Swami Desikan's view on karmas

[Guest guest]

Mr. Dileepan writes:

>Remember, to show that Sri Krishna's views were misconceptions you must

>show, with Swami Sri Desikan's words, that our Karma has absolutely no role

>for mOksham.

 

I must admit that I have not read RTS in much detail, so, what I write is

based on western scholars' comparisons between SD and MM. However, from

what I have read on the subject, there is evidence to suggest that Swami

Desikan did not consider the performance of karmas as a means to moksha,

but, instead, saw these as part of the upeyam of serving the Lord. For example:

 

---begin Mumme's translation---

 

Verse 29:

 

[Kainkarya is to be done] for the purpose of the Lord's pleasure, without

even desiring Moksha as a reward for the pleasure rendered. Recognizing

that Moksha is has been gained by the Grace of the Supremely Merciful One

which arose because of his previous prapatti, he performs this service just

as Mukta serves to please the Lord, and like a healthy person drinks milk

[as its own delight.] This must be taken to be the culmination of

Sattvikatyaga....the service he does according to Sastric commands and

permissions do not stary from the course of bhaktiyoga, he does not do them

as upayas for any other purpose such as svarga or moksha, but only for the

pleasure of the Lord. In this way, he does not violate his state of having

no other upaya or no other purpose...

 

---End quote

 

Daasanu Daasan,

 

Mohan

[Guest guest]

Sri Mohan Sagar:

 

I am afraid your explanation is seriously flawed. Please read the RTS

excerpt I had attached to my previous post and address the phrase "stream

of karma". Why is Swami Sri Desikan stating doubt after doubt about the

need for our effort and then destroying these doubts with logic and

pramana, if he considers karma to be irrelevant for prapatti?

 

In RTS Swami Sri Desikan clearly states that karma has a role in moving

individuals to the state of mind eager to perform prapatti. Swami Sri

Desikan considers karma as an undeniable element of the process that leads

up to prapatti. Please do not overlook the difference between karma

playing a role and karma being the sole cause of moksham. To properly

understand Swami Sri Desikan you have to first understand this basic

distinction. Thus your task of showing that Sri Krishna's statement was a

misunderstanding of Swami Sri Desikan still remains in tact.

 

Thanks.

 

-- Dileepan

 

 

 

----

Parthasarati Dileepan Phone: 423-755-4675

School of Business Administration Fax: 423-755-5255

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

615 McCallie Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37403

[Guest guest]

I think what has been quoted from Patricia Mumme's translation is a post

prapatti karma issue. This is not the subject of the controversy here. The

issue is that, does a jeeva or can a jeeva do any action towards a

spiritual goal. In other words does a jeeva has freedom to choose a path

or set of actions that can positively (or negatively) affect his progress

towards moksha? I answer this with an YES.

 

Please do not confuse this with "is Moksa a fruit of action?" for this, it

is clear, that action is only a VYAJA and it cannot be the direct cause for

moksa. In fact no action can cause moksa. prapatti itself is a jnana-rupa

not a karma-rupa. ie. it is of the form of jnana and not an action. in the

vedanta desika's view, prapatti is a prarthana purvaka yachana - ie. an

ardent request (begging) using a prayer. prapatti is also not a cause for

moksa but vyaja only. It is Lord Srimannarayana who is the direct cause

for an aspirant's moksa. He is the "muktido mukti bhogyaha" - ie. giver of

moksa and the object of enjoyment in moksa.

 

Note, if we assume that karma has nothing to do with moksa, what is the

problem?. Then how would you explain God giving moksa to a particular

individual X?. Is it because he likes X as opposed to Y arbitrarily. It

cannot be, since Lord Krishna states :samoham sarva bhutesu na me dvesyosti

na priyaha" - All are equal to me, none my enemy and none who is dear to

me; Those who pray me with devotion are in me and I am in them.- please see

Sri Ramanuja Bhasya for details on this verse. The idea is He cannot

discriminate. Then on what basis other then "karma" does god base his

selection of an individual for moksa. If it is completely God's grace, he

has to be impartial in offering one a moksa and others this horrible cycle

of birth and death. He can be impartial only if The basis is karma and the

doer has some freedom to choose the path. I am not saying that by karma

Lord's favour can be bought. This is definitely wrong. In fact, such a

trivial thing such as prapatti cannot be powerful by itself to achieve

moksa. It is God's grace which is the main cause. As per the shastras, by

the grace of God and some individual effort, one advances spiritually.

