shrImadharikathAmR^itasAra - by Sri SGP CHAR - HKAS_01-04

[Guest guest]

ArumUreraDoMdu sAvira

mUreraDu shatashwAsa japagaLa

mUruvidha jIvaroLagabjaja kalpa pariyaMta

tA rachisi sAtvarige sukha saM

sAra mishrarigadhamajanariga

pAraduHkhagaLIva gurupavamAna salahemma……………..HKAS_01-04

 

ArumUreradoMdu sAvira = ArumUru means 6x3=18 eraDoMdu means plus (2+1) totaling to 21. Thus 21000.

mUreraDu shata = mUreraDu means 3x2=6 . Thus 600. Grand total is 21600 per day.

shwAsa japagaLa = VAyu dEvaru performs 21600 breathing japAs per day

meaning – the action of inhalation and exhalation of air

mUruvidha jIvaroLage = in three types of jIvAs namely, satvic jIvAs,miShra jIvAs (or rajO jIvAs) and tamO jIvAs

abjaja kalpa pariyaMta  = abjaj means lotus (ap - in water, ja – born, together this means it is a lotus flower). Brahma is born from the navel of the PadmanAbharUpI paramAtmA. Thus abjaja means Brahma devaru. Kalpa is the life span of Brahma (100 years). Thus 'abjaja kalpa pariyaMta' can be understood thus - till the end of the Brahma kalpa  vAyu dEvaru performs 21600 shwAsa japAs per day in three types of jIvAs as stated.

tA rachisi = The inhalation of air is linked to the resonance 'haM' and the exhalation is linked to 'sa'. The complete process of inhalation and exhalation is 'haMsa maMtra' devised by VAyu dEvaru and he alone is sanctioned to execute this maMtra

sAtvarige sukha = to those who are entitled for mukti or liberation or freedom from material consciousness, such jIvAs are granted bliss in VaikuMThalOka

saMsAra mishrarige = to the rAjasic jIvAs (family persons) he grants mixed experience of bliss and sorrow.

adhamajanarige = for tAmasic jIvAs (extremely cruel jIvAs)

apAraduHkhagaLIva = gives them permanent sorrow

gurupavamAna = jIvOttama vAyudEvaru

salahu = please bestow divyajnAna

emma = to us

 

After praising Lord shrI LaxmInarasiMha, MahalaxmI dEvi, Brahma dEva in the order of tAratamya, JagannAtha dAsa pays obeisance to VAyu dEvaru. Vayu dEva performs 21600 haMsa maMtra in all the three types of jIvAs till the end of kalpa and then VAyu (MukyaprAna) breaks the liMga dEha of jIvas with his mace and sends them to their respective state; that is, nitya sukha for sAtvik souls, mix of happiness and sorrow to rAjasic souls, and eternal sorrow or hell for tAmasic souls.

 

JagannAtha dAsa implores upon vAyu dEva to bestow divya jnAna on us.

 

 

---------- some of the Q & A about the shlOka given below discussing about specifics, which were part of the same document.

We dont intend to have a discussion around the same, however, we can get all queries around them and publish them as one single consolidation---------

 

November 26, 2004

MT:

1. Are you saying that the rAjasik souls have no linga deha bhaN^ga, and thus no liberation at all from the cycle of birth and death?

 

> Yes. That is why they are known as nithya (ever) samsarin (cycle of life and death).

 

 

At this point it may be worthwhile to summarize some of the quotes from earlier postings and more:

 

AnuvyAkhyAna 3-4-128:

anAdivaishhNavA eva devatAstu svabhAvataH |

viparItAstato daityAH sadaivAnAdikAlataH || 127||

mAnushhA mishramatayo vimishragatayo.api cha |

ityAdivAkyasandarbhe j~nAyate.anAdiyogyatA || 128||

 

(By nature, devatas are vaishhnavas from eternity; daityas are always the opposite from eternity; Men are mixed minded and also have varied paths. In the context of these statements,the eternal yogyata is to be understood.)

