Fw: virodhapariharaquestions57to64

November 13, 2006

- Saroja Ramanujam

saranagathi-owner

Sunday, November 12, 2006 9:21 PM

virodhapariharaquestions57to64

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.