Dvaita concept of sAdhana [was Re: gita 9.32 revived]
Mani Varadarajan
> >I am loath to argue this as we are drifting away
> >from the essence of Krishna's statement, which is this:
> >no matter how depressed is one's status in society,
> >completely surrendering all to the Lord takes one to Him.
>
> No, we are not. We are only trying to analyse the
> consequences of a particular interpretation.
Ok, if this is the point, let's discuss the consequences
from a practical perspective, i.e., as they are actually
practiced in day-to-day life.
Is it your contention that Ramanuja's understanding of
Gita 9.32 has caused Sri Vaishnava women and non-brahmins
to be even more oppressed than in other sects?
This would be a laughable conclusion, and is contrary
to all known facts. To my knowledge, practically speaking,
orthodox Dvaita treats women and non-brahmins extremely
poorly. At the very least, Sri Vaishnavism gives everyone,
from Brahma down to a blade of grass, equal opportunity to
moksha, through of SaraNaagati. This upAya is open to all,
and people of all classes to this day practice it.
I fully admit I may be wrong about Dvaita, but as far
as I understand it, only brahmin males can attain moksha
in this life. Is this not true?
What is Dvaita's approach to sAdhana for mukti, and how do
the Vedas fit into this scheme?
aazhvaar emberumaanaar dhesikan jeeyar thiruvadigaLe saraNam
Mani
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.25, 4/5/96
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Shrisha Rao
> > >I am loath to argue this as we are drifting away
> > >from the essence of Krishna's statement, which is this:
> > >no matter how depressed is one's status in society,
> > >completely surrendering all to the Lord takes one to
Him.
>
> > No, we are not. We are only trying to analyse the
> > consequences of a particular interpretation.
>
> Ok, if this is the point, let's discuss the consequences
> from a practical perspective, i.e., as they are actually
> practiced in day-to-day life.
I don't think this is quite what he meant by "consequences,"
but I could be wrong. I think he meant the consequences for
doctrine, or for one's system of values or world-view.
> Is it your contention that Ramanuja's understanding of
> Gita 9.32 has caused Sri Vaishnava women and non-brahmins
> to be even more oppressed than in other sects?
Provided, of course, that "women and non-brahmins" are
"oppressed"
"in other sects."
> This would be a laughable conclusion, and is contrary
> to all known facts. To my knowledge, practically speaking,
> orthodox Dvaita treats women and non-brahmins extremely
> poorly. At the very least, Sri Vaishnavism gives everyone,
> from Brahma down to a blade of grass, equal opportunity to
> moksha, through of SaraNaagati. This upAya is open to all,
> and people of all classes to this day practice it.
Who exactly is "orthodox Dvaita" -- who treats women and
non-brahmins extremely poorly? If not a person, then where in
the doctrine is there any such indication? If there is
nothing in the doctrine itself, how is any such behavior, if
present, considered orthodox?
Why should there be equality of opportunity only via
sharaNaagati? Why is there none in attaining gnyaana? Given
that it is implicitly acknowledged that there are people who
are denied the opportunity to seek moksha through gnyaana,
sharaNaagati is at best a mere morsel tossed contemptuously
to fob off criticism of what is eminently unfair and high-
handed exclusion.
Besides, are gnyaana and sharaNaagati mutually exclusive, or
at least is it the case that sharaNaagati does not require
gnyaana? If the former, then those who go the way of gnyaana
must be literally pulling themselves up by their own
bootstraps, for they can attain mukti without surrendering
themselves to the Lord. If the latter, then those who go the
way of sharaNaagati are people who surrender in ignorance;
i.e., they know not what they do, but merely do it because
they're easily fooled or because they are basically very
simple people who do whatever some good Samaritan tells them
to. If neither, then it follows that sharaNaagati and
gnyaana always come together, and as such, exclusion from
gnyaana makes sharaNaagati impossible or meaningless.
> I fully admit I may be wrong about Dvaita, but as far
> as I understand it, only brahmin males can attain moksha
> in this life. Is this not true?
It is not true. Why would the Mahaabhaarata say, for
instance, that Satyavati, Ambikaa, etc., who were women,
attained mukti after those births, thanks to Vyaasa's grace
upon them? Such a notion as above would thus be contrary to
accepted evidence.
Besides, recall that given the notion of intrinsic gender,
saying that only brahmin males can attain mukti would mean
that even those who are intrinsically women have to be born
as brahmin males, in order to attain mukti (because we know
that women do attain mukti). However, this never happens,
according to Tattvavaada. (Whether one accepts this last part
or not is not important; it still follows that according to
Tattvavaada, the claim is not valid.)
> What is Dvaita's approach to sAdhana for mukti, and how do
> the Vedas fit into this scheme?
Now that's a really hefty topic, and one that I am not fit to
lay out to any significant extent.
However, my understanding of it is something as follows.
mokshashcha vishhNu-prasAdena vinA na labhyate |
vishhNutattvavinirNaya
Moksha and (other ends) are never achieved without Vishnu's
grace.
Recall that in 'Gita XVI-23, Krishna says:
yaH shAstra-vidhiM-utsR^ijya vartate kAma-kArataH |
na sa siddhiM avApnoti na sukhaM na parAM-gatim.h ||
This verse is too potent to be adequately covered here, but
one just notes that in the second line, it is shown that
sukha, siddhi, and mukti are the three kinds of ends one
could possibly strive for.
Now, collating that with the 'tattva-nirNaya quote, one sees
that all these kinds are not available except by Vishnu's
grace.
However, what exactly is Vishnu's grace?
aGYAnAM GYAnado vishhNoH GYAninAM moxadashcha saH |
kaivalyadaH paraM-brahma vishhNureva na saMshayaH ||
skA.nda purANa
The meaning is clear enough: Vishnu alone is the giver of
knowledge to the ignorant, and of mukti to the knowing. He,
the Param-Brahma, is alone also the giver of kaivalya.
Going further:
shubhena karmaNA svargaM nirayaM cha vikarmaNA |
mithyAGYAnena cha tamo GYAnenaiva paraM-padam.h ||
yAti tasmAt.h viraktaH san.h GYAnameva samAshrayet.h |
sarvAvasthA prerakashcha sarva-rupeshhvabhedavAn.h ||
aNu-bhAshhya
These, too, are quite clear, at least at the surface. Pious
karma leads to svarga, and impious ones to naraka. Illusory
knowledge (or knowledge of real entities as illusory, etc.)
leads to eternal damnation, and correct knowledge leads to
the Supreme state. (The second line of the first verse
indicates that knowledge that incorrect knowledge leads to
damnation, as well as correct knowledge, lead to mukti; thus,
it is important to know well and discard the incorrect types
of understanding.)
Therefore, the detached acts only for the purpose of
knowledge of the One who is the motivator of all states, and
is non-different in all forms. Thus, His properties,
potencies, etc., are all His own nature, and are not to be
known as being distinct from Him. Since He alone can give
mukti, He must be the Supreme (else others would be able to
do so as well), and since His qualities are His own nature,
He must be independent.
Here, "all states" indicates bandha & moksha; jaagaraNa,
svapna, sushupti; etc., etc. In the first verse, "illusory
knowledge" that leads to damnation is not such meant to
include such knowledge obtaining as a temporary state due to
sins.
In any event, the second verse shows what kind of knowledge
it is that one seeks in order to qualify for mukti.
Now, the knowledge involved above is beyond sensory
perception and logic based upon sensory perception (hence,
too, the special note that it is available only by Vishnu's
grace; it cannot just be had by sensory interaction and
inferences based upon such). It has to come from Agamas,
only.
na cha paurusheyeNa vAkyena tat.h siddhiH | aGYAna
vipralaMbhayoH prApteH |
vishhNutattvavinirNaya
That kind of knowledge is not achieved by powrusheya vaakyas
alone; such lead to ignorance and delusion (if applied
alone).
That is the importance of the Vedas -- they, the apowrusheya
Agamas, alone are the worthy primal sources of the required
kind of knowledge.
Thus, in summation, the overall situation is something as
follows:
1> mukti is not available except by Vishnu's grace;
2> mukti takes place only by knowledge given by Him;
3> knowing that incorrect knowledge leads to damnation, and
correct knowledge leads to mukti, one qualifies for it;
4> correct knowledge involves the understanding of all of
this, as well as of the Lord as motivator of all, and as
the repository of complete attributes which are His own
nature (i.e., not gifted to Him, etc.)
5> such knowledge is not obtainable by authored writings;
such lead to ignorance and delusion if used by themselves
-- thus, we need the Vedas to obtain the necessary
knowledge.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Mani Varadarajan
> Who exactly is "orthodox Dvaita" -- who treats women and
> non-brahmins extremely poorly? If not a person, then where in
> the doctrine is there any such indication? If there is
> nothing in the doctrine itself, how is any such behavior, if
> present, considered orthodox?
Orthodox behavior is behavior as practiced by the
leaders of the sect -- the swamis in the eight mathas
around Udipi and similar scholars of repute. Presumably,
they are following in the footsteps of Srimad Ananda
Tirtha, or are at least trying to.
This having been established, the treatment meted
out to women and non-brahmins is not unique to Dvaita,
and is common to many sects (except perhaps the Gaudiyas).
In Dvaita, however, such treatment may have its own unique
expressions.
Some questions:
Does a Dvaita swami see widows?
Why is it that Kanaka Dasa was not allowed access
to have darsan of Udipi Krishna?
Is it not true that if the shadow of a person of
a ``fallen'' caste -- leather worker, etc.,
falls on a Dvaita swami, that he has to take a
bath to purify himself?
Another question:
In Dvaita, are ``male'' jivas of higher status than
``female'' jivas? Are brahmin jivas of higher
status than Sudra jivas? How do I know if I am
a brahmin jiva, male jiva, etc?
> Why should there be equality of opportunity only via
> sharaNaagati? Why is there none in attaining gnyaana?
SaraNAgati is jnAna-viSesha, but is a different spiritual
discipline from bhakti-yoga. So there is equal opportunity
for this jnAna. Even the most celebrated acharyas of
Sri Vaishnavism practiced SaraNAgati and declared their
inability to practice bhakti-yoga, strictly speaking. In
any practical sense, there is equal opportunity for all.
Please read my previous article on SaraNAgati vs. bhakti-yoga
to get an understanding of why bhakti-yoga, strictly speaking,
is a difficult discipline that is unsuitable for most people.
Shrisha Rao
<ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
> Orthodox behavior is behavior as practiced by the
> leaders of the sect -- the swamis in the eight mathas
> around Udipi and similar scholars of repute. Presumably,
> they are following in the footsteps of Srimad Ananda
> Tirtha, or are at least trying to.
However, it is a fact, sad but true, that not all who are supposedly in
senior positions of authority in the Maadhva sampradaaya are necessarily
worthy of emulation in every respect. This may be so with other
traditions, too. I would not like to discuss this in detail as it is
largely irrelevant, but suffice it to say that even sanyaasiis can do
wrong: in fact, I clearly remember that Sri Bannanje Govindacharya
stated in public during a speech on the occasion of Ananda Tiirtha's
750th anniversary six years ago, that he would like us in the audience
to stop respecting Swamijis as deity-incarnates, since they were in most
cases fallible humans -- and mind you, there were two Swamijis on th
dais with him as he said so. It took some guts to say that, but I didn't
hear a murmur of dissent, and my own seniors accepted his statement
as completely true and in agreement with their own experiences.
Historically, too, there have been plenty of cases where people who
should have known better have behaved contrary to accepted principles,
while allegedly doing the "orthodox" (according to you) thing. For
instance, Raghavendra Tiirtha was "excommunicated" for allegedly not
following the rules of worship and sanctification properly. And of
course, you know about Kanaka Daasa being barred entry into the Krishna
temple. There are many such incidents and instances of supreme
foolishness or even crass evil, and orthodoxy is not a justification in
any of their cases.
To put it in short, I'd say that unless there is clear support from the
doctrine itself for a certain course of action, I would not consider
any form of behavior as "orthodox."
In fact, the only support I can find for the notion of following the
lead of respected others is the following two quotes:
yadyadAcharati shreshhThastattadevetaro janaH |
sa yatpramANaM kurute lokastadanuvartate ||
Bhagavad Gita, III-21
As a great person does, so do other people;
as (s)he makes the rule, the world follows.
�atha yadi te karmavichiksA vA vR^ittavichikitsA vA syAt.h |
ye tatra brAhmaNAH sammarshinaH | yuktA AyuktAH | alUxA
dharmakAMAH syuH | yathA te tatra varteran.h | tathA tatra
varthethAH |
Taittiriiya Up., I-11-??
If there is doubt or uncertainty about one's actions or conduct, one is
supposed to emulate knowledgeable braahmaNas who have certain qualities
(yuktA AyuktAH, etc.)
Notice that in neither of these cases is there an injunction towards
orthodoxy: the first, the 'Gita, merely _reports_ that people follow
the example of worthy persons. The Upanishad does give an injunction,
but it is very clear at the outset that this is only when one is in
doubt: one is obviously supposed to use one's own judgement first, and
if such falls short, then one emulates. Then, too, the emulation is not
merely of whatever is considered "orthodox," but is of braahmaNas who
fit rigid criteria (sammarshinaH; yuktA AyuktA; alUxA dharmakAmAH syuH).
Since in the present day such people are quite UN-orthodox simply
because of their rarity, I'd even say that forthright orthodoxy is
contra-indicated.
> This having been established, the treatment meted
> out to women and non-brahmins is not unique to Dvaita,
> and is common to many sects (except perhaps the Gaudiyas).
> In Dvaita, however, such treatment may have its own unique
> expressions.
