BlessingsEditorialNews in IndiaNews Outside IndiaPanchajanyaDivine MusicNew book Releasesdigitized bookspanchangam108 Holy LandsSacred Templeschildren's sectionInterviewsArchives

"why prapaththi is not an upa:yam but Lord alone is"

article by - Sri:ma:n Madhusu:dana Ra:ma:nuja Da:sa

We need to understand what the word 'prapatti' means, before venturing into ascertaining or rejecting it as a means to God. It is essential that one understands the true nature of prapatti before considering it for sa:dhyo:payam (That which is done by the effort of a che:tana(soul) is called sa:dhyo:pa:yam. ) . If I take a jute bag to buy oil, it is obvious that I have not understood the swaroopam(true nature) of oil. Thus it becomes crucial to comprehend what prapatti is , ahead of any discussion on this subject.

The scriptures pronounce , " thvamEvo:pa:ya bhooto: me: bhavathi pra:rthana:mathih sarana:gathih" ,(i.e) prapatti or Sarana:gathi is the knowledge that Srimanna:ra:yana is the ONLY means.When the scriptures have laid the principle so clearly, where is the scope for calling prapatti as an independent means to God? The acceptance of prapatti implies that the soul regards Srimanna:ra:yana as his only means and hence the anupa:yatvam(not being a way to God) of prapatti is a consequence of its acceptance.

Sri: Veda:ntha:cha:ryar has beautifully proved this in the 'jeeva pariche:tham'of 'nya:ya sidha:njanam':

"Iyam kEvala lakshmichOpa:yatva pratyaya:thmika:
Swahe:tutvadiyam rundhe: kimpunassahaka:rina:m"

This is an interesting and important verse from Sri Vedantha:cha:ryar's work.It makes the answer to the question under discussion all the more clear. Prapatti is that which dispels the conviction in the means alien to Sri:manna:ra:yana. This being its role , it is impossible to pass prapatti off as a means even considering it as an agent.

It's a general opinion and presumption that whatever has been laid down by the scriptures becomes upa:yam(sa:dhanam or means). ( Why would the scriptures lay down certain principles when they would not become an upa:yam?) When a rule is explained, then the subject on whom/which the rule rests will by default become an upa:yam(means). Hence the words of charama slOka "ma:m e:kam saranam vraja" are regarded as an indication of prapatti being a means , according to some people.This contention is removed through the words of Swa:mi Vedanthacharyar in 'nya:sa tilakam' in the slOkam 'he:thur vaithe: vimarse:'. Here Swa:mi explains thus "Though prapatti has been laid as means, its not necessary that we regard it as means here. In each one of the brahmavidyas a nature(swaroopam) of the Lord is to be understood and in prapatti the swaroopam to be understood is 'ithara:nape:ksha upa:yatvam' (one who does not expect/anticipate another upa:yam) .

A question is raised by some people here. Upa:yam or means is of two types viz., Sidho:pa:yam and sa:dhyo:pa:yam. Even if the Lord(Emperuma:n) is the sidho:pa:yam, there must be 'something' that is approved as sa:dhyo:pa:yam? Wouldn't prapatti then qualify into the definition of whatever 'something' is ?

We shall answer this question with a rider! Did the soul really do the effort claimed to have been done? Azhwa:r clears this doubt for us through his verses in many hymns like "isai vithu ennai un tha:linaiki:zh iruthum amma:nE" . Through such verses it's more than clear that it's only by the effort of emperumAn that it gets done. Swa:mi Pillai Lo:ka:cha:ryar's suthram, 'sweeka:rantha:num avana:lE vandhadhu, srushti avatha:ra:dhi mugatha:le: pannina krushibalam' , the words of Swa:mi Ve:da:nta:cha:ryar -'nidha:nam thatra:pi swayamakhila nirma:na nipunah' and those of Swa:mi A:zhwa:n - 'varada! Tava kalu prasa:da:druthe: saranamithih vacho:pi me:no:dhiya:th' are to be carefully observed.

Above than all these is the very famous verse of Swa:mi Ve:da:ntha:cha:ryar where he has used "swah"padham nine times, 'swa:min swase:sham svavacham swaparatve:na nirbharam, swadath swadhiya: swa:rtham swasmin nyasyati ma:m swayam'.This verse chops off the very root of the concept of an 'act or effort' from the che:tana's side qualifying as the means. It is easy to thereby understand that sa:dhyo:pa:yam does not form independent means.