 

BrahmasUtrabhAshhya 3-4-37:

mAnushhA mishramatayo vimishragatayo.api cha |..iti skAnde

 

(Men are mixed minded and also have varied paths - quoted from SkandapurANa)

 

BrahmasUtrabhAshhya 3-4-38:

 

asurAndamayanvishhNuH svapadaM cha surAnnayan.h |

punaH punarmAnushhAMstu sR^itAvAvartayatyasau | itibhavishhyatparvaNi

 

(By condemning the demons to eternal hellish worlds and taking the gods to His own abode, this Lord rotates the men in the samsAra again and again - quoted from bhavishhyatparva)

 

BrahmasUtrabhAshhya 3-4-40:

 

nAsurA daivIM na devA AsurIM na manushhyA daivImAsurIM cha gatimIyurAtmIyAmeva jAtimanubhavanti | iti niyamashruteH

 

(Asuric natured do not obtain daivI terminal state; devas do not obtain AsurI terminal state; Men obtain neither. They reach the end appropriate to them and experience their own intirnsic nature - quoted from niyamashruti)

 

tamogAH sR^itisaMsthitAH iti dvidhA muktyayogyAH .. tatvasaMkhyAna

 

(The ineligible for mukti are of two kinds - those going to tamas and those staying in samsAra.)

 

nityAvartAstu madhyamAH .. tatvaviveka

 

(The middle kind are eternally cycling ones.)

 

madhyamA mAnushhA ye tu sR^itiyogyAH sadaiva hi  |

adhamA nirayAyaiva dAnavAstu tamolayAH  || 1\.87|| MBTN

 

Meaning suplied by SR in the earlier posting)

 

>From the last quote, it is obvious that in the prior quotes, " men " refers to " middle among the men " . All the above are from our AchArya.

 

This means that we do not take literal translation as is, but do samanvaya with the rest.

 

Does this mean that we can say that there is Lingabhanga for nityasamsAris? We can't unless there is a good pramANa to support Lingabhanga and also they do not go against the above pramANas.

 

Infact to add to the above, from SriharivAyustuti:

 

Adhatse mishrabuddhIMstridivanirayabhUgocharAnnityabaddhAn.h

 

(Makes the mixed minded ones rotate in heaven, hell, and earth,

by putting in eternal bondage.)

 

2. Don't they experience their svArUpananda which, btw, is intrinsic in nature?

> Their nature is to cycle between different swarga,

> naraka and other lokas

 

The cycling is not really the nature but the process. The intrinsic nature is really the mixed-j~nAna.

 

> and no permamnent destination and no Moksha or no Eternal Hell.

 

True.

 

3. What is the very purpose of 'creating'[giving deha to] such category of jIva-s?

 

> To expereience (enjoy and suffer) like other category souls. Only difference is Satvik and Tamasik lose this deha at some point and rajasik won't.

 

Why and How? The above pramANas do not say explicitly the same. (i.e they do not have lingabhanga). It may be argued that if there is lingabhanga, then they can not be in the cycle of birth and death. The above pramANa-s do not speak of birth and death, but merely cycling in the three worlds.

 

4. How different are they from the humans in saMsAra[till praLaya?]

 

> If they are born as humans during any part of their samsaric cycle there is no difference. At times if and when they are in heavens they are happier than humans and if they are in hells they suffer more than humans.

 

Why and how is this comparison. I guess " they " refers to " nityasamsAris " . If so, is it assumed that there are no " nityasamsAris " in humans? I guess not. Then how can this comparison hold?

 

5. What about those Vayu purANa and Garuda purANa quotes supporting liN^gadeha bhaN^ga for rAjasika souls -- see:

 

> These are spurious texts. Shruti never supports this.

> Has Srimad Acharya supported mentioned liN^gadeha

> bhaN^ga for rAjasika any where?

 

How can it be said that they are spurious? Shruti does not oppose it either. Acharya did not say that there is no lingabhanga for rAjasika. " MuktirnaijasukhAnubhUti " .

