
Home | Articles | Contact
Dear BhakthAs : A friend of mine sent the following article , which is
interesting . I thought you might be interested to read
this and other articles cited below .
NamO NaarAyaNAya ,
V.Sadagopan
![]() ![]() ![]() INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARAMASLOKAProf. M. S. Rangachari Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekam śaraņam vraja (Abandoning all means take Me alone as the means and goal. I shall release you from all evils. Be not grieved.)
This verse in Bhagavad-Gita is most familiar to Vaishnavites and is considered very important by them. This is known as charamasloka. The importance of the charamasloka lies in the fact that when properly interpreted it is seen as the base on which Aazhvaars’ philosophy is built up. Conversely Aazhvaars’ works expound the true meaning of the Lord’s teachings. There are other ‘charamaslokas’ given out by Lord Vishnu in His other avatars or incarnations. Those given out by Him in His Varāhāvatāra and Rāmāvatāra along with the one quoted above (given out in the Krishnāvatāra) are recited by Srivaishnavites in their daily prayers. Some combine them with Sīta’s assertion in the Ramayana in their recital. (Sinners or good persons even on those who deserve death, compassion should be shown by noble soul, for there is none who never commits a wrong) This is also considered as charamasloka by some. The import of this assertion is an advice to be kind to fellow beings irrespective of whether they are good or bad, for the reason that there is nobody who is faultless. This is in consonance with ‘Sri’ (Lakshmi) - the personification of the Lord’s kŗpā or kindness, as Sītā is Lakshmi in Rāmāvatarā. ‘Rāghavatve abhavat Sītā (She became Sītā when He was Rāghava) ‘Sītā lakshmi; bhavān Vişnu;’ (Sĭtā is Lakshmi; You are Vişnu’) In Vaishnavite literature the epithet ‘charama’ is used in more than one sense. Besides the usual connotation of the last, as in the word charamaprabandha, the last work, the special meaning of the epithet to indicate the best is used not so infrequently. For example, in the word charamopaya. In the context of the śloka mentioned at the outset the name charamaśloka is attributed explicitly to it certainly by Vedānthadeśika in his Tātparyachandrika, a commentary on Ramanuja’s Gītha Bhāşya. Such a nomenclature is found in the commentaries of Acharyas like Nampillai and others earlier to Vedānthadeśika (Parasara Bhattar in the form of the synonym charama vaakya and by his disciple Nanjeeyar as such and by the latter’s disciple Nampillai as also Periyavāchānpillai) and in works of contemporaries of Vedānthadeśika or later Acharyas like Manavālamāmunigal. Surprisingly the usage of this nomenclature is absent in the Gītharthasangraha of Yāmuna and Gīthabhashya of Rāmānuja. The name could indicate that this sloka was the last (or final?) advice given to Arjuna as the later slokas given by Lord Krishna pertained only to this advice being communicated properly to others. Better still this is the best sloka of the Gītha conveying the best path for salvation, charamopaya. To see how this is the best is easy if one considers the Supreme Being conceptually as an entity with superlative capacity and qualities. In particular, salvation, being realizing by the soul of extreme happiness with no tinge of sorrow, which is a quality of the Supreme Being, if attained by the soul through any other means, impinges on the supremacy of the Supreme Being. This is what is conveyed by the charama sloka, as we see eventually, by the statement that He will deliver the soul (indicating capability) of unhappiness and that the soul need not worry (indicating quality). Thus the best goal to be reached can be reached through the best means (without any superlative thereto) and hence the sloka conveying this message is the best (with no superlative to it) Lord Krishna decides to be charioteer for Arjuna in the Bhāratha war. Arjuna is His devotee and friend as He Himself describes him. (B.G. 4-3. ‘bhaktah asi me sakhā’). In the battlefield at the start of the war Arjuna declines to fight saying that victory or defeat would not make him happy after having killed kith and kin and because of the aftermath of the war that is to follow. Krishna chides him angrily first with no impact on Arjuna then starts preaching as Arjuna requests Him to treat him as a disciple who has submitted himself onto Him. (B.G.2-7. ‘niṣ́citam brūhi tan m’e śişyas tėaham śādhi mām tvām prapannam’). Thus He starts preaching. First, He builds up the theory of rebirth and tells Arjuna that the soul is permanent and killing pertains only to the body and is therefore insignificant. He goads him to refrain from attachment to kith and kin and fight respecting his swadharma or duty as a warrior. He pleads for action without caring for fruits or consequences, with stability of mind. (B.G. 2-47. karmanyevādhikāras tė mā phalėşu kadācana mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr mā te sańgah astu akarmani.