10

Srivaishnavas, followers of Ramanuja, believe in the concept of prapatti or Saranagati, where, if I understand correctly, God himself becomes the savior after the devotee surrenders completely to God. People are welcome to correct me, if I misunderstood.

Now here is my question. Where is the concept of Prapatti mentioned in the mukhya upanishads, as per the Sri Vaishnava interpretation? Please cite commentaries or works of Sri Vaishnava acharyas to support your statements. The exact word "prapatti/saranagati" need not be there. It is sufficient if the concept is present. (Here, by mukhya upanishads, I mean the main upanishads (about 10-15) and not all the 108 upanishads).

2 Answers2

6

enter image description here

The commentary of the Svetasvatara-Upanishad explaining Bhagavat-saranagati by Sri Vaishnava Acharya is provided in image form. Please check page 121 of https://archive.org/details/SvetasvataraUpanishadPrakasikaRangaRamanujaAnandaBhasyaRamanandaMuniSanskritAcademyMelkote/page/n61

The main sloka contains the words 'mumukshur vai sharanam prapadye' meaning that 'I being desirous of liberation take rufuge in Him'. So all the words 'Sharanam' and 'prapadye' (comes from the same root from which the word 'prapanna' is created) are present in the Upanishad verse already.

In the commentary, 'He' of the sloka is referred to as Sri Rama, Who as Narayana created Brahmaa and enriched him by the knowledge of the Vedas. Two slokas-one from the Vasistha-samhita and another from the Valmiki-Ramayana(known in the Sri Vaishnava sect as the 'Charama Sloka') is quoted to support the view that Sri Rama as Narayana is the Supreme God referred to in the sloka.The concept of Surrender and liberation are already there in the main sloka of the Upanishad to fully support the concept of 'Sharanagati'.

Edited by hashable@

I am adding a translation of the above verse with a summarized commentary in English from the book "Principal Upanishads vol 1" by Vidvan NS Anantharangacharya Swamy

enter image description here

hashable
  • 3,645
  • 18
  • 33
  • Could you provide link to an English translation? –  Apr 17 '19 at 08:31
  • @LazyLubber No I do not know.But the sanskrit is simple here and quoting the charama sloka from the Valmiki-Ramayana also. –  Apr 17 '19 at 08:34
  • @LazyLubber I have edited commonman@'s answer and provided an English translation of this verse as you requested. Also see my other answer. – hashable Apr 18 '19 at 01:14
  • @hashable Thank you –  Apr 18 '19 at 01:47
3

According to two celebrated acharyas of the Srivaishnava Sampradaya: Sudarsana Suri, and Vedanta Desika, the path of Saranagati/Prapatti is none other than the Nyasa Vidya described in the last few passages of the of the Taittiriya-Upanisad-Narayanavalli section (aka Mahanarayanopanisad).

In the Srutaprakasika commentary on Ramanuja's Sribhashya, Sudarsana Suri says-

akṣaravidyādikā iti - ādi śabdena nyāso vivakṣitaḥ
In the phrase "Akshara Vidya etc." the word "etc." conveys Nyasa (Prapatti).

I will post quotations from Vedanta Desika's works as well in a couple of days

Here is the source text of the Nyasa Vidya portion and translation/commentary from the book "Principal Upanishads vol 1" by Vidvan NS Anantharangacharya Swamy. The commentary is based on the Upanishad Bhashya of Rangaramanuja muni.

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

hashable
  • 3,645
  • 18
  • 33
  • I have heard that the Nyasa Vidya that is mentioned in the Vedas is only an anga for bhakti yoga and not the svatantra prapatti that sri vaishnavas do today that directly gives moksha. – Ikshvaku Oct 28 '20 at 02:17
  • Because, it says "...offer oneself with OM", and "he who practices thus attains the greatness of Brahman", and "thus" would be the meditation that is just described in the Upanishad, which would mean that Shudras are not capable of following it since they can't recite OM or meditate on the Upanishads, which would mean that this section does not describe the prapatti sri vaishnavas do today because shudras are allowed to perform it. – Ikshvaku Oct 28 '20 at 02:23
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku (1) Both BhaktiYoga and Sharanagati can be accessories to each other depending on which is the principal upAya. If Prapatti couldn't be an independent upAya and only an anga, then the meaning of "sarvadharmAn" in the charama shloka would be significantly impacted (2) Recall that Prapatti can be performed by a capable seeker by themselves reciting the mantras, or by representation by a qualified Acharya/Bhagavata. So it is still a valid upAya for those who are not capable of reciting the mantras. Indeed that's how it is practiced today. – hashable Oct 28 '20 at 06:54
  • Thanks. And how do we interpret the two mantras in the purusha suktam: "vedAhametam purusham mahAntam...", and "nAnyah panthA ayanAya vidyate", which seem to suggest that there is no other path to moksha than Bhakti yoga. – Ikshvaku Oct 28 '20 at 12:51
  • I just checked Yadavaprakasha's Yatidharma Samuccaya, and he interprets "nyasa" as enjoining sannyAsAshrama. It is strange that he considers this section as enjoining sannyAsAshrama. – Ikshvaku Nov 05 '20 at 15:25
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku The mantras you cited say that "jnana" is the only way to mokSha (tam evam vidvan / vididtva etc.) Knowing the Parabrahman via the synonymous 'vedana' (knowing) / 'upasana' (personal worship) / 'nididhayasana' (concentration/meditation) is the only way to mokSha. Prapatti also has jnana-svarupa or is the form of knowledge. Indeed, it is considered that there are several past lifetimes of bhaktiyoga that are causal in the history of a jIvAtma that does prapatti. So prapatti is not inconsistent with "jnAnAd muktiH". – hashable Nov 12 '20 at 18:57
  • @Ikshvaku, could you cite where in the YDS Yadavaprakasha interprets nyasa as sannyasa? – hashable Nov 15 '20 at 10:37
  • Yes, here: https://archive.org/details/yatidharma/page/n7/mode/1up – Ikshvaku Nov 15 '20 at 14:25
  • @Ikshvaku Thanks for the reference. I agree that YP's interpretation is not well-known in Srivaishnava circles and will find out more about it. However I'd like to point out that having multiple interpretations (usually two) is not uncommon. E.g. The Panchagni Vidya has both a ritual form of practice with physical fires as well as one with symbolic fires. Similarly it is possible that sannyasa-ashrama-upasana is one form of nyAsa-vidyA and prapatti being the other form. – hashable Nov 18 '20 at 09:25
  • No problem, please let me know what you find. Thanks. – Ikshvaku Nov 19 '20 at 03:23
  • @Ikshvaku I had only read Olivelle's translation earlier. I went back and read the original text. The translation of Olivelle (as most translations that end up translating terminology instead of retaining the original untranslated) doesn't make it clear what exactly YP is saying. What YP is saying is: The term "nyAsa" in the sentence "tasmAt nyAsam eShAm tapasAm atiriktam AhuH ........ AtmAnam yu~njIta" is connotative of "jnAna-yoga". Jnana Yoga means the practice of jnana alone which is not pursuable by grihastas (as they have mandatory karmas like agnihotra etc) ... – hashable Nov 19 '20 at 15:16
  • ...and they have no choice but to pursue karmayoga.