 

In the above quotes, BrahmasUtrabhAshhya 3-4-40 clearly says " gatimIyurAtmIyAmeva jAtimanubhavanti " .

 

If there is no lingabhanga, how can it experience its own intrinsic nature?

 

Further, if we take {M, N, T} as the universal set of jIvas where M is Muktiyogyas, N is NityasamsAris and T is tamoyogyas, and if we hold that here is no lingabhanga and like the current sR^ijya jIvas, from eternity the N keeps accumulating, there are two problems. 1. M and T get refreshed periodically, but N never and so N will tend to become infinity. Even if we talk about the achintyAdbhutashakti of the Lord, the jivAs who have to coexist with them have no great powers.

2. The imbalance will be striking after trillions of Brahmakalpas. Why indeed, it could have been a strange balance now itself, unless only the very 1st time (or 1st few times only) the Lord brought NityasamsArins into sR^ijya state. No such thing is mentioned anywhere and also it sounds weird as well (though sounding weird is not a proof for any thing, but lack of pramANa is important).

 

Infact, I don't see any conflict between all the above quotes and the nityasamsAris having lingabhanga. VayupurANa and GarudapuRAna quotes elaborate the thoughts in the above quotes. How?

 

1. When their sAdhana becomes complete, the nityasaMsArins get lingabhanga (from the HumkAra of Vayudevaru).

 

2. Unlike muktas and tamoyogyas, they do not have any niyata sthAna and so still cycle among these three worlds (but with no sthUladeha) experiencing their intrinsic nature after lingabhanga.

 

3. They are called nityasamsAris as they still have nityasamsAritvalaxana, which is duHkhamishrasukAnubhava.

 

4. The speciality (visheshha) exists in case of nityasamsAris who had lingabhanga. Those who did not have lingabhanga and who are in samsAra get joy after woe and woe after joy, where as those who had lingabhanga experince the mixture of joy and woe at the same time.

 

Well, why all these things. Why can't we just simply take that there is no lingabhanga at all and ignore the " mere tarka " about nature's imbalance?

 

It is mentioned in padArthasangraha and shrI MadhvasidhhAnta sArasangraha by by shrI Vedagarbha PadmanAbhAchArya:

 

" nityasamsAriNAmapi lingabhangaH | anyathA tatsvarUpamAtrasya

kadApyanubhavAbhAvaprasangAt.h | sAdhanAnuShThAnavaiyarthya\-

prasangAchcha | "

 

(NityasamsAris als have lingabhanga. Otherwise, the case of a jIva never experiencing its own intrinsic nature arises. Further the case of futility of sAdhanAnushhThAna also arises.)

 

This lingabhamga is supported in the commentary by shrI Shankarshana Odeyaru for Shri HarikathAmritasAra.

 

Apart from these VayupurANa and GaruDapurANa have explicitly mentioned Lingabhanga. It is also mentioned in shrI MadhvasidhhAnta sArasangraha that in MaghamAhAtmya, shANdilya tatva and GarudapurAna, there is an explicit mention of Lingabhanga for NityasamsAris.

 

6. Is there any _explicit_ quote to support that there is no liN^ga deha bhaN^ga for Rajasika souls?

 

> Those are the ones you have mentioned below and

> believe it as Superficial translations :-).

 

I don't believe that Shri MadhvasidhhAnta sArasangraha and Shri Shankarshana Odeyaru's commentary caved in for spurious texts and Superficial translations.

 

>> http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_52/msg00083.html

>> 

>> Note that the 'creation' has been going on from eternity, and these jIva-s according to your statement should be wandering in their stUla/aniruddha deha in one of these loka-s eternally.

 

> That is correct.

 

That goes against Shri MadhvasidhhAnta sArasangraha, which again higes its support from Acharya (indirectly) that every jIva has to eventually experience its own intrinsic nature and there has to be that kind of phala for the sAdhana done.

