Sadhyopaya Shodhanadhikara
241
CHAPTER - XXIV
Sadhyopaya Shodhanadhikara Though it has been declared that Bhakti Yoga and Ptipathi are both valid means for attainment of spiritual perfection by savants of yore, Prapatti has become the practical religion of Srivaishnavism after the time of Bhagavan Ramanuja. Ramanuja gave full emphasis to Prapatti and propounded it as a sufficient and valid means of attainment of godhead. Ramanuja did not deny importance to Bhakti Yoga or Upasana. He upheld stoutly the doctrine of Upasana as a ‘mokshopaya’, in his Sri Bhasyham, Vedartha Sangraha, Gita Bhashya and others ; and likewise, he propounded the doctrine of Prapatti in his three ‘Gadyas’.
- Prapatti has supreme importance in shaping the fortune
of the multitudes of finite selves and it is to be thoroughly understood so that one may not have any doubt about this doctrine. One should have a through knowledge of Siddhopaya, and likewise, one should also understand thoroughly the means of Prapatti that is to be adopted. Vedanta Desika has dispelled all doubts that may arise about the nature of Prapatti, the accessories and competency of Prapatti, in this section viz. Sadhyopaya Shodhanadhikara. This happens to be a powerful vindication of the doctrine of Prapatti and is of prime importance.
It is argued by some that Prapatti is not within the competency of all people, as it is a vedic-dharma. It is restricted to the upper three classes as it is considered as a Yaga Vishehsa or a kind of sacrifice. The answer to this objection is that the above view is not in agreement with the scriptural declaration of Swetaswathara Upanishad, which describes that the Supreme Paramatman is the one refuge for all humanity.
सर्वस्य प्रभुमीशानं सर्वस्य शरणं सुहृत् (9.3. 3-17) मुमुक्षु शरणमहं प्रपद्ये
(1.3. 6-18) Hamai ver signifies that all castes and creeds are included in having competency for this means. Statements such as -
सर्वयोग्यं अनायासं अप्रमादमन्पमम् ।
प्रपन्नार्तिहरं विष्णुं शरणं गन्तुमर्हसि ॥ “Lord Vishnu is a refuge for all people and and the means of surrender is fit for all without any rigour and which is without an equal.”
The statement PM Mishi includes in its purview, the three castes viz. kshatriya, vaisya and sudra. Prapatti is a ‘samanya dharma’ which is universal to all. The vedic injunctions are of two kinds viz. Universal dharmas and particular dharmas and as Prapatti happens to be ‘samanya dharma’, just like ‘sathya vachana’ (or speaking the truth), it is applicable to all. As there are distinct statements declaring the competency of one and all without any restriction of caste and others, Prapatti is meant for all. There are no restrictions in the general statements regarding practice of Prapatti as in the case of Upasanas. This Praparti is certainly for one who has ‘akinchanya’, whether one is a talulah or not.
Sadhyopaya Shodhanadhikara
243
The Lord Himself has declared,
स हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य येऽपि स्युः पापयोनयः । स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्राः तेऽपि यान्ति परां गतिम् ॥
(गीता - 9-32) 2. Regarding the nature Prapatti, it is declared that it is
supreme faith alone in the Supreme Lord’ ‘नारायणं सलक्ष्मीकं प्राप्तुं तच्चरणद्वयम् । उपाय इति विश्वासः द्वयार्थः शरणागतिः ‘IOn the basis of this, it is argued that Prapatti is only of the form of Supreme Faith and so, no act other than having faith, is necessary.
