Source: TW
Viśiṣṭādvaitins, who are the followers of Śrī Rāmānuja, consider the following as pramāṇas or sources by which knowledge is acquired :–
(1) Pratyakṣa or sense perception. Among the senses or indriyas which provide us with knowledge are the sense of sight, the sense of hearing, the sense of smell, the sense of taste and the sense of touch. To these five should be added the mind or manas which perceives such internal feelings as pleasure and pain.
(2) Anumāna or inference: Even without actual sense perception, we sometimes acquire knowledge based on previous perceptions. For instance, we have seen on many occasions that wherever there is smoke, there is fire. When, afterwards, we see smoke rising on a hill, we, at once, infer that there must be fire on that hill, though we do not actually see the fire. Inference is always based on previous sense perception.
(3) The third source of knowledge accepted by Viśiṣṭādvaitins is śabda or verbal authority or trustworthy utterance. Though I have never been to London, I believe that there is a big city of that name on the evidence of those whom I consider intelligent and trustworthy. In matters of religion, this verbal anthority is found in the Śāstras, They reveal to us what we cannot see or infer by ourselves. For instance, they speak of the existence of God, who creates the Universe, sustains it and dissolves or absorbs it into Himself. They also tell us that our souls are eternal and are now in the bondage of births and deaths owing to beginningless karma. They teach us also how we can get rid of this bondage. Among these śāstras, the foremost place is given to the four Vedas with their crowning chapters called the Upaniṣads. These are called the Śrutis. Next come the Smr̥tis like those of Manu, Yajñavalkya, and Parāśara and also the Mahābhārata with its great inset, The Bhagavad Gita, and the Rāmāyaṇa, and the Purāṇas, and likewise, the Prabandhas of the Alvars. These smritīs are valid sources of knowledge so long as they do not state anything that is directly opposed to the teaching of the Śrutis. The Brahma Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa are the result of a critical examination of the Śrutis in regard to what they actually teach and are also authoritative.
The followers of Rāmānuja accept also the validity of the teaching contained in the pāñcarātra Āgamas. These Āgamās have come down to us from time immemorial and are held by Viśiṣṭādvaitins to have been taught by the Supreme Being, Narāyaṇa Himself. Only some among these āgamās are now available to us in print like Ahirbudhnya Saṁhitā, Lakṣmī Tantram, Satvata Saṁhitā, Pauṣkara Saṁhitā, Īśvara Saṁhitā and Garuḍa Saṁhitā. The followers of Rāmānuja do not find any doctrine or statement in these āgamas which conflicts with the Śrutis. Therefore they give a high place to them as to Śrutis, so far as religion and spiritual life are concerned.
It is on a careful and critical examination of the knowledge provided by these varied sources of knowledge, (pramāṇās), that Śrī Rāmānuja based his system of religious philosophy called Viśiṣṭādvaita. We get to know the doctrines and traditions connected with this system from his commentaries on the Brahma Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa called Śrī Bhāṣyam, Vedānta Dīpa and Vedānta-sāra and also treatises called Vēdārthasaṅgraha, Śaraṇāgati-gadyam, Vaikuṇṭha gadyam and Śrīraṅga gadyam.
In regard to certain traditional beliefs and observances based on the pañcarātra āgamas. Rāmānuja has not left a clear and definite expression of his views. Śrī Vedāntadeśika, who came some one hundred and fifty years after him and who was steeped in the religious lore and the religious discussions which had intervened during this period, aims at giving a clear, complete and comprehensive exposition of Viśiṣṭādvaitic thought and tradition in his Śrīmad-rahasyatrayasāra.
The following is a brief summary of the teaching contained in Rahasyatrayasāra on the more important doctrines of Rāmanuja’s system of philosophy and of the religious and spiritual tradition (sampradāya) connected with him as understood by the Northern School of Śrī Vaiśṇavites (Vaḍagalais).
TATTVA
The intelligent man who is desirous of mokṣa or deliverance from the bondage of saṁsāra or the cycle of births and deaths should know the three kinds of tattvās or Reals (things that exist) and the relation in which they stand towards one another. According to Viśiṣṭādvaita, all existing things are real and none of them is a mere illusory appearance.
There are three classes or kinds of existing things or reals.
- (1) Cit by which are meant sentient beings which have consciousness, however low their level might be
- (2) Acit which means non sentient things, which have no consciousness and which are all modifications of matter or prakr̥ti and
- (3) Īśvara who stands by Himself (being of different from the other two) as their Ruler and Controller.
1. CIT
Cit is a class name or a name which indicates a group or class of existing things. By Cit is meant Ātma, soul or self. Its essential nature (Svarūpa) or what distinguishes it from the other two, acit and Īśvara, may be described as follows:- It is different from the body, the senses, the mind, the vital breath (prāṇa) and intelligence (buddhi). It is ajaḍa or capable of shining by itself; its essential nature is bliss or ānanda and jñāna (consciousness or knowledge). It is eternal (nitya), atomic (aṇu) and incapable of being perceived by the senses. It is indivisible and has no parts or avayavas. Besides being of the nature of knowledge (jñāna), it possesses also jñāna or knowledge as an attribute (dharma). This knowledge possessed by the self is called dharmabhūta jñāna. The self or soul is subject to the control of Īśvara (niyāmya) and is also supported by Him (dhārya). It is śèṣa to Īśvara (i.e) it exists solely for the fulfilment of His purposes and not for itself.
It was said above that the self can abide by itself. A pot, for instance, can be seen only when it is lighted up by the flame of a lamp, but the flame of a lamp shines by itself and does not require any other light to help its being seen. So also the self shines or, in other words, is felt or realised by the person without any other help. The self is also conscious of itself as when a man says ‘I’. Pain, misery and the like are due to contact with the body. This contact with the body has resulted from beginningless karma. The self or ātmā thinks that the pain is its own.
If the self is nitya or eternal, it may be asked what birth and death mean. The answer is that birth means contact acquired with a body; death is separation from that body.