>
> Some questions:
>
> Does a Dvaita swami see widows?
Except in the most perverse sense, yes. Some of them have even visited
Harijan-bastiis, and such, and they couldn't very well have told the
widows there to simply disappear.
> Why is it that Kanaka Dasa was not allowed access
> to have darsan of Udipi Krishna?
Because fools exist, and did exist in the past as well also. As you
know, Krishna Himself made it spectacularly clear that he considered the
non-admittance of His devotee inappropriate.
> Is it not true that if the shadow of a person of
> a ``fallen'' caste -- leather worker, etc.,
> falls on a Dvaita swami, that he has to take a
> bath to purify himself?
I don't think Maadhva sanyaasiis have much chance to come in contact
with leather workers or such. However, the above question is essentially
misleading. Sanyaasiis observe a very high level of "purity," but this
is not directed at low-caste people. They have to bathe something like
four to six times a day, have to use only water coming directly from
the ground (well/river) for the purpose, cannot eat unless they have
performed puujaa and sanctified the food by naivedya, etc., etc. I
would not be surprised if a Swamiji had to take a bath if _my_ shadow
fell upon him. In fact, when they directly or indirectly touch _anyone_
including braahmaNas, they have to take a bath. That is quite standard.
So your leather-worker is essentially in the same boat as everyone else.
> Another question:
>
> In Dvaita, are ``male'' jivas of higher status than
> ``female'' jivas? Are brahmin jivas of higher
> status than Sudra jivas? How do I know if I am
> a brahmin jiva, male jiva, etc?
I don't know if you can know that you are a braahmaNa before attaining
brahma-gnyaana, but I think based upon the principle that female jiivas
are not born as males (for which I don't know the source of support),
you can know that you are a male jiiva.
It is not the case that male jiivas are of higher standard: in the Kena
Upanishad, for instance, we find Uma (Parvati) giving spiritual
instruction to Indra, showing that it is possible for a female to be a
male's Guru.
> SaraNAgati is jnAna-viSesha, but is a different spiritual
> discipline from bhakti-yoga. So there is equal opportunity
> for this jnAna. Even the most celebrated acharyas of
> Sri Vaishnavism practiced SaraNAgati and declared their
> inability to practice bhakti-yoga, strictly speaking. In
> any practical sense, there is equal opportunity for all.
This is very confusing! If sharaNaagati is different from bhakti (or
bhakti-yoga), then what is it exactly? How can one even conceive of
surrender without devotion? Are they not the same, or two sides of a
coin, etc., in fact?
In addition, my question was about gnyaana vs. sharaNaagati; I am not
sure how this bhakti vs. sharaNaagati thing addresses it at all.
Mani Varadarajan
Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> writes:
>
> This is very confusing! If sharaNaagati is different from bhakti (or
> bhakti-yoga), then what is it exactly? How can one even conceive of
> surrender without devotion? Are they not the same, or two sides of a
> coin, etc., in fact?
>
Shrisha,
We cannot have a discussion if you make assertions without
bothering to read explanations given in my previous articles.
I outlined the difference between bhakti-yoga and SaraNaagati
and their interrelation not too long ago.
Please see
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srv/1996_02/msg00136.html
> In addition, my question was about gnyaana vs. sharaNaagati; I am not
> sure how this bhakti vs. sharaNaagati thing addresses it at all.
I just stated that SaraNaagati, like bhakti-yoga, is
jnaana-viSesha! I cannot keep responding to every little
quibble you have with Sri Vaishnava doctrine if you can't
be bothered to read and understand words that I have
already written as part of this discussion.
Frankly, no matter what I say, I am sure you will have
one problem or another with Sri Vaishnavism. It appears
that you rather ache for a good fight than a deeper
understanding of bhakti-sAdhana. That is fine --
to each his own.
At this point, my advice to you is this: if you are seriously
interested in understanding what our acharyas have said, rather
than pointing out at every instance how Dvaita is superior to
your misunderstandings of Sri Vaishnavism, please go study
Vedanta properly under *any* acharya -- Advaitic, Dvaitic,
or Visishtadvaitic. It doesn't matter. You will greatly
benefit from it.
namo narayanaya,
Vijay Sadananda Pai
>> I fully admit I may be wrong about Dvaita, but as far
>> as I understand it, only brahmin males can attain moksha
>> in this life. Is this not true?
In article <4ksn3b$j...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
>It is not true. Why would the Mahaabhaarata say, for
>instance, that Satyavati, Ambikaa, etc., who were women,
>attained mukti after those births, thanks to Vyaasa's grace
>upon them?
Now I'm confused; I thought Dvaita said (or at least it seemed
you had said so earlier here) that nobody gets liberated until
the end of the Brahma-kalpa etc, that they can wait it out
in Satyaloka until they're lead out by a mukta-Brahmaa. Is that
not the case in Dvaita? If not, then why didn't Ananda Tiirtha
take liberation? Also, are Dvaitins who are not Rju-taattvika
yogiis required to wait just for Brahmaa or also for Ananda
Tiirtha?
Just curious,
Vijay
Shrisha Rao
Mani Varadarajan <ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
> Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> writes:
>
> > This is very confusing! If sharaNaagati is different from bhakti (or
> > bhakti-yoga), then what is it exactly? How can one even conceive of
> > surrender without devotion? Are they not the same, or two sides of a
> > coin, etc., in fact?
>
> Shrisha,
>
> We cannot have a discussion if you make assertions without
> bothering to read explanations given in my previous articles.
> I outlined the difference between bhakti-yoga and SaraNaagati
> and their interrelation not too long ago.
>
> Please see
>
> http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srv/1996_02/msg00136.html
Thanks for the reference. Actually, my questions were _after_ having
read that and other pieces, not _without_ having read them. I shall
clarify shortly.
> > In addition, my question was about gnyaana vs. sharaNaagati; I am not
> > sure how this bhakti vs. sharaNaagati thing addresses it at all.
>
> I just stated that SaraNaagati, like bhakti-yoga, is
> jnaana-viSesha! I cannot keep responding to every little
> quibble you have with Sri Vaishnava doctrine if you can't
> be bothered to read and understand words that I have
> already written as part of this discussion.
Not guilty, Your Honor!
Besides, to say that sharaNaagati is _like_ bhakti in some respect is
not to answer the question, which was how it was _distinct_ from bhakti.
Capisce? We need to see points of difference rather than those of
identity or similarity.
> Frankly, no matter what I say, I am sure you will have
> one problem or another with Sri Vaishnavism. It appears
> that you rather ache for a good fight than a deeper
> understanding of bhakti-sAdhana. That is fine --
> to each his own.
Yes, but actually, I have been like this all though. If you had sat in
on one of our classes on the 'tattva-nirNaya or the PramaaNa-lakshaNa,
you'd think I've been unnaturally restrained on the newsgroup compared
to mine and others' styles there. It is quite de rigeur for Maadhvas to
question everything that is stated, and it is thought that acceptance
without question is the unnatural mode, and that such does not lead to
proper understanding. I myself have never been chary of asking hard
questions even of my own seniors, and have in fact managed on one
occasion to give pause to Sri Pejavar Swamiji himself, after he said
something in a lecture on the Nyaaya-Sudhaa that I was doubtful about.
Both he and my own Achaarya are rather appreciative of my pugnacity, so
I'm something of a spoiled brat, not given to easy acquiescence.
Apologies if this causes any trouble.
Anyway, let me make a brief pass over the earlier posting referred to;
perhaps my query will become clearer. Until otherwise indicated, all
of the following quotes are from that posting of February.
> The general concept of bhakti in the
> sense of devotion or love of God is common to many religions,
> especially to the Vaishnava traditions. However, bhakti
> as a specific discipline for moksha is a unique
> term that refers to a rigorous spiritual discipline that
> must be practiced continuously for one's whole life,
> until total liberation is attained.
I'm not aware that mukti comes after one lifetime, as seems to be
indicated above.
> This bhakti as a means for moksha is described in the
> Gita as ``bhakti-yoga'' to emphasize the strict discipline
> that it involves. Do not be fooled into thinking that this
> is the easy bhakti mentioned in the Puranas and other texts.
> [That form of bhakti is more properly termed Saranagati or
> Prapatti, which I will get to down below.] Rather, bhakti-
{...}
> It should strike the reader that this is indeed an arduous
> path to moksha. Although we have heard that there were
> great bhaktas of years past who trod this path, such as
> Krishna Dvaipaayana Vyaasa, Prahlada, Dhruva, and others,
> it is beset with pitfalls, especially since none of us
> even approach the competence of these characters.
> Even Arjuna, who by all accounts was mentally and physically
> fit for bhakti-yoga and was instructed in the practice
> by God Himself, expressed grief at his inability to
> practice bhakti-yoga and his fear at not attaining the
> feet of the Lord.
Question: when did Arjuna express grief at his inability to practice
bhakti-yoga, and fear of not attaining the feet of the Lord? I'd like to
know the relevant quote(s).
> At this stage, the Lord spoke once again and elaborated
> on the practice of SaraNAgati, only hinted at in the Vedas,
> constituting as it does only one of the 32 brahma-vidyas.
> This nyAsa-vidya is the teaching that is Vaishnavism's highest
> doctrine and most expressive of its spirit, and is epitomized
> in the Lord's immemorial words to the grieving Arjuna:
>
> sarvadharmAn parityajya mAm ekaM SaraNam vraja |
> ahaM tvA sarvapApebhyo mokshayiSyAmi mA SucaH ||
>
> Having abandoned all other means, come to Me alone
> for refuge. Do not grieve; I will release you
> from all your sins.
> Gita 18.66
I don't think it's quite right to say that Arjuna was grieving at that
stage of the discourse; by the 11th chapter itself he had said
"moho.ayam vigato mama" -- his delusion was completely gone.
That, however, is a "minor quibble." The major one is that the quoted
verse does not show sharaNaagati as being apart from bhakti, at all,
and in fact, considered in its proper context, shows that bhakti is
absolutely *necessary*.
Consider the _previous_ verse, XVIII-65:
manmanA bhava mad-bhakto madyAjI mAM namaskuru |
mAmevaishhyasi satyaM te pratijAne priyo.asi me ||
As per the first line, Arjuna was asked to be a bhakta. Right after
this comes the quoted verse; as such, it does not make sense to say that
XVIII is speaking of sharaNaagati as distinct from bhakti. If that were
so, poor Arjuna would be left clueless after receiving contrary
instructions in successive shlokas.
Now look at the _next_ verse, XVIII-67:
idaM te nAtapaskAya nAbhaktAya kadAchana |
na chAshushrUshhave vAchyaM na cha mAM yo.abhyasUyati ||
Here, Arjuna is told unequivocally that "this" is not to be revealed by
him to anyone who is not a tapasvii, is not a bhakta --
As such, the conclusion is clearly that bhakti was a prerequisite for
Arjuna to understand XVIII-66 (which is said to be the epitome of
sharaNaagati *instead*), and also that he was told that bhakti would be
a necessary prerequisite of anyone whom he chose to instruct about
what he had learned. The 68th verse further reinforces this point by
speaking of bhakti yet again, twice this time.
Thus, the alleged difference between sharaNaagati and bhakti is not at
all clear (because the reference said to be epitomic of sharaNaagati
has bhakti all around it). In fact, the opposite is (because bhakti is
seen, through-and-through, to be absolutely essential for surrender).
> SaraNAgati involves a complete surrender of one's self
> to God. It even involves an abandonment of other means,
> such as bhakti-yoga, rituals aiming at moksha, etc.
Where is the pramaaNa for this? There is nothing in the 'Gita to show
that bhakti-yoga is to be abandoned; if bhakti-yoga were to be advocated
in the 'Gita itself and then its abandonment were also advocated or
suggested as an option, then the 'Gita would be contradicting itself,
etc., and could hardly constitute scripture.
Also, bhakti-yoga itself involves abandonment of expectation, of
fruitive activity, etc., vide:
anapexaH shuchirdaxa udAsIno gata-vyathaH |
sarvAraMbha parityAgI yo madbhaktaH sa me priyaH || XII-16 ||
Note "anapeksha" meaning non-expectation, and "sarvArambha-parityaaga,"
meaning abandonment of all (objects and entities with) beginnings.
As such, to give up bhakti-yoga is tantamount to giving up
non-expectation (i.e., acceptance of expectation) and abandonment of
beginnings (i.e., acceptance of worldly and fruitive objects and
endeavors).
Therefore, one who gives up bhakti-yoga is not on the path of spiritual
fulfilment at all. His "sharaNaagati," if any, is just a hoax, to
borrow Raghunandan's term of description.
> After the surrender, the responsibility for moksha
> lies entirely with God, whereas in bhakti-yoga it lay
> with the individual.
Again, what is the pramaaNa? I would say the reverse -- in bhakti, the
individual does not assume responsibility for his own mukti.
There are a whole host of quotes that show that mukti is not by the will
of the individual seeking mukti, but is *only* by the Lord's explicit
grace; as such, for the mumukshu to assume such responsibility is
completely foolish; one could as well assume responsibility for the
rising and setting of the sun, which one has no control over, either. A
bhakti-yoga where the bhakta considers himself responsible for his own
liberation is inconsistent with scripture, and self-contradictory as
well. If one can attain liberation except by the Lord's grace, why even
be His devotee in the first place? If, on the other hand, one can
*manipulate* the Lord by becoming His devotee, so that He is obliged to
give one mukti, then He is malleable by oneself, and isn't much of a
Lord at all. Devotion is then just a tool by which one manipulates Him
to get one's desired result.
> Is it not better to rely on the
> infinite power and mercy of the Lord, than to rely on
> one's own efforts?
