Ekadashi

[Guest guest]

>

> As far as naraka/hell is concerned:

>

> I may have a revolutionary viewpoint here, and I know it

> is not supported by smritis and puranas, though it may

> be supported by the Upanishads. I do not believe in any

> kind of hell. Rebirth itself is hellish enough, and the

> karma is then experienced in a terrible way. Contracted

> jnAna is the worst kind of hell I can imagine, since it

> alienates one from the blissful essence of God.

>

> Mani

>

 

 

I think the Vishnu Puraanaa does mention something similar to

the above view point. However, the fruits (or the punishments)

of the karma are not necessarily linear, i.e. a person who

has sinned (or contributed to negative action) may face

a delayed effect of that action, after two or three births.

 

I do not understand the last sentence. If it is related to the

rest of the text, then contracted jnAna in a previous life does

not carry over to the next life, so in essence one has to

start all over again. My understanding is, only the karma and

results ok karma are accompanied in the transmigration of the

soul and other like jnAna and bhakti die with the body.

[Guest guest]

My comments are strictly about "sin" and pleasing or

angering our Lord.

 

 

 

 

 

On Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:32:58 +0000 (GMT) Anand said:

>

>

>Secondly, as our Acharyas always point out the concept of sin and

>deliverance is not there in our philosophy.

 

 

How would you interpret the Charama slOka?

 

 

 

Srimannarayana is

>personification of love and affection. Even one stray thought about him

>and there is no question of sin. That does not mean we go out and

>deliberately kill someone or do somethings forbidden. Srivaishnava

>philosophy is one of universal love for our lord. We do these things

>neither to please him, for there is no concpet of pleasing or angering

>him;

 

 

Swami Sri Desikar specifies five angaas for Prapatti.

Two among these five are (1) anukoolya sangalpam and

(2) praathikoolyavarjanam. From these one can deduce

that our actions must be such that the Lord will be

pleased with us and not be angered at us. Two actions

that are sure to provoke His anger are (1) not performing

duties that are ordained, and (2) committing bhaagavatha

apachaaram. Bhaagavatha apachaaram is such a great sin

that our Lord will reject the prapatti we do as just duping

and will deny paramapadham.

 

Our sampradayam does accept concepts such as heaven and hell.

If there is nothing called sin, then there is no need for a

place called hell.

 

It is my understanding that in Charama slOka our Lord has

given His word to deliver us from our sins if we surrender

to Him. How can we then conclude that there is nothing

called sin?

 

Since I lack theoretical knowledge my comments may be far

off the mark. If so I seek your forgiveness.

 

 

dhaasan Parthasarati dhileepan

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavathals,

 

I am a new entrant into the group and so I seem to have missed

Jangannath's advance posting about Ekadashi. In future I would also try

to observe.

 

However, I wanted to react to one sentence in that posting about

Ekadashi by Keshava Prasad. It said that (something like this)

"Observance of Ekadshi is ordained by Vishnu to preserve the human race

from the torments of naraka ....Ekadashi is another form of Vishnu

himself chosen by the lord in his mercy to save humans and deliver them

from their sins"

 

This sounds to me like imported from some other religion. First, our lord

Srimannarayana cares not only about human beings but about the entire

universe, all beings etc. The Vatapatrasai, the Viswarupa etc., go to

prove this. So using such "human-centric" words will only belittle the

concept. By using such terms we can attract criticism such as the comment

by Professor Stephen Hawking who argues that in this universe there are

so many permutations and combinantions and human form is only one such

combination. To think that God is like a human or that he works for

saving humans etc., is a limited view of god.

 

Secondly, as our Acharyas always point out the concept of sin and

deliverance is not there in our philosophy. Srimannarayana is

personification of love and affection. Even one stray thought about him

and there is no question of sin. That does not mean we go out and

deliberately kill someone or do somethings forbidden. Srivaishnava

philosophy is one of universal love for our lord. We do these things

neither to please him, for there is no concpet of pleasing or angering

him; nor do we do these things to get deliverance from sins for there is

no sin when we are vaishnavas. There are more reasons why ekadashi has

been prescribed just as so many other practices have been prescribed. But

that is not for deliverance from sin. All our practices are oriented to

promote the satva guna which emanates from anyone who is a srivaishnava.