 

> I have my own questions on this as well:

> 

> If they have a final destination, why are they called nithya Samasarin?

 

They do not have final destination. They are still wandering among these three worlds and they do not have lingadeha and by kaimutyanyAya (what else to say), they don't have aniruddha deha or sthUladeha. They are called nityasamsArins because they have nityasamsAritvalaxana, which is duHkhamishrasukAnubhava (joy mixed with woe) and also they still keep cycling. As they are aprAkR^ita only, there is no interference with others who are still in samsAra.

 

> For a soul in sAntAnikaloka, how different is it from humans?

 

Actually the word " sAntAnikaloka " is defined by Acharya as " Vaishnavalokas which are eternal "

 

itIrito harerbhAvavij~nAnI kaJNjasambhavaH |

pipIlikAtR^iNAntAnAM dadau lokAnanuttamAn.h |

vaishhNavAn.h santatatvAchcha nAmnA sAntAnikAn.h vibhuH || 9\.104||

 

At the command of Lord Shri Rama, the lotus born Lord Brahma, knowing the intent of Shri Hari, gave [access] to the great Vaishnava SAntAnikalokas, called so for being eternal, to all the jIvas upto the ant and grass (who have surrendered to Sri Rama).

 

> What kind of body will these sAntAnikaloka residents would get?

 

All the ones who had lingabhanga do not get any other body. They just experience their own intrinsic nature.

 

Regards,

KR

 

KK wrote on November 29, 2004:

> The Kannada text in the same book says that there is a difference of opinion

> in this matter; with scholars like Sri Srinivasatirtha favoring the express

> meaning of the word 'nityasamsAri',

 

What is that express meaning ?

 

> instead of the secondary meaning that nityasamsAri means those who have

> nityasamsArilaxaNa i.e. experience a mixture of happiness and sorrow.

 

Why is it secondary meaning? It is rather explaining the meaning of the term nityasamsAri.

 

Before we go to the term NityasamsAri, let us try to see what " samsAri " means. If we say " one having a family " , we can see straight away that it is one of the least important meanings in philosophy as even the " sanyasis " and trees are said to be in samsAra. If we say " ones with gross body (or sthUladeha) are samsAris " , then also we can deduct it to be insufficient as those in svarga and naraka also are said to be in samsAra. If we define as " those bound to only the three worlds viz. earth, heaven and hell " , that is also insufficient as " Brahma " and " vayU are also said to be in samsAra. If we define as those who have " duHkhasparsha " and not yet reached " moxa " or " andhatamas " , then this satisfies (I guess, correct me if not) the definition.

 

Just because lingabhanga is a precursor and also a prerequisite for going to moxa or andhatamas, inclusion of " having lingadeha " in the definition of " samsAritva " is not justified at all.

 

Thus for rAjasika manushyamadhyamas -

 

1. During their sAdhanAkAla (before lingabhanga), they

    - have birth and death on earth (with sthUladeha)

    - stay in heaven and hell (with aniruddhadeha)

    - cycle among these 3 worlds (never going to maharloka

      or the ones above)

    - experience sorrow and joy one after the other as per yogyata

 

2. After their sAdhAna (having gone thru lingabhanga), they

    - cycle among these 3 worlds (never going to maharloka

      or the ones above)

    - No sthUladeha or aniruddhadeha

    - experience a mixture of sorrow and joy at the same time

         as per yogyata

 

This " tridivanirayabhUgocharatva " (cycling among the 3 worlds) is their bandhana and this continues even after lingabhanga. This cycling can be compared to the state of the spindle in the loom. They have no final destination.

 

> The sat-tattva-ratnamAlA mentions that amongst the rAjasikas, the

> sattva-rAjasikAs are *mostly* in svargas due to performance of yajnAs (though

> not done properly), the rAjasa-rAjasikas are mostly in bhU and the

> tAmasa-rAjasikas are mostly in hell. If there is liN^ga-deha-bhanga and

> consequently no accrual of karmaphala how can there be the effect of any act

> such as the performance of yajnas?

