More on Prapatti

[Guest guest]

Mr. Jaganath writes:

 

Performing another Prapatti for a spiritual purpose cannot

immediately be considered to be a lack of faith in the first

Prapatti. If that were the case then Thirumangai Azhwar should have

waited for Bhagavan to have given Him money to build a temple instead

of resorting to the violation of the principles of sAmAnya dharma.

----------------------

 

I am not familiar with the view that Thirumangai Azhwar performed

another

Prapatti to build a temple for the Lord. Within the context

of the Srirangam School, his actions would instead be considered

an expression of kainkarya, which results from the Prapanna's

self - realization as a sesa of the Lord. Consequently, his actions

would be such

that they would be conducive to the Lord's Desires and would be

performed in worshipful adoration of Him.

 

<<<<

I did not say that Thirumangai Azhwar performed another Prapatti.

What I meant was that Yamunacharya's Prapatti was a kainkaryam to the

Lord in the same fashion that Thirumangai Azhwar's looting of the

bridal processions was a kainkaryam. Ramanujacharya was destined to

do all the great things He did in order to promote Srivaishnavism.

The power that enabled Him to achieve all that was the Prapatti

performed by Yamunacharya. Yamunacharya was thus an instrument in

the Lord's hands to bestow Ramanujacharya with kainkaryam, fame and

all possible aishwaryam.

 

In this connection one may note that while Bhima vowed to kill

Duryodhana, it would have been impossible for Bhima to have

accompalished this task, if Krishna had not dirupted Gandhari's

attempts to render her son invincible.

>>>>

It is interesting to note that although many of these actions would

conform to the expectations of the Dharma, some would seem to

challenge it, or as in the Azhwar's case, even go against it.

Another

example of this involve the controversial actions of Vibhishana, who,

after his Prapatti, sides with his own brother's enemy in battle.

>From the perspective of our ordinary understanding of Dharma, this

would be a sin, but as he was a Prapanna, his actions were

undoubtedly

Bhagavad Kainkarya.

 

Daasanu Daasan,

 

Mohan

>From the perspective of any understanding this Vibheeshana's action

cannot be considered a sin. Vibheeshana's actions were a practical

demonstation of the meanings contained in ashtAkshara, dwaya and

charama shlokas.

 

Thirumangai Azhwar's actions could have been sinful, especially since

no one knows how many among those that got looted were bhagavatas.

However His life demonstrated that His Bhakti was so supreme, that He

was ready to commit the greatest of Bhagavata apachAras and go to

hell if necessary, as long as a shelter was provided for His Lord.

That fact that Thirumangai Azhwar is worshipped today shows that one

can take the greatest risk in Sriman Narayana's service, but will

never be the loser for it.

 

Jaganath.