Discussion of grace

[Guest guest]

> MokshA is

> not a goal to be won by effort , but it should come as a gift of God out

> of His grace .

 

If I am not mistaken, this sentence represents the ``opposing

viewpoint'' in S.M.S. Chari's discussion of grace. In other

words, Sri Srinivasa chari is of the opinion that the sentence

above represents the "thengalai" view against which Vedanta

Desika is opposed.

 

I think it should be abundantly clear from my previous post

that Desika himself is emphatic that moksha cannot be "won

by effort", and in this specific instance, all acharyas

of Sri Vaishnavism are agreed. There are countless instances

of Desika ascribing everything from the gift of existence to

final salvation as flowing from God Himself.

 

Making this a focal point of argument is not a correct one.

One can easily play semantic games and say that the everpresent

compassionate nature of the Lord is a "guNa" rather than

"grace", as Krishna K. indicated. I don't think this is a

meaningful distinction, and certainly not one that I find

in Desika's or Pillai Lokacharya's words.

 

In the munivAhana bhogam, Desika's anubhavam of ThiruppaN's

amalan aadhi piraan, he writes that the Lord is "sarvOpakArakan",

always favoring us. Everything from establishing us in

goodness (sat Adi sthApanam) to finally releasing us from

samsAra and giving us the joy of effervescent bliss in the

form of kainkarya or service is a result of His upakAram

or favor. I don't think it matters whether one calls this

upakArakatva grace or part of His nature.

 

This trend to think of moksha as being caused by one's own

effort, or "won" by one's efforts, strikes at the very heart of

Sri Vaishnavism, since it tinges the process of self-surrender

with egoism. It does not matter if selflessness is preached

at the same time, since preaching contradictory things does

no one any good.

 

It is also clear that thinking or theologizing about some

being "deserving" of grace through self-surrender is also

against Sri Vaishnava philosophy. In what sense does someone

deserve the Lord's grace, or deserve moksha?

>From our perspective, it appears that great souls such as

Vyasa, Suka Maharishi, Sanaka, Nammalvar, etc., deserved the

Lord's grace. But this is once again just a matter of

perspective. From their perspecive, which is all the more

relevant since they were farther along the spiritual path

than we are, they felt that nothing they had done or could

do could deserve the grace of the Lord.

 

Ascribing everything to the grace of the Lord is never

an exaggeration; thinking that nothing on our part forces

the Lord to grace us is also no exaggeration. These two

principles, it seems, form the very heart of Sri Vaishnavam.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

At 05:46 PM 5/13/97 -0700, you wrote:

>

>> MokshA is

>> not a goal to be won by effort , but it should come as a gift of God out

>> of His grace .

>

>If I am not mistaken, this sentence represents the ``opposing

>viewpoint'' in S.M.S. Chari's discussion of grace. In other

>words, Sri Srinivasa chari is of the opinion that the sentence

>above represents the "thengalai" view against which Vedanta

>Desika is opposed.

 

 

 

I think this is quoted out of context. A thorough perusal of this whole

chapter makes it clear

.. Quoting only the sentence above :MokshA is

>> not a goal to be won by effort , but it should come as a gift of God out

>> of His grace .

 

will be wrong representation of his ideas. After having discussed with him

several weeks, I am sure his views are not so wrong as to go against the

fundamental principle :

 

Naasti akritah krtena (karmana).... tad vijnanartham gurum evaabhigacchet

srotriyam brahma nistam - the very famous sentence of mundakopanisat which

is the basis for 1st sutra of Bramha sutras. The meaning of this sentence

is : by works one cannot attain Brahman; hence to attain brahman by

knowledge one has to seek it through an appropriate qualified teacher.

 

Sri SMS Chari is not intending that grace is won by effort, eventhough a

portion of the sentence states so. There should be some reason for God's

special grace so as to award a high spiritual status for an aspirant

instead of this ghora-samsara. For that reason an individual effort

becomes a sahakari- or associate cause (not the main cause, since main

cause is God's grace alone). If one reads even the whole of what Sri

Sadagopan has written from SMS chari's books, it will be clear that the

stated view is not intended by him.

