365bet娱乐

The Gudhartha-dipika's insistence that the universally available option of devotional surrender is the single most important determinant of an individual's spiritual destiny helps to cushion the impact of its author's conservative views on eligibility for samnyasa. The purification of the mind through karmayoga, says Madhusudana, culminates in taking refuge in the Lord. Brahmins who have done so may renounce, but Ksatriyas and others may not. Referring, for example, to the fact that Samkara interprets Bhagavad Gita 18.66 as an argument in favor of samnyasa, Madhusudana, who takes it as a call to surrender to the Lord, complains: "The teaching of 30 renunciation to Arjuna who is a Ksatriya and not eligible for renunciation is not proper #31 Thus, while rejecting Sankara's understanding of that particular verse in favor of his own theory of bhagavadekasaranata, Madhusudana accepts without question the great Advaitin's view that only Brahmins may renounce. Yet at the same time he seems to admit that non-Brahmins may obtain moksa.

336 The relevant passages are the following: Whoever has purified his mind by the actions previously described necessarily becomes one who has the Blessed Lord as his sole refuge, since the purification of the mind invariably leads to that state. If a Brahmin is such, let him renounce all action, since he is free of any obstacle to renunciation. He, having the Blessed Lord as his sole refuge, will attain liberation from samsara by the power of the Blessed Lord's grace alone. If a Ksatriya is such, since he does not have eligibility for renunciation, let him perform action, but with Me [Krsna] as his refuge. By the grace bestowed by Me, the Lord, he attains the eternal, imperishable place of Visnu through the arising of knowledge of Me [without renunciation], like Hiranyagarbha. Such a one who has the Blessed Lord as his sole refuge would not perform prohibited actions, but even if he should, by My grace no obstacle would arise [for him] and, through knowledge of Me, he would attain liberation. 鈥� Ksatriyas and members of other castes, however, are not eligible for renunciation. . . . Such individuals, having the Lord as their sole refuge, will attain liberation [1] owing to the fructification of renunciation performed in a previous life or [2] by the arising of knowledge of reality simply by the grace of the Blessed Lord, without renunciation, along with Hiranyagarbha or [3], having been born as a Brahmin in the next life, by the arising of knowledge preceded by '33' renunciation. What are we to make of such teaching? Several things should be noted, the first being that the orthodox doctrine that liberation comes through knowledge is here accepted as a matter of course. Second, renunciation remains an important factor even for non-Brahmins, either as a carry-over from a previous life--as in alternative (1), which conveniently rationalizes any remarkable spiritual gifts that may be possessed by a non-renunciate--or as the hope of a future life, as in alternative (3). Third, in the

337 absence of renunciation, as in option (2), salvation can only be attained by the power of divine grace. The mention of Hiranyagarbha (a name of Brahma) and the "place of Visnu" is intended to indicate the locus of the operation of this grace by recalling Samkara's commentary on Brahmasutras 4.3.10, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: When the reabsorption of the effected Brahman world [brahmaloka] draws near, the souls in which meanwhile perfect knowledge has sprung up proceed, together with Hiranyagarbha the ruler of that world, . . . to the pure highest place of Visnu. This is the release by successive steps [kramamukti]. 34 The conclusion is as inescapable as it is surprising. In the final analysis, the Gudhartha-dipika is offering the non-Brahmin, not the salvation through an independent path of devotion as presented in the Bhakti-rasayana, but the same limited fare set out by Samkara. To be sure, it is made more palatable by the lavish use of the language of bhakti, but it is still in effect either kramamukti, gradual liberation through rebirth in the world of Hiranyagarbha, or waiting for rebirth as a male Brahmin. 35 Devotion and surrender to God may be open to all, but moksa is not. Despite the pervasive devotional tone of the text, the liberal view of the Bhakti-rasayana has been abandoned and, on this important question at least, Madhusudana has returned to the fold of orthodoxy. This retreat may not be total, but as the following passage indicates, it goes to the extent of restoring the Vedic revelation to its privileged place as the final mediator of

338 salvation and saving knowledge, even for the devotee who has taken recourse to God's grace: The supreme liberation . . . is attained by those who have cast off all obstacles by contemplation on the unqualified at the end of their enjoyment of celestial powers in brahmaloka. This is occasioned by the rise of knowledge of reality and the cessation of ignorance and all its effects through the medium of the Vedanta sayings, which manifest themselves spontaneously by the Lord's grace, without the necessity of instruction by the guru and the difficulty of the practice of hearing (sravana), reflection (manana), and deep meditation (nididhyasana).36 That the hearing of the "great sentences" (mahavakya) is essential even for the bhakta is reaffirmed in a particularly perplexing passage at Gudhartha-dipika 18.65. After quoting Bhagavata-purana 7.5.23-24, the classical source of the nine-fold "disciplines of the Lord's devotees" (bhagavatadharmas), and then referring his readers back to the Bhakti-rasayana for more detailed explanation of those practices, Madhusudana writes: Thus constantly having your mind absorbed in Me because of the arising of attachment to Me through the practice of the disciplines of the Lord's devotees, you will come to Me, the Blessed Lord Vasudeva, i.e., you will attain Me by the realization of Me produced by the Vedanta sayings. Apart from the continuation here of the Bhakti-rasayana's close identification of bhagavat and Brahman, these remarks are completely contrary to the spirit of the author's earlier work.