You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Oct 2004

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00225 Oct 2004

 
Oct 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]



SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA

The following are some perspectives which adiyaL finds
to be having some relevance in the current discussions
on Kaliyan?s salvation, the questions by
Srivilliputtur Sundarrajan and on the question whether
there is any freewill or initial  volition for the
jivatma. There is no deliberate attempt to combine
them all. But when an attempt was made to look into
the pramanas (if any) to understand  Kaliyan?s
salvation described by  Sri Sundarrajan in his  mails,
adiyaL found herself meandering through various
concepts and had clubbed them  as the title of this
mail. This mail is not to validate or question
any notion expressed by others so far on these topics.
The perspectives are  being just highlighted and it is
for the readers to deduce or define or even brush them
aside ?in the way they think  fit

(1) Salvation ? Mukthi ?Release. All these are being
talked about by different sruti texts and by
Purvacharyas. But that which has been talked by
Gitacharyan is being taken by adiyaL as the foremost
among all pramanas, since they have been mouthed by
Bhagwan Himself. Bhagwan has minced no words while
revealing His mind as to whom He casts His vote. It is
the gyAni who is brimming with Sattwic qualities. A
concerted reading of the Gita reveals that the end (or
the desire for Release) is as important as the means
to attain it. The end does not justify the means, but
the means applied in the right direction takes one to
the end.

(2) The above inference is also supported by verse
3-4-51 of Brahma sutras. This is seen by this writer
as a daring, strong and important verse stating that
Release is not automatically guaranteed at the end of
the birth in which the chetana does the meditation
that has for its fruit, Release.  This meditation, in
our understanding is prapatti.   The presence of
impediments in the form of deeds delay the Release. 
After telling in the previous sutra that scriptures do
declare that worldly prosperity arises only when the
obstructions in hand are removed, the same logic is
taken further into the question  of Release in the
51st sutra  as thus: ? Similarly, there is no rule as
to the fruit of final Release, because the meditation
has that condition (of granting fruit in the absence
of obstruction); has that condition.?

The translation of Ramanuja Bhashyam for this sutra by
Swami Vireswarananda is as follows:- ?This topic deals
with meditation that has for its fruit, Release.
Meritorious deeds are aids for such meditation. There
is no rule that the final Release takes place
immediately. When there is no obstruction, the state
of Release may occur immediately, otherwise not. Here
also a doubt may arise: The deeds which are the means
of generating the meditation leading to Final Release
might be stronger than other deeds, and otherwise
there is no obstruction. Even in that case, offences
formerly committed against the Knowers of Brahman may
exist, and therefore there is a chance of obstruction.
The repetition of the last words of the sutra shows
the close of the chapter.?

Another pramana to support this view is from
Katohpanishad (II-24) which runs thus:- ?One who has
not turned away from evil conduct, who is not
tranquil, who is distracted, or whose mind is not
content, can never attain Him through Knowledge.? So,
deeds in thought and action are to be guarded well,
though one may be qualified for Release by means of
Knowledge in the form of bhakti.

Yet another pramana that deeds committed later can not
be wiped out by good deeds done earlier is taken from
Sundara khandam wherein  Hanuman tells Ravana that all
his past glorious good deeds can not save him from the
misdeed of abduction of Sita because they (past good
deeds) protect one from the bad deeds  committed
before the good deeds were done and that they can not
protect him from the bad deed (abduction) done
afterwards ?thereby implying that any good deed in the
form of propitiation done after the bad deed and with
the aim of reducing the effect of bad deed alone is
capable of protecting him from the bad effect of
abduction. The propitiation in Ravana?s case is
surrender to Rama?s feet and returning Sita. That
vidhi or karma or destiny is very powerful  from which
it is very difficult to escape ? is something
acknowledged by Sita piratti Herself in sargam 37.
(That BG gives the prescription to wriggle oneself out
of this is another topic by itself)

(3) Going by this sutra, our questions around sahetuka
?nirhetuka kripa of the Lord seem to get a valid 
explanation. Coming to the sutra mentioned in point
(2), it is to be understood that the jiva which is
quite eligible for Release has to be born again if
there are impediments to Release. When such
impediments are gone through by the jiva in the same 
birth itself, the prospect for Release arises and he
attains it. Suppose the jiva has to take another birth
to live-out the effects of particular karma, and he
attains Release after such karmas are over,  one may
not necessarily get to see how this jiva which is
otherwise seen as an ordinary being, attains Release. 
This gives rise to an appearance that either god is
impartial to some and blesses that jiva for no reason
at all (nirhetukam). 

But a close reading of Vedartha sangraha reveals what 
exactly is meant by the Mundaka vachan that ?the atman
is attained by one whom He chooses?. This choice is
not arbitrary or from out of the blue. It is only
after the jiva is qualified to  attain Him, that he is
chosen by Him. The reading of verse 251 of VS reveals
that ?he becomes the object of greatest love to the
Lord in whom has arisen supreme love for the Lord. The
Bhagwan says, ?I am ineffably dear to the man of
knowledge and he is also dear to me.? Therefore in
reality, only knowledge that is of the nature of
supreme bhakti is the means for attaining the
Bhagwan.? The Lord takes such a person into His abode
and not others. This shows that the Lord does not
hand-pick someone not entitled for such attainment.
But it might seem so for others around him, for, we do
not know what  this person?s karma was like and what 
his bhakti was/is like. Suffice it to say that He is
Just and Right always. He can not be even dreamt of
having made adharmic choices/ decisions.

