Prabhava Vyavasthadhikara
261
CHAPTER - XXV
Prabhava Vyavasthadhikara The celebrated author of this treatise has expounded the doctrine of Prapatti along with all the accessories of it, in the first part comprising twenty two sections. In the two sections that follow the expositions of this doctrine, Desika has cleared all doubts that might arise regarding the siddhopaya and the sadhyopaya, and has established firmly the efficacy of this means, according to the scriptural authorities, and the continuing tradition of the Purvacharyas.
In this section, the author discusses about the eminence of those that adopt this means of spiritual perfection, and regulates the significance of this means by clearing the overtones and the undertones of this means. In this section - Prabhava Vyavasthadhikara - Desika regulates the exaggerated views about a Prapanna, and in the next section - Prabhava Rakshadhikara - Desika clears the views that under-estimate the greatness of this celebrated means. By this, the eminence of this means is expounded, as it exactly is, without either over-estimating or under-estimating it.
There are many statements that praise one who is solely devoted to Lord Vishnu. “The fathers shout in joy and the forefathers dance, saying - A Vaishnava is born in our line, and he will emancipate us.” “Even gods cannot understand the greatness of a great person, who has supreme devotion towards the Lord.”
Desika points out here that ‘Jathi’ or caste of a person is different from ‘Kula’ or a class, characterised by certain characteristics, and one should not be confused with the other. There is a statement -
न शूद्राः भगवद्भक्ताः विप्रा भागवताः स्मृताः । सर्ववर्णेषु ते शूद्राः ये ह्यभक्ताः जनार्दने॥
“The devotees of the Lord are not ‘shudras’. They are known as ‘bhagavathas’. Those of all castes, who are not devotees of Lord Vishnu, are ‘shudras’. Here, the particular characteristics of devotion towards the Lord is considered to take one as belonging to the higher caste or belonging to a lower caste. On the basis of this, it is asked whether all devotees of the Lord, belong to the same caste ? All devotees, therefore, are to be considered as ‘vipras’ or brahmins. The answer to this question is - It is not so. Desika quotes the view of Kidambi Appullar, that the equality pointed out in the above statement, is on account of ‘Parama-Purusha-Samya’ and not in ‘vyavahara’. All shastras ordain certain disciplines to be followed by ‘Bhagavata Brahmana’ and ‘Bhagavata Shudra’. So, the statement that a ‘Bhagavata Brahmana’ and a ‘Bhagavata Shudra’ are equal, is on account of the same ‘purushartha’ being entertained by both, and not on account of the ‘varna ashrama-vyavahara-samya’. The statcment of Thirumangai Alwar that ‘Bhakti’ endows ‘Kula’ - is also commented upon by the great master in the same way. If a person who is belonging to a low caste, and of an inferior character, gains ‘Bhagavata Sambandham’, one should not think of him as low, belonging to a particular caste or quality. The eminence of devotion towards the Lord, is such; but, they are not having marriage alliance with others, because it is regulated by caste, and praise and veneration are on account of thePrabhava Vyavasthadhikara
263
virtue of devotion to the Lord. Here, Desika emphasises that all devotees of the Lord, are of one class viz. Bhakta Kula but they belong to their respective castes. One’s ‘Kula’ may change but the ‘Jathi’ or caste, does not change. Desika points out that even the Heavenly Cow - Surabhi - docs belong to the class of a cow, and it will not change. The idea of the above verse is that Brahmins – who are bereft of devotion towards the Lord - are not to be regarded with respect. They must be treated as ‘shudras’. Similarly, ‘shudras’ who are devotees of the Lord, should be praised like Brahmins.”
Such statements, saying that an out-caste, who has pure character and devotion, should be known as ‘Brahmin’ and an ascetic who has fallen from his vows should be known as an out-caste; a person - whose head has grown grey - should not be considered as ’elder’ but an youngster - who has gained knowledge should be considered as ‘old’, prescribing praise and censure, are meant for showing respect or otherwise. They should not be literally taken as such -
प्रतिपत्तिविशेषार्थं अन्यत्रान्यत्वकीर्तनम् ।
Mentioning in something, a quite different thing, such as “thinking of an out-caste in a fallen brahmin, fallen ascetic, etc,” is for showing particular respect or not showing respect.
The instance of ‘Vidura’ is quoted sometime and Desika mentions that Vidura celebrated marriages according to his “Jathi’. The qualities of Vidura are extolled by Krishna and the performance of obsequies or Treat’ by Dharmaraya, was on account of a special command - the ‘ashariravani’ and it cannot be quoted as an instance of an admixture of
264
Essence of Srimad Rahasyarraya Saram
castes. So, Desika concludes, that all castes are required to serve the Lord, according to their competency, without transgressing the code of conduct of their castes.
