Introduction

Sri ANDAL is the quintessence incarnation of Sri BHUMI DEVI the Divine Consort of SRIMAN NARAYANA, who took birth on this earth to liberate suffering human beings from worldly bondage. She sang thirty sweet songs containing the cardinal principles of Sri Vaishnava Dharma during the month of MARGAZHI. 

Singing these songs with understanding of their inner meaning will bring to us peace, prosperity and above all Divine Grace. ANDAL, though a Brahmin girl, assumes the guise of a cowherdess and yearns for everlasting happiness and service of the Lord. It is the age-old practice of Sri Vaishnavas to sing these stanzas every day of the year in the presence of the Lord in the temple as well as in their homes. This practice assumes special significance during MARGAZHI so much so that each day of this month gets its name from a paasuram, like for example the first day is called MARGAZHI-TINGAL.

It may appear in the beginning that Andal is intending to perform a particular religious vow to marry the Lord and thereby obtain His everlasting company, and that she is inviting all her girl friends to join her. It is only towards the end of TIRUPPAVAI that we learn that she did not actually go to any pond or river or perform a religious rite; SHE IS ACTUALLY PRAYING TO BE GRANTED THE SERVICE OF THE LORD FOR ALL ETERNITY. It is the soul's inner craving to redeem itself and to reach His Divine nearness in order to serve him ("Attaani cchevagam" as her father PERIYAZHWAR calls it) which forms the real purport of this poem.

Listen to the Thiruppavai Upanyasam by Sri.U.Ve.Velukkudi Krishnan Swami in the Upanyasam section.

In the essay, 'Āḻvārgal Pugaḻnda Kaṇṇaṉ', that we published earlier, a few elders informed that there is no mention of Kaṇṇaṉ having spoken Gītai, and wrote that "may be this confirms the argument that Gītai is of modern making". Here is the rebuttal to them. So far, we have not heard the argument that Gītai is of modern making. It is inappropriate for believers (āstikargal) to go with that argument. Āḻvārs have done praises on Gītai in several places in Divyaprabandam. It is worth reading Maṇavāḷa Māmunigal's vyākyānam of the Āchārya Hrudhya choornikai: bhagavan ñyānavidi paṇivagaiyenṛu ivvaṅgīkārattāle adukku (Gītaikku) utkarṣam. In 'Āḻvārgal Pugaḻnda Kaṇṇaṉ', we have even cited the Tiruvāimoḻi pāsuram: aṛiviṉāl kuṛaivillā agal ñyālattavaraṛiya, neṛiyellām eḍuttuṛaitta niṛai ñyānat torumūrtti. Tirumaḻisaippirān has most explicitly spoken of Gītai in Nānmugan Tiruvandādi as: āyan tuvaraikkoanāi ninṛa māyan anṛoadiya vākku.

A key to Viśiṣtādvaita siddāntam and a key to Theṉṉāchārya siddāntam are important to know. 'Sarīra-ātma bhāvam' is the key to Viśiṣtādvaita siddāntam. It is a great policy that, all upaniṣad vākyams resolve easily to the vedānti who properly learns the fact that 'sarvesvaran has all cetanams (entities that have ñyānam) and acetanams (entities that cannot have ñyānam) as his sarīram'. By the Rahsya Traya Sāra slokam, 'yadyatam yatisārvabhoumagatitam', Vedāntāchāryar declares that in the presence of a vidvān who knows this well, people of other philosophies will definitely get defeated.

 

 

Happiness, bliss, pleasure or delight is the essence of the self. It is sukharūa. The words, sukha and ānanda are synonymous. The definition of happiness or bliss is given by Śāstrakāras as follows: Happiness is the object of a desire which does not depend upon any other desire.

 

The cit is anandarupa

The nature and essence of the self or atman is bliss. The self itself will bear testimony to this fact.

स्वात्मास्वस्यानुकूलोहीत्यात्मसाक्षिकएवसः॥

The Lord extols the individual soul by declaring that persons competent to comprehend its real nature are but few. Since the soul is not perceivable by any of the means by which ordinary objects around us are perceived and since its characteristics are different from those of worldly objects, and are therefore not conceivable like them, it is full of wonder. Among millions of persons, a rare individual of great merit sees this wonderful self. Such a rare person alone tells others about it. And likewise, a rare person hears it, and a person rarer still, rightly understands it. In the first place, the seer of the self as distinct from the body is rare; and, need we say, a person who sees correctly is rarer still? Among the correct seers, he who truly describes it is rare; and a person who can speak about all the mysteries of the self is rarer. Even if we can find such a speaker, a person who will listen to him is very rare; and a person with all the qualities of a true disciple eager to listen to such teaching is rarer still. The nature of self, thus, is bliss and intelligence. Therefore, the theory of the Vaiśeṣikas, that the ātman is jaḍa or a non-luminous substance, stands condemned.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.

{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}

The self illuminates itself without the medium of consciousness. It is said to be svayamprakāsa as opposed to jaḍa. In thick darkness you are not able to see the books and pencils placed on your table. The books and pencils do not shine forth for you; they do not manifest themselves to you.

The cit or self is ajaḍa or self-luminous

The self illuminates itself without the medium of consciousness. It is said to be svayamprakāsa as opposed to jaḍa. In thick darkness you are not able to see the books and pencils placed on your table. The books and pencils do not shine forth for you; they do not manifest themselves to you. If you bring a lamp, its light makes them appear to you. The books and pencils thus depend upon the light for their appearance. They are, therefore, objects depending on other things for our cognizing them. The lamp-light does not require any other light or any other object for our cognizing it. The lamp-light not only makes other objects such as books etc., manifest themselves to us, but, at the same time, it manifests itself to us without any medium. This analogy may, to a certain extent, help us to understand the expression svayaṁprakāsa or self-luminous object.  Only 'to a certain extent', for the analogy is not quite apt and is not on all fours, because, the lamp-light or, for that matter, any visible worldly object is not svayaṁprakāsa. Śāstras say that the self, the Supreme Being and the Divine world, aprākṛtaloka, are the only svayaṁprakāsa objects. Strictly speaking, even a lighted lamp does not possess illuminating quality, for its light does not make objects manifest themselves.

In every instance, it is our consciousness, jñāna that makes objects appear to us. In spite of the presence of the lamp-light, the objects will not appear to us in the absence of jñāna or consciousness. Even the senses do not illumine objects. The senses only cause the origination of consciousness. The function of the brilliant light, such as that of an electric lamp, is only to help the senses which originate consciousness, by removing the obstacle for such origination, namely, darkness. In ordinary parlance, we say that a lamp illumines objects having regard to the help rendered to the organ of sight in the production of consciousness. Merely because the light removes the obstacle for the origination of consciousness, it cannot be said to illumine the object. That, which is really conducive to vyavahāra or talk, does illumine objects, and that is, jñāna or consciousness. Therefore, consciousness alone illumines objects. Mere light does not illumine objects. Therefore, light is not, strictly speaking, luminous; and much less, is it self-luminous. We shall deal with the attribute-consciousness at length later on. The self does not require even this attribute consciousness for its illumination. It illumines itself. Therefore, the self is said to be self-luminous. The upaniṣad says: “The puruṣa or self is self-luminous”.

अत्रायंपुरुषःस्वयंज्योतिः । - Br. Up.

We have already seen that the existence of the self is self-evident even in deep sleep.

Cit or Ātman

We first deal with cit or ātman. The word ātman is often used to denote the individual soul. The characteristics of the ātman or jīva are as follows:

1. It is distinct from the body, sense organs, the mind, prāṇā or breaths and intellect.
2. It is ajaḍa or self-luminous.
3. It is ānandarūpa or blissful in essence.
4. It is eternal.
5. It is atomic in size.
6. It is ayakta, invisible or imperceptible.
7. It is acintya or inconceivable.
8. It is niravayava or without parts.
9. It is nirvikāra or changeless.
10. It is the abode of jñāna or consciousness; and
11. It is in the relation of body to God. i.e. it is controlled, sustained and supported by God and subservient to Him.

What is Ātman or the self?

The prāṇās or the vital breaths cannot be the 'I', as they are a combination of parts, prāṇā , apāṇa, etc. each functioning in a separate manner. The arguments advanced against the body being the 'I' apply also here. Nor can consciousness, jñāna or buddhi be the 'I'. For, our daily experience is that consciousness is momentary and is the attribute of the 'I'. We say: 'I lost consciousness and regained the same half an hour later.' That the 'I' or self, unlike consciousness, is a permanent and abiding entity will be seen from our experience of recognition, such as : I. the person who saw this ten years ago, do not see the same thing again now.

For the above reasons, the self is different from the body, sense-organs, mind, breaths and consciousness which are cognized as being different from the 'I', as 'mine', my body, my sense-organ, my mind, my breath, my consciousness etc. For, the possessor is different from the object possessed, i.e., 'I’ is different from ‘mine'. Likewise, they are all cognized as parāk, 'this' 'that', unlike the self which is cognized as pratyāk i.e. 'I'. We say this body, this organ etc., as distinguished from 'I' or self. Moreover, the body and other things are cognized sometimes and are not cognized at other times, while the self is cognized at all times. That is to say, in waking state, the body etc., are cognized as if they are identical with the self as when we say 'I have become stout', 'I have become lean'. etc. But they are never cognized in perfectly dreamless sleep called suṣupti. The 'I' or self, on the contrary, is cognized always, even in deep sleep or suṣupti. Waking after sound sleep, we say "I, who cognized all these things before going to sleep, did not know them during sleep, not even my body." The conclusion is, that the 'I' is different from the body. Likewise, the sense-organs of sight, hearing, etc., are not cognized during blindness and deafness. The mind is not cognized during swoon etc.

Similarly, the breaths. And likewise, consciousness which is manifest during cognition of object at one time does not appear at other times. We say: 'My eyes and ears were very powerful before, but now, I have become blind and deaf; my mind was very clear and active before, but now, it is almost a blank.' , I was breathless for some time, and now, I have recovered,' 'I had knowledge before, but now all that has vanished.' From the above experiences of ours, we have to conclude that the body and other things are cognized only sometimes, but are not cognized at other times. But the self, on the other hand, manifests itself at all times. The non-self appears as 'this'. The demonstrative, 'this', is used to denote the objective world and objects around us. 'I' on the other hand, denotes the subject. The cit appears as 'I'. The characteristics of the 'I' and those of 'this' are different. Śankara in the beginning of his Brahmasūtrabhāṣya says: " The 'self' is connoted by asmat, i.e. 'I' and the non-self. by yuṣmat, 'this'. The self is the cognizer and the non-self is the cognized. Both are opposed to each other like light and darkness. Therefore, one cannot be the other. A fortiori, the characteristics of the one cannot be those of the other." What varies not, nor changes, in the midst of things that vary and change is different from them. Thousands of scriptural texts teach us that the self which persists unchanged and as one, through all the diverse changes of the material body and its surroundings, is different from them all.

Pramāṇa or means of knowledge

According to Cāruvākas, a school of atheists, the only means of knowledge is pratyakṣa or sensory perception. The Vaiśeṣikas and the Buddhists recognize anumāna or inference also. The Sāṅkhyas recognize, in addition, a third namely āgama. A sect of Naiyāyikas follow the Sāṅkhyas. But another sect, namely followers of Udayana, add  upamāna or anology as the fourth. The Prabhākaras recognize arthāpatti as the fifth pramāṇa. (Devadatta who is stout and healthy does not eat during day. Therefore he eats during nights. This conclusion is arrived at by arthāpatti). The Bhāṭṭas and Māyāvadins add abhāva as the sixth means of knowledge. They say that the particular sense-organ which cognizes the presence of a particular object, also recognizes its absence. The Paurāṇikas recognize two more, namely, sambhava and aitihya, and say that there are eight means of knowledge.

The Vedānta school recognizes only three of the above means of knowledge, namely, pratyakṣa or perception, anumāna or inference and āgama or Śtruti or Smṛuti, etc., and include the other five in one or other of the three means of knowledge. They include upamāna, arthāpatti, and sambhava in inference, abhāva in perception, and aitihya in āgama. By āgamas are meant Śrutis or Vedas, Smṛutis, Itihāsas, Purāṇas, Brahmasūtras, Pāncarātras and the saying of Tamil Āḷvārs and saints.

Of these three means of knowledge, namely, perception, inference and āgama, perception is authoritative only regarding things knowable by the senses; inference is authoritative regarding some unseen objects whose necessary concomitance, or vyāpti with the known object, is ascertained by sensory perception, as in the case of fire and smoke. But, in the case of things beyond the reach of the senses, āgamas or śāstras are the only authority.

The word Śāstra, is derived from the root Śās (anuśiṣṭau) to teach, to inform, to govern, to correct, to advise. Śāstra is that which teaches pravṛitti or action and nivṛutti or inaction. Of all the Śāstras, Śruti or Veda is the foremost authority as it is self-authoritative, and does not depend upon any other thing for its being authoritative, unlike Smŗti, Ithihāsa, Purāņa etc., which depend upon Śrutis for their authority. The Śruti or Veda, unlike other śāstras, is not made by man or by any other being and therefore, it is eternal. That Śruti is eternal, is proclaimed in the Śruti itself. The Vedas are not made by any being as they are eternal. The Vedas are free from any of the four defects – illusion, cheating, inadvertence and disability, to which man-made works are liable. No śāstra is therefore, higher than the Śruti.

Veda Vyāsa says: “No śāstra is superior to Veda”. “This is called Veda because it teaches”. The former part or karma-kānḍa of the Vedas deals with karma or action, which is worship of God and the latter part, or jana-kanda deals with the nature of God. Thus, all the Vedas speak about God. The Lord of the Gita says: “The subject matter of all the Vedas is Myself”. The Vedas cannot be understood by ordinary mortals. Only rishis or seers can understand them. The meaning of the Vedas can be understood only from the upabrahmanās or elucidating supplementary of Vedas, which are called Ithihāsās, Purāṇas and which are the inspired writings of seers called riṣis. Ithihāsas are ancient histories like Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata which relate to events of the long past. Purāṇas deal with the evolution and involution of the cosmos, the several dynasties of kings, manvantaras and so on. The former part of the Vedas is elucidated mostly by Smṛutis and the latter part mostly by Ithihāsās and Purāṇas. The references to God and ātman in the Smṛutis are merely to show that karma is a form of worship of God, and reference to karma in the Ithihāsās and Purāṇas are made merely to show that karma is an aṅga or auxiliary to upāsana.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.

{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}