We all remember the story of Dhanurdas and the beauty of the eyes of

Bhagavad Ramanuja, is it physical beauty of having big eyes? To me that

is the beauty of being a consummate vaishnava. How deep Bhagavad

Ramanuja's love for our perumal can be seen from his taking the

responsibility of thetask left unfinished by andal, of making 108

akaravadisel.

 

Please forgive me for my ignorance if I did not understand the meaning of

keshava prasad's words. But I feel he meant this.

 

Regards

Anand

[Guest guest]

> On Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:32:58 +0000 (GMT) Anand said:

> >

> >

> >Secondly, as our Acharyas always point out the concept of sin and

> >deliverance is not there in our philosophy.

>

>

> How would you interpret the Charama slOka?

>

 

We should clarify the difference between sin and paapa (Sanskrit)

or vinai (Tamil). Sin in English connotes a moral offense against

God that affects the very essence of being. This is a consequence

of Christian conceptions of the polarity of good and evil.

 

In Vedanta, there is no polarity of good and evil. In

Vedanta, particularly in Visishtadvaita Vedanta, there is

a continuous spectrum of jnAna, which is extremely contracted

in those who have a lot of avidya in the form of karma, and

which is infinite in those blessed released jivas enjoying

the bliss of God in parama padam.

 

Paapa is of the form of karma, and does include violations

of Saastra, but is not purely so. There is definitely a distinction

here. In the charama sloka, Arjuna is grieving because he

is unsure as to whether he can ever undertake bhakti-yoga due

to the immense karma that he has accumulated in the form of

paapa, etc. It is *not* a feeling of guilt for violating

``God's law'', but a feeling that he has for so long acted

under the impression that he is the agent, and in doing so,

has accumulated so much karma that he sees no end in sight.

 

At this point, Krishna says, ``Come to me for refuge, don't

give up hope. Your single resolve of sincere SaraNaagati will

unleash the floodgates of My grace and release all your paapas

and clear the path for moksha. I myself will accomplish that

moksha.''

 

Is God ``pleased'' in some simple way by our actions?

Yes and no, but as per my understanding, mostly No. God

cares about the jivas, how they feel, and the beauty

of creation. However, He is also satyakAma, satyasankalpa,

and He has no desires that need to be fulfilled. He has

nothing to gain by anything, and nothing can increase the

bliss inherent in His nature.

 

I also say that He is one small sense ``pleased'', because

He responds to our requests. It does not affect Him

*personally* either way, but the request for protection

causes His irresistible grace to flow, for example. Only

in this sense is He pleased.

 

This should not be thought of as a shop where God is

the shopowner and where moksha can be bought by pleasing God.

The jnAna that consists of prapatti and bhakti should be

practiced because they are in line with our nature, and not

out of seeking favors from God.

 

As far as naraka/hell is concerned:

 

I may have a revolutionary viewpoint here, and I know it

is not supported by smritis and puranas, though it may

be supported by the Upanishads. I do not believe in any

kind of hell. Rebirth itself is hellish enough, and the

karma is then experienced in a terrible way. Contracted

jnAna is the worst kind of hell I can imagine, since it

alienates one from the blissful essence of God.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 7 Mar 1996 16:11:02 -0800 Mani said:

>> On Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:32:58 +0000 (GMT) Anand said:

>> >

>> >

>> >Secondly, as our Acharyas always point out the concept of sin and

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> >deliverance is not there in our philosophy.

^^^^^^^^^^^

>>

I fully agree with your analysis of charama slOka, but

nowhere have you denied the concept of sin and deliverance

from sin! You have pointed out that what we mean by sin is

different from the what is understood as sin by Christians.

You will get no argument from me in this regard. I also

take it, then, that you disagree with Anand's statements

about the absence of the concept of sin, defined differently

relative to Chritianity, in our sampradaya.

