VibhIshaNa saraNAgati

[Guest guest]

My friend read Sri M.A. Venkatakrishnan's answer, posted by

Sri T.V. Venkatesh.

 

In brief, Dr. Venkatakrishnan's points were:

 

(1) Vibhishana argued on pirAtti's (Sita's) behalf when Ravana

kidnapped her. This secured the blessings of pirAtti

remotely.

 

(2) Vibhishana's daughter Trijada consoled pirAtti in the

Asoka Vana and secured her favor. So the whole family

was blessed mentally by pirAtti.

 

(3) She is always present in the thirumArbu (holy chest) of

PerumAL. So she acted as intercessor (purushakAra) from

within the heart of Rama when Vibhishana surrendered to hiim.

 

My friend is not satisfied with these answers. His doubts

are worth reading. Here is his response:

 

------

 

Thanks, Mani, but...

 

Points 1 and 2 ----- Weak.

Point 3 ----- terrible - Maaricha, Khara,

Dhooshana, Trisira and the rest of the 14000 should not have died at

Janasthaana if she was sitting in his thirumaarbu instead of in the

cave where he sent her specifically. Poor RaavaNa and KumbhakarNa

should not have died either. The entire war should not have taken

place!!!!

 

Sorry. Raama still rules.

 

If you get anything any more convincing, I am prepared to

listen. Else, I am prepared to stick to my guns. Maybe it is my

arrogance and pride that is not letting me listen to these reasons. I

am looking for water-tight arguments like the ones they supply for

Hanuman. I am prepared to even accept the aabharaNas as a mediation

principle in the case of Sugriva - but this does not make sense.

 

The Divine Mother is ALWAYS resident on the Lord's Thirumaarbu. Stands

to reason he has no chance to get rid of Ravana and those of his

ilk. If She did not leave his Thirumaarbu even in his incarnation as a

Brahmachaari Vaamana - where is the case when she is out of his

thirumaarbu in his Avataaram as Sri Raama?

 

Sorry. I have to throw a wrench in this argument. According to

Vaalmiki - there is no mention of Seetha-devi knowing anything about

Vibhiishana or even speaking about him. EVen when she speaks to

Hanumaan, there is no mention of Vibhiishana and his goodness -leave

alone granting him blessings. In the entire Sundara-kaanDam, Vaalmiki

makes no mention of the fact that TriJaTa was VibhiishaNa's

daughter. It is mentioned later in the Yuddha- kaaNdam much after the

sharaNaagati is done and gone thru.

 

I'll wait for more. (..)

 

affectionately,

[Guest guest]

Mani Varadarajan wrote:

> If you get anything any more convincing, I am prepared to

> listen. Else, I am prepared to stick to my guns. Maybe it is my

> arrogance and pride that is not letting me listen to these reasons. I

> am looking for water-tight arguments like the ones they supply for

> Hanuman. I am prepared to even accept the aabharaNas as a mediation

> principle in the case of Sugriva - but this does not make sense.

>

> The Divine Mother is ALWAYS resident on the Lord's Thirumaarbu. Stands

> to reason he has no chance to get rid of Ravana and those of his

> ilk. If She did not leave his Thirumaarbu even in his incarnation as a

> Brahmachaari Vaamana - where is the case when she is out of his

> thirumaarbu in his Avataaram as Sri Raama?

 

Aren't we making a big assumption here? We are deciding what is good and

bad for the devotees based on our prejudices. Eg, it has been assumed

that the Lord did not show mercy to Hirnayakasipu, Bali, Ravana and so

on. Just as a washerman beats a cloth to get out the dirt, the Lord also

makes one go through troubles to get rid of the dirt. That is indeed an

act of mercy. Because _we_ think that Ravana went through suffering does

not mean Raavana finally did not benefit. We may take it that the

suffering Ravana went through was homeopathic! Surely it's not up to us

to decide what's the best treatment for Ravana or Bali? When we say "the

Lord's grace", how can the grace exist away or separately from the Lord?

Or is it some fundamental point in SriVaishnava philosophy? If it is I'd

appreciate some quotes from Sri Ramanuja or Sri Desika. Thanks.

 

Rama.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaktas,

 

My friend eagerly read the recent replies and was

very happy to see such a nice discussion started.