We can comprehend the concept like this. Consider a rare gem . Is it a means to one's livelihood? Or is it not? If we debate, we end up saying, yes it is a means for one person and that it's not for another. For a person running his life by selling gems ,obviously it becomes means. On the other hand, for a king it's just another jewel in his crown. So any object, based on the adhika:ri (the one who is using it) either qualifies as a means or an object of enjoyment. We as Sri:vaishanava:s should not take prapatti as means. For that matter,not just 'prapatti', anything other than Emperuma:n is not upa:yam. Any good deed is only understood as a part of swaroopam , and because it is swaroopapra:ptam(attainment of true nature) , it is not upa:yam.

Sri:vaishnava poorva:cha:rya:s feel "bhagavath pravruthi virodhi swapravruthi nivruthi prapatti". If Emperuma:n feels that we have "swarakshanE swa:nvayam"(exhibitance of self-rescuing tendencies), there are chances that He might take a back seat in saving us. Three important evidences must be considered here.

1.Sri: Ra:ma:yanam- "sacha:la cha:pancha mumo:cha veerah"
2.Sri: Bhoodatha:zhwa:r's sacred words- "va:nathidarai e:riya:m vannamiyatrum idhuvalla:l ma:ri ya:r peigirpa:r matru?"
3.Sri: A:zhwa:n's divya sookthi- "kshamyasyaho: tatapisandhivi ra:mama:tra:t"

More importantly the words of Udayavar Swa:mi Ra:ma:nuja are to be seen. Swa:mi's words for the soothram "upapade:cha"(3-2-4) - "pra:pyasya paramapurusha swapra:pthou swasyaivo: upa:yathvo:papate:h" "na:yama:tma: pravacha ne:na labya:…tanoom swa:m", " iti ananya upa:yatva charana:th" , clearly prove the status of other upa:yams.

On similar lines, words of Swa:mi Ve:da:ta:cha:ryar in Geeta:rta Sangraha Rakshai, for the verse "nijakarma:di bhakthyantham kurya:th preetyaiva karithah, upa:yatha:m parithyajya nyasye:th dhe:ve:tu ta:m abhih" are to be understood to realize what tradition feels about prapatti being upa:yam.

But it must not be mis-understood that Sri:vaishnava poorva:cha:ryas have banned the usage of 'prapatti as upa:yam'. One amongst the famous six commandments that Sri Deva:dira:jan gave Tiru kachi nambigal is "mo:ksho:pa:yah prapattih" Swa:mi Periyava:cha:n pillai commentary for the lines "tatapra:ptye: ca tatpadha:m bhuja dhwaya prapathye:…sa:dhanamstheethi manva:nah" from Sri: Vaikunta gadyam is "prapattiyai upa:yama:ga kondu prakrutha mandalathai vittu"(leaving the mundane world using prapatti as the means). Again Swa:mi Pillailoka:cha:rya's soothram in Sri: Vachanabhooshanam says, "prapatti upa;yathukku ikkutrangal ondrumillai", for which Swa:mi Manava:la Ma:munigal says, "ikkutrangal ondru millai yengaya:le: matro:ru kutramundu yennumidam tho:trugiradhu, adha:vadhu a:pa:dha pradheethiyile: upa:yatva prathipathikku arhama:mpadi irukkai".

Let us wind up this discussion. A:zha:rs say, "un manatha:l en ninaithirundha:i?" and the soothram based on this verse is the reply we get from our poorvAcha:rya:s, "un manatha"l en ninaithirundha:i? engirapadiye: pra:pthikku upa:yam avan ninaivu". This is the essential prayer of our A:zhwa:r - A:cha:rya:s that explain their stance, "Hey bhagavan! If you have a hard and fast rule that You will save me only by seeking an upa:yam from me, all that I can do is, say that I cant do anything and perform saranAgathi. Please consider this as the upa:yam". It is this prayer that makes many misunderstand the position of prapatti(as a means).

Swa:mi Ve:da:nta:cha:ryar has beautifully translated Swa:mi Periyava:cha:n Pillai words, "puzhu kurithadhu ezhutha:ma:po:le:"(what a worm scribbles on ground by its physical movement might look like letters) into a Sanskrit slo:kam as "gunakshathalibikrama:dhupanipa:dhina: pa:dhi nah" A worm that moves on the ground does not have an intention to write anything on it, but if we carefully watch it, we can trace a letter from what it has scribbled. This is called as "gunakshara nya;yam". Similarly , our effort is only an accidental positive and cannot be regarded as means.

Finally we have the evergreen Upanishad lines, "nya:sa iti brahmah" "nya:sa ithyahoormaneeshino: brahma:nam".The Lord has a name(reference) called prapatti. Let all doubts rest. HE IS THE ONLY MEANS.