Category B - Should we ask Him

[Guest guest]

srimathE lakshmi-nrsumha parabrahmaNe namaha

sri vedanta desika guravE namaha

 

Dear bhAgavatOttamas,

 

In our discussions on the question of "Should We Ask/Beg Him?", I had

hypothesised in my very first posting, if you will remember, on Categories

A, B and C.

 

Permit me to say, rather jocularly, that the dust on Category C seems to

have settled down thanks largely to the initiative of our learned friend

Sriman.Sundar !

 

Similarly, thanks to Sri.Andal's phrase,"vAyAl pAdi, mannathinAl sindikka"

in the Tirupavai, it has now become clear that, much like Category A

subjects, we must all indeed "ask, ask and ask again".

 

Which leaves only Category B to deal with. On a very serious note, repeat,

serious note.

 

The two motions of contention in case of Category B, to summarise, are :

 

A. Did the Lord grant "mOksha" to Jatayu in return for the bird having

valiantly resisted Ravana's abduction of "pirAtti" OR,

 

B. Did Jatayu get "mOksha" on the strength of its status as a heroic martyr

for "dharma"

 

Dear bhAgavatOttamas, in examining the relative merits of the above motions

I tread with extreme circumspection because a member has in this case

invoked the views of our Most Revered 44th Jeeyar of the Ahobila Mutt.

 

Let me at the very outset state that, indeed, if the great pontiff did have

any explicit views on the matter we are discussing presently, then, dear

members, there is no iota of doubt that HIS VIEWS will be the FINAL ones and

the most CORRECT ones to accept and embrace.

 

I have not personally heard that great "mahAn's" views but I, as a humble

"mutt sishyA", prostrate at the feet of that member in this group who has

has been fortunate to have heard it directly from that great "achArya" of ours.

 

Let me make it clear, therefore, that whatever I am about to further express

below should NEVER under any circumstance or context be taken as a comment,

direct or otherwise, on the "mahAn's" sentiments. I beseech everybody in this.

 

Having said so much I now venture to examine the above two propositions in

the spirit of PURE ACADEMIC inquiry and not as pursuit of "sAstrai-c"

interpretation.Granting even that Srimad Azhagiyasingar has already

established the correct position on this issue, as the respected member in

this group has reported, surely, dear bhAgavatOttamas, there is no harm in

simply debating this point a little further just to satisfy our own

curiosity much in the manner of harmless, sometimes enlightening, banter

that takes place in Kamban "patti-mandrams" back in Tamil Nadu?! I fervently

believe the great pontiff himself would not mind it since he was himself

alleged to have had a marked predilection for "tarka-sAstram" in his times!!

In any case I consider all our "purvAcharyAs" as far too sophisticated in

their spiritual and intellectual stature to mind little debates of this

sort. Unlike the "mullahs" of Iran as we know them to be in the present day,

our "AcharyAs", both of the past and present, can never be faulted with

encouraging dogmatic posturing.

 

I hope you will all therefore indulge me in this little exercise of

examining the above two motions. Believe me, I have no other ulterior motive

in this other than "bhagavath-guna-anubhavam".

 

I shall therefore proceed to examine the issues related to Category B in my

next posting.

 

srimathE srivan satagopa sri narayana yathindra mahadesikAya namaha

sudarshan

srimathE lakshmi-nrsumha parabrahmaNE namaha

sri vedanta desika guravE namaha