श्री गुरुभ्यॊ नमः हरिः ॐ
श्रीमदानन्दतीर्थभगवत्पादाचार्यगुरुभ्यॊ नमः
Modified version of http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2013-July/004382.html
रामामृतमहार्णवः (RAM) is a work written by Shri Satyaabhinava tirtha of Uttaradi Matha lineage. He has written a commentary, titled दुर्घटभावदीपिका durghaTabhAvadIpikA (DBD), on his own work. It compiles some miscellaneous problems in shaastra, and resolves them. The topic of tapta-mudraa-dhAraNa is one such. The author uses the pramANas given by earlier authors like Sri Vijayindraru, Sri Vadirajaru, but explains them in greater detail. By the way, Sri Vedanta Deshika of the Ramanuja Sampradaya was the first person (AFAIK) to quote some of these pramANas (which are now unavailable in the original texts). He quoted them in his saccharitrarakShA.
Some people, including the Uttaradi maTha's followers, quote the Vishnu-rahasya statement quoted in रामामृतमहार्णवः as a basis for their theory that one must get tapta-mudra ONLY from the maThaadhipati of the maTha one belongs to. They ignore or discard very much the opinions expressed before and after that Vishnurahasya statement.
Sri Satyaabhinava's conclusion on this matter is very different, if not completely the reverse. His conclusion is that one should get it from one's guru (does not say maThaadhipati) if one's guru is accessible. And if one's guru is not accessible, then one can get it from any exalted vaiShNava or apply it oneself.
Here're his words. The verses 106 and 107 in blue color, are from RAM; and rest of text from the commentary, durghaTabhAvadIpikA. The words in commentary, referring to the original (i.e. pratIkAs) are also in blue color.
This section is after that dealing with pramANas on Tapta-mudra-dharaNa.
पञ्चरात्रॆ विहगॆश्वरसंहितायां -
श्लॊक १०६ 106
अग्निनैव तु सम्युक्तं चक्रमादाय मामकम् ।
दक्षिणं बाहुमूलं स्वं दहॆद्विगतसाध्वसः ॥
इति श्लॊकः । तस्यार्थः - तप्तमुद्रादानाधिकृतः समीपॆ स्वगुरॊरभावॆ अग्निना संयुक्तं एव तु विशिष्टं
समीचीनाकारयुक्तं मामकं चक्रमादाय, विगतसाध्वसः विगतभयः सन् दक्षिणं स्वं बाहुमूलं स्वयमॆव दहॆदिति ।
Gist: For a person who wishes to get taptamudra, when his guru is not present in the vicinity, he should get the Lord's chakra, heated in agni, having discarded fear, should apply it on his right shoulder, by himself.
ऎतॆन “यदा च गुरुणा प्राप्तः तापः संस्कार इष्यतॆ” इत्यादिवाक्यैर्गुरुहस्तॆनैव तप्तमुद्रा ग्राह्या, स्वहस्तॆन तप्तमुद्रा न ग्राह्या इत्युक्तत्वात्, स्वं बाहुमूलं स्वयमॆव दहॆदिति कथनं अयुक्तं इति चॊद्यस्यानवकाशः । तप्तमुद्रादानाधिकृतः इत्यादॆः शॆषॆण, तप्तमुद्रादानाधिकृतः समीपॆ स्वगुरॊरभावॆ स्वबाहुमूलं स्वयमॆव दहॆदित्यर्थस्यॊक्तत्वात् ।
In short, the objection based on statements such as "whatever tApa is obtained from guru, only that is considered samskAra", which then implies that one must take mudrA from one's guru only, and not by oneself, is answered. It is answered by pointing out that such statements apply when the guru is present in the vicinity (i.e. accessible), and statements such as 'svayameva dahed' (or svaM dahed) apply when the guru is not present in the vicinity.
श्लॊक १०७: 107:
अथवान्यॆन कॆनापि वैष्णवॆन महात्मना ।
लाञ्छितं बिभृयाच्चक्रं पाञ्चजन्यं तथैव च ॥
इति श्लॊकः । तस्यार्थः - अत्र समीपॆ स्थित्यादॆः शॆषः । अथवा समीपॆ स्थितॆनान्यॆन लॊकविलक्षणॆन लॊकॊत्तमॆन कॆन वायुसन्निधानविशिष्टॆन वैष्णवॆन वैष्णवकुलॊत्त्पन्नॆन महात्मना महान् भगवद्विषयकः आत्माऽन्तःकरणं यस्य स महात्मा तॆन तप्तमुद्रादानाधिकृतॆन स्वगुरुणापि स्वगुरुणैव लाञ्छितं चिह्नरूपं, भावॆ क्तः, चक्रं बिभृयात् । पाञ्चजन्यं च तथैव चक्रवदॆव बिभृयादिति ।
The gist is that one can take chakra and shankha mudrA from any other who is a great vaiShNava, who has the presence of Vayu.
ऎतॆन,
"लॊभाद्युपाधिना वाऽपि यस्मात् कस्माच्च पूरुषात् ।
स्वयं वाऽपि दहॆद्गात्रं चक्रशङ्खादिकैरपि ।
सॊऽपि व्रजॆत् निरयं साकं स्वगुरुणा चिरम्" ।
इति विष्णुरहस्यवाक्यॆ यस्य कस्यचिद्धस्तॆन मुद्रा न ग्राह्या इत्युक्तत्वात्, अन्यॆन कॆनापि इति यस्य कस्यचिद्धस्तॆन मुद्रा ग्राह्या इति कथनमनुपपन्नं इति चॊद्यं परिहृतम् ।
By this, the objection based on the Vishnurahasya statement is also answered. Vishnurahasya states that one must not get mudra from ANY person, for whatever reasons, and whoever does that will obtain hell along with his guru. (The answer is that the Vishnurahasya statement applies when one's guru is accessible).
