२९ चरमश्लोकाधिकारः

॥ श्रीः ॥
॥ श्रीमते निगमान्तमहादेशिकाय नमः ॥
॥ श्रीमद्रहस्यत्रयसारे चरमश्लोकाधिकारः ॥

THE CHAPTER ON THE CARAMA ŚLOKA. page524

EL CAPÍTULO SOBRE LA CARAMA ŚLOKA. página524

॥ श्रीः ॥
॥ श्रीमते निगमान्तमहादेशिकाय नमः ॥
॥ श्रीमद्रहस्यत्रयसारे चरमश्लोकाधिकारः ॥

॥ श्रीः ॥
चरमश्लोकाधिकार व्याख्या ॥

य उपनिषदाम् … अन्ते, यस्माद् अनन्त-दयाम्बुधेः
त्रुटित-जनता–शोकश् श्लोकस् स्वयं समजायत ।
तम् इह विधिना कृष्णं धर्मं प्रपद्य सनातनं
शमित-दुरिताश् शङ्कातङ्क–त्यजस् सुखम् आस्महे ॥ ६६ ॥

य उपनिषदाम् … अन्ते, यस्माद् अनन्त-दयाम्बुधेः
त्रुटित-जनता–शोकश् श्लोकस् स्वयं समजायत ।
तम् इह विधिना कृष्णं धर्मं प्रपद्य सनातनं
शमित-दुरिताश् शङ्कातङ्क–त्यजस् सुखम् आस्महे ॥ ६६ ॥

(1) Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who stands close to the Upaniṣads
and from whom, as from the boundless ocean of mercy, came of its own accord, the śloka (Carama śloka)
which puts an end to the sorrows of all men, -
by seeking Him as our refuge
in accordance with the injunction (contained in that śloka) or by good luck (vidhinā),
and as the eternal dharma (Siddhopāya),
we feel
happy with our sins extinguished
and free from (all) doubts and fears.

(1) Śrī Kṛṣṇa, que está cerca de los Upaniṣads
y de quien, como del océano ilimitado de la misericordia, vino por sí solo, el śloka (Carama śloka)
que pone fin a los dolores de todos los hombres, -
buscándolo como nuestro refugio
de acuerdo con el mandato (contenido en ese śloka) o por buena suerte (vidhinā),
y como el dharma eterno (Siddhopāya),
nos sentimos
felices con nuestros pecados extinguidos
y libre de (todas) dudas y miedos.

य उपनिषदामन्ते यस्मादनन्तदयांबुधेः
त्रुटितजनताशोकश्श्लोकस्स्वयं समजायत ।
तमिह विधिना कृष्णं धर्मं प्रपद्य सनातनं
शमितदुरिताश्शंकातङ्कत्यजस्सुखमास्महे ॥ ६६ ॥

इप्पडि शरणागत्यनुष्ठापकमाऩ द्वयत्तिऱ्कु व्याख्यानम् पण्णि, शरणागतिविधायकमाऩ चरमश्लोकत्तिऱ्कु व्याख्यानम् पण्णप्पोगिऱवराय् अधिकारारम्भश्लोकत्ताले चरमश्लोकत् तिऱ्सॊऩ्ऩबडि वेदान्तवेद्यऩाय्, परमदयैयाले कृष्णऩागववदरित्तु रहस्यतमार्थमाऩ चरमश्लोकत्तिऱ्कु उपदेष्टावुमाऩ भगवाऩै शरणमागवडैन्दु ऒरुविध शङ्गैयु मिऩ्ऱिक्के सुखमाग इरुक्किऱोमॆऩ्गिऱार् य उपनिषदामिति । यः - यावऩॊरुवऩ्, उपनिषदां – वेदान्तङ्गळुडैय, अन्ते – मध्यत्तिले, वर्तते – प्रतिपाद्यतया इरुक्किऱाऩो; ‘‘सायङ्काले वनान्ते’’ इत्यादाविव इङ्गु अन्तशब्दम् मध्यवाचि । इदऩाल् सर्वोपनिषत्तुक्कळिलुम् उपक्रमोपसंहारानुगुणमाऩ महावाक्यप्रतिपाद्यत्वम् सॊल्लप्पट्टदु। अथवा - इङ्गु अन्तशब्दम् समीपवाचि । इङ्गु सर्वोपनिषत्तुक्कळुक्कुम् समीपवर्तियॆऩ्ऱदाल् सर्वोपनिषत्तुक्कळालुम् ऐककण्ठ्येन प्रतिपाद्यत्वम् सूचितमागिऱदु। यस्मादनन्तदयाम्बुधेः – अपरिमितदयासमुद्रऩाय्, कृष्णऩाग अवदरित्तु पार्थऩुक्कु सारथियाय् निऩ्ऱ ऎवऩिडत्तिऩिऩ्ऱुम्, त्रुटितजनताशोकः – जनसमुदायङ्गळुडैय शोकत्तै स्वार्थानुष्ठानमात्रत्ताले पोक्कुवदाऩ, श्लोकः - चरम-श्लोकमाऩदु, स्वयं समजायत इति । व्याधऩाले अडिक्कप्पट्ट क्रौञ्चदर्शनत्तालेयुण्डाऩ शोकम् ‘‘मा निषाद’’ ऎऩ्गिऱ श्लोकमाग स्वयमेव परिणमित्ताप्पोले अर्जनऩुडैय दुष्करभक्तियोगादिश्रवणजनितशोकत्ताले पिऱन्द दयैये चरमश्लोकमाग स्वयमेव परिणमित्तदॆऩ्गै। तं – तादृशप्रभावशालियाऩ, सनातनं धर्मं – ‘‘ये च वेदविदो विप्रा ये चाध्यात्मविदो जनाः । ते वदन्ति महात्मानं कृष्णं धर्मं सनातनम्’’ इत्यादिगळिल् सनातनधर्ममागच् चॊल्लप्पट्ट, कृष्णं – कृष्णऩै, विधिना – चरमश्लोकोक्तविधियिऩाले प्रेरितऩाय्क्कॊण्डु, प्रपद्य – शरणमाग वरित्तु, शमितदुरिताः -अदिऱ्सॊऩ्ऩबडि सर्वपापङ्गळालेयुम् विमुक्तराय्, शङ्कातङ्कत्यजः - पलविद शङ्गैगळागिऱ (आतङ्कत्तै) व्याधियै विट्टवर्गळाय्, सुखमास्महे - इन्द लोगत्तिलेये सुखमाग वर्तिक्किऱोम्। इदिल् तृतीयपादत्ताले चरमश्लोकपूर्वार्धोक्तार्थस्सूचितः । शमितदुरिताः ऎऩ्बदाल् ‘‘सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि’’ ऎऩ्बदिऩ् अर्त्तम् सूचितम्। शङ्कातङ्कत्यजस्सुखमास्महे ऎऩ्बदाल् ‘‘मा शुचः’’ ऎऩ्बदिऩर्त्तम् सूचितम्।

दुर्-विज्ञानैर् नियम-गहनैर् दूर-विश्रान्ति-देशैर्
बालानर्हैर् बहुभिर् +++(कर्म-ज्ञान-भक्ति-)+++अयनैश् शोचतां नस् सु-पन्थाः ।
निष्प्रत्यूहं निज-पदम् असौ नेतु-कामस् स्व-भूम्ना
सत्-पाथेयं किम् अपि विदधे सारथिस् सर्व-नेता ॥ ६७ ॥

दुर्-विज्ञानैर् नियम-गहनैर् दूर-विश्रान्ति-देशैर्
बालानर्हैर् बहुभिर् +++(कर्म-ज्ञान-भक्ति-)+++अयनैश् शोचतां नस् सु-पन्थाः ।
निष्प्रत्यूहं निज-पदम् असौ नेतु-कामस् स्व-भूम्ना
सत्-पाथेयं किम् अपि विदधे सारथिस् सर्व-नेता ॥ ६७ ॥

(2) Many are the paths prescribed (in the śrutis) (Karma yoga, Jñāna yoga and Bhakti yoga),
they are hard to understand and impossible of adoption
owing to the restrictions and observances enjoined for them;
the fruit to be attained by pursuing them
is at too great a distance
and (above all) they are unsuitable for simple folk (destitute of intelligence and ability)

To us who feel anxious on these accounts,
(He who is) the easy highway, the charioteer and the guide of all men,
has, by His grace, enjoined certain victuals (the carama śloka) for the journey
in order to lead us to His own feet without any hindrances.

(2) Muchos son los caminos prescritos (en los śrutis) (Karma yoga, Jñāna yoga y Bhakti yoga),
son difíciles de comprender e imposibles de adoptar
por las restricciones y observancias que se les imponen;
el fruto que se obtendrá persiguiéndolos
está a una distancia demasiado grande
y (sobre todo) son inadecuados para gente sencilla (desprovista de inteligencia y habilidad)

A nosotros que nos sentimos ansiosos por estas cuentas,
(El que es) el camino fácil, el auriga y el guía de todos los hombres,
ha, por Su gracia, ordenado ciertos víveres (el carama śloka) para el viaje.
para guiarnos a Sus propios pies sin ningún obstáculo.

दुर्विज्ञानैर्नियमगहनैर्दूरविश्रान्तिदेशैः
बालानर्हैर्बहुभिरयनैश्शोचतान्नस्सुपन्थाः ।
निष्प्रत्यूहं निजपदमसौ नेतुकामस्स्वभूम्ना
सत्पाथेयं किमपि विदधे सारथिस्सर्वनेता ॥ ६७ ॥

मेले अर्जनऩुडैय शोकापनोदनार्थमात्रमऩ्ऱिक्के मिगवुम् कष्टप्पट्टुम् अऱियक् कूडाददुगळायुम्, अऱिन्दालुम् अनुष्ठिक्कमुडियाददुगळायुम्, अनुष्ठिक्कप्पुक्कालुम् चिरकालसाध्यफलङ्गळायुमुळ्ळ कर्मयोगज्ञानयोगभक्तियोगरूपमार्गङ्गळैप् पार्त्तु शोकाविष्टर्गळाय् अकिञ्चनर्गळाऩ नमक्कागवुमऩ्ऱो ताऩे सत्पथऩाय् अदावदु निरपेक्षोपायऩाय् सत्पाथेयमाऩ शरणागतियै विधित्तरुळिऩार् ऎऩ्ऱु अवऩुडैय गुणङ्गळिले ईडुबडुगिऱार् दुर्विज्ञानैरित्यादिना । दुर्विज्ञानैः - कष्टप्पट्टुम् अऱियमुडियाददुगळाय्, नियमगहनैः – नियमङ्गळाले अशक्यानुष्ठेयङ्गळाय्, दूरविश्रान्तिदेशैः - दूरमाऩ अदावदु चिरकालभावियाऩ फलदशैयैयुडैयवैगळाय्, अत एव बालानर्हैः – अकिञ्चनर्गळुक्कु चिन्तिक्कवुम् अनर्हङ्गळाय्, बहुभिः – नानाप्रकारङ्गळाऩ, अयनैः – कर्मयोगज्ञानयोगभक्तियोग-रूपोपायङ्गळाले, अदावदु उपायदर्शनचिन्तनङ्गळाले, शोचतां – सर्वदा शोकित्तुक् कॊण्डिरुक्किऱ, नः - नमक्कु, सुपन्थाः - सुलभोपायऩाय्, अदावदु तत्तदुपायङ्गळाले यपेक्षैयऱ तत्तदुपायस्थानत्तिल् ताऩे निऱ्किऱवऩाय्क्कॊण्डु, नः - नम्मै, निष्प्रत्यूहं - ऒरुविद विघ्नमुमिऩ्ऱिक्के, स्वभूम्ना - तऩ्ऩुडैय माहात्मियत्ताले, निजपदं - तमक्कु असाधारणमाऩ परमपदत्तै, नेतुकामः - नयिप्पिक्कवेण्डुमॆऩ्गिऱ आसैयैयुडैय, सर्वनेता – सर्वनियन्तावायिरुन्दु वैत्ते, सारथिः - आश्रितवात्सल्यत्ताले मायप्पोर्त्तेर्प्पागऩाग निऩ्ऱ, असौ - इन्द पार्थसारथियाऩवऩ्, किमपि – अनिर्वचनीयमाऩ, अदावदु ‘‘सत्कर्मनिरताश्शुद्धास्साङ्ख्ययोगविदस्तथा । नार्हन्ति शरणस्थस्य कलां कोटितमीमपि’’ ऎऩ्ऱु कॊण्डाडप्पट्ट, सत्पाथेयं – पथि साधु –पाथेयं, अदावदु अर्चिरादिगमनयोग्यमाऩ शरणागतियै, इङ्गु सच्छब्दत्ताले सर्वाधिकारि साधारणत्वमुम्, सर्वानिष्टनिवर्तनक्षमत्वमुम्, सर्वेष्टसाधनत्वमुम्, सुकरत्वमुम्, सकृत्कर्तव्यत्वमुम्, शीघ्रफलप्रदत्वमुम्, प्रतिबन्धानर्हत्वमुम्, उपायान्तरप्रयोगासहत्वादिगळुम् विवक्षितङ्गळ्। विदधे – ‘‘मामेकं शरणं व्रज’’ ऎऩ्ऱु विधित्ताऩ्।

ऒण्+++(=भा)+++-+तॊडियाळ्+++(=कङ्कणा)+++ तिरु-मगळुन् तानुम् आगिय् ऒरु निनैवाल्
ईऩ्ऱव्+++(=सृष्ट)+++ उयिर् ऎल्लाम् उय्य+++(=उज्जीवनाय)+++
वण्+++(=उदार)+++-+तुवरै+++(=द्वारका)+++-नगर्-वाऴ वसुदेवऱ्‌क् आय्, मन्नवर्क्कुत्+++(=राजभ्यः)+++ तेर्प्+++(=रथ)+++-पाकन् आगि
निऩ्ऱ, तण्+++(=शीतल)+++-+तुळव+++(=तुलसी)+++-मलर्-मार्बन् +ताने सॊन्न तनिद्-धरुमन्+++(→सिद्धोपायः)+++ दान् ऎमक्क् आय्त्, तन्नैय्
ऎऩ्ऱुङ्+++(=सदा)+++ कण्डु, कळित्त्+++(=नन्दित्वा)+++ अडि +++(शिरसि)+++ चूट, विलक्क्+++(=विलक्षणम्→प्रतिकूलम्)+++ आय्
निऩ्ऱ कण्-पुदैयल्-विळैयाट्टैक् कऴिक्किऩ्ऱाने. ॥ 41 ॥

संभूय विलक्षण-हस्त-वलयया श्रीदेव्या स्वयम् एक-संकल्पेन सृष्टाः -
सर्वे चेतनाः यथोज्जीवेयुस् तथा,
विलक्षण-द्वारकानगरी-क्षेमानुगुणं वसुदेव-पुत्र-भूतो
राज्ञां रथे सारथीभूय स्थितः
शीतल-तुलसी पुष्प-वक्षाः,
स्वयम् एवास्माकं स्वेनैवोक्ताद्वितीय-धर्मो भवन्,
स्वं सदा दृष्ट्वा हृष्ट्वा चरणयोर् उत्तंसनस्य प्रतिबन्धकी भूतां चक्षुः-पिधान-लीलां निवर्तयति ॥

In order to afford salvation to all the beings created with one mind by Himself and Lakṣmī of shining bracelets,
He became the son of Vāsudeva
so that the beautiful city of Dwaraka might prosper.
He was then pleased to be the charioteer of the princes (the Pandavas)
and He has become for us the unique dharma (Siddhopāya )
which He, with Tulasi flowers adorning His chest, has Himself declared to us
and puts a stop to the game of blind-man’s buff
which stood in the way of our seeing, enjoying and bearing His feet (in Vaikuṇṭha) on our head.

Para brindar salvación a todos los seres creados con una sola mente por Él mismo y Lakṣmī de brazaletes brillantes,
Él se convirtió en el hijo de Vāsudeva.
para que la hermosa ciudad de Dwaraka pueda prosperar.

Él estaba entonces complacido de ser el auriga de los príncipes (los Pandavas)
y Él se ha convertido para nosotros en el dharma único (Siddhopāya)
que Él, con flores de Tulasi adornando Su pecho, Él mismo nos ha declarado
y pone fin al juego de la gallina ciega
que se interponía en el camino para que ver, disfrutar y llevar Sus pies (en Vaikuṇṭha) sobre nuestra cabeza.

ऒण्डॊडियाळ् तिरुमगळुन्दानुमागि यॊरुनिनैवा
लीऩ्ऱ वुयिरॆल्लामुय्य
वण्डुवरै नगर् वाऴ वसुदेवऱ्‌काय् मन्न वर्क्कुत्तेर्प्पागनागि
निऩ्ऱ तण्डुळवमलर्मार्बन् ऱाने सॊन्नतनित्तरुम न्दानॆमक्काय्त् तन्नै
यॆऩ्ऱुङ् गण्डु कळित्तडि सूड विलक्काय्
निऩ्ऱ कण्बुदैयल् विळैयाट्टैक् कऴिक्किऩ्ऱाने. ॥ 41 ॥

INTRODUCTION TO CARAMA ŚLOKA

INTRODUCCIÓN A CARAMA ŚLOKA

‘‘एष नारायणश् श्रीमान्
क्षीरार्णव-निकेतनः ।
नाग-पर्यङ्कम् उत्सृज्य
ह्य् आगतो मधुरां पुरीम्॥’’
(हरिवंशः ११३-६२)

ऎऩ्गिऱबडिये

‘‘एष नारायणश् श्रीमान्
क्षीरार्णव-निकेतनः ।
नाग-पर्यङ्कम् उत्सृज्य
ह्य् आगतो मधुरां पुरीम्॥’’
(हरिवंशः ११३-६२)

इत्य्-उक्त-रीत्या

This Nārāyaṇa, the Lord of Śrī, who abides (for ever) in the ocean of milk
has left His serpent-bed
and arrived at the city of Madhura."

As stated in this śloka,

Este Nārāyaṇa, el Señor de Śrī, que habita (para siempre) en el océano de leche
ha abandonado Su lecho de serpientes
y llegó a la ciudad de Madhura."

Como se dice en este śloka,

‘‘एष नारायणश्श्रीमान् क्षीरार्णवनिकेतनः । नागपर्यङ्कमुत्सृज्य ह्यागतो मधुरां पुरीम्’’(हरिवंशः ११३-६२) ऎऩ्गिऱबडिये

श्रियःपतिय् आऩ सर्वेश्वरऩ्
साधु-परित्राण– दुष्-कृद्-विनाश– धर्म-संस्थापनङ्गळुक्क् आग

[[३५०]]

श्रियःपत्यौ सर्वेश्वरे साधु-परित्राण– दुष्-कृद्-विनाश– धर्म-संस्थापनार्थं

the Supreme Ruler, the Lord of Śrī,
in order to protect the good,
to destroy the wicked
and to establish dharma on a firm footing;

el Gobernante Supremo, el Señor de Śrī,
para proteger el bien,
para destruir a los malvados
y establecer el dharma sobre una base firme;

श्रियःपतियाऩ सर्वेश्वरऩ् साधुपरित्राण दुष्कृद्विनाश धर्मसंस्थापनङ्गळुक्काग

वण्+++(=सु)+++-डुवरा+++(=द्वारका)+++-पदि+++(=क्षेत्र)+++-मऩ्ऩऩ्+++(=राट्)+++ आय्
वन्द् अवदरित्त् अरुळि
सर्व-सुलभऩ् आय्,

विलक्षण-द्वारका-क्षेत्राधीशो भूत्वा
एत्यावतीर्य
(द्वारकाक्षेत्राधीशत्व–प्राप्त्य्-अर्हम् अवतीर्य)
सर्व-सुलभी भूते,

incarnated in the beautiful city of Dwaraka,
became easily accessible to everyone,

encarnado en la hermosa ciudad de Dwaraka,
se volvió fácilmente accesible para todos,

वण्डुवराबदिमऩ्ऩऩाय् वन्दवदरित्तरुळि सर्वसुलभऩाय्,

‘‘द्रौपद्या सहितास् सर्वे
नमश् चक्रुर् जनार्दनम्॥’’
(भारतम् आरण्य-पर्व १९२-५६)

ऎऩ्गिऱ बडिये

‘‘द्रौपद्या सहितास् सर्वे
नमश् चक्रुर् जनार्दनम्॥’’
(भारतम् आरण्य-पर्व १९२-५६)

इत्य्-उक्त-रीत्या

as stated in the passage :

“On being thus advised,
the sons of Pritha and the twins made namaskarams to Janārdana, O best of men, along with Draupadi.”

como indicado en el pasaje:

“Al ser así aconsejado,
los hijos de Pritha y los gemelos hicieron namaskarams a Janārdana, oh el mejor de los hombres, junto con Draupadi.”

‘‘द्रौपद्या सहितास्सर्वे नमश्चक्रुर्जनार्दनम्’’(भारतम् आरण्य-पर्व १९२-५६) ऎऩ्गिऱबडिये

शरणागतर् आऩ पाण्डवर्गळुक्कु
“इऩ्ऩार्+++(=ईदृशानां)+++ दूतऩ्” ऎऩ निऩ्ऱु

शरणागतानां पाण्डवानां कृते,
‘एषां दूतः’ इत्य् अवस्थाय

and assumed the role of a messenger to the Pandavas
who had sought His protection,

y asumió el papel de mensajero para los Pandavas
quien había buscado Su protección,

शरणागतराऩ पाण्डवर्गळुक्कु इऩ्ऩार्दूदऩॆऩ निऩ्ऱु

अर्जुनऩै रथिय् आक्कित्
ताऩ् सारथिय् आय्
अवऩुक्कु विधेयऩाय् निऩ्ऱव् अळविले

He made Arjuna the warrior in the chariot
and acted as his charioteer to do his bidding.

Él hizo a Arjuna el guerrero en el carro
y actuó como su auriga para cumplir sus órdenes.

अर्जुनऩै रथियाक्कित् ताऩ् सारथियाय् अवऩुक्कु विधेयऩाय् निऩ्ऱवळविले

इव्व् अर्जुनऩ्
तऩ्ऩै निमित्त-मात्रम् आगक् कॊण्डु
सर्वेश्वरऩ् तऩ् प्रतिपक्षङ्गळै निरसिक्क निऩ्ऱ निलैयैक् कण्डु

This Arjuna realised that the Lord of all
had determined to slay his enemies
using him as a (mere) instrument,

Este Arjuna se dio cuenta de que el Señor de todo
había decidido matar a sus enemigos
usándolo como un (mero) instrumento,

इव्वर्जुनऩ् तऩ्ऩै निमित्तमात्रमागक्कॊण्डु सर्वेश्वरऩ् तऩ् प्रतिपक्षङ्गळै निरसिक्क निऩ्ऱ निलैयैक् कण्डु

बन्धु-विनाशम् सिद्धम् ऎऩ्ऱु निश्चयित्तु

and that the destruction of his kinsmen was certain.

y que la destrucción de sus parientes era segura.

बन्धुविनाशम् सिद्धमॆऩ्ऱु निश्चयित्तु

अस्थान-स्नेहत्ताले पिऱन्द शोकत्तालुम्
अस्थान-कृपैयालुम्
आचार्यादिगळ् युद्धोन्मुखरेय् आगिलुम्
अवर्गळ् वधत्ताले पापम् वरुगिऱद् ऎऩ्गिऱ भयत्तालुङ् कलङ्गि

He became troubled in mind
by inopportune affection and inopportune compassion
and by the fear that the slaying of his ācharyas and others,
though they appeared (against him) in war-like trim, was a sin.

Él se volvió preocupado en mente
por afecto inoportuno y compasión inoportuna
y por el temor de que el asesinato de sus ācharyas y otros,
aunque aparecieron (contra él) con atuendos bélicos, era un pecado.

अस्थानस्नेहत्ताले पिऱन्द शोकत्तालुम् अस्थानकृपैयालुम् आचार्यादिगळ् युद्धोन्मुखरेयागिलुम् अवर्गळ् वधत्ताले पापम् वरुगिऱदॆऩ्गिऱ भयत्तालुङ् गलङ्गि

ऎदु हितम् ऎऩ्ऱु तॆळिय वेणुम्

ऎऩ्ऱु पार्त्तु

So he wanted to know
what was the proper thing for him to do

Entonces él quería saber
¿Qué era lo correcto para él hacer?

ऎदु हितमॆऩ्ऱु तॆळियवेणुमॆऩ्ऱु पार्त्तु

‘‘यच्छ्रेयः स्यान् निश्चितं ब्रूहि तन् मे
शिष्यस् तेऽहं शाधि मां त्वां प्रपन्नम्’’
(गीता २-७)

ऎऩ्ऱु विण्णप्पञ् जॆय्य

‘‘यच्छ्रेयः स्यान् निश्चितं ब्रूहि तन् मे
शिष्यस् तेऽहं शाधि मां त्वां प्रपन्नम्’’
(गीता २-७)

and begged (Śrī Kṛṣṇa) saying,

“Be pleased to tell me
what, you feel sure, is to my lasting benefit.
I am your disciple
and have sought your protection.
Therefore advise me as to what I should do”.

y rogó (Śrī Kṛṣṇa) diciendo,

“Tenga el placer de decirmelo
Lo que, estás seguro, es para mi beneficio duradero.
Yo soy tu discípulo
y he buscado tu protección.
Por lo tanto aconsejame lo que debo hacer”.

