with
the Lord who is independent?
Desika
reples,
sArvajnAth ubhayOrathrabhOgaikyAvabhiyujyathE
bhOgasAmyam yaTHA rAjnA thulyasanthOshayOgithA
Just
as those close to the king enjoy the same pleasure along with the king the
released souls experience the same joy as the Lord since thay are enjoying Him
only.
74.thathApijagathsrshtyAdhivyAparasAlinah
bhagavathah leelArasADHikyam avarjanEEyam
Even
then the joy of the Lord who is engeged in the activites of creation etc for
His sport excels that of the released soul.
Desika
refutes this.
ganDharvavidhyA nyAYEna nataprEkashakayOriva
santhOshasAmyam ubhayOh chEthanEsvarayOrapi.
Just
as the pleasure of the actor and the director is equal so too here the joy of
the Lord is equal to that of the muktha.
75.'samsArakAraNanivrtthirEva mokshah' ithi bhAshyakArairapi
angeekriyathE;'sarvapApEbhyo mOkshayishyAmi' ithi bhagavath Acha
prathyayAyi;Evam cha sathi kaTHam anishtanivrtthih ishtaprApthih ithi dhvaiviDHyam?
In
Sribhashya Ramanuja
defines release as the removal of cause of samsara. The lord also has made His
promise in the charamaslOka that He will release those who surrender to Him
from all sins.Then how can there be the removal of the undesirable and
attainment of the desired objects in Moksha?
Desika says,
asthu arTHO mOkshasabdhasya banDHa
kAraNavAraNam
thaTHApyAnandhasadhbhAvasiddhayE athra vivichyathE
The
real meaning of mOksha is only the removal of the cause of bondage. But to
prove the difference of the concept of moKsha from the views of others it is
specified as the removal of the unpleasant and attainment of the pleasant since
in mOksha one experiemnces the bliss of Brahman.
76.aTHApi bhavAntharAbhAva pakshE
abishtanivrtthirEva ishtaorApthih syAth;thaTHA kaTham ubhayanirdhEsE
pounrukthyaparihArah?
Even
so, as the existence of one means the nonexistence of its opposite why should
there be the mention of anishtanivrtthi and ishtaprApthi separately since it is
tantamount to tautology?
It
is not so, says Desika.
EkamEva svarupENa prathyOgisamanvayAth
niroopyamANam bhEdhEna vyapadhEsArha ishyathE
It
is explained in terms of its svarupa and in terms of its counter-correlate
which is the difference.
To
define the nature of an entity is one way and in another way it is defined by
negating its counter-correlate like describing whiteness of a thing by its
existing colour, that is, as
white and also by denying blackness in it.Thus the
anishtanivrtthi is the removal of the cause of bondage , that is the
contraction of the jnana in the state of transmigration and ishtanivrtthi is
the joy that is experienced on account of it.
77.mOkshadhasAyAm AgAminah jnAna
vikAsaykAryathvAthkaThamnithyathvaupapatthih?
The
jnana of the individual self expands to its natural fullness in the state of
release.Then how is it possible to say that the jnAna is eternal?
This
is quite appropriate, says Desika.
praDHvamsAbhAva-nithyathvam bhavathA yadhvadh uchyathE
thadhvathpramANasAmarthyAth mukthajnAnasya nithyathA
As
the eternity of the non-existence of destruction is accepted in Nyaya system,
likewise the jnana in mukthi is proved to be eternal by the pramAna.
In
Nyaya system when a pot is destroyed the destruction of the pot becomes
non-existent. This is what is known as praDhvamsAbhAvAbhava,which is
eternal, since it has no end.That is, when the pot is destroyed it is not going
to be destroyed again and hence the non-existence of destruction in all cases
after a thing is destroyed is said to be eternal. Similarly when the jnAna has
attained its natural fullness, there is no more cause for it to become
contracted again and hence it is said as being eternal.The pooranajnana is the
natural state of the jiva which was contracted during the state of samsara due
to karma and when the cause of bondage through karma, that is the nescience is
destroyed the jnana reverts back to its original state. As the light of a gem
is not created by cleaning,'yaTHA na kriyathE jyothsnA malaprakshAlanAth
maNeh,' the jnAna is not newly created and hence it is nithya.Once the jiva
becomes a muktha his jnAna is never ceases to be fully blossomed due to the
grace of the Lord. Same is the case of the eternal souls.
78.nanu mukthasya kainkaryanithyathvE
kainkaryasya sareerApEkshAyAm sathyAm sareerithvam asareerithvam cha
dhvithaymapi kaTham?
When
the kainkarya of the released soul is eternal it requires a body to do it. So
how can it be said that the muktha is both with and without body?
This
refers to Brahmasuthra 'dhvAdhasAhavath ubhayaviDham bhAdhrAyaNOthah,
(BS.4-4-12) VyAsa is of the opinion that the jiva in mukth is of both forms (
with and without sarira) as in the sacrifice of dhvAdhasAha.'The sacrifice
called dhvAdhsAha, is called sathra if many take the vow and aheena
if one does. Like wise the muktha is said to have body or without it by his
will
Desika
replies,
svAmyabheeshtaviDHanam hi kainkaryam abhiDHeeyathE
thasmAth ubhayarupENa kainkaryam
prathipadhyathe
The
meaning of kainkarya is to do the bidding of the Lord. It could be done both
with and without a body.
As
in the world the actors please their master sometimes with costumes and
sometimes without, the released souls serve the Lord by assuming different
forms by their will.
79.Evamapi svacchandhavrtthiparihArENa
paracchandhAnuvarthinah mukthasya kaTham idham kainkaryam abhinandhaneeyam?
How
can this type of service, where one acts not according to his own wish but in
accordance to another, be praiseworthy?
The
reply to this is,
BhagavathkimkarathvEna svAthmayATHAthmyavEdhinAm
svAmyabheestaviDHAnam hi svasyAbheestam ihOchyathE
For those who know themselves to be the seshas of
the Lord by nature, the service to the Lord becomes their wish also.
As
in the world, the wives, children and the attendants of a king experience
pleasure by serving him here also the released souls obtain
in
the service of the Lord.
80.thTHApi svAmisanthOsha
Evakainkaryasya prayojanam ithi kaTham?
Even
then how can it be said that the pleasure of the master is the only purpose of service?
Desika
says,
pathibhOgAnushangENa siddhO nEva phalAyathE
svabhOGhah sa cha thadhbhOgaseshathvam aDHigachathi
The
fruit of the service to the husband consists in his satisfaction only. Sinmilarly
the enjoyment of the muktha consists in the joy of being the sesha of the Lord.
Thus
ends the MoolmanthrAdhikara.
ithi kila yathirAjOpajna mArGoparoDha
prasamanarasikAnAm prAkthanAnAm priyaya
munijanabahumAnyAmmoolamantharTha yukthim
vyavrNutha varadHachAryah
sarvathanthrasvathanthrah
For
the sake of those who wish to quell the impediments in the path advocated by
Ramanuja The Varadacharya, explained the meaning of the moolamanthra which is revered by
the sages.
ithinikhila thArkika choodAmaNina
sarvathanthrasvathanthrENa ubhayavEdhAnthAchAtryENa srimadhvaradhanAthryENa
samskrtheekrthE virOdhaparihArE
moolamanthrADHikArah praTHamah
.