-To work alone you have the right and not to the fruits. Do not be impelled by the fruits of work. Nor have attachment to inaction. yoga-sthah kuru karmāni sangam tyaktvā dhanańjaya (Abandoning attachment and established in yoga, perform works, viewing success and failure with an even mind. Evenness of mind is said to be yoga.) By implication He means that it is His will which ultimately prevails. (B.G.18-59.) Arjuna rightly questions why He should get him involved in a frightening battle if His will was to prevail. (B.G. 3-1. ‘tat kim karmani ghore mām niyojayasi keśava). Krishna says that Nature (or prakrti or more so aptly He Himself) would force him to act and he will have to but act surrendering all his actions onto Him without the feeling that he is the doer. (B.G.3-5. ‘kāryate hy avaśah karma sarvah prakrti-jair gunaih’ mayi sarvāni karmāni samnyasyādhyātma-cetasā Thus He preaches what we call karmayoga. When the Lord says He had earlier preached the ideas to Vivasvān, Arjuna promptly questions on the difference of time period. On this Lord Krishna, starts revealing the theory of Avatara (incarnations). (B.G. 4-6. ajah api san avyayātmā bhūtānām iśvarah api san prakrtim svām adhishthāya sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā ‘ Though I am birthless and of immutable nature, though I am the Lord of all beings, yet by employing My own Nature (Prakrti) I am born out of My own free will.) He reverts to encouraging Arjuna to act but with knowledge of absence of desire. (B.G.5-10). He then advocates sensory control and concentration on Him to get rid of desire. (B.G.6-24, 31.) He follows this up with description of real knowledge of His form and qualities and announces that only those who submit to Him get this knowledge tearing off the veil of ignorance created by His leela or equivalently Sankalpa or Will (B.G.7-14). (Rāmānuja has a dig at Sankara’s interpretation of Maya as illusion at this juncture). He proclaims that such a knowledgeable individual or technically a Gnāni, who loves Him, is loved more by Him. (B.G 7-17). This Gnāni for whom Vāsudeva is everybody and everything reaches Him (B.G.7-19) (Ramanuja’s description of such a Gnāni literally coincides with that of the Azhvwars as revealed by their works). This is the Gnānayoga of the Gīthā. Next He describes His permanent abode ‘śāśvatham padham’ and advises earning to reach this abode on the part of the soul. He announces this as the land of no return ‘punar janma na vidyate’ (B.G.8-16) and the end of the cycle of births. He preaches Bhakti (according to Rāmānuja’s interpretation) as the path towards His permanent abode. (B.G. 9-34. ‘man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yāji mām namskuru mām evaişyasi yuktvaivam ātmānam mat-parāyanah’ – Focus your mind on Me, be My devotee, and be My worshipper. Bow down to Me. Engaging your mind in this manner and regarding Me as the supreme goal, you will come to Me.) To kindle Bhakti He then reveals His qualities and cosmic presence. He tells Arjuna that his enemies have been killed by Him already and he needs to act only to make a worldly show. (B.G.11-33. ‘mayaivaite nihatāh pūrvameva nimita-mātram bhava savya-sācin’) On seeing His limitless cosmic form Arjuna gets frightened and prays for His four-armed form (B.G.11-45&46), which Krishna condescends to show him. He again preaches action, faith (Bhakti), and love for all with total orientation towards Him as the path to reach Him. (B.G. 11-55. mat-karma-krn mat-paramo mad-bhaktah sanga-varjitah nirvairah sarva-bhūteşu yah sa mām eti pāndava) Whosoever works for Me, looks upon Me as the highest and is devoted to Me, free from attachment and without enmity towards any creature, he comes to Me, O Arjuna) (Here again Rāmānuja recalls the state of the Azhvwars). In the rest of the Gītha Krishna elaborates the theme of the earlier text. Relation between body and soul, enjoyment of the soul within the body, classification of