You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : March 1999

Re: Origins of the Jiiva

From: Anand Karalapakkam (anand_at_engr.uconn.edu)
Date: Sat Mar 20 1999 - 10:32:32 PST

Sri:
Srimate Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha
Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrivaNN -
SatakOpa Sri nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

Dear Sri Krishna,
namO nArAyaNA

Krishna Susarla wrote:

> >     sUtrakArar again establishes in the last sUtra "anAvrutti: SabdAt
> >      anAvrutti: SabdAt"  ( "No returning ; according to scriptures.
> >      No returning ; according to Scriptures " ), ie. those who have
> >      reached the abode of Brahman (ie. Sri VaikuNTham),
> >      _through the arcirAdi mArgA_  will never return (no more
> >     karmA; but may come with a suddha sattva thirumEni out of
> >     their will to perform some kainkaryam for Lord ).
>
> However, doesn't the "never return" argument imply by its very wording only
> the condition of those who came into bondage and then attained liberation
> (you don't "return" to something unless you have been there at least once)?
> A very common argument I hear is that this is not applicable to the jiiva
> who is in Vaikuntha and has not (yet) "fallen."

   The jIvAtmAs who are in Sri VaikuNTha and have not had any
  association with karmA (ie. who  have not yet "fallen" ) are "nitya
  sUrIs". It is a  most rediculous speculation to think that these
  "nitya sUrIs" (eg: GarudA, anantA ) will one day get the bondage
  due to karmA. First of all, by very definition, "nitya sUrIs" implies
  that from beginingless time, they are in Sri  VaikuNTham, and will
  be there for eternity as well. adiyEn feels that whomsoever argues
 with you that "nitya sUrIs" may "fall" (what a  terminology !!) commit
 a great bhAgavatha apachAram.  Anyway, sAstrAs doesn't support
 their speculations.

 It is to be noted that sAstrAs are only to guide the baddha jIvATmAs.
 The ultimate goal (purushArtam) is to reach Sri VaikuNTham and
 get involved in BrahmAnubhava and perform eternal services to
 the Divya Dampati. This as you know is the mOksham. Brahma
  sUtrA starts with the Brahma jignyAsA, and discusses the way(s) to
  attain mOksha and finally tells that those who have attained mOksham
  never returns. So, these are the guidelines for us and is not relevant
  for either nitya sUrIs OR muktAs , since they already have full
  knowledge of all these things and also have attained what needs to
  be attained.

>
> >  2. Bhagavad gItA bAshyam ( on 2.50) : ".....anAdikAla sancitE anantE
> >      bandhahEtubhootE ..  ( " He who is established .........relinquishes
> >      good and evil karmAs which have accumulated from time
> >      immemorial causing bondage endlessly ...".
> >
> >     This issue of anAdi karmA is a very fundamental fact in vEdAntA.
> >     Fall down theory etc speculations are no where found in sAstrAs.
>
> Does Raamaanuja ever explicitly deal with / refute the possibility that the
> "anaadi karmaa" mentioned in shaastra could be figurative (in other words,
> the idea that anaadi isn't literal, but simply means that it happened so
> long it cannot be understood)?

 First of all, this is the very point refuted by sUtrakArar in 2.1.35 and
 rAmAnujar also advances various arguments to assert it. If  "anAdi" is
 a figurative one, then it means that some "beginning" was there for the
 association of karmA. But, sUtrA 2.1.35 says
 " na karmAvibhAgAditi cenna, anAditvAdupapadyate cApyupalabhyate ca"
 ie. ( If it be said , there are no karmA, because of non-difference < at the
 time of praLaya>; we say  "Not so, on account of beginingless" ; this is
 reasonable and is also so observed ).

  In vEdAnta sArA, Bhagavad rAmAnuja comments :

 pUrvapaksha :  Oneness is apprehended in the scriptural text, "Existence
 (Sat) alone,  My dear, was in the beginning; One only " ( ChAnd Up 6.2.1).
 At that time, the individual selves were not extant. Hence, the karmA do
 not attach themselves to the individual selves.

 SiddhAntam/ SamAdAnam :  It is not so; as the individual selves have not
  a beginning, the stream of their deeds also have not a beginning. This is
  reasonable.
  The individual selves have not a beginning; yet the scriptural text that
  states the non-difference, only establishes the non-distinction due to the
  absence of name and form. The text is this 'Verily at that time, this
  world was undifferentiated. It became differentiated just by name and form"
  ( Bruh Up 1.4.7). The view said above is in harmony with the text.
-----------------------------

   So, bhagavad rAmAnuja is very clear in this issue < jIvAtmA is anAdi
   and (baddha jIvAtmA's) karmA is also anAdi >.

   As a side note, it is to be understood that at the time of praLayA,
   "only Brahman exists" doesn't imply that jIvAtmAs and achEtanAs
   vanish. Since both chit and achit are "inseparable attributes" of Brahman,
   there is no contradiction. For example, if one says that only a Lotus flower
   is there, this doesn't mean that "redness" (an attribute of the flower)
   is not present. This is because, "redness" is an "inseparable attribute"
   of that flower. sAstrAs clearly say that both chit and achit are eternal
   and doesn't have destruction. So, it is rediculous to think that they
   would suddenly vanish.

   During praLayA, Brahman (Sat) is "sookshma chit-achit visishta"
   (ie. One having sookshma chit and achit as attribute) because both
    chit and achit are present in the "sookshma" state. After creation also,
   only Brahman exists. But now, Brahman is  "sthUla chit-achit visishta".
   The change is for the chit and achit which now have obtained name
   and form by the will of Brahman. Also, the svaroopam of Brahman
   didn't undergo any change in this process of creation. Now, its
    easy to understand how Brahman is even the "material cause" of the
    universe < "sookshma chit-achit visishta" Brahman has transformed
    into "sthUla chit-achit visishta" Brahman. Basic material for creation
    is the same Brahman >.

  In vEdAnta DeepA, for this sUtra 2.1.35, again Bhagavad rAmAnuja
  raises the pUrvapaksham ( ie. No karmA is available during the
  beginning of a creation)  and gives the answer " JeevA and karmA
  are both anAdi. If the above theory of the result of karmA is not
  accepted, it leads to the absurdity that jeevA enjoys or suffers at the
  very beginning of creation for no reason. It may also be that jeevA is
  deprived of the result (good or bad) of his karmA ".
-----------------

  So, bhagavad rAmAnuja is very clear in this issue. Hope that this is
  what you wanted to know.

  note: vEdAnta sArA's english translation by Sri M.B.Narasimha AyyangAr,
         is available at AdayAr Library and Research Centre. This has the
        original sanskrit text also.

         vEdAnta DeepA's english translation by Sri K.Bashyam ( disciple
         of Uttamor swAmi)  can be obtained from adiyEn's father
         Sri K.G.Krishnan 11 Hasthigiri St, W.Mambalam, Chennai 600 033.
         tel: 483 4676. Please also contact adiyEn someone wishes to get a
         copy. thanks.

  adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan
  ananthapadmanAbha dAsan
  krishNArpaNam