Desika cautions that it is not proper to argue on the basis of the unique characteristics and behaviour of Vidura and other great people, as well as the most celebrated Alwars of yore. The customs and behaviour that were prevalent in different yugas, cannot be taken as an example for our behaviour. Even when their behaviours are examined, it becomes clear that they did not transgress the regulations of their respective castes. They honoured the order of the ‘Varna and Ashrama’ Dharma, and never repudiated it. In the statement ‘Knowledge should be gained from a Brahmin or a Kshatriya or a Vysya or a Shudra’ – the idea is that the knowledge of the Supreme Paramatman, ought to be obtained from these various people in the case of the non availability of the foremost teachers; but, it is clearly mentioned that ‘jnana-matram’ or mere knowledge is to be gained from these, and not ‘Brahmopadesham’.
It is pointed out that Vidura informed Dhrutharashtra that he was not competent to teach ‘Brahma-Jnanam’ as he was born in the fourth caste. Tuladhara and Dharma Vyadha, and others, duly enlightened the ‘Brahmins’ that approached them, regarding subtlety of ‘Dharma’; but, they did not perform the duties of an ‘Acharya’. They only guided them to proceed on the right lines.
There is this verse -
भक्तिरष्टविधा ह्येषा यस्मिन् म्लेच्छेऽपि वर्तते । तस्मैदेयं ततो ग्राह्यं सच पूज्यो यथा ह्यहम् ‘॥
Prabhava Vyavasthadhikara
265
“in whomsoever these cight kinds of ‘Bhakti’ is found, even if he is a ‘mlechha’, to him should be given, and from him should be taken. ‘He is to be worshipped even as myself.’ Here, that which is to be given and taken is explained as knowledge, and not ‘matrimonial alliance’. ‘Pujyah’ is a general term and it implies that they should be regarded with respect, as laid down in the shastras.
Desika decidedly states that one should recognise ‘Bhagavata Prabhavam’ without disturbing the order of varnas and ashramas. He quotes a verse in this behalf
‘वैष्णवत्वेन मान्यत्वं समानं मुनिसंमतम् । जात्यादिध्वंसतः साम्यं मुक्तकाले भविष्यति’ ॥
“Equality and respectability in respect of being a devotee of Vishnu, are common and acceptable to sages; but, equality on account of destruction of the caste and others, does happen at the time of liberation.”
Desika declares that though the regulations of the Varnashrama Dharma, and the order of behaviour, are binding upon all, there is no contradiction in showing respect and regard to all people who are ‘Bhagavathas’. Those people, who have such kind of single devotion towards the Lord, and who have surrendered unto Him, should be treated with respect. The greatness of a person, who has surrendered unto the Lord, is described as follows:
नारायणैकनिष्ठस्य या या वृत्तिः तदर्चनम् । यो यो जल्पः स स जपः तद्ध्यान यनिरीक्षणम् । तत्पादांबु अतुलं तीर्थ तदुच्छिष्टं सुपावनम् । तदुक्तिमा मन्त्र्याग्यं तत्स्पृष्टमखिलं शुचि॥
266
Essence of Srimad Rahasyattaya Saram
“The actions of a person, who is steadfast in Narayana, is the worship of the Lord. Whatever he utters, is the sacred ‘japa’; whatever he witnesses is ‘meditation’. The water, washing his feet, is sacred ’thirtha’; his leftovers are purificatory: the words, he utters are the foremost of ‘mantras’; whatever he touches, becomes pure.”
In these verses, there is a general and sweeping application, which are to be restricted. The ‘yritti’ of person devoted to the Lord, does not signify behaviour opposed to the shastras. Only such behaviour, which is not opposed to the shastras, should be taken as worship of the Lord. ‘Yo-Yo Jalpah’ relates to the tattva, hita and Purushartha and not uncontrolled talk, harsh words and other such repugnant ones. The ’nirikshana’ does not refer to the witnessing of some prohibited objects; but, it signifies objects that are used for the worship of the Lord, and implies that they all appear as ‘Brahmatmaka’. ‘Pada-thirtha’ is only to point out that the waters offered as worship to the feet of a ‘Bhagavatha’, that becomes celebrated. This does not mean any water that is casually touched by a ‘Bhagavata’. The ‘uchhista’ or left-over has got a significant purpose. It may be food that may be remaining in the vessels used for cooking, and not the left over on the leaves (or ‘Bhojana-patra’). Only the ‘uchhista’ of the Acharyas, is here intended. For some expiations, the ‘Bhojana-patra-uchhista’ is prescribed.
“Thadukti-matram’ signifies the statement of a great devotee, regarding the tattva, hita and purusharra, even in the local language, is to be received, reflected and practised; but, this does not refer to the worldly talk of no significance,
Tar-sprstam-akhilam-shuchi’ signifies the touch that is prescribed at the time of ‘mantropadesha’ or
Prabhava Vyavasthadhikara
267
‘vigrahapratishta’ or couch prescribed for healing the disease, or touch that is prescribed according to the shastras; but,. this does not signify the purification of things that are clearly prohibited.
Desika points out that if it is not regulated thus, it will be opposed to all shastras, and the practice of virtuous people, and it will lead one to great sin.
If this kind of regulation is not ordained, there will be contradiction to a number of shastras held valid by virtuous people, and also, it will be against the practice of the shastras. This kind of ‘shastreeya-niyamana’ or regulation of the shastras, is not violated even by the great masters like Sri Nathamuni, Sri Yamunamuni and Bhagavan Ramanuja. The regulations that are prescribed by the vaidika smritis and the vedas, are not to be abandoned, because, it will be ’thamasa tyaga’ as pointed out by the Gita. So, all Prapannas, and other well-meaning people, should cngage themselves in these various duties with the reflection that they are devout servants to the Lord. These duties should be followed with the three kinds of ’tyaga’ viz. Kartrutva, Sambandha and Phala. So, these duties are to be performed with the reflection that these are meant for only pleasing the Lord. One should not have the idea that moksha is the ‘phala’ of the performance of these duties; because, that is already realised by the grace of the Lord, when he entrusted earlier the responsibility of his protection to the Lord.
Desika describes here that the term ‘parityajya’ in the charma-shloka, does not prescribe the abandonment of all duties (dharmas); but, it is only an indication that one should not involve oneself in means that are not possible of performing by him. The statement - tyaja dharmam
268
Essence of Srimad Rahasyattaya Saram
2
va
adharmam ca - means that one should give up the ‘kamya karma’ and the prohibited deeds. the terms ‘sathya’ and ‘anrita’ in the statement “tyaja-satyanrite significs that one should not aspire for ‘atmanubhava’ and 4,9 9 RHCL त्यज’ signifies that one should reflect that the कर्तृत्व in tyaga, is also dependent upon the Paramatman. By all these, it is established that there is no reason at all for the transgression of the divine command.
Some are under the illusion that even the commitment of intentional sins, does not taint a Prapanna. This is quite improper. The sins committed intentionally, never go without tainting that person. So, to say that intentional sins do not stick to him, is quite inappropriate.
Some have interpreted the statement – sarva papebhyomokshaishyami – as releasing one from all sins, including intentional sins committed after ‘Prapatti’.
This evidently shows that the intentional sins done after the Prapatti do cling to that doer. Even the Alwars have mentioned that one should desist from unbecoming deeds and sins. “We shall not do what ought not to be done, and we will not utter harsh and cruel words” - says Andal. “Whatever fault I committed in speech, may be excused and considered as a virtue” - says the Alwar. The gist of all this is, that there is a possibility of committing sins even after Prapatti, and that those sins taint the doer. That is why, a prayer has ensued to forgive them.
When such intentional sins occur, it is ordained that one should particularly pray to the Lord for forgiving those sins. The expiation of such sins is to perform a Prapatti for excusing these sins :
Prabhava Vyavasthadhikara
269
प्रायश्चित्तिरियं सात्र यत्पुनः शरणं व्रजेत् ।
पुनः प्रपद्यते नाथं अभिन्दन् लोकसंग्रहम् ।
From all these, it becomes established that there is a possibility of committing intentional sins, even after Prapatti. When such sins happen, one should repent and run to the Lord with a prayer to forgive those sins by performing a ‘prayaschitha-prapatti’. It is ordained that non-intentional sins only, do not taint him.
The statement of Nammalwar ‘my devotees do not do that (sin), and if they do, they have done well’ - also proves that sins do taint one even after Prapatti. The statement “they have done well”, means, we by ourselves will forgive those sins if they are non-intentional. If they have done it intentionally, and if they do not seek forgiveness, we will clear those sins by inflicting punishments on them. We will not give them up at any cost.”
It cannot be said that the Lord will not think of punishing one, who has indulged in intentional sins.
It cannot be said that, “he will not be deprived of his object of attainment, even in case of not praying for forgiveness. There may be only absence of his affection.”
This kind of argument is unsound. There is no greater loss, when one is deprived of the affection of the Lord. So, one will do well to observe some kind of expiation or other, of the form of praying excuse for one’s faults, and performing surrender at the feet of the Lord. Even from the itihasas and puranams, this fact of praying excuse for the faults committed by one, is evident.
Desika concludes from all the above discussions that -
270
Essence of Srimad Rahasyarraya Saram
a
Even for a Prapanna, there is possibility of intentional sins happening after Prapatti, on
account of ‘prarabdha-karma’. 2. In such case, one should repent and pray for
forgiveness. So long as a Prapanna is living in his body here, he has to follow the discipline prescribed for his varna and ashrama.
The Lord will necessarily take the Prapanna to His abode, purifying him after punishments, in case he does not pray for forgiveness. The glory of a Prapanna should not be overestimated but should be explained according to the dictates of the shastras, and the practice of ancient masters.