Emailing: charamasloka.htm

[Guest guest]

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

Home | Articles | Contact

INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARAMASLOKA

Prof. M. S. Rangachari

Sarva-dharmÄn parityajya mÄm ekam Å›araņam vraja Aham tvÄm

sarva-pÄpebhyo mokÅŸayiÅŸyÄmi mÄ Å›ucah: Bhagavad-Gita 18-66.

(Abandoning all means take Me alone as the means and goal. I shall

release you from all evils. Be not grieved.)

Lord Krishna Preaching Gita to Arjuna

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 VarÄhÄvatÄra and RÄmÄvatÄra along with the

one quoted above (given out in the KrishnÄvatÄra) 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 kÅ—pÄ or kindness, as SÄ«tÄ is

Lakshmi in RÄmÄvatarÄ. ‘RÄghavatve abhavat SÄ«tÄ (She became

SÄ«tÄ when He was RÄghava) ‘SÄ«tÄ lakshmi; bhavÄn ViÅŸnu;’

(SÄ­tÄ is Lakshmi; You are ViÅŸnu’)

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 VedÄnthadeÅ›ika in his

TÄtparyachandrika, a commentary on Ramanuja’s GÄ«tha BhÄÅŸya.

Such a nomenclature is found in the commentaries of Acharyas like

Nampillai and others earlier to VedÄnthadeÅ›ika (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

PeriyavÄchÄnpillai) and in works of contemporaries of

VedÄnthadeÅ›ika or later Acharyas like ManavÄlamÄmunigal.

Surprisingly the usage of this nomenclature is absent in the

GÄ«tharthasangraha of YÄmuna and GÄ«thabhashya of RÄmÄnuja. 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 GÄ«tha 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 BhÄratha war.

Arjuna is His devotee and friend as He Himself describes him. (B.G.

4-3. ‘bhaktah asi me sakhÄ’). 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

tÄ—aham Å›Ädhi mÄm tvÄm 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. karmanyevÄdhikÄras tÄ— mÄ phalÄ—ÅŸu

kadÄcana mÄ karma-phala-hetur bhÅ«r mÄ te saÅ„gah 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 karmÄni sangam tyaktvÄ dhanaÅ„jaya Siddhy-asiddhyoh

samo bhÅ«tvÄ samatvam yoga ucyate. B.G.2-48

(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 mÄm niyojayasi keÅ›ava). 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. ‘kÄryate hy avaÅ›ah

karma sarvah prakrti-jair gunaih’

mayi sarvÄni karmÄni samnyasyÄdhyÄtma-cetasÄ NirÄÅ›ir nirmamo

bhÅ«tvÄ yudhyasva vigata-jvarah.) B.G. 3-30.

Thus He preaches what we call karmayoga.

When the Lord says He had earlier preached the ideas to VivasvÄn,

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 avyayÄtmÄ bhÅ«tÄnÄm iÅ›varah api san

prakrtim svÄm adhishthÄya sambhavÄmy Ätma-mÄyayÄ â€˜ 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). (RÄmÄnuja has a dig at

Sankara’s interpretation of Maya as illusion at this juncture). He

proclaims that such a knowledgeable individual or technically a

GnÄni, who loves Him, is loved more by Him. (B.G 7-17). This GnÄni

for whom VÄsudeva is everybody and everything reaches Him (B.G.7-19)

(Ramanuja’s description of such a GnÄni literally coincides with

that of the Azhvwars as revealed by their works). This is the

GnÄnayoga of the GÄ«thÄ.

Next He describes His permanent abode ‘śÄÅ›vatham 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 RÄmÄnuja’s interpretation) as the path towards His

permanent abode. (B.G. 9-34. ‘man-manÄ bhava mad-bhakto mad-yÄji

mÄm namskuru mÄm evaiÅŸyasi yuktvaivam ÄtmÄnam mat-parÄyanah’

– 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 nihatÄh pÅ«rvameva

nimita-mÄtram bhava savya-sÄcin’)

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-bhÅ«teÅŸu yah sa mÄm eti pÄndava) 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 RÄmÄnuja recalls the state of the Azhvwars).

In the rest of the GÄ«tha 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

‘devÄsura’ according to ÅšÄstras, the necessity of constraints

by the ÅšÄstras 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 GÄ«tha. 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, gnÄna, 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 gnÄna, 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, gnÄna 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,

‘sraddhÄ’ or more popularly known as ‘kÅ—pÄ’. According to

the Vedas ‘sraddhayÄ-devo devatvam asnuthe’ – the Lord enjoys

His Lordship because of His concern. He demolishes the impact of the

soul’s deeds through His ‘sraddhÄ’, which is personified as

the Goddess on the lotus. Nammaazhvaar says ‘veri mÄrÄdha poomÄ“l

iruppÄļ vinai theerkumē’ (ThiruvÄimozhi 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 YÄmuna by

Kurukaikaavalappan, a disciple of Naathamuni, which did not

materialize.

Both in the GÄ«thartha sangraha of YÄmuna and GÄ«tha Bhashya of

RÄmÄnuja (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. RÄmÄnuja interprets the charamasloka as saying

that for the beginning of this Bhaktiyoga it is necessary to cross

the barriers against such a beginning (sarvapÄpa..) and that Krishna

advises surrendering to Him leaving all rituals like Krchra,

chÄndrÄyana 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

YÄmuna and RÄmÄnuja interpret the GÄ«tha as such and the Å›loka

giving the Å›astrÄrtha (as YÄmuna puts it) as extolling Bhakti.