‘‘यच्छ्रेयः स्यान्निश्चितं ब्रूहि तन्मे शिष्यस्तेऽहं शाधि मां त्वां प्रपन्नम्’’(गीता २-७) ऎऩ्ऱु विण्णप्पञ्जॆय्य

अवऩ्-उडैय शोकत्तै निवर्तिप् पिक्कैक्क् आग

In order to dispel his grief,

Para disipar su dolor,

अवऩुडैय शोकत्तै निवर्तिप् पिक्कैक्काग

देहादि-व्यतिरिक्तम् आय्
पर-शेषतैक-रसम् आऩ नित्यात्म-स्वरूपत्तैयुम्,

the eternal and essential nature of the soul or self (ātman)
which is different from the body and the like (the senses etc.)

la naturaleza eterna y esencial del alma o del yo (ātman)
que es diferente del cuerpo y cosas similares (los sentidos, etc.)

देहादिव्यतिरिक्तमाय् परशेषतैकरसमाऩ नित्यात्मस्वरूपत्तैयुम्,

इस्-स्वरूपन् तॆळिन्द्-अवऩुक्कु
परम-पुरुषार्थ-लाभत्तुक्कु परं-परया कारणङ्गळ् आऩ
कर्म-योग–ज्ञान-योगङ्गळैयुम्,

and likewise karma yoga and jnāna yoga,
which are, to the man who understands this essential nature,
the mediate means for attaining the supreme goal

and likewise karma yoga and jnāna yoga,
which are, to the man who understands this essential nature,
the mediate means for attaining the supreme goal

इस्स्वरूपन् तॆळिन्दवऩुक्कु परमपुरुषार्थलाभत्तुक्कु परंपरया कारणङ्गळाऩ कर्मयोगज्ञानयोगङ्गळैयुम्,

साक्षाद्-उपायम् आग चोदितम् आऩ भक्ति-योगत्तैयुम् स-परिकरम् आग उपदेशिक्क,

and also bhakti yoga
which has been enjoined as the primary and direct means of attaining it,
as also all its accessories

(these) the Lord explained to him .

y también bhakti yoga
que ha sido ordenado como el medio primario y directo para alcanzarlo,
como también todos sus accesorios

(estos) el Señor le explicó.

साक्षादुपायमाग चोदितमाऩ भक्तियोगत्तैयुम् सपरिकरमाग उपदेशिक्क,

इप् परम-पुरषार्थत्तैक् कडुगप् पॆऱ वेणुम् ऎऩ्गिऱ त्वरैय् उण्डेय् आगिलुम्

Though Arjuna was eager to attain this supreme end quickly,

Aunque Arjuna estaba deseoso de alcanzar este fin supremo rápidamente,

इप् परमपुरषार्थत्तैक् कडुगप् पॆऱवेणुमॆऩ्गिऱत्वरैयुण्डेयागिलुम्

स-परिकरम् आऩव् इव्व् उपायत्तिऩ्-उडैय दुष्करतैयिऩालुम्

he thought it too hard to perform it (bhakti -yoga) with all its accessories

él pensó que era demasiado difícil realizarlo (bhakti-yoga) con todos sus accesorios

सपरिकरमाऩविव् उपायत्तिऩुडैय दुष्करतैयिऩालुम्

इव् उपायानुष्ठानत्तुक्क् अपेक्षित-ज्ञान-शक्तिगळ् उण्डेय् आगिलुम्

and though he had the knowledge and the ability needed for its adoption,

y aunque tenía el conocimiento y la habilidad necesaria para su adopción,

इव् उपायानुष्ठानत्तुक्कपेक्षितज्ञानशक्तिगळ् उण्डेयागिलुम्

अनेकावधानत्तोडे कूड
चिर-काल-साध्यम् आऩ उपाय–स्व-भावतालेय्
अभिमतम् कडुगत् तलैक्-कट्टाद पडिय् इरुक्कैयालुम्

he realised that the nature of this upāya was such that it would secure the end in view
only after a very long period of adoption
and after unceasing attention
and that the end in view could not be attained quickly,

él se dio cuenta de que la naturaleza de este upāya
era tal que aseguraría el fin en visión
sólo después de un período muy largo de adopción
y después de incesantes atenciones
y que el fin perseguido no podría alcanzarse rápidamente,

अनेकावधानत्तोडे कूड चिरकालसाध्यमाऩ उपायस्वभावतालेयभिमतम् कडुगत् तलैक्कट्टाद पडियिरुक्कैयालुम्

निरतिशय-शोकाविष्टऩ् आऩ अर्जुनऩै व्याजम् आगक् कॊण्डु
परम-कारुणिकऩ् आऩ गीतोपनिषद्-आचार्यऩ्

So Arjuna became overwhelmed with despair.
Under the guise of teaching Arjuna,
the ācārya of the Gitopanishad,
out of His infinite compassion,

Entonces Arjuna quedó abrumado por la desesperación.
Con el pretexto de enseñar a Arjuna,
el ācārya del Gitopanishad,
por su infinita compasión,

निरतिशयशोकाविष्टऩाऩ अर्जुनऩै व्याजमागक् कॊण्डु परमकारुणिकऩाऩ गीतोपनिषदाचार्यऩ्

‘‘भक्त्या परमया वापि
प्रपत्त्या वा महामते ।
प्राप्योऽहं नान्यथा प्राप्यो
मम कैङ्कर्य-लिप्सुभिः॥’’
()

‘‘भक्त्या परमया वापि
प्रपत्त्या वा महामते ।
प्राप्योऽहं नान्यथा प्राप्यो
मम कैङ्कर्य-लिप्सुभिः॥’’
()

“I can be attained by those who desire to serve me
only by bhakti or by prapatti.
There is no other way of attaining me”,

“Yo puedo ser alcanzado por aquellos que desean servirme
sólo por bhakti o por prapatti.
No hay otra forma de alcanzarme”,

‘‘भक्त्या परमया वापि प्रपत्त्या वा महामते । प्राप्योऽहं नान्यथा प्राप्यो मम कैङ्कर्यलिप्सुभिः’’()

ऎऩ्ऱु ताऩ् विकल्पित्तु विधित्त उपायङ्गळिल्

Of the upāyas that be enjoined as optional in the (above) śloka

De los upāyas que se prescriben como opcionales en el śloka (arriba)

ऎऩ्ऱु ताऩ् विकल्पित्तु विधित्त उपायङ्गळिल्

‘‘तावद् आर्तिस् तथा वाञ्छा
तावन् मोहस् तथा ऽसुखम्’’
(विष्णुपुराणम् १-९-७३)

ऎऩ्गिऱबडिये

‘‘तावद् आर्तिस् तथा वाञ्छा
तावन् मोहस् तथा ऽसुखम्’’
(विष्णुपुराणम् १-९-७३)

for it has been said,

“Only so long as prapatti which extinguishes all sins is not performed,
only so long will there be suffering, etc.”

porque se ha dicho,

“Sólo mientras no se realice prapatti que extingue todos los pecados,
Sólo hasta cierto punto habrá sufrimiento, etc.”

‘‘तावदार्तिस्तथा वाञ्छा तावन्मोहस्तथाऽसुखम्’’(विष्णुपुराणम् १-९-७३) ऎऩ्गिऱबडिये

तऩ् तिरुव्-अडिगळैप् पॆऱुगैक्कुम्
मऱ्ऱुम् अभिमतम् आऩ् अवैय् ऎल्लात्तुक्कुम्
पॊदुवाऩ साधनम् आय्

(that which) is the means alike, of attaining His feet and all other things that are desired,

(aquello que) es el medio por igual para alcanzar Sus pies y todas las demás cosas que se desean,

तऩ् तिरुवडिगळैप् पॆऱुगैक्कुम् मऱ्ऱुमभिमतमाऩवैयॆल्लात्तुक्कुम् पॊदुवाऩ साधनमाय्

आनुकूल्य-संकल्पादि- व्यतिरिक्त-परिकर-निरपेक्षम् आय्
लघुतरम् आय्

which can be performed
without any accessories other than the determination to do what is agreeable to the Lord
and the avoidance of what is adverse to Him and the like;

que se puede realizar
sin más accesorios que la determinación de hacer lo que es agradable al Señor
y la evitación de lo que es adverso para Él y cosas similares;

आनुकूल्यसंकल्पादि व्यतिरिक्तपरिकरनिरपेक्षमाय् लघुतरमाय्

क्षण-मात्र-साध्यम् आऩ रहस्यतमोपायत्तै
श्रोतव्य-शेषम् इल्लाद बडि
उपदेश-पर्यवसानम् आऩ चरम-शलोकत्ताल् स-कल–लोक-रक्षार्थम् आगव् अरुळिच् चॆय्गिऱाऩ्।

(For the protection of the whole world)
(He) is graciously pleased
to explain this most secret upāya (viz. prapatti) in the carama śloka
which is the conclusion of the teaching
and which leaves nothing unsaid.
It is easier of performance
and can be done in just an instant.

(Para la protección del mundo entero)
(Él) está gentilmente complacido para explicar este upāya tan secreto (a saber, prapatti) en el carama śloka
que es la conclusión de la enseñanza
y que no deja nada sin decir.
Es más fácil de realizar.
y se puede hacer en sólo un instante.

क्षणमात्रसाध्यमाऩ रहस्यतमोपायत्तै श्रोतव्यशेषमिल्लादबडि उपदेशपर्यवसानमाऩ चरमशलोकत्ताल् सकललोकरक्षार्थमागवरुळिच्चॆय्गिऱाऩ्।

श्रुति-सिद्धम् आऩव् इव्व्-अर्थत्तै
शरण्यऩ् आऩ सर्वेश्वरऩ् ताऩे उपदेशिक्कव्

Since the Supreme Lord, who is the Saviour, has Himself taught this truth
which is well known from the śrutis,

Dado que el Señor Supremo, que es el Salvador, él mismo ha enseñado esta verdad
que es bien conocido de los śrutis,

श्रुतिसिद्धमाऩ विव्वर्थत्तै शरण्यऩाऩ सर्वेश्वरऩ् ताऩे उपदेशिक्कव्

६ ‘‘+++(प्रधान-फलित्वादि)+++ सन्त्यज्य, विधिना नित्यं
षड्-विधां शरणागतिम् ।
आचार्यानुज्ञया कुर्याच्
छास्त्रदृष्टेन वर्त्मना’’ (श्री विष्णु-तत्त्वम्)

ऎऩ्ऱु श्रीविष्णुतत्त्वादिगळिऱ् सॊऩ्ऩ
आचार्यानुज्ञैयुम् आयिऱ्ऱु।

६ ‘‘+++(प्रधान-फलित्वादि)+++ सन्त्यज्य, विधिना नित्यं
षड्-विधां शरणागतिम् ।
आचार्यानुज्ञया कुर्याच्
छास्त्रदृष्टेन वर्त्मना’’ (श्री विष्णु-तत्त्वम्)

it has also the sanction of the ācārya
(for Bhagavān is Himself the ācārya here).

The permission of the ācārya is prescribed in such treatises as Viṣṇutattva as follows -

“Giving up all object of desire
and the karmas by which they can be secured,
Śaraṇāgati with its five aṅgas (the aṅgas and the aṅgī being six ) should be performed
with the permission of the ācārya
in accordance with the rules prescribed in the śāstras
and with renunciation of the fruits of all actions.”

tiene también la sanción del ācārya
(pues Bhagavān es Él mismo el ācārya aquí).

El permiso del ācārya está prescrito en tratados como Viṣṇutattva como sigue:

“Renunciar a todo objeto de deseo
y los karmas por los cuales pueden ser asegurados,
Śaraṇāgati con sus cinco aṅgas (los aṅgas y el aṅgī son seis) deben realizarse
con el permiso del ācārya
de acuerdo con las reglas prescritas en los śāstras
y con renuncia a los frutos de todas las acciones”.

६ ‘‘सन्त्यज्य विधिना नित्यं षड्विधां शरणागतिम् । आचार्यानुज्ञया कुर्याच्छास्त्रदृष्टेन वर्त्मना’’ (श्री विष्णु-तत्त्वम्) ऎऩ्ऱु श्रीविष्णुतत्त्वादिगळिऱ्सॊऩ्ऩ आचार्यानुज्ञैयुमायिऱ्ऱु।

(सर्व-धर्मान् इत्यादि)

SARVADHARMĀN ETC.
page 526

SARVADHARMĀN ETC.
página 526

(सर्व-धर्मान् इत्यादि)

इन्द श्लोकत्तुक्कु
शङ्करादि-कुदृष्टिगळ् सॊल्लुम् पॊरुळ्गळ् ऎल्लाम्
तात्पर्य-चन्द्रिकैयिलुम्, निक्षेप-रक्षैयिलुम् परक्क दूषित्तोम्।

We have refuted, at considerable length, in Tātparyachandrikā and Nikṣepa-rakṣā,
the interpretations given of this śloka by such perverse (commentators ) as Saṅkara.

Hemos refutado, con considerable extensión, en Tātparyachandrikā y Nikṣepa-rakṣā,
las interpretaciones dadas de este śloka por (comentaristos) tan perversos como Saṅkara.

इन्द श्लोकत्तुक्कु शङ्करादिकुदृष्टिकळ् सॊल्लुम् पॊरुळ् कळॆल्लाम् तात्पर्यचन्द्रिकैयिलुम् निक्षेपरक्षैयिलुम् परक्क दूषित्तोम्।

इङ्गु सारम् आऩ अर्थङ्गळै
सत्-संप्रदाय-सिद्धम् आऩ बडिये सॊल्लुगिऱोम्।

Here we will state the best and most appropriate meanings
as established in the tradition of wise men.

Aquí indicaremos los mejores y más apropiados significados.
como establecido en la tradición de los sabios.

इङ्गु सारमाऩ अर्थङ्गळै सत्संप्रदायसिद्धमाऩबडिये सॊल्लुगिऱोम्।

इदिल् पूर्वार्धम् उपाय-विधायकम्;

The first half of this (śloka) enjoins the upāya,

La primera mitad de este (śloka) ordena el upāya,

इदिल्पूर्वार्धमुपायविधायकम्;

उत्तरार्धम् फल-निर्देशादि-मुखत्ताले विधि-शेषम्।

the second half is the śeṣa which is subordinate or supplementary to it
by way of indication of the end to be attained (by that upāya).

la segunda mitad es el śeṣa que está subordinado o suplementario a él
a modo de indicación del fin a alcanzar (por ese upāya).

उत्तरार्धम् फल निर्देशादिमुखत्ताले विधिशेषम्।

आगैयाल् इश् श्लोकम् उपाय-विधान-प्रधानम्।

Therefore the main purport of this śloka is to prescribe the upāya.

Por lo tanto, el objetivo principal de este śloka es prescribir el upāya.

आगैयाल् इश् श्लोकम् उपायविधानप्रधानम्।

धर्मम् आवदु;
शास्त्रमे कॊण्ड् अऱिय वेण्डिय् इरुक्कुम्
पुरुषार्थ-साधनम्। +++(5)+++

Dharma is a means of attaining an object
which can be understood solely from the śāstra.

Dharma es un medio para alcanzar un objeto
que puede entenderse únicamente desde el śāstra.

धर्ममावदु; शास्त्रमे कॊण्डऱियवेण्डि यिरुक्कुम् पुरुषार्थसाधनम्।

‘‘धर्मान्’’ ऎऩ्गिऱ बहु-वचनत्ताले
अभिमत-साधनम् आग
शास्त्र-चोदितङ्गळ् आऩ धर्मङ्गळ्-उडैय बाहुल्यत्तैच् चॊल्लुगिऱदु।

The use of the plural form, dharmān, indicates the manifold nature of the dharmas enjoined in the Śāstra
as the means of attaining the desired objects or ends.

El uso de la forma plural, dharmān, indica la naturaleza múltiple de los dharmas impuestos en el Śāstra.
como medio para alcanzar los objetos o fines deseados.

‘‘धर्मान्’’ ऎऩ्गिऱ बहुवचनत्ताले अभिमतसाधनमाग शास्त्रचोदितङ्गळाऩ धर्मङ्गळुडैय बाहुळ्यत्तैच्चॊल्लुगिऱदु।

सर्व-शब्दत्ताले स-परिकरम् आऩ निलैयै विवक्षिक्किऱदु।

The word sarva (all) suggests that (these dharmas) have certain accessories or aṅgas.

La palabra sarva (todos) sugiere que (estos dharmas) tienen ciertos accesorios o aṅgas.

सर्वशब्दत्ताले सपरिकरमाऩ निलैयै विवक्षिक्किऱदु।

धर्म-परिकरङ्गळैयुम् धर्मम् ऎऩ्ऱु सॊल्लक् कुऱैय् इल्लैय् इऱे।

There is certainly no impropriety in calling the accessories to dharma by the word dharma.

Ciertamente no hay ninguna impropiedad en llamar a los accesorios del dharma con la palabra dharma.

धर्मपरिकरङ्गळैयुम् धर्ममॆऩ्ऱुसॊल्लक्कुऱैयिल्लैयिऱे।

इस् “सर्व”-शब्दत्तै
“एक”-शब्द-प्रतिसम्बन्धिय् आग योजिक्कुम् बोदु
इदु अङ्गिगळ् आऩ नाना-धर्मङ्गळिऩ्-उडैय कार्त्स्न्यत्तैच् चॊल्लुगिऱदु।

If (on the other hand) we interpret the word “sarva” (all) as the opposite of ‘one’,
it would indicate the manifoldness of the aṅgīs (the dharmas themselves).

Si (por otro lado) interpretamos la palabra “sarva” (todos) como lo opuesto a “uno”,
indicaría la diversidad de los aṅgīs (los dharmas mismos).

इस् सर्वशब्दत्तै एकशब्दप्रति-सम्बन्धियाग योजिक्कुम्बोदु इदु अङ्गिकळाऩ नानाधर्मङ्गळिऩुडैय कार्त्स्न्यत्तैच् चॊल्लुगिऱदु।

इप्-पडि पॊदुविले+++(=सामान्यतया)+++ सॊऩ्ऩालुम्
इङ्गु प्रकरण-वशत्ताले मोक्षार्थम् आग
शास्त्र-विहितङ्गळ् आय्, स-परिकरङ्गळ् आय्, नाना-प्रकारङ्गळ् आऩ उपासनङ्गळैय् ऎल्लाञ् जॊल्लुगैयिले तात्पर्यम्।

Though the word dharma is used without any qualification or restriction,
yet what is intended (by the word) here is the various kinds of upāsana, or meditation
prescribed for the attainment of mokṣa in the śāstras with all their accessories
(such kinds of meditation as dahara vidyā, sadvidyā and Śāṇḍilyavidyā).

Aunque la palabra dharma se usa sin ninguna calificación o restricción,
sin embargo, lo que se pretende (con la palabra) aquí es los diversos tipos de upāsana, o meditación
prescrito para el logro de mokṣa en los śāstras con todos sus accesorios
(tipos de meditación como dahara vidyā, sadvidyā y Śāṇḍilyavidyā).

इप्पडि पॊदुविले सॊऩ्ऩालुम् इङ्गु प्रकरणवशत्ताले मोक्षार्थमाग शास्त्रविहितङ्गळाय् सपरिकरङ्गळाय् नानाप्रकारङ् गळाऩ उपासनङ्गळैयॆल्लाञ् जॊल्लुगैयिले तात्पर्यम्।

पुरुषोत्तमत्व-ज्ञानम्
सर्व-विद्यैगळुक्कुम् उपकारकम् आऩ तत्त्व-ज्ञान-मात्रम् आगवुम्,

The knowledge of Puruṣottama (which is praised highly in the Gitā Chap. XI) (is shown) -

as leading merely to the knowledge of the Truth or Reality
which is of help to all vidyās or forms of meditation;

El conocimiento de Puruṣottama (que es muy elogiado en el Gitā Cap. XI) (se muestra)-

como conduciendo simplemente al conocimiento de la Verdad o Realidad
que es de ayuda para todos los vidyās o formas de meditación;

पुरुषोत्तमत्वज्ञानम् सर्वविद्यैकळुक्कुमुपकारकमाऩ तत्त्वज्ञानमात्रमागवुम्,

अवतार-रहस्य-चिन्तनम्
अनुष्ठिक्किऱ उपासनादिगळ्-उडैय शीघ्र-निष्पत्ति-हेतुव् आगवुम्,

the knowledge of the truth concerning the avatārs (of Bhagavān) is shown in Ch. IV there
as the cause of the adopted upāsanas yielding their fruit quickly,

el conocimiento de la verdad concerniente a los avatares (de Bhagavān) se muestra en el cap. IV allí
como la causa de que los upāsanas adoptados rindan su fruto rápidamente,

अवताररहस्यचिन्तनम् अनुष्ठिक्किऱ उपासनादिगळुडैय शीघ्रनिष्पत्तिहेतुवागवुम्,

देश-वासादिगळ् उपाय-विरोधि-पाप-क्षय-हेतुक्कळ् आय्क् कॊण्डु
उपाय-निष्पादकङ्गळ् आगवुम्

residence in places where there are temples of Nārāyaṇa and the like
are also shown to make the upāsanas effective
by the removal or extinction of those sins
which stand in the way of the upāsanas bearing fruit.

residencia en lugares donde hay templos de Nārāyaṇa y similares
también se muestra que hacen que las upāsanas sean efectivas
por la eliminación o extinción de esos pecados
que están en el camino de los upāsanas que dan fruto.

देशवासादिगळ् उपायविरोधिपापक्षयहेतुक्कळाय्क् कॊण्डु उपायनिष्पादकङ्गळागवुम्

श्रीगीता-भाष्यादिगळिले समर्थिक्कैयाले

(all this) is conclusively shown in (Śrī Rāmānuja’s) Gitābhāṣya and elsewhere.

Therefore …

(Todo esto) se muestra de manera concluyente en Gitābhāṣya (de Śrī Rāmānuja) y en otros lugares.

Por lo tanto …

श्रीगीताभाष्यादिगळिले समर्थिक्कैयाले

इवऱ्ऱै साक्षान्-मोक्षोपायङ्गळ् आक्कि
अङ्गि-बहुत्व-विषयम् आऩ बहु-वचनत्ताले विवक्षिक्किऱदॆऩ्गै उचितमऩ्ऱु।

it is not proper to consider them as direct and primary means of attaining mokṣa
and to state that the plural form of dharma, viz, dharmān is used to include these also,
(for they are only mediate causes of mokṣa
and not direct causes like the upāsanās).

no es apropiado considerarlos como medios directos y primarios para alcanzar mokṣa.
y afirmar que la forma plural de dharma, es decir, dharmān se usa para incluir estos también,
(porque ellos son sólo causas mediatas de mokṣa
y no causas directas como las upāsanās).

इवऱ्ऱै साक्षान्मोक्षोपायङ्गळाक्कि अङ्गिबहुत्वविषयमाऩ बहुवचनत्ताले विवक्षिक्किऱदॆऩ्गै उचितमऩ्ऱु।

‘‘नाना शब्दादि-भेदात्’’(ब्रह्मसूत्रम् ३-३-५६)

ऎऩ्गिऱ बडिये
इवैय् +++(←ज्ञान-वासादि)+++ ऒऴियवुम् सद्-विद्या–दहर-विद्यादि-भेदत्ताले अङ्गि-बहुत्वङ् किडैक्कैयाल्
इब् बहु-वचनम् सार्थम्।

This plural form dharmān is significant in as much as it refers to such different and many vidyās, as Śāṇḍilya vidyā and dahara vidyā
even without the three mentioned above (viz the knowledge of Puruṣottama and of the avatars and residence in holy places) ,
for it has been said

“The vidyās are many, as their names and the like are different.”

Esta forma plural dharmān es significativa en la medida en que
se refiere a vidyās tan diferentes y numerosos, como Śāṇḍilya vidyā y dahara vidyā.
incluso sin los tres mencionados anteriormente (a saber el conocimiento de Puruṣottama y de los avatares y la residencia en lugares sagrados,)
porque se ha dicho

“Los vidyās son muchos, así como sus nombres y cosas similares son diferentes.”

‘‘नानाशब्दादि भेदात्’’(ब्रह्मसूत्रम् ३-३-५६) ऎऩ्गिऱबडिये इवैयॊऴियवुम् सद्विद्या - दहरविद्यादिभेदत्ताले अङ्गिबहुत्वङ्गिडैक्कैयाल् इब् बहुवचनम् सार्थम्।

अङ्गि-बहुत्वत्तैयुम् परिकर-बहुत्वत्तैयुङ् गूड विवक्षित्तालुम् विरोधम् इल्लै।

There is no impropriety
even if we take the plural to signify the manifoldness of the aṅgī’s (forms of meditation)
and of the aṅgas or their accessories.

No hay ninguna incorrección
incluso si tomamos el plural para significar la diversidad de los aṅgī (formas de meditación)
y de los aṅgas o sus accesorios.

अङ्गिबहुत्वत्तैयुम् परिकरबहुत्वत्तैयुङ्गूड विवक्षित्तालुम् विरोधमिल्लै।

THE MEANING OF PARITYAJYA (HAVING GIVEN UP).
page528

त्यागः - आकिञ्चन्यतो नैराश्यम्

परि

being without the improper desire to perform
what is impossible for a man
with the thought:

when that also is too difficult to perform,
I will adopt, in the place of the prescribed aṅgas,
something less difficult or the upāyas
which will produce the prescribed upāyas",

The object of this anuvāda¹ (statement of what has already occurred) namely sarva dharmān parityajya (which is not a vidhi or injunction) is to indicate the person who is specially competent to adopt prapatti, The preposition pari in parityajya is to indicate the person who is most competent or has full competence. In the sentence:- “Having reached this world which is perishable and without pleasure, you should resort to me with devotion,” having reached does not state a vidhi or injunction meaning - “Reach this world”. It only means ‘Being in this world’ or ‘since you are in this world’. So also, here, the words sarvadharmān parityajya do not mean give up all dharmaś. It should be taken to mean: “You that have given up all dharmas”. Since this usage of having done a thing’ (past participle) is met with in other senses also, it is not right to say that ‘having given up all dharmas’ or giving up all dharnas is one of the accessories enjoined for prapatti.

If parityajya (having given up) is to be considered (at all) as enjoining what should be done (vidhi), there is nothing wrong in stating that it enjoins, as in the chapters on Prapatti and elsewhere, the thought of helplessness (kārpaṇya) which is of the nature of such thoughts as being destitute of upãyas. In that interpretation, sarva dharmān parityajya would mean “Reflect at first on the state in which you are unfit for the adoption or performance of every form of dharma” (in this case it would be a vidhi). This state has been (well) expressed in such passages as the following: “l am the abode of all offences (against Thee) and I have no means of saving myself or have I anything else to attain than Thee”, and “I have not performed dharma with any constancy; I have not realised the nature of the self nor have I bhakti or devotion to Thy lotus feet”. Even this interpretation, which is not the meaning that strikes one immediately and is

therefore a little strained, is better than the meanings given by Saṅkara and others that what is intended here is such as the giving up of the dharmas themselves in their essential nature (svarūpa), because it is not out of keeping with any pramāṇas (for in the chapters on prapatti, it is enjoined that the rites and observances of castes and āśramas should (always) be performed).

When we take parityajya as a vidhi or injunction,
it would be appropriate to say that
the meaning of sarva dharmān parityajya is -

“No dharma of any kind need be performed for the sake of prapatti”,

in the sense that prapatti does not require any of them (as aṅgas).
In that case, the use of the preposition pari would suggest that
even such observances as are stated in

" This should be done after performing achamana"

and

“This should be done with bodily purity”,

which are requisite for securing fitness for all rites in common,
are not to be accepted as aṅgas for prapatti.

Notwithstanding this, if it is maintained that the giving up of such dharmas as karma yoga, jñāna yoga and bhakti yoga in their essential forın (svarūpa) is an aṅga or accessory to prapatti, it would follow that prapatti is not in the competence of any one. The abandonment of a dharma can be enjoined only in the case of a person who is capable of performing it. This would be opposed to the thought of helplessness ( kārpaṇya ), which is called an aṅga ( of prapatti ) according to many pramāṇas.

It would also be opposed to the tradition that prapatti is for those who are destitute of upāyas, which is evident from such passages as the following: “I am without any upāyas and have no other saviour”. “I was not born into any of the four castes so as to be competent for the performance of dharma”. “I have given up the rites to be performed by a Brahmin who has the mark of worshipping the three fires after ablution”, and “I am not well established in the performance of dharma, nor have I realised the nature of my self etc.

To state that the jīva (kṣetrajna) is eternally incapable of all other upāyas, since he is entirely dependent on and subject to the control of Iśvara and (in the same breath) to state that the giving up of these dharmas or upāyas is enjoined on him is against all śastras and is opposed also to the very words of these writers and their actual practice. (For how can a man give up a dharma which he is not capable of performing? How can a man proceed to perform kaiṅkarya, if he is incapable of it owing to otter dependence and subjection?). It would, therefore, be extremely ridiculous to hold this view. If this view were right, then by the same logic, even the vidhi contained in vraja (seek me etc.) would be impossible of performance.

The statement that the jīvātmā is eternally incapable of all other upāyas would only go to confirm the view that parityajya (here, does not enjoin the giving up and) only states what has already occurred (anuvāda) (owing to inability ), which these writers would not like to accept.

(Further) the use of a single set of words in a single sentence cannot mean both the statement of what has occurred owing to inability in the case of the man who is not capable and the injunction to the man who is capable of performance to give it up ( which is another view held by some)

Nor can it be held that the option is given to the same person (adhikārī) who is capable of performing dharma either to perform the dharma or to give it up. This would mean two alternative courses, one of which is difficult and the other light, when there is no difference in the object of attainment. For if the man who is capable of adopting the difficult upāya is enjoined to adopt the lighter or easier upāya by giving up the performance (of what he is capable of ), then no one would ever think of adopting the more difficult upāya and since there is no other way in which the difference in competency could be stated, all the śāstras which enjoin the performance or adoption of the more difficult upāya would carry no weight,

It is also extremely inappropriate to say that, in order to stimulate the adoption of the easier upāya, the difficult upāya is (first) enjoined and then forbidden for performance.

The view that what are not (really) upāyas are enjoined as upāyas (and are thereafter condemned as unfit for performance) - this view would tend to look upon the śrutis and the smṛtis as deceptive. Even such things as the essential nature of the Saviour (which we learn only from them) could not (then) be known for certain,

It is true that, in the world, among those that are desirous of wealth, some choose cultivation of the soil and other such difficult operations, while others choose lighter professions like dealing in rubies and other gems; but this option is determined by the differences in capacity or competence among the adhikārīs.

Kooarathalvan’s commentary on the carama śloka :-“You that suffer (from anxiety) because of the impossibility of adoption of other upāyas, give up everything that has been declared as the means of attaining me and seek me as (your) refuge (tor salvation)”–this commentary, too, means only what has been explained (as the meaning so far) and is not, therefore, opposed to it. (In that commentary ‘giving up’ states only what has occurred before (anuvāda) or means only “without doing it as an aṅga required for prapatti.”

It is true that, in such cases, as Samāvartana or the conclusion of the Prājāpatyavrata, baths accompanied by certain vratas or observances are prescribed and also (as an alternative) baths without any such vratas (which are easier). But this option is determined by the condition or the circumstances in which the person is situated. If we do not take it in this light, the enjoining of the more difficult alternative would be of no use (for no one would adopt it).

There is another (wrong) view that the adhikārī competent for prapatti is the person who has fullness of knowledge or fullness of faith and that the adhikārī for upāsanā is the person who lacks this fullness of knowledge or fullness of faith. If this view were accepted, it would follow that such men as Vyasa who taught the churamaśloka and the like and who, because of their piety, had fullness of knowledge and fullness of faith should be looked upon as incompetent for upāsanā. There is no evidence or pramāṇa to prove that when they taught, they had knowledge and faith and having (later) become weak in intelligence and faith adopted upāsanā. There is no evidence in the respective accounts of their lives to show that though they were prapannas (with prapatti as their upāya) they practised upāsanā also for setting an example to the world. Even if this were adınitted to be a fact, the adoption of a dharma which is forbidden to a man for the sake of setting an’ example to the world would be a sin so far as he is concerned and as the observance or adoption of the dharma is opposed to the man’s competence, it would not be a proper example to set the world right. (Śrī Rāmānuja) has explained in the Gitā Bhāṣya that loka saṅgraha consists in a man choosing one of two ways of life (permitted for himself) as being easy of performance by others and beneficial to them, and adopting that way of life as an example to others in order to establish them firmly in it. A sannyāsin adopting the way of life peculiar to the house-holder and forbidden to himself is not setting an example for the sake of the betterment of the world (lokasaṅgraha). This would be only the violation of the commandment (of the Lord). In the same way, the adoption by a prapanna of a dharma forbidden to him, under the misapprehension that it would be a form of kaiṅkarya is also opposed to his competency:

There is nothing wrong in a prapanna performing those rites that are prescribed in the śāstras and that are not required for prapatti with the idea that they are (forms of) kaiṅkarya (service).

If it is maintained that as an aṅga or accessory of prapatti, men should give up all dharmas (rites and observances) appropriate to their respective castes (and āśramas) and capable also of being performed by them, it would follow that they would lose the fruit viz, the kaiṅkarya or service appropriate to their respective caste, āśrama and the like, in the period after prapatti; (it would also follow) that they should give up also such dharmas as non-violence and speaking the truth which are common to all and the showing of reverence to ācharyas and roam about like cattle, beasts and birds.

It may be argued that dharmas which are of the nature of refraining (from actions) and which are understood from prohibitory texts (such as do not kill ) are not activities calculated to protect oneself and are therefore not opposed to prapatti and that, owing to this what is intended here is only the giving up of such activities as are positive (pruvritti) (and not mere abstentions from activity). This argument, too, is unsound. Nivṛtti, abstention or renunciation, is also a form of activity arising from one’s will or determination, and it too, may occur for the sake of protecting oneself as may be seen in the world and from the Vedas. (Prohibitory texts in the Vedas presume that even abstentions are activities. Refraining from treasonable activities is often for the sake of protection of one’s self from the penal code).

If it be held that, on the strength of the injunction (vidhi) contained in parityajya), the prapanna should give up all dhamas whether they be positive activities (pravṛtti) or abstentions from actions (nivṛtti) and that this is the real intention of the śāstras, then it would follow that the ancients who performed prapatti and those who are prapannas today have done and are doing what is against the Śāstras in performing different kinds of kaiṅkarya (pravṛtti) and in performing expiatory rites for offences (committed by them) (for what is forbidden should, on that view, be performed and no expiation would be necessary for it). These men who are propagators of the tradition of prapatti in accordance with the pramāṇas and who are also supremely compassionate could, under no stretch of imagination, be thought of as deluded or deceitful.

It may be argued that this objection would stand only if the giving up of all dharmas (rites and observances) is enjoined (on the prapanna) for the rest of his life, and that it would not hold good, if the giving up of all dharmas in their essential form (svarūpa) is considered as an aṅga (of prapatti) to be done only at the time of performing prapatti and if their resumption is permitted after that performance. The answer to this argument is as follows:- " There is no need at all to enjoin the giving np of an activity or of an abstention which is not likely to be present at all at that time. If only such activities or dharmas in their svarūpa as are likely or possible at the time are enjoined to be given up, it would follow that prapatti should be performed after giving up such things as the following :– residence in holy places sacred to Bhagavān, the tuft of hair, the sacred thread (yajñopavīta) and the wearing of the mark of the sect (puṇḍra).

Therefore the proper interpretation of the vidhi (if it be taken as vidhi) enjoining the giving up is this: “Prapatti does not require, as an aṅga or accessory, any dharma or observance or rite which is required as an aṅga (such as karma) to upāsana (meditation) according to vidyās”.

Even in this view that parityajya indicates a vidhi or injunction to give up, the person competent for prapatti is one who is incapable of other upāyas, or one who, though capable of other upāyas, is too impatient to endure the delay in attaining the fruit (which the other upāyas might entail). If we take this view, it will not be against any of the pramāṇas (viz. those which enjoin the rites of the varṇas and āśramas, and those which enjoin bhakti yoga and the like). Former ācāryas did not discuss the point whether or not the giving up of all dharmas in their essential forn is an aṅga of prapatti. Their discussions were confined only to the question of which words in the carama śloka respectively indicated the qualification necessary for prapatti viz. that of being destitute of other upāyas and which words the idea that prapatti did not require (any aṅga or accessory).

Soineācāryas, who were conversant with the requirements of a sentence, thought that the carama śloka speaks first (in parityajya) of the person competent for prapatti (as one who is unable to adopt other upāyas) and then declares by the word ‘ekam’ we alone) that prapatti as an upāya does not require anything else as aṅga or accessory. Others said that the carama śloka speaks first of prapatti not requiring anything else as aṅga and then declares who the competent person is for the easier upāya in the word vraja) by the suggestion contained in the word śoka or grief (in mā śuchaH) (for the grief should be the grief due to the man’s inability to adopt other upāyas). (There was no discussion among these earlier āchāryas of the point whether prapatti enjoined the giving up of all dharmas (even such as those ordained for the varṇas and the āśramas). Thus the discussion was confined only to the way in which the words (in the śloka) should be construed, though there was no difference in the meaning as a whole, and the author of Śrī Bhāṣya did not stop the discussion. What was (wrongly) imagined as having been the subject of discussion by other people who did not know what had formerly taken place – that was shown to be without any foundation by such teachers as Vishṇucitta.

But it may be asked how the difference between those who are competent and those who are not competent (for prapatti) could be justified in the face of such ślokas as the following: “‘This is the upāya for those who do not understand; this is also the upāya for those who know well: this is the upāya for those who want to reach (quickly) the shore beyond saṁsāra and this is the upāya also for those who want (immediately) to render constant service to the Lord”, and “Hari is the only upāya to those who do not know of other upāyas, either with their ignorance or with their knowledge of such qualities of the Lord as His being the Lord (of all), and on account of intensity of bhakti “. The answer to this question is as follows:- The ajñānam or ignorance referred to in the word (ajñānāt) in Lakṣmī Tantra and avidyātah in Bhattar’s śloka is not the ignorance of such beings as cattle of what is stated in the śāstras. It means only this much, lack of a clear understanding of such forms (of adoration) as upāsanas or ignorance, even in regard to prapatti, of subtle niceties or distinctions in it. The word vijānatām in Lakṣmītantram (to those who know) and ‘deve paribṛḍatayā viditayā’ (with the knowledge of such qualities of the Lord as His being the Lord of all) refer only to the kind of knowledge which enables one to understand such things as upāsanas or the kind of knowledge which enables a man to have a clear understanding of such things as the qualities of the Saviour, which is necessary for prapatti. It does not (certainly) mean a knowledge of all things, in general, for only the knowledge of the Saviour’s quality of being the Lord of all is referred to here. Even if a man has this knowledge that is essential (for upāsana), when he is without the ability to adopt that (upāsana), he is one that is destitute of upāyas (akinchan) and has competency for prapatti,

Here another objection might be raised, viz.,” Even if a man has ( the knowledge and) the ability, he should remain without any endeavour on his own part, knowing as he does, the Saviour’s nature, for does not Sītā say:- “If Śrī Rāma’, who can destroy the hosts of his enemies, discharges his arrows on Lanka and takes me away from here, it will be the appropriate thing for him?”. The answer to this is that (Sītā’s attitude ) would be an example of the prapanna’s later life (not of what he should do or should not do before prapatti). If this is not admitted, all Śāstras which enjoin the adoption of upāyas would be meaningless.

Even when a man has both the knowledge of the other upāya (viz. upāsana) and the ability to adopt it, if he is too impatient to brook delay in the attainment (of the end), he may be competent for performing prapatti, if he thinks that only prapatti would secure his object reco, (the quick attainment). This (that even the man who has the knowledge and ability to adopt upāsana may adopt prapatti if he cannot lirook delay) is disclosed in the words: " This is the upāya for those who want to cross the sea of saṁsāra”; “for those who want to crosś, here, means “Those who want to reach the shore beyond saṁsāra quickly (i.e.) those that desire a quick removal of the hindrances that stand in their way. “This is the upāya for those who desire ānantyam” (the perfect enjoyment of the service of Brahman) which is one’s due on account of one’s essential nature. Here also the meaning is ’those who desire to have it quickly’ (i.e. those who cannot brook existence without that enjoyment.)

Having these two in mind, Bhattar says, “by the intensity of their bhakti.” Here bhakti does not signify bhakti yoga, but ‘intensity of the love (of the Lord)’. Intensity of bhakti or love means a state of mind in which the man would cease to exist if he could not have quick attainment. Though this is not the bhakti yoga enjoined for some adhikārīs, yet some get that state of mind by the grace of Bhagavān due to righteous acts (in previous births). The man who has this state of mind is also competent for prapatti.

Therefore prapatti may be adopted by (1) those who do not know of other upāyas and who have a knowledge of what prapatti is in general (without a knowledge of details and distinctions); (2) those who have a clear understanding of prapatti and the other upāya (upāsana) but lack the ability to adopt the latter; (3) those who, though they have both the knowledge and the ability, cannot brook delay (in the attainment of the end) and cannot exist without it. This man who cannot brook delay is also destitute of upāyas for attaining the end in his view at the time when he wants it (so he, too, is competent for prapatti). It is in consideration of this circumstance that (Bhattar) wrote:- " who know of no other upāya in the world”.

Vyasa and others who held administrative offices (under the Lord) could brook delay and were also capable of the other upāya (i.e.) upāsana. Therefore it is that they adopted upāsana and not because they were wanting in knowledge or in faith. (Those who hold administrative offices must serve their full period before thinking of attainment.)

(If it be asked, “Why is it said ( in some places) that a man adopts upāsana owing to weakness of intelligence?” the answer is as follows):-” When a man is incapable of an upāya which is extremely difficult of adoption and yet adopts it because of an obstinate desire, the ignoring of the easy upāya should be considered as being due to weakness of intellect.” Or it is proper also to explain their adoption of the difficult upāya as due to their unfitness for prapatti (owing to their lack of faith in it and the like.) This is not the explanation in the case of Vyasa and others (adopting upāsana), for they remove all the doubts of others (and cannot be considered as wanting in knowledge or faith).

Since in this manner the competency of a man either for upāsana or for prapatti is determined, both the śāstras (those of upāsana and those of prapatti) have their own respective purpose.

The difference between the two adhikāris in regard to the rites and observances of their caste and disrama is only the difference of the purpose for which or the thought with which they are performed. It is true that, in the case of the prapanila, the performance of any rite or observance will prevent the attainment of his eod, because, like the Brahma missile, it would cease to have any effect, if any other rite is performed to attain the same end. But if these rites are performed for their own sake (without the desire for any fruit) or for such things as the glory of Bhagavān or the welfare of Bhāgavatas, there is no impropriety (and prapatti would not lose its efficacy).

But it may be asked by some:-“Even if it is admitted that the giving up of the dharmas themselves is not enjoined, it is possible that ‘parityajya’ ( having given up) may mean the giving up of (only) the thought that they are upāyas. (The answer to this question is as follows:) “In those tests which refer to the activities of the prapanna after the performance of prapatti, it may be held rightly that what is ordained is the giving up of the thought that these activities are upāyas. But the carama-śloka is a text which enjoins an upāya (before prapatti) and not what should be done after it, and the word parityajya occurs there, Therefore this interpretation would result in the injunction that these dharmas in their essential form should be performed as aṅgas or accessories to prapatti, but without the thought that they are upāyas. If this view were accepted, then, the view that certain things should be performed after prapatti merely for their own sake (without any aim, object or the desire for any fruit) and as mere service (to the Lord) would become untenable. (For they would still be aṅgas or accessories and could not be an end in themselves ). Nor could there be, in that case, the absence of any requisite or accessory dharma which is said to be the unique feature of prapatti Thus this upāya would cease to be within the competence of the man destitute of all upāyas. This is how it would result. There is no need to enjoin here the giving up of the thought of their being upāyas in regard to those dharmas that are not upāyas. So the performance of those dharmas which are upāyas without the thought that they are upāyas would only be the adherence to such upāyas as the old upāsanas. If it is maintained that the word parityajya means the giving up of the thought of their being upāyas, then there would have been no need to reconcile the conflicting statements about the ordinance concerning abandonment and that about performance by saying that the difference is due to the persons competent for each of them. It is only if the text is held to enjoin the giving up of the dharmas themselves, there would arise any such conflict. If it is held that the adoption of karma, jñāna and bhakti , but without the thought that they are upāyas is an aṅga to prapatti, there would be no essential difference between the bhakta and the prapanna. The difference would only be nominal.) the man who has bhakti as the main and independent means and prapatti as an accessory to it could be called a bhakta and the man who adopts prapatti as the main and independent means and bhakti as an accessory to it would be called a prapanna, but both would perform the same dharmas and there would be no difference in their action.

It may be argued that, in regard to accessory activity, there need not be fullness or perfection of performance and that some short-comings might be allowed therein ; but this argument is not sound. Has it not been stated:-“A rite or observance performed for the attainment of a certain fruit will yield the desired fruit, only when all the accessory rites or aṅgas are duly performed?” (Pūrva Mīmāmsā).

Thus if it is stated that the dharmas themselves in their essential forn should be given up, even the rendering of service would become an offence. If it is said that what is to be given up is only the thought that they are upāyas, then the dharmas in their essential form would become an aṅga (of prapatti).

It is only those who have forgotten the episodes² of Kakasura and the like that world maintain, as aṅgas of prapatti, these dharmas without the thought that they are upāyas and that the person is himself the doer of the action and its beneficiary (for the doership and the benetit are God’s).

We have (also ) heard that, by a single performance alone of prapatti far removed from any other dharma, the ancients obtained at once what they desired.

If it is maintained that the aṅgas of bhakti yoga which might be presumed as necessary also for prapatti are declared to be not necessary for prapatti and as being no aṅgas to it, the potency of the upāya (prapatti), which is equal in might to the Brahma missile, becomes well established and the rendering of service and the like will also become appropriate.

Therefore the view that here (in parityajya) the giving up of all dharmas, (rites, observances and the like) is enjoined (for prapatti) and the view that what is enjoined to be given up is only the thought of their being upāyas and the thought that they are aṅgas to it – these views conflict with such śāstras as ordain the observance of the commandments, with the śāstras which state that prapatti does not require anything else, with the traditional observances of former ācāryas and with the code of conduct followed by virtuous men in former times who had become prapannas. Thus owing to the objections pointed out so far, the giving up of all dharmas is not an aṅga to prapatti ; nor is the performance of these dharmas in their essential form an aṅga (without the thought of their being upāyas or aṅgas to prapatti), because as has been stated before, prapatti does not require the performance of any other dharma. Therefore this injunction or ordinance about ‘giving up’ (tyāga) has, for its purport, the statement that prapatti does not require any (aid) from any other dharma.

To make this denial, there must be a wrong presumption of something that has to be denied. If it is asked what dharmas (rites, observances and the like) are presumed (wrongly) as being requisite and are then stated to be unnecessary (the answer is as follows) - In the vidyās or forms of meditation (upāsanas) enjoined in Vedānta, some of the accessories which appear as aṅgas in certain vidyās, such as the rites, duties and observances of the varṇas and the āśramas and also such things as meditation on the route to mokṣa are required also in other vidyās or forms of meditation. So also there may, at first, be a (wrong) presumption that in nyāsavidyā too, these might be required as accessory. To correct this presumption, here (in parityajya), these dharmas which might be thought of (wrongly) on the analogy of upāsanas as aṅgas (to prapatti) are not required for it. This is the right interpretation of the text here.

Though these dharmas cannot be considered as accessory aids (to prapatti) as they are stated to be for upāsana in Brahma Sūtras (3.4 -33), yet as stated in another sūtra (3 - 4 - 32), the karmas ordained for the different āśramas have to be performed, as they are enjoined as ordinances or commands; there is nothing to prevent their perfornuance by the prapanna (since commandments have to be obeyed as such (and for no other reason).

CONCLUSION: page543

Therefore, as neither the performance of these dharmas nor their giving up is an aṅga to prapatti; to be without the desire to do what is beyond one’s ability is a mark of competency (for prapatti). The performance of those duties or rites which are nitya and naimittika and which are within the range of one’s ability takes rank as mere service consisting in the observance of a command,

It is only the thought or the will to do what is pleasing to the Lord that is stated (in the Śāstras) as an aṅga of prapatti, The action arising out of that will or thought is not an aṅga. The rites of the varṇa and āśrama are the proper thing to do in virtue of their being the Lord’s command and not because it is the consequence of the will or the thought to do what is pleasing to Him,

If so, it may be asked: “What is the purpose or object of performing those manifold and great acts of service which cannot be included among the commands to perform nitya and naimittika karma ?” These cannot be included among any of the other upāyas for mokṣa (because they are not performed with the object of attaining mokṣa); nor are they aṅgas or accessories to prapatti, because it does not require any such aṅgas or aids. The person does not perform them because of the fear that the Lord would be offended at their non-performance, nor does he perform them with the desire that they would bring about, by themselves, extinction of his sins or the attainment of such fruits as svarga, cattle, children and the like. Neither does he perform them merely for his own delight just like worldly men playing dice and the like, nor does he perform them to please the Lord having seen, like the freed souls, by actual observation, what would be approved of by Him. If so, why does he perform them, it may be asked. (The answer is as follows) - He proceeds to perform them because it is evident from the śāstras that these acts of service have, for their fruit, the propitiation of the Lord (just like other fruits) As one in whose nature the quality of sattvam predominates, he acquires a taste for pleasing the Lord and follows the light shed by the lamp of the śāstras in trying to give delight to the Lord who stands in varied relationships to him (as father, mother etc.), in the same way as he shows his love to his friends, children and the like.

In this connection some may ask :- “In the case of the wise man who has made a complete surrender of all responsibility to the Lord of all, is not the criterion for deciding what should be given up and what taken up, the knowledge of his own essential nature (svarūpa?) So he is bound (only) by the knowledge of his own essential nature (to do or not to do this or that); why, then, should he follow the dictates of the śāstras?”. This question is improper, for, if it is determined what his essential nature is with the help of the śāstras, then there is no other guide for him than the śāstras, until the time of his attaining mukti, to help him to understand what aims in life he should avoid as also the upāyas therefor, and what aims he should have and also the upāyas for securing these aims. From the knowledge that he is śeṣa to the Lord and the like, it is just possible to know a few things that are appropriate to the śeṣa. The knowledge of one’s essential nature cannot indicate, unequivocally, in what manner service should be rendered in order that it may please the śeṣī, and what upāyas should be adopted for this service. This being so, if one ignores the Śāstras and renders service with forbidden substances (like opium, say) or even among substances that are permitted, to render service with substances acquired unjustly and thus render service according to one’s own sweet will and pleasure in ways opposed to what is enjoined in the śāstras, then there would be no difference between reverential conduct and offence. Then since there is no criterion besides one’s own taste, one might think of performing as service all that is considered as forbidden and therefore avoided by seekers after mukti. The author of Śrī Bhāṣya has stated (in regard to the offering of food (havis) to Archi):- " Having “collected those things which are not prohibited in the śāstras etc.” Therefore the proper thing is to render such forms of service as are enjoined in the Śāstras as competent to the person concerned and subject to the dictates of the śāstras. The teaching contained in the śloka :- “To know what ought to be done and what ought . not to be done, the only authority that you have is the śāstra. Therefore while you are here, understand the karma enjoined in the śāstra just as it is” – this teaching is common to all ( whatever their competency). Śrī Aḷavandār in his Gitarthasaṅgraha says:-“Among these ekantins ( who are devoted exclusively to the Lord), the wise man (jnani) is called paramaikanti, one who has supreme devotion to the Lord to the exclusion of all other interests. His being alive is solely dependent on the Lord, To be united with Him is his only delight; to part from Him is his (only ) pain. His mind is always with the Lord. He considers himself as an entity only becanse of his meditating on Him, of visiting holy places (sacred to Him), and of speaking of Him to others, of bowing to Him and uttering his sacred names. His actions are performed with his life-breath, mind, will and the senses all dedicated to Him. He performs all the duties pertaining to him and also practises bhakti inspired solely by love. He should give up the idea of their being upāyas and place the upāya in the Lord without any fear”. In these ślokas what Aḷavandār meant by the words “inspired solely by love” was not that he should ignore the śāstras. His idea was to emphasise the great inspiration arising from his love (of the Lord), whose śeṣa he is, to perform those acts of service which he can understand only from the śāstras, in order to give delight to Him. When these ślokas are considered in relation to the man who practises upāsanas and the like, its aim is to show that these upāsanas are most pleasing to the person himself, that they are not the direct means of attaining the supreme end, but are the means of winning the favour of the Saviour who is the direct means or upāya for obtaining this end, and that the Lord of all who is pleased by these upāsanas stands, as the direct upāya for the attainment of this end. When the ślokas are considered in relation to the man who has adopted prapatti as the principal and independent means, their aim is to show that, though he performs the ordinances of nitya and naimittika karma and such other rites just as they are enjoined for bhakti yoga, since he does not perform them for the sake of other objects like svarga and mokṣa and perforins them solely for pleasing the Lord, he has not adopted any other upāya (for mokṣa and has no other interests or object. (Their aim is also) to show that, as he is destitute of other upāyas, the Lord Himself stands in the place of those upāyas and rewards him with the desired fruit.

Those who have not studied Vedānta might ask (in this connection:- Both these adhikārīs (the bhakta and the prapanna) are devoted solely and exclusively to the Lord as stated (in the ślokas):-” Wise men do not worship Brahma, Rudra and other gods, for the reward that can he given by them is limited,” “They are “my devotees who have no devotion to other deities, who love those that are devoted to me and who seek me alone as their upāya” and “He who has attained the lotus feet of Viṣṇu should not worship other deities.” If these two adhikāris should perform the rites and observances of their castes and āśramas as stated (ia Aḷavandār’s ślokas! (viz., all the karma s pertaining to them and also bhakti ), would not their supreme and exclusive devotion to the Lord be adversely affected in as much as these rites or dharmas are mixed up with (the worship of) such gods as Agoi and lndra?” Here, as explained in the Brahma Sūtras (1-2-29), names like Agni may be considered, on the authority of Jaimini, as directly referring to Brahman or Bhagavān for Agni and other such words may be etymologically derived as agram nayati. (He who receives the best part of the offering for Himself) etc. There is no worship or contact with other deities, because they are like the sacred names found in Sahasranama (etymologically applicable to Bhagavān). The author of Śrī Bhāṣya has stated in his Nitya:–“Having pleased the gods, the rishis and the Manes with oblations and with the thought that they have Bhagavān as their inner self” etc. So it is perfectly in accordance with the śāstras to perform these respective rites meditating that the Supreme Being has the respective deities as His body In “Pratardana vidyā and the like we are taught in the śāstras that the Supreme Being may be meditated on (or worshipped) in three forms: (one) in His own divine and essential nature, (two), the Supreme Being as having sentient beings as His attribute (or body), and ( three) the Supreme Being as having non-sentient things as His attribute (or body). Though He is worshipped in these three ways, the worship is really to the Supreme Being and not to His attributes (or bodies) (namely . the sentient and non-sentient beings). In the same way here also, the bhakta or prapanna does not adore the gods, the rishis and the Manes, who are really attributes or bodies of the Supreme Being.

As stated in the following ślokas: “In all yajnas, it is I that am worshipped and it is also I myself that rewards (those who perforın them) with the fruits thereof,” “It is Thou alone that assumest the forms of the Pitrs and the gods and receivest the offerings (havis) (made to the gods) and the offerings (kavya) made to the Manes in sraddhas” and “Those who propitiate the Pitṛs, the gods, the Brahmins and Agni–they propitiate only Viṣṇu who is the inner self of all things”-as stated in these ślokas, it is only the Supreme Being, who is the inner self of all, that is the object of adoration to the wise man. Therefore to the man who performs kaiṅkarya or service according to the Śāstras with this knowledge, there is no association with other upāyas; there is no association for him with other objects or purposes in acquiring the necessary substances for worship and in eating the food offered (to these gods). Similarly there is no association for him with other deities whom, obeying the injunctions (contained in the śastras, he worships the Supreme Being having, for His attributes, sentient beings and non-sentient things. It has been said, “ He who worships as the Supreme Being any deity other thun Nārāyaṇa who dwells in his heart, who controls him and is his Lord and Master–he is a sinner,” " He who considers Nārāyaṇa as being (only) equal to other deities —- he will stay in hell as long as the sun and the moon last”, and “One should not go near the places where Buddha, Rudra and the like are worshipped and so also near the cremation ground, near a corpse, near a forest and near the capital city of a kingdom.” As stated (in these ślokas), it would be a sin for a paramaikantin if other deities are looked upon by him as the Supreme Being, if they are considered equal (to Nārāyaṇa) and if he goes to places where other deities are worshipped, when these deities have nothing to do with his nitya and naimittika rites and observances. Since these deities stand in the position of bodies to the Supreme Being who is the inner self of all and who is the object of adoration in these sites and observances (nitya and naimittika), there is no thought in the mind of the man (with supreme and exclusive devotion to the Lord) of these deities being the Supreme Self, of their being equal to Bhagavān, of their being independent of the Lord, of their being objects of adoration or of their being the dispensers of the fruits of actions. Therefore in the same way as by Prana, Vaisvanara, and the three worlds which are the attributes of the Supreme Being in the Vidyās or meditations called Vaisvanara vidyā and the like. he is not affected, so also his exclusive devotion to the Lord is not (in the least) affected by such attributes as Agni (which are associated with these rites and observances, nitya and naimittika).

While proceeding to state the adoration of Bhagavān to be performed by the prapanna in the day and the night, Vaṅgīpuram Nambi has described the dharmas of the castes and the āśramas with their respective mantras (in the following passages) :-” (The prapanna) should spend his time by performing duly all the rites ordained for the time of the sandhyā, after sipping the water (achamana) with the prescribed mantras; after this he should perform the homa to the sacrificial fires during the Agnihotra rites with the prescribed mantras and with samit (fuel), ghee and other such substances. He should do every karma at the time prescribed for them in the śāstras". Then he says: “He should “perform, without being lazy, all the rites from the bath to Brahma yajna prescribed in the Vedas for his āśrama as fit to be done at noon”, He continues : “Then he should perform the prescribed yajna to the gods and to the pitṛs (Manes), after which he should eat the food offered to Bhagavān (which act is called anuyāga)”. Bhattar and Koorathalvan, too, in their respective nityas, have stated as follows:– " With the vertical mark (ūrdhvapuṇḍra) on his forehead, (he) should perform the rites ordained in the śrutis, and smṛtis as far as it lies in his power, with the thought that they form the adoration of the Supreme Being and then offer oblations of water (tarpaṇam)”. Peria Jeer (Nanjeer) begins by performing obeisance with the words: “I seek the feet of Parāśara Bhattārya”. By this he reminds us of the special tradition concerning the homage to be paid to gurus and the like. After this, he says “I will now describe the manner in which service should be rendered to the lotus feet of Bhagavān every day by men with exclusive devotion to him (ekāntins)”. He then says " (The Ekāntin) should sprinkle water on himself by uttering the mantra beginning with Āpohi and then sip water (āchamana) with the utterance of the mantras which denote Bhagavān; after this he should offer arghya to the Supreme Being who is in the sphere of the sun and then perform japa, meditating on Bhagavān with the mantra of Gāyatri. After the japa, he should offer praise to Puruṣottama. Oblations of water (tarpana) should then be made to the gods, the rishis and the pitṛs (Manes, who have Narayaṇa as their inner self." We see also that, in all families which follow the tradition of the author of Śrī Bhāṣya, until the present day, weddings and upanayanas (initiation with the sacred thread) have been performed in accordance with their respective (Gṛhya) sūtras, (Āpastamba and the like) with the respective mantras denoting the respective deities. It is also well-known to all that the great ācāryas like Peria Nambi performed yajnas (sacrifices) and the like in accordance with their respective sūtras. Therefore in the case of those who follow the teaching of the author of Śrī Bhāṣya, his disciples and their disciples, it is not proper to perforin any rites (like those of weddings) with the mantras in certain samhitās following the doctrines of the Āgamas (Pāñcharātra)³ which are prescribed specially (to those who follow them).

We have already shown in Śrī pañcarātrarakṣā (The Defence of Pāñcarātra) that the Pāñcarātra is of four kinds or systems (Āgama Siddhānta, Mantra Siddhānta, Tantra Siddhānta and Tantrāntara Siddhānta) in accordance with the competency and the like (ability) of the person concerned, that the principle holds good that what is not stated in any one of them should be taken from the others, provided there is no conflict or opposition and that, in all the four kinds of systems of Pāñcha rātra, the direct means or upāya of attaining mokṣa is set forth and that by every one of them there is the attainment of mokṣa, just in the same way as to all the four āśramas there are Brahma Vidyās (bhakti and prapatti) and that to every one of them there is the possibility of attaining mokṣa. It has also been stated there, at considerable length, that if a person were to perform all karma s or rites with any mantras of his own liking, ignoring what is enjoined in those sustras as the proper thing for each kind or system, he should perform expiatory rites (prāyaścitta) and the like. Therefore until the time of attaining mukti, there is no authority for rendering service or kaiṅkarya (to the Lord) in any manner other than what is ordained in the śāstras as appropriate for each adhikārī.

Hence since even the prapanna is subject to the authority of the sastrus and should perform only such service as is permitted or enjoined by them, the following (heretical) views which are opposed to the scriptures and the traditional observances (of the good) supported by right reason or logic are not to be accepted by those who desire to stand in sattvam. (views such as the following): (1) Both those commands that are enjoined as positive rites or actions and those that forbid certain activities should be violated ; (2) Both those activities and rites that are enjoined and those that are forbidden should be given up. (3) The rites and observances of the variṭas and āśramas are dependent only on the bodies (of Brahmins and the like) and may therefore be given up by the person who has attained a true knowledge of the essential nature of his self (which is different from the body ). (4) They may be performed or may not be performed (5) Even if they are given up, no harm will result except the loss of the Lord’s pleasure (6) The only harm that would result in their being given up is the ill.will of society and other such (erroneous) views.

It is true that, as for those in the āśrama of the Sannyasin, to whom certain old rites and observances (of the grihasthāśrama) are forbidden and certain new rites and observances enjoined, (so also) for those who are Bhāgavatas, as a consequence of their being snch, certain things are forbidden and certain new things are enjoined. But no karma or rite which has been ordained as compulsory of performance should (on any account) be given up. For it has been stated :- “The man who does not perform the rites pertaining to the sandhyā is always impure and is unfit for the performance of any (other) rite. Whatever other rite or karma he may perform, he will not obtain the fruit thereof”. As in the differences in the manner of performing the sandhyā meditation or worship that are found in the sūtras and the different Dharma Śāstras (Manu, Āpastamba and the like) those differences that are found in the different samhitas of the Lord’s śāstra (Parcā. rātra) and also such differences in the sandhya meditation as are stated in the Itihāsas and the Purāṇas – these differences should be observed respectively by those who follow these respective Śāstras. Conduct like the following which is enjoined in the śāstras and the Itihasas, Namely, “At the time of the parvas, one should pray to the deities for protection” and “One should bow in front of places where the gods are worshipped – (conduct like this) is restricted in the case of the man who is supremely and exclusively devoted to Bhagavān (Paramaikantin) owing to the authority of the Śāstra (i,e. the only deity or God that he should pay homage to is Bhagavān). Therefore no śāstra is violated.

Such injunctions as the following :-“Therefore the mantra called aṣṭākṣara should be repeated at the time of the sandhya, by pure-minded devotees of mine always in order to purify their selves”, and “uttering the Dvaya always in this manner with its meaning at heart” in the Gadya - these instructions should be carried out without any conflict with the performance of the rites nitya and naimittika) which are compulsory of performance and at such times as are left over after their performance, Nārada and others have also stated:-“The japa (namely, the repetition of Aṣṭākṣara) should be performed at such times as do not conflict with the performance of rites ordained in the śrutis and the smṛtis.” Vaṅgīpuram Nambi, too, has said: -” Having spent your time in performing the homa in rites like Agnihotra etc" Even in his last days, the author of Śrī Bhāṣya stood up with great difficulty and offered the anjali of water at the time of sandhyā. Therefore giving up the rites of the varṇas and the āśramas on the pretext that they are dependent on the upadhi of the body is opposed to such things as the traditional observances of the ancients. If this pretext were sound, since even such special forms of service (in temples) as the weaving of garlands and the lighting of lamps cannot be performed without the upādhi (or conditioning factor) of the body, the senses and the like-even these would have to be given up (by the man who has realised his essential nature (svarūpa). If the perforınance of such services is desired, the external purity (āchāra) and the purificatory rites (samskāras) which qualify (a person) for such service, cannot be given up.

Observing the restrictions concerning food, residence⁴ (if the reading is ‘gṛha’) or receiving from the good ācārya the mantras prescribed for the person, money⁵ , caste and the like, one should render service to the Lord of Lakṣmī in accordance with one’s ability and with no other aim or purpose.

Just in the same way as a chaste wife looks after her auspicious thread, clothes and the like with the greatest care, the pra panna should preserve the path and manner prescribed in the Śāstras for the service of the Lord.

The husband takes proper care of his wife either with punishment or with favours, respectively, when she loses her thread and the like or guards them with care. So also will the Lord (his devotee for giving up or performing the enjoined rites).

To reflect on such things as the caste of devotees merely for the purpose of treating them with disregard will bring ruin; but if it is done only for understanding the restrictions enjoined in the śāstras, there is no harm in it anywhere.

That is the reason why, in the Śāstras, Dharmavyadha Tuladhara, Sabari, Vidura and others are described only by their respective castes.

Their conduct, too, as described in the Itihasas, was only in accordance with their castes; if there was any exceptional⁶ circumstances (in their lives against the rules of their caste), it was due to the exceptional instructions or regulations. The dharmas or rites prescribed for a certain place, a certain period of time, a certain adhikārī and the like should not be adopted at a different place and a different time or by another adhikārī.

Some (people) who cannot understand the purport of certain episodes (in the Itihasas and Purāṇas) increase the līlā rasa which Bhagavān enjoys in Kaliyuga. " Daughters-in-law should be treated with regard and properly adorned by their mothers-in-law, their fathers-in-law, their husbands and so also by their brothers-in-law who desire to have varied prosperity. Those houses which are cursed by daughters-in-law on account of their ill treatment will fall into ruin as if pulled down by evil spirits". In statements like the above, the injunction about treating (the daughter-in-law) with regard has, on account of propriety, to be determined with proper restrictions in each case (the mother-in-law’s regard is shown differently from that of the husband or the brother-in-law and so on). So also injunctions regarding the respect to be shown to devotees among mlecchas and the like have to be understood with proper reservations and restrictions.

These reservations and restrictions are established also by the practice of successive generations of men accepted on all hands as wise and virtuous. Therefore the performance of the Lord’s service along with the observance of the regulations enjoined for the respective castes and āśramas is not opposed to the state of supreme and exclusive devotion to the Lord (paramaikāntitva).

Even the service rendered directly to the Lord of Lakṣmī is surely divided by good men into two classes : valuable and worthless.

That (service) is declared to be valuable service which is rendered by the man who has done what he ought to do (i.e. the prapanna) with no other aim and for no other purpose (i.e. for its own sake) or for the protection of such persons as gurus.

That (service) is declared to be of no value which is rendered for ostentation (or vanity), for injuring others, for preventing others from rendering service or for the sake of some gain.

The Lord of all receives, with His feet, the service rendered by those who have no supreine and exclusive devotion to Him and that done by those who have supreme and exclusive devotion to Him, with His head. This idea is expressed by Bhagavān Veda Vyasa in the following (passages ):" That which is offered to the gods and the Pitṛs (Manes) in accordance with the prescribed rules

reaches the feet of the God of gods. The rites performed by wise men who have supreme and exclusive devotion to Bhagavān - these Bhagavān receives with His head".

The rites, nitya and naimittika, which are performed in this way as commandments of the Lord (ājñā) and those valuable services which are rendered by a man for the pleasure of the Lord as those approved by Him (anujñā) - these have no connection with prapatti and this is declared by the injunction contained in the word parityajya (having given up) (in the carama śloka ).

1. Therefore one should not perform, for the sake of prapatti, those things of which one is capable, nor should one acquire, for the sake of prapatti, the ability or skill needed to accomplish what one is incapable of.

According to this interpretation ( of the word parityajya in the Carama śloka ), ākiñcanya or being destitute of upāyas which confers competence (adhikāra) for prapatti is suggested by the sentence which states “Do not grieve”. If parityajya, on the other hand, is considered as an anuvāda or expression of what has already occurred (namely, the person being incapable of any upāya), then, the word ‘eka’ (me alone) indicates that among those rites which arise from the Lord’s command and those which are approved of by him, there is no connection between such of them as are performed as being within the range of a man’s ability and prapatti. In this interpretation, the sentence ma śuchah (Do not grieve) makes clear the qualification (adhikāra) needed for prapatti which has already been expressed (in parityajya) and indicates also the manner in which the prapanna should conduct himself after the performance of prapatti (i.e.) being free from all care or anxiety.

There are some other ways of interpreting the word (parityajya) without treating the injunction regarding ‘giving up’ as having no authority :

2. What is asked to be given up may be stated to be the prevention of the vain effort to perform what one is not capable of or the giving up of such vain effort along with the shame or remorse due to one’s inability (to do it in full).

3 The word tyāga contained in parityajya may also be considered as preventing the continuance of the trivial desire to perform (these rites) like a drowning man catching at a reed or a blade of grass.

4. In the Brahma Sūtras, it is declared that any one of the vidyās (thirty two vidyās or forms of meditation described in the Upaniṣads) may be adopted at one’s option, as all of them yield the same fruit. By drawing our attention to it, the injunction for tyāga contained in parityajya may also be to suggest that prapatti is like the Brahma missile, which proves ineffective if any other upāya is also adopted:

(To sum up :-) The forms of injunction may be such as follows:

1. To the man who proceeds to adopt what he is not capable of, it says “Don’t".

2. To the man who is firmly determined to do what is not in his power, it says, “Give up this determination “.

3. If a man were to adopt one of the upāyas (other than prapatti) which are left open to the option (of the aspirant to mukti), it says to him that, by the principle of the Brahma missile, it would conflict with the effectiveness of prapatti.

Therefore the meanings of the words sarva dharmān parityajya (giving up all dharmas) which are approved of by the wise are as follows:

(1) incompetence to do those things that are not within one’s

power gives competence for prapatti; and being destitute of all other upāyas is a qualification for prapatti;

(3) the dharmas or rites being no accessory or aṅga to prapatti;

(4) the prevention of effort in trying to do what is not possible

for one;

(5) the giving up of the desire to do what is beyond one’s ability;

(6) the indication of the principle of the Brahma missile.

The interpretation (which is given by some) that what is asked to be given up is the dharmas or rites associated with other deities (than Bhagavān) is not objectionable, but as this applies to both the man who adopts bhakti or upāsana and the man who adopts prapatti, this interpretation is inappropriate here (in the context especially relating to the prapanna ).

“The giving “up of upāyas” stated in such passages as the following :-One should give up the upāyas and also the apāyas (those activities that are forbidden )” should also be interpreted in the same way.

(

“Do not endeavour to do what is beyond your power though you have begun the attempt; at the outset, it is the part of wisdom to give up the desire to do what lies beyond your ability; the path of prapatti does not require any aids ; if you desire other aids for it, it will lose its potency like the Brahma missile ; you are not among those who have the full knowledge required to follow the path of bhakti or upāsana, which takes a long time to bear fruit; hence if you seek my feet as your refuge reflecting on your being destitute of other upāyas, I will pardon all your sins”: Let us extol the great and good qualities of the holy Śrī Kṛṣṇa who spoke these words.

THE MEANING OF THE WORDS MĀM AND AHAM

IN THE CARAMA ŚLOKA:– page559

As stated in the context in the Gita, which describes the secret of avatāra or incarnation and that in which Śrī Kṛṣṇa” declares Himself as (Puruṣottama), the primary aim of the words mām (me) and aham (I) (in the carama śloka) is to disclose (Bhagavān’s) easy accessibility and His absolute independence (and omnipotence) respectively.

He who knows the secret of incarnation to consist in its being real, in the incarnation continuing in its real nature (as Bhagavān) though incarnating in lower forms, in its being constituted of the (transcendental, substance called Śuddhasattvam in its being caused only by Bhagavān’s own will or desire (and not by karma ); in its occurrence at a time when there is decline of dharma and in its being occasioned for the purpose of protecting the good – (he who knows all this) will never be born again.

This knowledge of the secret of incarnation is required for the bhakta, who has prapatti as an aṅga, to complete and perfect his upāya. To the man who has adopted prapatti as the direct and independent means, it reveals the easy accessibility of the omnipotent and independent Lord. The accessibility and omnipotence which are declared in these two contexts are complementary to each other,

Even if a person is independent and omnipotent, if he is not accessible, no one will seek him (for protection). Even if a person is sought (for protection) on account of his easy accessibility, he cannot award the desired fruit if he is dependent on others.

Towards one who is not independent, there is no possibility of rendering service, as the person rendering service, might think of acting as he pleases; and towards one who is not easily accessible, service might be possible though difficult, but as is seen in the world, it does not confer happiness or pleasure (on the person rendering service),

The Saviour who is both accessible and supreme is not only merely accessible like a blade of grass but exalted (in status and nature). Though exalted and supreme, he is not inaccessible like Mount Meru, but easily accessible. Therefore He is both capable of being sought (for protection) and capable of being attained. In these two words mām and aham, the eagerness with which the universal Saviour and śeṣī is awaiting an opportunity for protecting (the jīva ) is disclosed.

Iśvara who thus waits for an occasion or opportunity as stated in the passage :– " The Lord expects a prayer for protection,” is ever favourably inclined saying, " When will these (jīvas) pray for my help?” This attitude of His is suggested by the word mām (me). The word aham (1) shows His attitude of readiness to confer for His own glory, the desired fruit as quickly as possible saying, “ When shall I take back (and wear) (these jīvas) like jewels from which the dirt (prakṛti) has been removed,"

Thus the carama śloka indicates by the words mām and ekam (me alone) the Siddhopāya who does not require anything else than the surrender of responsibility (bharanyāsa) with the prayer for protection performed according to the injunction. And by the words saranam vraja (seek as refuge or upāya) it shows, in the form of an injunction (vidhi) Sādhyopāya (namely, prapatti) which is the means of winning His grace. Since the vidyā called prapatti, which is here enjoined, is ordained as a means of propitiating the Saviour, it becomes an upāya and resembles in that respect bhakti yoga. Iśvara who is propitiated thereby is the direct means or upāya for mokṣa. What has to be understood as a distinguishing feature of this vidyāi (prapatti) is its being an upāya which does not require (any aid or accessory). All the attributes necessary for this purpose are also signified in the words mām and ekam (me alone).

By the word mām (me) which denotes the Saviour whose nature is indicated in such ślokas as the following: “This Nārāyaṇa who has the ocean of milk as His abode has now come to the city of Madhura leaving His bed of Adiśeṣa” by this word ( mām) are disclosed His being the Universal Saviour, His being the universal Śeṣī, His being the Lord of Śrī, His being Nārāyaṇa (the resting place of Naras) which are revealed in Tirumantra and Dvaya, and so also the qualities which can be inferred from them, namely, omniscience, omnipotence and the like, and, 30 also, such qualities as Ilis being supremely compassionate, His good nature (sauśīlya) and His love which are all the marks of supremacy and accessibility. (‘The word mām also discloses ), like the word having the dual termination, viz, caraṇau (the two feet) in Dvaya, the divinely auspicious form of Pārthasārathi which suggests both His being the Supreme Being and His easy accessibility and which is our auspicious refuge. Here these four qualities of His, namely, His love, His being the Master, His good nature (sauśīlya) and His accessibility which are stated in such passages as the following :– “O Thou that hast incomparable attributes, Thou that ownest the three worlds, Thou that art my Saviour! Thou that dwellest on Mount Veṅkatam, which is eagerly longed for by hosts of incomparable gods and rishis!” - these four qualities are revealed when Śrī Kṛṣṇa did not treat Arjuna’s misplaced compassion and affection at the beginning with disregard, when He Himself declared : " There is no one higher than I “, when He served as charioteer to Arjuna who addressed Him as “O, Krishṇa O Yādava” and said " Drive my chariot and station it between the two armies" and when, at Arjuna’s request, He revealed to Him His universal form immanent in all things and when later, as soon as he prayed to see His former delightful form as Śrī Kṛṣṇa, He stood before him once again as his charioteer. Among the aforesaid qualities of the Saviour, the most important attributes that are essential for the protection of those who seek Him have been briefly set forth in the Bhagavat Śāstra: “Though Bhagavān who keeps all under His control is both omniscient and compassionate, He expects a prayer for protection, since He has to conduct the course of the world of saṁsāra” anil in this śloka of the wise āchārya, “In the face of ‘Thy omniscience, omnipotence and compassion, my sins cannot bear fruit." Among these three qualities, knowledge and might tre required in common for conferring punishment and favour. l’he Lord’s being the Master serves the purpose both of His deriving the delight of Līlā from man in saṁsāra and His deriving enjoyment or bhoga in Vaikuṇṭha from the soul that has obtained mukti, So this attribute of Lordship cannot restrain the Lord’s jñāna or knowledge and śakti or might so as to operate only in the work of protection. Compassion and its varieties (literally - branches) good nature, love and the like are solely responsible for the conferment of favours. The ancients who appreciated this distinguishing feature of mercy wrote as follows:–“O Thou “that art the Lord of Brahma, the god of the gods! I have not the ability to adore Thee or to praise Thee. (Therefore) with compassion alone in Thy heart, bestow Thy grace on me.” “I relied on Thy compassion alone for protection.” “I will not believe that I could be saved by anything other than Thy compassion,” “I look to Thy compassion alone for salvation,” “O Thou that, in spite of having the glorious Lakṣmī, art so full of compassion as to come and abide permanently in my heart”, It is impossible” to protect me except with Thy holy compassion," “I will sweep Thy temple (and render such other service) being the recipient of Thy compassion and the compassion of Thy consort who dwells in the lotus,” “Showing” Thy mercy with the exclamation ‘Ha! Ha!!", “Show me only Thy compassion so that I, Thy servant, may realise that I have nothing else to attain than Thee and that I have no other upāya (than Thee ) and so that I may find delight only in rendering service to Thee.” “O Lord of Hastigiri! Those that are devoted to Thee by their qualities and actions with the knowledge of Thee – it is Thy compassion which has made them devoted to thee. I consider that only that compassion is a source of strength to me who am destitute of upāyas.” In these Ways, these ancients looked lipon (the Lord’s) compassion by their refuge and considered the relationship of the śeṣī to the śeṣa and other qualities (of the Lord) as the obedient servants of compassion and became solely dependent on the Lord’s mercy, Sītā devi also said, in spite of the existence of other qualities: “Rāma, the descendant of Kakustha, extended his protection to him (Kakasura), out of compassion, though he deserved the punishment of being killed”.

Since Śrī Rāmānuja has also written in his Gadya “At ⁷ the time of the death of the body, you will, by my grace alone, become wise and have a vision of me etc.,” the primary importance of (the Lord’s) compassion is indicated. Facing (Arjuna) with this primary quality so essential for protection and other attributes which are ancillary to it, Śrī Kṛṣṇa referred to Himself as mām (me).

THE MEANING OF EKAM IN THE CARAMA ŚLOKA: page564

(1: While the singular form mām(me) itself indicates the idea of alone’ (ekam), the further use of the word ekam is, according to some, to disclose that He who is the object of attainment is Himself the means or upāya for that attainment like the (celestial) kalpaka tree giving itself (to those that ask). Thus (these commentators) suggest that the use of ekam after mām is to suggest the identity of the object of attainment and the means of attaining it. This interpretation finds support in the sentence mām ekam eva in a similar context :- " By all means, seek the protection only of me alone who am the inner self of all beings, You will then have no fear of any kind.” Since the word eva (only) is already present, it is but proper to seek some other purpose for the existence or use of the word ekam in addition to only. (This purpose is the declaration of the oneness of the means and the end).

(2) As against this, others say that the word ekam which has the following nieanings: ‘chief’, ‘something other than’, and ‘there is no other than thiś, is, in this sentence, a mere synonym of ’no other’ and means ‘only’ or ‘alone’ as in the ślokas, “Those who seek me alone (and no other) as their refuge will surmount the insurmountable māyā" and “Seek the protection of Him alone (and no other)”. In this way they mention that by emphasising the fullness of the qualities of the Saviour, one is made to understand that one cannot adopt an upāya by one’s own independence. If it be asked how, the answer is as follows:-“As the man adopts, for his own protection, the means ordained for Him by the śāstras for propitiating (the Lord), it is just possible that he might think of himself also as doing something for his protection on an equal footing with the Saviour who is the Siddhopāya. Taking into account this possibility, the word eka denies that there is any upāya other than the Lord to make the upāyas two. If it be asked how this denial is made, the answer is as follows: It is true that the jīva is the doer according to the pramāṇas, for it is stated: - “He is the doer; otherwise the śāstras could have no meaning or purpose”. Still this doership of the jīva is dependent on the Supreme Being and is very limited (in its scope) besides being subject to hindrances. Therefore though he adopts the upāya, it is only on account of the Lord’s grace as stated in the śloka :– " Without Thy compassion, O Varada, even the prayer that Thou shouldst be my upāya would not arise from me.” When the Lord withholds His help and stimulation, the jīva cannot even stretch out his limbs or bend them. Therefore he practises the upāya revealed by the Lord, with the help of the body and the senses given by Him and with His help and looks up to Him like the chātaka bird for the desired fruit to be given by Him. So it is improper for the intelligent aspirant to mukti to consider himself, as another Siddhopāya equal to the Lord, who is absolutely independent of others and whose activities extend everywhere and can meet with no hindrances or obstacles. This is, according to these commentators, the purport of the word eka. (only He and no other). (3) Following this line of reasoning, they say also that the word eka (one) is used to prevent the consideration of prapatti which is sādhyopāya as being equal to Siddhopāya. If it be asked how, the answer is as follows:- Although like bhakti . yoga, prapatti too, has been enjoined as an endeavour to propiti. ate (the Lord), yet its purpose is merely to allay the displeasure of the Supreme Ruler who has innate compassion and other such qualities. For the direct attainment of the desired fruit, it is only the will of the Lord who has, by His very nature, the ability and the compassion (necessary for protecting the jīva) - it is only His will that is the cause. He accepts the responsibility for protecting the prapanna who is absolutely destitute of upāyas and Himself stands in the place of such more difficult upāyas as bhakti yoga. He expects only the vyāja (pretext or gesture ) of prapatti accompanied by such things as the will to do what is pleasing to Him. This nyāsa vidyā does not require any ancillary rite or accessory and has this as its distinguishing feature. Therefore in this vidyā, He is the only upāya to be prayed for as stated in the following passages: “Śaraṇāgati consists in the thought “I pray that Thou alone shouldst be my upāya”; “I made Him the subject of the thought that the Lord should be my upāya. Even this became possible only by virtue of His compassion.” “O Lord that mad’st me consent and placed me beneath Thy feet I” As stated in these passages, to piace the mere vyāja or pretext vis. prapatti, which too was inspired only by Him acting as the upāya to place it on an equal footing with Him is not proper. This is the purport of the word eka (only · no other).

Taking into consideration the fact that Sādhyopāya is a inere pretext or gesture (vyāja) in relation to Siddhopāya and is without any importance, some (writers) exaggerated its insignificance by stating that prapatti consists merely in (1) the knowledge of the relation of the śeṣa to the śeshī (2) the mere knowledge that the Lord is the Siddhopāya, (3) nonresistance (to His grace) (4) mere acceptance or receptivity (5) the attitude of being different from acit or non-sentient matter (6) the activity of the sentient being and (7) serenity of mind (8) an attribute of the adhikārī. From these (exaggerated statements) it is not proper to conclude that any of them is the real meaning of prapatti, for the purport (of these exaggerations) is quite different. All these interpretations are opposed to the positive injunction contained in śaraṇam vraja (seek me as Thy Saviour). They would also lead to too wide an application (atiprasaṅga). We will explain how:- (1) & (2) If prapatti were to consist only in the knowledge of the relationship of the śeṣa to the śeṣin or in the knowledge that the Lord is Siddhopāya, then since this knowledge would of itself arise from the sentence or text (stating it), there would be no need to state it in the form of an injunction (ordaining ‘know this “). If it be said that mokṣa might result from mere knowledge and without doing the thing enjoined in a vidhi or injunction, it would, as explained in Śrī Bhāṣya and elsewhere (Vedārthasaṅgraha), be opposed to (the spirit of) the injunctions directing one to upāsanas; if it be held that the man who has a knowledge of the truth should thereby acquire a different kind of knowledge called prapatti, then the essential nature (svarūpa) of this knowledge should be understood in accordance with the texts or passages ordaining the dharma (ś’araṇam vraja), those that describe or define its characteristics (that it can yield fruits not attainable otherwise etc.) and those that prescribe the manner of adopting it (anushṭhāna) (the utterance of the Dvaya and the like). If the statement that prapatti consists only in the acceptance of Siddhopāya were true, it would mean that the man should first know Siddhopāya and then perform the action called ‘surrender of responsibility (bharanyāsa) for which he is competent and that this surrender should be preceded by the prayer enjoined in the vidhis or injunctions, (3) If prapatti were to consist in mere non-resistance (to the Lord’s grace), it would mean (a) that it was possible for him to resist Iśvara owing to superior strength. This would imply that Iśvara is not omnipotent or (b) If resistance means resisting the Lord’s grace by committing an offence and incurring punishment, it would follow that prapatti is only a means of propitiation (c) If resistance means resisting in means of one’s own activity to protect oneself, then since there is no such resistance of the nature of activity in such states as pralaya and suṣupti (dreamless sleep) and so also in the waking stake when the man is capable of action but does not act, Iśvara would have to

award mokṣa to him. (4) If prapatti were to consist in mere acceptance, it would then stand on the same footing as upāsana. There would be no difference between the bhakta and the prapanna. (5) If prapatti were to consist merely in being different from non-sentient things, it would be present even when the man acts against the will of God. This, certainly, could not be the cause of being saved or protected. (6) If prapatti were to consist in the mere activity of the sentient being, not only upāsanas but other activities of the sentient being (like eating, breathing, etc.,) would lie the cause of salvation. There would then be no difference between prapatti and all these activities. If it be said that prapatti is what happens to a man of its own accord, there would then be no need for instructions (upadeśa’) concerning it. (7) If it be said that prapatti means serenity of mind without the purpose of obtaining any fruit, then it would vary with different individuals in accordance with their respective tastes. (8) If prapatti were a mere attribute of the adhikāri (and not something to be done), the word vraja would be improper, for it lays down something to be done and there is no reference to any fruit or the desire for it (and the like). So it would not be proper to call prapatti an attribute of the adhikārī⁸ . If it were possible to condemn (the performance of) prapatti in these ways, although it is enjoined as something to be performed, it would be equally possible to condemn also upāsanas and the like in the same manner In that case, the attempt to distinguish prapatti from upāsanas and the like (which was the reason for the argument) would fail. If it be said that though this Siddhopāya (Iśvara ) has accepted the responsibility of protecting one and is bent op granting the (desired) fruit, yet the man should consider that this acceptance is unnecessary, prapatti would then be a case of meditating on what is not true (drishti vidhi)⁹ (and it would not lead to mokṣa ).

If it means the thought that the acceptance by Iśvara, too, is unnecessary, it would be opposed to the idea contained in the words of the Lord śaraṇam vraja (seek me as the Saviour).

Therefore Iśvara is the object of propitiation and He is the Siddhopāya and is of great importance. Both bhakti and prapatti are ways of propitiation and are Sādhyopāyas which are not so important. (The aspirant to mukti) should be firmly established in either of these two, according to his competence.

(4) It has also been stated by some (ācāryas) that the word eka is employed to indicate how the Saviour, who has accepted the responsibility, stands alone, requiring nothing else after the performance of prapatti, so that there need be no adoption of any of the means (like upāsana) prescribed for the attainment of the desired fruit. This may be explained as follows :— If a person has performed prapatti as an aṅga and then adopts also upāsanas and the like as angī, the Saviour becomes the upāya for the fruit desired. In the case of the man who adopts prapatti as a direct and independent means, being destitute of the other pros and impatient of delay, the game Iśvara takes, upon his own qualities, the burden that lies between prapatti and Himself. As stated in the following passages :- " Those who are incapable of bhaktı yoga and seek Thee as upāya they, too, pass beyond saṁsāra and reach Thy abode, Vaikuṇṭha”, and “Thou hast Thyself given Thy feet as the fruit of my attainment and as the upāya for attaining it” - as stated here, the Lord himself, who is endowed with the qualities essential for it, stands as the Dispenser of the fruit desired, without requiring any ancillary rite or dharma. Therefore what is stated in the carama.śloka comes to this :- " Bear this in mind and seek Me alone for your salvation”. (5) It is said by some that the word eka is used here for the purpose of making it clear that, when prapatti is performed to Him who is perfect in every way, nothing else is required except such as the will to do what is pleasing to the Lord. Therefore the Lord teaches that one should not introduce, into this, ancillary rites such as are required for the vidyās, under the impression that they, too, form upāyas for propitiating Him. The Lord’s purport (in the śloka) is as follows –” Prapatti does not require any aids such as are performed either because they are my commands or because their performance is approved of by me. When I become gracious owing to the performance of prapatti, I am bent on granting the desired fruit and stand as the one and only surety for this upāya which is capable of being performed in an instant. In regard to the fruit of this prapatti, nothing else need be performed. I do not require any such aid in regard to my determination to save Thee". This amounts to saying that, with the exception of such things as the will to do what is pleasing (to the Lord), no other auxiliary causes should be added on in the name of ancillaries to prapatti.

As stated (in the Śaraṇāgati Gadya " Thou that utterest the Dvaya in some manner or other" and in Varadarāja stava. “By the mere words which state prapatti, I long to see Thee - Thee that canst not be attained by bhakti “, even though a man has not the clear understanding necessary for the full and perfect performance of prapatti, this upāya will be effective even if it be adopted in a less satisfactory manner. Therefore there is certainly no need to seek ancillary rites or dharmas for this upāya.

(It is true that) (in the Rāmāyaṇa) it is stated :- " Then Rāma,” the slayer of his enemies, spread kuśa grass on the beach, had his arm shining like the body of a serpent for his pillow, folded his hands in añjali and lay down facing the east and expecting the arrival of the god of the ocean" and, likewise, in the story of Brahmadatta in the episode of Saptavyādha, “The king was in great danger and sought with devotion Nārāyaṇa, the chief of the gods, the Saviour and the Ruler over all, as his upāya with concentration of mind and fasting for six nights. The renowned king saw in his contemplation (dhyāna) the Lord Nārāyaṇa" But these ancillary rites that are described in the Rāmāyaṇa and Harivamśa) are not necessary for prapatti. In these two places, what is of importance is the ritual of sitting with the intention of starving onto death and therefore the ancillary actions described there are proper. The same explanation holds good in the case of namaskāra well performed. (There is no prapatti in all these cases). But in prapatti, no other requisites are needed except such as the will to do what is pleasing to the Lord - such as are stated in the chapters on Prapatti. We do not find any ancillary rites except such requisites, at the time, as the will to do what is pleasing. in the following instances of those who performed prapatti with only their being destitute of all upāyas for their sole wealth. (a) Draupadi, (b) Damayanti, (c) Rākṣasis, (d) Vibhishana, (e) Kshatrabandbu, (f) Muchukunda, (g) Gajendra, (h) the pāṇḍavas, (i) the gods, (j) Sumukha. (k) Triśanku, (1) Śunaśśepha, (m) Kirāta, (n) kāka, (o) Kapota¹⁰ and the like. We find that, by the instantaneous performance of mere prapatti without any other requisites, the desired fruit was obtained) by each of these that sought protection in the same manner, even in prapatti performed for the sake of mokṣa, there is nothing to prevent the attainment of the fruit at the desired time. This is the purport also of the words mā śuchah (Do not grieve).

If parityajya is interpreted to mean that there is nothing else required for prapatti, this interpretation of the word eka may be considered as confirming or emphasizing this. (It need not therefore be looked upon as redundant). Or the word eka may be considered to have another meaning, namely, the idea of the upāya and the upeya being the same. If the word eka is considered as stating that prapatti does not require anything else, then the word parityajya may be considered as having the other meanings stated before.

If it be asked why the word eka should be used as an adjective of the Saviour, when (properly speaking), it should qualify prapatti (so that it might mean that prapatti alone is necessary without any ancillary dharmas), the answer is as follows: The words, mām ekam (me alone) are employed to show that, in the case of the man destitute of other upāyas, these ancillary dharmas other than prapatti are in no way connected with the Saviour as the means of propitiating Him. (6) It is also stated by some (commentators) that, as in the first half of the śloka we find the words sarva dharmān (all dharmas) and in the second half the word sarva pāpebhyo (from all sins), the word eka stands here as the counterpart or counterpoise to the world all. If this be admitted, then the gist of the carama śloka would be:

This statement may be explained as follows: “Whatever be the object that a man, whoever be may be, wishes to attain and whatever be the means or upāyas by which he cannot attain them and likewise, the attainment of mokṣa desired by the aspirant, which cannot be attained by karma yoga, jñāna yoga and bhakti yoga, all these fruits, can, O great sage, be attained by prapatti. The place desired by the aspirant to mukti is that supreme abode from which the man who reaches it never returns”. As declared (in the passage cited above), when a man falls into grief because he cannot obtain any one of the fruits desired by him either because of ignorance of the means prescribed in the śāstras for acquiring the respective fruit, or because even while possessing that knowledge, he is unable to adopt the prescribed means, or because, while possessing both (the knowledge and the ability), he is too impatient to wait until the time when the fruit will be attained thereby - (when a man falls into grief in this way) the Carama-śloka declares to him, “ You need not go about in search of these means. I will myself be the only and sole upāya for your attainment of all these fruits, provided I am propitiated by the performance of prapatti. The Carama Śloka says, as it were :- " This single and sovereign medicine will give you all the health which a larger number of other medicines may confer on you. It is enough, if, instead of falling into despair, you take this single medicine. This will cure all the ailments that can be cured by other medicines. After taking this medicine, you can enjoy all pleasures. Therefore you need not fall into despair thinking that you have lost your health and the pleasures." This is, as it were, the meaning of the Carama śloka.

Though the word eka stands as the counter-part of the word sarva (all) and qualifies the Saviour as He is most important being the Sidhopāya, yet it is tantamount to stating that prapatti alone is enjoined as the single dharma in the place of all other dharmas, as in the phrase " by nyāsa alone" From this it follows that even those who desire the three ends (other than mokṣa (viz). (dharma, artha and kāma) may perform prupatti to Bhagavān for securing them. So it is not proper to have any contact with other deities except as they figure as attributes to the Lord in the performance of the nitya and naimittika rites, as stated in such ślokas as the following:-“I am propitiating Him from whom, O lndra, you have obtained your position of lordship. I will not adore you. Here is my anjali to you. You may strike me with your thunderbolt or abstain from doing so. I will never adore any one but Govinda.”

Even those who seek other upāyas for attaining mokṣa (like bhakti yoga) may perform prapatti in order to get rid of the hindrances in the way (of those upāyas). Prapatti is suitable in the case also of those who want to get rid of obstacles to the attainment (of Bhagavān ) viz, sins and this is declared here (in the carama śloka) to show that it is capable of securing any fruit that may be desired (by one). The idea that prapatti will destroy the obstacles to the upāyas for attainment (namely, sins) is conveyed (by Śrī Rāmānuja) in his Gitā Bhāṣya in his second interpretation (of the śloka). In the Gadya, he has declared that prapatti will help to get rid of the hindrances to the attainment of Bhagavān It does not mean that, in those two places, Śrī Rāmānuja expresses one of these two ideas in disregard of the other. Both passages illustrate the potency of this upāya (prapatti) which cın secure all desired ends. The praṇavan (aum) enters into the body of another mantra, viz. namo Nārāyaṇāya as a part thereof and yet is itself an independent mantra. So also this prapatti forms an aṅga to bhakti in the case of others. This is evident from the authority of the texts. That bhakti and prapatti stand as alternative upāyas determined by the competence of the persons concerned is evident from such passages as the following: “I am capable of being attained O, Thou of great wisdom, either by deep bhakti or by prapatti on the part of those who desire to render service to me, I cannot be attained by any other means “.

(There is a well-known śloka which says):- “A man attains mokṣa either by right knowledge, or by death in the waters of the Gaṅga or by namaskāra well-performed or by bhakti “. In such passages those that are direct means of attaining mukti are stated along with others that are not direct but only auxiliary. This is only a way of exaggerating the importance of these indirect means.

CONCLUSION IN REGARD TO THE MEANING OF

THE WORD EKA page575

Six meanings have (thus) been pointed out byācāryas for the word eka. They are (1) the identity of the object of attainment (Bhagavān) and the means or upāya for that attainment (2) the denial of one’s own importance (i. e. of the jīva’s works); (3) prapatti being only a mere pretext or gesture (vyāja). (4) the absence of any relation or connection between prapatti and other upāyas; (5) and likewise, the absence of any relation or connection between prapatti and the aṅgas or ancillary dharmas (karma yoga, etc.) of other upāyas (like bhakti ) and (6) prapatti as a single means of securing all desired ends without any distinction whatsoever.

THE SAVIOUR IS BHAGAVAN WITH ŚRĪ AS HIS

ATTRIBUTE: page575

There are some commentators who state that the meaning of the word eka (a single one) declares that the Saviour is only one (namely, Bhagavān) and that Śrī has nothing to do with salvation). But their contention does not stand to reason. Just as qualities and forms qualify the Lord as His attributes, so also Śrī is an attribute of His (inseparable from Him). She is the ruler over all beings and is dear to Bhagavān and is declared in the śrutis as sharing in His duties and as ever bent on protecting those that seek her help. Though it is stated (in the Chandogya Upaniṣad and other Vedic texts) that the material cause of the Universe is only one (sat), yet other things that are requisite as material causes are understood as existing as His attributes (viz. cit and acit in their subtle and unmanifested forms) on the authority of the pramāṇas. So also in this context, Śrī should be understood, although not distinctly stated. Even when a single form of upāsana or meditation is enjoined, the qualities that are connected with the object of meditation enter also into it. Similarly though a single deity is enjoined as the Saviour to be sought, Śrī, who is His attribute, should also be considered as being associated with Him (in the act of salvation). The Siddhopāya (namely, Bhagavān ) is (of course) single but His qualities remain with Him (though not explicitly stated). In the same way, in the opinion of those who see with the eye of the Śāstra, Lakṣmī (His spouse) is associated inseparably with Him as an attribute, Light and the object emitting light (are inseparable from each other) and when one is mentioned , the other is also presint by association. Likewise when either (Bhagavān or Śrī) is mentioned, the other is also present by virtue of their being always with each other. Sages have declared in the smṛtis that she helps (jīvas) to cross the sea of saṁsāra and both of them (Bhagavān and Śrī) have themselves spoken to the same effect in such (samhitas) treatises as sātvatam. In Dvaya it is considered appropriate that kaiṅkarya or service in the state of attainment (mokṣa) should extend to Śrī (as to Bhagavān) So Śrī is equally connected with Him in both the states, that of the endeavour for attaining mokṣa (the first half of Dvaya) and that after attainment (the second half of it). Therefore, on the authority of many Vedic texts and Śrutis which cannot be stated to have some other purport, the single one who is to be sought as the Saviour is the Lord with His attribute Śrī who is His consort.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD SARANAM IN THE

CARAMA-ŚLOKA: page576

The meanings that have (already) been given to the word ś’araṇam occurring in Dvayam (on p. ) should be borne in mind in regard to the word śaraṇam employed here in the carama-śloka. This prayer for refuge or upāya (saranam though taught to Arjuna, should be considered applicable to all and this is evident from the¹¹ Svetāsvatara Upaniṣad and from Śrī Rāmānuja’s words in the (Śaraṇāgati) Gadya: “O Thou that art the Saviour of all beings in the world ignoring the differences that may exist among those that seek Thee”. Similarly in such passages as the following :- “Those Brahmins who know the first part of the Veda and those people who understand the meaning of its latter part declare that the Supreme Being, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, is the ever-existing dharma or upāya “, " The great and eminent Rishis say that Thou art the refuge and the Saviour of those that have sought Thy protection”. “He is the “Yoga (upāya) and the one who leads those who know bhakti yoga to their goal”. and “Bhagavān whom the wise call the eternal means (upāya) and the goal of attainment” – (in such passages ) also, since there is no limitation of meaning, it has to be understood that the Saviour is for all. The only requisite for seeking Him as the Saviour or Refuge is that the person should be destitute of any other refuge or protector.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD VRAJA: page577

The word vraja also, like the word prapadye (in Dvaya ) enjoins self-surrender with all its auxiliaries. In the word (prapadye in Dvaya), the first person is used, because it is the thought or meditation in the mind of the man who performs prapatti. Here (in the caramaśloka) it is in the second person, since the injunction is addressed to the man (Arjuna) who stands opposite to the Lord (i.e.) Śrī Kṛṣṇa saying: “I am Thy disciple and (it is only fitting that) Thou shouldst order me to do what is right”. Auxiliaries like the will to do what is pleasing to the Lord are also indicated here and may be found suggested in ¹² suitable words as in Dvaya, There is a ( well-known) principle which states: “When an action is enjoined in the śāstra, a single performance of it satisfies the requirements of the Śāstra”. The upāsana however, is an exception to this general rule because it requires frequent repetition. But prapatti is no such exception (and hence a single performance will quite do ). This statement is confirmed also by such words as the following: -“To the man who performs prapatti only once and says “I exist for Thee " - to that man I grant freedom from fear from all beings. This is my vow”. To the man who performs bharanyāsa (the surrender of responsibility) to the generous and omnipotent (Lord), there is no reason for delay in the attainment except his own desire. Therefore in the case of this nyāsa vidyā, the peculiarity is that it arrests even the consequences of past karma which have already begun to operate (prarabdha karma ).

In this connection some (commentators) ask “An action may be enjoined for performance only by a man who has freedom of will and action, How can an action be enjoined (in the word vraja) for performance by one who has been taught as being absolutely dependent (on the Lord) in the Vedānta and other śāstras treating of the self and in such as the mool mantra? This (question) is the result of an inadequate understanding of what is meant by complete dependence on another the Lord). As determined in Vedānta (śāstras), “He (i.e.)the jīva is the doer; otherwise the śāstras which enjoin dharmas would have no purpose or meaning”, and " The doership (of the jīva) is dependent on the Supreme Self, for the śruti says so”. Since the jīva is an agent or doer subject to the will of Bhagavān, there is nothing to prevent an injunction asking him to do something.

Just as non-sentient things (acit) like ether and fire bear the attributes respectively of sound and heat created by Iśvara, the jīva’s absolute dependence on Iśvara consists in bearing this burden of free will (and responsibility) (granted to him by Iśvara). If it be maintained that he has no responsibility at all as a doer or agent, it would be like the heresies (siddhānta) which attribute doership (respectively) to prakṛti and avidyā (Sankhya and Advaita). If (on the other hand) it be maintained that the jīva’s doership is dependent only on himself (and on nobody else), then since it would resemble the heresy which does not admit the existence of one who is in supreme control of all selves, it would be a form of atheism. If it is held that the doership which comes from the will of the Lord is merely the state of being the knower, there would be no such thing as a desire for the ends of life (puruṣārtha) and the endeavour to attain them. It it be held that apart from the knowledge and the particular form of knowledge called desire, there is no such thing as effort (or mental activity), it would be impossible to adopt any means for securing objects that are tangible or intangible and for rendering service for its own sake . Therefore it has to be admitted that the self has these three (attributes):–knowledge, desire, and effort (knowing, feeling and willing). Among these (three), desire and effort are only different modifications or states of knowledge and this may be understood from the principle of logical economy ¹³ adopted by Śrī Rāmānuja in his Vedārthasaṅgraha.

The doership or agentship which consists in being the seat (āśraya) of an action (or the place where an action takes place) is a common attribute of both sentient beings and non sentient things (for the latter also move about and undergo changes). But the seat (āśraya) of an effort or endeavour (prayatna) is (an attribute) peculiar to sentient beings. Effort or endeavour (prayatna) is a form of knowledge or will that is the cause of stimulating one to exercise the body (the senses and the like). When one is the seat of mere knowledge and of mere enjoyment (bhoga), there is only the doership which consists in being the seat of such action as is common to sentient beings and non-sentient things.

When a person is stimulated by his will to act in a particular manner, he becomes the seat of endeavour or effort (prayatna) and is a doer of that particular form. It cannot justly be maintained that this form of doership is found only in rendering kaiṅkarya or service. Even in this case, the man must have adopted an upāya with a view to attaining the end called the love of the Lord. If all this is admitted, it is only the doership that takes the form of an endeavour or effort which would lead to bondage - it is only this form of doership that should be avoided. If it be asked what that form of doership is, the answer is as follows:- Iśvara has given the jīva such qualities as knowledge and ability and also such things as the senses and the body. He supports the jīva and stimulates him (to action). He enjoys also the fruit of (that) action. When He is thus rendering help (to the jīva), if the latter should consider himself as being different from this and if, even when he considers his position in the right spirit, he adopts an upāya for some (worldly) purpose - the endeavour would lead to bondage. Even bhakti and prapatti would certainly lead to bondnge in the case of the man who performs them for securing other ends (than mokṣa). Therefore just like the doership in the state of attainment (mukti) of the man who longs for rendering service to the Lord by virtue of his very nature and with no other purpose, the doership in the state when he adopts an upāya (for the sake of mukti and service) is not improper. The doership of varied forms of service (to the Lord) in the state of attainment (i. e. mukti) results from the self’s own longing (to render service) combined with the varied desires of the Lord (which have no connection with karma). The doership in the state of saṁsāra is of different kinds corresponding to the conditioning factor (upādhi) in the forms of sattva, rajas and tamas which have been evolved in accordance with the past karma and by the will of Iśvara. That doership which results from rajas and tamas and so also from that sattva which is the cause of attachment to other interests (than mokṣa) - that doership leads to bondage. That doership (on the other hand) which results from the form of superior sattvam which creates a longing for he attainment of Bhagavān – that doership leads to mokṣa. In the state of mukti, the doership will have no connection at all with any of these three qualities.

Therefore between the texts which state that the self is not a doer and the texts which state that the self is a doer, there is no conflict, since it is possible to discriminate wherein it has doership and wherein it has no doership. If it be asked how this could be understood, the answer is as follows:- The texts which declare that the self is not a doer or agent have, for their purport, the truth that the doership of the self which is dependent on Iśvara and on the qualities of prakṛti (sattva, rajas and tamas) should not be considered as independent of other (forms). The texts which declare that the self is a doer or agent have, for their purport, the truth that, of the jñāna or knowledge and its particular forms called desire to perform and effort which have come to him in accordance with such things as the desire of Iśvara, the jīva is himself the seat or āsraya. This conclusion has been taught clearly by the Gītācārya Himself in the ślokas beginning with the following –” It is ascertained that when a man does any action with his body, speech or mind, there are five causes that contribute to that action, viz, the body, the self, the senses, the vital breath and fifthly Divinity or daivam In that context the Divinity that is called the fifth (cause) is Puruṣottama. When Puruṣottama stimulates the jīva to perform in action, He is called the kārayitā or one who causes that action, He is (also ) called the kartā or doer in regard to those actions like the awarding of the fruit ( to the jīva) and the creation of the world. When He does not prevent the sentient being from performing an action, He is said to be indifferent. Since he permits it, He is said to be anumantā (i.e.) one who acquiesces. As Iśvara, sometimes, acts like an expert porter who carries a heavy weight to help an apprentice who can carry only a light burden, He is also said to co-operate (with the jīva ) (sahakārī). In such things as the

creation (of the world), since differences like gods and men are due to the conditioning factor (upādhi) of their respective past karma, Iśvara is declared not to be the doer as stated in the śloka: “The four castes were created by me in accordance with such qualities as sattva that are found in jīvas and also with their past karma . Though I perform the act of creation, I am not the real cause nor am I tainted by it.” Thus from Iśvara who has the common and general doership of all things without exception, the jīva acquires the power to make an effort and act in accordance with his own will. Therefore it is evident that the jīva is fit to be directed to do a thing and the word vraja may justly enjoin the performance of an action.

Since the dharma called śaraṇāgati can rightly be enjoined for performance, just like such things as bhakti, the statement of Tirukkurukai Piran Pillan (the foremost of the disciples of Śrī Rāmānuja) that the good we do for ourselves is like milk that is bought (in the market) and that the good that comes from Iśvara is like mother’s milk should be understood to mean that we should remember that bhakti, prapatti and the like result (from the grace of) God and that the jīva is solely dependent (on Iśvara). (It does not mean that we are not right in performing bhakti or prapatti and should leave everything to God.)

He who states that the texts which declare bhakti to be an upāya are only for the purpose of creating faith in prapatti is undermining faith in every śāstra without directly appearing to do so.

Bhakti as an upāya has been compared (by some critics of it) " to water from a sacred river contained in a pitcher but mingled with a drop of liquor”. But this comparison or simile would hold good only when egoism is mingled with (bhakti ). The same condemnation would hold good in the case of prapatti also, when it is mingled with egoism or ahankāra.

It is stated by some that Aḷavandār begs, in the following śloka, forgiveness for having performed prapatti - “In consideration* of my grandfather, Nāthamuni, and ignoring what I myself have done, vouchsafe unto me Thy grace.” Here Aḷavandār is not seeking pardon for the prapatti which he performed in accordance with the Śāstras, on the ground that the performance was an offence. He is seeking pardon for any trace af egoism (ahaṅkāra) that might have been present in him and no more than that. If it were for having performed prapatti, he should beg the pardon (of the Lord) for having shown reverence to previousācāryas, for this, too, would be an offence, being an action of his. Thus there would be no end to the making of apologies (anavasthā (i.e.) infinite regress). If it is argued that this second begging of forgiveness is both for itself and for other offences, it might also be argued that the previous performance of prapatti is also begging forgiveness for that action and for previous actions. If these fallacious arguments were adopted, it would follow that the ancients, too, sinned in performing prapatti and that it was not proper to show reverence to them. So the reverence shown in this stotra (by Aḷavandār) (to his grandfather etc,) at the beginning and at the end is either for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the prapatti done here or for removing any defects in the performance. As in this reverence shown to āchāryas, in prapatti and the like also, the doership that is subject to the will of another (viz Iśvara ) is no fault. There is a (wrong ) view that since the doership of the jīva is subject (to the will of Iśvara ), the self has no real doership and therefore if a man knows this real nature of his (that he is not a doer), none of the forbidden actions that might be performed by him will leave any stain on him. This view finds its refutation (also in what has been said so far.)

In the Upaniṣads, it is stated that the aspirant to mukti should be like a child. Some writers argue from this that he might act just as he pleases (doing even forbidden things). ‘Being like a child’ means ‘remaining without revealing his “greatness’ and this is established in the sūtra “Without revealing his greatness) for this fits in with the vidyā” (and not behaving in a childish manner.)

(The Gītā says :-)

“To those that have not renounced their doership and the fruit of their actions, the fruits of their karma will (certainly) follow and they will be of three kinds, what is undesirable, what is desirable and what is partly desirable and partly undesirable. These consequences of karma never affect those who have renounced.” and " He who, while performing an action, does not think that it is done by him and whose mind has no attachment to the fruits of that action – . he does not slay any one even though he has slain all those that live in these three worlds”‘These passages do not refer, as shown in GitaBhāṣya to sins committed deliberately after the renunciation. Otherwise they would conflict with many śāstras. Further the words “though he has slain” apply to what is done in a righteous war.

The contention that like a potent medicine which is taken now acting like a cure for unwholesome things that may be done in the future, prapatti will destroy any sins that might be committed after its performance - this contention is disproved by hundreds of texts in the śrutis and the stritis which are directly applicable to the prapanna and are not sublated by other texts.

In such ślokas as the following, Manu and others, too, prescribed the conditions under which transgressions may be permitted: " When there is a real fear that want of food might cause death, if a man eats food obtained from wherever it was possible, he will not be tainted by the sin thereof, in the same way as mire does not stain ether (ākāśa)” “At a time” when there is a fear that want of food might cause death, the man that eats the food obtained by him, whatever the source might be, will not be stained by the sin thereof, in the same way as water does not wet the leaf of the lotus.” That this rule applies equally to the man who knows or meditates on Brahman is seen stated in the Sūtra which says, “At a time when death is feared ( owing to starvation ), the man (the man who meditates on Brahman) may eat any food, whatsoever, for the śāstras say so ” and this is taught there with the help of an illustration¹⁴ . Therefore the view that the self is not a doer and that it is entirely dependent (on Iśvara) and hence will not be stained by any sins committed after prapatti though they are deliberate and that no further prapatti need be performed (for their expiation) - this view is opposed to our siddhānta (Śrī Rāmānuja’s doctrine ).

In this context some ( commentators) explain the meaning of vraja otherwise ((i.e. that it does not enjoin any action) and state that to the aspirant to mukti, there is no upāya to be adopted except the knowledge of relationship that is learnt from the śāstrās to exist between the jīva and Iśvara. They find support for this view in the following ślokas without comprehending their real purport. The ślokas are:- “The self is the property of Bhagavan. He who considers his self as belonging to himself, is a thief of the self. Is there any form of sin that is not committed by him?” " Bhagavan controls all beings in the universe from within the sphere of the sun and He is the ruler over all. He is within your heart and if you have no quarrel with him, you need not go (on a pilgrimage) to the Gaṅga or to Kurukṣetra” and “Remember always that the Lord is the master, that the self or atma is His servant and that this relationship exists always by your very nature.” This argument is opposed to the natural and self evident injunction for bhakti , prapatti and the like. Since listening to Vedānta and reflecting on it arise from mere desire, there is no need also to enjoin the knowledge (of relationship) which arises from the śastras. ( There is no need for the Śāstra to enjoin something which a man will do of his own accord). As is well known, it has been established (in Śrī Bhāṣya) that if knowledge which need not be enjoined is called the means of attaining mukti, it would be opposed to the injunction ordaining certain things for performance and there would be other objections too; (the injunction made in the śāstras would serve no purpose at all).

If this is admitted, the knowledge of the relationship between the jīva and Iśvara is indirectly helpful to all aspirants to mukti, whatever vidyā they may adopt. When a man has acquired this knowledge from the śāstras, the question then arises “ What is the means or upāya for attaining Bhagavān, the Lord of Śrī, who is our master and who imparts unsurpassed bliss ?" When this question has arisen, the answer is that these means or upāyas are certain other forms of knowledge (other than the knowledge of relationship) which are enjoined for the purpose in accordance with each man’s competence and they are bhakti and prapatti. Of these, prapatti is the surrender of the responsibility for one’s protection along with its auxiliaries as stated in the following passage: “When the question arises : " To whom is this self to be surrendered for protection ? the answer is “To Viṣṇu “. In order to show that this (prapatti) should be performed with the knowledge of the relationship existing between one’s self and Iśvara, it was stated that prapatti is the knowledge of the relationship. (It does not mean that prapatti is merely that knowledge and nothing else). We have already described at great length the essential nature (svarūpa) of this prapatti, its auxiliaries and the like (pages).

“I am the means as well as the end to be attained. The aspirant (to.mukti) should become subject to me and seek my protection. The upāya called śaraṇāgati is not the direct means for the attainment. Sadhanas or means like bhakti yoga and karma yoga are no aids to prapatti; other troublesome aṅgas are not required for prapatti. I will myself stand in the place of all such means (as are prescribed for attaining the desired fruits). I am the messenger and the master. Seek me as your refuge and be free from all anxiety”. So says the Lord and surrounds me on all sides).

THE MEANING OF THE WORD AHAM (1) IN

THE SECOND HALF OF THE ŚLOKA page587

Thus in the first half of the carama śloka, Śrī Kṛṣṇa enjoins, for a particular person (adhikārī), the adoption of that upāya (prapatti) which is referred to in the first part of Dvaya and which has (in itself) the potency of all dharmas or rites and, at the same time a peculiar and unique potency of its own which none of them possesses (for it can destroy even that karma which has already begun to operate and yield its consequences). He has explained that this upāya does not require any special or ancillary dharmas on the part of the adhikārī and has to be performed only once. In the second half of the śloka, he graciously explains, at length, the fruit to be attained (by adopting this upāya), which is (only) briefly indicated by the word namas in the second part of Dvaya. In the first half of the śloka, Śrī Kṛṣṇa stated that which has to be done by the person or adhikārī (seeking mukti). In the second half. He states what He, as the Saviour who has accepted the responsibility of protecting, will perform and comforts the man who has done what he ought to do (i.e.) performed prapatti.

Here from the first person singular, mokṣayiṣyāmi (I) will set Thee free). (from this) itself, the meaning ’l’ is evident. So the use of the word aham (I) has the purpose of indicating. by virtue of its meaning, the power of accomplishing what is to others impossible, for this is essential for setting (one) free from all sins. Its purport is this:- “I that bound the offender with fetters and that am destitute of equals and superiors am now full of compassion as the result of a vyāja or pretext and am bent on granting him pardon. (When I am thus inclined) there is no one to prevent me. Nor is there any one else who is capable of making him attain freedom (from sins)”. This idea is well-known from such passages as the following:–“Bhagavān Viṣṇu is the giver of mokṣa”. “The jīvas have been bound with the bonds of karma by the Supreme Being for His līlā and they can be liberated from these bonds only by Him. No one else is capable of doing so.” In this word aham (1), Bhagavān’s natural compassion is the superior aiding force and the graciousness of the Lord which results from prapatti acts as a subordinate aiding force and His independence and omnipotence, which are irresistible, stand as the foremost and siree ageury to dispel all obstacles. If it be asked how, the answer is as follows.–. “His natural compassion makes Him so gracious as to overlook countless offences in consideration of some slight vyāja or pretext. This graciousness accompanied by compassion makes the Lord’s independence and omnipotence operate for the removal of all hindrances that stand in the way of prapannas. ‘Thus Iśvara, who has all the qualities essential for granting freedom from all sins, can act towards that end without requiring any aid. This is the purport of the aham or (I) and it amounts to saying " I myself (without the help of anybody else)”.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD TWĀ (THEE) : page588

The word tvā (Thee) means: Thou that hast acquired the power of discrimination (viveka) necessary to understand the (nature of the) three tattvas (reals) viz., cit, acit and Iśvara, and hast realised such defects or demerits as triviality and transience which are inherent in such ends of life as wealth and lordship, Thou that art eager to attain the supreme end of life which consists in attaining me, Thou that hast given up all connexion with extremely difficult upāyas which have been taught for that purpose, Thou that hast surrendered the responsibility for protecting to me who is the object of attainment and who is capable of removing all obstacles, Thou that having done what ought to be done, hast nothing else to do towards the attainment of the desired fruit

THE MEANINGS OF SARVA PĀPEBHYO (FROM ALL

SINS) : page589

Having thus referred to the Dispenser of mukti who is capable of putting the jīva in bondage or out of it and also to the aspirant to mukti who is incapable (of any endeavour) and who has surrendered (to the Lord) the responsibility for his protection, the śloka proceeds to speak of the bonds in the word sarvapūpebhyo (from all sins). Sin is the cause of evil and what it is can be understood from the śāstras. Evil means ‘becoming subject to what is disagreeable and losing what is agreeable.’ Here (in the carama - śloka) sin denotes also acts of merit (puṇya) which lead to enjoyment in saṁsāra (which includes svarga), for they, too, are to the aspirant to mukti, productive of undesirable fruits. It has been said:-“This svarga and other such places are, my child, like hell when compared with the abode of the Supreme Being”. Thus to the aspirant to mukti, even such places as svarga are like hell. In the case of the aspirant, therefore, that which leads to svarga is, in no way, different from that which leads to hell. That is why the aspirant to mukti is enjoined to give up those means which lead to dharma, artha (wealth) and kāma (pleasure), in the same way as he is enjoined to give up sinful actions. Indeed the Śrutis and the Smṛtis declare that good deeds and evil deeds are both to be avoided by the aspirant to mukti, for it is stated “Giving up puṇya and papa of which are both of the nature, karma which are hard to give up etc.”

Thus having denoted, by the word pāpa (sins), both puṇya and pāpa, which are the causes of bondage, the śloka indicates, by the plural of the word pāpa (viz. pāpebhyah), their being countless. If so, it may be asked what purpose is served by the word sarva (all). (The answer is) the word ‘all’ is used for the purpose of including among the hosts of sins, avidyā or ignorance, the past impressions (vāsanas) which create a liking for adverse things, the taste (ruchi) for evil things and the contact with prakṛti or matter both in its gross state and in its subtle state (in pralaya), for these are the causes of karma and also the products of karma. (In the Śaraṇāgati Gadya), Śrī Rāmānuja has, in three clauses cūrṇikas, indicated, both explicitly by the words themselves and implicitly from their meaning, those hindrances or obstacles which are referred to in ‘all sins’. The three passages begin with manovākkāyaih’ (by mind, speech and body).

(A question might arise in this connection):- It is said, “Having administered the affairs entrusted to them by the Lord for a long time and again and again, they reach the end of their karma and attain mukti, where jīvas who were formerly Brahmas, Indras, and Rudras, are enjoying bliss in Paramapada (the supreme abode).” (So also) it is said: “Those that have been appointed (by the Supreme Being) to be administrators should remain here in the world of saṁsāra) until the expiry of their period of administration”. (We find also the following :-) The man who adopts a bhakti or upāsana as the means will have the benefit of the destruction (the fruits of) such karmas (puṇya and pāpa) as have not begun to yield their consequences at the very beginning of this upāsana; for (it is said) that there will be delay (for their attaining mukti) till the enjoyment is completed of those karmas that have began to operate (prā rabdha). This is applicable even to those who are not administrators. The question may be asked:- “If so, what is the meaning of saying that the Lord will pardon also in the case of the prapanna) those karma s which have began to operate and yield their fruits ?” The answer is as follows:- “Even in the case of karmas which have begun to bear fruit, if the man who has adopted prapatti as the direct and independent upāya considers as evil and undesirable those parts which would lead to another birth or (even) another day’s existence and grieves on that account, Iśvara will give him pardon even in respect of all that karma. If the prapanna is so impatient as to feel that he cannot bear to live without the immediate attainment of mokṣa, the lord will, at that very instant, pardon even all that karma which has begun to bear fruit so that no trace of it may be left over. Therefore there is no reason why one should not pray for pardon even in respect of that karma which has begun to bear fruit (prārabdha).

(In the Śaraṇāgatigadya Śrī Rāmānuja says:-) “Pardon all sins without exception, (sins) past, future, and present - committed by the mind, the speech, or the body.” Here past (sins) refer to those committed before prapatti and future (sins) refer to those that might be committed after the performance of prapatti. We do not see any sins committed at the instant of performing prapatti. What, then, is the meaning of present (kriyamāṇa) sins? (The answer is):- By the word ‘present’ (kriyamāṇa) is meant that which was begun before and which will be completed in future? According to this definition, those sins which were begun before and which require a long time for their completion and thus that might be done on account of negligence or carelessness at the instant of performing prapatti - these are called present (sins) - Future (sins) are those that may begin after prapatti. Among those sins which are committed after prapatti and which may be partly of the present and partly of the future, those which are not committed deliberately will be pardoned by Iśvara and will leave no trace at all (on the self). Those that are committed deliberately can be atoned for by the performance again of prapatti, for it is said:-“If an offence be committed, expiation should be made therefor and the expiation to be made is only the performance of prapatti again.” When it is said that if Iśvara is bent on granting mokṣa, even deadly sins cannot stand in the way, and that there will be no punishment for sins committed delibe. rately after prapatti, what is meant is not that there is no need for expiation or prāyaścitta, but that if Iśvara is again propitiated by prapatti, (which is the prāyaścitta), mokṣa is sure to follow. It is the result of God’s forgiveness that the man is induced to perform expiation by a further prapatti.

