Kaliyan's salvation - Some perspectives.

[Guest guest]

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.