Where, again, is there a pramaaNa that shows the individual bhakta
relying on his own efforts, to attain mukti? If, as is claimed,
bhakti-yoga means that the individual has responsibility for his own
mukti, then how is bhakti-yoga itself said to be "anapeksha"
(without expectation)?
> SaraNAgati need only be performed once, as one can only
> give oneself up to the Lord only once. Bhakti, on the
> other hand, is a discipline that must be practiced every
> day, and even then one may be unsure as to how effective
> the practice has been.
No such uncertainty should exist, for Krishna has declared:
mAM cha yo.avyabhichAreNa bhakti-yogena sevate |
sa guNAn.h samatItyaitAn.h brahma-bhUyAya kalpate || XIV-26 ||
One who serves Him and (His devotees) unswervingly according to
bhakti-yoga, *will* attain mukti, per His explicit word. There is no
more doubt about this than there is about anything else in the 'Gita.
Re the claim that sharaNaagati "need only be performed once," one again
notes that there is no pramaaNa for this. Besides, isn't that a rather
unsafe way? At least with bhakti, I have a lot of time to get things
right -- but with sharaNaagati, I, a creature of the world with so many
manifest and unmanifest flaws in me, have to "give up all dharmas
completely and surrender to Me alone" in one shot! How is that even
plausible? If I don't get it right the first time, do I get a second
try? A third? How many do I get? No answers are known. In any event, if
multiple tries are allowed, this is really not distinct from bhakti in
_that_ respect, either, while if only one chance exists, there is too
much of a risk! If I screw up just once, I've lost the chance for mukti,
forever and ever. Under the circumstances, sharaNaagati is a very unsafe
option, fit only for daredevil seekers. I'd stick to bhakti, any day.
> In SaraNAgati, the surrender of
> the self overcomes the egoism of the individual that
> heretofore rejected the freeflowing grace of the Lord
> Now that it can flow unobstructed, the jIva is destined to be
> released, and there is no more worry.
This does not distinguish between sharaNaagati and bhakti, for the
umpteenth time, since bhakti-yoga *requires* giving up of the ego:
adveshhTA sarva-bhUtAnAM maitraH karuNa eva cha |
nirmamo niraha.nkAraH sama-duHkha-sukha xamI || XII-13 ||
Note the "nirahankaaraH."
> Of course, the attitude of a true SaraNAgata involves
> a great deal of bhakti, in the popular sense of the term.
In the scriptural sense as well. In fact, I don't know that there does
exist any such thing as *the* popular sense of the term. There are as
many popular notions of bhakti as there are people claiming to be
bhaktas.
> Love of God is important here as well, but it should
> be obvious that technically, one can be SaraNAgata
> without having a deep, abiding love of God (such as
> kAkAsura in the Ramayana). Such persons, however
> are very rare, and the typical SaraNAgata will be
> filled with devotion. The primary characteristics
> are Akincanyam (helplessness to achieve moksha) and
> ananyagatitvam (having no other refuge but the Lord).
Neither of these primary characteristics tends to separate bhakti from
sharaNaagati; helplessness to achieve moksha is a fact accepted by all
Vedantins, and having no refuge but the Lord is also indicated for it,
as in "maam cha yaH a-vyabhichaareNa bhakti-yogena sevate." If there
were other possible recourse besides the Lord, then the bhakti-yogi
would be a simpleton to be an a-vyaabhichaari sevaka; he should surely
try all available options and see which of them clicks. Only if the Lord
alone is the *sole* option does unswerving devotion make sense.
> Note that SaraNAgati is also more in line with the
> true nature of the individual self as one that belongs
> to God. While this element is also there in bhakti,
> it is not the *primary* element. This being a big
On the contrary, one can assert the exact reverse. While a quote like
XIV-26 *clearly* shows that unswerving service to Krishna is one's
fundamental purpose, which in turn means that the "true nature of the
individual self" is of one that "belongs to" Him, there is nothing in
"sarva-dharmaan parityajya maam ekam sharaNam vraja" to indicate such.
Also, service is over a period of time, which is more supportive of the
notion that one's nature is that of a servant. A one-time surrender is
conceivable even if one's nature is not to serve. In fact, perhaps that
is why one could wish for a one-time surrender rather than a sustained
service?
-- end February posting quotes.
> At this point, my advice to you is this: if you are seriously
> interested in understanding what our acharyas have said, rather
> than pointing out at every instance how Dvaita is superior to
> your misunderstandings of Sri Vaishnavism, please go study
> Vedanta properly under *any* acharya -- Advaitic, Dvaitic,
> or Visishtadvaitic. It doesn't matter. You will greatly
> benefit from it.
Thanks for the advice. In practice, however, I could *not* go to just
any Achaarya -- or even if I did, I couldn't stay long, because
non-Maadhva instructors would throw up their hands in despair, or bung
me out in short order. I have yet to see the non-Maadhva who has the
patience for my questions...
Parthasarati Dileepan
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srv/1996_04/msg00242.html:
> If I don't get it right the first time, do I get a second
>try? A third? How many do I get?
If done with faith there is no way one will get it
wrong. To illustrate this point Swami Sri Desikan
presents a story. The King of a victorious invading
army entered the andhappuram looking for the heir
to the throne he had just won. Standing in front of
this ferocious King with his hands folded in anjali,
the young prince uttered the words that his
ministers had coached him to say, "Please save me
Lord, I am here to serve you," The child did not
understand the meaning of these foreign words he
was saying. He was not sure whether he was
saying the words right. The only thing he realized
was that he was surrendering to this imposing
warrior and that what was going to happen to him
was entirely in the hands of this new King. Upon
hearing these words of "saraNaagathi" from this
young child, spoken in a crude accent and
ungrammatical form, the warrior King's heart was
moved. In a moment of tenderness he spares the
young prince.
If a murderous warrior can feel a pang of compassion
for his _enemy's_ child, just imagine what we could
expect from the very ocean of compassion towards
His own prodigal children. As long as we have
faith that our Lord will protect and save us, there is
no need to worry whether we will get it right or
not. Faith in His mercy is all that is needed. A
part of this faith is that you don't seek any other
recourse for mukthi.
>This does not distinguish between sharaNaagati and bhakti, for the
>umpteenth time, since bhakti-yoga *requires* giving up of the ego:
For the umpteenth time, Bhathi yoga and bhakthi
are not one and the same. The vile Kaakaasuran
never spent a moment in bhakthi yoga and yet he
was saved by our Lord when he surrendered. The
only two emotions he felt at the time he
surrendered to Lord Sri Rama were (1) faith that
Sri Rama will save him and (2) there is no other
recourse but Sri Rama. Contrast this with the
Bhakthi yoga that Bharadwaja munivar. The results
were the same in the two cases, the means were not.
>> SaraNAgati involves a complete surrender of one's self
>> to God. It even involves an abandonment of other means,
>> such as bhakti-yoga, rituals aiming at moksha, etc.
>Where is the pramaaNa for this? There is nothing in the 'Gita to show
>that bhakti-yoga is to be abandoned;
Look at the 18 th chapter in general
and the Charama slOka in particular of Srimad
Bhagavath Geethai. The line of acharyaas starting
from Sri Ramanuja have cited a number of
pramaaNaas for the doctrine of saraNaagathi and
contrasted it with Bhakthi yoga.
>Thanks for the advice. In practice, however, I could *not* go to just
>any Achaarya -- or even if I did, I couldn't stay long, because
>non-Maadhva instructors would throw up their hands in despair, or bung
>me out in short order. I have yet to see the non-Maadhva who has the
>patience for my questions...
One must realize that the doctrine of each school is
a result of the scholarship of a long line of
illustrious acharyaas for whom study of
Vedhaantha was their very life. With our limited
knowledge and limitless confidence we find points
to criticize other schools. This, I think, is pointless
and a mark of arrogance. IMHO, impudence
cannot coexist with an enquiring state of mind.
This is probably the reason why some teachers
_throw up their hands in despair_.
When we approach a teacher to study anything,
even loukeeka subjects, we must remind ourselves
of Sri Rama and Sri Krishna as pupils. What on 14
lOkaas could Visvaamithrar teach, that Lord Sri
Rama did not already know? Yet, Sri Rama stood
in front of V with His hands folded in anjali and
learnt the mantraas of Balai and Athibalai. Lord
Sri Krishna, whose very breath is the Vedhaas,
learnt the same vEdhaas from Saanthibeeni with
due deference!
sriman naaraayaNa charaNam
-- Dileepan
Shrisha Rao
Parthasarati Dileepan <mf...@utcvm.utc.edu> wrote:
>Sri Shrisha Rao says in article
>http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srv/1996_04/msg00242.html:
>
>> If I don't get it right the first time, do I get a second
>>try? A third? How many do I get?
>
> If done with faith there is no way one will get it
> wrong. To illustrate this point Swami Sri Desikan
> presents a story. The King of a victorious invading
If done with faith, one is _sure_ to do it wrong. Remember that
gnyaana from rigorous scriptural study is supposed to have been
excluded here; thus, one who is surrendering must be doing so in
ignorance and/or incomplete understanding.
>>This does not distinguish between sharaNaagati and bhakti, for the
>>umpteenth time, since bhakti-yoga *requires* giving up of the ego:
>
> For the umpteenth time, Bhathi yoga and bhakthi
> are not one and the same. The vile Kaakaasuran
Very well. Then, perhaps you could clarify the following, for starters:
1> What exactly is bhakti, and what is bhakti-yoga, and how are the
two different?
2> Why does the twelfth chapter of the 'Gita, which is the chapter of
bhakti-yoga, make reference only to bhaktas (and thus to bhakti),
but not to bhakti-yoga?
3> In the 'Gita, where is there discussion of bhakti, and where of
bhakti-yoga? Where is the difference between the two clarified?
4> If bhakti-yoga is different from sharaNaagati, and bhakti-yoga is
also different from bhakti, then:
i> Is bhakti also different from sharaNaagati?
ii> If yes, then which of the two is higher and why?
iii> If no, why are the *two* terms used in the 'Gita in place of one?
(Specifically, why did Krishna have to tell Arjuna in XVIII-66
what He had already told him in just the previous verse?)
iv> Is bhakti exclusive of bhakti-yoga, or vice versa?
v> Is bhakti a prerequisite of sharaNaagati, or vice versa?
>>Where is the pramaaNa for this? There is nothing in the 'Gita to show
>>that bhakti-yoga is to be abandoned;
>
> Look at the 18 th chapter in general
> and the Charama slOka in particular of Srimad
> Bhagavath Geethai. The line of acharyaas starting
> from Sri Ramanuja have cited a number of
> pramaaNaas for the doctrine of saraNaagathi and
> contrasted it with Bhakthi yoga.
More power to them. However, my question is where is there a pramaaNa
to show that bhakti-yoga is to be abandoned -- that is not shown in
the Gita's eighteenth chapter (if you can quote a specific verse
therein to show such, I'd be most grateful). Also, that Sri Raamanuja
and his lineage have quoted pramaanas for sharaNaagati (and have shown
its difference from bhakti-yoga) is not itself proof that bhakti-yoga
is to be abandoned. I'm sure you can see the difference.
> Vedhaantha was their very life. With our limited
> knowledge and limitless confidence we find points
> to criticize other schools. This, I think, is pointless
> and a mark of arrogance. IMHO, impudence
> cannot coexist with an enquiring state of mind.
> This is probably the reason why some teachers
> _throw up their hands in despair_.
Perhaps, perhaps not. The reason I ask and criticize is for better
understanding, not out of "impudence" or "limitless confidence."
Ceaseless critiquing of information is good for the understanding,
from my own experience -- there is no way on Earth I would have ever
got a grasp of the notion of Veda-apowrusheyatva, for instance, had I
not critiqued it relentlessly to my best ability. Plus, such
comprehensive criticism is expected of anyone who wishes to gain a
proper understanding of Tattvavaada.
Frankly, I'm rather disappointed with the way this sharaNaagati
vs. bhakti discussion has gone -- no pramaaNas for anything said,
words used without proper definitions, claims made without proper
evidence, and general hand-waving and condemnation of one's
questioning, with condescending advice thrown in gratis. The only
"evidence" seen is the word of scholars not authoritative outside a
sampradaaya, and some examples from myths and fables. Considering that
Tattvavaada has been criticised for its alleged loose standards of
evidence, I'd have hoped for better from its critics.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Parthasarati Dileepan
>... Also, that Sri Raamanuja
>and his lineage have quoted pramaanas for sharaNaagati (and have shown
>its difference from bhakti-yoga) is not itself proof that bhakti-yoga
>is to be abandoned. I'm sure you can see the difference.
Our position is not "bhakthi-yoga is to be
abandoned", only that it should be abandoned
if one chooses saraNaagathi as the means of
securing our Lord's grace, the grace that guarantees
mOksham.
In this context, let me state my understanding of
our sampradayam. In verse 18:65 the Lord
recommends a constant and uninterrupted
contemplation of the Lord ("man^man^aa").
Achaaryaas belonging to Sri Vaishnava
sampradayam have interpreted this to be bhakthi
yoga. Then, in the next verse (18:66), our
acharyaas contend, the Lord noticing Arjuna's
apprehension about the rigors of Bhakthi yOgaa
suggests a simpler way, "sarva dharmaan
parithyajya maamEkam saraNam vraja." It is our
contention that when the Lord says, "sarva
dharmaan parithyajya," He means abandon all
other upaya for mukthi such as karma, jnana, and
bhakthi yoga, IF you choose saraNaagathi.
I have stated the position of our acharyaas.