(4) This must set at rest the questions whether the
Lord is partial to some jivas. Sutras 2-1-34 &35 make
it amply clear why and how the Lord can not be said to
be partial or cruel, since it is karma which is  
controlling the jivas. Ramanuja bhashyam to the 34th 
sutra says this in many words. When a man becomes bad
by bad deeds and good by good deeds, it is assumed
that He as the controller makes all this happen. But
no, ?The Lord is only the operative cause in the
creation of beings. The main cause is the past karma
of the beings. Just as rain helps different seeds to
sprout, each according to its nature, so the Lord is
the general efficient cause in bringing the latent
efficient tendencies of each individual to fruition.
Hence He is neither partial nor cruel.? 

(5) Similar view that it is the prakruthi sambhandam
and karma sambhandam that decide the action of the
individual is stressed strongly by Gitacharyan in
verses 18-60 & 61. ?O Arjuna, bound by your own duty
born out of your own inner disposition¸ and HAVING NO
CONTROL OVER YOUR OWN WILL, you will be compelled to
do that very thing which you now desire not to do
through delusion.? So where is the question of free
volition or even initial volition?

(6) Vedopanishath do not support anywhere even a
minute prospect for free volition. If volition is
ascribed to the jiva, that runs counter to the
?existence, infinity?? of Brahman of  taiitriya
upanishad, which Ramanuja finds as an authentication
for material cause for everything. It also runs
counter to the sarira-sariri bhava. At one level the
soul has a relationship with  the body as AdhAra
(supporter), niyanta (controller) and seshi (master).
Similarly Brahman has a relationship with jivas whom
It has as Its body by supporting, controlling and by
mastership. ? He abides in the heart of every being,
spinning them round and round, mounted on a wheel as
it were, by His power.? (BG 18-61)


(7) But whenever and wherever the talk of free
volition (initial only) comes up in Ramanuja?s
writings, one finds that it is invariably in reply to
a question whether the injunctions such as satyam vada
and dharmam chara are meant for the In-dweller who is
Brahman, or addressed to the jiva and on whom wrests
the moral responsibility for the actions. (Brahma
sutra- bhashyam `2-3-41, Gita bhashyam 18-15 and
vedartha  sangraha  124). This confusion is being
answered by Ramanuja himself in quite a few places by
quoting the famous example of two birds sitting on the
same tree, one eating the fruit of karma and the other
shining without eating. (Of these two, one eats the
sweet fruit with relish, while the other looks on
without eating. ? sve upa ? IV ?6) ?There are two, one
the Ruler and the other the Ruled? (Sve I ?9). Karma
doesn?t touch the Brahman though he is the material
and efficient cause of all that happens. Because He is
the knower and knows why all this happens and what
makes this happen and how He makes this happen. When
the jiva too realises this, he attains Brahman hood.

(8) It is interesting to note that invariably all the
granthas of purvacharyas which  reflect  Ramanuja
Hrudhayam  do not prescribe to this view on initial
volition. Then why do we still muse upon this clause
is a mute question. Looking at this clause, this
writer wishes to deal with  it at 3 levels. 

(1) If one were to pick out this particular view from
his bhashyam which is more in the nature of explaining
a particular sutra or verse, how do we treat other
controversial notions such as Brahma sutra's version
of shudras not being entitled to know brahma vidya and
the authentication of animal sacrifice in yajnas.
Ramanuja does not counter these views but instead had
only justified them in consonance with the said
sutras. While we do not give importance to these views
and Ramanuja himself had not promoted these views, 
why should there be importance to the view on initial
volition which anyway is devoid of sruti pramana? 

(2) The very idea of initial volition is confusing as
to which action  is meant here. A person does numerous
actions in a day which include even eating, speaking
etc. What is the description for what constitutes the
initial one for an action and a will to do it? For,
everything seems to originate by virtue of prakruthi
and karma sambhandam. In the analogy of the child
refusing to write as directed by the mother, there may
seem outwardly a freewill on the part of the child in
having refused to write. But suppose the child hits
its own eye by the pen it had in its hand while trying
to free the hand from its mother, how would we justify
the pain or hurt to its eye? Suppose the mother beats
the child in an impulse that the child had disobeyed
her, how would we justify the pain and distress to the
child? If karma (vidhi) is the answer to these 2
questions, by the same logic it is karma or the mix of
thri-gunas in its mental constitution  that are the
causes for the child?s initial impulse to repel its
mother ? free volition has no place in this. Thus it
is absolutely difficult to prove initial volition in
any of the actions in day to day life. 

