----- Original Message -----
From: Saroja
Ramanujam
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 9:21 PM
Subject: virodhapariharaquestions57to64 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 souhArdhAdhEva 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.
.
May god bless you,
Dr.
Saroja Ramanujam, M.A., Ph.D, Siromani in sanskrit.
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. __._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ |
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |