Examining the idea of Svarūpa-Tāratamya
Following is an excerpt from a larger document under progress—
We begin by reconsidering the independent āptatva of Śrīpāda Madhvācārya. It is well established by contemporary and 20th century Mādhvite Ācāryas that the names of texts Madhvācārya had quoted are not forged, we do not contest that. However the content he has ascribed to the texts have not been verified yet, For a number of these quotations, no earlier or independent parallel witness has yet been identified. In this case we come to a serious dilemma of how to validate these very quotations found in Madhvācārya’s work assigned under various śrutis. Unless there is an agreement in pramāṇas no vāda can proceed. We will look into several such criterions of validation—
Śrī Jaimini — “विरोधे त्व् अनपेक्ष्यं स्याद् असति ह्यनुमानम्”
Bhagavatpuṣkarākṣa— “ज्ञानानुत्पत्तिकृतं संदेहनिबन्धनं विपर्ययहेतुकं वा अप्रमाणं भवति”
Jayantabhaṭṭa in Nyāyamañjari — “महाजनसमूहे ये प्रसिद्धिं प्रापुरागमाः । कृतश्च बहुभिर्यैषां शिष्टैरिह परिग्रहः ॥ अद्य प्रवर्तमानश्च नापूर्वा इव भान्ति ये । येषां न मूलं लोभादि येभ्यो नोद्विजते जनः ॥”.
Śrī Sārvabhaumabhaṭṭācārya recorded in Caitanyacandrodaya— “शाखाः सहस्रनिगमद्रुमस्य प्रत्यक्षसिद्धो न समग्र एषः । पुराणवाक्यैरविगीतशिष्टाचारैश्च तस्यावयवोऽनुमेयः॥”
Thus adhering to these principles we do not accept those quotes of Madhvācārya, which are against directly visible śruti, purāṇa, itihāsa vākyas. One can’t say these pramāṇas have an avichinnaparaṁparā because even Madhvācārya says “देशे देशे तथा ग्रन्थान् दृष्ट्वा चैव पृथग्विधान्”, implying that he didn’t receive the texts in any succession rather saw them during his travels. For us Bhāgavatam remains the primary pramāṇa “मूलग्रन्थ (श्रीमद्भागवतम्) स्वारस्येन चान्यथा च” [Tattva sandarbha] the efficacy of the quotations are in supporting the vyākhyā of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmin not the verses of śrīmadbhāgavatam thus the mūla-pramāṇa remains śrīmadbhāgavatam “अत्र च स्वदर्शितार्थविशेषप्रामाण्यायैव, न तु श्रीमद्भागवतवाक्यप्रामाण्याय, प्रमाणानि श्रुतिपुराणादिवचनानि यथादृष्टमेवोदाहरणीयानि।”, any vākya contrary to its natural reading of mukhyārtha is apramāṇa for us. The Mādhvās themselves accept that Śrīmadhvācāryajī is a baddhajīva yet to achieve mukti, they then are bound to accept that four faults of error found in baddha-jīvas to inhere in Madhvācāryajī himself, we see this pāṭha in his Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣya— "कस्मिन्नु खलु वायुरोतश्च प्रोतश्चेति गन्धर्वलोकेषु गार्गीति", while the avichinnaparaṁparā of kāṇvaśākhā has “कस्मिन्नु खलु वायुरोतश्च प्रोतश्चेति अन्तरिक्षलोकेषु गार्गीति”, and the mādhyandinaśākhā has “कस्मिन्नु वायुरोतश्च प्रोतश्चेत्याकाश एव गार्गीति” this is a case of pramāda we can infer the other three doṣas from this. This is not “asūya” for it is of the nature of superimposition of faults on virtues “गुणेषु दोषाविष्करनम् असूया”, discernment of virtue and faults of the ācārya is not censured by the nigamas “यान्यनवद्यानि कर्माणि । तानि सेवितव्यानि । नो इतराणि । यान्यस्माकं सुचरितानि । तानि त्वयोपास्यानि ॥”, Śrīman Mahāprabhu has declared blatantly “अपरे तत्त्ववादिनस्तथाविधा एव । निरवद्यं न भवति तेषां मतम् ।”. Thus we have no obligation to accept everything of Madhvācārya’s teachings.
The concept of tāratamya itself is non-intrinsic to self nor does it exist in mokṣa as said in the Viṣṇupurāṇa — “यया क्षेत्रज्ञशक्तिः सा वेष्टिता नृप । सर्वगा संसारतापानखिलानवाप्नोत्यतिसन्ततान् ॥ तया तिरोधितत्वाच्च शक्तिः क्षेत्रज्ञसंज्ञिता । सर्वभूतेषु भूपाल तारतम्येन लक्ष्यते ॥”, “विभेदजनके ऽज्ञाने नाशम् आत्यन्तिकं गते आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदम् असन्तं कः करिष्यति”, “एकत्वं रूपभेदश् च बाह्यकर्मप्रवृत्तिजः देवादिभेदे ऽपध्वस्ते नास्त्य् एवावरणो हि सः”, nonexistence of intrinsic tāratamya is found in the Bhāgavatam as well “यावत् स्याद् गुणवैषम्यं तावन्नानात्वमात्मन: । नानात्वमात्मनो यावत् पारतन्त्र्यं तदैव हि ॥”, “क्वचित् पुमान् क्वचिच्च स्त्री क्वचिन्नोभयमन्धधीः । देवो मनुष्यस्तिर्यग् वा यथाकर्मगुणं भवः” [Bhāgavatam] as in the śruti “नैव स्त्री न पुमानेष न चैवायं नपुंसकः । यद्यच्छरीरमादत्ते तेन तेन स युज्यते” [Śvetāśvatara].