Apparently, each and every one of these concepts
is based upon pramaNaas from the Vedhaas,
ithihaassa, and saathveega puraaNas, NOT from
some unheared of myths and fables. It does not
really matter whether you agree or disagree with
our doctrine. My interest is to see that the readers
of SRV do not misunderstand our sampradaya,
even if they disagree.
Any serious student of Sri Sampradayam, or any
other sampradayam for that matter, must approach
a proper Guru trained in the respective
sampradaya. They should not rely on the "SRV
scholars" (!) for authoritative answers. This is the
reason for the suggestion to approach a proper Guru.
Answers for your other questions can be found from Mani's
earlier article:
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srv/1996_02/msg00136.html
sriman naaraayaNa charaNam
Mani Varadarajan
gurubhyas tad gurubhyas namo vAkam adhImahe |
vRNImahe tatrAdyau dampatI jagatAm pati ||
-- Nyaasa Tilaka
of Sri Desikan
Sri Parthasarati Dileepan <mf...@utcvm.utc.edu> writes:
> Our position is not "bhakthi-yoga is to be
> abandoned", only that it should be abandoned
> if one chooses saraNaagathi as the means of
> securing our Lord's grace, the grace that guarantees
> mOksham.
To further elaborate, Vedanta Desika writes that
saranaagati is the upaaya for those who are incapable
of bhakti-yoga, which is essentially everyone these
days. Therefore, the ``abandonment of bhakti-yoga'' is
something that has already happened, in the sense
that the sAdhaka is not actually practicing it, but
still desires moksha. The Lord instructs such a
person to become a saranaagata.
This is why the Lord says, ``maam ekam SaraNam vraja,
aham mokshayiSyaami.'' Come to Me alone for refuge --
no one else, nothing else can accomplish this, so do
not resort to them for moksha. Resolve that I alone
am your upAya, not jnAna-yoga, not karma-yoga, not
even bhakti-yoga, for you are already not practicing
those in the specified manner. Taking refuge in Me,
I will destroy all your karma and take you to moksha
Myself. Such is the word of the Lord.
Frankly speaking, SaraNaagati is not a topic that
I am qualified to teach or explain. I have not
sat at the feet of any acharya and learned even the
fundamentals. What I have learned is purely
based on book-knowledge and discussions with others
such as myself.
The pramaanas for SaraNAgati have been thoroughly
discussed by Vedanta Desika in his ``nikshepa raksha.''
I do not have this text available, nor do I have access
to the many puraana and itihaasa quotes Desika quotes
in addition to the Sruti vaakyas. Without these,
I unfortunately cannot do this issue justice.
Further, we Sri Vaishnavas on the net are thoroughly
incapable of instructing someone who has, by his own
word, compared himself to Sri Jaya Tirtha, or who is
of such Vedantic skill as to cause even the Pejavar
Mutt Swami to pause!
Shrisha Rao has written:
And if I lack understanding of Srimad Ananda Tiirtha's
doctrine, I am in excellent company: Sri Jayatiirtha says
*he* lacks it, too! And in fact, I am in Sri Jayatiirtha's
company in this specific matter, as well.
I ... have in fact managed on one occasion to
give pause to Sri Pejavar Swamiji himself, after he
said something in a lecture on the Nyaaya-Sudhaa that
I was doubtful about.
Such net-vidvaans need no instruction from anyone regarding
the supreme mystery of SaraNaagati.
namo narayanaya,
Mani
Mani Varadarajan
> In article <4le1c4$h...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Parthasarati Dileepan <mf...@utcvm.utc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > If done with faith there is no way one will get it
> > wrong.
>
> gnyaana from rigorous scriptural study is supposed to have been
> excluded here; thus, one who is surrendering must be doing so in
> ignorance and/or incomplete understanding.
What a cruel, heartless individual your God is! An aspirant
declares his utter lack of knowledge before the Lord, in all
sincerity offers his atma in self-surrender and self-sacrifice,
and your Lord rejects him, saying, ``You missed this one
procedural element of the saastra here! Screw you!''
Why, the very fact that he has not understood the details of
saastra is the reason he is surrendering himself!
With all due respect, the God of our sampradaya is not like
that. He is parama-kaaruNika, aaSrita-vaatsalyaika-jaladhi,
kaarunya-sauSIlya-nidhi. This supremely compassionate one
looks first and foremost at the intention and sincerity of
the worshipper.
Finally, ideally and in practice, most aspirants perform saranaagati
under the guidance of an acharya. So, in all likelihood, the
saastraic methods will be adhered to.
Of course, in the really final analysis, the doctrine of
predestined eternal damnation in hell that is so dear to
Shrisha's heart is thoroughly incompatible with SaraNaagati.
I suppose this is really at the core of his belligerent
opposition to it.
namo narayanaya,
Mani
Ravisankar S. Mayavaram
To me, surrender(sharanagathi) looks as tough as
bhakti-yoga or Gyana yoga. To surrender to God completely, when I
think about it, requires enormous faith in God. To develop such a
faith one should have some conception of God --> a right
sharanagathi will require a right conception of God. A correct
conception of God is indeed Gyana, since God alone is the only
reality.
To feel that God is the only refuge we have and give ourselves to
him with heart filled with love, needs lot of pre-requisites. Once such a
surrender is made, the devotee will not even long for moksha!
Imagine yourself to be a little child and you are sleeping in the
warmth of your mother's hug, I feel surrender in God will give
million times more joy than this.
I do not know what the shrii vaishnava concept of surrender is,
but I think surrender is placing absolute faith in God, as little
child places on its mother and do nothing but love him. I am
sure, even though I do not know, they (shrii vaishnava saints)
have more sound and correct
concept of it. If a scoundrel like me can think such things about
God, I am sure that great saints in there tradition will have the
right understanding and explanation of this concept.
Ravi m...@tamu.edu
"raama naamamE naamamaayiram"
======================================================================
kaarpNyadoshhopahata svabhaavaH
pR^ichchhaami tvaaM dharmasammuuDhachetaH |
yat.h shreyaH syat.h nishchitaM bruuhi tanme
shishhyaH te ahaM shaadhi maaM tvaaM prapannaM || 2-7 ||
shriimad bhagavad giitaa
======================================================================
Shrisha Rao
In article <4lgj70$1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Mani Varadarajan
<ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
> Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> writes:
> > In article <4le1c4$h...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> > Parthasarati Dileepan <mf...@utcvm.utc.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > If done with faith there is no way one will get it
> > > wrong.
>
> > If done with faith, one is _sure_ to do it wrong. Remember that
> > gnyaana from rigorous scriptural study is supposed to have been
> > excluded here; thus, one who is surrendering must be doing so in
> > ignorance and/or incomplete understanding.
>
> What a cruel, heartless individual your God is! An aspirant
> declares his utter lack of knowledge before the Lord, in all
> sincerity offers his atma in self-surrender and self-sacrifice,
> and your Lord rejects him, saying, ``You missed this one
> procedural element of the saastra here! Screw you!''
You're missing the point. One who has not had the opportunity to acquire
gnyaana is not aware of the Lord, at all, and as such, cannot be said to
be surrendering to Him. To say that he is aware of the Lord but does not
have gnyaana is self-contradictory, given the very notion of gnyaana.
Thus, I submit, it makes no sense to speak of surrender based on faith,
in the absence of knowledge. Faith in what? Surrender to whom? To
something or someone one does not know? How is that even meaningful?
> Why, the very fact that he has not understood the details of
> saastra is the reason he is surrendering himself!
That, I think, is based on the false presumption that one who has
actually studied shaastra need not surrender, and is also subject to
the previous objection.
> With all due respect, the God of our sampradaya is not like
> that. He is parama-kaaruNika, aaSrita-vaatsalyaika-jaladhi,
> kaarunya-sauSIlya-nidhi. This supremely compassionate one
> looks first and foremost at the intention and sincerity of
> the worshipper.
The "God of our sampradaya" is also:
1> An object of surrender *only* to those who do *not* know Him!
2> Knowable by powrusheya texts alone.
3> Not available to all through gnyaana.
4> Known for His arbitrary and foolish discrimination -- although all
jiivas are actually equal, He discriminates against women and does
not allow them to approach Him by gnyaana, preferring instead to
label them as "of sinful birth."
> Finally, ideally and in practice, most aspirants perform saranaagati
> under the guidance of an acharya. So, in all likelihood, the
> saastraic methods will be adhered to.
Recall that you said earlier, and I quote:
SaraNAgati involves a complete surrender of one's self
to God. It even involves an abandonment of other means,
such as bhakti-yoga, rituals aiming at moksha, etc.
So, which is it to be? Will the shaastra be adhered to, or will it be
abandoned? Or, will everything in shaastra *except* bhakti-yoga and
"rituals aiming at moksha" be accepted? If so, then I rather fear there
won't be much left to _accept_, since shaastra is rather thick with
bhakti, and with rituals that are to be performed to qualify for mukti.
In addition, what does it mean to "perform saranaagati under the
guidance of an acharya"? The achaarya cannot be helping them acquire
gnyaana, since sharaNaagati is for those who do not qualify for gnyaana
-- so, what is he doing for them, since he isn't helping them acquire
knowledge?
In addition, recall that you said:
SaraNAgati need only be performed once, as one can only
give oneself up to the Lord only once.
-- which, of course, is in contrast with bhakti, which is a daily
activity. Now, how does an achaarya help one perform a one-time
activity?
1> If the achaarya is a sharaNaagata, then his sharaNaagati-event, shall
we call it that, was in the past, and one cannot emulate him because one
does not know how he did it; one only knows that at some time in the
past he performed the one-time action of sharaNaagati. Because one can
only give oneself up to the Lord once, the achaarya cannot show us how
to perform sharaNaagati, because he cannot give himself up to the Lord
again as a demonstration to his students.
2> If the achaarya is not a sharaNaagata, then it cannot be said that he
is any sort of guide at all: indeed, he is then no achaarya at all.
Thus, an achaarya for a one-time sharaNaagati is meaningless, besides
being subject to the previous objections.
> Of course, in the really final analysis, the doctrine of
> predestined eternal damnation in hell that is so dear to
> Shrisha's heart is thoroughly incompatible with SaraNaagati.
Which would mean, I think, that the concept of sharaNaagati is also
"thoroughly incompatible" with the 'Gita itself.
Besides, of course, it's yet to be seen either that sharaNaagati as
claimed is either meaningful or supported by scripture. As of now, it
has the same status with me as a rabbit's horn.
> I suppose this is really at the core of his belligerent
> opposition to it.
I'm just trying to find out how sensible it is; I have made no a priori
statement either of support or of opposition, but am just trying to take
a look around to see how it is shaped.
-- end followup 1 --
In article <4lghl1$r...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Mani Varadarajan
<ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
> Sri Parthasarati Dileepan <mf...@utcvm.utc.edu> writes:
> > Our position is not "bhakthi-yoga is to be
> > abandoned", only that it should be abandoned
> > if one chooses saraNaagathi as the means of
> > securing our Lord's grace, the grace that guarantees
> > mOksham.
>
> To further elaborate, Vedanta Desika writes that
> saranaagati is the upaaya for those who are incapable
> of bhakti-yoga, which is essentially everyone these
> days. Therefore, the ``abandonment of bhakti-yoga'' is
> something that has already happened, in the sense
> that the sAdhaka is not actually practicing it, but
> still desires moksha. The Lord instructs such a
> person to become a saranaagata.
If the saadhaka is not practicing bhakti-yoga, then he has accepted
worldly expectation, and has also accepted fruitive activity and
endeavors. He is also given to egotism, and several other vices as well.
If he has given up those things, then he has the characteristics of a
bhakti-yogi, and cannot be said to have given up bhakti-yoga, at all.
> This is why the Lord says, ``maam ekam SaraNam vraja,
> aham mokshayiSyaami.'' Come to Me alone for refuge --
> no one else, nothing else can accomplish this, so do
> not resort to them for moksha. Resolve that I alone
> am your upAya, not jnAna-yoga, not karma-yoga, not
> even bhakti-yoga, for you are already not practicing
> those in the specified manner. Taking refuge in Me,
> I will destroy all your karma and take you to moksha
> Myself. Such is the word of the Lord.
The Lord, unfortunately, is also in the habit of contradicting Himself;
in the 65th verse of the eighteenth chapter, he asks Arjuna to be His
bhakta, and then in the very next verse He asks him to give up bhakti
as well. He does another about-turn immediately after, and asks Arjuna
not to reveal His word to anyone who is not a bhakta.
> I unfortunately cannot do this issue justice.
That seems manifestly clear.
> Further, we Sri Vaishnavas on the net are thoroughly
> incapable of instructing someone who has, by his own
> word, compared himself to Sri Jaya Tirtha, or who is
> of such Vedantic skill as to cause even the Pejavar
> Mutt Swami to pause!
>
> Shrisha Rao has written:
>
> And if I lack understanding of Srimad Ananda Tiirtha's
> doctrine, I am in excellent company: Sri Jayatiirtha says
> *he* lacks it, too! And in fact, I am in Sri Jayatiirtha's
> company in this specific matter, as well.
I don't see what I wrote wrong. To say that a greatly esteemed senior
scholar such as Sri Jayatiirtha has gone on record to affirm a view that
one is holding, is a matter of pride rather than of shame.
I "compare" with Sri Jayatiirtha in the same sense as an ant compares
with an elephant; to do so is nothing wrong, because it is only by
comparing his great skill and understanding with my own puny acumen that
I have come to have great respect for him. I am as proud as can be to
have had the good fortune of being his student, even if n-times removed,
and even any base-seeming familiarity that I might show with respect to
him is only a manifestation of my regard for him. He is my ideal in
scholarship and devotion, and if ever I get a doubt as to what the
correct answer is, I have only to think of what he has said or would
say. Because I have assured myself time and again that his approach is
beyond reproach, I can do no wrong as long as I emulate him. *That* is
why I compare with him: being in line with him tells me that I am on the
right track.
