Vedanta

shrImadAnandatIrthArya mukhanissR^itaM

cetanasya tvasuptasya kutra dR^iShTAhyakAmatA |

avyaktireva kAmAnAM na nAsho mohasuptayoH || A.V 3.4.4

Some may argue - It has been previously said that all saMsArins are duly affected by desires. But even in saMsArins, there are certain states where no kAmAs or desires are present; such as in deep sleep and blackout states. We know from our observations that a person in deep sleep state does not seem to have any desires. The shruti passage “yatra suptau na ka~ncana kAmaM kAmayate - in the state of deep sleep no one desires”, also supports this observation. So the previous argument “a saMsArin is never free from desires. As brahma and others are also saMsArins they are also not completely unaffected by desires. Hence a liberated person can only be akAmahata” is incorrect as it contradicts our observation and the shruti passage - thus.

To this we reply. Even in deep sleep etc., no saMsArin is free from kAma or desires. Though not manifest, desires are latently present even in those who are in the deep sleep state. It is true that the shruti passage quoted, talks about the absence of kAmas in deep sleep state. But it does not say that the kAmAs are completely absent. It only opines that kAmAs are not present in their manifested form. What we have said is that the desires are present latently. On a deeper analysis we come to know that this is also the intention of the shruti passage. So, our view point is same as that of the shruti’s, though, the way it was said was different. Hence there is no shruti contradiction. In the light of this, the general observation that a person in deep sleep does not seem to have any desires can also be easily explained. So there is no contradiction to common observation either.

shrImadAnandatIrthArya mukhanissR^itaM

aprayatnena kAmAnAmavAptiH sA yadA bhavet |

tadaivAkAmahatatA kuta evAnyathA bhavet || A.V 3.4.4

In reply to a question why “akAmahatatva” etc is not possible in saMsArins, it was said - it is so because they are not AptakAmAs (people whose desires are fulfilled). Because only those people who have all their desires effortlessly fulfilled can be akAmahatas.

But one may ask a question here.  Where is the rule that one who is AptakAma can only be akAmahata? If we take a closer look, there are two possible ways to become akAmahata

1. Having fulfilled all desires (AptakAma)

One who has fulfilled all desires would not have any more desires that need to be fulfilled. So he can be considered as akAmahata

Suppose a person sees a mango in front of him. He would definitely get affected by the desire to eat the mango. He would not be affected by the desire only if he had already partaken mangos according to his hearts content. Hence one who is AptakAma cannot be affected by desires. Thus he will be akAmahata.

2. Having no desires at all (akAma)

One who does not have any desires is also not affected by kAmas. If the desires exist in the first place then there is a question of being affected by them. But for the one who is not having any kAmas, there is no question of being affected by them. Hence he can also be considered as akAmahata.

Suppose someone offers a mango to a sage who is doing penance. As the sage does not have any desire for the mango, he won’t be affected by the desire for the mango. Hence he can also be called as akAmahata.

So, why can’t someone who is free from all desires (akAma) as in case 2 become akAmahata?

To this we reply.

We never said that akAmAs cannot be akAmahatas. Our intention was that among the people who are having desires, only those who have all their desires fulfilled (AptakAmAs) can be akAmahatas.

Though we agree that a person who is free form all desires(akAma) can also be akAmahata, there is no such person in this saMsAra who can boast to be without any desires. As pointed our earlier all saMsArins (including amukta brahma) are in some way affected by kAmAs, Hence our statement “akAmahatatva is not possible in saMsArins” is perfectly valid.

shrImadAnandatIrthArya mukhanissR^itaM

kAmasya yatrAptAH kAmAstatra mAmamR^itaM kR^idhi |

iti yallaxaNaM mukteH shrutirAha balIyasI |

kAmahatiH kuto.anyatra prAptakAmasya sA bhavet || A.V 3.4.4

It was said that the adjectives “akAmahatatva” etc are not possible in a saMsArin. But some may doubt - There are higher souls like chaturmukha brahma and others who are still in the saMsAra but totally detached. Why can’t they be called “akAmahatas”? - thus.

To this we reply. In a sense, chaturmukha brahma and others are not inflicted by kAmas even in the state of saMsAra. But , in the strictest sense of the word, they are also not akAmahatas. Why? Because, the shruti “kAmasya yatrAptAH kAmAstatra mAmamR^itaM kR^idhi - liberate me there where all desires are fullfilled” specifies that mukti is a place where a person has AptakAmatva(all his desires fullfilled ). Hence according to shruti, “AptakAmatva” is the laxaNa(a defining mark) or unique definition of the liberated. That means it exits only in muktAs and not in any one else. Therefore how can “akAmahatatva” be present in those other than muktAs?

But some may argue. Let “AptakAmatva” be the laxaNa of a mukta (liberated). But how can this be an answer to why akAmahatatva is not possible in saMsArins? It could have been an answer if AptakAmatva and akAmahatatva are one and the same. Is AptakAmatva same as akAmahatatva?

To this we reply. An AptakAma (person whose desires are all fullfilled) is not affected by any desires. He becomes akAmahata. Therefore, AptakAmatva is the cause of akAmahatatva. Therefore AptakAmatva is not the same as akAmahatatva. They have a cause and effect relationship.

As AptakAmatva, being the laxaNa of muktAs, is impossible in samsArins, akAmahatattva, its effect is also not possible. How can an effect exist without its cause?

shrI madhvAchArya in his bR^ihadArabya bhAShya clarifies this point further

yaH kAmitaM na prApnoti sa kAmahata uchyate .

One whose desires are not fullfilled is called kAmahata

kAmyAprApteshcha pApAcca pApAt kAmahataH smR^itaH

ubhayasyApyabhAvena mukto.akAmahato mataH ..bR^ihad bhAShyam 6.3.34

A kAmahata is one whose

1. desires are not fulfilled

2. who is a sinner

As the liberated are neither of the above they are called as akAmahatAs.

akAmahatatvaM ca mukhyaM muktasyaiva .

akAmahatatva in the strictest sense is only possible in muktAs.

brahmaNo.api hyamuktasya nAkAmahatatA parA .

yatastasyApi kAmasya xaNavyavahatirbhavet .. bR^ihadArabya bhAShya 3.5

Even the unliberated brahma is not called akAmahata in the strictest sense. As even in his case, there is a little delay in realizing his desires(kAmyAprApti for a second) . What to say about other ordinary souls?

Hence, we should accept that the adjectives “akAmahatatva” etc are not possible in saMsArins.

shrImadAnandatIrthArya mukhanissR^itaM

shrImadAnandatIrthArya mukhanissR^itaM

phalahrAsastu vidyate |

sarvAtmanA phalahrAso yadi nArabdhakarmaNaH |

syAt kAmyavidhivaiyyarthyam || A.V 3.4.4

Previously, we spoke of upamarda of prArabdha karma phala bhoga for aparoxa j~nAnIs. But some say that the prArabdha karma phala bhoga is compulsory. There is no upamarda of prArabdha karma phala bhoga as stated.

To this we reply. This is not true. The shruti passage “OM ityuccAryAntarimamAtmAnamabhipashyApamR^idya puNyaM ca pApaM ca kAmamAcaranto brahmAnuvrajanti” spells out that after the seeker gets the darshan of Brahman, and after gaining upamarda of karma phala (by the power of his knowledge) he performs actions without any compulsions and reaches the abode of Brahman. By this we come to know that there is definitely a reduction in karma phala due to knowledge.

But one may argue that the shruti only talks about reduction of aprArabdha karmas and not about prArabdha karmas. So, this cannot be a proof for claiming that there is a reduction in the phala bhoga of prArabdha karmas. To this we reply - It is not correct to assume that prArabdha karma phala bhoga is non-reducible. There are injunctions in the smR^itis such as ” ‘brahmahA dvAdashAbdaM vrataM caret’ - one who kills a brahmin should observe a vow for 12 years”. Observing such vows to cleanse oneself from previous sins is called prAyashchitta. If one does not agree that there can be upamarda of prArabdha karmas, then all such injunctions to perform prAyaschitta to cleanse one’s past sins should be considered as useless.

