Guest guest Posted December 2, 1996 Report Share Posted December 2, 1996 No doubt His grace is the prime cause for salvation, but not begging for it (mOksham) seems a little, I am sorry to say, haughty to me. note that the aazhvaars did not stop with just praising the Lord, but also pleaded for His thiruvadi mOksham, "adikkeezh amarndhu pugundhEnEappOdhaik ippOthE solli vaiththEn", etc., etc. So, it seems to me, pleading for it is quite apt for us. >From my personal experience I feel not asking for something that has already occurred in my mind is a sign of pride. In this context I am reminded of the Thiruppathi Goindhaa story posted here by Sri Sudarshan where the bhaktha was not bashful proclaiming for all the world to hear what he had asked the Lord to give him the previous year. After all is He not "koLLak kuraivilan, vENdiRRellaam tharum vaLLal"? Thank you, Dileepan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 1996 Report Share Posted December 2, 1996 Dileepan wrote: > No doubt His grace is the prime cause for salvation, but not begging for it > (mOksham) seems a little, I am sorry to say, haughty to me. I tend to agree. And I think Mohan may have unknowingly implied something about the position of ManavaaLa MaamunigaL which is not the case. Whether or not one considers prapatti an act in the Vedic sense, prapatti is considered by all acharyas as an act in the colloquial sense. I was recently listening to a discourse on the dvaya mantram by Kanchi Sri P.B. Annangarachariar Swami, who, as many of you know, was a dedicated follower of MaamunigaL (as well as a student and rasika of Swami Desikan's works). He elaborates on the meaning of the word ``prapadye'' (I surrender) in the first sentence of the dvaya mantram. This is quite clearly a ``taking refuge'' with the assumption that the Lord will save the individual. Sri PBA Swami goes on to say that one should do this whenever possible with mind, word, and body -- prostrate before the Lord, say the mantram, and believe in the mantram. Each of these is a good thing and should be done. However, the principal element in the surrender is the mAnasika, i.e., mental element. I don't think Swami Desikan would disagree with this at all, as mahA-viSvAsa (extreme faith) is the most important element of his exposition of self-surrender. The distinction lies in whether even this mental surrender is technically an act. I do not want to engage in a debate over this issue, as it is pointless for us at our level to talk about something so purely technical. Suffice it to say that saraNAgati is something that should be done as one's acharya guides us. The Lord will take care of the rest. adiyEn, Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 1996 Report Share Posted December 2, 1996 As a follow up of Mani's view, I just want to add another UPANISHADIC need for acceptance from all our acharyas that- prapatti has to have a predominant jnana element : Upanisadic texts clearly state that "jnanat mokshaha" - Moksha can be attained through jnana alone. Na anyaha pantha vidyate ayanaya - no other method exists. "tam eva viditva atimrityumeti" - knowing him alone, one can attain moksha. This requirement forces the need for prapatti to be of the nature of jnana. The issue goes one step further, since the general acceptance is that prapatti is "sakrit kartavya" act. ie. to be done once only. This being the case the karma aspect of prapatti becomes evident as a natural overflow of the "surrender" jnana and more importantly, due to the need for such an act to be completed by the help of an "ACHARYA". For this reason, Sri Vedanta Desika, does state in RTS, that prapatti is of the nature of jnana, which should be done once via an acharya, employing either uktinishta or acharyanishta, and is only a vyaja. Otherwise, one can start assuming that, by reading the bhasya on "charama sloka", one can obtain the knowledge of the sambandha jnana between God and us and understand that there is no other means. In this process, the need for an Acharya, is mitigated, but for the fact that such an interpretation came from such an Acharya. I personally do not understand how one can club the need for an acharya, with a "puritan" view that sambandha jnana of God will suffice, for Moksha. I am really trying to understand different view points here, since I know very little regarding different views and counterviews pertaining to prapatti. This becomes a close parallel