Hell

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

 

I do not believe in any

kind of hell. Rebirth itself is hellish enough,

 

to which Dileepan responded:

 

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.

 

Then cannot this bliss be experienced in hell as well?

If so, what makes it hell? Simply the concept of rebirth,

in a more awful place than this?

 

If this is all, I suppose I can accept it, but there are

extremely awful places to be born on earth itself that

would be just as bad as any hell. What is the therapeutic

value of a hell that just torments people, without a

chance for beginning anew, without a chance for atonement?

At least on earth there are good things that can induce

someone away from bad activities.

 

Desika himself uses logic to understand the nature of God

based on certain principles. I do not believe in ``blind

faith'' without the mind in operation. I am not implying

that you are not using your mind -- just that there is

very often room for logical discussion of such topics

as hell, in spite of literal declarations that declare the

existence of such worlds.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 9 Mar 1996 12:51:23 -0800 Mani said:

>I wrote:

>

>I do not believe in any

>kind of hell. Rebirth itself is hellish enough,

>

>to which Dileepan responded:

>

>>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.

>

>Then cannot this bliss be experienced in hell as well?

>If so, what makes it hell? Simply the concept of rebirth,

>in a more awful place than this?

 

 

These are difficult questions for me to answer

properly due to my limited theoretical knowledge.

As usual I won't let that come in the way of

braving an answer :-)

 

First, my original comment was simply to point out

that our poorvaachaaryaas have accepted and supported

concepts such as "hell" and "heaven", as separate places.

The description of the travel prapannas undertake itself

contains some lessons. It seems prapannas and those

destined to svargaa rendezvous in chandra mandala. The one

on his way to svarga has only his karma protecting him, and

yet he demands to be shown the way to svarga. But, the one

destined to Vaikundam who has the protection of the supreme

Lord Himself, shows humility; he earnestly requests the

guard to show him the way to Vaikundam. I guess I can draw

the proper lessons from this episode without accepting the

words of our poorvaachaaryaas verbatim. But, remember, the

original point simply was whether hell/heaven are concepts

supported by our sampradaya, not whether these concepts sound

logical to us.

 

Now as for what happens in hell, heaven and the assorted

14(?) lOkaas, whether or not our Lord's grace flows into

these places, I really don't know. I am willing to suspend

logic and simply accept poorvaacharyaa's words for several

reasons, including, (1) hopefully I don't have to go to

any of these places ;-), (2) as it is I am happy to suspend

logic and accept the vEdhaas as unchanging truths that simply

came into existance; one more illogical concept won't hurt me

too much, and most importantly, (3) these are secondary

concepts only, primary being bhagavath/bhaagavatha kaingaryam,

and the mental state that prapatti ushers in. I am sure you

agree with at least no. 3.

 

>

>If this is all, I suppose I can accept it, but there are

>extremely awful places to be born on earth itself that

>would be just as bad as any hell.

 

 

This is perhaps why paramapadam is infinitely superior

to this earth. The flip side of your statement is that

there are extremely lovely places on earth that come close

to paramapadam. Thirumangai aazhvaar says "muyalai vittu

kaakkai pin pOvadhE!" (Muyal = bliss that you are already

deriving from archaa moorthies like Sri Rangam, kaakkai =

future bliss in vaikundam) (Crudely put, a bird in hand

is worth two in the bush; again this is very crude analogy.)

Note the allusion that earthly bliss seems even better

than paramapadam.

 

 

 

 

What is the therapeutic

>value of a hell that just torments people, without a

>chance for beginning anew, without a chance for atonement?

>At least on earth there are good things that can induce

>someone away from bad activities.

 

 

Mani, I think you are a little hasty here. The hell

we are talking about is not the Christian kind, eternal.

It is just a place to compensate your bad karma; and a

little pain can be very therapeutic! One does get a chance

for atonement, in the next birth.

 

Let me repeat for good measure what I mentioned at the

beginning, I am simply accepting these notions as

described by poorvaachaaryaas; I don't see any benefit

in trying to apply logic with these.

 

 

>

>Desika himself uses logic to understand the nature of God

>based on certain principles.

 

 

Precisely! Let us apply logic where it matters. In

these instances you don't have to suspend logic to

accept our poorvaacharyaa's words.

 

 

I do not believe in ``blind

>faith'' without the mind in operation. I am not implying

>that you are not using your mind -- just that there is

>very often room for logical discussion of such topics

>as hell, in spite of literal declarations that declare the

>existence of such worlds.

 

 

Okay, how is this for logic, there are a lot of people

who are motivated into good actions/avoid ones out of

anxiety to avoid hell.

 

But personally, this is not the area where I want to

expend my energies to be logical. The discussions we

have had on nature of our Lord's grace and the need for

prapatti, etc. are much more fulfilling and exhilarating,

and I am sure you will readily agree with this.

 

 

 

-- dhaasan Parthasarati Dileepan