One cannot escape by saying that prAyashchittAs are useless and the smR^itis as invalid. It has been an observed fact in the past that diseases such as kshaya roga etc, can be cured by performing such prAyaschittas. We learn from this that upamarda of prArabdha karmas is possible due to prAyaschittas. Therefore it is not correct to say that the prArabdha karma phala bhoga is compulsory and there is no upamarda of prArabdha karma phala bhoga.

shrImadAnandatIrthArya mukhanissR^itaM

sarvAtmanAtvabhogo hi prArabdhasyaiva karmaNaH |

na brahmadarshino.api syAt | 3.4.4

Some say - all past actions are destroyed by the power of knowledge itself. As it is said in the gItA - “j~nAnAgniH sarvakarmANi bhasmasAt kurute”, the power of knowledge is such that it burns away all of one’s past actions - thus. Therefore, as all actions including all prArabdha karmas are destroyed by the power of j~nAna itself a j~nAnI need not necessarily endure the phala of prArabdha karmAs as previously stated. To this we say - this is not true. In that case, after attaining aparoxa j~nAna a j~nAnI should not continue to remain in the saMsAra. For karma is the bIja or the root for existence in saMsAra.

It is also not correct to say that a j~nAnI exists in this saMsAra for enlightening the noble though he does not have any prArabdha karma. As was said before, a person cannot exist without any karma in this saMsAra. Even if we accept that a j~nAni exists in this saMsAra without prArabdha karmas, we come to know from several purANAs and itihAsAs that he faces difficulties and takes birth again due to curses. All this cannot be explained without accepting the presence of prArabdha karmas.

Further, shR^iti passages such as “tasya tAvadeva ciram yAvanna vimoxye.atha saMpatsyate” - clearly state that the delay in liberation for an aparoxa j~nAni will be only until the destruction of all prArabdha karmas. Considering all this we can conclude that the power of knowledge is not sufficient to escape the bhoga of all prArabdha karmas.

But what about the gItA statement quoted? In the above gItA statement the term sarvakarmANi should be rightly interpreted to mean all past actions other than prArabdha karmas. So, the meaning of the gItA verse would be - the power of knowledge is such that it burns away all of one’s past actions except the prArabdha karmas.

prArabdhakarmajasyaiva viShabhaxAnmR^iteriva |

prAptasyApyanivartyasya ki~ncidbhuktasya saMvidA |

upamarda iha proktaH | A.V 3.4.4

When a person attains aparoxa j~nAna, all his past karma gets destroyed except the prArabdha karmAs which are to be destroyed only by their phala bhoga. There is a shastraic injunction ‘brahma hA kshayarogI syAt’ - a person who commits brahma hatya will be inflicted with kshaya roga. As a result even an aparoxa j~nAnI will have to suffer from kshyaya roga due to his prArabdha karma. But, due to the power of his knowledge, he need not endure the kshyaya roga in the same way a normal person would have to. Neither can he remain totally un-affected by it. Though he has to suffer from kshaya roga, the intensity or the duration of the kshaya roga will be reduced due to the power of his knowledge. In shastraic terms this reduction in karma phala is known as upamarda.

Here one may question, according to the shastraic injunction ‘avashyamanubhoktavyaM kR^itaM karma shubhAshubhaM’ - the results of prArabdha karma have to be necessarily endured by everyone. Therefore, how can there be an upamarda of the karma phala? To this we reply, when some one partakes poison, normally he will die. But not always. He could be saved by some poison-curing mantra or medicine. Similarly the entire phala of prArabdha karmas should be normally endured. But not necessarily. upamarda is possible due to the power of knowledge. So, it should be understood that the shastraic injunction ‘avashyamanubhoktavyaM kR^itaM karma shubhAshubhaM’ is a general injunction applicable to non-j~nAnIs. upamarda of karma phala should be understood to be applicable to j~nAnIs.

shrImadAnandatIrthArya mukhanissR^itaM

hrAso.api mAnuShAdInAmAnandasya vikarmaNA |

bhavenmuktau visheSheNa svoccAnAmaparAdhataH || 3.4.4

We have learnt that the devatas experience the bliss to which they are eligible in liberation even if they commit some prohibited acts. They only forfeit the extra bliss they would have experienced had they not committed any prohibited acts. But in the case of others such as manuShyAs, if they commit prohibited acts, they will loose some of that bliss to which they were originally eligible. That is, there will be a cut in their bliss_eligible itself. This is more so if they commit mistakes against their superiors.

Here one may ask - liberation is a state where the soul experiences bliss, which is of the form of its very nature. So, how can there by a cut in that bliss itself? One cannot say that the bliss is reduced due to the influence of prakR^iti etc. Because there can’t be any influence of prakR^iti etc during liberation.