कॆनापि इत्यत्र कशब्दः “कः प्रजापतिरुद्दिष्टः कॊ वायुरिति शब्दितः” इति वचनात् वायुवाची । वायुवाचकात् कशब्दात् मत्वर्थॆऽच्प्रत्ययं अङ्गीकृत्य, कॆन इति शब्दॆन वायुसन्निधानविशिष्टॆन इत्यर्थान्तरं उच्यत इत्यङ्गीकारात् । ऎतॆनैव "स्वयं वापि दहॆद्गात्रं" इति स्वहस्तॆन मुद्रा न ग्राह्या इत्युक्तत्वात्, अथवा इति स्वहस्तॆन वा गुरुहस्तॆन वा मुद्रा ग्राह्यॆति कथनमयुक्तं इति शङ्कानवकाशः ।
The gist is that the word 'kenApi' (in the shloka 107) is interpreted as referring to a person with vAyu sannidhAna. Therefore, the Vishnurahasya statement that one must not take it from anybody whosoever is reconciled by saying it can be taken from a person who has vAyu-sannidhAna.
तप्तमुद्रादानाधिकृतॆन गुरुः समीपॆ नास्ति चॆत्, स्वहस्तॆन मुद्रा ग्राह्या । गुरुः समीपॆ अस्ति चॆत्, गुरुहस्तॆन मुद्रा ग्राह्या -- इति व्यवस्थितविकल्पार्थॊ अथवा इत्ययं शब्द इत्यङ्गीकारात् । ऎतॆनैव अन्यॆन इत्यॆतद्व्यर्थमिति दूषणस्यानवकाशः । अन्यॆन इत्यस्य 'भिन्नॆन' इत्यर्थॊ न, किन्तु लॊकविलक्षणॆन इत्यर्थः, लॊकॊत्तमॆन इति तात्पर्यार्थं इत्यङ्गीकारात् । ऎतॆनैव कॆनापि इति अपिशब्दॊ इति दूषणं परिहृतम् । कॆनापि इति अपिशब्दस्य अवधारणार्थत्वं, 'स्वगुरुणा' इत्यध्याहृतॆनान्वयं च स्वीकृत्य, स्वगुरुणैव इत्यर्थस्यॊक्तत्वात् । ऎतॆनैव वैष्णवॆन इत्यॆतत् महात्मना इत्यनॆन पुनरुक्तमिति चॊद्यस्यानवकाशः । वैष्णवशब्दॆन वैष्णवकुलं गृहीत्वा, वैष्णवशब्दान्मत्वर्थॆऽचं अङ्गीकृत्य 'वैष्णवॆन' इत्यस्य 'वैष्णवकुलॊत्पन्नॆन' इत्यर्थस्यॊक्तत्वात् ॥
This passage is to justify the meanings he gave for the original verse, and how his meanings avoid the problem of redundancy or unnecessary repetition.
"athavA" indicates the alternative arrangement that one should mudra from one's guru, if he is nearby. And if he is not nearby, one can take it by oneself. By this interpretation (which is given immediately after the verse), "anyena" is not redundant, because anyena refers not just to 'another', but to a verily distinct persona; in essence, to a great person. Also the objection that 'api' in the word, "kenApi" being redundant is answered. Because it means 'only'. By importing the word 'svaguruNA', it means 'only by svaguru'. Also, 'vaiShNava' and 'mahAtmA' shabdas don't make each other redundant. Because the 'vaiShNava' shabda refers to a person born in Vaishnava lineage.
--
Sri Satyaabhinava tirtha's own commentary on these two verses make his conclusion clear. As told earlier, one should get it from one's guru if one's guru is nearby (accessible). And if that is not the case, one can get it from any other exalted vaiShNava, who has vAyu-sannidhAna or put it oneself. This is a very helpful tenet given that the current geographical spread of maadhva community will make it impossible for people to depend only on one yati.
Sri Satyaabhinava tirtha does not directly or explicitly equate 'sva-guru' to 'maThAdhipati of the maTha to which one belongs'. However, he quotes a verse which says that a yati is a guru for grihastha, and for a yati, only other yatis, and not anybody else can be the guru. Neither does he insist that this is mandated for all (because grihastha gurus are also present), nor does he insist that yati there refers to 'one's own maThAdhipati' there too.
Therefore, the insistence that everybody including biDi-sannyAsis (i.e. sannyAsis who are not maThAdhipatis) must get mudra from one's maThaadhipati does not have a basis; definitely not in rAmAmR^itamaharNava. That scholars of yore like Sri Lingeri Acharya, Sri Shrinivasatirtha, Sri Krishnaavadhuuta practiced such a tradition, is an unsubstantiated claim.
Sri Vadiraja tirtha states in his yuktimallikaa that none other than Srimad Anandatirtha is present in the yatis and is giving the mudraa. So it makes no sense to insist on one's own maTha's adhipati.
|| shrI madhveshakR^iShNArpaNamastu ||
॥ श्री मध्वॆशकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ॥