The śāstras say that the self is aṇu or atomic and that at the time of death, it leaves the body from the heart. Though the self is atomic or infinitesimally small in size and confined to one place, namely the heart, it is able to perceive the pleasure or the pain in every part of the body by means of the knowledge which it possesses as an attribute (dharmabhūta jñāna). Dharmabhūta jñāna or attributive knowledge is capable of contraction and expansion (saṅkoca, vikāsa) and can expand and reach everywhere. The self has no parts or avayavas and cannot undergo change or modification (vikāra). In this respect it is different from acit or material objects like pots and cloths and cannot be burnt, cut, cooled or otherwise modified. Advaitins hold that the self or soul is consciousness or knowledge and does not possess knowledge as an attribute (i e.) dharmabhūta jñāna. This is wrong, for we feel that we have knowledge and do not feel that we are jñāna or consciousness alone.
Just as the self is a knower who possesses knowledge (jnāna). it is also a doer (kartā), one that wills and makes efforts and one that experiences or enjoys (bhoktā). It should be remembered in this connection that will which acts or puts forth efforts and enjoyment or experience are both only forms of knowledge.
The self is a doer but a doer that is ever subject to the control of Īśvara. It is supported by Īśvara because it can have no existence except that due to His essential nature (svarūpa) and His will (saṅkalpa). Taking the case of our own body and soul, the soul supports the body and prevents it from disintegrating or falling during sleep by its essential nature (svarūpa). During its waking moments, the soul keeps the body from falling by its will (saṅkalpa). So also in regard to the self as related to Īśvara. It will be explained later that the soul stands in the relation of body to Īśvara, who is its Inner Self.
The soul was stated before to be śeṣa to Īśvara and to exist only for His purposes. Houses, fields, sons, wives and the like are śeṣa to a man and exist for the fulfilment of his purposes. But they can and do exist apart from him. The self, on the other hand, is a śeṣa to Īśvara which cannot exist apart from Him. It is inseparable from Him. So it is an inseparable attribute or viśeṣaṇa of Īśvara. In this respect the self is like the body of a man in relation to his soul. The body may be defined as that which is supported by a self and is capable of being controlled by it, while existing for the fulfilment of its purposes. In this sense the self of every sentient being is the body of Īśvara.
When Cit is said to be a class-name, what is meant is that ātmas or sentient beings are many, though all of them belong to the class Cit. The self’s or souls may belong to any one of these groups:
- (1) those that are in the bondage of saṁsāra (baddhas)
- (2) those that have obtained liberation from it (muktas) and
- (3) those who are eternally free (nityas) (i.e.) who have never been in saṁsāra, such as Garuḍa and Adiśeṣa.
Owing to contact with acit, (the body or mattter), the self has avidyā (ignorance), karma and vāsanās or past impressions, tastes and aptitudes. When contact with acit ceases entirely, avidyā and the rest leave the self. The avidyā and karma have no beginning. Therefore their original cause is not to be enquired into. What is of importance is to bring about their end.
The selfs, be they baddhas, muktas or nityas, are innumerable.
Viśiṣṭādvaitins stoutly oppose the Advaitic view that there is only a single self enveloped in avidyā and that when this is realised, the self becomes identical with Brahman, that there is nothing else but this Brahman, which is pure consciousness, and that all objects in the Universe, around, above and below us, are mere illusory appearances.
In the state of mukti, though souls or self’s are all alike and perfectly resemble one another, yet there is difference among them capable of being perceived by themselves.
The self or ātmā may be defined as a conscious being that solely exists for the fulfilment of Īśvara’s purposes (śeṣa). Acit or matter, too, exists for Īśvara but it is not a conscious being. The Jīva who is conscious and has intelligence is not only a śeṣa but a dāsa (servant) of God.
It was stated before that the svarūpa or essential nature of the self is knowledge or consciousness and that it has knowledge as an attribute or dharma. Is there any difference between these two kinds of knowledge or jñāna, it may be asked. The knowledge which is svarūpa is incapable of contraction and expansion; it does not light up anything other than itself; it is conscious of itself (self-conscious). The knowledge which is an attribute is capable of contraction and expansion and can light up other things like pots, cloths, stars, men and so on to the self. It is capable of all-pervasiveness in the state of mukti, though limited in its range in the state of saṁsāra owing to past karma.
According to Viśiṣṭādvaita, knowledge is a substance or dravya, because it is the seat of action and qualities. Knowledge, though a substance, may also be an attribute or dharma as dharmabhuta jñāna is of the svarūpa jñāna. Attributive knowledge or dharmabhūta jñāna is eternal. In the state of suṣupti or dreamless sleep, it is dormant and does not spread out and reach anything, as the senses are then inactive.
II. ACIT.
Acit or matter, in its different forms or modifications, is without consciousness or knowledge. It is subject to changes in its form (vikāra) though eternal as substance.
Acit is of three kinds - The first kind of acit is called prakr̥ti or matter, such as we see around us in this world. It is sometimes called also miśrasattvam, because the quality of sattvam is mingled in it with rajas and tamas. It is prakr̥ti which, by its contact with the bound self, conceals from it knowledge and bliss; it is also the cause of erroneous knowledge. As has already been said, it is eternal and is an accessory to Īśvara’s līlā or sportful activity. Sometimes it is called prakr̥ti because from it, other forms of matter are evolved (vikṛti). It is also called Māyā, for it is the cause of a wonderful variety of creations.
Misrasattvam is in twenty four forms –prakr̥ti (the root cause or primordial matter), mahat the next stage of modification, ahaṅkāra, manas (mind), the five kinds of subtle elements (tanmātrās), the five senses of knowledge, sight, smell, taste, hearing and touch (Jñānendriyas); the five senses of action, hand, leg, speech, the organs of excretion and sex (karmendriyās), and the five elements or bhūtās viz, earth, water, fire, air and ākāśa (space or ether). It is by mixing these twenty-four tattvās of acit that Īśvara creates the aṇḍa or world by Himself and through Brahma. There are many such aṇḍās or worlds, which are all within the region of Īśvara’s līlā.