(3) This brings us to look into the possibility of
whether the initial volition is in fact the volition
that could have  possibly existed at the
beginning-less beginning. That is, imagine a situation
when God had just created the manifest world and body
for the jiva and the  jiva is  equipped with gunas (as
per the combination that went into its making) and
indriyas to do action. How would the first action that
is going to trigger the karma- cycle take place? Does
God, having empowered the jiva remain a witness or the
jiva begins action on its own volition? This seems to
be  a credible scenario to justify initial volition,
for, everything that is going to happen after the
initial volition will be the result of the previous
one and the question of volition would not arise from
then onwards. Thus the wheel of karma would be put on
the move. 

But here again this writer thinks that our siddhantam
does not favour free volition for the jiva at this
initial level. This is for 2 reasons. Taking cue from
PBA swamy in his vyakhyaanam for Acharya hrudhayam
1-12, it is being said that karma is something that is
?vandhEriya ondru? Karma is not anAdhi (beginingless)
because if it is anAdhi, we can not call it as
something ?vandhEriyadu?. It is ?vandhEri? because it
will be removed by God someday. If it is something
that can be removed someday, it is only too logical to
assume that it was formed one day. Based on this
explanation by PBA swamy, this writer thinks that
since it is said as ?vandhEri? and not as anything
else, it is something that has come to cling to the
soul and not the other way round. That is, it is not
acquired by the soul, in which case such acquisition
would be due to action by its volition. 

Though agreeing that a jugglery of words has been
attempted here, this writer thinks that by the term
?vandhEri?  it is logical to assume that karma has
come to cling to the jiva who soon after creation
comes under the control of gunas. It is the gunas
which make him take the first action as also the
subsequent ones. The BG supports this view.

It is for another reason also this volition theory is
not acceptable. While discussing the admissibility of
Pancharathra system (Brahma sutras) as an
authoritative text, a discrepancy is brought to the
fore that the contention found in this system that
Samkarshana, the jiva originates  from Vasudeva runs
counter to the Vedic proposition that jivas are not
created ones. Ramanuja relies on Vyasa?s
authentication of the system as being reflective of
vedas and contends that vyasa can not be wrong. That
leaves him to defend this discrepancy on some other 
logical basis. He does this by quoting Chandogya which
says ? that fire willed? It created water? by which it
is meant that the Lord Himself, so far as embodied in
fire creates water. Similarly, the Pancharathra
doctrine also has to be understood when it says that
the mind originates from Vasudeva.

Similarly, when Ramanuja mentions about initial
volition, the Lord?s words ?nimittha mathram bhava?
(be an instrument alone) is understood to be holding
the key and any thought by the jiva as the doer (by
virtue of a thought of volition to do) must be nothing
other than  the resultant of the guna-mix initially
and karma-bhandham (too) thereafter. For, (of the
numerous references about His being the controller of
the jiva in embodiment) He is the manas among sense
organs and  consciousness in the living beings (BG
10-22) So any volition at the initial time must have
had the Lord as the manas, as the cause. 

? The lord of the body (the self, i.e., the jiva) does
not create agency, nor actions, nor union with the
fruits of actions in relation to the world of selves.
It is only the inherent tendencies that function.? (BG
5-14) ?It is the result of the conjunction of the self
with Prakruthi? (Gita bhahyam) that generates and that
is generated by the flow of past karma. Though the
Lord remains as the bird that shines without eating
the fruit, the other bird, the jiva by thinking that
it has volition starts getting karma and eats it too.
So any injunction like satyam vada and dharmam chara
(Ramanuja?s dilemma) is directed to  the one to whom
the karma clings (vandhEri) and who is under the
influence of thri-gunas and not to the In-dweller who
waits for the opportune moment to lift the jiva by
?dadaami buddhi yogam?.

Before concluding here is a piece from Brihadaranyaka
upanishad from chapter 3 in which sage yagyavalkya
replies to the queries of Vidagdha after Gargi
concludes her questions.

 To the question by Vidagdha on what does the ?self?
depend, the sage answers as follows:

?In each person?s body, an appearance of self is
created by the outgoing faculty of expression, which
is projected from within the heart towards the
external world.?
Q - ?on what does this outgoing faculty depend?
A -  ? On the in-drawing faculty of observation, which
takes perception into the mind.
Q ? ?On what does this in-drawing faculty depend?
A ? ? On the discerning faculty of interpretation
which reflects back and forth between observation and
understanding, thus interpreting the meaning of
perceptions.
Q ? ? On what does this discerning faculty depend?
A ? ? On the integrating faculty of understanding,
which assimilates meaning into the heart and which
coordinates expression as it is projected outwards
from the heart.?
Vidagdha remained silent now. So Yajnavalkya
continued, ?But surely the enquiry doesn?t end here. A
further question remains to be asked. What is that
fundamental principle from which all experience is
projected and into which all perception and meaning
are assimilated?? 
None answered. 

But we know, thanks to our acharyas, thanks to
numerous works that they have bequeathed to us?..

Regards,
AdiyaL by name Jayasree.





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/.itolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ramanuja/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ramanuja-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list