"Do we need to ask/beg Him?"

[Guest guest]

srimathE sri lakshmi-nrsumha parabrahmaNe namaha

sri vedanta desika guravE namaha

 

Dear bhAgavatOttamas,

 

On this subject I have had a private encounter with another member, Sriman

Sundar who is a great and devout scholar by all accounts. Now he took me to

task on my views of "sabhari-moksha-sakshi-bhutha" and "cross-examined" me

very thoroughly in a "trial proceeding" held "in camera".

 

He has now given me permission to make public the "trial proceedings" which

you may all also now watch.

*************************************

 

At 7:09 PM 12-03-96, M K Sudarshan wrote:

>

>"avandhya-mahima munijana-bhajana-mushita-hrudaya kalusha shabarimOksha

>sAkshi-bhuta !!"

>

>The above shloka of Swami Desikan describes clearly that the Lord merely

>"witnessed" the event of Sabhari attaining "moksha" : "sabarimoksha

>sAkshi-bhutha !!". Swami Desikan, the "kavi-simham", here does not use the

>Sanskrit equivalent of "Sabari attained "moksha"" or "sabari was granted

>"moksha"'. Desikan specifically employs the expression "sAkshi-bhuta" !!

>implying that Rama was mere "mute witness" to Sabari attaining "mOksha" !

 

 

Dear Sri Sudarshan,

 

This is a fascinating viewpoint which had never occurred to me before!

Thank you for your analysis!

 

For the purposes of "rasa", allow me to play your private devil's advocate

in this matter.

 

I will go to Sri Bhattar's Bhashyam of the Vishnu Sahasranamam to cite my

backing.

 

The first time we encounter the naama "sakshi" in the VS, it is in the shloka :

 

"pootaatma paramaatmaa ca muktaanam paramaagati:

avyaya: purusha: saakshi kshetragnyo a-kshara eva ca"

 

 

Sri Bhattar specifically states, of the name "muktaanaam paramaagati:" that

the following five names are qualifiers, or extol this name muktaanaam

paramaagati:. This firmly establishes Sriman Naarayana as the ultimate and

best destination (paramaagati) of liberated souls (muktaa:). Even Sri

Sankara says this name means " We need reach no other Devatas but Him. Who

reaches him never returns to samsaara". This is indeed a name to conjure

with.

 

For avyaya:, Sri Bhattar gives : Whom the muktas never part from

 

For puruSha : Who gives in plenty. Who gives muktas the great joy of being

interested in, or enchanted by (we have the thamizh word "eedupaadu" here)

the manifestations of his forms and natures.

 

For saakshi : Who happily witnesses the joy that muktas get from his giving

them that "eedupaadu" and the joy that comes from that.

 

So Sri Rama is the Saakshi Bhuta, but he is Saakshi, witness, the the joy

that came to Shabari from being a Muktai from the interest he gave her in

his kalyaanaguNagaNas and the roopanaamavibhavam.

 

He is merely witnessing what he created, is it not ?

 

In the second instance, where saakshi appears,

 

"jeevo vinayitaa saakshi mukundo amitavikrama:

amBHOnidhiranantaatma mahaa dadhishayontaka:"

 

In this verse, the first four names hing on the last naama of the previous

verse, "saatvataam pati:"

 

"saatvataam pati:" : Saatvikas are those great ones who know the

parabrahmam valled sattva. He makes the paancharaatra shaastra flourish,

that spells out the karmas that saatvikas would do well to follow. He

saves those saatvatas, or bhaagavatas.

 

"jeeva:" He makes those bhagavatas well and truly alive because they

worship him (presumably, according to the abovementioned paancharaatra

shaastras). He cannot stand it if they suffer.

 

"vinayitaa" : He guards, supports, protects and nourishes thos ebhagavtas

as if they were princes!

 

"saakshi" : He witnesses and sees their exceptional conduct and acts (which

is their unequalled fortune and joy of worshipping Him )

 

"mukunda" : He is the only devata they worship (following the paancharaatra

shaastram), and He grants them mukti.

 

So, from the qualifications of the naama saakshi in both these cases, I

would argue that mukti or moksha is Sriman Narayana's to give out of his

great daya and priya for us. It is he who gives us "eedupaadu" in him, He

who has given us the shaastra to guide our karma, he who witnesses us

following that karma and being made happy by it, He who protects us like

princes in the performance of the karma, and He who gives us the fruit of

that karma, which is mukti.

 

If he is saakshi bhuta fo the Shabarai Moksha, that shows he is taking

great joy in witnessing what his creation sulminated in.

 

With my regards,

 

Sundar

 

PS : The translations are from Mahomahopaadhyaya M. V. Ramanujacharyar's

thamizh Mahabharatam. The VS Bhashyam was published separately as a volume

extracted from th Aanushaasanika parva.

*************************************

Dear Sriman Sundar,

 

Thank you for your message. I read your other postings on the group and find

them very educative.