 

The above applies, obviously, prior to lingabhanga. After lingabhanga, there is no karmaphala and muktas experience Ananda, tAmasikas duHkha and rAjasikAs the mixture.

 

Regards,

KR

 

SR wrote on November 29, 2004:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, KK wrote:

> 

>> The gItA-vivR^itti says that 'gachChanti' here refers to sAttvikAs going

>> to worlds above the svarga loka (like jana-loka)

 

One ineteresting point to note about this " Urdhvalokagamana " .

 There are seven upper worlds (starting with bhUloka).

bhU, bhuvar, suvar, mahA, jana, tapa and satya.

  " janalokamArabhyordhvalokam gatAnAM na punarAvR^ittiH " .

  " The ones who go to Janaloka and above do not come back to earth " .

 (This has to be qualified as those who get utkramaNa thru BrahmanADi and travel to Janaloka and above from their charamadeha (or final body) thru archirAdimArga do not come back to earth).

 

RaivatarAja, who went to Satyaloka thru archirAdimArga came back to earth. Brahma and Vayu (in their mUlarUpa) come and serve Sri Krishna in Dvaraka during the yAga that Sri Krishna performed. VedavyAsa brings and shows Parixit to Janamejaya at his request. With the above qualified statement, there is no logical difficulty to these situations. Also note that this is not to be mixed with avatAras and amshas. This is wrt coming in mUlarUpa itself.

 

>> and 'tiShThanti' refers

>> to the rAjasikas not going beyond the svarga. This verse is thus not

>> talking about mokSha-sthiti of different types of jIvAs. I am wondering

>> why you mentioned this verse in this context.

> 

> I realize that is what the verse says, and that is what it has to mean. My

> reasoning simply was that if a jIva, to wit, a rAjasa, does not get

> outside a region (bounded both above and below) during Creation, it is not

> obvious how it gets outside at all, considering that it is stated to be

> " always fit for Creation only. "

 

All that it says is that they always stay in the middle. It does not say anything about " creation " . Also " sR^itiyogyA " means " fit for samsAra " .

 

> The only jIva-s that travel outside these bounds are the ones whose

> ultimate destinies lie outside, and who are not stated to be forever

> fit for Creation.  To posit that a rAjasa, who never journeys far

> during Creation, somehow manages to do so having escaped the

> Creation it is said to always be qualified for, is not well founded.

 

The rAjasa never escapes the cycle of journey thru the three worlds. I don't know what is meant by " fit for creation " . If creation of the Lord is what is meant, then even Mukta loka and Andhatamas are Lord's creation. If creation of sthUladeha is meant, then the rAjasa do not have sthUladeha in svarga and naraka.

 

Regards,

KR

 

SR wrote on December 01, 2004:

>> In that case, how can it be construed that the sR^itiyogya-s, who

>> have lingabhanga, have escaped the Creation (macrocosm or universe),

>> I did not so construe at any time, so the question is not well founded.

 

The reason, I wrote so, is:

Quote - To posit that a rAjasa, who never journeys far during Creation,

  somehow manages to do so having escaped the Creation it is said to

  always be qualified for, is not well founded.

 - Unquote.

 

>> given that they cycle in the svarga, bhU and naraka (even after

>> lingabhanga), which constitutes only a subset of macrocosm ?

> 

> Does it?  I suppose that would depend on your definition.

 

No. Not mine. A partial list of quotes, Acharya gave are, in

 

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2004-November/000223.html

 

along with a quote from Sri Hari Vayu stuti:

 

" Adhatse mishrabuddhIMstridivanirayabhUgocharAnnityabaddhAn.h "

 

which indicate that " the mixed minded souls " (mishrabuddhayaH) cycle in

svarga, bhU and naraka. Since " the mixed minded souls " (mAnushhA

mishramatayaH) are always fit for Creation (madhyamA mAnushhA ye tu

sR^itiyogyAH sadaiva hi), they (svarga, bhU and naraka) have to be part

of Creation.