The second kind of acit is called śuddhasattvam. It is so called because it is sattva that is free from all admixture of rajas and tamas. Śuddhasattvam is a wonderful substance entirely different from the matter or prakr̥ti that we see around us. It is eternal and capable of producing knowledge and bliss. By the mere will of Bhagavān and constituted of śuddhasattvam, towers, palaces, assembly halls, groves, gardens and the like exist in the region of eternal glory (nitya vibhūti or Paramapada) which is beyond the region of prakr̥ti. Śuddhasattvam is of supreme splendour (tējas) and is incapable of being measured by the muktas, and nityas and even Īśvara. Some acāryās say that it is capable of shining by itself (ajaḍa), while others are of opinion that it has to be lighted up by something other than itself (jaḍa),
Those who hold that it is ajaḍa, state that it shines to the nityās, muktas and Īśvara without requiring to be lighted up by something else. But while the jīvas are in saṁsāra, it remains invisible to them. It is not self-conscious and is therefore acit. Besides it is, as already pointed out, subject to changes or modifica tions such as towers, palaces and so on. It is therefore acit.
The third kind of acit is Time or Kāla. It is in Time that the evolutes of matter (prakr̥ti) undergo their modifications. Time or Kāla has none of the three qualities of prakr̥ti (sattvam, rajas, or tamas). It is eternal (nitya) and all-pervasive (vibhu).
The two kinds of acit, śuddhasattvam, and miśrasattvam serve to Īśvara and sentient beings (baddha, mukta, and nitya) as objects of enjoyment (bhogya), as accessory instruments of enjoyment (bhoga upakaraṇa) and as places of enjoyment (bhogasthāna). Bhogya is that which is experienced or enjoyed; bhoga - upakaraṇas are the senses which help the Jīva in experiencing or enjoying, and bhogasthānas are the various worlds (anḍās) and nityavibhūti and so also the innumerable bodies of sentient beings.
III. ĪŚVARA
The essential nature of Īśvara is Reality (satyam), knowledge (jñāna), bliss (ānanda) and infiniteness (ānantyam). Īśvara is opposed to everything that is of the nature of a blemish. He has hosts of auspicious qualities (kalyāṇaguṇa) like knowledge and might. He creates the Universe, sustains it and likewise causes its dissolution. He is the refuge of all jīvas and dispenses to them the objects desired by them whether it be dharma, artha (wealth), kāma (desires), or mokṣa. He has a special and characteristic form (vigraha) of His own in nityavibhūti. His chief queen or consort is Lakṣmī; Bhūmi and Nīlā are also His consorts.
Even as light is opposed to darkness, Īśvara is opposed to everything of the nature of change (vikāra) or of blemish (doṣa). He is infinite in the sense that He is eternal in regard to time, ompipresent or all-pervasive in regard to space, and has all things and all beings as His prakāras, modes or attributes which are inseparable from Him. He is the inner self (antaryāmī) of all things and of all beings. Thus He is not limited from the point of view of time, space, or objects.
It may be asked: “If Īśvara is within all things and all beings, would He not be affected by their faults or blemishes?” The answer is: “No. The individual self or ātmā is not affected in any way by such changes as childhood, youth and old age which are the modifications undergone by the body. As in the case of the self of the individual, the inner self of all, namely Īśvara, remains within, unaffected by the faults or blemishes of cit or acit.
Īśvara is compact of happiness or bliss (ānanda) and His essential nature is light or splendour that shines. His qualities like knowledge and might are eternal (nitya), innumerable and boundless. He has neither equals nor superiors.
Besides Jñāna or knowledge and might (śakti), He has boundless compassion for Jīvas and infinite love to them. He is easily accessible to everyone. He is ever ready to help mortals to cross over saṁsāra and attain mokṣa. He is Himself the upāya for us to attain mokṣa when we are without any other upāya or means for attaining it.
As has been already stated, He is the cause of all the world and this is not due to any karma of His, but His mere will. Creation, maintenance and destruction are of the nature of sport (Līlā) to Him; that is, they are not performed for the sake of any future gain but for the moment’s pleasure, recreation or delectation like games played by kings. “Is destruction or dissolution of the world (samhāra ) sport to Him?” it may be asked. The answer is : “That, too, is Līlā for him “, because in the state of samhāra or pralaya, the jīva is given repose and rest after the sins, troubles and tribulations of life. Īśvara is also the material cause of the world (upādāna kāraṇa). It is He that evolves into the world of cit and acit. “Does it not mean that He undergoes change? it may be asked. The answer is “No. It is not His essential nature (svarūpa) that evolves into cit and acit, but His attributes or prakāras, cit and acit, which are inseparable from Him and which, during pralaya or dissolution, lie in so subtle a state that they may not be recognised as existing at all . It is these which evolve into the world.”
It may be asked:— " How can the same object or person be both the material cause and the instrumental cause? In the case of a pot, mud is the material cause or upādāna kāraṇa and it is different from the instrumental cause such as the potter, his wheel and his stick.” The answer is as follows.” The same object may sometimes be both upādāna kāraṇa (the material caase) and the instrumental cause (nimitta kāraṇa). Have we not seen the spider weaving a wonderful web out of the material or stuff constituting its body? Īśvara, too, creates the universe with cit and acit, which are His body and which are inseparable from Him. Īśvara remains without change in His svarūpa; it is only his prakāras, modes or attributes, cit and acit, that change.
To acit, Īśvara is the cause of modification : to cit or sentient beings, it is He that gives the body and the senses, and that awards also mokṣa.
When we find some beings happy and others unhappy, we should not charge Īśvara with partiality and cruelty in creating them differently. It is on account of their past karma that Īśvara makes them different and this karma is anādi (beginningless).
It has been stated before that Īśvara has a unique form (or vigraha). By its nature and qualities, this form is supremely delightful; it is eternal, ever the same and pure, it is constituted of śuddha sattvam. It is radiant and is of imcomparable splendour. It is supremely beautiful and enchanting and is fit to be meditated on by Yogis. It is enjoyed by nityas and muktas in the region of eternal glory (nitya vibhūti). It is from this form that the incarnations appear. Īśvara is the Universal Saviour and the refuge of all. He has ornaments, weapons, attendants and the like.
