Balance in the paradox

[Guest guest]

I have been thoroughly enjoying this very interesting set of discussions on

Nirhetuka and Sahetuka Krpa, and have learned a great deal from the erudite

group involved in this. At the early stages of these discussions, I had the

opportunity to engage in two consecutive telephone conversations, one with

Mr. Kalale and the other with Varadhan, that further accentuated my interest

in this complex issue. Based on all of these, I would like to share a few

thoughts that I have been pondering this past week.

 

Mani had presented a very poignant concept, which was furthered by Mr.

Sadagopan, that nirhetuka and sahetuka krpa are not diametrically opposed,

but indeed, are mysteriously and subtly intertwined as to mutually

compliment each other in some sense. I support such a view, for I contend

that looking at Grace in this way tempers either extreme, creating a

delicate balance between the Lord's Compassion and the devotee's desire to

realize Him. To elaborate:

 

One concensus that seems to have emerged out this discussion is that both

Swami Desikan and Pillai Lokacharya would concur that some vyajam, or

pretext, is required to "open the floodgates" to the full realization of the

Lord's Unfathomable Grace. While I do not disagree with this, I am

concerned that overemphasizing its requirement could make our limited human

nature tend to focus on the pretext, rather than on His Grace. We would

begin to ask ourselves, "what is this pretext exactly? Is it a specific

ritual? Am I qualified to perform it? Whatever it is, I've got to find it,

so that I can invoke His grace. And once it is complete, how do I know that

I have done it right? How do I know that I have His Grace?" On and on,

possibly to the point that our reliance on Him becomes muted by the fears

and worries associated with our self-efforts.

 

This is where the nirhetuka krpa concept plays its tempering role. By

realizing that the pretext is a result of the Lord's Grace, and that our

seeming self efforts are virtually irrelevant before the real Upaya, the

Lord Himself, the fears, worries, and needless thoughts are mitigated,

allowing the prapannan to fully rely on the Lord alone as the Upaya and Upeya.

 

It is my view that the relative unimportance of the pretext becomes enhanced

by the idea that the Lord, out of His unbounded desire to save, can even use

accidental deeds as pretexts for Grace. Sri Vachana Bhushanam has several

interesting anecdotes which illustrate how even the most accidental contact

with the Lord or a Bhagavatha can save a soul, whether or not an individual

is aware of this action or its beneficial results.

 

But, once we start going to the other extreme, having such doubts as, "if

the Lord requires little or nothing to reach Him, then why am I doing all

these aradhanais and karmas; if all is the result of His Grace, then why are

so many people still bound in samsaram; if the Lord's grace is uncaused,

then he must be partial, etc.," the sahetuka idea of the need for a pretext

brings us back to balance.

 

It is certainly a delicate balance to maintain, and it really does not

completely resolve the issue. But, maintaining this seemingly paradoxical

notion creates a more temperate climate that I believe would reduce the

ritualistic, do X to gain Y, idea of pretext while mitigating the notion of

the arbitrary nature associated with uncaused grace. I think it would also

further the idea that the pretext is not a specific act, per se, but an

emotional experience - a realization of the Lord's protection that, in

reality, is always there for us.

 

Daasanu Daasan,

 

Mohan

[Guest guest]

Mohan Sagar wrote:

> But, once we start going to the other extreme, having such doubts as, "if

> the Lord requires little or nothing to reach Him, then why am I doing all

> these aradhanais and karmas; if all is the result of His Grace, then why are

> so many people still bound in samsaram; if the Lord's grace is uncaused,

> then he must be partial, etc.," the sahetuka idea of the need for a pretext

> brings us back to balance.

 

We do not do aaraadhanai as a vyaaja. We do aaraadhanai to Him as

kainkaryam.

Even in this samsaaram, the Lord has given us the opportunity to think

of Him and

perform kainkaryam to Him and His devotees. Is that not grace?

 

 

 

Varadhan