to the traditional, Visistadvaita-Advaita controversy of - need for upasanatmaka knowledge of brahman, instead of just "vakyartha jnana" ie. or the understanding of words "tatvamasi" alone. I dont fully understand this controversy either, since advaitic view is so diverse in this matter. Note, that upasanatmaka knowledge needs karma as an anga while, vakyartha jnana does not need it. Krishna At 12:12 PM 12/2/96 -0800, you wrote: > >Dileepan wrote: >> No doubt His grace is the prime cause for salvation, but not begging for it >> (mOksham) seems a little, I am sorry to say, haughty to me. > >I tend to agree. And I think Mohan may have unknowingly >implied something about the position of ManavaaLa MaamunigaL >which is not the case. Whether or not one considers prapatti >an act in the Vedic sense, prapatti is considered by all >acharyas as an act in the colloquial sense. > >I was recently listening to a discourse on the dvaya mantram >by Kanchi Sri P.B. Annangarachariar Swami, who, as many of you >know, was a dedicated follower of MaamunigaL (as well as a >student and rasika of Swami Desikan's works). He elaborates >on the meaning of the word ``prapadye'' (I surrender) in the >first sentence of the dvaya mantram. This is quite clearly >a ``taking refuge'' with the assumption that the Lord will >save the individual. Sri PBA Swami goes on to say that one >should do this whenever possible with mind, word, and body -- >prostrate before the Lord, say the mantram, and believe in >the mantram. Each of these is a good thing and should be done. >However, the principal element in the surrender is the >mAnasika, i.e., mental element. I don't think Swami Desikan >would disagree with this at all, as mahA-viSvAsa (extreme faith) >is the most important element of his exposition of self-surrender. > >The distinction lies in whether even this mental surrender >is technically an act. I do not want to engage in a debate >over this issue, as it is pointless for us at our level to >talk about something so purely technical. Suffice it to say >that saraNAgati is something that should be done as one's >acharya guides us. The Lord will take care of the rest. > >adiyEn, >Mani > > > Krishna Kalale 619-658-5612 (phone) 619-658-2115 (fax) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 1996 Report Share Posted December 5, 1996 On the topic of the requirement of jnana in prapatti, On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Krishna Kalale wrote: [...] > This becomes a close parallel to the traditional, Visistadvaita-Advaita > controversy of - need for upasanatmaka knowledge of brahman, instead of just > "vakyartha jnana" ie. or the understanding of words "tatvamasi" alone. I > dont fully understand this controversy either, since advaitic view is so > diverse in this matter. Note, that upasanatmaka knowledge needs karma as an > anga while, vakyartha jnana does not need it. Over the years, I have come to the impression that this debate between upasanatmaka and vakyartha jnana would not even be an issue for Sankaracarya. When he analyzes "tattvamasi", it is clear that he intends the seeker to understand more than the words, or just the meaning of the words. Under his analysis, really knowing what "tattvamasi" is, requires much more than what is called vakyartha jnana. The advaitic meaning of tattvamasi is evident in nididhyasana, which might be called upasana. Note that according to advaita, the true jnana is not at the ordinary waking state level at which speech is understood, but at the turiya level. That said, Sankaracarya would deny that nididhyasana is a karma at all, i.e. karma in the vaidika sense. It is not nitya, nimitta or kamya karma. Also, since Sankara wants to maintain both the ontological and episemological primacy of brahman, which is synonymous with jnana for him, he would not accept that brahma-jnana is somehow an effect of nididhyasana/upasana. In other words, upasana constitutes a means (the how) to knowledge, but it is not the reason (the why) for the dawn of jnana. So long as this fundamental issue is kept in mind, I think the whole Visistadvaita-Advaita debate more or less vanishes. Without denying the philosophical differences between the two systems, as far as the place of upasana is concerned, we seem to be trying to say the same thing in different ways. Am I missing something important here? Namo Narayanaya, Vidyasankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.