> I ... have in fact managed on one occasion to
> give pause to Sri Pejavar Swamiji himself, after he
> said something in a lecture on the Nyaaya-Sudhaa that
> I was doubtful about.
If someone were to say: "On one occasion, I played a tennis match with
John McEnroe, and managed to serve him an ace," it is not to be
understood that he considers himself a player of like stature with
McEnroe -- in fact, just the reverse is the case. If he were of like
stature, then there would be no achievement to speak of, at all.
In this specific instance, therefore, I did not mean or show any
disrespect for Sri Pejavar Swamiji, whom I revere very highly: I was
just making the point that he, on one occasion, appreciated a question I
had asked him after a lecture as being of much higher standard than the
usual, and showed his appreciation. He was not confounded or lost at any
time, and it was not suggested that he was.
> Such net-vidvaans need no instruction from anyone regarding
> the supreme mystery of SaraNaagati.
If there are no direct and proper answers, then try getting the
discussion off-track by misinterpretation, throwing insults, and giving.
gratuitous advice. I'm impressed already.
-- end followup 2 --
In article <4lgben$h...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Parthasarati Dileepan
<mf...@utcvm.utc.edu> wrote:
> Our position is not "bhakthi-yoga is to be
> abandoned", only that it should be abandoned
> if one chooses saraNaagathi as the means of
> securing our Lord's grace, the grace that guarantees
> mOksham.
That's fine. Now, where in the 'Gita is that indicated? That was the
question. If not in the 'Gita, where else is it indicated? That
bhakti-yoga is to be abandoned if one chooses sharaNaagati?
I notice that you neatly skipped the questions I asked about the alleged
difference between bhakti and bhakti-yoga. An act worthy of an Artful
Dodger, I should think.
> In this context, let me state my understanding of
> our sampradayam. In verse 18:65 the Lord
> recommends a constant and uninterrupted
> contemplation of the Lord ("man^man^aa").
> Achaaryaas belonging to Sri Vaishnava
> sampradayam have interpreted this to be bhakthi
> yoga. Then, in the next verse (18:66), our
> acharyaas contend, the Lord noticing Arjuna's
> apprehension about the rigors of Bhakthi yOgaa
> suggests a simpler way, "sarva dharmaan
> parithyajya maamEkam saraNam vraja." It is our
> contention that when the Lord says, "sarva
> dharmaan parithyajya," He means abandon all
> other upaya for mukthi such as karma, jnana, and
> bhakthi yoga, IF you choose saraNaagathi.
So _here_ comes the light. The "apprehension," "grief," etc., that
Krishna is said to have noticed in Arjuna about bhakti-yoga is not
actually indicated anywhere in the 'Gita -- it is read between the lines
of the 65th and 66th verses of the eighteenth chapter. Is that right?
What else is being read between the lines of the 'Gita, I wonder?
However, Arjuna was rather a fool, one thinks. He let the Lord ramble
on and on for all of the twelfth chapter about bhakti-yoga, without
once registering fear or apprehension. Even when Krishna referred to
bhakti-yoga in the 14th chapter, his mind did not quicken. Finally, at
the eleventh hour, at the fag end of the eighteenth chapter, lightning
flashed, and he was suddenly apprehensive after one specific reference
to bhakti, although bhakti is really not the same as bhakti-yoga.
Then Krishna, noticing this, promptly shoved an alternative in Arjuna's
face: give up all of that, and just surrender to Me alone, and you'll do
just fine. Now why the hell didn't He say that earlier -- at the outset
of the whole discourse, in fact? Anyway, even after saying that, the
Lord Himself committed a major blunder, because He then promptly asked
Arjuna to refrain from passing on that knowledge to anyone who was not a
bhakta! If sharaNaagati is for those incapable of bhakti-yoga, then how
is it to be told *only* to those who are bhaktas? -- oh, but then, silly
me. Bhakti and bhakti-yoga aren't really the same at all. Something else
that's coming from between the lines, I'm sure.
> I have stated the position of our acharyaas.
> Apparently, each and every one of these concepts
> is based upon pramaNaas from the Vedhaas,
> ithihaassa, and saathveega puraaNas, NOT from
> some unheared of myths and fables. It does not
Apparently *NOT*. The standard of evidence one has seen is about the
poorest I've ever come across anywhere, with some mythical example of a
boy surrendering to a marauding conquerer, etc., as the sole paradigm,
and completely ludicrous claims like that of bhakti being apart from
bhakti-yoga, Arjuna registering apprehension at not being able to
practice bhakti-yoga, etc., being made.
> Answers for your other questions can be found from Mani's
> earlier article:
>
> http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srv/1996_02/msg00136.html
If you'd notice, that's where most of the questions came from. To say
that the answers will come from there is hardly sensible.
-- end followup 3 --
asheshhamAnameyaika sAxiNe.axayamUrtaye |
ajesha puruhUteDya namo nArAyaNAya te ||
pramANa-laxaNa
He who is known from an infinite number of pramaaNas, is their
Knower, is of imperishable form -- that Naaraayana, the Lord of
Lakshmi, who is worshipped by the devas, I bow to.
Mani Varadarajan
> The "apprehension," "grief," etc., that
> Krishna is said to have noticed in Arjuna about bhakti-yoga is not
> actually indicated anywhere in the 'Gita -- it is read between the lines
> of the 65th and 66th verses of the eighteenth chapter.
The grief of Arjuna is quite clear. Krishna himself declares:
aham tvA sarvapApebhyo mokshayiSyAmi mA Suca:
^^^^^^^
I will release you from all sins. Do not grieve!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-- Gita 18.66
Furthermore, what exactly do you think the first part of the
verse says? Let me repeat it:
sarvadharmAn parityajya mAm ekam SaraNam vraja
Having given up all dharmas, come to Me alone for refuge.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
The word SaraNam is used by Krishna in the verse itself!
Can he be any more direct in his instruction? At the very
least, you should admit that there is room for this
interpretation. Out of his limitless compassion, Krishna
has given those of us incapable of performing the arduous
path of bhakti-yoga a different method, more suited to our
needs and temperament -- simply and wholeheartedly relying
on his paramount grace.
But let me address your second objection, that Krishna
has not mentioned Saranagati anywhere before in the Gita.
We have never said this, and most certainly, saranagati
is mentioned in several other places. You may quarrel with
what form this saranagati takes, but there is not a doubt that
saranagati is taught:
daivI hy esha guNamayI mama mAyA duratyayA |
mAm eva ye prapadyante mAyAm etAm taranti te ||
For this maya of Mine made up of the 3 gunas,
for purposes of play, is difficult to get over;
those who take refuge with Me entirely, they
cross beyond this maya.
-- Gita 7.14
tam eva cAdyam purusham prapadyed yataH
pravRttiH prasRtA purANI ||
One should seek refuge with that Supreme Person
from whom this ancient process emanated.
-- Gita 15.4
tam eva SaraNam gaccha sarvabhAvena bhArata |
tat prasAdAt parAm SAntim sthAnam prApsyasi SASvatam ||
Seek refuge with Him alone, O Arjuna, with all your
heart. Through His grace, you will obtain supreme
peace and the eternal abode.
-- Gita 18.62
Krishna cannot get any clearer than this.
He recapitulates the entire teaching of the Gita
in the next four verses, beginning with, ``Thus have
you been taught...'' (Gita 18.63).
Gita 18.65 teaches bhakti-yoga as a means to moksha.
Gita 18.66 teaches SaraNAgati as a means of destroying
one's karma, both for practicing bhakti-yoga and also
for independently seeking moksha through the Lord's
grace.
Both of these upAyas have been taught earlier,
the emphasis being on the former. Quite certainly,
however, Krishna has articulated saranagati in
several places, and has taught it to Arjuna in
18.66 after seeing his grief.
I am sure you are capable respond with a 300-line article
detailing your own deep interpretation of these verses.
Once again, taking Krishna at his word, you should at
least acknowledge that the Sri Vaishnava understanding
is plausible.
emberumaanaar thiruvadigaLE saraNam!
Mani
Shrisha Rao
<ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
> Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> writes:
> > The "apprehension," "grief," etc., that
> > Krishna is said to have noticed in Arjuna about bhakti-yoga is not
> > actually indicated anywhere in the 'Gita -- it is read between the lines
> > of the 65th and 66th verses of the eighteenth chapter.
>
> The grief of Arjuna is quite clear. Krishna himself declares:
>
> aham tvA sarvapApebhyo mokshayiSyAmi mA Suca:
> ^^^^^^^
> I will release you from all sins. Do not grieve!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> -- Gita 18.66
However, I submit that *Krishna's* word of assurance to Arjuna is not
adequate justification for saying:
Even Arjuna, who by all accounts was mentally and physically
fit for bhakti-yoga and was instructed in the practice
by God Himself, expressed grief at his inability to
practice bhakti-yoga and his fear at not attaining the
feet of the Lord.
-- which was the claim made. There is no indication that (i) Arjuna was
actually in grief (Krishna's assurance could be considered completely
anticipatory); that (ii) such grief, if it existed, was about his
inability to practice bhakti-yoga, and not, say, about his inability
due to a stiff back to bend down to perform namaskaara, as required of
him vide "maam namaskuru" in the previous verse; (iii) that there was
any _fear_ in his mind of not attaining the Lord's feet (or of anything
else, for that matter).
In addition, one notes that this very phrase "mA shuchaH" is also used
by Krishna in "mA shuchaH saMpadaM daivIM abhijAto.asi pANDava" (XVI-5),
but it is not claimed that Arjuna was in grief at that point -- why
should he "grieve" all of a sudden, in an episodic fashion? Grief is
what one experiences at the *loss* of a valued entity like a dear person
or object, and is a sustained emotion rather than something that crops
up now and then.
> Furthermore, what exactly do you think the first part of the
> verse says? Let me repeat it:
>
> sarvadharmAn parityajya mAm ekam SaraNam vraja
>
> Having given up all dharmas, come to Me alone for refuge.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
>
> The word SaraNam is used by Krishna in the verse itself!
Which was never doubted. However, to interpret "having given up all
dharmas" as including bhakti-yoga also, is questionable, and that I
do not accept. What is the definition of `dharma' used here, and how
does bhakti-yoga fit that definition? In addition, if Arjuna is supposed
to give up all dharmas, why does Krishna then instruct him to reveal
His word *only* to those who are bhaktas? How does it make sense to say
that something to be given up for the practice of sharaNaagati is a
prerequisite for sharaNaagati?
> Can he be any more direct in his instruction? At the very
> least, you should admit that there is room for this
> interpretation. Out of his limitless compassion, Krishna
> has given those of us incapable of performing the arduous
> path of bhakti-yoga a different method, more suited to our
> needs and temperament -- simply and wholeheartedly relying
> on his paramount grace.
Nowhere in the 'Gita is there any suggestion that bhakti-yoga is an
"arduous path." There is also no support seen as yet for considering
bhakti-yoga to be a "dharma," and no resolution of the contradiction
that then results by having to explain why Krishna asked Arjuna to
reveal His word only to bhaktas.
> But let me address your second objection, that Krishna
> has not mentioned Saranagati anywhere before in the Gita.
I did not make this objection at any time.
> Krishna cannot get any clearer than this.
> He recapitulates the entire teaching of the Gita
> in the next four verses, beginning with, ``Thus have
> you been taught...'' (Gita 18.63).
That's right. So, the question: Why did Arjuna wait until the
recapitulation, to express grief? Why didn't he do it the first time?
In addition, given that even sharaNaagati was only a recapitulation,
he should have known about it as well, and should have had no cause for
grief in the first place.
> Gita 18.65 teaches bhakti-yoga as a means to moksha.
Fine.
> Gita 18.66 teaches SaraNAgati as a means of destroying
> one's karma, both for practicing bhakti-yoga and also
> for independently seeking moksha through the Lord's
> grace.
That seems inconsistent with previous claims, for example with:
SaraNAgati involves a complete surrender of one's self
to God. It even involves an abandonment of other means,
such as bhakti-yoga, rituals aiming at moksha, etc.
If sharaNaagati involves abandoning bhakti-yoga, then it can be no help
to one who wishes to practice bhakti-yoga. Also see:
After the surrender, the responsibility for moksha
lies entirely with God, whereas in bhakti-yoga it lay
with the individual.
-- which is clearly a point of incompatibility that shows that
sharaNaagati cannot be claimed to be of use to one who wishes to
practice bhakti-yoga.
> Both of these upAyas have been taught earlier,
> the emphasis being on the former. Quite certainly,
> however, Krishna has articulated saranagati in
> several places, and has taught it to Arjuna in
> 18.66 after seeing his grief.
I'd be much more impressed if the postulation of Arjuna's "grief" was
dropped entirely. It is quite clear that such is being read between the
lines, or inferred from Krishna's word of assurance, and to do so seems
rather unjustified, to put it mildly. Everywhere in the 'Gita, when
Arjuna had a worry or uncertainty, he expressed it clearly and
eloquently, and it is not for us to impute grief on him when he himself
failed to indicate any.
> I am sure you are capable respond with a 300-line article
> detailing your own deep interpretation of these verses.
Thank you, but that is rather a false compliment.
> Once again, taking Krishna at his word, you should at
> least acknowledge that the Sri Vaishnava understanding
> is plausible.