qualities, impact of qualities and the way to ward off the impact through Bhakti, the supreme Being as Purushotthama, classification of entities and qualities as ‘devāsura’ according to Śāstras, the necessity of constraints by the Śāstras are the several themes of the elaboration. The charamasloka is the culmination of the elaboration of the terms sanyasa and tyaga. (B.G. 18-57.) Krishna’s intention was to make Arjuna fight. First, by chiding him He did not succeed in His attempt. His preaching the permanence of soul was of no avail. His advice to act, but attaching the action to His will did not have the desired effect. Again, His advice to have real knowledge relating to the Supreme Being, that He is, and act according to His will did not bear fruit. Perhaps He was pained about the lack of faith in Him with Arjuna. Hence He pleads for Bhakti (which is philosophically ‘faith’ – for faith goes deeper than belief.) in Him. Thus the etymological meaning of ‘yoga’ derived from the root ‘yuj’ to connect or combine is what is implied by the Karma, Gnana and Bhaktiyogas in the Gītha. As some specialists in Vaishnavite studies like Prof. M. R. Parameswaran point out, it is probably this connotation, which was meant when it is said that the path of yoga was lost to us since Yamuna could not meet Kurukaikavalappan. Let me elaborate on this point. It has been the practice and deemed to be fashionable too, to speak about karma, gnāna, and bhakthi yogas. The word ‘yoga’ as just above indicated, suggests that these words signifying some action on the part of the individual or soul or chetana should be connected to some other entity or action. For karma, Krishna suggests reposing all actions on the Supreme Being and doing it with detachment. (B.G.5-10). For gnāna, He says that the awakened have faith in Him in the sense that the source and cause of everything is He Himself. (B.G.10-8) and He gives them the enlightenment (B.G.10-10) by which they reach Him. As for bhakthi, the Lord starts preaching shedding of ego (B.G.12-13) and submitting the mind and thinking of Him to become dear to Him as His faithful (B.G.12-14). In other words, it is He who makes the chetana His faithful. He summarizes latter (B.G. 18-54 to56.) that the one who acts, thinks, reposes faith in Him, all this as blessed by Him without ego and has no enmity to any creature reaches Him. Thus karma, gnāna and bhakthi- yogas are nothing but putting these acts as the acts of the Supreme Being. The question is: Why should the Supreme Being bless the soul this way and get it entangled in the cobweb of the impact of these actions? In reality the soul is saved from this impact also by Him through His concern for the soul, ‘sraddhā’ or more popularly known as ‘kŗpā’. According to the Vedas ‘sraddhayā-devo devatvam asnuthe’ – the Lord enjoys His Lordship because of His concern. He demolishes the impact of the soul’s deeds through His ‘sraddhā’, which is personified as the Goddess on the lotus. Nammaazhvaar says ‘veri mārādha poomēl iruppāļ vinai theerkumē’ (Thiruvāimozhi 4-5-11 ‘the Goddess on the ever fragrant flower gets the impact of the acts ridden off). Possibly it is this connection –‘yoga’-, the concept of the Goddess as the quality of the Lord getting rid of the impact of the acts, which perhaps was to be communicated to Yāmuna by Kurukaikaavalappan, a disciple of Naathamuni, which did not materialize. Both in the Gīthartha sangraha of Yāmuna and Gītha Bhashya of Rāmānuja (which seems to be a real elaboration of the Sangraha) it is stated that Bhakti is upaya or the path for deliverance from bondage or Moksha. Rāmānuja interprets the charamasloka as saying that for the beginning of this Bhaktiyoga it is necessary to cross the barriers against such a beginning (sarvapāpa..) and that Krishna advises surrendering to Him leaving all rituals like Krchra, chāndrāyana etc. (which are capable of performance only with some difficulty) to cross these barriers. After Bhakti begins as stated by Krishna the Bhakta reaches Him (B.G.9-34), presumably according to this interpretation, though not explicitly said so. Obviously the repetitive statements of Krishna about Bhakti leading to Him made Yāmuna and Rāmānuja interpret the Gītha as such and the śloka giving the śastrārtha (as Yāmuna puts it) as extolling Bhakti. Both in the Gītharthasangraha of Yāmuna and Gītha Bhāşya of Rāmānuja, as pointed out earlier, the type of Bhakti propounded and experienced by the Aazhvaars is indicated more than once