 

The most disagreeable part of the above is the claim that

our Acharyas have always denied the concept of sin and

deliverance. This, to me, is completely contrary to fact.

 

 

>

>In Vedanta, there is no polarity of good and evil. In

>Vedanta, particularly in Visishtadvaita Vedanta, there is

>a continuous spectrum of jnAna, which is extremely contracted

>in those who have a lot of avidya in the form of karma, and

>which is infinite in those blessed released jivas enjoying

>the bliss of God in parama padam.

 

 

However we may choose to explain, the bottom-line

is, in either religion, i.e. Christianity and

Sri Vaishnavam, there are some actions that are

considered sinful or paapam, call it bad karma if

you like. If we don't have sin (bad karma) and

just a continuum of characterless action, why should

we have hell and heaven between births? Your views

not withstanding all our Acharyas including Sri

Ramanuja and Swami Sri Desikan have accepted the

existence of such places. Only their views are relevant

here because this discussion is about what our AchAryas

have accepted or denied, not what our opinions are.

 

Coming back to Christianity and us, the main difference,

it seems, is the opportunity to get released from

these sins. Christians believe we get just one crack

at it and if we fail we are condemned eternally. My

understanding of Sri Vaishnavam is that it is just

a matter of time. We get many lives (opportunities)

to evolve and see the light; hence there is no

polarity of permanent evil or good. But to say that

there is nothing called sin and that our actions

neither please or displease our Lord cannot be supported.

If you do believe this to be true, how would you

explain "anukoolya sangalpam" and "praathikoolya

varjanam." How would you explain "parithraaNaaya

saathoonaam ..." How would you characterize the

actions of the "dhushkrthaas"? If the actions of

"dhuskrithaas" do not displease our Lord, why should

He repeatedly come into this world and destroy them?

He can tell the saadhoos, "your actions don't please

me, neither do I get displeased with the actions of

"dhuskkrithaas"; just put up with it until you get

to paramapadam."

 

I am not fully conversant with Thenkalai sampradayaam;

but I think they would say that our Lord's grace will

turn us away from sinful acts, or our Lord's grace

is such that He would not mind our sinful acts.

I don't think they completely deny the existence of

sinful acts, but I will take your word for it :-)

>

>This should not be thought of as a shop where God is

>the shopowner and where moksha can be bought by pleasing God.

 

 

I don't know where you are getting this? I am not aware

of any serious bhaktha who would view our Lord as a

shopkeeper. See below for more.

 

 

 

>The jnAna that consists of prapatti and bhakti should be

>practiced because they are in line with our nature, and not

>out of seeking favors from God.

 

 

Prapatti and bhakthi are successful only because of our

Lord's mercy, not the power of our prapatti and bhakthi.

In that sense, yes, we do seek His favor! If He is a

shopkeeper, there is no price for what He is selling except

our unfettered faith and helplessness.

 

>

>As far as naraka/hell is concerned:

>

>I may have a revolutionary viewpoint here, and I know it

>is not supported by smritis and puranas,

 

I respect your views, but my arguments are

directed against what are claimed to be the

views of our Acharyaas.

 

 

though it may

>be supported by the Upanishads. I do not believe in any

>kind of hell. Rebirth itself is hellish enough,

 

 

Many a Azhvaar and Acharyaas have expressed contentment

with worship of Archaa moorthees. While the bliss of

paramapadam is infinitetly superior, I wouldn't downplay

the bliss that can be experienced in this earth itself.

 

 

and the

>karma is then experienced in a terrible way. Contracted

>jnAna is the worst kind of hell I can imagine, since it

>alienates one from the blissful essence of God.

>

 

From a modern scientific perspective it is hard to

develop literal belief in hell/heaven sin/good deed, etc.

But the point is whether such concepts are accepted/supported

by our sampradaya. The answer, I think, is a resounding

YES. You, and to some extent even I, may question, in our

heart of hearts, some parts of it. But there is no way

I will project my lack of faith upon our dear AchAryas.

 

 

 

-- dhaasan Parthasarati Dileepan