I have no idea what the Sri Vaishnava understanding is. As has been
pointed out previously in this very thread, to acquire such requires
the study of actual commentaries and/or interaction with real scholars,
neither of which I have done. For that reason, I have never said "the
Sri Vaishnava understanding is implausible" at any time. However, it
is quite clear that the explanations *purporting to represent the
Sri Vaishnava understanding* are seriously flawed and unacceptable.
Specifically, I cannot accept that:
1> Arjuna was in grief over bhakti-yoga, and fearful of not attaining
the feet of the Lord.
2> He waited until the eighteenth chapter to express those emotions,
when he could and should have done so in the twelfth, or by the
fourteenth at the latest.
3> Krishna contradicted Himself by asking Arjuna to reveal His word
about sharaNaagati only to bhaktas.
4> sharaNaagati makes sense in the absence of knowledge and bhakti, as
it must, if it is intended for those who are incapable of practicing
the latter.
5> bhakti is different from bhakti-yoga.
6> bhakti-yoga is to be abandoned if one is to practice sharaNaagati.
7> One who abandons bhakti-yoga can still be said to be on the path of
virtue.
8> There is any pramaaNa for any of the claims made, specifically for
the one that bhakti-yoga is to be abandoned if one chooses
sharaNaagati.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> Mani
Mani Varadarajan
Will the kind sir please explain what he believes
Krishna is saying when He repeatedly says, ``Take
refuge in Me?'' What is the meaning of ``SaraNam vraja''?
K Venkata Ravikanth
Dear SriHari Bhaktas,
I have a few comments regarding this thread.
Mani Varadarajan wrote:
> Will the kind sir please explain what he believes
> Krishna is saying when He repeatedly says, ``Take
> refuge in Me?'' What is the meaning of ``SaraNam vraja''?
>
> Mani
Krishna is asking us to surrender to Him (sAranagAti as you call it)
(and tells the same at several places -- as indicated by the word
"prapadyate..").
Now Shrisha points out that in the context of this verse he is
addressing Arjuna as a bhakta (as indicated by the previous and
next verses). His contention is that since he is addressing him as
a bhakta and asking him to surrender, bhkati and surrender are not
mutually exclusive.
Now to me it seems that
a saranagata in Sri Vaishnava = a bhakta in Dvaita
(Obvious to both sides, I suppose).
The reason I say this is because the goal in SV is sAranagati
whereas in Dvaita it is unalloyed bhakti or flawless devotion.
All this confusion seems to arise because bhakti-yoga in SV
means something other than Bhakti (in the popular sense) (I wonder
why that name) and does not imply the fact that the performer has fully
realized (that Krishna is Everything (Vasudeva Sarvamiti)).
Shrisha raised an important question:
Regarding Sharanagati being performed only once.
It sounds as if we just do something (called surrender) once in our
lifetime and then do whatever we want later on (forget Krishna).
However, an underlying factor for sAranagati seems to be Mahaviswasam -
which is not possible unless we are surrendered in terms of our mind,
body and soul (as evident in the lives of Alwars and other devotees).
The idea here is that we are easily attracted by mAya and so if we
sincerely pray to the Lord at least once he will put us on the right
path to His abode and make us realize by hook or crook.
Btw, this sincere surrender to the Lord, even though it might seem to
be done abruptly without any study of sastras, or austerities could have
a past history. For example, Mani cites the surrender of Gajendra as
an example of sAranagati. Gajendra is Indradyumna Maharaja in his
pervious life and an ardent devotee of the Lord. It is only due to
Agastya Muni's curse (or boon?) does he become an elephant (ref: Srimad
Bhagavatam).
In case of a bhakta (in Dvaita), it is trying to understand that
"Vasudeva Sarvamiti" in every sense and removing the ignorance covering
this realization by pratyaksha, anumaana and aagama.
> predestined eternal damnation in hell that is so dear to
> Shrisha's
I did not see Shrisha refer to that topic in this thread.
Correct me if I am wrong in the above because my understanding of both
sampradayas is only from secondary sources.
Sri KrishnArpanamAstu.
-ravi.
Jagannathan Shrikanth
Sri. K Venkata Ravikanth wrote:
>
> Dear SriHari Bhaktas,
>
> I have a few comments regarding this thread.
>
> Now to me it seems that
> a saranagata in Sri Vaishnava = a bhakta in Dvaita
> (Obvious to both sides, I suppose).
>
> The reason I say this is because the goal in SV is sAranagati
> whereas in Dvaita it is unalloyed bhakti or flawless devotion.
>
> All this confusion seems to arise because bhakti-yoga in SV
> means something other than Bhakti (in the popular sense) (I wonder
> why that name) and does not imply the fact that the performer has fully
> realized (that Krishna is Everything (Vasudeva Sarvamiti)).
>
All this confusion seems, as pointed out aboove, to arise from
misundestanding of terms. Isn't this part of what the upanishads
call the world of names & forms (nama - rupa)?
It should again be emphasised that saranagati has two forms.
1) as an anga (auxiliary means) in bhakti yoga and
2) as an independent upaya in itself.
So, charges by Sri. Shrisha like:
(Quote)
That, I think, is based on the false presumption that one who has
actually studied shaastra need not surrender
An object of surrender *only* to those who do *not* know Him!
(end quote)
are based on the confusion of the two above.
Surrender as an esssential part of any yoga, has lots of pramanas
which I'm sure all are familiar with.
So the dispute is with saranagati as an independent upaya.
As Shri P. Dileepan pointed out earlier, the book to consult is
Srimad Vadanta Desikar's opus Srimad Rahasyatrayasaram. A large
portion is dedicated to establishing precisely this. It also give
pramanas from both sruti and smriti.
Let me try to say briefly what Rahasyatrayasaram explains about
bhakti, bhakti yoga and prapatti. For pramanas, please consult
the book itself.
Bhakti yoga is that form of meditation which is of the nature
of unsurpassed love and has for its object, the essential nature
and qualities etc. of Bhagavan, the Supreme Brahman.
This is a rigorous yoga to be practised strictly in accordance
with the shastras and should be practised everyday.
As Sri Yamunacharya puts it
svadharmaGYAnavairAgyasAdhyabhaktiyoga..
Bhakti yoga which is effected and is made possible by preforming
ones dharma, acquisition (or blossoming, depending on how you look
at it) of knowledge and vairagya..
This being a rigorous discipline involving sruti etc., not everyone
is suited for it, either due to social reasons or lack individual
ability or both.
Now there are persons who though not following the srutis or prescribed
rituals, for whatever reason, are still full of devotion and the desire
for offering service to the lord. This love of the Lord which results
from intimacy with sAttvikas and holy books can also be deep and
extemely enjoyable. I'm sure many people on this group will agree
that devotion doesn't neccessarily come only from following srutis
and rituals therein. This type of devotion is called bhakti for
it generates an eager desire to know the Lord and be in His Presence.
This is not Bhakti yoga. However these people are called bhaktas.
Now these Bhaktas can either take up bhakti yoga with saranagati
as an anga or saranagati as an independent upaya, depending on their
adhikara and ability. These are optional for those who are qualified
for both.
What prapatti as an independent upaya is has already been written
about by Sri. Mani, Sri. P. Dileepan and others. A persual of those
with the above points, which are again implicit in the earlier posts,
should make things clearer.
One shouldn't miss the wood for the trees.
The above statement might have lots of logical mistakes in it,
but the meaning is clear.
> asheshhamAnameyaika sAxiNe.axayamUrtaye |
> ajesha puruhUteDya namo nArAyaNAya te ||
>
> pramANa-laxaNa
>
> He who is known from an infinite number of pramaaNas, is their
> Knower, is of imperishable form -- that Naaraayana, the Lord of
> Lakshmi, who is worshipped by the devas, I bow to.
>
Absolutely. No doubt about it.
Also,
...dve vidye veditavye iti ha sma yad brahmavido vadanti, parA
chaivAparA cha
tatrAparA R^igvedo yajurvedaH sAmavedo.atharvavedaH shikshA kalpo
vyAkaraNaM nirruktaM chhando jyotishham iti. atha parA yayA tad
tad akshharam adhigamyate.
- muNDaka upanishhad (1-1-4/5)
(approx. trans.)
...the brahmavid declare that two kinds of knowledge can be known.
The higher and the lower.
The Vedas, phonetics, rituals, grammer etc. are the lower. And the
higher is that by which Brahman is known.
------
The higher comes only through the Grace of the Compassionate and
Almighty Lord. All upayas are but means to obtain his Grace.
Namo Narayana.
Shrikanth.
Gary Stevason
Ravisankar S. Mayavaram (r0m...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
[...]
: To me, surrender(sharanagathi) looks as tough as
: bhakti-yoga or Gyana yoga.
[...]
Ravi, it would be appear to be even tougher, since it is so very rare,
(sa mahatma su-durlabhah), according to the Bhagavad-gita 7-19:
bahUnaaM janmanaam ante
jNaanavaan maaM prapadyate
vaasudevaH sarvam iti
sa mahaatmaa su-durlabhaH
"After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge
surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all
that is. Such a great soul is very rare."
Such a rare mahatma, A.C. Bhaktivedanta, has commented on this passage in
his treatise Bhagavad-gita As It Is:
The living entity, while executing devotional service or
transcendental rituals after many, many births, may actually become
situated in transcendental pure knowledge that the Supreme Personality
of Godhead is the ultimate goal of spiritual realization. In the
beginning of spiritual realization, while one is trying to give up
one's attachment to materialism, there is some leaning towards
impersonalism, but when one is further advanced he can understand that
there are activities in the spiritual life and that these activities
constitute devotional service. Realizing this, he becomes attached to
the Supreme Personality of Godhead and surrenders to Him. At such a
time one can understand that Lord Sri Krsna's mercy is everything,
that He is the cause of all causes and that this material
manifestation is not independent from Him. He realizes the material
world to be a perverted reflection of spiritual variegatedness and
realizes that in everything there is a relationship with the Supreme
Lord Krsna. Thus he thinks of everything in relation to Vasudeva, or
Sri Krsna. Such a universal vision of Vasudeva precipitates one's full
surrender to the Supreme Lord Sri Krsna as the highest goal. Such
surrendered great souls are very rare.
This verse is very nicely explained in the Third Chapter (verses 14
and 15) of the Svetasvatara Upanisad:
sahasra-sirsa purusah
sahasraksah sahasra-pat
sa bhumim visvato vrtva-
tyatisthad dasangulam
purusa evedam sarvam
yad bhutam yac ca bhavyam
utamrtatvasyesano
yad annenatirohati
In the Chandogya Upanisad (5.1.15) it is said, na vai vaco na caksumsi
na srotrani na manamsity acaksate prana iti evacaksate prano hy
evaitani sarvani bhavanti: In the body of a living being neither the
power to speak, nor the power to see, nor the power to hear, nor the
power to think is the prime factor; it is life which is the center of
all activities. Similarly Lord Vasudeva, or the Personality of
Godhead, Lord Sri Krsna, is the prime entity in everything. In this
body there are powers of speaking, of seeing, of hearing, of mental
activities, etc. But these are not important if not related to the
Supreme Lord. And because Vasudeva is all-pervading and everything is
Vasudeva, the devotee surrenders in full knowledge (cf. Bhagavad-gita
7.17 and 11.40).
- * -
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
Shrisha Rao
In article <4ltfot$7...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Jagannathan
Shrikanth <shri...@chow.mat.jhu.edu> wrote:
> All this confusion seems, as pointed out aboove, to arise from
> misundestanding of terms. Isn't this part of what the upanishads
> call the world of names & forms (nama - rupa)?
I'm no scholar, but I think `rUpa' also means color, at least in some
cases.
> It should again be emphasised that saranagati has two forms.
>
> 1) as an anga (auxiliary means) in bhakti yoga and
> 2) as an independent upaya in itself.
This, I submit, is not a (re-)emphasis; it has not been clearly said
previously, and is original. It was always indicated that sharaNaagati
was completely different from bhakti-yoga in nature, even to the
extent that it required giving up of bhakti-yoga. If such were indeed
the case, then it cannot be an "anga" of bhakti-yoga.
> So, charges by Sri. Shrisha like:
> (Quote)
> That, I think, is based on the false presumption that one who has
> actually studied shaastra need not surrender
I trust you can find quotes earlier in this thread where it was
claimed that whilst in bhakti-yoga, the responsibility for the
individual's surrender lies entirely with the Lord, in bhakti-yoga,
which is gnyaana visheshha and requires training in shaastra, it lies
with the individual himself. If this claim were true, then what I have
said follows. Why surrender to someone else when the job is your own
to perform?
> An object of surrender *only* to those who do *not* know Him!
> (end quote)
Again, it was claimed that sharaNaagati was for those unable to take
the arduous path of bhakti-yoga, and that it did not require gnyaana.
If so, then the above follows.
> are based on the confusion of the two above.
The confusion is certainly not mine, however. I was just analyzing the
claims made and pointing out their logical consequences. The claims
themselves are not mine.
> Surrender as an esssential part of any yoga, has lots of pramanas
> which I'm sure all are familiar with.
That's not the point, is it? I'd like to know answers to the specific
questions I laid out in article <4lmf3k$7...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
-- the questions, you notice, are not about surrender in general, but
about a specific conception thereof, and the scriptural
interpretations said to be supportive of it.
> So the dispute is with saranagati as an independent upaya.
>
> As Shri P. Dileepan pointed out earlier, the book to consult is
> Srimad Vadanta Desikar's opus Srimad Rahasyatrayasaram. A large
> portion is dedicated to establishing precisely this. It also give
> pramanas from both sruti and smriti.
Can you quote some, please? It's not likely that I can lay hands on a
copy of that work at any time in the near future.