>I think it should be abundantly clear from my previous post

>that Desika himself is emphatic that moksha cannot be "won

>by effort", and in this specific instance, all acharyas

>of Sri Vaishnavism are agreed. There are countless instances

>of Desika ascribing everything from the gift of existence to

>final salvation as flowing from God Himself.

>

>Making this a focal point of argument is not a correct one.

>One can easily play semantic games and say that the everpresent

>compassionate nature of the Lord is a "guNa" rather than

>"grace", as Krishna K. indicated. I don't think this is a

>meaningful distinction, and certainly not one that I find

>in Desika's or Pillai Lokacharya's words.

 

I dont understand how grace and guna are separated . Of course Grace is a

guna of Lord only, whether it is common grace or special grace.

>In the munivAhana bhogam, Desika's anubhavam of ThiruppaN's

>amalan aadhi piraan, he writes that the Lord is "sarvOpakArakan",

>always favoring us. Everything from establishing us in

>goodness (sat Adi sthApanam) to finally releasing us from

>samsAra and giving us the joy of effervescent bliss in the

>form of kainkarya or service is a result of His upakAram

>or favor. I don't think it matters whether one calls this

>upakArakatva grace or part of His nature.

 

If Lord is sarvopakarakan, what is the answer to this: why so many

billions of jivas are stuck in this samsara? Is God a tyrant enjoying the

plight of imprisoned souls and still a sarvopakarakan? (that is conflicting

if some form of sahetuka krpa, is not resorted to and one will logically

end up in fatalism or some form of arbitrariness of God.)

 

>This trend to think of moksha as being caused by one's own

>effort, or "won" by one's efforts, strikes at the very heart of

>Sri Vaishnavism, since it tinges the process of self-surrender

>with egoism. It does not matter if selflessness is preached

>at the same time, since preaching contradictory things does

>no one any good.

 

This is a mis-representation of SMS chari's views . He has never meant

that effort wins Grace or effort wins moksa. effort is a vyaja and without

it God can be ascribed as arbitrary or partial to some. I am quite

surprised of such an representation of SMS chari's views, which I happen to

know very well. I even spoke to him today about these views.

>It is also clear that thinking or theologizing about some

>being "deserving" of grace through self-surrender is also

>against Sri Vaishnava philosophy. In what sense does someone

>deserve the Lord's grace, or deserve moksha?

>

>>From our perspective, it appears that great souls such as

>Vyasa, Suka Maharishi, Sanaka, Nammalvar, etc., deserved the

>Lord's grace. But this is once again just a matter of

>perspective. From their perspecive, which is all the more

>relevant since they were farther along the spiritual path

>than we are, they felt that nothing they had done or could

>do could deserve the grace of the Lord.

>

>Ascribing everything to the grace of the Lord is never

>an exaggeration; thinking that nothing on our part forces

>the Lord to grace us is also no exaggeration. These two

>principles, it seems, form the very heart of Sri Vaishnavam.

>

>Mani

>

 

By the way, Mani, Please call SMS chari, 818-348-8182, He may come to San

Jose in a few days. He wants to talk to you before he leaves.

 

Krishna

>

Krishna Kalale

619-658-5612 (phone)

619-658-2115 (fax)

[Guest guest]

Let me hasten to state at the outset that I did not

mean to imply that S.M. Srinivasa Chari thinks that

the effort involved behind SaraNaagati "wins" moksha.

However, from reading his words, it is easy to be

left with that impression, as also with the impression

that the "thengalai" interpretation leaves God as

partial and arbitrary in His graciousness.

 

I am not comfortable with this characterization of

either understanding of prapatti; many modern writers

are not careful enough with their words, leaving readers

with the wrong impression of the original philosophers' ideas.

 

For example, I have an English translation of Srimad Rahasya

Traya Saaram wherein the translator repeatedly uses the phrase

"winning God's grace." In Swami Desika's original words, there is

no hint of "winning"; Desika uses the word "hetu", but never

is there even a hint of "winning" or "earning" grace. We

are best advised to be as careful when we discuss this topic

ourselves.