Intrinsic tāratamya requires intrinsic qualities, but no mukhyārtha of śāstras have ever declared variety in the intrinsic qualities of a Jīva, rather it unequivocally preaches the negation of all hierarchy in mukti by the svarūpa of Jīva as found in the Paramasaṁhitā “अमुक्ते भेद एव स्यात् जीवस्याचापरस्य च, मुक्तस्य तु न भेदोऽस्ति भेदहेतोरभावतः”, As in the Muṇḍaka upaniṣad— विधूय निरञ्जनः परमं साम्यमुपैति; “यथा नद्यः स्यन्दमानाः समुद्रेऽस्तं गच्छन्ति नामरूपे विहाय तथा विद्वान् नामरूपाद्विमुक्तः परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम्”, In the Chāndogya—“इमाः सोम्य नद्यः पुरस्तात्प्राच्यः स्यन्दन्ते पश्चात्प्रतीच्यस्ताः समुद्रात्समुद्रमेवापियन्ति स समुद्र एव भवति ता यथा तत्र न विदुरियमहमस्मीयमहमस्मीति ॥”, “एवमेव खलु सोम्येमाः सर्वाः प्रजाः सत आगम्य न विदुः सत आगच्छामह इति त इह व्याघ्रो वा सिंहो वा वृको वा वराहो वा कीटो वा पतङ्गो वा दंशो वा मशको वा यद्यद्भवन्ति तदाभवन्ति ॥”. Some may quote passages from the Chāndogya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Praśna Upaniṣads describing the supremacy of Mukhyaprāṇa among other gods in charge of other senses to establish “intrinsic” tāratamya, but that as well holds no water for the context is of baddhāvasthā, when Bhagavān himself has declared jīva being unpierceable etc. “नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः । न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः ॥ अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च । नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः ॥”, how can then the accounts of war between devas and daityas and piercing etc. of the devas pertain to the svarūpa of the jīva or be accounts of muktāvasthā ? It can not be so and that bolsters our point. Vāyu etc. is counted amongst evolutes of māyāśakti by Bhagavān “भूमिरापोऽनलो वायु: खं मनो बुद्धिरेव च । अहङ्कार इतीयं मे भिन्ना प्रकृतिरष्टधा ॥”, even in the Brahmasutras it has been taken as just another instrument of the Jīva “वायुक्रिये पृथुगुपदेशात्, चक्षुरादिवत् तु तत्सहशिष्ट्यादिभ्यः, अकरणत्वाच्च न दोषस्तथा हि दर्शयति” as also found from the Bhāgavatam “बुद्ध्या ब्रह्मापि हृदयं नोदतिष्ठत्तदा विराट् । रुद्रोऽभिमत्या हृदयं नोदतिष्ठत्तदा विराट् ॥ चित्तेन हृदयं चैत्य: क्षेत्रज्ञ: प्राविशद्यदा । विराट् तदैव पुरुष: सलिलादुदतिष्ठत ॥ यथा प्रसुप्तं पुरुषं प्राणेन्द्रियमनोधिय: । प्रभवन्ति विना येन नोत्थापयितुमोजसा ॥”, “अण्डेषु पेशिषु तरुष्वविनिश्चितेषु प्राणो हि जीवमुपधावति तत्र तत्र । सन्ने यदिन्द्रियगणेऽहमि च प्रसुप्ते कूटस्थ आशयमृते तदनुस्मृतिर्न: ॥” as in the śruti “प्राणस्य प्राणम् उत चक्षुषश्चक्षुरुत श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रम् मनसो मनो ये । ते निचिक्युर् ब्रह्म पुराणमग्र्यम् ॥”. My point is that the power etc. of the position is non-instrinsic to the officeholder Jīva thus can not be used to establish a svarūpa based hierarchy. Some eulogize Vāyu as “the ultimate guru who manifests the Lord to every sAdhaka in that sAdhaka’s heart”, such is not true because Bhagavān isn’t dependent on any one else for his manifestation that is why he is “svaprakāśa”, even if in śāstra someone comes across such a statement like “vāyu leads one to bhagavān” it is like the same as “मन एव मनुष्याणां कारणं बन्धमोक्षयोः” it is the Jīva who has to control the sense or as the Paramasaṁhitā says Bhagavān’s grace helps the Jīva to control its senses so in the same way by the grace of Bhagavān the Jīva uses its prāṇa in service of Bhagavān thus its said that Prāṇa leads one to Bhagavān.
Nor, can it be said that there is intrinsic identification between the jīva and the office, for in the Dūrgāsūkta— “यं कामये तम् उग्रं कृणोमि तं ब्रह्माणं तमुषिं तं सुमेधाम्”, there is no special intrinsic quality attached to the being who is being given office of Rudra, Brahmā etc. also in the Viṣṇudharmottara—“ब्रह्मा शम्भुस् तथैवार्कश् चन्द्रमाश् च शतक्रतुः एवम् आद्यास् तथैवान्ये युक्ता वैष्णव-तेजसा जगत्-कार्यावसाने तु वियुज्यन्ते च तेजसा वितेजसश् च ते सर्वे पञ्चत्वम् उपयान्ति वै” clears the fact that the powers they have in regulating the world is given by Viṣṇu thus are not intrinsic to them as also said in the taittiriya— “भीषास्माद् वातः पवते । भीषोदेति सूर्यः । भीषाऽस्मादग्निश्चेन्द्रश्च । मृत्युर्धावति पञ्चम इति ॥”, as in the Bhāgavata “स्वधर्मनिष्ठः शतजन्मभिः पुमान् विरिञ्चतामेति ततः परं हि माम् अव्याकृतं भागवतोऽथ वैष्णवं पदं यथाहं विबुधाः कलात्यये” this quote directly establishes that becoming Brahmā is non-intrinsic and that attaining Viṣṇuloka / Mukti after pralaya is by worship only “अव्याकृतं भागवतोऽथ वैष्णवं पदं यथाहं विबुधाः कलात्यये” not by svarūpayogyatā. One may then quote “भवेत् क्वचिन्महाकल्पे ब्रह्मा जीवोऽप्युपासनैः” [Padmapurāṇa], “ब्रह्मादयः सुराः सर्वे विष्णुमाराध्य ते पुरा स्वं स्वं पदमनुप्राप्ताः केशवस्य प्रसादतः” [Narasiṁhapurāṇa] to prove that such bestowal of power is because of the upāsanā they had done earlier thus ultimately their tāratamya should be based on the upāsanā they had done in this way it doesn’t bring the doṣa of partiality to Bhagavān in assigning them random offices, to this we say — “You are correct, but this specific upāsanā is based on viparyaya of anātmavastu as ātmā that is taking on the false impression of being a material doer which is superimposed by avidyā, thus they receive temporary results like the post of Indra etc. are contingent designations and conditions superimposed upon the jīva through avidyā, karma and deha-saṃbandha, and therefore are not intrinsic attributes of its svarūpa, ultimately being a product of avidyā non-intrinsic to self, thus it doesn’t create hierarchy amongst the svārūpa of different jīvas. But anyways due to having worshipped Viṣṇu for achieving the post and also during the tenure like Indra worships Upendra and so on they attain Mukti at the end of their tenure at the depletion of their prārabdhakarmas as said “ब्रह्मणा सह ते सर्वे संप्राप्ते प्रतिसंचरे परस्यान्ते कृतात्मानः प्रविशन्ति परं पदम्”, in the Bhāgavatam “सत्यं दिशत्य् अर्थितम् अर्थितो नृणां नैवार्थदो यत् पुनर् अर्थिता यतः । स्वयं विधत्ते भजताम् अनिच्छताम् इच्छापिधानं निजपादपल्लवम् ॥”. Like Dhrūva had worshipped Viṣṇu for a kingdom, he got to rule his father’s kingdom here as well as got bhakti of Viṣṇu thus achieved dhrūvaloka where Nārāyaṇa stays with his retinue with him. Whereas unalloyed devotion is not a sādhya but bestowed by Bhagavān himself, doing this the phala is not anātmavastu but Bhagavān himself the secondary result is mokṣa that is the manifestation of svarūpa.”. Thus the possibility of svarūpagata-tāratamya has been refuted. One can’t quote “अधिकं तव विज्ञानमधिका च गतिस्तव । अधिकं च तवैश्वर्यं तच्च त्वं नावबुध्यसे ॥”, for the immediate verse clears the context “बाल्याद्वा संशयाद्वापि भयाद्वाप्यविमोक्षजात् । उत्पन्ने चापि विज्ञाने नाधिगच्छति तां गतिम् ॥ व्यवसायेन शुद्धेन मद्विधैश्छिन्नसंशयः । विमुच्य हृदयग्रन्थीनासादयति तां गतिम् ॥ भवांश्चोत्पन्नविज्ञानः स्थिरबुद्धिरलोलुपः । व्यवसायादृते ब्रह्मन्नासादयति तत्परम् ॥”, here Vijñāna means Viveka “discernment” and the later phrase “विमुच्य हृदयग्रन्थीनासादयति तां गतिम्” makes the state universal for all muktas, for Śrī Janaka himself was also situated in that state as he says earlier “तस्यैव च प्रसादेन प्रादुर्भूतं महामुने । ज्ञानं दिव्यं ममापीदं तेनासि विदितो मम ॥”.
