SrI: SrImathE satakOpAya nama: SrImathE rAmAnujAya nama: SrImadh varavaramunayE nama:
sUthram 76
மற்றையாநுகூல்யம் ஸ்வாபா4விகமாகில், ஒருவனுக்கொருக்காலோர் இடத்திலே அநுகூலங்களான சந்த3நகுஸுமாதி3கள், தே3ஶாந்தரே காலாந்தரே இவன் தனக்கும் அத்தே3ஶத்திலே அக்காலத்திலே வேறேயொருவனுக்கும் ப்ரதிகூலங்களாகக் கூடாது.
maRRai AnukUlyam svAbhAvikamAgil, oruvanukku orukkAl OridatthilE anukUlangaLAna chandhana-kusumAdhigaL, dhESAntharE kAlAntharE ivan thanakkum adhdhESaththilE akkAlaththilE vERE oruvanukkum prathikUlangaLAgak kUdAdhu.
Meaning
If the agreeableness experienced from objects such as sandalwood and flowers were intrinsic to those objects, then what is agreeable to a person at one place and time should never become disagreeable to him at another place or time, nor should it become disagreeable to another person at the same place and time.
Explanation
The AchArya resolves another doubt
The AchArya now addresses the following doubt:
If all objects are naturally agreeable because they belong to the lord, is not the pleasantness experienced from sandalwood, flowers, and similar objects itself their intrinsic nature?
The agreeableness of worldly objects is not intrinsic
The agreeableness previously established arises from the fact that all objects are ISvarAthmaka—they belong to bhagavAn. The present discussion concerns the apparent agreeableness experienced from objects such as sandalwood and flowers.
If that pleasantness were truly intrinsic to those objects, then an object that is agreeable to a person at one place and time should never become disagreeable to him at another place or another time. Likewise, an object that is agreeable to one person should not become disagreeable to another person under the very same conditions.
However, experience clearly shows otherwise. The same object becomes pleasant or unpleasant according to differences of person, place, and time.
Therefore, the pleasantness perceived in objects such as sandalwood and flowers is not their intrinsic nature. The only intrinsic agreeableness is that which arises from their relationship with bhagavAn (ISvarAthmakathva).
Scriptural reference
As SrI parASara bhagavAn declares:[in vishNu purANam]
वस्त्वेकमेव तु कदाचित् सुखायोष्णाय चोपभोगाय च।
यतस्तस्माद्वस्तु वस्त्वात्मकं कुतः॥
तदेव प्रीतये भूत्वा पुनर्दुःखाय जायते।
तदेव कोपाय यत्प्रसादाय च जायते॥
तस्मा दुःखात्मकं नास्ति न च किञ्चित्सुखात्मकम्॥
(vasthvEkamEva thu kadhAchith sukhAyoshNAya chOpabhOogAya cha |
yathasthasmAdhvasthu vasthvAthmakam kutha: ||
thadhEva prIthayE bhUthvA punardhu:khAya jAyathE |
thadhEva kOpAya yath prasAdhAya cha jAyathE ||
thasmA dhu:khAthmakam nAsthi na cha kinchith sukhAthmakam ||)
“One and the same object sometimes serves for pleasure, for heat, and for enjoyment; hence no object can be inherently of one fixed nature. The very same thing that once gives delight later gives pain; the same thing causes anger and also appeasement. Therefore nothing is intrinsically sorrow‑natured, nor is anything intrinsically joy‑natured.”
This passage clearly teaches that no object is inherently pleasurable or painful in itself.
Conclusion of the chith-prakaraNam
From this it is established that poison, weapons, sandalwood, flowers, and similar objects appear agreeable or disagreeable because of dhEhAthma-bhrama (confusing the body with the self) and related misconceptions. Since all objects are in reality ISvarAthmaka, agreeableness alone is their true nature. Therefore, when they are perceived in their true relationship with bhagavAn, knowledge remains of the nature of bliss (AnandharUpa) even while revealing every kind of object.
With this, the AchArya completes the discussion on the chith-prakaraNam. Beginning with the definition of chith as the self, he explained the essential nature of the self, examined its defining characteristics, established the threefold classification of souls as badhdha, muktha, and nithya, explained the cause of bondage and the process of its removal, established the infinite plurality of souls, refuted ekAthmavAdha through reasoning and scripture, presented the simple defining characteristic of the three kinds of selves, explained the similarities and differences between the self and its knowledge, described the distinctions in the knowledge of the three classes of souls, and finally established that knowledge is eternal (nithya), a substance (dhravya), non-material (ajada), and of the nature of bliss (AnandharUpa). Thus, the exposition of the nature of chith-thathva is brought to its completion.
adiyen vAsudhEva rAmAnuja dhAsan
archived in https://granthams.koyil.org
pramEyam (goal) – https://koyil.org
pramANam (scriptures) – https://granthams.koyil.org
pramAthA (preceptors) – https://acharyas.koyil.org
SrIvaishNava Education (Children) – https://pillai.koyil.org