It has been said (by some ācāryas) that, to Iśvara, the sins or offences of the jīva are (agreeable) like the dirt on the body of a beloved wife and like the slime on the body of the newborn calf to the cow. This only means that even if wicked men should perform prapatti, Iśvara will not forsake them and will bring them round to righteous ways. It does not mean that sins committed deliberately would give delight to Iśvara. If so, the prapanna should have, by all the means in his power, to commit such sins.

Even if offences are committed deliberately owing to the peculiar nature of a man’s prakṛti, and even if a further prapatti is not performed (by way of expiation), it is the peculiar characteristic of Iśvara’s forgiveness that He sees to it that such prapannas do not go to hell and that He awards them light punishments (sufferings) as (kings do) in the case of their offending sons. Sins lead to sufferings that are seen and that are tangible and also to sufferings like those in hell. So when it is said that there is no hell for the prapanna as in the following ślokas :- “Those who consider Viṣṇu, the bearer of ṣārṅga, as the supreme end of life and who perform prapatti to Him never go to the world of Yama” and “Whatever be the family into which they are born, and wherever they may live, those who are ever attached to Vāsudeva never go to hell” when such statements are made to the effect that there is no hell for them, there is nothing in them to deny that they will not have any sufferings in this life itself (like blindness). Logic cannot repudiate explicit statements (made in the śruti and the smṛti). It is idle to say that, even in some of those who have committed offences and who have not repented for them by performing a further prapatti. we do not see such visible sufferings as blindness which are stated to be their punishments. Even in their lives, we may see such sufferings as the following in accordance with the seriousness of their offences :– many varieties of suffering due to the three well-known causes (the elements of nature, the body and supernatural powers), dullness of the intelligence required for the Lord’s service, the diminution of delight and the absence of it in the enjoyment of Bhagavān, the absence of delight in rendering service to Bhagavān and His devotees, offences against the Lord and His devotees, the censure, the boycott and the like by the virtuous, the destruction of their good deeds, the loss of the esteem in which they were formerly held by good men, the suffering done in the frustration of their ambitions and desires, and such other forms of sorrow. It is well-known from the śrutis, the Dharma śāstras of Manu and others and from the Itihasas, Purāṇas and the Pāñcarātra that, for varied kinds of sins of omission and commission, there are varied kinds of visible suffering. Therefore when blindness and the like are taken by way of example, it should be taken only as one instance (and not as an invariable form of suffering). This is evident from the opening words of the sentence which speak of sufferings in the world in general,

It is not possible to argue, with any certainty, that the varied sufferings which come to a man as the fruit of sins committed deliberately after prapatti and which find support in the authority of the texts are due to past karma which has begun to yield its fruit. These may come as the result of either of the two kinds of karma . That is why good men (sātvikas) dread offences that might be committed deliberately. If this were otherwise, it would be opposed to the śāstra which enjoins a further prapatti and to the code of conduct followed by virtuous men and to ancient tradition.

(It is true) Nanjiyar stated that if a man does not feel repentant after committing an offence, he should be considered as without knowledge. But what is meant is that his omission to repent is due to dullness of intelligence and not that the prapatti was not fulfilled. Deliberate offences which would meet with Bhagavān’s disapproval would not be committed by some men as these result from conditions created by past karma . In the case of some others who commit such offences, repentance and the like put an end to them. Men of hard hearts may not repent at all. Therefore if deliberate offences happen to be committed, the man should repent and perform prapatti again. If he does not, they would lead to light punishments or sufferings in accordance with what is said in the śrutis and the like.

Wise men who have performed prapatti would never think of committing offences deliberately, men of a mediocre intelligence repent (for such offences.) Hard - hearted men meet with punishment for them.

Therefore in order that there may be no punishment of any kind, one should guard against deliberate offences.

When one performs the commands of the omnipotent Lord (nitya and naimittika karma ) solely for the purpose of pleasing Him, no punishment will ensue, though he may not have thought (of avoiding any such punishment).

If a prapanna should try, as much as it lies in his power, to avoid offences, he should avoid. even more carefully, offences against the devotees of Bhagavān and association with those who commit such offences.

The countless and serious sins committed by the man who meditates on Brahman (Brahmavit) will be transferred to the man who hates him. Realising this, one should dread committing any offence against a Brahmavit.

Even by associating with one who has offended against the devotees of Brahman, a man will incur sins. (At the same time) a man should not hate one who offends against the devotees of Iśvara, who alone is competent to punish him.

TAMIL VERSE

तन्निनैविल्विलक्किऩ्ऱित् तन्नै नण्णार् निनैवनैत्तुन् दान्विळैत्तुम् विलक्कुनादन्
ऎन्निनैवै यिप्पवत्ति लिऩ्ऱु माऱ्ऱि
यिणैयडिक्की ऴडैक्कलमॆऩ्ऱॆन्नैवैत्तु
मुन्निनैवाल् यान् मुयऩ्ऱ विनैयाल् वन्द मुनिवयर्न्दु मुत्तिदर मुन्ने तोऩ्ऱि
नन्निनैवानामिसैयुङ्गालमिऩ्ऱो नाळैयोवॆऩ्ऱु नगै सॆय्गिऩ्ऱाने. ॥ 44 ॥

The Lord, whose will is irresistible and who creates, in the minds of those who do not care for him, all their desires and who also frustrates them – the Lord has turned my mind today froni saṁsāra or bondage and has placed me beneath His two feet for protection. He has been pleased to forget His wrath caused by my actions in the past prompted by my mind before the performance of prapatti and has appeared already (as avatars and arcā) to grant me mukti. He smiles gently, wondering whether we shall accept His grace today or tomorrow.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD MOKṢAYIṢYĀMI

(I WILL SET THEE FREE) page595

The word mokṣayishyami ‘I will set thee free from all sins means “I will grant thee release (from the bondage of saṁsāra) at the time when you want it”.

It may be asked :–"(ln another context) the. Lord says, “I will never pardon". Is it not opposed to what is stated here viz. “I will set thee free from all sins?”; therefore this should be merely to give a little seeming comfort in words and is not to be taken literally." The answer to this question is as follows:–

• There is no conflict between these two statements for they apply to different cases. “I will not forgive” occurs in the śloka : “Though a man adores me with a hundred lotuses, O Goddess of the earth, whichever devotee of Viṣṇu touches blood even unawares I will not pardon him. I will never pardon his offence, O Goddess of the Earth, even if he tries to show me a hundred marks of reverent attention (upacāra)". It only means “I will not forgive the man for such trivial forms of expiation (as the offering of lotuses and external marks of attention). Here in the Caramaśloka, the word mokṣayiṣyami (means “I will forgive all (offences) if the man adopts the particular upāya which is an atonement for all sins.” The intention of the Saviour is expressed indeed in the śloka :—“Be it Vibhīṣaṇa or Rāvaṇa himself, bring him here, O Sugrīva. I will grant him pardon.” These words are not seeming-pleasant, for there is no conflict between what is stated (in Varāhapurāṇam) and what is stated in the Gita, as they apply to different situations. If they are to be taken as only seeming-pleasant, all the texts in the Śāstras which enjoin bhakti and prapatti would be void of authority,

Here “Releasing from sins " means Iśvara giving up His intention to punish the sinner for having violated His commands from beginningless time. By this turning away (of Iśvara) from the thought of punishment, the effects of His punishment, such as avidyā or ignorance, would all cease to exist. Iśvara’s turning away from the thought of punishment means His will which takes the form: “By my grace will the man who performs all his duties as for me and as being done by me attain the world that is eternal”. The cessation of such things as avidyā in the jīva means the expansion of intelligence, knowledge, wisdom and such others.

The manner and the order in which the causes of saṁsāra, which are of the nature of puṇya and papa will disappear are as follows - The hindrances to the adoption of the upāya have disappeared already by their respective causes (such as the performance of the rites and duties of varṇas and āśramas), then the puṇyas and papas done before the adoption of the upāya which are opposed to the attainment (of mukti) will disappear without any trace at the beginning of the adoption of the upāya, provided they are not such as have already begun to yield their fruit (prarabdha). Among sins committed after prapatti, those offences which may be committed without any awareness of them and which are the result of unfavourable conditions of place, time and the like will not in the least taint (the self). Those offences which are committed deliberately when there is no danger of death will cease either by some form of atonement or expiation which is within the man’s power or by experiencing the fruit of the karma which would be of the nature of a light punishment. That portion of the karma which has begun to yield its fruit to the prapanna that will have to be experienced within the time desired by him (for mukti) will disappear either by the experience or enjoyment of the fruit or by an intervening rite of expiation. That which remains will disappear by the potency of the upāya (prapatti).

Among those good deeds (puṇya) which are done deliberately with thought both (of mokṣa and of saṁsāra), such as are not hindrances and such good deeds (puṇya) done before and after the adoption of the upāya by the upasaka as are capable of strengthening his vidyā or Meditation – these will disappear after having yielded their fruit. Those good deeds (puṇya) done before and after the adoption of the upāya (namely, upāsana) which are of no use to the meditation or vidyā and which have been prevented from yielding their fruit and those good deeds, done before and after, which are useful for the meditation but which have had no occasion to yield their fruit owing to the superior strength of (other) karma favourable for the meditation and unfavourable for it and which still remain without yielding their fruit - these too, will disappear in the last moments of the man’s life. This truth is expressed in the sütra “By the same principle, the deeds, too, which are other than sinful will not stain (the self).” Those good deeds (which are the cause of rain, food and the like which are necessary for the performance of the vidyā) will cease to exist immediately after the fall of the body".

Since those good deeds which were performed solely for pleasing the Lord and which were merely of the nature of service have already yielded their fruit, there is no need to speak about their staining the self. Those deeds which were performed by the man for setting an exanıple to the rest of the world (lokasaṅgraha) had to be performed as commands of the Lord. They are of the nature of pure kaiṅkarya or service and have already given their fruits. Among them, if any such good deeds were done without the renunciation of egoism (sātvikatyāga) out of carelessness, they, too, would amount to sins as stated in the śloka “Tapas is no sin, the study of the Veda is no sin, the rites and duties prescribed for each man are no sins, nor is the earning of money by hard work for their sake a sin. If these very things are done with a wrong intention with the thought, “I am doing this and doing this for myself”, they become sinful". These (sins) will become subject to the release promised in mokṣayiṣyāmi. Those prapattis that were performed for other ends (than mukti) must have already yielded their fruit.

For the sake of the end for which a former prapatti was performed, a second or further prapatti ought not to be performed, as it would be inconsistent with the potency of prapatti and with the intense and great faith with which the first prapatti was performed. If one were to perform more than one prapatti for the sake of a single end in view, it would be like adopting another upāya (and there would be need for atonement).

The disappearance or destruction of past karma means Iśvara’s giving up the thought of awarding the person the fruit thereof. When karma is said not to stain or taint the self (aśleṣa), it means that the thought of awarding the fruit or consequence of the karma in the case of those who have sought His protection does not even arise in Iśvara.

If it be asked, “(It is stated in the śrutis that the good deeds and the bad deeds of the man who is to obtain mukti will be distributed among his friends and his foes respectively (at the last moment of his life). If good deeds and bad deeds for past karna) are all destroyed in the manner described above, how can this distribution take place ?" The answer is: The distribution among foes and friends will be, respectively, of those evil deeds which are said not to taint and to be destroyed, (aśleṣa and vināśa) and those good deeds (puṇya) which are done deliberately after the adoption of the upāya and which have been prevented from yielding their fruit by stronger karma . (It is said in the śrutis) that Iśvara distributes these among the man’s friends and foes at the time of his death, Why should Iśvara wait until the time of the man’s death for this distribution, when He could as well have done so, at the very beginning when the man adopted the upāya ?" The answers to these questions are as follows: “A man may have behaved with favourable intentions towards the devotee at first, but later he may change and behave with evil intentions. In such circumstances the good deeds should not have already been given away to the friend (who has afterwards turned foe). Further the Lord desires to give opportunities to foes who have done evil to the devotee to beg for forgiveness. These are the reasons why Iśvara does not effect the transfer of the good and the bad karma until the last moments of the devotee.

The good deeds done by a man for the sake of such ends as svarga are, to the aspirant for mukti, of the nature of sins (papa).. Hence such good deeds (of the devotee) will not be transferred to his friend, if the latter is an aspirant for mukti.

It may be asked, “What is the meaning of transferring the karma s performed by one man to some others?” The answer is as follows:—“The punishment or reward which Iśvara intended to award to those who performed these karma s is now transferred to his foes and friends in equal measure,” It may be asked, “If punishments and rewards for the karmas performed by one man are to be awarded to some other man or men, would there not be too wide an application (atiprasaṅga) (i.e.) the punishment does not go to the evildoer but to somebody else who has not done evil. It is also against the principle that he who sowed must reap the harvest”. The answer is this:- There will be no such unfairness due to too wide an application (atiprasaṅga), because the rewards and punishments are awarded in accordance with the obligations or offences done, respectively, by these friends and foes to the aspirant for mukti. That is why it is nowhere stated that these good deeds and bad deeds are transferred to those who are neither friends nor foes. The word ’transfer’ is used here in the sense that (their friends and foes) will have fruits similar to those of the karmas said to be transferred. This śruti which speaks of the transfer of good and bad deeds suggests the extreme of pleasure and displeasure that the Lord would feel, if the obligations and offences are done to the jñānī (the man of wisdom) who is extremely dear to the Lord.

If we take the *[^f1] interpretation given in the śloka (on page ), sarva pāpebhyah (from all sins) would briefly include, as desired by the man, all hindrances to the attainment of the Lord, all hindrances to the proper adoption of the upāya and also the causes of experiencing disagreeable things.

Here the hindrance to the attainment of the Lord is the Lord’s will that the offender shall not enjoy Him. The hindrance to the upāya is the Lord’s will that the offender shall not understand Him aright and do what is necessary to propitiate Him. The causes of experiencing disagreeable things consist in the will of God that the man shall experience the consequences or fruits of doing such karmas as displeased Him.

If all punishments are cancelled in the case of the aspirant for mukti, the effects of such punishments, namely, contact with acit and the like will stand cancelled by the Lord’s grace which cancelled the punishments. Thereafter since there are no causes, there will be no such effects as disagreeable experiences. This is indicated in the sūtra: “The man who has attained mokṣa will never return to saṁsāra, for the śrutis say so”, These conclusions are within the reach of the knowledge of those very wise men who have studied Śrī Bhāṣya for a long time along with the traditions of the good.

Thus (the words) “I will release thee from all sins” speak of the removal of the stream of all hindrances which are of the nature of either causes (the Lord’s will to punish) or effects (avidyā and the like); it means the same thing as saying that the self will (then) have the manifestation (āvirbhāva) of the perfect enjoyment of Bhagavān. For Bhagavan Śaunaka says:-“When the dirt is washed away, the gem shines of itself, but the sheen is not newly produced. In the saine way, when the self casts off its blemishes or faults, jñāna is not newly created in it (for it is already there). When a tank is dug, water and space are not newly created. What is already present is now brought to manifestation. How can a thing which did not exist before arise anew? So by the casting off of evil qualities, good qualities like jnūna shine forth. They are not newly produced, for it has been stated (in the śāstras) that they are eternal qualities of the self”. Since the substance called jñāna or knowledge and its inherent power to cover all objects are both eternal, the right word to use is ‘manifestation’ (i.e.) it is used in its primary sense.

(It is true that) the expansion of jñāna or knowledge to cover all objects, the freedom from pain, sorrow and the like. The will to do what is good and other such things and the forms of service or kaiṅkarya arise anew. Still as their origin depends on the conditional factor (upādhi), namely, the removal of hindrances thereto, the word ‘manifestation’ (āvirbhāva) is used in such places as the performance of different kinds of service which are natural to myself manifest itself." This is in order to show that when the hindrances disappear, these services will automatically follow. (In the state of saṁsāra), the objects (in the Universe) which are all the glorious possessions of Bhagavān appear disagreeable in various ways or (only) slightly agreeable as a result of the conditioning factor (upādhi), namely, karma . In the state of mokṣa, they would all become agreeable (since karma has disappeared), as agreeableness is their natural quality. Therefore in that state, too, the word ‘manifestation’ (of agreeableness) may justly be used. Therefore the words “I will release thee from all sins"make it evident that the self will have a new state in which all things will manifest their natural agreeableness to it.

If the word ekam means the identity of the upāya and the upeya or the end of attainment (as has already been indicated), this attainment of the desired end is also made plain. Therefore the idea that was expressed clearly in the śloka (Gītā - 18 - 65), namely “Thou wilt come to me” may be considered to be stated in the carama śloka (also) by the meaning implicit in the word ekam, and by the statement that the hindrances to that attainment are destroyed —-(I will release thee from all sins). Therefore the carama-śloka cannot be said to supplement or explain what has been stated in the preceding śloka.[^f2] *

Here an objection that has no soundness in it may be raised to this effect:-“When it is said “I will release thee from all sins”, does it follow from those words alone that the release from sins would lead to the attainment of Bhagavān stated in “Thou wilt reach me?” Is it not possible that, with the removal or pardon of all sins, the self may attain the state called kaivalya in which it enjoys only itself without attaining Bhagavān ? That there is a state called kaivalya, has, it is well known, been declared in such treatises as Nāradīya kalpam, where we find the śloka :– “This mantra enables a man to obtain wealth and lordship in this world, svarga and the like in the world beyond, kaivalya (the enjoyment of one’s own self) and the enjoyment of Bhagavān”. Aḷavandār also says " To those who desire to have wealth and lordship, the enjoyment of their own self dissociated from the body and, likewise, the performance of kaiṅkarya or service at the feet of the Lord etc. etc.” He says also (elsewhere): Without the grace of Lakṣmī, the beloved consort of the Lord with the lotus eyes, we cannot have the valuable things desired (by men) in saṁsāra, the enjoyment of the disembodied self (in kaivalya) and the enjoyment of Bhagavān". In the Gadya, also, is found quoted (the sentence) in Jitante stotra - “Leaving all desired pleasures and the enjoyment of the (disembodied) self, I have reached Thy feet." This truth is also stated at length in Śrī Rāmānuja’s GitāBhāṣya and such other writings. Therefore should not the freedom from all sins which results from the statement “I will release thee from all sins” be considered common to kaivalya and the enjoyment of Bhagavan ?".

The objection (stated so far) is unsound for the following reasons:- " If all sins have disappeared, there is no reason why the self should be without the experience of Bhagavān, which is its natural and inherent right. Therefore the state of the enjoyment of the mere self (kaivalya) without the enjoyment of Bhagavān would not be the goal of attainment then. Hence in that state (kaivalya), (we should understand that) the karma s which produce wealth, and such sufferings as old age and death have disappeared but that the karma which is a hindrance to the perfect enjoyment of Bhagavān has not yet been destroyed. This state (of kaivalya) is a particular kind of enjoyment which consists in the experience of one’s own disembodied self. Of this state it has been said :-“lo that experience of the self, the self feels that there is nothing greater than it”, and also, “If a man desires! this enjoyment of the (disembodied) self, these three (karma yoga, jñāna yoga and bhakti yoga) will enable him to attain that extreme which is called kaivalya". As stated (in these ślokas), this experience in which there is neither contact with acit or matter nor enjoyment of Bhagavān and which results from the adoption of a particular upāya within the man’s ability was called kaivalya, because it is the enjoyment of the mere (kevala) self without association with either acit or Bhagavān. qq604

(In some places) mukti or the attainment of Bhagavān is called by the word kaivalya in order to show that all upādhis or conditioning factors have ceased to exist in mukti. So also the word mukti is sometimes employed to denote the experience of the disembodied self as in the śloka “O, Lord of Hastigiri,” I look upon all the enjoyments of this world, the title of Brahma, the high position of Rudra, and the experience of the disembodied self, which is called mukti - I look upon these as water poured in the soil saturated with salt. I know the bliss of rendering service to Thee". The word mukti employed here should be explained as in the śloka :- " The man who is free from desire, fear and anger - he is always a mukta (aven here in saṁsāra). It only means “He resembles a mukta”. It may be asked “Is it (kaivalya) not stated to be freedom from old age, and death ? " The answer is that it is just like calling the gods immortal (amara), (That is : they are not truly immortal.) Compared

with human beings, they may be said to be relatively immortal, for they live much longer. Or it may be explained as stating that kaivalya will lead, in course of time, to mukti. In the same way should be explained the use of the word mukti when it is intended to mean merely the attainment of the same abode or loka as that of ¹⁵ the vibhavas or vyuhas and also samipya and sārūpya.

It has been declared that real mukti is different from the others in the (following) śloka:-“Some live in the worlds of Viṣṇu. This is sālokyam (living in the same loka or world as Viṣṇu). Some reach near Him. This is sāmipyam (attaining a place near Viṣṇu). Some others attain a form resembling that of Viṣṇu. This is sārupyam (having a form resembling His). Others still attain sayujyam and it is this which goes by the name mokṣa”. The sayujyam referred to here is going to Paramapada and enjoying the same bliss as that of Bhagavān (and this alone is real and true mukti). That the experience of the mere disembodied self is not eternal and that it is not real mokṣa are evident from these ślokas :- “There are four kinds of people who are mine and who are called my devotees. Among them, those who are exclusively attached to me (ekantins) are the best, for they worship no other deities. To these men who perform their duties and rites without any attachment or desire for their fruit. I am alone the goal. The other three virtuous kinds of bhaktas or devotees are said to be desirous of certain ends. All these (three) are liable to fall (from their high state) but the jnani (who is an ekāntin attains mokṣa " (Again it is said) : " Having listened to this story, the man who has lost his wealth will become free from the sorrow due to it; the man (jijnasu) who wants to enjoy his disembodied self will attain bhakti or devotion (to the Lord), the bhakta or devotee will attain mokṣa”. This amounts to stating that the jijnasuh spoken of in the Gita, who is desirous of experiencing his self, will, in course of time, become a jnani. It has been said :- “When the attachment to the pleasures of life ceases, the self, which is different from the body and which is happy, will become manifest. Without being caught (in this state) viz, kaivalya, if you want to realise that your essential nature consists in being śeṣa to Bhagavān and in being eternal, get hold of Bhagavān and then give up the pleasures of worldly objects.” In this (Tamil verse) the enjoyment of Bhagavān is said to be eternal and the experience of the disembodied self, which is distinguished fronı it, is indirectly stated to be not eternal. (It is true that) the experience of the measureless self is described as imperishable or without changes like diminution or increase; - like the statement of the fruit of the rite called cāturmāsya being imperishable; it only means that it will last for a very long time (i.e.) many and many a kalpa (and not that it is eternal). This locality where the self enjoys itself is thus described :– " The place called the amṛtam of yogis is the place to which those who want to enjoy their own self go." That this locality is not Paramapada is also evident from another siloka in the very same context: “Those who are yogins and who, being ekāntins, are constantly meditating on Brahman, reach that supreme abode which the eternal suris are gazing at. (It is clear from this, that the ekāntin who is desirous of attaining Bhagavān is here stated to go to a place other than that (to which the man who is desirous of enjoying his self would go) and that it is a place gazed at by the suris,

In such treatises as Śrī Bhāṣya (and GitāBhāṣya ) it has been stated that those who meditate on their self with Brahman as its inner self as in Pañcāgni-vidyā and the like pass (after death) along the arcirādi route and attain Brahman.

Therefore to those that meditate on their self according to the Pañcāgni vidyā, there is an intermediate result or experience consisting in the enjoyment of the mere self. However, according to the principle explained in the madhu vidyā, they will ultimately attain Brahman. If, however, the meditation is on the self either as associated with prakṛti or matter or as disembodied or dissociated from matter, whether the self is meditated on in its essential nature (svarūpa) or as if it were Brahman, – in all these four cases, as when name (nāma) and the like are meditated on as if they were (Brahman), there is neither the passage along the arcirādi route for the attainment of Brahman. This is declared in the following :– Bādarāyana is of opinion that the Ativāhikās (escorts) lead those who do not meditate on pratikas (i.e.) parts or aspects (of Brahman). In either of the other alternatives, there is conflict (with the śrutis) and also with the principle of tat-kratu. In another context to prove that the being meditated on in that vidyā is (not the jīva (but) the Supreme Being or Brahman, the Sūtrakāra gives this as his reason for saying so: “Since the person who meditates according to this vidyā is said to pass along the archirādi route.” This is done in the sūtra “since mention¹⁶ * is made of the route meditated on by those who have listened to the Upaniṣads” (i.e.) to those who meditate on Brahman.

Therefore to those who do not attain Brahman, there should not have been the cancellation of all sins spoken of in the carama śloka. To those whose sins have been pardoned or cancelled, there is no limitation in regard to the enjoyment of Brahman, Thus since in this śloka, the annulment of all sins is declared, (we have to understand that) even that particular karma which resulted in the experience of the mere self and which stood as a hindrance to the fall and perfect enjoyment of Brahman is annulled or cancelled. From this it would follow that what is stated in the previous śloka namely, " ‘Thou wilt attain myself” is declared in this śloka also mām eva eṣyasi. “Thou wilt attain myself” means “the full and perfect enjoyment of Brahman’. In order that this perfect enjoyment may happen, the archirādi route has to be traversed and a particular region or locality has also to be reached.