One can't quote "तेनोक्तं कर्मणाम् अन्ते प्रविशन्ति स्विकां तनुम्" to say that these identification as devatā-gandharva etc. are intrinsic because of the reasons above mentioned. The phrase “तेनोक्तं कर्मणाम् अन्ते प्रविशन्ति स्विकां तनुम्” only means that the portion of the respective divinities which had descended into the forms of the Lord’s associates, while identifying with those bodies, performed certain acts and thereby generated karma. The karmaṇām refers to the acts performed while inhabiting those bodies. Because of that bodily identification, they had to experience the fruits of that karma before resuming their respective devatā-forms. As divinities, they already had only the prārabdha pertaining to their devatātva remaining; the additional karma generated through identification with another body had first to be completely exhausted. This is precisely why Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī says: “देवाद्यंशावतरणे प्रवृत्ते पद्मजाज्ञया वासुदेवादिकानां ये स्वर्गेऽंशाः कश्यपादयः नित्यह्लादरसस्थैस्तैर्वासुदेवादिभिर्गताः सायुज्यम् अंशिभिस्तत्र जायन्ते सुरमुख्यतः” Indeed, the Mahābhārata itself explicitly speaks of other beings entering the bodies of Bhīṣma, Droṇa, Kṛpa and others: “भीष्मद्रोणकृपादींश्च प्रवेक्ष्यन्त्यपरेऽसुराः । यैराविष्टा घृणां त्यक्त्वा योत्स्यन्ते तव वैरिभिः ॥” If the Mahābhārata itself accepts that asuras entered the bodies of these very associates, why should we reject the possibility that particular devas likewise entered the bodies of the Lord’s associates in an earlier context? Otherwise, it becomes difficult to explain why the Bhāgavata says that Bhīṣma attained mukti while the Mahābhārata says that he attained the state of the Vasus, none of the versions can actually be contradictory as Bhāgavata is Mahābhāratabhāṣyarūpa as said in the Garuḍapurāṇa "As said in the Garuḍapurāṇa— "पूर्णः सोऽयम् अतिशयः । अर्थोऽयं ब्रह्मसूत्राणां भारतार्थविनिर्णयः ॥ गायत्रीभाष्यरूपोऽसौ वेदार्थपरिबृंहितः । पुराणानां सामरूपः साक्षाद्भगवतोदितः ॥ द्वादशस्कन्धयुक्तोऽयं शतविच्छेदसंयुतः । ग्रन्थोऽष्टादशसाहस्रः श्रीमद्भागवताभिधः ॥", also since taking the latter literally as Bhīṣma’s final destination would contradict the Gītā at several places: “अन्तकाले च मामेव स्मरन् मुक्त्वा कलेवरम् । यः प्रयाति स मद्भावं याति नास्त्यत्र संशयः ॥” “अग्निर्ज्योतिरहः शुक्लः षण्मासा उत्तरायणम् । तत्र प्रयाता गच्छन्ति ब्रह्म ब्रह्मविदो जनाः ॥” “भक्त्या मामभिजानाति यावान्यश्चास्मि तत्त्वतः । ततो मां तत्त्वतो ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम् ॥” And the Mahābhārata itself says: “वेद तत्त्वेन कृष्णं हि भीष्मश्चेदिपते भृशम्” Thus one has to accept the siddhānta of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī: Prabhāsa-Vasu, having identified with Bhīṣma’s body, had to undergo the consequences of the karma generated through that embodiment. The Vasu, however, did not attain mokṣa because Bhagavān was not fully revealed to him; being covered by avidyā, he did not know Bhagavān in His complete tattva. As the Śruti says, “स एनमविदितो न भुनक्ति”—and Bhagavān alone reveals Himself to the soul: “यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यस्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम् ।” Bhīṣma, on the other hand, being an eternal associate of Bhagavān, was ever fully conscious of Him. Hence he prayed: “स देवदेवो भगवान् प्रतीक्षतां कलेवरं यावदिदं हिनोम्यहम् । प्रसन्नहासारुणलोचनोल्लसन्मुखाम्बुजो ध्यानपथश्चतुर्भुजः ॥” And the Bhāgavata confirms: “कृष्ण एवं भगवति मनोवाग्दृष्टिवृत्तिभिः । आत्मन्यात्मानमावेश्य सोऽन्तःश्वास उपारमत् ॥” The Padma Purāṇa likewise explains the appearance and return of such Vaiṣṇavas: “यथा सौमित्रिभरतौ यथा सङ्कर्षणादयः । तथा तेनैव जायन्ते निजलोकाद् यदृच्छया । पुनस्तेनैव गच्छन्ति तत्पदं शाश्वतं परम् । न कर्मबन्धनं जन्म वैष्णवानां च विद्यते ॥” Thus Bhagavān gave Bhīṣma what he desired, while to the Vasu He gave permission to return to his own divine state: “स मां त्ववनुजानीहि कृष्ण मोक्षे कलेवरम् । त्वयाहं समनुज्ञातो गच्छेयं परमां गतिम् ॥” And Bhagavān replied: “अनुजानामि भीष्म त्वां वसून् प्राप्नुहि पार्थिव । न तेऽस्ति वृजिनं किञ्चिदिह लोके महाद्युते ॥” Thus there is no contradiction: Bhīṣma, the eternal associate, attained Bhagavān, whereas the Vasu-portion associated with his embodied manifestation returned to the Vasus after the karma arising from that embodiment had been exhausted.
Some quote “वृद्धिह्रासभाक्त्वमन्तर्भावादुभयसामञ्जस्यादेवम्” and say that this sutra directly establishes tāratamya, however they do not explain the wording there. If the sutra was about tāratamya it must have been placed in the aṁśādhikaraṇa, whereas the viṣaya here since “न स्थानतोऽपि परस्योभयलिङ्गं सर्वत्र हि” is Brahman the resort of jīvas in suṣupti, then to distinguish him from the jīva, Vyāsadeva introduces “अत एव चोपमा सूर्यकादिवत्” then he carefully denies the primary meaning of the analogy by “अम्बुवदग्रहणात् तु न तथात्वम्” then explains the efficacy of the analogy via it’s secondary meaning “वृद्धिह्रासभाक्त्वमन्तर्भावादुभयसामञ्जस्यादेवम्” as seen in the vedas “दर्शनाच्च” like “अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणीति”. “वृद्धिह्रास” is a upalakṣaṇa for ‘trembling’ for it means to increase and decrease not that is solid big or small, the cause of such trembling is the medium which itself is trembling not the object nor the light from the object, the object enters the medium via the light emanating from it and the reflection’s trembling is due to the trembling of the medium but in essence the reflection which is essentially the light emanating from the object remains uninfluenced from the medium but still the difference between the object and the light in terms of the medium is that the object doesn’t come in contact with the medium but the light does so. As explained in the Bhāgavatam “यथा जले चन्द्रमस: कम्पादिस्तत्कृतो गुण: । दृश्यतेऽसन्नपि द्रष्टुरात्मनोऽनात्मनो गुण: ॥”. Thus this sutra by no means advocates an intrinsic hierarchy of Jīvas for the apparent differences are explained as being foreign to the Jīva via the sutra itself “वृद्धिह्रासभाक्त्वमन्तर्भावादुभयसामञ्जस्यादेवम्”, as said in the Gītopaniṣad “नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः । उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ॥”.
To maintain intrinsic-hierarchy among Jīvas, the mādhvas would have to contradict pratyakṣa and logic to accept jīvas as being both the medium and the reflection, for such is impossible. Even by viśeṣa that is not possible for it only creates conventional distinction not actual distinction in svarūpa. However, they do quote paiṅgiśruti “सोपाधिरनुपाधिश्च प्रतिबिम्बो द्विधेयते । जीव ईशस्यानुपाधिरिन्द्रचापो यथा रवेः” to support their statement. We say the meaning of the śruti is not as taken by them as it would then contradict pratyakṣa, the actual meaning however is “There exists two types of reflections, one is via a medium another is without one [that which is nirupādhika is called a reflection only in a secondary sense of similarity]. The Jīva is such a nirupādhikapratibimba of Bhagavān (then why do we see some contrary traits in them ? ‘the term Jīva itself signifies bondage as it translates to “holder of prāṇa”’) it is just like the rainbow around the sun. (that is due to an external medium the sunlight appears to show nature against its svarūpa, that is the single sunray divides into seven colours. As we know that the illustrations and the illustrated can’t be absolutely same there remains no place to object the usage of sunlight [constituted] with the partless jīva)”.
It is also said thus in the Manusmṛti after enumerating all created beings like devas etc. till a clump of grass “एतदन्तास्तु गतयो ब्रह्माद्याः समुदाहृताः । घोरेऽस्मिन् भूतसंसारे नित्यं सततयायिनि ॥”, on some previous verses dealing with the same issue “यं तु कर्मणि यस्मिन् स न्ययुङ्क्त प्रथमं प्रभुः । स तदेव स्वयं भेजे सृज्यमानः पुनः पुनः ॥ यं तु कर्मणि यस्मिन् स न्ययुङ्क्त प्रथमं प्रभुः । स तदेव स्वयं भेजे सृज्यमानः पुनः पुनः ॥ यथर्तुलिङ्गान्यर्तवः स्वयमेवर्तुपर्यये । स्वानि स्वान्यभिपद्यन्ते तथा कर्माणि देहिनः ॥यं तु कर्मणि यस्मिन् स न्ययुङ्क्त प्रथमं प्रभुः । स तदेव स्वयं भेजे सृज्यमानः पुनः पुनः ॥ यं तु कर्मणि यस्मिन् स न्ययुङ्क्त प्रथमं प्रभुः । स तदेव स्वयं भेजे सृज्यमानः पुनः पुनः ॥ यथर्तुलिङ्गान्यर्तवः स्वयमेवर्तुपर्यये । स्वानि स्वान्यभिपद्यन्ते तथा कर्माणि देहिनः ॥”, Medhātithi comments “यद्य् अपि प्रजापतिर् ईश्वरो भूतसृष्टौ शक्नोति यथेच्छं प्राणिनः स्रष्टुं तथापि न पूर्वकल्पकृतानि कर्माण्य् अनपेक्ष्य प्राणिनः सृजति | येन यादृशं पुराकल्पे कर्म कृतं तत्कर्माक्षिप्तायां जातौ तं जनयति। न जात्यन्तरे | शुभेन कर्मणा तत्फलोपभोग्यायां देवमनुष्यादिजातौ जनयति। विपरीतेन तिर्यक्प्रेतादिषु | यथैव भूतेन्द्रियगुणाः कल्पादौ प्रकृतिस्था उद्भवन्ति एवं कर्माण्य् अपि प्रलये स्वप्रकृतिस्थानि पुनर् उद्भवन्ति सर्गादौ | “ततः शेषेण” इत्य् एष न्यायस् तत्राप्य् अस्त्य् एव |”. In the Viṣṇupurāṇa as well “मैत्रेय उवाच— संक्षेपात् कथितः सर्गो देवादीनां मुने त्वया । विस्तराच्छ्रोतुमिच्छामि त्वत्तो मुनिवरोत्तम ॥ पराशर उवाच— कर्मभिर्भाविताः पूर्वैः कुशलाकुशलैस्तु ताः । ख्यात्या तया ह्यनिर्मुक्ताः संहारेऽप्युपसंहृताः ॥”.
The Brahmasūtras systematically locate the observed tāratamya among jīvas in karma, deha-saṃbandha, adṛṣṭa and ābhāsa, rather than establishing it as an intrinsic gradation of jīva-svarūpa. Vyāsadeva among the eligibles to study Brahmamimāṁsā includes Devas etc. “तदुपर्य् अपि बादरायणः संभवात्”, then in the वैषम्यनैर्घृण्याधिकरणम् the siddhānta he derives from the upaniṣad is that the variety in creation [including the devas as they are included among the eligibles earlier] is caused by the specific individual’s karmas “कर्माविभागादिति चेन्नानादित्वात्”. Then in the अंशाधिकरणम्, he declares the apparent variety in the Jīvas in terms of body etc. are due to their connection with the specific body “अनुज्ञापरिहारौ देहसम्बन्धाज्ज्योतिरादिवत्”, the Jīva has no real connection with the body “असन्ततेश्चाव्यतिकरः” and that the connection with the body etc. is just an ābhāsa or viparyaya “आभास एव च” and all this variety in body etc is due to karma / adṛṣṭa “अदृष्टानियमात्” All this is explained in these verses of the Bhāgavatam “आत्ममायामृते राजन् परस्यानुभवात्मन: । न घटेतार्थसम्बन्ध: स्वप्नद्रष्टुरिवाञ्जसा ॥ बहुरूप इवाभाति मायया बहुरूपया । रममाणो गुणेष्वस्या ममाहमिति मन्यते ॥ यर्हि वाव महिम्नि स्वे परस्मिन् कालमाययो: । रमेत गतसम्मोहस्त्यक्त्वोदास्ते तदोभयम् ॥”, “ज्योतिर्यथैवोदकपार्थिवेष्वद:समीरवेगानुगतं विभाव्यते । एवं स्वमायारचितेष्वसौ पुमान्गुणेषु रागानुगतो विमुह्यति ॥ ”.
The taittiriyaśruti categorically denies tāratamya in mokṣa [svarūpa-vyavasthiti], by first indicating the ānanda of a mukta in comparison to limited ānandas of bound beings till Prajāpati [Caturmukha] as per śākhā-candra-nyāya just as how Prajāpati taught the knowledge of self to Indra in the Chāndogyopaniṣad and then to Brahman [Nārāyaṇa] the ‘candra / subject’ itself, One may say that this is a tāratamya of mukta-jīvas of such and such classes but that is untenable because in the very beginning, the comparison has stemmed from material bliss and not muktānanada / svarūpānanda as inferred from “तस्येयं पृथिवी वित्तस्य पूर्णा स्यात् । स एको मानुष आनन्दः । ते ये शतं मानुषा आनन्दाः । स एको मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥”, if they still insist on their presumption they can’t explain the difference between the mokṣa and baddhadaśās of the beings of said categories. One can’t then say that the Ānanda of Brahman is also of the form of material bliss for being present in the list alongside the degrees of material bliss, because the śruti is teaching a person who is absolutely ignorant of the bliss of Brahman, thus by candraśākhānyāya it is pointing towards the bliss of Brahman via a chain of materially perceived / conceivable “bliss” as explained earlier and will be delved upon later as well.
“सैषानन्दस्य मीमांसा भवति । युवा स्यात् साधु युवाऽध्यायकः । आशिष्ठो दृढिष्ठो बलिष्ठः । तस्येयं पृथिवी वित्तस्य पूर्णा स्यात् । स एको मानुष आनन्दः । ते ये शतं मानुषा आनन्दाः । स एको मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ ते ये शतं मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दाः । स एको देवगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ १८ ॥ ते ये शतं देवगन्धर्वाणामानन्दाः । स एकः पितॄणां चिरलोकलोकानामानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ १९ ॥ ते ये शतं पितॄणां चिरलोकलोकानामानन्दाः । स एक आजानजानां देवानामानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ २० ॥ ते ये शतमाजानजानां देवानामानन्दाः । स एकः कर्मदेवानामानन्दः ॥ ये कर्मणा देवानपियन्ति । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥२१॥ ते ये शतं कर्मदेवानां देवानामानन्दाः । स एको देवानामानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ २२ ॥ ते ये शतं देवानामानन्दाः । स एक इन्द्रस्यानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ २३ ॥ ते ये शतमिन्द्रस्यानन्दाः । स एको बृहस्पतेरानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ २४ ॥ ते ये शतं बृहस्पतेरानन्दाः ॥ स एकः प्रजापतेरानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ २५ ॥ ते ये शतं प्रजापतेरानन्दाः । स एको ब्रह्मण आनन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥ २६ ॥”. Here some suggest that each “श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य” stands for a mukta of the associated class of beings, such a theory is untenable for then it can’t reconcile with the mukti of Māṇuṣas “युवा स्यात् साधु युवाऽध्यायकः । आशिष्ठो दृढिष्ठो बलिष्ठः । तस्येयं पृथिवी वित्तस्य पूर्णा स्यात् । स एको मानुष आनन्दः । ते ये शतं मानुषा आनन्दाः । स एको मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥” thus rendering all the injunctions of upaniṣads directed towards the ‘human’-reader redundant. By the analogy of chāgapaśu each “श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य” refers to the same mukta transcendent to all material designations, signifying that the mukta is beyond all previously mentioned material bliss the mimāṁsā stops at Brahman denying the bliss of Prajāpati; the highest bliss of the material world.
One may say “सोऽश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह । ब्रह्मणा विपश्चितेति ॥” proves that the mukta delights there in company of Brahmā, thus Brahmā must be a distinguished intrinsic epithet of a specific Jīva who is the leader of all other muktas, we reply “Such is not the case for the names and form of this world are effects of māyā which doesn’t exists intrinsically in the ātmā as said “यथा नद्यः स्यन्दमानाः समुद्रेऽस्तं गच्छन्ति नामरूपे विहाय । तथा विद्वान्नामरूपाद्विमुक्तः परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम् ॥”, thus there is no chance that a mukta-jīva will retain the name and form he has had here like brahmā, indra, agni, somadatta, yajñadatta etc., It is rather found in the Mahābhārata “कृष्णो मुक्तैरिज्यते वीतमोहैः”, In the Narasiṁha tāpani we find a clear difference between devas, mumukṣas and muktas [brahmavādin] “यं सर्वे देवाः आमनन्ति मुमुक्षवो ब्रह्मवादिनश्च” the muktas as well are said to be worshipping Bhagavān ONLY, as found in the taittiriya “एतत् साम गायन्नास्ते । हा ३ वु हा ३ वु हा ३ वु ॥ ५॥ अहमन्नमहमन्नमहमन्नम् । अहमन्नादोऽ३हमन्नादोऽ३अहमन्नादः । अहꣳश्लोककृदहꣳश्लोककृदहꣳश्लोककृत् ।” thus the delight is in the leadership of Bhagavān alone as he is called “उतामृतत्वस्येशानो”. The mukta is described in the sutras as having none other than Nārāyaṇa being their controller “अत एव चानन्याधिपतिः”. Thus the referent of Brahman in the text is Parabrahma and not Brahmā.”. One can’t quote “आगच्छतीन्द्रप्रजापती द्वारगोपौ तावस्मादपद्रवत: सः”, for the names mentioned here are not devatātmaka but muktaguṇātmaka, Indra means “One who has won over his senses or the king that means he is beyond guṇas of prakṛti”, Prajāpati means “One who is the ruler of prajās, a upalakṣaṇa to highlight his transcendence from those who are under the impression that they are born etc.” if they still insist on taking the meaning as prajāpati and indra as devatās still it doesn’t establish any hierarchy in favour of the mādhvas, existence of pārṣads by the name indra and prajāpati is of no issue for us because there exists devas who are of the form of svarūpa-śakti in the āvaraṇa of paravyoma as described in the padma-uttarakhaṇḍa “ऐन्द्रं पावकयाम्यानि नैरृतं वारुणं तथा । वायव्यं सौम्यमैशानं सप्तमं मुनिभिः स्मृतम् ॥ साध्या मरुद्गणाश्चैव विश्वेदेवास्तथैव च । नित्याः सर्वे परे धाम्नि ये चान्ये च दिवौकसः ॥ ते वै प्राकृतलोकेऽस्मिन्न नित्या त्रिदशेश्वराः । ते ह नाकं महिमानः सचन्त इति वै श्रुतिः ॥ ६६ ॥ एवं परं पदं नित्यैर्मुक्तैर्भोगपरायणैः । दिव्याभिर्महिषीभिश्च राजते विभुरीश्वरः ॥”.
Also here [ānandamimāṁsā] some take Prajāpati to be Rudra etc. and Brahman being Brahmā, but such can’t be true for then Brahmā even being in baddhāvasthā would have the same ānanda as a mukta then what speciality is there of mukti ? Neither can one say that it is specifically for the class of ‘mukta’-Brahmās as there remains the question what difference there would be between a ‘mukta’-brahmā and a ‘baddha’-brahmā in terms of ānanda. Also they would have to accept Brahmā being the Ānandamayātmā as per the next section. Then there comes “यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् न बिभेति कुतश्चनेति” with no obstruction in between, how come then can Brahman here become Viṣṇu if not the former one was Viṣṇu as well ? also maintaining the ekavākyatā of upaniṣads we bring here a similar passage from Bṛhadāraṇyaka discerning the ‘Suṣuptisthāna’— “स यो मनूष्याणां राद्धः समृद्धो भवत्यन्येषामधिपतिः, सर्वैर्मानुष्यकैर्भोगैः सम्पन्नतमः, स मनुष्याणां परम आनन्दः; अथ ये शतं मनुष्याणामानन्दाः स एकः पितृणां जितलोकानामानन्दः; अथ ये शतं पितृणां जितलोकानामानन्दाः स एको गन्धर्वलोक आनन्दः; अथ ये शतं गन्धर्वलोक आनन्दाः स एकः कर्मदेवानामानन्दः—ये कर्मणा देवत्वमभिसम्पद्यन्ते; अथ ये शतं कर्मदेवानामानन्दाः स एक आजानदेवानामानन्दः, यश्च श्रोत्रियोऽवृजिनोऽकामहतः; अथ ये शतमाजानदेवानामानन्दाः स एकः प्रजापतिलोक आनन्दः, यश्च श्रोत्रियोऽवृजिनोऽकामहतो; अथ ये शतं प्रजापतिलोक आनन्दाः स एको ब्रह्मलोक आनन्दः, यश्च श्रोत्रियोऽवृजिनोऽकामहतः; अथैष एव परम आनन्दः, एष ब्रह्मलोकः सम्राडिति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः” the Brahmaloka at the end is itself the ultimate ānanda “paramānanda”. Earlier Yājñavālkya had said “तद्वा अस्यैतदतिच्छन्दा अपहतपाप्माभयं रूपम् । तद्यथा प्रियया स्त्रिया संपरिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किंचन वेद नान्तरम्, एवमेवायं पुरुषः प्राज्ञेनात्मना संपरिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किंचन वेद नान्तरम्; तद्वा अस्यैतदाप्तकाममात्मकाममकामं रूपम् शोकान्तरम् ॥”, Vyāsadeva via “स्वाप्ययात्” identifies the suṣuptisthāna with Brahman, but as it is not permanent, Śrī Janaka asks “अत ऊर्ध्वं विमोक्शायैव ब्रूहीति”. This also collaborates the second meaning of the taittiriya ānandamimāṃsā which will be given later.
The upakrama of Brahmavallī is “ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम् । तदेषाऽभ्युक्ता । सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म । यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन् । सोऽश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह । ब्रह्मणा विपश्चितेति ॥” and the upasaṁhāra is “यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते । अप्राप्य मनसा सह । आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् । न बिभेति कुतश्चनेति ।” in both of these texts “Brahma” has been used in the sense of Parambrahma only. Nor can it be said that being hundred folds greater than the bliss of Prajāpati limits the ānanda of Bhagavān for it is merely in the form of successive-pointing towards it, just as one has to ultimately point towards the moon following the branch of a tree and says “what is just a little beyond the top branch of the tree is the moon”, that doesn’t actually places the moon just a little beyond the said branch, however one may perceive it as such, thus to dispel this misapprehension the pointer says the moon is such and such kilometers away from the earth. Similarly after pointing towards the bliss of Brahman, to dispel the doubt of it being limited the śruti says “यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् न बिभेति कुतश्चनेति”.
Or, it is that, it is a list of progressive negation of bliss of the previous categories from the mukta as indicated from the non-mention of comparison with the bliss of humans “सैषानन्दस्य मीमांसा भवति । युवा स्यात् साधु युवाऽध्यायकः । आशिष्ठो दृढिष्ठो बलिष्ठः । तस्येयं पृथिवी वित्तस्य पूर्णा स्यात् । स एको मानुष आनन्दः । ते ये शतं मानुषा आनन्दाः । स एको मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः । श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य ॥”, thus reaching till Brahman the mukta is indicated to be negated of all material bliss “यच्च कामसुखं लोके यच्च दिव्यं महत्सुखम् । तृष्णाक्षयसुखस्यैते नार्हतः षोडशीं कलाम् ॥”, or in other terms it realizes its svarūpa “यत्रेमे सदसद्रूपे प्रतिषिद्धे स्वसंविदा । अविद्ययात्मनि कृते इति तद्ब्रह्मदर्शनम् ॥ यद्येषोपरता देवी माया वैशारदी मति: । सम्पन्न एवेति विदुर्महिम्नि स्वे महीयते ॥”, “मुक्तिर्हित्वान्यथारूपं स्वरूपेण व्यवस्थितिः” [Bhāgavatam] which in this terms is the same as that of Bhagavān, that is the mukta is beyond all material bliss and hankerings for them like Bhagavān who is indicated by the śruti as “नेति नेति”. But the bliss of Bhagavān’s bliss of svarūpa is beyond such negation as said in the sutra “प्रकृतैतावत्त्वं हि प्रतिषेधति ततो ब्रवीति च भूयः”. Because the śruti ‘usually’ proceeds via the negating method ‘vyatireka’ like “नेति नेति” nonetheless it does sometimes also proceeds via ‘anvaya’ like “सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म” as said in the Bhāgavatam “क्वचिदजयात्मना च चरतोऽनुचरेन्निगम:”, the first description is of negation of hankering for previously mentioned material bliss thus the word used for the mukta is “श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य” but the subsequent one is of positive nature “यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् न बिभेति कुतश्चनेति” a previous śruti was also of positive nature “रसो वै सः । रसꣳह्येवायं लब्ध्वाऽऽनन्दी भवति ।”. This denotes Bhagavadpremaprāpti which is caused by bhakti, which is itself a vṛtti of Bhagavān’s hlādini śakti, gradation of forms of mokṣa is inferred from this verse of the Bhāgavatam “मुक्तानामपि सिद्धानां नारायणपरायणः । सुदुर्लभः प्रशान्तात्मा कोटिष्वपि महामुने ॥”, “मुक्तिं ददाति कर्हिचित् स्म न भक्तियोगम् ”, “दुरवगमात्मतत्त्वनिगमाय तवात्ततनोश्चरितमहामृताब्धिपरिवर्तपरिश्रमणा: । न परिलषन्ति केचिदपवर्गमपीश्वर ते चरणसरोजहंसकुलसङ्गविसृष्टगृहा: ॥”.
One may then ask us, don't you accept tāratamya in mukti amongst the devotees of different rasas? How does that stand against the objections you yourself have made till now? We reply “Certainly we accept a hierarchy of devotion in muktadaśā but that is not achieved by the self effort of the Jīva nor is it intrinsic to the Jīva’s svarūpa rather it is a unmotivated bestowal by Bhagavān, for this partiality can’t be imposed on Bhagavān as then the very difference between partiality and grace dissolves, Bhakti is not a sādhyavastu that a Jīva can achieve by self-effort that is why the bestowal is always from Bhagavān, your own ācārya has quoted a smṛti “यथा भक्तिविशेषोऽत्र दृष्यते पुरुषोत्तमे । तथा मुक्तिविशेषोऽपि ज्ञानिनां लिङ्गभेदने”, and the Bhāgavatam as well says “मुक्तिं ददाति कर्हिचित् स्म न भक्तियोगम्” establishing both as bestowed from Bhagavān in the case of mokṣa it is just bhavapāśavimocana like giving “freedom” while for the case of Bhakti there is actual bestowal. If it is objected that being higher from the svarūpa Bhakti is ultimately other than from it thus a kind of bondage, we teach that it is not so for Bhakti doesn’t obscure the ātmaguṇas of the Jīva rather it enhances them by facilitating them to Bhagavān identification in relation to whom is the highest mukti “पयांसि यासामपिबत् पुत्रस्नेहस्नुतान्यलम् । भगवान् देवकीपुत्र: कैवल्याद्यखिलप्रद: ॥ तासामविरतं कृष्णे कुर्वतीनां सुतेक्षणम् । न पुन: [niścayārthe] कल्पते राजन् संसारोऽज्ञानसम्भव: ॥”. Thus Bhakti is noncontrary to Mukti or the svarūpa of the Jīva as the material energy is. This transcendent nature of svarūpa śakti is mentioned directly in the Bhāgavatam “स यदजया त्वजामनुशयीत गुणांश्च जुषन् भजति सरूपतां तदनु मृत्युमपेतभग: । त्वमुत जहासि तामहिरिव त्वचमात्तभगो महसि महीयसेऽष्टगुणितेऽपरिमेयभग: ॥”, “मायां व्युदस्य चिच्छक्त्या कैवल्ये स्थित आत्मनि”, thus having contact with it doesn't cause any bondage rather it being Parabrahmātmaka is itself higher than mere mukti from bondage as it is just the realisation of soul's transcendence which is present all along, otherwise the superimpostion of self on nonself couldn't be possible by māyā if the Jīva was unconscious of its own subjectivity as said in the Bhāgavatam "विलक्षण: स्थूलसूक्ष्माद् देहादात्मेक्षिता स्वदृक् । यथाग्निर्दारुणो दाह्याद् दाहकोऽन्य: प्रकाशक: ॥ निरोधोत्पत्त्यणुबृहन्नानात्वं तत्कृतान् गुणान् । अन्त:प्रविष्ट आधत्त एवं देहगुणान् पर: ॥" but even this is not independent of Bhagavān but it is not externally illuminated because Bhagavān isn't external to the Jīva being its very Paramātmāsvarūpa as said in the Bhāgavata "ममाङ्ग माया गुणमय्यनेकधा विकल्पबुद्धीश्च गुणैर्विधत्ते । वैकारिकस्त्रिविधोऽध्यात्ममेक- मथाधिदैवमधिभूतमन्यत् ॥ दृग् रूपमार्कं वपुरत्र रन्ध्रे परस्परं सिध्यति य: स्वत: खे । आत्मा यदेषामपरो य आद्य: स्वयानुभूत्याखिलसिद्धसिद्धि: ॥"”.
Some then to establish Jīva traividhya quote the 16th chapter of the Bhagavadgītā. But that again is a wrong reading of the text when seen from the view of the entire text. Let’s discuss the commonly quoted verses— “तानहं द्विषत: क्रूरान्संसारेषु नराधमान् । क्षिपाम्यजस्रमशुभानासुरीष्वेव योनिषु ॥ आसुरीं योनिमापन्ना मूढा जन्मनि जन्मनि । मामप्राप्यैव कौन्तेय ततो यान्त्यधमां गतिम् ॥”. Bhagavān has earlier mentioned dveṣa etc. being nonself “इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं संघातश् चेतना धृतिः । एतत् क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारम् उदाहृतम् ॥”, therefore Bhagavān can’t punish the Jīva for something which doesn’t even belong to the Jīva. It is not that Bhagavān personally hates these Jīvas, the word “क्षिपाम्यजस्रमशुभानासुरीष्वेव” actually means the Jīva by the virtue of its karma attains such and such bodies as said previously “भूतभावोद्भवकरो विसर्ग: कर्मसंज्ञित:”, this is facilitated by the will of Bhagavān as said in the śruti “एष ह्येव एनं साधुकर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्यो उन्निनीषत एष उ एवासाधुकर्म कारयति तं यमधो निनीषते”. These Jīvas of evil karma keep entering lower and lower species of being [even that doesn’t transform their svarūpa as heard in the śruti “एवम् एव खलु सोम्येमाः सर्वाः प्रजाः सत आगम्य न विदुः सत आगच्छामह इति त इह व्याघ्रो वा सिंहो वा वृको वा वराहो वा कीटो वा पतङ्गो वा दंशो वा मशको वा यद् यद् भवन्ति तद् आभवन्ति” as they are non-essential] and ultimately enter Naraka, where they are punished till the exhaustion of the particular amount of their karma as said in the Viṣṇudharmottara “तथैव पाकः पापानां पुरुषैर् नरकस्थितैः भुज्यते तावद् अखिलं यावत् पापं क्षयं गतम्”, and also in the Bhāgavata “एवंविधा नरका यमालये सन्ति शतश: सहस्रशस्तेषु सर्वेषु च सर्व एवाधर्मवर्तिनो ये केचिदिहोदिता अनुदिताश्चावनिपते पर्यायेण विशन्ति तथैव धर्मानुवर्तिन इतरत्र इह तु पुनर्भवे त उभयशेषाभ्यां निविशन्ति ॥”. If at all entering hell was the ultimate destination of some Jīvas the prescription of Bhagavān in the very next verse serves no purpose “त्रिविधं नरकस्येदं द्वारं नाशनमात्मन: । काम: क्रोधस्तथा लोभस्तस्मादेतत्त्रयं त्यजेत् ॥”, for if these vices belonged to the very svarūpa of the Jīva no amount of injunctions could have changed it thus it would have become redundant to instruct them to give up kāma, krodha etc. for neither in the daivi Jīvas these vices can ever rise nor can these vices ever set in the āsuri Jīvas, so towards whom is this instruction “काम: क्रोधस्तथा लोभस्तस्मादेतत्त्रयं त्यजेत्” directed to ? we find no third category mentioned here “द्वौ भूतसर्गौ लोकेऽस्मिन्दैव आसुर एव च ।” in the next verse even mukti from these vices is mentioned “एतैर्विमुक्त: कौन्तेय तमोद्वारैस्त्रिभिर्नर: । आचरत्यात्मन: श्रेयस्ततो याति परां गतिम् ॥” how can one be liberated from their very nature ? Thus the instruction becomes redundant if the Mādhva understanding is followed as they can’t explain the next verse as well. The term "मामप्राप्यैव" conveys that the āsurisaṁpadā isn't conducive to mukti as said "विषयाविष्टचित्तस्य कृष्णावेशः सुदूरतः । वारुणीदिग्गतं वस्तु व्रजन्नैन्द्रीं किमाप्नुयात् ॥". It also means that the main reason of entering adhamagati was because of not meeting him in that form specifically as Kṛṣṇa they then have to enter lower species / realms "मामप्राप्यैव कौन्तेय ततो यान्त्यधमां गतिम्", as illustrated in the 5th aṁśa of Viṣṇupurāṇa where the two demons who first appeared as Hiraṇyakaśipu and Hiraṇyakṣa consecutively takes 3 births till getting killed Kṛṣṇa, this is a specific quality of Kṛṣṇa take it by viśeṣa causing no svagatabheda. This conditional eternality of a state is also found in the Rāmāyaṇa when Sugrīva is said to be "nitya-śaṅkita" but in the very next verse that conditional nityatā breaks— "प्रतिज्ञातं च रामेण तदा वालिवधं प्रति। सुग्रीवः शङ्कितश् चासीन् नित्यं वीर्येण राघवे ॥ राघवः प्रत्ययार्थं तु दुन्दुभेः कायम् उत्तमम्। पादाङ्गुष्ठेन चिक्षेप संपूर्णं दशयोजनम्॥ बिभेद च पुनः सालान् सप्तैकेन महेषुणा। गिरिं रसातलं चैव जनयन् प्रत्ययं तदा ॥ ततः प्रीतमनास् तेन विश्वस्तः स महाकपिः। किष्किन्धां रामसहितो जगाम च गुहां तदा ॥".
If at all Bhagavān wanted to establish the Jīva traividhya conclusion he should have done it in a section dealing with the svarūpa of the Jīva and not adjuncts like the daivi-asuri saṁpadā, though daivi-saṁpadā is conducive to mukti “दैवी सम्पद्विमोक्षाय” it is only so as it points to the svarūpa of the Jīva, whereas the āsuri-saṁpadās are conducive to bondage “निबन्धायासुरी मता”. But they are not actually the svarūpadharma of the Jīva for as they are enumerated as belonging to the mind in the śruti “कामः सङ्कल्पो विचिकित्सा श्रद्धा धृतिर् ह्रीर् धीर् भीर् इत्य् एतत् सर्वं मन एव”. That is why in the Rājayogādhyāya both daivi and āsuri saṁpadās have been shown as adjuncts “मोघाशा मोघकर्माणो मोघज्ञाना विचेतस: । राक्षसीमासुरीं चैव प्रकृतिं मोहिनीं श्रिता: ॥ महात्मानस्तु मां पार्थ दैवीं प्रकृतिमाश्रिता: । भजन्त्यनन्यमनसो ज्ञात्वा भूतादिमव्ययम्॥”, here sattva has been shown as conducive to svarūpa मिश्रस्य सत्त्वस्य भवन्ति धर्माः अमानिताद्या नियमाः यमाद्याः । श्रद्धा च भक्तिश्च मुमुक्षता च दैवी सम्पत्तिरसन्निवृत्तिः ॥ and thus facilitates worship or contemplation of Bhagavān but because the grace of Bhagavān as yogamāyā has not been bestowed yet, they still think of Bhagavān in relation to the material world “ज्ञात्वा भूतादिमव्ययम्” [taṭasthalakṣaṇa]. Bhakti is different from mere mukti is also illustrated by the verse “ब्रह्मभूतः प्रसन्नात्मा न शोचति न काङ्क्षति । समः सर्वेषु भूतेषु मद्भक्तिं लभते पराम् ॥” elsewhere we find “ऊर्ध्वं गच्छन्ति सत्त्वस्था मध्ये तिष्ठन्ति राजसाः । जघन्यगुणवृत्तिस्था अधो गच्छन्ति तामसाः ॥” but them being adjuncts is also mentioned “सत्त्वं रजस्तम इति गुणाः प्रकृतिसम्भवाः । निबध्नन्ति महाबाहो देहे देहिनमव्ययम् ॥”.
As established earlier that dveṣa etc. are not ātmadharmas, it is thus impossible for a Jīva to intrinsically hate Bhagavān. If two classes of beings are intrinsically constituted as either loving or hateful toward Bhagavān, then their apprehension of Him would necessarily be conditioned by their respective intrinsic natures: one class would apprehend Him as intrinsically desirable, while the other would apprehend Him as intrinsically undesirable. Bhagavān would thereby cease to be objectively desirable in Himself and would instead become desirable or undesirable relative to the constitution of the jīva that apprehends Him. Here “objectively desirable” means that Bhagavān is desirable by virtue of His own svarūpa, rather than becoming desirable merely because of the constitution or preference of the jīva. Consequently, the respective manifestations of Bhagavān as “desirable” and “hateful” could no longer be regarded as determinations grounded in Bhagavān Himself; they would be superimpositions arising from the intrinsic constitution of the respective jīvas, and would therefore stand apart from Bhagavān's own svarūpa. That is, if the jīva's intrinsic nature itself determines whether Bhagavān is apprehended as desirable or hateful, then the difference lies not in any difference in Bhagavān but in the apprehending subject; “desirable” and “hateful” would consequently be imposed determinations rather than properties revealing Bhagavān as He is. Such a conception effectively subjects the apprehension of Bhagavān to the duality of rāga and dveṣa characteristic of worldly experience, rather than recognizing Him as objectively the ātmā of all beings and therefore the ultimate ground of priyatva itself, contradicting the śruti “आत्मनस् तु कामाय सर्वं प्रियं भवति । आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यो मैत्रेयि । आत्मनो वा अरे दर्शनेन श्रवणेन मत्या विज्ञानेनेदं सर्वं विदितम् ॥” and also the Bhāgavata “तस्मात् प्रियतम: स्वात्मा सर्वेषामपि देहिनाम् । तदर्थमेव सकलं जगदेतच्चराचरम् ॥ कृष्णमेनमवेहि त्वमात्मानमखिलात्मनाम् । जगद्धिताय सोऽप्यत्र देहीवाभाति मायया ॥”. By the phrase “देहीवाभाति मायया” Brahmā answers the question “then why do some asuras apparently ‘hate’ the Lord?” The point is not that the verse by itself explicitly says “the asuras hate Bhagavān because of avidyā,” but that it establishes the distinction between Bhagavān's actual svarūpa and His apparent embodiment; the following Gītā verses directly establish the failure of the deluded to recognize His true nature. He answers that they are unaware of the His nature because of the coverings of avidyā and yogamāyā “नाहं प्रकाशः सर्वस्य योगमायासमावृतः । मूढोऽयं नाभिजानाति लोको मामजमव्ययम् ॥”, “अवजानन्ति मां मूढा मानुषीं तनुमाश्रितम् । परं भावमजानन्तो मम भूतमहेश्वरम् ॥”. Hence they apparently appear to hate Him because they interact with Him under the framework of superimposition without realizing His actual svarūpa. Here avidyā should be understood as the ignorance and misapprehension belonging to the conditioned jīva, whereas Yogamāyā in “योगमायासमावृतः” refers to the Lord's own śakti; the two should not be treated as identical coverings. Whereas because the Jīva in its svarūpa, dependent on Bhagavān and also as it is intrinsically free of hatred etc., it is impossible for a Jīva to hate Bhagavān, as says Bhagavān in the Bhāgavata those Jīvas who have realised their own svarūpa "sva-artha", subsequently realise Bhagavān being their ekamātrapreṣṭha"नन्वद्धा मयि कुर्वन्ति कुशला: स्वार्थदर्शिन: । अहैतुक्यव्यवहितां भक्तिमात्मप्रिये यथा ॥ प्राणबुद्धिमन:स्वात्मदारापत्यधनादय: । यत्सम्पर्कात्प्रिया आसंस्तत: को न्वपर: प्रिय: ॥". One may then ask why do you propose that a mukta experiences Bhagavān in multiple forms like Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, Nārāyaṇa, Paramātmā, Brahman? We reply “They are all same but are manifested to the mukta in multiple ways; it is not because of the choice of the Mukta but by the choice of Bhagavān Himself. That is why the fault in your view does not appear in our view, because all forms of Bhagavān are eternally existing irrespective of the mukta’s disposition. It is by Bhagavān’s will that He appears to a mukta in a certain form.” Thus plurality of manifestation does not entail subjectivity: the variation is in what Bhagavān freely manifests, not in what the mukta intrinsically imposes upon Him. His appearance to the Jīva as the negation of all material qualities, concealing His svarūpaśakti by His will, is termed “Brahman,” which is similar to a mukta-jīva; thus the muktas, being fixed in their svarūpa, remain within Brahman. Similarly, when He, by His unmotivated and impartial grace, appears to the devotee manifesting all His spiritual potencies, He is termed “Bhagavān.” Even the forms of Rāma, Nṛsiṁha etc., which are eternally existing—“सर्वे नित्याः शाश्वताश् च देहास् तस्य परात्मनः हानोपादानरहिता नैव प्रकृतिजाः क्वचित् परमानन्दसन्दोहाज्ञानमात्राश् च सर्वतः। सर्वे सर्वगुणैः पूर्णा सर्वदोषविवर्जिताः” merely manifest as such for a specific mukta according to the desire of Bhagavān alone; they are not subjective. Their manifestation to a particular mukta is contingent upon Bhagavān's will, but their existence and svarūpa are not contingent upon the mukta at all. Hence they are all objective manifestations of the absolutely objective Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa: “गोप्यस्तप: किमचरन् यदमुष्य रूपंलावण्यसारमसमोर्ध्वमनन्यसिद्धम् । दृग्भिः पिबन्त्यनुसवाभिनवं दुराप-मेकान्तधाम यशसः श्रिय ऐश्वरस्य ॥.”, “एते चांशकला: पुंस: कृष्णस्तु भगवान् स्वयम् । इन्द्रारिव्याकुलं लोकं मृडयन्ति युगे युगे ॥”. As Bhagavān is “saccidānanda” svarūpa, no one can thus infer a form which transpires hatred to the mukta Jīva because ‘hatred etc.’ are all relative terms defined in relation to māyā, so as one can’t say that a certain Jīva intrinsically superimposes faults on the virtues of Bhagavān as we have previously established that “asūya etc.” are not intrinsic to the Jīva which as well is “saccidānanda” svarūpa it’s ānanda however is the absence of misery as positive ānanda is only present in Bhagavān, flickering joys of this world are not ānanda but a temporary absence of misery. Also “superimposing” something on another itself as an act isn’t a dharma of the Jīva but is done by avidyā which is external to the Jīva, it projects the Jiva's svaprakasatva onto other objects”.
Comments
Post a Comment