It is very difficult for me to believe that Arjuna was not confident
of his ability to be a bhakti-yogi, given that Krishna Himself had
said that he was His devotee ("bhakto asi" in the fourth chapter).
Further, the Lord would surely not waste His time preaching to an
unqualified person? And who better to judge someone than He? The very
fact that Arjuna was taught bhakti-yoga is proof of his qualification
for it. I would not second-guess Krishna in His perception of Arjuna's
ability or suggest that He preached to an incompetent, and I don't
think Arjuna himself would, either.
I also do not see why sharaNaagati after, or with, "sarva-dharmaan
parityajya" -- having given up everything -- should be interpreted to
mean sharaNaagati having given up gnyaana, karma, and bhakti-yoga.
Notice that Krishna says "tameva sharaNaM gachchha *sarva-bhaavena*
bhaarata," just a few verses earlier. Are we to thus understand that
He advocated *two* kinds of sharaNaagati, one with all accompaniments,
and one without any at all? If so, how is the one without considered
to be a re-statement of the one with, as it must be given the context
of the verses? Besides, the notion of tyaaga that includes giving up
bhakti-yoga, etc., as has been applied to the claimed interpretation
of "sarva-dharmaan parityajya," is inconsistent with Krishna's own
statement earlier in the same chapter, of what "tyaaga" is. To resolve
the apparent conflict between the two kinds of sharaNaagati, and to be
consistent with Krishna's exposition on of tyaaga, one has to say that
"sarva-dharmaan parityajya" does not mean giving up karma, gnyaana, or
bhakti-yoga, but only giving up pride in, attachments to the fruits
of, etc.
sarvAshrayaH pUrNa-guNaH so.axaraH san.h hR^idabjagaH |
sUryAdibhAsakaH prANa-prerako daivatArapi ||
aNu-bhAshhya, I-4
(Vishnu is) the Support of all, of Complete attributes, resident
in the heart of Lakshmi; He causes Suurya, etc., to illumine,
and is the motivator and very life of even the Devas.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Jagannathan Shrikanth
Hi,
Sorry for the long delay before replying. I don't find much time during the
week.
On 30th April, Sri. Shrisha <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
>Can you quote some, please? It's not likely that I can lay hands on a
>copy of that work at any time in the near future.
Unfortunately, I'm in the same position as you with regard to the text.
All I have are a few notes I made while in India.
>It is very difficult for me to believe that Arjuna was not confident
>of his ability to be a bhakti-yogi, given that Krishna Himself had
>said that he was His devotee ("bhakto asi" in the fourth chapter).
>Further, the Lord would surely not waste His time preaching to an
>unqualified person? And who better to judge someone than He? The very
>fact that Arjuna was taught bhakti-yoga is proof of his qualification
>for it. I would not second-guess Krishna in His perception of Arjuna's
>ability or suggest that He preached to an incompetent, and I don't
>think Arjuna himself would, either.
First, I don't think the validity of saraNagati as an independent
upaya stands or falls on the basis of Arjuna's grief.
However, there are other references in the Gita which do lend some
credence to this interpretation.
1) ayatiH shraddhyopeto yogAchchalitamanasaH
aprapya yoga sa.nsiddhiM kaM gatiM kR^ishhNa gachchhati (6, 36)
He who, though endowed with faith, strives not and whose mind wanders
from yoga - failing to attainthe fruition of yoga what goal does
such a preson attain, Krishna?
2) ye shAstravidhi mutsR^ijya yajante shraddhayAnvitAH
teshhAM nishhThA tu kA kR^ishhNa sattvamAho rajastamaH (17, 1)
Those who perform sacrifices with faith, setting aside the ordinances
of the scriptures - what is their status, Krishna? Sattva, rajas or tamas
There are also other questions and statements of a similar nature. Was Arjuna
then, in between two great armies who are about to begin a bloody war, just
engaging in mere curiosity about the fate of others? Or could it be that
he thought these questions pertained to himself?
More, now by Sri Krishna..
1) The passage in chapter 12, verses 8 - 11, (I just give a translation)
Fix your mind on me alone, let your intellect rest in me. there is
no doubt, you will live in me alone hereafter.
If, however you are not able to fix your mind steadily on me, then
through the way of practise (abhyAsa) seek to attain me, Dhananjaya.
If you are unable to even practise (abhyAsa), then be solely devoted
to doing rites for me. Even by doing these for My sake, you will attain
perfection.
If, however, you are unable to even do rites, then take refuge in me
and be self controlled, renounce the fruit of all actions.
Shri Krishna knows the level of capability and competence of Arjuna. So why
does He give all these alternatives to Arjuna?
2) daivi saMpadvimokshAya nibandhAyAsuri matA
mA shuchaH saMpadaM daivi mabhijAto.asi paNDava (16, 5)
Divine wealth leads to moksha while the asuric to bondage.
Grieve not, O Pandava, for you are of divine wealth.
What grief is Krishna talking of here? Isn't it Arjuna's apprehension
and doubt as to his nature?
Again, going through the Gita should give you more such verses.
So I think, an interpretaion of Arjuna's grief is not totally unjustified!
>Are we to thus understand that
>He advocated *two* kinds of sharaNaagati, one with all accompaniments,
>and one without any at all?
This is what Sri Vedanta Desika calls anga (auxiliary) prapatti
and angi (independent) prapatti. The former is an auxiliary means for
those who have adopted Bhakti yoga.
>Besides, the notion of tyaaga that includes giving up
>bhakti-yoga, etc., as has been applied to the claimed interpretation
>of "sarva-dharmaan parityajya," is inconsistent with Krishna's own
>statement earlier in the same chapter, of what "tyaaga" is. To resolve
>the apparent conflict between the two kinds of sharaNaagati, and to be
>consistent with Krishna's exposition on of tyaaga, one has to say that
"sarva-dharmaan parityajya" does not mean giving up karma, gnyaana, or
>bhakti-yoga, but only giving up pride in, attachments to the fruits
>of, etc.
Let us first look at Gita 18, 67.
You shouldn't reveal this to one who neither performs austerities
nor is a devotee...
So one can reveal it to one
1) who performs both austerities and is devoted to the Lord.
2) who doesn't perform austerities, but is a devotee.
3) who performs austerities, but without devotion to the Lord.
Now Srimad Vadanta Desika says prapatti can be performed by three
kinds of people.
a) Those who don't have the competence (i.e are not allowed by shAstras)
for Bhakti yoga
b) Those who have competence but not the capability
c) Those Bhakti yogis whose thirst for God is so strong that they are
not prepared to wait till the yoga is complete to attain the Lord.
Clearly, in the above, 1) corresponds to c). Even though one is performing
Bhakti yoga, the upaya which has immediate effect is saranagati. Then in
case he adopts saranagati (as an independent upaya), he gives up bhakti yoga.
One adopts only one upaya, not many.
Now, case b) can belong to either 1) or 2) in that he may not be performing
austerities (like many of us here!) or may be performing them
without devotion, as a purely mechanical action. Then he can be told about
prapatti. Then realising his incapablility for Bhakti yoga, he gives up
the idea of bhakti yoga as an upaya and takes recourse to the Lord through
prapatti.
Lastly, the case a) is of those who do not perform austerities. If such a
person is a devotee then he can be instructed about prapatti and can perform it.
Asking such a person to give up bhakti yoga or other yogas is not possible,
since he doesn't even have the competence to perform it. In this case,
the verse is interpreted as follows,
"Having given up dharmas" is not an injunction for these people. Here
it is like "having been born in this world ..."
Thus it is not asking one to give up dharmas, but saying since you
have given up dharmas (as a result of karma or whatever), you can
surrender to me. I will liberate you, donot grieve.
There are further details and exceptions which are dealt with extensively
in Srimad Rahasyatrayasaram. To give these and related questions will require
the help of texts expounding this, which unfortunately I don't have. I hope
that it is atleast clear that this theory is not something built out of
"reading between the lines".
> sarvAshrayaH pUrNa-guNaH so.axaraH san.h hR^idabjagaH |
> sUryAdibhAsakaH prANa-prerako daivatArapi ||
>
> aNu-bhAshhya, I-4
>
> (Vishnu is) the Support of all, of Complete attributes, resident
> in the heart of Lakshmi; He causes Suurya, etc., to illumine,
> and is the motivator and very life of even the Devas.
>
>Regards,
namo narAyaNAya
Regards,
Shrikanth.
>Shrisha Rao
Shrisha Rao
In article <4mj2sc$f...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Jagannathan Shrikanth
<shri...@chow.mat.jhu.edu> wrote:
> >It is very difficult for me to believe that Arjuna was not confident
> >of his ability to be a bhakti-yogi, given that Krishna Himself had
> >said that he was His devotee ("bhakto asi" in the fourth chapter).
> >Further, the Lord would surely not waste His time preaching to an
> >unqualified person? And who better to judge someone than He? The very
> >fact that Arjuna was taught bhakti-yoga is proof of his qualification
> >for it. I would not second-guess Krishna in His perception of Arjuna's
> >ability or suggest that He preached to an incompetent, and I don't
> >think Arjuna himself would, either.
>
> First, I don't think the validity of saraNagati as an independent
> upaya stands or falls on the basis of Arjuna's grief.
As I have stated previously, I have some trouble with the notion of
"sharaNaagati as an independent upaaya." However, that point is now
quite moot, considering that Sri Raamaanuja's exposition on the verse
XVIII-66 does not speak of such, and that in fact, he regards
sharaNaagati solely as a means to qualify for bhakti-yoga, rather than
as a substitute for it.
[*chomp*]
> More, now by Sri Krishna..
>
> 1) The passage in chapter 12, verses 8 - 11, (I just give a translation)
[*chomp*] -- I'm sure people can find those if they are of a mind to.
> Shri Krishna knows the level of capability and competence of Arjuna. So why
> does He give all these alternatives to Arjuna?
However, note that the sum total of the complex system incorporating all
those alternatives is bhakti-yoga; thus, bhakti-yoga itself has
alternatives within it to suit people of different abilities, and this
fact has been recognized by Sri Raamaanuja in saying "yathaadhikaaram
kurvaaNa eva." The `yathaadhikaaram' is significant; taken in
conjunction with `eva', it shows that everyone is qualified to perform
it to some extent or the other -- if someone were not at all qualified
for it, then the use of `eva' is not rational.
Thus, given these facts, to hold that bhakti-yoga itself may not be
suitable for all and an alternative to it must be given, is not
sensible.
The reason Krishna gives alternatives there is to facilitate Arjuna's
progress in a step-by-step fashion; He lays out the next several steps
that Arjuna is to take, and does not actually indicate that the steps
are of equal worth.
In XII-8, Krishna says "ata UrdhvaM na saMshayaH."
You will attain the higher state, without a doubt.
In 9, He says "mAM ichchAptuM dhana.njaya."
You (will) gain the desire to reach Me.
In 10, He says "kurvan.h siddhiM avApsyasi."
(By doing the previously mentioned) you will attain the ability.
As such, the so-called "alternatives" are not, in fact: Krishna is
giving a blueprint for step-by-step progress. Verses 9 and 10 do not
promise mukti as 8 does, but only indicate that one may qualify for
doing what is indicated in 8, by them.
> 2) daivi saMpadvimokshAya nibandhAyAsuri matA
> mA shuchaH saMpadaM daivi mabhijAto.asi paNDava (16, 5)
>
> Divine wealth leads to moksha while the asuric to bondage.
> Grieve not, O Pandava, for you are of divine wealth.
>
> What grief is Krishna talking of here? Isn't it Arjuna's apprehension
> and doubt as to his nature?
I'm not aware that there exists any interpretation of that verse where
Arjuna is actually postulated to have grieved at the time; Krishna's
words can be considered to constitute an anticipatory reassurance.
Besides, of course, is the obvious point that *having already been
reassured* in this and other verses, there was no reason for Arjuna to
grieve, be unsure, etc., afterward.
> Let us first look at Gita 18, 67.
>
> You shouldn't reveal this to one who neither performs austerities
> nor is a devotee...
>
> So one can reveal it to one
> 1) who performs both austerities and is devoted to the Lord.
> 2) who doesn't perform austerities, but is a devotee.
> 3) who performs austerities, but without devotion to the Lord.
Your interpretation of verse 67 is wrong. Both 2) and 3) are not allowed
by it. The exact verse is:
idaM te nAtapaskAya nAbhaktAya kadAchana |
na chAshushrUshhave vAchyaM na cha mAM yo.abhyasUyati || 67 ||
The first line is significant in this instance.
Now, "idam te na atapaskaaya" means "this by you not (to be revealed to)
a non-austere person," clearly. The next phrase "na abhaktaaya" means
"not (to be revealed to) a non-devotee."
Thus, the injunction is:
Do not reveal this to a non-austere person, or to a non-devotee, under
any circumstances.
Your interpretation is to say that Arjuna was told not to reveal His
message to one who lacked both qualities (of austerity and devotion)
but could reveal to one who possessed at least one of them; what the
verse actually is saying is that the presence of both qualities is a
must, since the absence of either disqualifies one from receiving the
message. Considering that austerities can themselves be of three kinds
as stated earlier in the 'Gita itself (verses 17 through 19 of Chapter
XVII), this makes sense, since there is no sensible justification for
considering one who performs evil austerities to be qualified. Devotion
too is a must. Conversely, an idle devotion that does not actually
manifest in action without desire, is also not a complete qualifier.
> Now Srimad Vadanta Desika says prapatti can be performed by three
> kinds of people.