 

Krishna writes:

> If Lord is sarvopakarakan, what is the answer to this: why so many

> billions of jivas are stuck in this samsara? Is God a tyrant enjoying the

> plight of imprisoned souls and still a sarvopakarakan? (that is conflicting

> if some form of sahetuka krpa, is not resorted to and one will logically

> end up in fatalism or some form of arbitrariness of God.)

 

We have covered this ground before. According to all acharyas,

irrespective of kalai, a vyAja opens the door for the operation

of the Lord's grace, when before it had been shut by the jIva.

No Sri Vaishnava acharya that I know of has denied volition on

the part of the jIva. The debate between the acharyas themselves

is only whether the mental affirmation of the Lord as upAya

should be called an action or not -- and this is a very subtle

issue that is not worth discussing at this point.

 

My point is this: when our acharyas have agreed on nearly

everything, save subtle nuances of understanding regarding

SaraNaagati, why do we still imply that one acharya's philosophy

is fatalistic, and the other commercial?

 

In any event, it is not I who said that the Lord is

"sarvopakArakan". It is Swami Desikan himself who specifically

says that everything from placing the hint of goodness in us

to the gift of kainkarya all results from His favor. Now, if

we out of our own ego and God-given freedom push all His favors

aside and refuse to accept His grace, the fault lies with us, not

with Him.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

At 12:04 PM 5/16/97 -0700, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>

>Let me hasten to state at the outset that I did not

>mean to imply that S.M. Srinivasa Chari thinks that

>the effort involved behind SaraNaagati "wins" moksha.

>However, from reading his words, it is easy to be

>left with that impression, as also with the impression

>that the "thengalai" interpretation leaves God as

>partial and arbitrary in His graciousness.

>

>I am not comfortable with this characterization of

>either understanding of prapatti; many modern writers

>are not careful enough with their words, leaving readers

>with the wrong impression of the original philosophers' ideas.

 

I would definitely not put Sri SMS CHari into this category of writers. I

feel that he puts in hundreds of hours to correct and re-evaluate what he

has written. I know it first hand, since I really spent so much time to

enter in "the Philosophy of Brahmasutras - a comparitive evaluation

according to Samkara, Ramanuja and Madhva".

 

Further, I dont think many people realize how hard it is to come up with a

book and write exactly what one thinks on the subject.

>

>For example, I have an English translation of Srimad Rahasya

>Traya Saaram wherein the translator repeatedly uses the phrase

>"winning God's grace." In Swami Desika's original words, there is

>no hint of "winning"; Desika uses the word "hetu", but never

>is there even a hint of "winning" or "earning" grace. We

>are best advised to be as careful when we discuss this topic

>ourselves.

 

 

I feel that one should not give deep importance to semantics. If one starts

doing that, see what happens; let's take Sri Ramanuja's words in Sribhasya.

In the context of explaining "yam eva esha vrunute teneha labyah....", he

states " Tad vaseekaranam tat sharanagatireva" - by the way the only

statement in Sri bhasya which talks about "prapatti".

 

The actual translation of this is : "to overpower or control Lord, one has

to surrender to him". Watch the word "vaseekaranam" this is like to keep

Lord in control or over power him, literally.

 

 

One could take offence at Sri Ramanuja's words and state that this amounts

to manipulating God and why is such a language used? etc.

 

I am sure and so are all of you that Sri Ramanuja did not mean it in a

wrong way. This is again semantics and language issue.

 

This being the case, one should try to get the bottomline and view point of

an author instead of nitpicking on words. Let us contemplate well on deep

truths rather than these superficial issues. Furthermore, to be honest,

even in laukika life language, one uses, even while speaking, generally

cannot transmit the same amount of information intended by a person.

 

Many things are beyond words. Some are beyond mind too.

 

Adiyen Krishna Kalale

 

Krishna Kalale

619-658-5612 (phone)

619-658-2115 (fax)