The answer to this argument is that Maha Vishvasa’ is emphasised in the above verse to point out its importance for becoming competent for performance of Prapatti, and also as it is an accessory to Prapatti. The meaning of this is -
सकृत् प्रार्थनामात्रेण अपेक्षितं दास्यतीति विश्वासपूर्वकं प्रार्थनम् इति यावत् ॥
That means, “by merely submitting a prayer once, the Lord will grant our wishes - having faith like this, one should pray to the Lord.” Here prayer is prefaced with supreme faith to point out ‘vishvasa-poorvaka-prarthana’. ‘Atma Nikshepa’ is the main factor and others are accessories, as known from the statement ‘न्यासः पञ्चाङ्गसंयुतः | The Lord will be expecting the expression of desire to be protected and so the supreme importance of faith is ordained in this. Ramanuja mentions this in his Sriranga Gadya as - ‘PRIGRI दास्यतीति विश्वासपूर्वक भगवन्तं नित्यकिंकरतां प्रार्थये’ | And as he
244
Essence of Srimad Rahasyatraya Şaram
concludes there as ‘Thisted’ surrendering of the self is also established.
Here the fact of supreme faith is denoted as an accessory to the surrender of the atman that is mentioned later. In Vaikunatha Gadyam, it is expressly mentioned that ‘Atma Nikshepa’ should be preceded by ‘prarthana’ or prayer. The main factor of the surrender of the atman is expressly mentioned in all these authorities viz. -
‘अनेनैव तु मन्त्रेण स्वात्मानं मयि निक्षिपेत्’, ‘आत्मात्मीय भरन्यासः’ ‘प्रपत्तिं तां प्रयुञ्जीत स्वांगैः पञ्चभिरावृताम्’, ‘न्यासः पञ्चागसंयुतः’ ।
‘These ordain that ‘Atma Nikshepa’ alone is the main factor, and others are accessories to it. There are a number of authorities that affirm the fact of the cultic act of surrender of the atman to the Lord and ‘matia-vishvasa’ or supreme faith, is an accessory to such an act. Without the surrender actually taking place, and by having a mere desire for being protected, cessation of one’s own activity for one’s protection, does not occur. So, it is the essence of all shastras that mere supreme faith does not signify Prapatti, but self surrender with faith is the sure way of one’s protection. ‘अकृते तु भरन्यासे रक्षापेक्षणमात्रतः । पश्चात् स्वयत्नविरतिः न प्रसिध्यति
Mandal’ll 3. It is argued by some that full understanding of one’s
relationship with the Lord, is exactly what is going to redeem him, and there is no need for Prapatti to be enjoined. When one realises the secret teachings of the shastras, he will reflect upon his subservience to the Lord. Is it not said that one should always remember one’s subservience and the over lordship of the
Sadhyopaya Shodhanadhikara
Paramatman, if one wants to uplift himself, and fulfil the purpose of his existence. “स्वोजीवनेच्छा यदि ते स्वसत्तायां स्पृहा यदि । आत्मदास्यं हरेः स्वाम्यं स्वभावं च सदा स्मर” ॥
Knowing this reality of the Lord being the Master and the jivatman being subservient to Him, one is asked to behave in accordance with this understanding. Is there a different factor that is to be enjoined as surrender of the self, apart from this ? Desika points out that this objection is not tenable just like the view of some that say moksha is possible on account of mere understanding of the meaning of the ‘mahavakyas’ (i.e. Vakyajanya Jnanamatram) or the significant statements like That Thou art’.
When a person has committed the sin of stealing away the atman, the expiation of that is, offering the atman at His feet. This fact of subservience to the Lord is an understanding that should qualify an aspirant after moksha. This ‘sheshatva-jnanam’ will certainly prevent from stealing away the atman from the Lord later.
‘शिष्टं ह्यात्मापहारस्य निष्कृतिः स्वभरार्पणम् । परशेषत्वधीमात्रं अधिकारि विशेषणम् ॥ पश्चादात्मापहारस्य निरोधाय च कल्पते’ ।
For a person who has realised the knowledge of ‘sheshatva’ that is obtained from the shastras, it is ordained that he should surrender his self unto the Lord, having supreme faith in the saving grace of the Lord, along with the desire for gaining moksha at a particular time. Even the statement TASHKL uTaTr’ implics the practice of some spiritual discipline as prescribed in statement like ‘HA TH’; USEctc.
This is summarised in the following verse : ‘ज्ञानान्मोक्षोपदेशे हि तत्पूर्वोपासनादिना । उपासनादिरूपाद्वा ज्ञानान्मोक्षो विवक्षितः ॥
The intention of the statement - there is liberation from knowledge – is that moksha is gained through upasana or Prapatti that is done, after gaining that knowledge. Mere ‘sheshatva’ jnanam that is gained from the shastras, is common to all disciplines for liberation, such as Prapatti and Upasana. The ultimate state of purushartha for mumukshu, is kainkarya or loving service to the Lord and it is not possible to practise a mokshopaya without having a ‘sheshatva-jnanam’. Even when one practises a dharma for gaining moksha, without having that ‘sheshatva-jnana’, those dharmas themselves will cause sheshatva-jnanam’ and make perfect his discipline for moksha.
So, the mokshopaya is – swa-raksha-bhara-nyasa – characterised by sheshatva-jnanam. The injunctions viz. ‘Rui as’, ‘wafa ai sesita’ expressly ordain that Prapatti should be performed. 4. Sometimes, it is argued that the charma-sloka’ indicates
that Ishvara is the means of attainment of moskha and nothing more is ordained in this behalf. If it is taken thus, it would amount to mere instruction of the truth that would be helpful to Bhakti Yoga. If it is further argued that for a person who is endowed with the knowledge of
Sadhyopaya Shodhanadhikara
247
reality, cessation of activities for self-protection happens to be Prapatti, and therefore, what is prescribed here is the abandonment of ‘sarva-dharmas’. The reply is that the abandonment of all dharmas verily happens to be - ‘swarakshanarthaswa-vyapara’ - i.c. his activity meant for his protection, and therefore, it contradicts his own statement, and also the injunction that one should surrender with all accessories to the Lord.
If prapatti is taken as a means Her or if it is taken as a helpful factor to the means already realised (FHSHTETE Hochfre) then it would be opposed to the nature of the supreme means or ‘Ishwara’, who is declared as the one means of liberation. The oneness, the nature of being already realised, the supreme consciousness, the supreme compassion, the omnipotence and the fact of not depending upon any other factor for protection, · such particular characteristics of Ishvara, will be harmed. (Fotora, fara, परमचेतनत्व, परम कारुणिकत्व, सर्वशक्तित्व and निरपेक्षत्व)
This position is not valid because, it is opposed to Srutis, the Smritis and also as this does not apply in all cases, If it is insisted upon these arguments, as valid reasons, then the ‘sadhana-bhava’ or the fact of being spiritual disciplines that are accepted, will have to be taken as disturbed. Even the upasanams will have to lose their sadhanatva. If it is said that upasana is not at all a sadhana, then it contradicts their own interpretation of the term ‘sarva-dharman-parityajya’ where upasana is included in the term ‘sarva-dharman’.
As Prapatti or sharana-varana, is also called by the name dharma’ just like ‘upasana’, is not this also to be discarded to fulfil the significance of the term ‘sarva’? This also is included in the group of dharmas; so, how can one have an idea of sadhana in Prapatti ? Or, how can Prapatti be a sahakari to the ever realised means i.e. sidda-sadhana or Paramatman ?
It is admitted that one should give up the idea of the direct means in Prapatti as well as in Bhakti Yoga. But, in the form of prasadanatva’ or awakening the grace of the Lord, ‘dharmatva’ or the fact of being a means, should not be abandoned. In that case, one should have to give up the sadanatva-buddhi in the siddhopaya also, as the Lord is called ‘Krishnam-Dharmam-Sanatanam’. If it is asked how ‘Bhakti’ or ‘Prapatti’ are upakarakas to siddhopaya, who is eternal and of the same form always; always perfect and having the qualities of natural compassion and others, it is replied that these means are effective in removing the wrath of the Lord, which is the cause of migration and which is caused on account of beginningless transgression of the command of the Lord. For an aspirant after moskha, who adopts the sadhyopaya according to his ability, the Lord on that pretext itself-will cause the removal of diminution of knowledge, etc., and grant him the benefit of His eternal service for all time to come. Therefore, it is quite appropriate to expound that ’the destruction of all sins and the granting of paripuma kainkarya’ is on account of the siddhopaya or ever realised means i.e. Paramatman, and that this supreme benefit accrues on account of some sadhyopaya such as ‘bhakti’ or ‘prapatti’. 5. It is sometimes argued like this –
Let Prapatti be a pretext for awakening the mercy of the Lord; but, where is the need for the shastra to prescribe it?
A person who is in trouble, and who cannot protect himself, naturally approaches a near-by person for help.
Sadhyopaya Shodhanadhikara
249
Then, if a person is aware of Ishvara from the shastra, he will naturally seek His protection, and there is no need for the shastra to prescribe it.
Desika points out that it is an ‘athivada’ based on ‘ouchitya’ or appropriateness. He gives the illustration of a person seeking refuge with another person in this world. Hc understands first of all, how he should approach a person for getting a favourable response, and then seeks his refuge. Even in the case of Prapatti, one should understand carlier how he should seek refuge with the Lord, and how the Lord would protect one approaching like that, and for knowing this, there is no ‘pramana’ other than the shastras. If, by the inference that Lord would protect ‘us if we seek Him, it would be applicable to all who have an awareness of godhead, and the shastras prescribing upasana and others would become futile. It cannot be known from inference that a capable person could practise upasana, whereas an incapable personi might resort to the means of Prapatti. It is only from shastras that we can understand that Prapatti is a sufficient and capable substitute to Bhakti Yoga. If one undertakes such deeds ignoring the shastras, he would be committing offences, as all the particulars of Prapatti, are to be known from the shastras alone. It is to be admitted that Prapatti along with its accessories is to be prescribed by the shastras for the guidance of the aspirants on account of the above reasons. 6. Though it is ordained by the shastras that one may
adopt Prapattı or Upasana in accordance with one’s own ability, it is mentioned by some that upasana or Bhakti Yoga is opposed to the essential nature of the jivatman, who is utterly subscrvient to Paramatman. Desika says that this is also intended to praise Prapatti. It cannot be said that the practice or Upasana or Prapatti, is opposed to the essential nature of the atman, which is eternal. As in the case of kainkarya, even in practice of Prapatti or Bhakti Yoga, there is ‘Bhagavadadhinakartrutva’ or doership subordinated to, or given by the Lord, as propounded by the Brahmasutras, and so, it cannot be said that the essential nature of the jivatman is ‘atyanca-nirvyapara’ or totally devoid of any kind of doership. In that case, it will become a non-entity. It cannot be said that ‘sannidhimatra’ or mere presence is the function of the atman, without even enjoyership, in which case, the world becomes unreal and there will not be even an aspiration for liberation. So, it cannot be said that upasanas are ‘svarupa-viruddha’ on account of the absence of kartrutva as in the case of the sankyhas.
“Is it not said”, it may be asked, “that wealth comes to one who refrains from any action and one who follows karma cannot even get a sip of water to drink?” This also does not speak of the fucility of the means prescribed by the shastras, but emphasises that the results of karmas done earlier cannot be escaped.
Moreover, upasanas are not of the nature of binding one to samsara, as kamya and prohibited actions, that are caused by desire and others causes, are. It cannot be said that upasanas are svarupa-viruddha on the authority of the shastras. 7. It may be further argued thus –
“The atman is distinct and different from the body. So, vama and asramas are not in the essential nature of the atman. The duties of the varna and sramas and the means that are
Sadhyopaya Shodhanadhikara
251
related to the varnas and asramas are not to be taken up. So, why not we say that the dharmas that are on account of varnas and asramas, are opposed to the essential nature of the atman ?”
Desika points out that this also is incompatible. A person is associated with a body characterised by brahminhood, and others, on account of his past karmas; though he understands that brahminhood and others are not in his essential nature, he has to perform the duties ordained by the shastras, so long as he is associated with such bodies, as he acts to satisfy hunger and thirst, according to his ability In the same way, he has to function for ‘ishta-prapatti’ and ‘anishta-nivritti’ as ordained by the shastras. So, it cannot be said that these duties are to be discarded as svarupa viruddha, on the basis of dehatmaviveka’. It is only a person, who has the discriminatory knowledge of body and soul that is entitled to undertake spiritual discipline. The ‘adhikara’ or competence for practice of these dharmas is the association with body characterised with brahminhood and others
There is no contradiction to upasana from the knowledge of body-soul discrimination because such dehatma-viveka is helpful for the practice of all dharmas.