> a) Those who don't have the competence (i.e are not allowed by shAstras)
> for Bhakti yoga
> b) Those who have competence but not the capability
> c) Those Bhakti yogis whose thirst for God is so strong that they are
> not prepared to wait till the yoga is complete to attain the Lord.
I'm not sure how exactly the above plugs into the present discussion,
and besides, I'd like the above to be clarified and re-phrased to accord
with Sri Raamaanuja's exposition, before I state an opinion.
nArAyaNa amala-kAraNa vande kAraNa-kAraNa pUrNa vareNya |
mAdhava mAdhava-sAdhaka vande bAdhaka bodhaka shuddha samAdhe ||
dvAdasha-stotra, V-3
I worship NaaraayaNa, who is the cause of flawless knowledge,
and is the cause of all other causes, is of complete attributes,
and is the Giver of complete joy; I worship Maadhava, and the one
who acts for Maadhava (Lakshmi), is the creator of obstacles and
bondage and also the giver of the will for a state of purity
(mukti).
The first line contains the statement of worship, and says why it is
to be performed -- because NaaraayaNa is the giver of flawless
knowledge, said knowledge being of His nature as the cause behind other
apparent phenomenal causes, and as of complete attributes -- the
reason this knowledge is to be known is for one to qualify for mukti,
which however isn't inherent in the knowledge itself, but is given by
NaaraayaNa again.
In the second line of the verse, the role of Lakshmi as an agent
of the Lord in causing bondage, and in giving the mumukshu the desire
for liberation, is enunciated, and it is also clarified that she acts
for Him in doing these things. Thus, Lakshmi is not to be worshipped
independently, but only as His agent. And the Lord is not to be
worshipped by Himself, but only through His agent. Furthermore,
NaaraayaNa is to be credited not only with the giving of mukti and the
presence of bondage, but even for the actuation of desire among the
bound for mukti.
In fact, this verse is a quite accurate and complete portrayal of the
subject of this thread, which has mostly if not always wandered from
its stated topic.
Mani Varadarajan
Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> writes:
> In article <4mj2sc$f...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Jagannathan Shrikanth
> <shri...@chow.mat.jhu.edu> wrote:
> > Now Srimad Vedanta Desika says prapatti can be performed by three
> > kinds of people.
> > a) Those who don't have the competence (i.e are not allowed by shAstras)
> > for Bhakti yoga
> > b) Those who have competence but not the capability
> > c) Those Bhakti yogis whose thirst for God is so strong that they are
> > not prepared to wait till the yoga is complete to attain the Lord.
>
> I'm not sure how exactly the above plugs into the present discussion,
> and besides, I'd like the above to be clarified and re-phrased to accord
> with Sri Raamaanuja's exposition, before I state an opinion.
A detailed post concerning SaraNAgati as a self-sufficient
upAya to moksha is forthcoming. However, I wish to briefly
point out that Ramanuja's commentary on Gita 18.66 as found
in his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya is not his only interpretation
of the verse.
Ramanuja has also left us three prose poems, known as the
Gadya Traya. The first is the SaraNAgati gadya, where he
interprets certain key sections of the Gita and asks the
Lord for His mercy, having performed complete and
whole-hearted surrender of his self. Ramanuja here teaches
by example and practices SaraNAgati as an independent means
to moksha, using Gita 18.66 as a guide.
Sri Vedanta Desika, one of the most illustrious followers
of the acharya, is elaborating on Ramanuja's teaching of
SaraNAgati / prapatti based primarily on this SaraNAgati
gadya. His gloss on Ramanuja's bhashya is indispensable
in understanding the details of the acharya's philosophy.
Sri Raghunandan, who has collaborated with you before,
has Vedanta Desika's tAtparya-candrikA with him.
Unfortunately, I do not have this text at my disposal.
Can you post the gist of Desika's gloss of Ramanuja on 18.66?
Hopefully this will enlighten us as to the exact understanding
of Ramanuja's philosophy based on all of his works.
Any conclusion that declares that Ramanuja's understanding
of Gita 18.66 does not teach SaraNAgati is based on an
incomplete reading of the acharya's compositions.
namo narayanaya,
Mani
Badrinarayanan Seshadri
Mani Varadarajan (ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com) wrote:
* Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> writes:
* > In article <4mj2sc$f...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Jagannathan Shrikanth
* > <shri...@chow.mat.jhu.edu> wrote:
* > > Now Srimad Vedanta Desika says prapatti can be performed by three
* > > kinds of people.
* > > a) Those who don't have the competence (i.e are not allowed by shAstras)
* > > for Bhakti yoga
* > > b) Those who have competence but not the capability
* > > c) Those Bhakti yogis whose thirst for God is so strong that they are
* > > not prepared to wait till the yoga is complete to attain the Lord.
* >
* > I'm not sure how exactly the above plugs into the present discussion,
* > and besides, I'd like the above to be clarified and re-phrased to accord
* > with Sri Raamaanuja's exposition, before I state an opinion.
* A detailed post concerning SaraNAgati as a self-sufficient
* upAya to moksha is forthcoming. However, I wish to briefly
* point out that Ramanuja's commentary on Gita 18.66 as found
* in his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya is not his only interpretation
* of the verse.
It has to be noted that the Sri Vaishnava position on SaraNAgati is
quite divided. It is the southern school (then kalai) that states that
_even_ bhakti yoga should be given up while taking up prapatti. The
southern school Acharyas (piLLai lOkaachaaryaa and maNavaaLa maamuni)
also claim that 'parityajya' is a vidhi and therefore everything
including karma, gnaana, bhakti yoga should be given up.
But both the southern and the northern school think of SaraNAgati as
an independent upaaya in itself. As pointed out by other posters in
these threads, Desikar (northern school) considers bhakti yoga and
prapatti as two different means to achieve the same end, as well as
prapatti forming a part of the bhakti yoga.
>From my limited reading of Ramanuja's Gita Bhashya (no supplementary
commentary from Desikar or others) I do not see any quotes from
Ramanuja supporting the above viewpoints. However, I can not claim to
possess the knowledge the above Acharyas and so I shall keep my mouth
shut and wait for Mani's posting.
>From a cursory leafing through the pages of Rahasya Traya Saaram, it
appears that pancaratra agamas and aazhvaar works have been taken as
the basis for prapatti being an independent upaya.
[...]
* Any conclusion that declares that Ramanuja's understanding
* of Gita 18.66 does not teach SaraNAgati is based on an
* incomplete reading of the acharya's compositions.
I do not think anyone claimed that Ramanuja's understanding of Gita
18.66 did not teach SaraNAgati. The quibble is more with what it means
by 'SaraNAgati', and what has to be given up while performing the
'SaraNAgati'.
--badri
* namo narayanaya,
* Mani
--
--------------------------------------------------
Badri Seshadri
Graduate Student
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Cornell University
--------------------------------------------------
Mani Varadarajan
Badrinarayanan Seshadri <ba...@sofia.mae.cornell.edu> writes:
>
> It has to be noted that the Sri Vaishnava position on SaraNAgati is
> quite divided. It is the southern school (then kalai) that states that
> _even_ bhakti yoga should be given up while taking up prapatti. The
> southern school Acharyas (piLLai lOkaachaaryaa and maNavaaLa maamuni)
> also claim that 'parityajya' is a vidhi and therefore everything
> including karma, gnaana, bhakti yoga should be given up.
> But both the southern and the northern school think of SaraNAgati as
> an independent upaaya in itself. As pointed out by other posters in
> these threads, Desikar (northern school) considers bhakti yoga and
> prapatti as two different means to achieve the same end, as well as
> prapatti forming a part of the bhakti yoga.
The distinction between the ``southern'' and ``northern''
interpretations of prapatti is actually quite subtle, and
the positions are actually closer than you are stating above.
As you indicated, both schools or Sri Vaishnavas are agreed
that prapatti is a self-sufficient upAya, as distinct
from bhakti-yoga.
The difference lies in the interpretation of ``parityajya''
(having abandoned) and in the status of bhakti-yoga. Vedanta
Desika's position is that ``parityajya'' is a an ``anuvAda'',
a statement of something that has already occurred. For
example, we have the statement, ``Having become dirty, one
should bathe.'' The phrase ``having become dirty'' is not a
recommendation, but a statement of fact. Given that this is
the situation, one should bathe. Similarly, Desika takes
``sarvadharmAn parityajya'' to mean that since you are
unable to perform bhakti-yoga and its auxiliaries, come to
Me alone for refuge. I will save you. In other words,
bhakti-yoga and prapatti are both means to moksha; but prapatti
is for those who are incapable to perform bhakti-yoga, for
whatever reason. Shrikanth has elaborated on the various reasons
for being unable to practice bhakti-yoga in another post.
Sri Manavala Mamuni interprets ``parityajya'' slightly differently,
but with a similar end-result. As you point out, he takes it
as a vidhi, an injunction. The real-world analogy would
be, ``Having bathed, one should perform the morning prayers.''
Here ``having bathed'' is an command. So Sri Manavala Mamuni
is saying that irrespective of whether you are capable of
bhakti-yoga or not, you should give up any practice of it
and take refuge in the Lord as an independent means to moksha.
The consequence of this position, as Pillai Lokacharya and
Manavala Mamuni themselves point out, is that bhakti-yoga
is not considered a means to moksha. This conclusion
is justified in various ways by these acharyas, but such
a discussion is beyond the scope of this article.
Let us look at what is common between these two interpretations.
Both are agreed that SaraNAgati is a self-sufficient means
to moksha, independent of bhakti-yoga. When we study the
views in further detail, we also find out that even though
Desika argues that bhakti-yoga is another path to moksha,
it is extremely difficult in comparison and capable of being
performed by a few people of extraordinary dedication and
physical constitution. As far as we know, all acharyas of
Sri Vaishnavism have declared their inability to perform
bhakti-yoga and practice SaraNAgati alone.
In the end, SaraNAgati alone is the practical upAya taught
by Sri Vaishnavism.
What then is the position of karma-yoga, jnAna-yoga, etc.?
In bhakti-yoga, these are performed as preliminary
stages of bhakti-yoga to purify the mind and attain
a level of self-consciousness. In other words, they
are performed selflessly, but with an aim to further
the individual's vision of God.
In SaraNAgati, These are not performed for any fruit
or for any other purpose other than service of the Lord.
Both Pillai Lokacharya in ``SrI vacana bhUshaNa'' and
Desika in ``rahasya traya sAra'' emphatically declare this.
So, when karma, jnAna, and bhakti-yoga are said to be given
up, they are to be given up *as means to moksha*. All Sri
Vaishnavas are agreed on this.
To clarify, in SaraNAgati, three things are given up
and offered to the Lord: the burden of achieving salvation
(i.e., all self-effort towards moksha), the fruit of
salvation, and the individual self itself. Sri Vaishnavas
differ between themselves on what each of these
three things exactly means, but they are agreed on these
general concepts.
In Sanskrit, these three are summarized as: kartRtva-tyAja,
phala-tyAga, and AtmA-tyAga. The different between
bhakti-yoga and SaraNAgati is that the latter two (giving
up the fruit of moksha to the Lord, and the self entirely
to the Lord) are not present in the former.
>
> >From my limited reading of Ramanuja's Gita Bhashya (no supplementary
> commentary from Desikar or others) I do not see any quotes from
> Ramanuja supporting the above viewpoints. However, I can not claim to
> possess the knowledge the above Acharyas and so I shall keep my mouth
> shut and wait for Mani's posting.
>
As I tried to clarify earlier, Ramanuja's Gita Bhashya
does not teach SaraNAgati as an independent means to moksha.
It is taught only in the Gadya Traya (three prose poems)
and Nitya Grantha (manual of daily worship).
> >From a cursory leafing through the pages of Rahasya Traya Saaram, it
> appears that pancaratra agamas and aazhvaar works have been taken as
> the basis for prapatti being an independent upaya.
>
In the Rahasya Traya Saaram, Desikar is addressing devout
Sri Vaishnavas and is not really trying to defend prapatti as
a separate means to moksha. That being the case, he uses
the Prabandham of the aazhvaars and the Pancaratra Agamas
freely.
However, in his ``nikshepa raksha'' and his commentary on
Ramanuja's Gadyas, Desika goes into great detail as to the
origin of the prapatti doctrine. The teaching of SaraNAgati
is very clearly articulated in the Mahanarayana Upanishad
(also known as Taittiriya Narayana), sections 49-52. Here,
after enumerating several other ways of approaching the
Supreme, nyAsa (self-surrender) is declared in the end
to be the best of all of these. [Advaitins take this section
to refer to sannyAsa and not to Atma-nyAsa.]
Desika cites this section prominently, as well as quoting
profusely from other parts of the Vedas, the Ramayana and
the Mahabharata. Gita 18.66 (the carama-sloka) is also
employed as a proof-text, and Desika in his ``tAtparya-candrikA''
takes a great deal of effort to explain how this is an
appropriate interpretation of the verse.
Of course, the systemization of SaraNAagati as practiced in
detail is found in the Divya Prabandham and the Pancaratra
Agamas, particularly the Ahirbudhnya Samhita and Lakshmi
Tantra.
>
> I do not think anyone claimed that Ramanuja's understanding of Gita
> 18.66 did not teach SaraNAgati. The quibble is more with what it means
> by 'SaraNAgati', and what has to be given up while performing the
> 'SaraNAgati'.
>
Shrisha and Raghunandan's recent post referred to Ramanuja's
interpretation of Gita 18.66 and how it did not teach SaraNAgati
as an independent means to moksha. It is this point that I was
addressing when I stated that Ramanuja's Gadya Traya needed
to be taken into account before a final pronouncement on his
understanding of SaraNAgati could be made.
namo narayanaya,
Mani