(No, dear Madhavakkannan, it is not I who posed

this query; I have nowhere near such an in depth

knowledge of Srimad Ramayanam!)

 

Here is his latest note, with particular reference

to Sri Madhavakkannan's post:

 

----------------------

 

BTW did not mean to be argumentative in the vein of kutarka-vaadam. I

am happy to see Thaayar being defended equally as I am to see my Raama

get his due for his Compassion. But it is no secret that I am partial

to my Raama. I could shout it aloud in public perhaps - Eko Raama

dvitiiyo naasti - na bhooto na bhavishyati. There simply cannot be

anyone remotely like Him.

 

Please tell this Bhaagavata that I did not mean to "brush" aside

arguments with any intention of arrogance or harshness. I was in a

tearing hurry yesterday and still could not keep from responding to

this subject. I was perhaps more terse than necessary in my choice of

words and anecdotes. I apologize. I am working 14 hour days and life

is crazy to say the least.

 

One thing though - I am happy - no - overjoyed to see the last line -

If I can get a bhakta to call down the Lord's ( + Thaayar )'s

blessings simply for asking a question - it is wonderful. I am a

little bit emotional reading this last line especially.

 

--------

[Guest guest]

Srimaan Ramakrishnan wrote:

> Aren't we making a big assumption here? We are deciding what is good and

> bad for the devotees based on our prejudices. Eg, it has been assumed

> that the Lord did not show mercy to Hirnayakasipu, Bali, Ravana and so

> on.

 

The problem with this argument is that we are left

with no teaching whatsoever. We can no longer make

any distinction between the Lord's ability to punish

and the Lord's ability to forgive and protect.

In any case, the cases of Hiranyakashipu, Ravana,

Kakasura, et al, are cited as examples of the Lord

punishing someone for misdeeds; and Vibhishana,

Kakasura (again), Sabari, et al are cited as examples

of His grace. These interpretations are not our

inventions but (a) fall out naturally from the

stories and (b) are how our acharyas have presented

them to us.

 

If everything is an act of mercy, we are essentially

speaking in vacuo. Why differentiate at all between

the times piraaTTi is present or otherwise?

 

In this discussion, we need to keep in mind the assumptions

set forth in the beginning -- that our acharyas have

stated that Srimad Ramayanam is the "SaraNAgati veda",

and that Vibhishana SaraNAgati is the upanishad of this

veda. Another assumption is that our acharyas teach

that Sita (piraaTTi) acts as purushakAra, and without

her blessing and intercession Rama will perhaps have

a tendency to exercise his sovereign right to punish

someone for his misdeeds. The final assumption is

the truths embodied in Sriman Ramayanam are not so

confusing such that we cannot even distinguish between

punishment and grace -- there would be no point for

the "avatAra" of this divine work, then!

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Mani Varadarajan wrote:

> The problem with this argument is that we are left

> with no teaching whatsoever. We can no longer make

> any distinction between the Lord's ability to punish

> and the Lord's ability to forgive and protect.

> In any case, the cases of Hiranyakashipu, Ravana,

> Kakasura, et al, are cited as examples of the Lord

> punishing someone for misdeeds; and Vibhishana,

> Kakasura (again), Sabari, et al are cited as examples

> of His grace. These interpretations are not our

> inventions but (a) fall out naturally from the

> stories and (b) are how our acharyas have presented

> them to us.

>

> If everything is an act of mercy, we are essentially

> speaking in vacuo. Why differentiate at all between

> the times piraaTTi is present or otherwise?

>

> In this discussion, we need to keep in mind the assumptions

> set forth in the beginning -- that our acharyas have

> stated that Srimad Ramayanam is the "SaraNAgati veda",

> and that Vibhishana SaraNAgati is the upanishad of this

> veda. Another assumption is that our acharyas teach

> that Sita (piraaTTi) acts as purushakAra, and without

> her blessing and intercession Rama will perhaps have

> a tendency to exercise his sovereign right to punish

> someone for his misdeeds. The final assumption is

> the truths embodied in Sriman Ramayanam are not so

> confusing such that we cannot even distinguish between

> punishment and grace -- there would be no point for

> the "avatAra" of this divine work, then!

 

Sorry, I don't think I made myself very clear. I shall quote from the

VishhNu purANa (VP). As usual, it is very informative. In VP 4.15, the

question is raised by maitreya how shishupAla attained moxa, while his

previous incarnations rAvaNa and hiraNyakashipu did not attain moxa.

