virodhaparihaara-Q.9

[Guest guest]

9.sEshathva avaDHAraNAth sareerAthmasiddhEh ithi vAchOyukthih anupapannA

 

 

 

How can the sarira-sariribhAva explained in terms of seshathva?

 

 

 

Ramanuja defines sarira as a substance which a sentient soul

completely supports, aadhara-aadheya bhava, and controls,

niyantha-niyaamya bhava for serving its own purpose and which is

subordinate to the sentient soul, sesha--seshi bhava..

 

 

 

The world of cit and acit form the sarira of Brahman because they are

supported, controlled and used by Brahman. The entry of Brahman into the

cit and the acit in order to diversify them into name and form is

supported by the sruti 'tadhaikshatha bahusyaam prajaayeya' Hence they

exist in an inseparable relation with Brahman similar to the body and

soul.

 

 

 

This is what is referred to here as 'seshathva avaDhArNAth sarirAthma

siddhi'

 

 

 

The appropriateness of sarira-sariribhAva resulting from seshathva is

establshed by Desika thus:

 

 

 

vyavacchEdhAdhayOgasya sareerAthmathvamishyathE

 

anyayOgavyavachEdhah nirvEdhAdhEsthu kAraNam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the moolamanthra 'a' stands for the Lord and 'u' is explained as

none else while 'm' refers to the jiva. So the praNava of the

moolamanthra indicates that the jiva is sesha to the Lord and to no one

else. Thus the the meaning of 'u'kAra and 'm'akAra imply a dative case

ending to 'a'kAra, that is, 'a' denoting Narayana, the word 'for' is

affixed to it giving the meaning that the individual soul is sesha only

to Narayana. The seshathva can be explained in two ways, namely, through

ayOgavyavacchEdha and through anyayOgavyavacchEdha.What the 'a'kAra of

the praNava denotes is the seshathva in the former sense,which is

seshathva for no reason but natural one. Being such it has to be

eternal.

 

 

 

anyayOgavyavacchEdha on the other hand is what is denoted by the 'u'kAra

o the praNava, that is seshathva to no one else.The doubt arises on

account of misconception of one with the other.

 

 

 

The sarira-sariri bhAva through seshathva is questioned for the

following reason.

 

All things of a person may belong to another but his sarira cannot be

that of another.If it is argued that the sole criterion of sarira being

that it cannot belong to another it will apply even in the case of the

wife of a person, this is not so because even the wife or his own sarira

can be made sesha to others but it does not mean that it has become the

sarira of another. So seshathva cannot imply sarirathva.

 

 

 

This confusion, says Desika is due to the inability to distinguish

between ayOgavyavacchEdha and anyayOgavyavacchEdha.Sarira is something

which never ceses to belong to the sariri and hence the sentient and the

insentient which can never be said not to belong to the Lord through

ayOga vyavacchEdha, must be His sarira.

 

 

 

anyayOgavyavacchEdha is that the jiva is not sesha to any one else

except the Lord which is implied through the 'u'kAra. This knowledge

comes to the jiva through nirvEdha,that is, the sorrow born out of being

slave to others, like the indhriyas so long, and he attempts to change

this state of affairs through the means of prapatthi denoted by 'namah'

in the moolamanthra.Thus the 'a'kAra of the praNava denotes

sarira-sariri bhAva through aYogavyavacchEdha and the 'u'kAra implies

the regret through the knowlege of anyayOgavyavacchEdha impelling the

jiva to rsort to upAya, the means of salvation denoted by the word

'namah.'