without explicit reference to them. On the other hand, the conclusive opinion of the Aazhvaars right from the Mudalāzhvārs is that the path for Mokşa or deliverance from bondage is the Lord Himself. ‘neri vāsal thānēāi ninrānai’ (He Himself is the means and goal) Mudalthiruvandhādhi 4. Vaartthai aribhavar maayavarkkaalanri aavarō (Can one knowing His words be (anything) other than a servant to Him? When we get clarified about the good He does to us by removing the clouded birth, disease, aging, death and taking away as if from the root the great misery of being born in this world.) In technical terms this can be alternatively described as ‘ prapatthi’ or surrender unto the Lord, the word being interpreted as, ‘svapravrtthinivrutthi’ or stopping all attempts on the part of the soul for deliverance. In fact, in the Thiruvāimozhi, more than once, the Aazhvār mentions about submitting his soul to the Lord but corrects himself telling that the soul is His and there is no question of submission. ‘Enathāvi thandhozhindhēn……. Enathāviāviyum nī, enathāviyaar? Yān aar? Thandha nī kondākkinaiyē’ Thiruvāimozhi 2-3-4. I gave my soul entirely (losing my individuality). You are the soul of my soul. i.e. the cause for its existence. Where is (the question of) my soul? Who am I? (i.e. Where is the question of ‘I’ as an individual?). You created the soul and made it yours and thereby gave it a meaningful existence. ‘udhavikkaimaaru ennuyir enna utrennil adhuvum matru aangavan thannadhu’ Thiruvaaimozhi 7-9-10. (If I think my life (spirit) is to be given as a token of gratitude, on deep thinking, even that is His.) Even about Bhakti, the Azhvārs don’t claim to be Bhaktas by themselves, but deem themselves made bhaktas by the Lord. ‘…….nirandharam ninaippadhaaha nī ninaikkavēndumē’. Thirucchandhaviruttham 101. (You should will that I always think about You.) ‘…ennunarvinullē irutthinēn adhuvum avandhu innaruļē’ (I kept Him in my feeling, but even that was His sweet blessing only.) Even about service or kainkarya to the Lord, they have this attitude: - ‘ariyākkālatthuļļē adimaikkaņ anbuśeivitthu’ Thiruvaaimozhi 2-3-3. (Making me have a taste of servitude when I was ignorant.) As seers with implicit faith in God’s immense kindness even about Moksha their thesis is ‘Śaraņamākum thanathāļ adainthārkkellām, maraņamānāl vaikundam kodukkum pirān’ Thiruvaaimozhi 9-10-5. (For all those who reach (by feeling) His feet which are the means, He is the Lord Who gives His abode on their death.) This is in consonance with Thirukkacchi Nambi’s aphorism ‘dhehavasaane moksha:’, (deliverance on death) one of the six aphorisms especially conveyed to Rāmānuja. Yāmuna too, as revealed by his Stotrarathna was aware of ‘prapatthi’ or ‘bharanyaasa’ really signifying God Himself as the path for salvation. He literally translates the Thiruvāimozhi verse mentioned earlier as: - ‘vapurādhishu yo api ko api vā ……thadhyam thava padapadhmayō: aham adhyaiva mayā samarpitha: - mama nātha yadhasthi yōsmyaham…..athavā kim nu samarppayāmi’ (In the belief that there is some quality in some sense, I submit my life at Your feet… My Lord all that and I are all Yours. What shall I submit to You?) Thus both being aware of the school of thought of Azhwārs right at the time they were at the Sangraha or Bhashya as the case may be, obviously they had some other reason to give an interpretation of the Gita or in particular the Charamasloka, insisting that Bhakti is a prerequisite for moksha. In fact Bhakti is nothing but śeshatva as blessed by the Supreme Being according to Azhwārs and is more than moksha for them. As Nammāzhwār puts it- Uņņāttuth thēcanŗē ūzhvinaiyai anjumē On this earth in whatever form or body, however degraded in status a birth may be, if such a birth is blessed with śeshatva (servitude), by and for the disc holding Lord, that itself is the radiance for the inner self (soul) of such birth. It is never scared of the acts of punya or pāpa (karma), nor is heaven a matter for appreciation for such a soul. After all Karma Gnāna Bhakti could have been included in the ‘krchrachaandhraayana…’ (Rituals signifying the Supreme Being’s control on the cosmos) wagon as has been done by the later achāryas like Nampillai, Pillai Lokācharya and others. They should have had therefore some constraints to give a different interpretation. There is a belief among some Vaishnavites that the interpretation of the charamasloka according to the philosophy of the Aazhwārs was learnt by Raāmānuja from