Īśvara is, according to pāñcarātra, in five forms. (1) Para or Para Vāsudeva, the supreme Being (2) Vyūha or emanations, such as are described in the pāñcarātra āgamas (3) Vibhava incarnations. (4) antaryāmī or Hārda (the inner self in the heart who controls all activities from within) and (6) archi or image. Para is the Supreme Being in Vaikuṇṭha or nitya vibhuti ever enjoyed by nityas and muktas. The pāñcarātra Āgamas call Him Vāsudeva. He is the same as Nārāyaṇa, Viṣṇu and Brahma. Vyūha is the emanation from Para into the forms of Vyūha Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and aniruddha for the sake of the creation, the maintenance and the destruction of the world and for conferring His grace on those who worship Him.
In Para, the six qualities [The six qualities : Jnāna (knowledge): aiśvarya (lord-ship or unimpeded activity independent of all others; śakti (ability or potency to become the material cause of the world); bala (strength, absence of fatigue sustaining power); vīrya (virility-changeléssness); and tejas (splendour, might, the power to defeat others)] such as Jñāna are full and perfect; each Vyūha other than Vāsudeva exhibits only two of those six qualities.
Vibhavas are many and they are of two kinds ;- some are principal (mukhya) and others secondary (gauṇa). Incarnations are due only to the Lord’s will and not to karma.
The forms of the principal incarnations are not constituted of prakr̥ti or matter. They retain the nature and qualities of the Supreme Being and are like new lamps lighted from an original one. They are fit for the meditation of those who aspire to mukti, Such are Rāma, Kr̥ṣṇa and the like.
The secondary incarnations are through such as are Jīvas like Vyāsa.
The object of an incarnation is to protect the righteous, to destroy the wicked and to establish dharma.
The Anataryāmī or Harda dwells within the heart of the Jīva,[ The jīva here means a jīva who can meditate.] whatever he may be, in order to help him, in order to be meditated on by him and in order to redeem him.
Archa is the Supreme Being residing within the images or other objects that are worshipped in houses or temples.
It was said above that cit and acit are the body of Īśvara and that these evolve into the world of sentient beings and non-sentient things during creation. This doctrine that Īśvara is the inner self of all beings and of all things and that they are His body is the principal feature of Śrī Rāmānuja’s Viśiṣṭādvaitic thought. The relation that exists between cit and acit on the one side and Īśvara on the other is that between the body and the self śārīra-śarīrī bhāva. The doctrine is based on a passage in the Antaryāmi Brāhmaṇam of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, where Brahman is said to have everything in the Universe as its body and to control everything from within. The definition of body or śarīra given before should be remembered in this connection.
VIŚIṢṬĀDVAITA AND ADVAITA
Rāmānuja’s system of religious philosophy is called Viśiṣṭādvaita or Viśiṣṭa Advaita to distinguish it from Śrī Śaṅkarācārya’s Advaita. There are some passages or texts in the Upaniṣads which state that Brahman alone exists and that there is no second to it. Basing his system on such texts, Śaṅkara maintains that there is only a single reality or Real, namely, Brahman. The multitudinous objects and beings which we see around, above, and below us in the Universe are, according to him, unreal and illusory appearances like the mirage and like the silver which sometimes appears as an illusion on the shell. The world that exists around us consists of sentient beings, cit and non sentient things, acit. Saṅkara holds that all these are illusory projections (mithyā) on the only real entity which is Brahman. His system of philosophy is, therefore, called Advaita, the philosophy which treats of the one without a second. Śaṅkara states that this Brahman has no attributes or qualities by which it can be described or defined and that we can only speak of it as mere consciousness (cit or Jnāna). It is not consciousness which is conscious of anything within it or outside of it, for there is nothing else within it or outside of it. It is the only Real and nothing more can be said of it except that it is the opposite of non existence, nonconsciousness and finiteness.
Rāmānuja interprets these texts which declare the oneness of Brahman and its having no second in the Universe in a different way. According to him, Brahman is said to be the only Reality in the Śrutis or Upaniṣads in the same way as a man who has a body and the senses in addition to his soul, or ātmā is said to be a single entity. In fact the passage referred to already in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad called Antaryāmi Brahmana [III 7] declares, in unmistakable terms, that the Universe consisting of sentient beings, jīvas and non-sentient things (water) are all the body of Brahman and that Brahman is their inner self or soul.
All sentient beings, be they gods, men, animals or plants, are the body of Brahman and, likewise, all inanimate things are its body. On the authority of such texts, Rāmanuja explains the passage stating Brahman to be the only Reality as meaning that Brahman which has for its body the universe of sentient beings and non-sentient things (cit and acit) is the only Real. The body is an attribute or viśeṣaṇa of the self. So the universe consisting of cit and acit which, according to the Śrutis, is the body of Brahman, is a viśeṣana or attribute of Brahman. Unlike Saṅkara, Rāmānuja holds that Brahman has an infinite number of auspicious qualities and finds many passages in the Upaniṣads to support his view. So the Reality that the Śrutis speak of is Brahman with its viśeṣaṇas or attributes and qualities (cit and acit and guṇas). All these are as real as Brahman itself and being inseparable from their inner self or soul, they are included in Brahman when it is declared to be the only Real. Rāmānuja’s religious philosophy is therefore called Viśiṣṭa Advaita or the philosophy that treats of the one Reality, namely Brahman, with all its inseparable attributes or viśeṣaṇas included within itself.
There is absolutely no difference between the views of the Northern School (Vaḍagalais) and those of the Southern School (Thengalais) in regard to what has been said so far about the three tattvas or Reals. It is only about Kevalas or Kaivalyan that there is a slight difference of opinion. The Southern School considers Kevalas who delight in the enjoyment of their own disembodied self without attaining the bliss of Bhagavān as being also muktas who are of an inferior class residing in the outermost parts of Paramapada. The Northern School maintains that mukti, in the true sense of the word, means the attainment of that bliss and that kaivalyam is not mukti as it is without it. If, in some treatises of ancient ācāryas, kevālas are called muktas, it is only by way of courtesy, as they are in many respects superior to other baddhas, Kevalas have still to attain mukti since they have some remnants of sin or karma clinging to them.
xxiii
There is, however another point about which there is a divergence of views. What is the position and the essential nature (svarūpa) of Lakṣmī? Is she a jīva, atomic in nature like other jīvas, though superior to all of them? If she were considered as being equal in status to Bhagavān, would it not be against the relationship of the wife to her lord and would it not also conflict with the saying that Bhagavān is ‘destitute’ of equals and superiors ?