This karma has to be done with sattivika tyaga. So should karmayoga,

jnanayoga, bhaktiyoga or prapatti, be done with satvika tyaga. Satvika

tyaga is a mental attitude while working. This is not the issue of my

initial mail.

 

All I said was based on Sri Sundararajan's statement that "one cannot

strive for one's spiritual progress". All I stated was, if everything is

God's grace, then it will be identical to fatalism, which is against

hinduism. If god has laid down shastras, if one does even an do

infinitesimal effort out of his own accord to follow that shastra, then he

has done an independent effort towards spiritual progress. Even if one does

not hinder, god's grace to fall on him, if he does it consciously, then he

is working towards spiritual progress. One might argue that even jeeva's

freedom is dependent on God. Yes Jeeva is not independently, free; but

verily has freedom- which is dependent on God. Jeeva still has some

lattitude, which he/she chooses and god consciously does not interfere with

that portion of jeeva's freedom.

 

Note when I say karma, I also include karma to mean even conscious mental

will or a conscisous thought.

 

Note that if one does not accept individual freedom, all the shastras will

be futile which state "this is to done" or "such and such should be

avoided" (hana and upadana). That is exactly why in the brahmasutras, it

is stated "karta shastrarthavatvat" = jeeva is a doer, or agent since it

makes the shastras valid. in panini's view, an agent is "svatantra" = as

per "svatantrah karta". this means that an agent should have some level of

freedom.

 

All I am saying is that if you elevate grace to its highest extent, you

cannot logically, allow God be just and impartial. If you end up

supporting fatalism, God's grace will be superfluous and will lose its

value.

 

I think both Mani and Mohan, might have read too much into my email without

concentrating on just the concept grace vs. freedom, which I addressed in

my first mail. Well, if they had not mistaken, we could not have had these

set of emails to clarify and make us focus on such important issues as

concept of grace. Even, without considering the concept of grace and

individual freedom, there was nothing wrong, philosophically in my first

email, atleast as per Sri Vedanta Desika's views. I read my email again and

confirmed it to my knowledge. I think Mani, took offense to my capital

lettered email that it was offensive and mistakenly ascribed the contents

of it as erroneous, unless there is something which I dont understand. I

want to learn, if I have stated a blunder. This forum is for us to learn

via some arguments. If there are no healthy debates then, probably we may

be blamed as philosophically inert (jadam). Hope this clarifies some issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

At 01:50 AM 5/6/97 +0000, Mohan Sagar wrote:

>Mr. Dileepan writes:

>

>>Remember, to show that Sri Krishna's views were misconceptions you must

>>show, with Swami Sri Desikan's words, that our Karma has absolutely no role

>>for mOksham.

>

>I must admit that I have not read RTS in much detail, so, what I write is

>based on western scholars' comparisons between SD and MM. However, from

>what I have read on the subject, there is evidence to suggest that Swami

>Desikan did not consider the performance of karmas as a means to moksha,

>but, instead, saw these as part of the upeyam of serving the Lord. For

example:

>

>---begin Mumme's translation---

>

>Verse 29:

>

>[Kainkarya is to be done] for the purpose of the Lord's pleasure, without

>even desiring Moksha as a reward for the pleasure rendered. Recognizing

>that Moksha is has been gained by the Grace of the Supremely Merciful One

>which arose because of his previous prapatti, he performs this service just

>as Mukta serves to please the Lord, and like a healthy person drinks milk

>[as its own delight.] This must be taken to be the culmination of

>Sattvikatyaga....the service he does according to Sastric commands and

>permissions do not stary from the course of bhaktiyoga, he does not do them

>as upayas for any other purpose such as svarga or moksha, but only for the

>pleasure of the Lord. In this way, he does not violate his state of having

>no other upaya or no other purpose...

>

>---End quote

>

>Daasanu Daasan,

>

>Mohan

>

>

>

Krishna Kalale

619-658-5612 (phone)

619-658-2115 (fax)