DEWAGAM STOTRA (APTA
was a great acharya of the second Vikram Century. He is famous as the
first writer of adoration verse. He has written many stotras full of deep
logic. Dewagam Stotra is incomparable and is also called Apta Mimansa,
wherein a thoughtful discussion on Apta (the real God) has been reported.
Acharya Samant Bhadra wrote a commentary named 'Gandh Hasti Mahabhasya' on
the Tatvartha Sutra (Moksha Shastra) of Umaswami. This Dewagam Stotra is
the benedictory verse of Gandh Hasti Mahabhasya, in the context of the
same of Tatvartha Sutra.
Many serious and
spacious commentaries in Sanskrit have been written on this stotra,
amongst which, the Ashta Shati of Acharya Aklankdeo with eight hundred
verses and the Ashta Shahastri of Acharya Vidyanand with eight thousand
verses are very famous. This stotra has one hundred and fourteen verses.
It is not possible to give them here. Its meaning is also very complex and
this is no place for its exposition. The first sixteen verses are
reproduced here as sample. The stotra and its commentaries need studies in
The subject matter of
the stotra is to clarify the chief characteristics of the Apta in the
style of adoration verses. This has been written as an irony. Acharya
Vidyanandi writes explaining the irony .-
"It is as if Bhagwan (Apta)
himself asked Samant Bhadra why Acharya Uma Swami in his great scripture
Tatvartha Sutra has adored him without describing His great attributes,
when such attributes are present in countless numbers. Samant Bhadra wrote
this Dewagam Stotra in answer to this question.
DWAGAM STOTRA (APTA MIMANSA)
Oh God ! you are not
great in my vision, only on account of the facts that gods from the heaven
come to have your Darshan, that you move in the sky and that you are
adorned with whisks and divine umbrellas; for all these are seen in an
illusive being also.
In the same manner
external and internal embellishments of the physical form etc., though not
found in illusive beings, are found in heavenly beings, having attachment
and other passions. On account of these also you cannot be great in my
Your greatness does not
hold good, because you are the basis of all scriptural knowledge and a
propagator of the religion, because there are many writers of religious
scriptures and propagators of religious sects and communities and the
utterances of all these are generally mutually contradictory.
Oh Lord! your greatness
lies in omniscience and complete detachment. Omniscience and complete
detachment are not impossible of achievement.. The complete elimination of
delusion, attachment and aversions and other blemishes and non-existence
of Gyanawaran and other Karmas are possible, because their progressive
elimination is seen. Just as in this world impure gold-stone with the help
of fire becomes pure, discarding all internal and external impurities, in
the same way with the fire of meditation of the pure operative
consciousness, a soul can be free from its blemishes and become omniscient
and completely detached.
Very small atoms etc.,
internal attachments etc. and distant substances like Mount Meru are the
objects of vision of some being; because they are known by inference. All
those that are known by inference are actually seen by somebody. Just as
we infer by the presence of smoke the existence of fire, somebody sees the
actual fire also. Likewise if we know the subtle, internal and distant
objects by inference, somebody can know them directly. This way the
existence of an omniscient being is proved.
Oh Bhagwan! that
omniscient and detached being is yourself, because your voice is without
any contradictions as is clear from the scriptures and logic.
Those who are burning
with the fire of the pride of being Aptas or Omniscient Beings, that is,
those who have thought themselves to be Aptas, though in fact they are
not, are quite distant from the nectar of multifacedness of things, as
propounded by you, and believe that their wrong beliefs are true. In
reality, they cannot be regarded as Aptas, for the nature of things as
propounded by them is antagonistic.
Oh Lord, those who are
in the grip of the ghost of single-facedness, are enemies of themselves
and others, because in their opinion there is no systematic other world
etc., and merit and demerit karmas.
Oh Lord, if we accept
the exclusive existence of the substances, we will have to uphold that
there is nothing like non-existence. If we don't accept non-existence of
things, all the substances will become universal and eternal, having no
separate existence of any, which is not acceptable to you.
If we accept the
non-existence of Praagabhava (absence of the present modification in the
former one of a substance), all the manifestations of substances will
become eternal. Likewise if we don't accept Pradhvansabhava (non-existence
of the present modification in the future modification of a substance),
all the modifications of all the substances will be without an end.
If we don't recognise
Anyonyabhava (which shows that the present modification of a matter
substance cannot disturb at all the present modification of other matter
substances), all the visible matter substances will assume one shape only,
in the present; and if we do not recognise Atyantabhava (complete
non-existence of one substance into the other) all the substances will be
eternally one and will not be able to be described.
How will the
Abhavaikantwadies establish their own opinions and find fault with those
of others, in the absence of the reliability of consciousness and speech,
if existence is treated as altogether non-existence ?
If somebody, in order to
save himself from the defects of both Bhavaikant and Abhavaikant accepts
Ubhayaikant, then those, who are against the logic of multifacedness, will
uphold that being mutually contradictory, both will have separate faults
of their own. If somebody to save himself from this awkward situation
accepts Avachayaikant, then a substance will become an object of speech,
by saying that it is really not so.
Oh Lord, therefore, a
substance is from some point of view Sat (existent), Asat (non-existent),
Sat-Asat both (existent as well as non-existent), inexplicable, existent
and inexplicable non-existent and inexplicable and existent non-existent
and inexplicable, respectively. All this is true according to the Sapta
Bhang logic, not absolutely.
Who will not accept the
existence of substance from the Point of view of self-substance,
self-space, self-time and self-manifestation ? Likewise who will
not recognise the non-existence of the substance from the point of view of
other substance, other space, other time and other manifestation ? Every
reasonable man will accept these. If some one does not do so, the godly
scheme of things will stand shattered.
From the point of view
of description step by step, substance is both existent and non-existent (Bhavabhava)
and since it is not possible to express both existence and
non-existence simultaneously, substance is inexplicable from some point of
view. After this the three applications of the Bhangas existent and
inexplicable, non-existent and inexplicable and existent-non-existent and
inexplicable should be followed, as they are from individual point of
Dr. H.C. Bharill