The Southern School holds that Lakṣmī occupies a special and unique place of her own below that of Bhagavān. She is aṇu or atomic and is a jīva. She acts as a mediator pleading to her Lord for mercy to the sinner (puruṣakāra). She is also the śeṣi along with Her Lord, both in Līlā vibhūti and in Nitya vibhūti, and is entitled to the service of the baddhas in this world and to that of the nityas and the muktas in the world beyond viz. the region of eternal glory (nitya vibhūti). Bhagavān is, however, the one upāya or means for the attainment of mokṣa and Lakṣmī has no part in this in the same way as she has no part in the creation, sustenance, and destruction of the world.
Vedāntadeśika, the greatest of the exponents of the Northern School, states tbat Lakṣmī, the inseparable attribute of Bhagavān as described in the Bhagavat Sastra or pāñcarātra is in every way the object of equal veneration and worship as Bhagavān and that our worship is always to the Lord and Lakṣmī. Being inseparable from Him, She participates in all His activities except in the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the world. She is śeṣi to all of His baddhas, muktas and nityās as much as the Lord Himself. She is not aṇu or atomic but vibhu or all-pervasive and omnipresent. She is not only the mediator (puruṣakāra) interceding and pleading for the pardon of the offences of Jīvas but also the upāya along with Her Lord for the attainment of mukti by the prapanna. Our service after the attainment of mukti extends to her as much as to Bhagavān. Whenever Bhagavān is mentioned, we should take it that Lakṣmī also is intended to be understood. Our daivatam or Supreme Divinity is the Divine Couple, Bhagavān and Śrī, and not Bhagavān alone.
PURUṢĀRTHA OR THE GOAL OF LIFE.
It is true that men strive for varied ends or objects in the course of their lives, but the wise man who realises the misery implied in saṁsāra or the cycle of births and deaths understands that the only puruṣārtha or goal that he should aspire to is mokṣa or liberation from saṁsāra. Mokṣa, according to Viśiṣṭādvaita, is not merely the deliverance of the ātma from the bondage of karma and the cycle of births and deaths, but the positive attainment of the bliss of Bhagavān in Paramapada or Vaikuṇṭha. This alone is true mokṣa or sāyujyam, as it is other wise called. In religious treatises, mention is often made of the attainnent by some jīvas of sālokya, of sārūpya and of sāmīpya. These are different from the true mokṣa or sāyujya, in as much as the happiness attained in those states is neither perfect nor eternal. Sālokya means the attainment of a world or loka which is one of Bhagavān’s but is not Paramapada. Sarūpya means the attainment of a form resembling the Lord’s as the result of constant meditation on one of these forms, (say, Rāma or Kṛṣṇa). Sāmīpya is the attainment of a place near Paramapada but not Paramapada itself. So also mention is sometimes made of ‘Vibhava lokās’ and Vyūha lokās’. If a man constantly meditates on any of the important vibhavās or avatārs he will attain the world of that vibhava from which he will afterwards have to attain Paramapada. So also with regard to the Vyūha loka. Sāyujya, which alone is mokṣa in the true sense of the word, consists in bhoga sāmyam, that is, the self attains, in that state, perfect happiness or biiss exactly like that of Bhagavān Himself. There may be and are differences between the activities permitted to the self in mokṣa and those that are Bhagavān’s, but in regard to enjoyment or bliss, there is absolutely no difference (paramam sāmyam upaiti)[Mundaka Upaniṣad III-1-3]. The love felt by the self to Bhagavān in mokṣa is so great that it overflows into service or kaiṅkarya to Him. Kaiṅkarya or service to the Lord is also bliss. In fact it is the crowning glory or bliss of mukti (Kaiṅkarya sāmrājyam).
XXV
UPĀYA OR THE MEANS OF ATTAINING THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF LIFE,
How or by what means is the self to attain this bliss of mokṣa? In regard to this, there is a divergence between the views held by the Northern School and those held by the Southern.
The view held by the Northern School (Vadagalais) is stated in distinct and unmistakable words by Vedāntadeśika in his Rahasyatrayasāra. There are only two ways in which or upāyas by which the self can get rid of its past karma and attain mokṣa. They are bhakti or bhaktiyoga, as it is called, and prapatti, the surrender of the self to the Lord whom it seeks as the only refuge. Prapatti may be adopted as a preliminary way of approaching the Lord for the performance or adoption of bhakti or as a direct means of attaining mokṣa. In the former case, prapatti or śaraṇāgati is said to be an aṅga or accessory to bhakti. Or it may be adopted as the primary and direct means or upāya for attaining mokṣa, when it becomes angī. So prapatti may be anga prapatti or angi prapatti. These terms will be explained presently. Bhakti and prapatti are the only two means for securing the grace of Bhagavān, who, being pleased thereby, grants mokṣa. Bhakti is otherwise called Upāsana or dhyāna. There are some thirty-two vidyās[Brahma Vidyas like daharavidyā, sadvidyā, bhumavidyā, sandilyavidyā and antaradityavidyā.] or forms of upāsana explained or indicated in the Upaniṣads. Constant meditation of Brahman and His attributes or qualities accompanied by the proper perfor mance of the rites and duties prescribed in the Śāstras, such as nitya and naimittika for one’s varṇa (caste) and one’s āśrama (stage of life), is the way or upāya called bhakti. The meditation has to be practised daily as long as life lasts. Ultimately it should attain the stage almost of actual visual perception of Brahman. To ordinary men, this upāya is difficult, but if it is adopted in the fulness of its perfection, all past karma which stands as an obstacle to the attainment of Brahman is destroyed except that part of it which has already begun to yeild its consequences (prārabdha) and when this too is brought to its end by the enjoyment or experience (anubhava) of its effects, either in this one life or in one or more future lives, the self attains mokṣa. Thus there is likelihood of delay in the attainment of mokṣa to the man who follows the way of bhakti. Bhakti is sometimes loosely employed to include bowing before archa, uttering the holy names of Bhagavān, singing His praise and such other acts of devotion and love. Service to Bhagavān in temples and the like is also sometimes called bhakti. This service also extends to the devotees of Bhagavān who are dear to him. These acts tend to promote bhakti but do not form bhakti-yoga.