Karma Yoga and others are performed with the help of the ‘upadhis’ such as body and indriyas that are got due to karma and so are they not against the ’nirupadikasvarupa’ of the atman ? A counter question is put in this behalf. How are the factors of the essential nature of the atman and the meanings of dvaya-mantra and others known ? Are they not depending upon the mind and other ‘upadhis’? But yet, the atman is an urterly dependent entity being a ‘shesha’ of Paramatman, and is not liable to protect himself. So, is it reasonable to enjoin on him to practise some means for his own protection Is it proper to call that means a sadhyopaya ? So, should we not say that Bhakti Yoga and others are not appropriate as they are not in accordance with ‘sheshatva’ and also as they defile the essential nature of the atman and also as they are totally opposed to the utter dependence of the atnan upon Paramatman ?
This objection has been already cleared, as it leads to the eventuality of ‘sarva-moksha’. If the Lord were to liberate onc, even without considering any pretext done by him, everyone would have become liberated from beginningless time. If Ishvara is going to liberate one, merely on account of His supreme power, the defects of partiality and cruelty would happen to Him. Moreover, the scriptures that ordain ‘mokshopaya’ or the means of liberation, would become futile. So, it becomes appropriate in adopting some means of liberation for the atman, and for the master to protect such a one, who verily belongs to Him.
- The performance of the varna-asrama-dharmas and also
Bhakti Yoga, which has those dharmas as its accessories, is opposed, it is contended, to the essential nature of the atman, who has known that he exists only for the Paramatman. An exclusive devotee of this type is a ‘shuddha Yajin’ and it is argued that such a person should not practise the duties of his varna and ashrama, as there is association of other deities like Agni, Indra,
Varuna and others.
Desika points out that this objection has come only due to want of a clear understanding of the conclusions taught in Sri Bhashya and other works of great masters. It is ordained that the one and the same Paramatman, who is the antaryamin’ in all, is being worshipped through the worship of all deities. The Pratardana Vidya distinctly ordains that
Sadhyopaya Shodhanadhikara
253
the spiritual aspirant should mcditatc upon Brahman as having Indra and others as His body. There is no contradiction to exclusive devotion in the performance of varnasrama dharmas as cven all those names of deities directly connote the Supreme Paramatman and as a devotce worships through them the one Supreme Paramatman. 9. It may be further argued that upasanas are prescribed
in order to produce faith in the efficacy of the shastras, just like the ‘abhicharikya kriyas’ that are meant for creating faith. The Supreme Paramatman happens to be the ‘means’ and the goal’. So, prapacri alone is the means and never the upasanas.
Desika points out that this is untenable, as upasanas are not sources of evil as the ‘abhicharika kriyas’ are. Upasanas are means of liberation and so they are valid.
Upasanas are not prescribed just to create a desire in the minds of the aspirants for the adoption of easier means. Success through an easier means causes faith in a more difficult means. The knowledge of the means or upaya, that is appropriate to the attainment of the prapya, is known from the shastras, and it cannot be decided on the basis of merc and independent ‘yukti’ or reasoning. If the authority of the shastras is questioned as relating to upasanas, by parity of reasoning, the authorities prescribing Prapatti also become invalid. So, both Bhakti Yoga and Prapatti are valid means to mukti, as they have been enjoined by the shastras for different types of aspirants, according to their competence and ability 10. It cannot be said that upasanas are to be ignored, though they are ordained, as they are (fTenfus fatas) or opposed to the practices of Ries, as we see that ancient masters like Parasara and others following them. It cannot be said that they are not suitable for the present times as people qualified for upasanas are difficult to be found. It is probable even in these days that such upasakas may be here and there practising meditation just like the great yogins of yorc. As there is no contradiction to upasanas it may be taken as a valid means for spiritual perfection.