It is clear from the śāstras which speak of such things as this route that, from beginningless time, the independent and omnipotent Lord has made it a rule that the full and perfect enjoyment (of Himself) should be granted in this order (namely, the archiridi route, the entrance into the region or locality and then the enjoyment).

Before starting on the archirādi route, when a man understands the essential nature (svarūpa) of Brahman with the help of the śāstras and so also when he has a vision of Brahman with the help of yoga and when he reaches such worlds as those of *¹⁷ Vibhava, the vision or realisation which he gets results from some specific good deeds and is dependent on the instruments of knowledge. Therefore this vision will be partial or limited and liable to interruption. But the vision that results in the state of mukti is full and perfect, because there are no factors that limit or diminish the experience nor is it liable to any further interruption or break, As an Overflow (parivāha) of this enjoyment arises the perfect service or kaiṅkarya in which the śeṣī (the Lord) finds delight and this idea is expressed in the śloka: “Though you live for a hundred years, I will always be your servant. Therefore give me orders saying . " Do this in this beautiful place.” Here all the successive stages of realisation (or fruit) which are stated (by Śrī Rāmānuja , in the (Śaraṇāgati) Gadya in the sentence with the word pāramarthika are also implicitly suggested in accordance with the pramāṇas.

THE MEANING OF ‘MĀ ŚUCHAH’ (DO NOT GRIEVE - DO

NOT DESPAIR) page609

Thereafter the words, “Do not grieve” reveal the certainty of what has been stated before “.

There are some commentators) who hold that “Do not grieve” enjoins something to be avoided. (According to them ), if, after a man has performed prapatti, he grieved or fell into despair, he would be violating the injunction and the Saviour who is the upāya would become indifferent and leave him to look after himself. The man would thus become liable, in their opinion, to this disadvantage or risk. This view is opposed to their own commentary on the sins committed deliberately after prapatti and on the words " from all sins”. It is also opposed to the texts in the śrutis and the smṛtis which declare that the Saviour will never forsake the man who has sought His protection. Therefore since all causes for grief or despair have disappeared in the case of the man who has adopted this upāya, it repeats that there is absolutely no cause for despair and aims at confirming the man’s faith.

Many causes of sorrow (in the case of Arjuna) like those concerning the destruction of relatives have already been removed by appropriate and excellent teaching. Now the sorrow or despair caused by the thought that the dharma or rites enjoined (for mukti) are too difficult to perform, that the hindrances to mukti are insuperable and that the end in view can be attained only after protracted delay - it is this sorrow that is now dispelled.

(The Lord) intends to say: After I have taught you this upāya, which, without being too hard to adopt for the end desired by you, is also capable of annulling all hindrances that stand in the way and is not liable to cause any (undue) delay in the attainment of that aim – after this has been taught to you, there is no room for despair due to such things is the difficulty of adopting an upāya. If you adopt this upāya, your welfare is my burden or responsibility and I shall myself be interested in looking after it. If I do not protect you, it will be a reproach to me. You are, as it were, muy property or wealth (to look after) and there is no reason why you should grieve”.

The grief that is here put an end to is not the old sorrow caused (in Arjuna’s mind) by the thought of killing (his) relatives. It is a different kind of grief that has to be consistent with the context. If it be asked how, the answer is as follows :- “The rich qualities that distinguish the nature of the gods lead to mokṣa, the qualities that make for the nature of the Asuras are the causes that lead to bondage”. When the two were thus distinguished, Arjuna was grieved at the thought of what he should do if he belonged to the class of Asuras. Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who understood this, said to him :- “O Pandava! do not grieve. You are born to attain the rich qualities of the gods”. Similarly here, when (Arjuna) is extremely desirous of attaining the supreme end, he grieves at the thought that the upāya taught so far has to be adopted for a long time, and is subject to many hindrances, while being extremely difficult of performance even for those who are very careful. At the thought of that upāya and of his own (want of) capacity for adopting it, he grieves, saying to himself “How can I succeed in adopting this upāya and secure the end in view?” To Arjuna who was in despair (at this thought), Śrī Kṛṣṇa shows another upāya which can be only performed in a single instant, which is without any obstacles, and which is (also) easy of performance. By doing so, He makes Arjuna care-free and certain in regard to the attainment of the desired end and then says, “ Do not grieve”. So the words should certainly be understood as intended to dispel the despair due to such things as the difficulty of adopting the (former) upāya. (It is only this grief that is here put an end to and no other).

In this Bhagavadgītā, the Gītācārya, at first, imparts a knowledge of the difference between prakṛti (matter, the body) and the soul or self; then He describes karma yoga and jñāna yoga which are indirect means leading to mokṣa; thereafter he teaches bhakti yoga with its aṅgas, which has been enjoined as the direct means of attaining mokṣa and says:– “Thus has been taught to you the jñāna which is the most secret of all secrets. Consider all these and then do what you desire to do”. Though He perceived the dissatisfaction that passed over Arjuna’s face at that instant, Śrī Kṛṣṇa did not at once favour him with instructions concerning the easier upāya, for it has been said: “The Lord of the world tests the minds of those who are weak of heart”. Instead of declaring the final conclusion by saying: " This is the direct means of attaining mokṣa and is supremely good to you. Act in accordance with this.” - instead of saying so, he says:-“Do whatever you wish to do,” as if He were indifferent (and not interested in Arjuna’s spiritual welfare) like one who tells a traveller, " This route leads to the land of the Vidarbhas and this other to the land of the Kosalas. (Take whichever you choose)”. Śrī Kṛṣṇa makes others think that this is the cause of Arjuna’s mental depression and enjoys the līlā of instructing him once again in the principal means of attaining mokṣa viz., bhakti yoga. He begins by stating : " I will teach you again this greatest secret of all “, and in two ślokas explains to him, conclusively and with deep earnestness, what it is, so that he may remember that it is just what has already been taught. On seeing that Arjuna’s depression has become twice as great as before, the Supreme Ruler, who is (now) the Charioteer, feels that Arjuna is now in a state of fitness to receive instruction in regard to the means of attaining mokṣa (viz. prapatti) which is the supreme secret and is, at the same time, extremely easy of adoption. Without the least delay, even without prefacing that upāya with any praise, the Lord immediately teaches him to perform śaraṇāgati towards Himself. Thus acting as the Charioteer also to the chariot of Arjuna’s mind, (i.e. to all his aspirations), the Lord dispels all his griefs. That the grief which is here put an end to is therefore different from the old grief (concerning the destruction of his relatives etc.) thus becomes clear after a careful consideration of the context (in which the words occur).

In the first half of this śloka, since (the Lord) says to the man who is destitute of all other upāyas, “Take refuge under me alone,” the man who is incapable (of making any endeavour) surrenders the responsibility of his protection) into the hands of One who has the ability. Further the independent and omnipotent śeṣī, who is compassionate, accepts the responsibility. Therefore (in the first half of the śloka), the prapanna becomes free from all responsibility in regard to his own protection. And since the śeṣī, who is omnipotent and is ever truthful towards those who have sought His protection, has accepted the responsibility and is so gracious as to say .-“I will release you from all sins”, there is absolutely no likelihood of any evils like hell ensuing in the future. Freedom from fear results from this śloka, as also freedom from all doubt, , because these are the glorious and true words of Śrī *¹⁸ Raṅganātha Himself, who is ever truthful.

Therefore, if one has been told about this special upāya and if one adopts it, one will have no grief or despair, at all, in connection with that upāya.

Here it may be asked :– From the words “Do not grieve”, it is evident that grief ( at one’s being without upāyas) makes one competent for prapatti; how then could it be stated that fear is also one of the marks of competency for prapatti, as shown in the following śloka :-“I dread, O, best of gods, at the sight of this saṁsāra which fills me with fear, Save me, O Lord of the lotus eyes. I know of no other upāya than Thee “, and in the Tamil verse:-“ Embrace this red-hot iron pillar, O, sinner”; in dread at these words, I have come and sought Thy feet for protection.” To this question the answer is as follows:- Having realised that the end desired by him has not been so far attained, the man grieves; he is also afraid at the prospect, in future, of formidable obstacles to the end desired by him. Therefore ( he has both grief and fear) In the case of the aspirant to mukti, when either of the two viz., the annulment of what is undesirable and the attainment of what is desired is mentioned, the other also comes (to the mind). In the same way when either of the two marks of competency for prapatti, viz., grief and fear, is mentioned, the other is also taken for granted. In the man who is absolutely without upāyas (and is therefore fit for performing prapatti), these two, grief and fear, are excessive. Therefore by way of conclusion, this adhikārī who is overwhelmed with excessive grief is taught the upāya which is appropriate for him, and is thereby made free of all doubt, free from all responsibility (concerning his protection), free from all fear and thus delighted at heart. On this extreme fear, we have already stated as follows :- " The Lord has ???? - the Lord who said: - “ Thou that art afraid of saṁsāra, come and seek protection from me”.

The prapanna who has done what he ought to do (i.e) prapatti, should (continue to) perform the rites and duties (ordained for his varṇa and āśrama) (nitya and naimittika), which are among the kaiṅkaryas done by the virtuous : such karma as is described in the following śloka - " Do that karma which, when performed, does not yield any fruit and which, when omitted, will bring in evil.” This is evident from the passages which are found before and after this śloka and also in this very śloka, where it is said that the omission will cause evil. Therefore since the prapanna has no uncertainty concerning the attainment of the desired end, since he has nothing further to do for the sake of mokṣa, since what he has yet to perform is only the keeping of (the Lord’s) commands for their own sake, and since, if offences should be committed (thereafter), they could easily be atoned for by repentance and the like as pointed out in another chapter – there is no reason why he should not feel delighted at heart. Though this delight is mingled with disgust (nirveda) in the intelligent (prapanna) who is still connected with such unwholesome things as the body, yet the two may exist without any inconsistency as the disgust and the delight are due to different factors respectively.

The words “Do not grieve” are, themselves, an indication of the cancellation of all causes of grief; even that portion of the karma which has already begun to operate (prarabdha) and which will cause grief will be cancelled and the man who is so impatient as not to be capable of existing even for a moment longer will attain mokṣa at that very instant. As stated in the Tamil verse : “The Lord is one who, to those that seek His protection, grants Vaikuṇṭha at the time of their death”, we have to believe that all that unexpired part of the karma which has already begun to operate (prārabdha) will be annulled and that mokṣa will be at the death of this body. Therefore if, in this bodily existence itself, it be felt (by a man) that what remains of this life is an evil, it will also certainly be cancelled by the will of the omnipotent Lord whose grace has been secured by prapatti.

(In this connection it may be asked whether it is not a sin to desire to die immediately after performing prapatti). The answer is as follows:-)

In some forms of expiation for sins (prayascitta) and like. wise, in certain kinds of offering (made in the fire) like sarvasvāra karma , it is not considered a sin if the man gives up life (by casting the body down a precipice or in the fire), So also there is no impropriety in praying for instant death in the śaraṇāgati of the prapanna who cannot bear to continue in saṁsāra even for a moment (ārta). On the other hand, the prapanna who desires to live a long life (dripta) commits an offence, if he violates the rule in the śāstras which enjoins the protection of one’s own life.

In the same way as yogis cast off their bodies in virtue of certain yogas practised by them, there is nothing to prevent the man who, while performing prapatti, longs to die immediately. It cannot be said that such casting off of the body is not permitted to those who are in Kali yuga, like entrance into holy waters for giving up one’s life there. In fact the ārtaprapanna who prays for immediate death is one who saves his self sooner than all others.

Prapannas are spoken of as belonging to two classes ārtas and driptas on account of the difference in the intensity of the grief felt by them respectively, (It should not, therefore, be thought that the latter viz., the dripta has no grief. The dṛptaprapanna is one who grieves at the thought of another janma and believes that he will some day or other attain mokṣa and has the patience to wait until the end of this existence. The word dripta is here used not in (the usual) sense of one who has arrogance or pride, which is a quality opposed to the virtues of the soul and leads one to treat good men with disesteem. The word ārtaprapanna is used here to denote the man who, in this life, looks upon even Brahma’s position of lordship as an obstacle to the perfect enjoyment of Bhagavān, who feels that his present association with the body is unbearable as with a raging fire, and who, therefore, cannot endure existence even for a single moment after the performance of prapatti. He is, therefore, like one who prays, " Be pleased to make my body and my life-breath perish.” He is not the ārta referred to in the Gitā (7.16) “ārto, jijñāsuh, arthārthī, etc.,” where ārta means “one who prays for the recovery of his lost wealth or lordship "

There are some who are of opinion that, in Śrī Rāma’s words:. " Whether the man is an ārta (who cannot bear delay in the attainment of the desired end) or a dṛpta ( who has no such impatience), the man who seeks refuge should (always ) be protected”, there is ativāda or exaggeration in that even the dripta who is proud or arrogant is stated to be worthy of protection. Whatever that may be, there is no room for dispute in regard to this passage where mokṣa is promised to the man who grieves for the evils of saṁsāra but can bear to live till the end of this life and then attain mokṣa, for he is not one who is proud or arrogant.

The use of the future tense in mokṣayishyāmi (I will release you) is not inappropriate in the case of the ārta who prays for immediate release from the body, for the end desired is to come after the adoption of the upāya and the word is used at the time when the upāya is taught (i.e. before the adoption of the upāya),

• These classifications into ārtas and driptas arise on account of differences in the intensity of the Lord’s grace which are due to the differences in the good deeds performed by them before.

Such statements as are made in the ślokas – " The man who has performed prapatti after learning the truth experiences, in this life, the consequences of his prārabdha karma alone (i.e.) that karma which has begun to yield its fruit in this life, and there after attains mokṣa" - such statements do not apply to the ārta. (Śrī Rāmānuja) has described what the dṛptaprapanna should do after the performance of prapatti, in his Gadya, in the passages beginning with:-“ You will be free from all trace of suffering or hindrance caused by the body, the elements (earth, water, fire, etc.,) or the gods “and ending with “Be free from all uncertainty in regard to knowledge concerning me and the vision and the attainment of myself”.

The freedom from grief that is stated here (in the carama śloka) has no limiting factors. Therefore the causes of all forms of grief are stated here to be annulled for the man who has a knowledge of this upāya and adopts it. By the teaching given here, mere knowledge (of the upāya) may exist without its adoption, but it would be of no use at all as stated in the śloka. “The song does not regulate (the actions of) the man though he may sing it very often. Creatures behave in accordance with their past impressions (vāsana) like the bird ¹⁹ *Kulinga’, which, though it utters the words mā sāhasam kuru, (Do not behave rashly), continues to behave rashly”. So in this śloka, it is implied that annulment of grief would be the fruit of a combination of both knowledge and action.

Therefore, here, all grief or despair that might arise in regard to the adoption of the upāya, whether before its adoption or after it, or in the middle of it - all this grief is here (said to be) annulled,

If it be asked how, the answer is as follows; Despair may arise in many forms ;- (1) in regard to one’s competency for the upāya, (2) in regard to (the potency of) the upāya itself, (3) in regard to the things that the prapanna should do after prapatti, and so also (4) in regard to the end to be attained including the full and perfect service or kaiṅkarya to be rendered. (1) Among them, this dharma called śaraṇāgati, which is to be adopted, is not confined to any particular family (jāti) caste or āśrama. Provided there are the desire for attaining the end in view and faith in the upāya which is the means for that attainment and such things as knowledge of one’s being destitute (of other upāyas), there is no reason why any one should despair at the thought that he may not be competent (to adopt the upāya).

(2) The (sādhya) upāya (prapatti) is capable of being performed or adopted in a single instant with all its accessories, it is easy of performance; it does not need to be repeated; it does not take long to bear fruit; its accessories are not difficult; it is capable of yielding the desired fruit just at the time when it is desired; therefore to the man who is destitute (of other upāyas ) and who is afraid of delay (in attaining the desired end), there is no reason for despair at all thinking that he may have to adopt other upāyas like bhakti , which have to be practised for a long time with all accessories thereof, which are difficult of performance even to those who are very careful and whose accessories are also equally difficult to accomplish and which yield the desired fruit only after a long time,

The Saviour who is propitiated by this easier upāya and who is to grant the desired end is easily accessible to all, inspires confidence, is supremely compassionate and is independent and omnipotent without subjection to any one else). Therefore there is no reason why one should despair at the thought of the Siddhopāya (the Lord).

(3) After the performance of this upāya, none of the good deeds that may be done by a man either by say of keeping the commands (of the Lord) or winning His approval is an auxiliary or aṅga for prapatti. Therefore even if, owing to adverse circumstances of place and time, !here are shortcomings in their performance, there is no reason for grief or despair at the thought that these shortcomings might adversely affect the accessories (for they are not its accessories ).

If, in dread of certain sins due to prārabdha karma which render a man absolutely unfit for all karma like a piece of burnt cloth, by causing a man to offend the great devotees (of God) deliberately, if, in such cases, the man desires at the time of the first prapatti that his actions after prapatti should be free from all such offence or if he performs a later prapatti for avoiding these offences - if he does these, there is no reason for grief.or sorrow at the thought that offences may happen to be committed in future. Even if, at the time of the first prapatti, one has not prayed for a later life free of all offence, in case offences are committed deliberately, the Saviour of those that have no (other) refuge who stated, “I will never forsake the man who comes to me in the guise of a friend” will create repentance in his mind, and induce him to perform expiation or prayascitta which (in this case) is a further prapatti. If the man is too stubborn to feel repentant, (the Lord) will cause sufferings by way of punishment and thus prevent him from committing further offences. Thus before the time when the attainment of the desired end is prayed for the expiation will be over, Therefore the prapanna need not feel grieved at the thought that great sufferings like those of hell would come to him as a result of deliberate offences committed by him which flash like lightning and disappear quickly.

(4) Since the ārtaprapanna will have the desired end at the very time of performning prapatti, there is no reason why he should feel grieved at the thought thar the body which resembles hell would continue, (for the body has been thus described):- " If a man is fond of his body constituted of flesh, blood, pus, foecal matter, urine, muscle, fat and bone – then he should be fond also

of hell”.

As for the dṛptaprapanna :

All rites or dharmas of renunciation such as karma yoga will never be in vain as stated in the śloka :– “The beginning that has been made in this karma -yoga will never prove futile. There is no harm in its being left incomplete; even a fraction of it saves a man from the great fear of saṁsāra” " The foundation that is laid is, as it were, a foundation of stone and especially with regard to the man who has performed śaraṇāgati, it has been stated: “I will never forsake him. Further the dripta prapanna is certain of attaining what he desired, though it is delayed until the time specified by him. So the dripta prapanna has no reason to feel grieved at the thought that the good deed in the form of prapatti might be counteracted by certain evil deeds which might be thought capable of doing so, as has been said in the śloka “ A yajna ““performed by one loses its effect by untruthfulness, tapas perishes by arrogance, age becomes diminished by contemptuous talk of Brahmins and gifts of charity lose their virtue by their revelation.” since he has prayed for mokṣa at the end of this life, he has no reason to feel grieved at the thought that, owing to certain prarabdha karma ( which has begun to yield its fruit), he might have to take another birth.

Since he is a prapanna for no other object (than mokṣa). all his sins which might act as obstacles will be absolved; therefore he hus no reason to grieve that the supreme end desired by him would suffer delay owing to such hindrances as the enjoyment of his mere disembodied self.

The Lord intends to say :- “You have become the recipient of my grace which can cancel the causes of all forms of grief. So if, hereafter, you should entertain grief or despair, it would be as foolish as when you had no grief or despair before performing prapatti, while being subject to punishment by me. This grief or despair is not in keeping with the peculiar potency of this upāya,

with my glory as Siddhopāya who has accepted the responsibility of protecting you and with your state as one who has done what he ought to do by the surrender of all responsibilities to me.” In their last momentsācāryas teach their good disciples the purport given above of this last sentence,’ mā śucah’ “Do not grieve”, which is the quintessence of the carama-śloka (the last śloka ),

Among the words of this śloka (caramaśloka) are expressed explicitly by the words themselves or suggested implicitly by their meaning, the following ideas concerning this upāya :(1) the person who is competent for it, the preliminary condition of being destitute (of all other upāyas), the needlessness, for it, of any auxiliary rites which are too difficult to perform, the inappropriateness of trying to perform actions which are beyond one’s power, the futility of obstinately attempting to do what is impossible (for one) this upāya being such as will not tolerate (the adoption of any other upāya); (2) the Saviour who alone can be of use to the aspirant for mukti, the Saviour’s being perfect and full in such qualities as accessibility and good nature; the Saviour being the teacher of what is most salutary (hita); the end of attainment (viz, the Lord) being Himself the means of attainment; His being capable of acting in all matters without being hindered (by any one) and without the aid of any one else ; His expecting a mere pretext (or vyāja) for protecting (one): His not requiring the intervention of any other upāya: His being capable of being propitiated without any other auxiliary rites: His being the Saviour who can grant whatever fruit is desired; His intolerance of the acceptance of any other protector; His being ever in the company of Śrī (or Lakṣmī); His capacity for being placed in the position of other upāyas; His readiness to accept the responsibility or burden (of protecting one); (3) the Sādhyopāya which is of the nature of the surrender of responsibility; its ancillaries; its being within the competency of every one; its requiring to be perforined only once; its being easy of performance; its capacity to bear fruit without delay its being potent enough to annul prarabdhakarma ; (4) the man who performs prapatti being a doer or agent subject to the Supreme Self; his being subject to the authority of the śastras; (5) The Saviour’s supreme compassion; His being ever gracious; His independence and freedom from subservience to any one else ; His being irresistible; His not requiring any other aid, His waiting for a pretext (to protect the jīva); (6) the prapanna being one who has done what he onght to do; the absence, on his part, of any need to do anything else (than prapatti) in regard to the upāya adopted by him or the fruit expected from it; his being extremely dear to Bhagavān; (7) the many obstacles ( to mukti) past, present and future; and the varied nature of the different groups of obstacles, their being capable of annulment by the mere will of Iśvara, the time of this annulment being dependent on the will of the prapanna: the nature of the annulment of these obstacles; (8) the manifestation of one’s real and essential nature (svarūpa), which is different from the mere enjoyment of one’s dis-embodied self : the full and perfect enjoyment of Bhagavān ; service of all kinds; freedom from coming back (to saṁsāra); (9) the manifold causes of grief or despair before (the performance of prapatti), the freedom from such grief or despair after (its performance); freedom from all uncertainty, at all times of reflection; freedom from grief, freedom from fear, a peculiar delight, biding the time when the body will perish and the delight in the performance of service free froin offence; these are the principal ideas (suggested) along with other things required for them.

A SUMMARY OF THE MEANING OF THE

CARAMA ŚLOKA:– page622

*This is the sum and substance of the meaning of the śloka :

" Your knowledge is limited; your ability is insignificant; your life is short and you are also impatient of delay. Therefore do not go about seeking other upāyas which you cannot (fully) understand, which you cannot easily adopt and which can bear fruit only after much delay. Realise that I who am easy of access to all, who am the Saviour of all the worlds, and who am endowed with all the attributes essential for a Saviour, am the only upāya and perform the surrender of the responsibility of protecting your self to me with its five aṅgas. When you have adopted this upāya, you will have done what you ought to do, you will become my ward and be extremely dear to me. Supremely compassionate and gracious, independent and omnipotent, I will, myself, by my mere will and without any other aid, and for the fulfilment of iny own purposes, free you from the manifold, endless, and insurmountable groups of obstacles without leaving any trace of them. I will enable you to have enjoyments similar to mine own, since you will enjoy myself and all that belongs to me. I will find delight in making you render all forms of service in all places, at all times and in all circumstances — service which will be of the nature of the overflow of the full and perfect enjoyment (of myself). You have absolutely no cause for grief.”

This path (prapatti) has been disclosed (to us) byācāryas who resorted to that unique dharma (Siddhopāya) which can grant all (desired objects) and which is ever accompanied by Śrī and who (by so doing) became free from (all) grief.

Giving up those dharmas which have to be performed with extreme care, we were convinced that the true refuge for us is the feet of that Gopala which are fragrant with tulasi and we resorted to them at once. By the gracious and fascinating words of that Supreme Person, we have become free from ignorance so that the karma which has been separated from us can never follow us.

There are some (ācāryas) who have understood the noble and charming śloka uttered by Hari which is like the gem koustubha taken out of the ocean of Vyasa’s Veda (Mahābhārata). Its meaning finds confirmation in the ways of the world (or the smṛtis) and in the paths of the Vedas. On hearing the words of these (ācharyas) which are like steps in the staircase that leads to the mansion of mukti, great souls like Vaiśampāyana and Śounaka nod their heads (in approval and admiration).

Here ends the third part of Śrīmad Rahasyatrayasara called “ The Interpretation of the meaning of the three rahasyas or mysteries by a study of the grammatical construction of the words and sentences in them”,