Bhakti yoga results from seven auxiliary states of mind : (1) viveka which arises from bodily purity resulting from the avoidance of impure food (2) vimoka (freedom from desires) (3) abhyāsa (frequent meditation of the auspicious object) (śubhāśraya) (4) kriyā the performance of such rites as the five kinds of yajña in accordance with one’s ability, (5) kalyāṇāni (kindness to all beings: being one in thought word and deed, compassion, freedom from covetousness, refraining from injury to others by thought, word or deed) (6) anavasāda (freedom from depression) and (7) anuddharṣa (freedom from elation or undue exaltation of spirit).
Bhakti aided by these virtues results in something resembling visual perception of Bhagavān and is the cause of the last thought being turned to Bhagavān. It has three stages of development called by Śrī Rāmānuja: para bhakti, parajñāna and parama bhakti.
When karma is said to be destroyed by bhakti or prapatti, what is really meant is that Bhagavān, being pleased with the man’s devotion or self-sorrender, gives up the thought of punishing him for his sins or karma.
Xxvii
Prapatti is also called nyāsa, nyāsa vidyā, nikṣepa, bharanyāsa, śaraṇāgati, and bhara-samarpanam. It consists primarily in seeking Bhagavān as the sole refuge for one’s salvation and surrendering one’s self to Him for salvation.
It has five aṅgas or accessories which are mental attitudes (1) the will or determination to do what is agreeable to the Lord, (2) the avoidance of whatever is displeasing to Him, (3) mahāviśvāsa or intense faith that the Lord can and will be one’s Saviour, (4) Helplessness or being without the knowledge or capacity to adopt any means for saving oneself and (5) prayer to the Lord that He should extend his protection,
Nyāsa has to be performed only once under the guidance of the ācārya and it is capable of securing mokṣa at the end of this very life. Bhakti, it was said before, destroys all past karma except that which has already begun to operate (prārabdha). Prapatti, on the other hand, is capable of destroying even prārabdha karma. The central idea in prapatti is the thought of the man that he is incapable of performing the rites and duties prescribed in the Śāstras for the expiation of his sins and for the attainment of mokṣa and that, therefore the Lord should, Himself, be the upāya or means for the expiation of his sins and the attain ment of mokṣa. Pleased with his surrender, the Lord, out of his natural compassion, pardons all the man’s sins and short-comings and grants the man the goal desired by Him, viz. mokṣa. In the Rahasyatrayasāra, bhakti or upāsana or dhyāna and prapatti are called sādhyopāya or upāya or means which the man can adopt following the guidance of the śāstras and the ācāryas, Bhagavān is called siddhopāya, the upāya that is already present ever ready to save.
One of the finest chapters in the Rahasyatrayasāra is that called the Uttarakṛtyādhikāra; it prescribes the kind of life that a man should lead after the performance of prapatti. Bodily purity, freedom from evil thoughts, the performance of nitya and naimittika rites without any desire for the fruits or consequences, xxviii goodwill to all, even to enemies who hate and revile, service to God and the devotees of God, contentment with whatever one has or whatever comes in one’s way without any effort for attaining it - these are some of the virtues that the prapanna should cultivate. His service to God and His devotees is prompted by the mere love of it and is not due to the expectation of any reward. When one has performed prapatti, one gives up all thoughts concerning oneself, even the thought of attaining mokṣa, for the Lord has taken on Himself all this burden or bhara.
It may be asked: “It was said before that one of the aṅgas of prapatti is the will or determination at the time of its performance to do whatever is pleasing to God and the avoidance of what is displeasing to Him. Human nature being what it is, it is just possible that the prapanna commits offences against the Lord, either unawares or even deliberately. If he does so, how can it be said that the performance of prapatti is sure to bring him mokṣa of the end of this very life?” Vedāntadeśika answers this question as follows:- “In matters which cannot be understood by human reasoning, and in which the Śāstras are the only authority, we have to accept with faith what is stated in them, just as they are stated there. Prapatti is said in the śāstras to have the potency of conferring mokṣa at the end of this life. The man who has performed prapatti is not likely to commit sins deliberately. If he commits them unawares, they will be ignored by the Lord as they were not deliberate. If he has, at any time, owing to the weakness of human nature, committed a deliberate offence, he should offer expiation (prāyaścitta ) for it and thus obtain pardon and the prāyaścitta for such offences is another prapatti. If, however, being hard of heart, he does not choose to offer this expiation, the Lord will punish him in this very life, before his death, in some way or other for the sin committed by him. He may become blind or lame or meet with the loss of friends or relatives or become a subject social obloquy. There are hundreds of other forms which the punishment might take. It is certain,
xxix
however, that the prapanna will have mokṣa at the end of this very life as desired by him.
Among the prapannas, there are two classes dṛptas and ārtas. Dṛptas are those that can bear the sufferings of this life until death overtakes them. secure in the consciousness that the Saviour will confer mokṣa thereafter. Ārtas are those who, while performing prapatti, beg to be relieved of this life at once, as they cannot endure separation from Bhagavān even for an instant. They, too, will have their prayer fulfilled.
Competence for the performance of prapatti consists, as has been already indicated in want of full knowledge of the upāya (bhaktiyoga) described in the Śāstras or in the incapacity to adopt it. Even if a man has the knowledge and the capacity, if he cannot endure the delay in the attainment of mokṣa which is likely in bhakti as an upāya, he is competent to adopt prapatti. It has to be added that upāsana or bhakti is open only to men belonging to the three higher castes; prapatti, on the other hand, is open to all castes and to both sexes.
The performance of prapatti is a rite to be gone through with the prescribed mantras or mysteries. There are two forms in which the rite is legally performed today. One is the rite in which the disciple is made to repeat the mantra of prapatti as dictated by the Ācārya. This is uktiniṣțhā. In the other the disciple does not repeat that mantra but the ācārya performs it for him. This is ācāryaniṣṭhā.
