virodhaparihara

[Guest guest]

27. asthu, jnAnasvarupah AthmA,Anandhasvarupam thu na mrshyAmahE.

 

 

 

It could be accepted that knowledge is the nature of the self. But it is

not appropriate to say that the self is of the nature of bliss.In the

world the joy is experienced only as an attribute as in the statement

'aham sukhee, I am happy,' Hence it is only being the dharma, attribute

of the self, how can it be the nature of the self?

 

 

 

Desika says that as in the case of knowledge here also there is no

contradiction.

 

 

 

AnandhadhvayasadhbhAvAth virOdhO nOpalabhyathE

 

sruthirEva hi sarvathra pramANam ithi manmahE

 

 

 

There is nothing that is incompatible because of the existence of two

kinds of joy.For this sruthi alone is the valid authority.

 

 

 

There are two kinds of joy, one experienced as the essence of the self

and the other due to that rising out of contact with the world.The

latter arises out of the dharmabhuthajnAna. The bliss experienced

naturally by the self is the same always whereas the joy that arises out

of wordly objects change.So the natural bliss which is the svarupa of

the self and the joy that is the attribute of the self are not

contrdictory to each other.

 

 

 

 

 

28.Evam AthmasvarupAnandhasya nithyaprakAsathve sathi anAdhikAlam

aprakAsithasvarupAnandhah yOgadhasAyAm mukthidhasAyAm cha prakAsatha

ithi vachanam apahAsyam.

 

 

 

If the bliss that is the nature of the self is ever manifest, the

statement that the bliss which is unmanifest from the beginning of

existence manifests itself in the state of yOga and of release is

ridiculous.

 

 

 

Desika says that it is not so.

 

 

 

vishayadviDHasambhEdhAth thirOdDhAnaprakAsayOh

 

Anukoolyam purAvyaktham yOgAdhEvAvabhAsathe

 

 

 

The manifestation of the bliss and its absence occur in respect of

different circumstances and hence there is no contradiction between

them. The joy which is unmanifest due to the will of the Lord because of

Karma becomes manifest in the state of YOga.Though the natural bliss is

always present it is not experienced due to karma and becomes manifest

in the state of release.

 

 

 

 

 

29.sabdhAdhi vishayAnubhavarahithathaya bhagavdhanubhavarahithathayA cha

kEvalasvrupAnubhavamAthram purushArTha mokshAbhyAm saha kaThamiva

purushArThathayA paTithum yujyatha?

 

 

 

The experience of the self alone (called Kaivalya) without the sense

experience and without the experience of the Lord is mentioned as the

salvation (that is, the paramapurushArTha, identical with moksha). How

is it possible, is the question.

 

 

 

The mukthi is said to be the state where the soul is experiencing bliss

which is his real nature along with the Lord. Hence how can the state of

kaivalya where the soul is experiencing his real nature alone can be

cited as the state of release?

 

 

 

Desika says,

 

sruthvAnukoolyam AthmasThamdhrshtvA vA yOgadharsanE

 

thadhanucchEdhasakthasya purushArTHathva vAgiyam

 

 

 

Hearing about the self through the scriptures and on medtitating on it

in Yoga one experiences the bliss of the self and continues in that

state. This is known as kaivalya and denoted as the purushArTHa (moksha

) This is only oupachArikam, says Desika, like the statement 'thamEvam

vidhvAn amrtha iha bhavathi,' knowing Him (Brahman) one becomes immortal

here itself,' which is only laudatory.

 

 

 

 

 

30. nanu 'kaivalyam bhagavantham cha manthrOyam

sAdhayishyathi'(brhd.Haritha.smrthi.3-40) ithi svarupAnubhavE

kaivalyasabdhaprayOgAth, 'mukthih kaivalya nirvANa srEyo

nissrEyasAmrtham,'(amarakosa-1-5-6) ithi kaivalyasya mukthiparyAyathvEna

paTanAth nyAyabhooshaNAdhimathEshviva svAthmAnandhAnubhava Eva sAkshAth

mokshah. bhagavadhanubhavasthu svAthmAnandhAnubhava siddhEhupAyavisEsho

asthu

 

 

 

In BrhadhhAreethas smrthi it is said that the mantra specified therein

will secure the exclusive experience of the self and the Lord. In

Amarakosa, the word kaivalya is denoted as being synonymous with mukthi,

nirvANa,srEyas nissrEyas, amrtha, apavarga and moksha.Hence the word

kaivalya should mean mukthi only, as claimed by the NyAya school to whom

the release from duhkha is the bliss or moksha.The experience of the

Lord is a means to attain kaivalya.

 

 

 

Desika refutes this saying,

 

 

 

sruthsmrtheethihAsAdhyaih vishNusEvA vimukthathA

 

kaivalyavyavahArasthu sarvakarmanivrtthithah

 

 

 

Sruthi, smrthi and purAnas etc. declare that the vishNusEva,

experiencing the joy of service to the Lord alone is mukthi. It may be

denoted as kaivalya only in the sense that in that state all karma has

been destroyed and the self alone (kEvalam) remains.

 

 

 

The real moksha, sAkshAth mOkshah, is defined by Desika as follows:

 

By examining what has been said in the sruthi etc. one can conclude that

mOksha is 'svarupaAvirbhAva poorvaka paramAthma prApthirupa paripurNa

bhagavadhanubhavarasa parivAharupa bhagavathkainkaryaprApthih.

 

That is, the moksha consists in the service of the Lord while being

immersed in the essence of the complete experience of the Lord induced

by attaining Him which precedes the manifestation of one's own

nature.This can be termed as kaivalyam in as much as it is the exclusive

experience of the Lord after the removal of karma caused by ajnAna and

hence the self is free form embodiment and stays by itself alone.

 

 

 

 

 

31.Ye thu sishtAh thryo bhakthAh phalakAmA hi thE mathAh

 

sarvE chyavanadharmANah prathibuddhasthu mOkshabhAk

 

 

 

ithyuktha prkArEna aisvaryavath AthmAnubhavamAthrasyApi

kshudhraphalathvAth chyavanadharmathvAccha nithyathvam thAvath

Asankithum api na sakyathE.

 

 

 

The three kinds of devotees who are desirous of results. Hence the

swerve from the path to mOksha and only the fourth, the jnani attains

mOksha.(MB.Shanthi.350-35)

 

 

 

According to the above smrthi, even the desire of AthmAnubhava is

declared as being impermanent like worldly prosperity,the state of

kaivalya cannot be permanent one. But at the same time since one attains

kaivalya only after the destruction of all karma he cannot lapse back to

samsara. So it would mean that he finds himself neither here nor there.

 

 

 

Desika says that it is not so.

 

 

 

dhvAiviDhyamkevalasyAsya bhukthvaikO mOksham ApnuyAth

 

anyasthu bhukthvA thadhbhOgamvishayam punarasnuthE

 

 

 

There are two kinds of kaivalya. In one the aspirant experiences the

self through spiritual discipline and as long as he is in that state he

will not lapse back to samsara, but this experience is not permanent and

he may lapse back to samsara. there is another kind of aspirant who has

moksha as his goal and from the experience of the self he also attains

the bhagavadhanubhava and moksha. Those who practise madhuvidhya, for

instance, are said to live in other lOkas and then proceed to

paramapadha. This is of course possible only to those who have also done

bhakthiyOga along with jnanayOga.The mention of the path of light

(archirAdhi) for one who is only striving for the experience of the self

is acquired through brahmavidhya such as dhaharavidhya etc., that is the

meditation on Brahman inside the lotus of the heart which has been

elaborated in Sribhashya by Ramanuja.

 

 

 

The attainment of paramapadha is ordained only for those who acquire

paravidhya, the knowledge of Brahman.this is confirmed by

 

 

 

EkAnthinah sadhA brahmaDhyAyinah yOginO hi yE

 

thEshAm thathparam sThAnam yadhvai pasyanthi soorayah

 

 

 

Those yogis, whose minds are always turned towards Brahman alone,

attain the supreme state which is witnessed by the eternal souls.