To this we reply, the cut in bliss of a soul is called hrAsa. hrAsa is anabhivyakti (non-manifestation) of the bliss. In liberation, though other influences (of prakR^iti etc) on a soul are absent, the will of the God still exists which is responsible for non-manifestation of the souls own bliss in case it commits prohibited acts after attaining knowledge of Brahman.

shrImadAnandatIrthArya mukhanissR^itaM

klR^iptasya tu katha~ncana prAptahRAso bhavetkvApi mahatA tu vikarmaNA

tathA.api tatklR^iptameva tasmAnna niyamojjhitiH |

chandrasugrIvayoshcaiva svoccadAraparigrahAt

prAptahAnirabhUnnaiva klR^iptahAniH katha~ncana || A.V 3.4.4

It has been said earlier that even devatAs perform prohibited actions, though rarely. But here it should be noted that the according to our scriptures devatas have a fixed gradation among them which is determined by the degree of their bliss in liberation. The greater the bliss in liberation the superior the devata. So, if even the devatAs perform prohibited actions and experience slightly lesser bliss than what they are eligible to, then does it not disturb the gradation scheme? Consider a devata A who is eligible for 100 units of bliss in liberation and another devata B who is eligible for 95 units of bliss. According to the fixed gradation scheme devata A is superior to devata B. But consider that devata A performs a prohibited action due to which his bliss has been cut by 5 units. So, the net bliss devata A experiences in liberation is only 95. So, devata A is now becomes equal to devata B thus disturbing the gradation. It is baseless to say that whenever devata A performs a prohibited action devata B also performs a prohibited action and similarly all other devatas down the hierarchy perform prohibited actions thus maintaining the gradation. Hence, if devatas also perform prohibited action and get lesser bliss, how can the gradation among them be maintained?

To this we reply, each soul is eligible to for a fixed quantum of bliss after liberation. Let us call this bliss as bliss_eligible. In the case of devatas, this amount of bliss is guaranteed for them even if they perform prohibited actions. So, no matter what actions a devata performs after gaining knowledge of Brahman, he will not fall in the gradation hierarchy as he enjoys the bliss he is actually eligible to. Therefore, the gradation scheme is not in any away affected.

But previously it was said that there is a cut in the bliss and now it is being said that there will be no cut. Is it not contradictory? To this we say - no, it is not contradictory. How? Let us illustrate with an example. Consider devata A whose bliss_eligible constant is 100 units. When this devata does good deeds even after gaining knowledge he may actually earn more bliss than bliss_eligible. Let us denote this bliss as bliss_earned. Say, the bliss_earned is 105 for devata A whereas the bliss_eligible is 100. In such a case , the devata is made to inadvertently perform a highly prohibited action and his bliss_earned is cut by by 5 units to make his bliss_earned = bliss_eligible. This balancing act is made by God only when bliss_earned > bliss_eligible. So the statement there will be no cut means that there will be no cut in the bliss_eligible. And the statement that there will be a cut in bliss says that there will be a cut in the bliss_earned. So, there is no contradiction. This way all devatas only experience bliss_eligible - not more not less and thus the gradation is perfectly maintained among the devatas.

This can be verified in the the stories of chandra and sugriva. They were punished for accepting the wife of gods higher in gradation by cutting their bliss_earned and not their bliss_eligible. Chandra (12th kaksha) has performed a rajasuya yaga on account of which he earned immense merit there by his bliss_earned became greater than his bliss_eligible. Therefore by way of accepting the wife of bR^ihaspati(10 kaksha) who is higher than him in gradation he lost the extra bliss_earned and destined to enjoy only bliss_eligble in liberation. Similarly, sugriva, incarnation of sUrya(12th kaksha) served rAma in tretayuga. On account of that his bliss_earned surpassed his bliss_eligible. By way of accepting the wife of vAli who was incarnation of indra (8th kaksha), higher in gradation to sugriva (12th kaksha), he lost the extra bliss_earned and destined to enjoy only bliss_eligble in liberation.

shrImadAnandatIrthArya mukhanissR^itaM

guNahAnishcha naivAsti brahmaNastvavikarmataH | devAnAmapi na prAyaH || A.V 3.4.4

It has been previously said that even a person who has the knowledge of Brahman also performs prohibited actions. Is this applicable to all such j~nAnI’s or only to some? To this we reply. This is not applicable those souls who have the eligibility to qualify for the post of four-faced Brahma. But, what about the other devatas? Usually they also do not perform such prohibited actions. But, they may very rarely perform such actions and experience a slight cut in the bliss after liberation as a result.