The reader may now ask: “In this scheme of upāyas for the attainment of mokṣa, if bhakti and prapatti alone are stated to be the upāyas, what is the place of karma yoga and jñāna yoga which are described at considerable length in the Bhagavad Gita ? Do they in any way contribute to the attainment of mokṣa?” The answer is as follows:- Karma yoga means the performance, by one who has understood the truth concerning the essential nature of the jīva and that of the Supreme Being, of such karmas or rites and duties as are prescribed in the Śāstras for one’s varṇa and one’s āśrama under the heads of nitya (compulsory and regularly recurring rites) naimittika (compulsory but occasional rites due to particular occasions) and kāmya, those which are capable of yielding certain fruits but which are not forbidden. These rites and duties should be performed without any desire for the consequences or fruits which they might be capable of yielding and in accordance with one’s ability. Further any one of the following should be treated as most important, adoration of the Gods, austerities (tapas), pilgrimages to holy places, gifts of charity and yajñas or sacrifices. If duly performed, they tend to remove the sins of the Jīva and help to promote jñāna yoga and through it to create bhakti. They may also directly promote bhakti. Jnāna yoga is capable of helping the jīva to realise his self as detached or separated from the body. It leads directly to bhakti. Other means such as the praise of the Lord and the utterance of his holy names are helpful in promoting bhakti.
It should be clearly anderstood that bhakti and prapatti are only particular forms of jñāna or knowledge. So the saying Jnānāt muktih (mukti is the result of Jnāna) applies to bhakti and prapatti.
The devotee may be either an Ekantin or a Paramaikantin. He is called Ekantin who prays to Bhagavān for mokṣa as well as for the good things of this life but worships no other deity. He is a Paramaikantin who, while praying only to Bhagavān, does not pray for anything other than bhakti and jñāna and their fruit mokṣa.
From what has been said before, it would be clear that bhakti, an upāya, requires certain rites and duties as aids or accessories (aṅgas) and that, without them, it would be incomplete. Prapatti, on the other hand, does not require the performance of any such rites and duties. It is complete in itself. It has been described as resembling the Brahma missile (Brahmāstra) whose potency would disappear if it were accompanied by the use of any other weapon or missile. The question would arise, “Why should the prapanna perform the karmas or rites like nitya and naimittika, if they serve no purpose in promoting the efficacy of prapatti ?” Vedāntadeśika admits the potency of prapatti to secure mokṣa without the supplementary aid of other rites and duties, but insists that the prapanna, too, like the bhakta, should continue to perform these karmas or rites as they are God’s ordinances or commands revealed through the Śrutis and Smr̥tis and as their non performance would be a violation of divine injunctions and therefore disobedience to God. By their neglect the jīva would incur punishment from Bhagavān.
Lokācārya
So far we have described at some length Śrī Vedāntadeśikar’s teacbing on bhakti and prapatti as upāyas for the attainment of mokṣa with reference to the competency for each of them, the fruit arising from each and the differences between them. It is well known that in the Rahasyatrayasāra, several chapters (notably 23, 24, 25, 26 and also 29) deal with controversial matter. For a clear understanding of the discussion contained in those chapters, it is necessary to have a knowledge of what the ācāryas of the Southern School, especially Śrī Lokācārya, have said in such treatises as Śrī Vacanabhūṣaṇam and Mumukṣuppadi about bhakti and prapatti.
- According to Śrī Lokācārya,[He is not referred to by his name in Rahasyatrayasara. MUMUKSHUPPADI: Tirumantraprakaraṇama Sūtra: 21, Commentary of Manavalamamuni, Page 81, Tirukkacchi Nambidasar’s Edition, Presidency Press, Madras. Also Śrīvachanabhooshanam: Dviteeyaprakaraṇam: Sūtras 115, 116, 117, 178.] bhakti, though described as an upāya in the Upaniṣads, is really against the essential nature of the jīva (svarūpa viruddhai) The jīva is the body of Īśvara. He is absolutely dependent on Īśvara for all that he is and does and is also His śeṣa or dasa who has no will and no capacity for action which he can call his own.
** xxxii Śrī Lokācārya argues :– “If this is so, to adopt bhakti as an upāya would mean that the jīva trusts to his own endeavours and efforts for his salvation. How can a creature who has no will of his own think of depending on himself, when every thought and every movement of his are directed and controlled by Īśvara ?” Therefore prapatti alone is the means of salvation for one whose svarüpa is being śeṣa to Īśvara.
To this Vedāntadeśika replies :- “It is true that the jīva is dependent on Īśvara for all that he is. But Īśvara has endowed him with intelligence and reason, so that, as a rational being, he may use the powers granted to him by Īśvara for rejecting evil and for choosing what is good. If the jīva is absolutely without any free will of his own, the śāstras which enjoin certain things to be done by him on pain of God’s displeasure would be meaningless. And the śāstras do prescribe at great length bhakti as an upāya, It would be unfair on the part of the Śāstras to prescribe something for the adoption of the jīva if it were against his essential nature.
- Another point at issue between the two schools is the nature of prapatti or what is meant by that word. Śrī Lokācārya lays emphasis on the jīva’s being the body of Īśvara and on his being His śeṣa and also on the overwhelming compassion of the Lord towards the jīva. He argues from these that, like a man who would cleanse the dirt on his own body without being prayed to by that body, Īśvara would, of His own accord, cleanse the impurities of the self which is his body without any prayer or effort on its part. So prapatti is, according to him, merely mental acquiescence, on the part of the jīva, in Īśvara’s undertaking the responsibility of his protection. What is required of the prapanna is refraining from rejecting the Lord’s eagerness to save him (apratishedha [Śrīvachanabhūṣanam: Prathamaprakaraṇam: Sūtra 60, Page 73, (Ananda Press Edition.]) or in other words, mere receptivity. The jīva does not remain passive like a clod (acit) but is mentally aware of the Lord’s mercy, of His omnipotence and of his grace which requires
XXXiii
no cause hetu or effort on the jīva’s part. In fact, considering the enormity of man’s offences, how insignificant and worthless would any endeavour of his be! So the Lord’s grace redeems man from saṁsāra, for He is bound to protect #bat is His own. Besides, He is so compassionate and his love to man so overpowering that, like the cow which licks the slime on the body of the new-born calf, He would consider even the faults, offences, and shortcomings of the self as agreeable ([Mumukṣuppadi, Charamaślokaprakaraṇam Sūtra 27 Page 123 Tiru. kkachinambidasar’s Edition.] bhogya). To a lover, the dirt on the person of his beloved is far from being hateful.