A person who has chosen this path of Prapatti on account of his inability to practise Bhakti Yoga, and on account of his inability to wait for any length of time to attain moksha after exhausting all his ‘prarabdha’ karmas by experience, is praised as one who has done what ought to be done, and as one who has performed the sacrifice. This nyasa vidya is glorified as follows :
Hraffaecal: TG1: HIC Machini नार्हन्ति शरणस्थस्य कलां कोटितमीमपि॥
“The karma-yogins, bhakti-yogins and jnana-yogins - all these do not equal even one-croreth-part of a person who has sought refuge with the Lord.” A person incapable of taking an ablution in a river for purifying himself, is ordained to have ‘manasa-snanam’, which is defined as ‘manasam Vishnu-Chintanam’. The merit of this manasa snanam is that it not only puts an end to other sins, but will also cause the bliss of Divine experience (Bhagavadanubhava Rasa). Likewise, this Prapatti, though prescribed for one who is not capable of undertaking upasanas, not only grants the fruits of upasana, but also evolves upward a person who is utterly helpless.
Having set aside the probable doubts and objections
11
Sadhyopaya Shodhanadhikara
255
that can be raised in respect of the nature and efficacy of Prapatti, Desika dispels some of the misconceptions that might be entertained regarding the accessories of Prapatti as
follows :
A. “Is there any need for Anukulya sankalpa and others for
Prapatti’ - it is asked. The Lord is ever compassionate and has given an assurance that he would not discard anyone that approaches Him, cven in the guise of a friend - ‘SHICH HMI 449’ He does not see the defects of even cnemies. ’ fcal Tau: Fa44’ ‘3721cfaalal a rruz’ I “He is the refuge of all and he does not consider the Particulars of those that surrender unto Him”. So, could it not be said that ‘Anukulya sankalpa and others’ may be there or not, the Lord would anyhow protect one who surrenders unto Him.
Desika points out that these are very necessary as accessories at the time of Prapatti. But, at some further time, even if they do not continue, the Lord would not abandon him, but would save him by expiating his sin in some way or other. There are authorities that ordain these accessories along with the main act of surrender as in - ‘: wahya:’, ‘afur Trifa’, ‘Fal:
T
’ and others. Thus it is maintained that Anukulya Sankalpa and others are absolutely necessary at the time of Prapatti. Prapatti does not, however, require any other thing than these. Even Brahmastra requires its accessories.
The verse ‘97: fagud 414837 7 faed 1 TB Has सर्वेषां सर्व कामफलप्रदा’ ॥ points out that there is no nced of any other accessory than these.
LRG
256
Essence of Srimad Rahasyaraya Saram
B. Is there anything like ‘Maha-vishvasa’, other than faith
in the shastras, that can be prescribed as an accessory? This objection is countered on two grounds:
First of all, the scriptural authorities prescribe ‘maha vishvasa’ expressly as an ‘anga’ to Prapatti. Secondly, it is pointed out that there are different degrees of faith that result in different fruits. So, it is essential that one should have supreme faith at the time of performance of Prapatti.
It is further asked whether the Lord would accept one, if his faith is not in its full measure at the time of Prapatti ? The answer is in the affirmative. The Lord gradually strengthens his faith and perfects it. There may be variation in the degree of faith but as prescribed in the shastras, maha vishvasa is a very necessary accessory to Prapatti. It is known from the following verse that there is variation in faith - ‘यस्य यावांश्च विश्वासः तस्य सिद्धिश्च तावती । एतावानिति नैतस्य प्रभावः
Rated It C. It is questioned how Bhakti and Prapatti can give such
opposite results, such as worldly prosperity and moksha, according to the desire of the aspirants. As one Sows, so one reaps.
Desika points out that the shastras are the ultimate authorities in this behalf and it cannot be reasoned out otherwise. For a person interested in worldly gains, Bhakti and Prapatti become Pravritti Dharmas, and for a person who seeks the Holy Feet of the Lord alone, they become Nivritti Dharmas. These differences happen on account of the differences in the aspirants. It is thus established by the shastras that one can attain all kinds of aspirations through these means of Bhakti and Prapatti.
