virodhaparihara-questions71 to76

November 15, 2006

71.thaTHApi sarvOpADHivinirmukthathvAth sarvEshAmapi mukthAnAm phalam EkarupamEva samuchitham;Evam cha sathi------mOkashavishaya sAlOkya sArupya sAmeepyAdhibhEdhavachanam kaTHam upapadhyathE?

Only after becoming free from all adjuncts one attains mOkasha and hence the experience must be the same for all in the state of release. If so, why the different states of mOksha are mentioned like sAlOkya,sArupya and sAyujya etc.?

sAyujyam is the real meaning of moksha.says,Desika.

mOkshah sAyujyamEvAthra sAlOkyAdhou thu thadhvachah

aoupachArikamithyEva nischinvanthi vipaschithah

The real mOksha is sAyujya only and the words sAlokya etc are used to denote mOksha in a complimentary sense.

It is said in Bhagavatha,

LokEshu vishnOh nivasanthi kEchith

sameepam rcchanthi cha kEchidhanyE

anyE thu rupam sadhrsam bhajanthE

sAyujyam anyE sa thu mOkshaukthah

'some live in the same realm with the Lord which is sAlOkya; others live very close to Him, that is, sAmeepya; Yet others acquire a form similar to Him known as sArupyam; Some others enjoy the same pleasures with the Lord, that is sAyujya which alone is called mOksha.'

Those who reach Vaikunta attain the Lord and experience sAyujya which includes sAlOkya and the other states. But those who reach the vishnulOka enjoy only the states other than sAyujya. Among the states of sAlOkya,sArupya and sAmeepya each one is higher than and includes th previous one.

72.sAyujyam khalu EkeebhAva Eva thaTHA cha parabrahmana-Ekeebhoothasya jivasya kaTHam sEshathvam kaTham vA kainkaryam?

sAyujaya means becoming one with the other and hence once the jiva merges into the Lord how is it possible for him to be sEsha of the Lord or do kainkarya to him?

Desika replies

EkeebhAvo na sAyujyam sabdhasAmarthyavarjanAth

bhOgyasAmyam thu sAyujyam pramAnaih avaDhAraNAth

Sayujayam does not mean to become one with as the word has a different meaning.It is derived as 'sayujO bhAvah sAAyujyam.' As yoga means joining, it denotes the two entities join together (without shedding their identities) as the word saha means 'together.' sAyujyam is to be taken in the sense of 'mama sADHarmyam AgathAh, (BG.14-2) they become similar to Me,' and 'anEna sAmyam yAsyAmi,(MB.shanthi.312-34) I am going to be like the Lord,'Sruthi also confirms this by the texts like 'dhvA suparNA sayujA sakhAya,' (Mund.3-1-1) where the jiva and Brahman are mentioned as closely united. The word sayujya is used only in this sense everywhere.(Cf.sAyujayam parathipannAhi-----question67)

This is why the jiva is mentioned as enjoying the same pleasures with the Lord in the released state by the sruthi text 'sOasnuthE sarvAn kAmAn saha;brahmaNA vipaschithA.' (Taitt.Anandha.2)The example quoted in the upanishad to denote the state of attaining Brahman , namely that of rivers joining the sea also does not indicate absolute identity of the rivers with the sea, but only denotes that the two are inseparable. For instance, when the water from two pots are mixed the waterlevel rises showing that they are two and not one.Therfore the equality of enjoyment is the meaning of sayujya.

73.Evam parathanthrasEshabhoothasya mukthasya svathanthraswAminah bhagavathascha kaTHam bhOgasAmyam?

when the jiva is dependent on the Lord how can there be equality in enjoyment with the Lord who is independent?

Desika reples,

sArvajnAth ubhayOrathrabhOgaikyAvabhiyujyathE

bhOgasAmyam yaTHA rAjnA thulyasanthOshayOgithA

Just as those close to the king enjoy the same pleasure along with the king the released souls experience the same joy as the Lord since thay are enjoying Him only.

74.thathApijagathsrshtyAdhivyAparasAlinah bhagavathah leelArasADHikyam avarjanEEyam

Even then the joy of the Lord who is engeged in the activites of creation etc for His sport excels that of the released soul.

Desika refutes this.

ganDharvavidhyA nyAYEna nataprEkashakayOriva

santhOshasAmyam ubhayOh chEthanEsvarayOrapi.

Just as the pleasure of the actor and the director is equal so too here the joy of the Lord is equal to that of the muktha.

75.'samsArakAraNanivrtthirEva mokshah' ithi bhAshyakArairapi angeekriyathE;'sarvapApEbhyo mOkshayishyAmi' ithi bhagavath Acha prathyayAyi;Evam cha sathi kaTHam anishtanivrtthih ishtaprApthih ithi dhvaiviDHyam?

In Sribhashya Ramanuja defines release as the removal of cause of samsara. The lord also has made His promise in the charamaslOka that He will release those who surrender to Him from all sins.Then how can there be the removal of the undesirable and attainment of the desired objects in Moksha?

Desika says,

asthu arTHO mOkshasabdhasya banDHa kAraNavAraNam

thaTHApyAnandhasadhbhAvasiddhayE athra vivichyathE

The real meaning of mOksha is only the removal of the cause of bondage. But to prove the difference of the concept of moKsha from the views of others it is specified as the removal of the unpleasant and attainment of the pleasant since in mOksha one experiemnces the bliss of Brahman.

76.aTHApi bhavAntharAbhAva pakshE abishtanivrtthirEva ishtaorApthih syAth;thaTHA kaTham ubhayanirdhEsE pounrukthyaparihArah?

Even so, as the existence of one means the nonexistence of its opposite why should there be the mention of anishtanivrtthi and ishtaprApthi separately since it is tantamount to tautology?

It is not so, says Desika.

EkamEva svarupENa prathyOgisamanvayAth

niroopyamANam bhEdhEna vyapadhEsArha ishyathE

It is explained in terms of its svarupa and in terms of its counter-correlate which is the difference.

To define the nature of an entity is one way and in another way it is defined by negating its counter-correlate like describing whiteness of a thing by its existing colour, that is, as white and also by denying blackness in it.Thus the anishtanivrtthi is the removal of the cause of bondage , that is the contraction of the jnana in the state of transmigration and ishtanivrtthi is the joy that is experienced on account of it.