Both in the GÄ«tharthasangraha of YÄmuna and GÄ«tha BhÄÅŸya of

RÄmÄnuja, 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 MudalÄzhvÄrs is that the path for

Mokşa or deliverance from bondage is the Lord Himself. ‘neri

vÄsal thÄnÄ“Äi ninrÄnai’ (He Himself is the means and goal)

MudalthiruvandhÄdhi 4.

Vaartthai aribhavar maayavarkkaalanri aavarÅ PÅrtha pirappodu

nÅyodu mÅ«ppodu irappivai PÄ“rtthu perunthunbam vÄ“rara nÄ«kkitthan

thÄļiņkizhch ChÄ“rtthu avan ceyyum cÄ“matthai eņņittheĺivutrÄ“

Thiruvaaimozhi 7-5-10.

(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 ThiruvÄimozhi, more

than once, the AazhvÄr mentions about submitting his soul to the

Lord but corrects himself telling that the soul is His and there is

no question of submission.

‘EnathÄvi thandhozhindhÄ“n……. EnathÄviÄviyum nÄ«,

enathÄviyaar? YÄn aar? Thandha nÄ« kondÄkkinaiyē’

ThiruvÄimozhi 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 AzhvÄrs 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: -

‘ariyÄkkÄlatthuļļē adimaikkaņ anbuÅ›eivitthu’ 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

‘ŚaraņamÄkum thanathÄļ adainthÄrkkellÄm, maraņamÄnÄl

vaikundam kodukkum pirÄn’ 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 RÄmÄnuja. YÄmuna 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 ThiruvÄimozhi

verse mentioned earlier as: -

‘vapurÄdhishu yo api ko api vÄ â€¦â€¦thadhyam thava padapadhmayÅ:

aham adhyaiva mayÄ samarpitha: - mama nÄtha yadhasthi

yÅsmyaham…..athavÄ kim nu samarppayÄmi’

(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 AzhwÄrs 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 AzhwÄrs and is more than

moksha for them. As NammÄzhwÄr puts it-

UņņÄttuth thÄ“canÅ—Ä“ Å«zhvinaiyai anjumÄ“ ViņņÄttai onÅ—Äha

mecchumÄ“ mannÄttil Ä€rÄhi evvizhviÅ—Å—ÄnÄlum Azhiyangai-p-

PÄ“rÄyarkku ÄlÄm pirappu. Periyathiruvandhathi 79.

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 pÄpa (karma), nor is heaven a matter for appreciation for

such a soul.

After all Karma GnÄna 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

achÄryas like Nampillai, Pillai LokÄcharya 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

AazhwÄrs was learnt by RaÄmÄnuja from Goshtipurna or

Thirukkoshtiyur Nambi much later to his writing GÄ«thÄ BhÄÅŸya. But

this interpretation is, however, claimed to have been secretly endowed

with Goshtipurna by YÄmuna himself. The further story is that

RÄmÄnuja got instruction from Goshtipurna and made the secret

public in the interest of the common man.

Of course RÄmÄnuja hints at the prevailing interpretation in his Sri

BhÄÅŸya by quoting the SrutivÄkya “yamevaisha vrunuthe thena

labhya:â€(attainable by only those whom He chooses). Thus YÄmuna

and RÄmÄnuja seem to have purposely avoided explicitly interpreting

GÄ«thÄ as propounding ‘prapatthi’ or surrender as a tool for

Moksha. In fact RÄmÄnuja advocates karma, gnÄna, 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

RÄmÄnuja, 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.

RÄmÄnuja (better still his predecessors like NÄthamunikal and

YÄmuna) was pained by his ‘mayÄvÄdha’ 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

‘viÅ›vÄsa’ (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 GeethÄrthasangraha.

PillailokÄchÄryar makes a single assertion in his ‘Sri Vachana

Bhushanam’ (‘mukkiyam athuvē’ -51. That alone is important).

Thus YÄmuna and RÄmÄnuja 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 upÄyÄ or paths karma,

gnÄna, Bhakti etc., depending on the qualifications of the soul

(adhikÄribhedha). The thesis of Pillailokacharya is that the real

path is ‘prapatti’ and one is driven to it. Vide his assertion:

(ajnÄnatthaalÄ“ prapannar asmadhÄdhikaļ; jnÄnÄdhikyatthÄlÄ“

prapannar pÅ«rvÄchÄryarkaļ; bhakthi pÄravaÅ›yatthÄlÄ“ 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 ÄchÄrya, more aptly the

concern of an ÄchÄrya, viz. ÄchÄryabhimÄna as the ultimate

upaya. Of course, this has turned out to be a ritual these days, but

PillailokÄchÄrya makes it clear that the AachÄrya of his

description should have knowledge and practice of prapatti as

envisaged above. This is just a practical point of view as old as

RÄmÄnuja’s time ‘peronru matrillai ninÅ›arananri’

(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

(bharanyÄsa), 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.

Home | Articles | Contact

Attachment: [not stored]

Attachment: [not stored]

Attachment: [not stored]

Attachment: [not stored]

Attachment: [not stored]

Attachment: [not stored]