Muslim invasions and other mysteries

[Guest guest]

Mani wrote:

The person of wisdom, however, is aware of the

true nature of these actions and objects and does not

get personally affected by them.

End of quote:

 

There is scope in this statement in the context of what what was

written before it to confuse material detachment with spiritual

detachment. As one progresses spiritually one fails to bother about

loss of wealth and other things not connected with Narayana. But it

will only be the materialistically attached person who will remain

spiritually detached when Narayana's devotees have been slaughtered,

and Narayana's kainkaryam has been interrupted. E.g. The Ramayana

was being narrated to Kulasekhara Azhwar nearly two million years

later (even those who dispute the time of this event will not

disagree that Kulasekhara Azhwar lived much after the Ramayana time).

Suddenly Kulasekhara Azhwar got up and ordered His army to prepare

for war. When a perplexed general asked the King why was there a

preparation for war, Kulasekhara Azhwar replied: "We are going to

help Rama fight the Rakshasas in Lanka." Attachment to Narayana is

the perfection of spiritual existence and His pure devotees act in

ways that are incomprehensible to the average person.

 

None of this is intended to contradict Mani's conclusion that we

should not be judgemental.

 

Only the place where Sita stayed in Lanka was called Ashoka Vana.

Shoka means mourning or grieving. Ashoka means where there is no

grief or mourning. Hanuman burnt most of Lanka ashes except Ashoka

Vana. The remaining Rakshasas were killed in battle. Yet these

people who lost their property or kith or kin did not directly harass

Sita in the way the Rakshasis did in Ashoka Vana. Yet when Trijata

(one of the Rakshasis) condemned the rest of the Rakshasis for

behaving in the way they did and did Prapatti on her own behalf as

well as on behalf of the other Rakshasis, these people alone were

saved. In the same way a prapanna displaying negative qualities is

superior to a person leading a "normal good life". One can never say

when someone will have the Bhagyam of getting Prapatti amd what kind

of person Narayana will consider fit to give Moksha. Dasharatha was

never good to Kausalya, yet Rama was born to him.

 

Jaganath.

[Guest guest]

On Sunday, 28 January 1996 2:51pm ET Jaganath said:

>

>...... In the same way a prapanna displaying negative qualities is

>superior to a person leading a "normal good life". One can never say

>when someone will have the Bhagyam of getting Prapatti amd what kind

>of person Narayana will consider fit to give Moksha. Dasharatha was

>never good to Kausalya, yet Rama was born to him.

>

 

 

I am unable to accept an absolute statement of "superiority."

Perhaps that was not meant here. Spiritual association with

Vaishnavas, even with some blemishes, is preferable *for us*,

compared to association with persons who are antagonistic

to Sriman Narayana but otherwise good. But the later individual

is not any less lovable for Sriman Narayana, is it not?

Therefore, this individual, in the absolute sense, is not

inferior to any one and is assured of mOksham one day or

another. Then, all jivas, the ones who are already

adiyaars and the ones who are destined to become adiyaars

one day or another, should be respected. This, it seems to

me, is the social message of Sri Vaishnavam.

 

 

 

 

-- pd