bhakti vs prapatti

[Guest guest]

Krish says:

The ritualistic aspects, bottu, satari and so on can be compared

to the srate of getting into acceptable groups.

 

I used to wonder at the

magnificence of ritual in the Catholic church and then the simplistic worship

in the Assembly of God. Then I marvelled at the worship in Guruvayoor and in

Krishna Mutt. Why all this opulence and ritual?

 

But the answer is simple

really. We wear the mundu, dhoti, or sari. we put on the tilak or bottu, we

go to the temple and participate in the magnificent ritual because all these

are designed to focus our mind on the Supreme. Wearing the business suit etc

is designed to focus our mind on the material aspect of our life.

 

 

Spiritual life is different to material life. Our whole purpose in this life

is to focus our mind on the Supreme so we can attain Him at death. To help

us do this the rituals etc. are designed to forcefully bring our

consciousness away from the mundane and focus it on the Supreme.

 

Perhaps

this is too simplistic a way to look at things!

 

Regards

Ramadas

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 19 Oct 95 01:25:10 UT Ramadas said:

>>Jaganath says:

>>One does not offend a Bhagavata or one who is very dear to

>>the Lord. The only other act that could make the Prapatti ineffective is

>>worship of any Devata that has His or Her loka within this material world.

>>This includes Shiva and His family, Brahma, Saraswatri etc.

>

>So, am I wrong

>in coming to the conclusion from reading this that if one offers the lamp,

>not only to Lord Govinda, but out of respect to also Shree, Ganesha, Lakshmi,

>Saraswati, Garuda, Mukhyaprana and the guru, then prapatti is ineffective and

>I am destined for rebirth?

>

>If this is the case, should I remove Shree and

>Ganesha from the peetum, and also the photo of the guru? Is this what he is

>inferring to be the right path?

 

 

It is my understanding that *no matter what,* prapatti

will not fail. After performing prapatti if one

strays, our Lord will correct you and save you, as

Azvaar says "thiruththi paNi koLvaan."

(thiruththi = make right)

 

As for other dhEvathaa, I think we must differentiate

between Lakshmi (Sri) and some of others you have mentioned.

Swami Sri DhEsikan says, "kadi malaraaL piriyaadha

.... aruLaaLar," (Our Lord is never separated

from Lakshmi) Even as Vamanan, a brhamachari, our Lord

did not separate from thaayaar (Lakshmi); had her

concealed in his heart. Further, it is with the

recommendation of Lakshmi that we approach our Lord

for prapatti.

 

Same goes for guru, as it is the guru who gives

you spiritual life. Again quoting Swami Sri dhEsikan,

"ennuyir thanthu aLiththavarai niRai vaNangi,"

the first praNaam is to the guru who has given

us our (spiritual) life (en uyir).

 

Similarly, nithyasoories like Garudaazhvaar, AncanEyar,

VisvaksEnar, etc. are to be revered.

 

 

-- Dileepan

[Guest guest]

Parthasarati Dileepan writes:

> On Thu, 19 Oct 95 01:25:10 UT Ramadas said:

> >If this is the case, should I remove Shree and

> >Ganesha from the peetum ...

 

[...]

> As for other dhEvathaa, I think we must differentiate

> between Lakshmi (Sri) and some of others you have mentioned.

> Swami Sri DhEsikan says, "kadi malaraaL piriyaadha

> .... aruLaaLar," (Our Lord is never separated

> from Lakshmi) Even as Vamanan, a brhamachari, our Lord

> did not separate from thaayaar (Lakshmi); had her

> concealed in his heart.

 

Swami Desikan also implies that Lakshmi is the personification

of the Lord's mercy -- ``karuNaam iva rUpiNIm.'' Thus, there

is no real difference between Narayana and Sri; one cannot conceive

of one without the other. Sri Desikan also writes about Rama,

``prabhaavaan sItayaa devyaa'' -- Rama is effulgent through

his association with Sita. The rays of the sun are how we

come in contact with its brilliance, but are yet inseparable

and eternally associated with the sun. Similarly, the Lord's

dayaa is eternally part of him, and through this grace we

experience him.

 

Mani