Śrī Vedāntadeśika replies :- “The śāstras lay down rules and regulations for the conduct of man. They teach what is dharma and what is adharma and state that offences against the Lord would meet with punishment unless expiated. It is gross exaggeration to say that offences could ever be agreeable to God.
When a man feels that he is ignorant of what he should do for following the path of bhakti or is unable to adopt it owing to his weakness or inability, he seeks refuge under God, begs for His pardon and protection and surrenders his self to God to be saved by His mercy. Then God stands in the place of expiations which he is unable to perform and in the place of bhakti as the upāya for his mokṣa. Here prapatti is not mere passive acquiescence or receptivity but an active mental process of seeking the Lord’s refuge and praying to Him for succour. So prapatti is a rite or dharma which has to be adopted with the help of an ācārya. It is true that God’s mercy is boundless (niravadhi), but unless man who is a being endowed with intelligence, does something to deserve the Lord’s grace, it will not come down on Him of its own accord So some endeavour or effort, however insignificant it might be, some gesture at least (a vyāja) is required before the Lord would undertake the bhara or responsibility of protecting him. Further if the Lord’s grace were to come to man’s succour without any effort on his part, it might be asked whether it would
•
Xxxiv
come to all without exception or only to those whom it chose. In the former case, it would mean that there is salvation for all beings and all at once (sarva mukti). In the latter, the grace of God would seem partial to some and indifferent to others. So a vyāja or gesture is necessary on man’s part to become worthy of the Lord’s grace and this vyāja is the performance of prapatti.
- Another point at dispute is the question whether the performance of nitya and naimittika karmas is at all necessary for the prapanna, since prapatti is admitted by all to be capable of yielding mokṣa without any such aid. Śrī Lokācārya states in his Mumukṣuppadi [Sūtra 8 Charamaślokaprakaraṇam : Page 151 of Tirukkacchinambidasar’s Edition.] that it is no offence at all for the prapanna to give up the performance of these rites and duties. But, he adds, almost immediately after making this statement, that the prapanna, however, performs them for fear of public opinion and out of compassion to those who are ignorant, lest they too should give up their performance by following his example and thus bring ruin on themselves [Sūtra 85 - Page 151.] (lokasaṅgraha). Since they are performed by the prapanna out of love for his fellow-human beings who are not prapannas and without looking upon them as upājas, the Lord would feel delighted at their performance, which would, therefore, be of the nature of kainkarya or service to the Lord.
Śrī Vedāntadeśika agrees in thinking that prapatti does not require any complementary or supplementary rites and would yield its fruit irrespective of their performance or non-perfor. mance. But the performance of nitya and naimittika rites is ordained by God as a command and its transgression would bring the consequent punishment. So these rites have to be performed by the prapaona, not for lokasaṅgraha or as kaiṅkarya, but to avoid punishment due to disobedience of God’s injunctions.
XXXV
- Śrī Lokācārya enjoins great reverence for the prapanna, whatever may be his caste and considers it one of the greatest of offences to treat him with indifference, disregard, ill-will or contempt on the ground of his caste. Though he does not state that interdining and inter-marrying are proper among prapannas, his eulogy of the prapanna might lead people to think that these acts were permitted.
Śrī Vedāntadeśika also speaks in high terms of the prapanna’s devotion and of his being fit for mokṣa, whatever his caste. But he states that the rules concerning inter-dining and inter-marrying are based on the differences of the bodily equipment of the jīva and that these rules should be observed as long as the body lasts. There will, of course, be no difference in the attainment of mokṣa and there will be no such things as caste in Paramapada, but as long as the body lasts, the prapanna, too, however great his devotion to God and however pure his life, has to follow the rules and regulations of caste in social life. “The temple cow is certainly more worthy than other cows inasmuch as its milk, butter and the like are used in the service of God, but on that account, it does not cease to be a cow”.
- In addition to prapatti, the âchāryas of the Southern School consider that the love and goodwill of the [Śrī Vachanabhushanam: Chaturthaprakaraṇam : Sūtras 461 & 462 Pages 360m-362; Ananda Press, Madras (1908).] acārya to his disciple who has won them by devout service to him can, of themselves, secure mokṣa for the disciple even without any prapatti of his. It is true that Jnāna is the means to mokṣa, In this case the ācārya’s jñāna secures it for his śiṣya.
The controversy concerning the performance of nitya and naimittika by the prapanna had its origin in the interpretation of the Charamaśloka [“Having given up all rites and duties, seek me alone as refuge.Do not grieve, for I will release thee from all sins.Chapt XVIII-Sloka 66.] of the Bhagavad Gita. There it is said
Note
XXXVI “Sarva dharmān parityajya māmekam śaraṇam vraja” (Having given up all dharmas (rites and duties) seek me as your refuge ) What is the meaning of “Having given up all rites and duties ?” Śrī Lokācārya argues, “When it is said snātvā bhunjeetha (“Having bathed, one should eat”) it means “first bathe and then eat”. So also “having given up” means: “First give up the performance of these rites and then seek me as the only dharma”.
Śrī Vedāntadeśika, on the other band, interprets the words thus : “When it is said, “Having come into this world of suffering, it is your duty to seek some means of deliverance from it,” having come does not mean “first come into this world and then seek deliverance”. It means “since you have already come into this world of suffering”. So also in the Caramaśloka, the meaning is, “Since you find yourself unable to perform the rites and duties enjoined in the Śāstras for the forgiveness of your sins and the attainnent of mokṣa, seek me as your refuge”. The man is not asked to give them up as a condition for seeking God’s protection, since he has already given them up owing to inability. Besides the performance of ordained karma is insisted on again and again by the Gitācārya. So it is only in the event of inability that śaraṇāgati is prescribed.