jantus & bandhus

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavathas,

My Namaskarams to one and all. I have returned to India and

am back at work in Bangalore away from my native in tamizhnAdu.

 

[ Sorry. I am sending this response belatedly to the subject post.

Earlier I tried posting this twice but from d address which

didn't go through. Now I am sending this from the d address. ]

 

This is with regard to the recent interesting series of posts

by Sri Sudarsan. This post is really kindling lot of our natural

spiritual instincts. How can the fellow mortals be our saviours

from this samsaric hurricane! The Great Lord Narayana, the Supreme

Brahman alone is the safe haven for us orphans as clearly elucidated

by Sri Sudarsan in the context of Srimad Desikar's kAmAsikAshtakam.

Teachings of Sage Yagnavalkya to his wife is a crystal clear truth

put quite plainly to explain how the jantu's every action has its

own self as the reason and how foolish we can get if we try to

search perfect happiness and peace outside us without directing

our inner Self towards the infinite Narayana (man's refuge) Brahman.

 

With this in mind I think the following para needs a slight/but

crucial change. (I think Sri Sudarsan had only mistyped the para..)

>> "Hear me, O Maitreyi," he says, "a wife is dear to her husband not for the

>> sake of his wife but for the sake of his Self. So is a husband dear to his

>> wife for the sake of her Self. The children too are dear to us not for

>> their sake but for the sake of the Self. So is the case with our love of

>> our sake but for the sake of their Self. So is the case with our love of

>> wealth. We have affection for a person or an entity because it pleases our

>> Self.

>> "What therefore do I mean by all this, my dear Maitreyi?"

 

It could read as,

########

"Hear me, O Maitreyi," he says, "a wife is dear to her husband not for the

sake of him but for the sake of her Self. So is a husband dear to his

wife for the sake of his own Self. The children too are dear to us not for

our sake but for the sake of their Self. So is the case with our love of

wealth. We have affection for a person or an entity because it pleases our

Self.

"What therefore do I mean by all this, my dear Maitreyi?"

########

 

I didn't clearly understand the point that is embedded in the

following para.

 

########

Thus, through the respective "itihAsi-c" instances of Gajendra, Vibeeshana

and Draupadi, the "AchArya-s" firmly establish the doctrinal position of

Vedanta that "the forsaking of/by our "bandhu-s" or "bandham-s"" is a

mortal condition PRECEDENT and ESSENTIAL to the discovery of our real

selves as "akinchinA-s" or "cosmic orphans".

########

 

Why can't a jantu get enlightened by revelations by divine grace and

get the knowledge of his/her/it being a "cosmic orphan" and there are instances

where great atmas are born-realised (eg. Sri Sukha Brahmam, the holy son of

Sage Vyasa, hastAmalakar, disciple of Srimad Sankaracharya). Ofcourse Swami

Desikan and other Acharyas also didn't preach this wisdom after getting

forsaken by their bandhus. Why should the jantu be forsaken by his bandhus

before this wisdom shines in him/her/it ? May be I interpreted the para

literally and am getting confused. I can't resist quoting another great

sage who realised this "cosmic orphanhood" when his relatives forsook him.

The great Sage Valmiki.

 

adiyArkku adiyEn,

chandrasekaran