Sadhyopaya Shodhanadhikara
257
Seeing that Prapatti done for some worldly benefit becoming unsuccessful, some people doubt in the efficacy of Prapatti, which is a means of attaining all benefits. They must be enlightened properly, says Desika, by pointing out their lapse in respect of the performance of Prapatti. There might have been the absence of the necessary accessories like ‘maha-vishayasa’ and others. There might have been ‘kartru vaigunya’ of the form of absence of helplessness or ‘akinchanya’. There might have been lapse of performance of Prapatti, according to the shastras on account of the absence of ‘sadupadesha’ from the Acharyas. It may be known that even worldly benefits are duly obtained if Prapatti is performed in the right way bereft of these lapses.
It is sometimes asked how Prapatti done only once can be the cause of the supreme benefit of attaining moksha, while savants like Vyasa have taught decidedly that the Lord should be constantly mediated upon.
अलोढ्य सर्वशास्त्राणि विचार्य च मुहुर्मुहुः इदमेकं सुनिष्पन्नं ध्येयो नारायणस्सदा॥
R.: AGI :‘‘Fida: Hadi fama’
“Having gone deeply into all shastras and having thought over again and again, this one ‘Truth’ has been ascertained and that is that Sriman Narayana is to be meditated upon always”; “Sri Hari is to be meditated upon always by you”; “Vishnu should be remembered always”. So should not we take that the charama shloka also as an accessory Prapatti for fulfilment of Bhakti Yoga, as it is found in ‘मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते’ which is clearly an ‘anga
Prapatti’.
258
Essencc of Srimad Rahasyatraya Saram
Desika points out that this also is not compatible, as Prapatti is enjoined as a main means (svatantra-prapatti) and as a substitute to Bhakti, as evidenced in the following authorities:
‘यद्येन कामकामेन न साध्यं साधनान्तरैः । मुमुक्षुणा यत् सांख्येन योगेन न च भक्तितः ॥ प्राप्यते परमं धाम यतो नावर्तते यतिः । तेन तेनाप्यते तत्तन्यासेनैव महामुने । परमात्मा च तेनैव साध्यते पुरुषोत्तमः’ ।
“That which is not possible of being gained by other sadhanas, all that which is desired by one, is gained by nyasa. That which cannot be gained through Jnana-Yoga, Karma Yoga or Bhakti-Yoga, can be gained by nyasa. The supreme abode of Paramatman also from where one will never more return to this world, is gained by nyasa alone. The Paramatman, the Purushottama, is also attained by nyasa alone.”
‘शरणं त्वां प्रपन्ना ये ध्यानयोगविवर्जिताः । तेऽपि मृत्युमतिक्रम्य यान्ति तद्वैष्णवं पदम्’ |
“People who are without practice of ‘Dhyana-yoga but who have surrendered unto you, even those people attain that Abode of Vishnu transcending rebirth.’
These authorities establish that Prapatti is an independent means to the attainment of moksha. One who is steadfast in this means will think of that Supreme Paramatman always as ‘स्वतः प्राप्तम्’ and there is no contradiction between Dhyana and Prapatti. Though
Sadlıyopaya Shodhanadhikara
259
Dhyana-Yoga with all its accessories is not within the competence of all, one is entitled to think of the Lord according to one’s competence. So long as he is placed in this world, he should remember the Lord always as ordained in the Gadya by Ramanuja as ‘ततश्च प्रत्यहं आत्मोजीवनाय 994544’ | The medication in which a prapanna engages himself is not an upaya, but only the fruit of his Prapatti.
Thus, in this section, Desika has vindicated Prapatti as an independent and direct means to mukti, and has clearly established that both Bhakti-Yoga and Prapatti are valid means to the attainment of Paramatman, mcant for two different kinds of aspirants.
Desika has written a work Nikshepa-Raksha’ where he has raised nine objections against Prapatti and answered all of them clearly and established the validity of Prapatti.