    So it is not that YP interprets 'nyAsa-vidyA' as 'sannyAsa' but rather 'nyAsA' as "jnAna-yoga" and uses that to justify the Shruti/Smriti as enjoining a dedicated ashrama for the pursuit of jnana.

    Also recall earlier I have mentioned that Prapatti also has jnana svarupa. In fact the angas of prapatti (AnukUlyasa sankalpaH) etc. are all knowledge-based.

     – hashable Nov 19 '20 at 15:16
  • But then how does that help his argument that jnana yoga has to be done in sannyasa ashrama when it doesn't? – Ikshvaku Nov 20 '20 at 02:16
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku YP is not trying to argue that JY is to be done in sannyasa. He is trying to argue that it makes sense for Shruti to prescribe a fourth ashrama dedicated for JY (as the grihasta is unlikely to be able to make time for pure-jnana pursuit). He is refuting those who claim that the sannyasashrama has no basis in Shruti.

    I would caution you against taking Olivelle's translation seriously. There are many places where Olivelle's translation shows clear lack of understanding of some of the finer nuances of terminology.

     – hashable Nov 20 '20 at 05:06
  • 1
    E.g. In the last paragraph of Chapter 1, he translates "bhikShAcharyam" as "begging for food" and says that such practices are "not appropriate for householders". Here Olivelle misses the point that Sannyasis can only beg for cooked rice. Brahmacharis and householders can only beg for uncooked food which they are supposed to cook themselves. When a householder lives by begging, it is not called bhikShA but u~nchavritti. Vedanta Desika is a famous example of a householder who lived his life practicing u~nchavritti. – hashable Nov 20 '20 at 05:06
  • I see, thanks for the information – Ikshvaku Nov 21 '20 at 18:18
  • So then it seems that the section is not enjoining sannyasa or prapatti, but is enjoining some yoga of knowledge, which is vague enough for people to interpret it variously as support for sannyasa or prapatti. – Ikshvaku Nov 22 '20 at 12:37
  • Also I don't think jnana yoga is done without karma yoga. Even for sannyasis, while they don't do agni karmas, they still do other karmas such as sandhyavandana, veda recitation, etc all in the form of karma yoga. Regardless, "nyasa" in this section is vague enough to allow people to interpret how they see fit. – Ikshvaku Nov 22 '20 at 12:40
  • 1
    Indeed it is enjoining a 'yoga of knowledge' but it's ambiguity appears to be limited to what is being 'submitted'. nyAsa itself means submission. So one may say that the vagueness lets one to interpret it as sam-nyAsa and another to interpret it as bhara-nyAsa. Nevertheless this is in the realms of speculation. All indications in the Shruti are that even the 'desire to realize Parabrahman' itself is to be achieved with a lot of effort (tapasā brahma vijijñāsasva). – hashable Nov 29 '20 at 12:31
  • 1
    Note that Nadadur Ammal in the Prapanna Parijata cites the Lakshmi Tantra 17-75 which says "Nyasa, which is synonymous with Nikshepa, has five components. It is (also) referred to as samnyasa, tyaga or saranagati." Therefore what exactly is this "yoga of knowledge" is a question that doesn't have very clear answers. Ramanuja has unfortunately not elaborated more explicitly other than what He has said in the Gadyas. – hashable Nov 29 '20 at 15:43
  • 2
    @Ikshvaku I neglected to mention the point that Ramanuja explicitly cites "nanyaH panthA ayanAya vidyate" in support of bhagavatprapatti being a requirement for mokSha in the Vedarthasangraha. "saṃsārān mokṣo bhagavatprapattim antareṇa nopapadayata ityuktaṃ bhavati; nānyaḥ panthā ayanāya vidyata ityādiśrutibhiś ca". Sudarshana Suri clarifies in the Tatparyadipika that even for pursuants of bhaktiyoga, prapatti as an anga is required for moksha. Thus the "panthA" in the shruti verse refers to the prapatti (either as a component of, or as a complete upAya in itself). – hashable Dec 12 '20 at 07:05