Goshtipurna or Thirukkoshtiyur Nambi much later to his writing Gīthā Bhāşya. But this interpretation is, however, claimed to have been secretly endowed with Goshtipurna by Yāmuna himself. The further story is that Rāmānuja got instruction from Goshtipurna and made the secret public in the interest of the common man. Of course Rāmānuja hints at the prevailing interpretation in his Sri Bhāşya by quoting the Srutivākya “yamevaisha vrunuthe thena labhya:”(attainable by only those whom He chooses). Thus Yāmuna and Rāmānuja seem to have purposely avoided explicitly interpreting Gīthā as propounding ‘prapatthi’ or surrender as a tool for Moksha. In fact Rāmānuja advocates karma, gnāna, Bhakti according to qualifications (yathaadhikaaram) and without claim of fruits or doing (phalakarmakarthrthvaadhi parithyaagena) as a prelude to ‘sarvadharmaparithyaaga’. The only plausible reason is the environmental and social constraint. Let me elaborate this a little. Srivaishnavism as it existed before Rāmānuja, during his time or later to him, or in the present time is an admixture of philosophy, religion and rituals. Predominance of rituals in Vedic religion to the extent of invoking the elements against foes gave birth to Buddhism and Jainism. Even after being swallowed by these disciplines, ritualistic society did remain to some extent. Sankara revived the Vedic tradition with stress on the philosophical content of the Vedas. He had to create Advaita almost tending to Buddhism (prachannabowddha) so that there will be takers for his ideas from Buddhism and he left the ritualistic school in tact getting takers from this school too for his philosophy. Rāmānuja (better still his predecessors like Nāthamunikal and Yāmuna) was pained by his ‘mayāvādha’ or thesis of illusion and preached realism of the three entities, ‘chit, achit, eashwara’ and the easiest way for them to propagate their philosophy was to keep the ritualistic basis and preach Bhakti in its ritualistic form of ‘mananam’ (thought), ‘vandhanam’ (worship) etc. The philosophic form of Bhakti is ‘preethi’ (pleasure) or ‘viśvāsa’ (faith). ‘preethi’ leads to faith and implicit faith creates the ‘upaayathaabhuddhi’ (faith that He is the path for salvation). Thus philosophical Bhakti is nothing but ‘prapatthi’. Vedanthadesika shows an awareness of this interpretation and puts it that Bhakti is an anga or limb of angi the body ‘prapatthi’ in his commentary on Geethārthasangraha. Pillailokāchāryar makes a single assertion in his ‘Sri Vachana Bhushanam’ (‘mukkiyam athuvē’ -51. That alone is important). Thus Yāmuna and Rāmānuja gave scope for this philosophical interpretation of ‘prapatti’ as the path. For that matter karma, gnana yogas too leave scope for this interpretation. There is much usage in literature of several upāyā or paths karma, gnāna, Bhakti etc., depending on the qualifications of the soul (adhikāribhedha). The thesis of Pillailokacharya is that the real path is ‘prapatti’ and one is driven to it. Vide his assertion: (ajnānatthaalē prapannar asmadhādhikaļ; jnānādhikyatthālē prapannar pūrvāchāryarkaļ; bhakthi pāravaśyatthālē prapannar aazhvaarkaļ.) We take the Lord as means because of our ignorance; Earlier preachers did so because of their great knowledge; The Aazhvaars did so because they were well attracted towards servitude. (Sri Vachana Bhooshanam 46). In fact Pillai lokacharya ends up faith in āchārya, more aptly the concern of an āchārya, viz. āchāryabhimāna as the ultimate upaya. Of course, this has turned out to be a ritual these days, but Pillailokāchārya makes it clear that the Aachārya of his description should have knowledge and practice of prapatti as envisaged above. This is just a practical point of view as old as Rāmānuja’s time ‘peronru matrillai ninśarananri’ (Iraamaanusanootrandhaadhi 45) (There is nothing to aspire except your feet….. For this too your feet show the way) The interpretation of prapatti as putting the burden on the Lord (bharanyāsa), as if it were to be an act on the part of the individual soul, is, of course a compromise with the ritualistic school. Anyway Vaishnavism is simple. The Lord with his omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence matched with His extreme kindness is there to take care of us. Let us submit to His will. |
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
Get unlimited calls to U.S./Canada |
Attachment:
serv?s=19190039&t=1102559584
Description: Binary data
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |