virodhapariharaquestions57to64

[Guest guest]

57. DramidOpanishad DhEsikaih 'thvAm vinA nAhamasmi nArayaNa,mAm cha

vinA thvam nAseeh,' ithi vAkyam prayujyathE. PramANabhoothayoh

anyOnyaviroDHithayA prathibhAsamAnayOh anayOh arTHAnukoolyam kaTham.

 

 

 

The reference here is to the AzvAr sukthi in which NammAzvAr says,'nAn

unnai anri ilEn kandai nAraNane,nee yennaiyanri ilai, I do not exist

without You nor do You exist without me.'

 

 

 

The opponent says that this sentence cannot possibly mean the identity

between jiva and the Lord as it is against sruthipramANa, according to

which the jiva and the Lord are different.Neither it can be taken in the

sense of sesha-seshithva as there is no word to support this in the

verse.

 

 

 

Desika replies thusL:

 

 

 

ADHArENa vinA ADHEyam vinA mAnEna mEyaDheeh

 

nAStheethi vadhithum yuktham thvAm vinA nAhamAdhikam

 

 

 

Without the support there is no such thing as the supported; without the

means there is no object of cognition.This is the meaning of

non-existence of 'thvam' and 'aham,' one without the other.

 

 

 

The first sentence means that without the Lord who is the self, the jiva

who is His sarira becomes non-existent.The next sentence means that

without the jiva knowing the Lord He will not be known. The valid

cognition of the Lord is through the scriptural texts like 'yathO vA

imAni bhoothAni jAyqnthE yEna jAthAni jeevanthi yasmin abhisamvisanthi,

from whom all this arises by whom all this is sustained and into whom

all this merge back,' and the cognising subject is the jiva, without

whom the cognition of the vibhoothi, the glory of the Lord will not be

known.Thus the jiva owes his existence to the Lord whose validity in

turn is proved by the jiva.

 

 

 

The derivation of the word Narayana is done in two ways. One is through

bahuvreehi compound which is explained as 'nArAh ayanam yasya, whose

abode is the world of sentient and insentient beings. Second derivation

is according to thathpurusha compound which is nArANAm ayanah, the

abode of the world of sentient and insentient beings.' The first

derivation explains the second sentence of the Azvar sukthi 'nee yennai

anri ilai,' and the seond derivation explains the first sentence,' nAn

unnai anri ilEn.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58.jnanAnandhEshu vidhyamAnEshu thairEva svarupaniroopaNam kriyathAm;

kaTham vibhoothyA svarupaniroopaNAbhAvE svarupasya asiddhih uchyathE?

 

 

 

When the Lord is proved by jnana anandha etc.(sathyam jnAnam anantham

brahma etc.) why should the proof depend on His vibhoothis?

 

 

 

Desika says,

 

 

 

vyAvrtthih sarvahEthuthva sarvAntharyAmithAdhibhih

 

prathipadhyEtha thadhvisvam vishnOh nithya niroopakam

 

 

 

The Lord being the cause of everything and the indwelling self of all is

the distinguishing mark which alone becomes the permanent proof.

 

 

 

The knowledge, bliss etc are also the characterestics of the jiva and

will not be the sole proof of the nature of the Lord. The

omniscience,infinite bliss and all pervading quality is known only

through His being the sole cause and the indwelling self of all beings,

which is His vibhoothi. This is why the word Narayana is explained that

as the nArAh, the sentient and insentient beings sprung from Him and

hence He is called Narayana, thus emphasising His causality of the

world.

 

 

 

 

 

59. Evam eesvarasya sarvajagath srshti samhAra karaNathva

sarvAntharyAmithvAdhi sadhbhAve api jeevAnAm anyonyarakshakathvam

lOkaprasiddham---ThaTHA sathi 'karthum ishtam anishtam va kah prabhuh

vishNunA vinA' ithyAdhi pramANArTHAh kaTHamiva samghatanthE?

 

 

 

Even though the Lord is the creator,annihilator of the world and its

sole cause, the jivas are seen to protect one another ,attack one

another, lead one another and so on. So how can the statements of the

sasthras to the effect that the Lord alone is the doer, protector and

killer etc. be valid?

 

 

 

The reference is to the texts like 'Ekah sAsthA na dhvitheeyO asthi,

(MB.Asva.parva.-27-1)there is only one ruler without a second and 'kah

kEna hanyathE janthuh kah kEna parirakshyathE, (VP.1-18-31) who is

killed by whom and who is protected by whom.'

 

 

 

There is nothing incongrous in this, says Desika.

 

 

 

bhAdhakathva-niyanthrthva-rakshakathvAdhikam thrishu

 

eesvarAyattham EthasmAth kah kEnaEthyAdhiyujyathE.

 

 

 

Attacking, controlling and protecting , all these three are only

through the command of the Lord and that is why it is said 'by whom and

who,' etc.

 

 

 

The Lord alone is the sarvakarthA, doer of all. The jivas actions are

influenced by their karma and hence not independent. Protected by one or

harmed by others happen according to one's puNya or pApa in the

poorvajanma.Through His grace only a jiva follows the path of devotion

or prapatthi. The Lord os the kartha and kArayitha because through His

will only any effort is taken by the jiva.But at the same time the Lord

is also udhAseena, unconcerned as He is the cause of all actions and has

no likes and dislikes.When the jiva starts an action the Lord becomes

the anumanthA, one who permits, and initiates the jiva to continue the

action. He is the sakshi, witness as nothing happens without his

knowledge. As He aids in all endeavours He is the sahakari, the helper.

He is the phalapradha, bestower of the fruit of endeavour.In short as

Ramanuja has declared in his nithyagrantha 'thasmAth sarvAthmanA

bhagavathparthanthra Eva ayam jeevah,' jiva is dependent on the Lord in

all respets.

 

 

 

 

 

60.NanvEvambhakthi-prapatthi -prasootha -prasAdhAth anishtanivrtthou

sahaja souhArdhAdhEva uttharotthara athisaya prApthih, gadhyE 'kEvalam

madheeyayaiva dhayayA' ithyAdhinA krpAyAh anishtanivarthakathvam

prasAdhasya uttharsiddhi prapakathvam cha kaTHam uchyathe

 

 

 

It is said that due to the Lord getting pleased by bhakthi and prapatthi

the suffering is removed and due to His natural affection one attains

liberation. In saraNAgathi gadhya Ramanuja says it is other way round,

that is, the mercy of the Lord removes the suffering while His pleasure

is the cause of mukthi. How can these two statements be reconciled?

 

 

 

Desika explains thus:

 

 

 

krpAnishtanivrttheecchA prasAdhah svaccha mAnasam

 

krpAprasAdhayoh thasmAth gadhyE hEthuthvam uchyathE

 

 

 

The word krpA means here the grace which removes the obstacles and the

word prasAdha denotes the natural affection of the Lord and hence there

is no contradiction. The reason for the Lord getting pleased with

bhakthi and prapatthi is His natural mercy which results in His will to

remove the obstacles in the path of His devotees.This again is denoted

by His natural affection.

 

 

 

 

 

61.nanu sarvajnasyApi bhagavathah svAsritha dhOsheshu 'avijnAthA'

ithyAdhibhih avijnAthr vachanam kaTham aviruddham?

 

 

 

When the Lord is omniscient how can it be said that He is oblivious of

the faults of His devotees?

 

 

 

The reference is to the name 'avjnAthA,' in Vishnusahasranama which is

explained as 'the one who does not know the faults of His devotees.'

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing untoward in calling Him so, says Desika.

 

 

 

avijnAthrthvam eesasya sarvajnasyApi yujyathE

 

kEnApyupAyabhEdhEna svAsrithAgha nivAraNath

 

 

 

The epithet avijnAtha quite appropriate because He removes the faults of

His devotees by some means or other.

 

 

 

The Lord destroys the sins committed prior to prapatthi and does not

mind those done inadvertently after prapatthi and evenwhen the prapanna

does something wrong intentionally the Lord frees him from that also

either by making him atone for it or by punishing him to cure him of the

sinful intentions.Hence even though He is fully aware of the sins

committed by His devotees He acts as though He does not know by

redeeming them from their sin. KoorEsa mentions this in his

Varadarajasthava by saying 'yathO dhOsham bhakthEshu iha varadha

naivAkalayasi, that is, the Lord Varada does not mind the faulrs of HIs

devotees.This denotes the vAthsalya, affection of the Lord towards His

devotees.

 

 

 

 

 

62. athra anyE vadhanthi ayanasabdhEna karaNavyuthpatthya upAyathvam

karmavyuthpatthyA upEyathvam ithi bhavadhbhih abhiDheeyatha;thath

kaTHam upapadhyathE?

 

 

 

The word 'ayana' in Narayana is explained in the sense of both upAya and

upEya, that is, the means and the end. How is this possible for the same

entity to be both upAya and upEya?

 

 

 

The word ayana can be derived as 'eeyathe anEna' attained through Him

which is karaNavyuthpatthi, that is, in the sense of His being

instrumental in attaining the result. But when it is derived as eeyathE

asou, that is, He is attained, He becomes the fruit Himself. The

opponent says the means and the end cannot be the same.

 

 

 

Desika replies,

 

 

 

upAyOpEya rupathvam EkasyApi cha sambhavEth

 

AkArabhEdhayOgEna virOdhah shAnthim ApnuyAth.

 

 

 

The same entity can be both upAya and upEya and there is no

contradiction due to AkArabhEdha, difference of form or state.

 

 

 

The Lord is the means,upAya, to attain Himself.Through His mercy and

affection to the devotee He makes it possible for the devotee to attain

Himself.Since the goal of prapatthi or devotion is to attain the Lord,

He becomes the upEya.So there is no contradiction here, says Desika,

referring to the words of the poet Murari in his work anargha raghavam,

where the Lord is being described as both the means and the end. "sa

svEnaiva phalapradhah phalamapi svEnaiva nArAyanah,' In the

asvamedhayaga performed by Dhasaratha, the Lord was the giver of the

fruit , namely the progeny and He himself became the fruit by being born

as the son of Dhasaratha.

 

 

 

 

 

63. Evamphalabhoothasyaiva phalpradhatvEna upAyathvam bhakthiprapatthyOh

sAdhAraNam;Evam cha sathi kaTham prapannAdhikAri vishayE visEshENa

bhaagvathah upAyathvamanusanDHEyam ithyuchyathE?

 

 

 

When the Lord is said to be both means and the end because the one who

is to be attained bestows the fruit of attaining Him, it is common to

both bhaktha,one who follows bhakthiyoga and prapanna,one who

surrenders to Him.Then why is His upAyathva is specifically mentioned

with respect to the prapanna only.

 

Desika replies,

 

 

 

upAyathvam visEshENa thulyathvEpyupapadhyathE

 

upAyAntharasADHyasya svayamEvOpapAdhanAth

 

 

 

Even though both are equal for the prapanna the Lord Himself becomes the

upAya in the place of the other(bhakthiyoga)

 

 

 

The one who surrenders gets the same result as the one who does

bhakthiyoga without the effort of the latter and hence as the Lord gives

him the fruit of bhakthiyoga HImself without any effort on the part of

the prapanna, He is said to be the upaya specially for the prapanna.

 

 

 

 

 

64.Bhakthischa bhagavthprasAdhavyavaDhAnEna phalam dhadhAthi na thu

sAkshAth phalahEthuh;athah vyAjamAthram Ethadhapi praptthEh thulyam;Evam

cha sathi prapatthih anupAyah bhakthisthu upAyah ithi vadhathAm ko va

abhiprAyah?

 

 

 

Even bhakthiyoga becomes fruitful only through the grace of the Lord and

hence it is equally a cause for the attainment of the goal as prapatthi.

So why should there be distinction between the two regarding one being

the upaya(bhakthi) and the not the other(Praptthi, because the Lord

Himself is the upaya)?

 

 

 

The reply is given thus:

 

bharavinyAsa rupathvAthvEdhyAkArE visEshathah

 

anupAyathvam Ethasya mOkshOpAyasya yujyathE

 

 

 

The praptthi is not an upaya in the sense that the prapanna surrenders

the responsibility and the fruit to the Lord so that He himself becomes

the upAya for moksha and the fruit.

 

 

 

In the method of performing both differ as in Bhakthi yoga there is a

lot of effort like worship and other austerities where as in the

prapatthi only requisite is the total surrender, saying , 'ThvamEva

upAyabhoothO mE bhava, You be the means to attain Yourself.' the Lord

accepts the responsibility and gives Him the fruit of bhakthiyoga,

Himself taking the role of the upaya , that is, bhakthiyoga. This is why

it is said that prapatthi is not a upaya.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.