 

It is always a pleasure to hear someone use the Vishnu-sahasranamam, as you

have so wonderfully done. In a discussion/debate of 'sat-vishayam', much

like in courts of law, honourable judges are known to always have a

"soft-corner" for advocates (even the ones holding brief for the "devil"!!)

who advance clear arguments derived from the "Statute of EVIDENCE" rather

than quoting copiously from several "case-laws" or precedents from

subordinate judicial councils. Arguments based on categorical EVIDENCE make

a judge's job so much easy whereas case-laws and precedents only give him a

hard time in deciding, involving as it does pouring and agonizing over a

heavy load of legal literature !!

 

So in this matter your "arguments" based on the Vishnu Sahasranamam are so

strong that there is no need for further 'trial proceedings' ! Sentence can

be passed right away and here it is :

 

Your point that it is the Lord who actually turned Sabhari into a

"paramEkAntin" and hence simply and affectionately "witnessed" her take

"mOkshA" out of His hands, as it were, is incontrovertible. After all one

can hardly expect the Lord to do any the less than "witness", with unbounded

pleasure, the scene of a 'parama-bhaktha' of His like Sabhari "grab"

"moksha" from His Hands, since as per the Vishnu-Sahasranamam again (Nama

#353 shloka #38), He is "MahAkshah:" or the "ONE with Many Glorious Eyes" !!

(Voila ! The judge too is now beginning to quote from the same source as the

advocate!!)

 

The point is, dear Sri.Sundar, I am not an "accused" here. You've caught an

innocent bystander (an ordinary "sAkshi"!) and are making him out to be a

"devil" merely because he pointed out to a poetic masterstroke of Swami

Desikan in his "Raghuveera Gadyam" which gives us all a wonderful clue as to

how to realistically and meaningfully interpret "prapatti" without getting

lost in semantic hair-splitting of the sort involved in questions we keep

posing ourselves such as "should we ask Him or not?".

 

Indeed, Sri Sundar, please tell me, if we all did and ever could become

"paramEkAntins" like Sabhari would that Great Lord have any objections to

our "grabbingmokshA" out of His Hands ? Would He not be happy to stay a

"mere witness" to that farcical, and yet endearing, act of ours ?

 

I think my posting is being grossly misunderstood again !! It is a pity.

 

If you don't mind why don't we share this correspondence we have had now

also on the "bhakthi-list" so that not only will others know how thorough

and probing the "devil's advocate" has been in his investigation but also

how innocent an "ulpa-sAkshi-bhuta" like me (bystander) has been needlessly

misunderstood. The record of "in camera" proceedings will then show that I

made a fairly good job of defending myself. And charges therefore may be

summarily dropped against the accused !!

 

OK ?

 

Regards,

sudarshan

****************************************

Dear Sri Sudarshan,

 

 

Thank you for your reply =) To indulge in more 'semantic hair splitting', I

termed *myself* the devil's advocate here. To you goes the credit and

puNyam of making me even think about this subject =)

 

So if you are the "alpa sakshi" then you have given an excellent witness'

account of Sriman Narayana's acts - even if it is hearsay from the

Kavitaarkikasimham's poetic masterstroke. So there is no question about

your reliability or excellence as a witness =) The Court commends you!

>Indeed, Sri Sundar, please tell me, if we all did and ever could become

>"paramEkAntins" like Sabhari would that Great Lord have any objections to

>our "grabbingmokshA" out of His Hands ? Would He not be happy to stay a

>"mere witness" to that farcical, and yet endearing, act of ours ?

> I think my posting is being grossly misunderstood again !! It is a pity.

> The record of "in camera" proceedings will then show that I

>made a fairly good job of defending myself. And charges therefore may be

>summarily dropped against the accused !!

 

You are absolutely right in this respect, and the misunderstanding is mine.

The Lord's attitude at this point is like one after watching a child crawl,

when the child finally gets up to walk and takes a fruit from its mother's

hands. The pride and joy she would feel at this is indeed, unbound, and she

would be happy to "merely" witness it after supporting her child's first

hesitant steps, even though she has been "holding out " this fruit to the

child since the child recognized the fact that the fruit was sweet.

 

However, allow me to disagree with you in the fact that it was a pity that

your posting was misunderstood. Your posting fascinated me and prodded me

to the effort of thinking about this sat-vishayam.. This credit goes

entirely to you. I remember a while back, someone wrote about a taxi driver

who drove so recklessly that his passengers called on God often, and that

puNyam accrues to the taxi driver for bringing about that. Let this be in a

similar manner, to your credit. Of course, I wouldn't dream of implying

recklessness on your part. Rather, as I started out thanking you, I feel a

sense of gratitude.

 

Please feel free to share whatever portions of the correspondence you see

fit with the list.

 

With my regards,

 

Sundar

***************************************************************

srimathE lakshmi-nrsumha parabrahmaNE namaha

sri vedanta desika guravE namaha