 

There parAshara says:

 

Hiranyakashipu did not recognize vishhNu in his form of half lion-half

man. He says:

 

niratishaya puNyajAtasambhUtametat.h sattvamiti

rajodrekaprerita.nkAgramati ..

 

i.e., though Hiranyakashipu had derived purity from exceedingly good

deeds, his mind was confused by rajas. So because of the intermixture he

attained in his birth as Ravana "only" unlimited power and mastery over

the three worlds (eva-akhilatrailokya-adhikya-dhAriNIM dashAnanatve

bhogasampadam-avApa).

 

A similar reason is given for Ravana also. Though he did many good deeds

he could not attain moxa because his purity was mixed with passion for

jAnakI.

 

As shishupAla, however, at the last moment before he was killed, his

passion and hatred ceased, and he attained moxa, because of his

exceedingly high store of puNya.

 

The death at the hands of Narayana, came to all three not only because

of their misdeeds, but also because of their exceedingly high store of

puNya. Normally when someone makes a mistake he gets punished by some

man-made agency, else maybe by Indra, yama or someone. But these three

had so much puNya that Lord nArAyaNa HIMSELF had to take an avatAra. So,

the mode of their death as much because of their accumulation of puNya

as their pApa. The grace of the Lord (by grace I mean their being killed

by the Lord, which cancelled out their pApa) did not come for free. It

came only because of their good puNya.

 

The story ends with an arthavAda statement about chanting the names of

nArAyaNa. But the VP is quite clear, these three (one?) were puNyavAn-s,

but had their mind tainted by rajas, as soon as that ceased, he got

moxa.

 

So, I never meant to say that no efforts are necessary or any such, in

fact the deaths of these people show that effort should be made to

obtain puNya and a sattvic mind, after which grace automatically

follows. As you can see the VP does not mention any absence of sItA and

so on as the cause. It claerly mentions the absence of a sAtvik mind.

Which brings me to my original question. Is it held as a fact that the

Lord's grace can separate and go away from him? If so I'd like some

references from Sri Ramanuja or Sri Vedanta Desika's writings.

 

Rama.

 

PS: I don't have the time to type up the entire chapter of VP. But, I

think the reference should be helpful.

[Guest guest]

At 07:33 PM 10/17/1998 -0400, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

>

 

[..]

>

>As shishupAla, however, at the last moment before he was killed, his

>passion and hatred ceased, and he attained moxa, because of his

>exceedingly high store of puNya.

>

 

The following is based on adiyEn's understanding

from Swami Sri Desikan's RTS commentary by

Sri Uttamoor Swami. Please feel free to correct

me if it is wrong.

 

MOksha can be attained only when we are completely

free of all the accumulated karmas (paapaa + puNya),

sanchita as well as prarabhdha karma. Thus, puNya is

as much an impediment for attaining mOksha as paapaa.

Using a lowkeeka example, if paapa is a handcuff made

of steel, puNya is also a handcuff, albeit a golden

one. Only by bhakthi yoga or prapatti will the Lord

release the karma and grant mOksha. When we do

prapatti the Lord frees us of sanchita karma and

that part of the prarabdha that has not started

manifesting. From the part that has begun giving

its effect, that part of the prarabdha that

still remains at the end of a prapanna's stay in

his/her body is distributed by the Lord with

all the remaining paapam going to those who

acted against the prapanna and all the puNyam

going to those who acted favorably.

 

Sometime back there was a distraught comment that

the phrase "baddha jiva" sounds very much like

"paavikaLE" of Christianity. Again, it is my

understanding, please correct me if it is wrong,

baddha here means bounded, not _necessarily_ a

sinner. Even the most puNyavaan is considered

baddha as he/she is bounded to suffer or enjoy

the consequences of karma. Some of these baddas

include the present Vasishtar, Siva, Brahmma, and

even Hanuman. If anything, "baddhas" can be thought

of as "karma palanai anubhavippavarkaLE". That

does not sound awful does it?

 

 

[..]

>Which brings me to my original question. Is it held as a fact that the

>Lord's grace can separate and go away from him? If so I'd like some

>references from Sri Ramanuja or Sri Vedanta Desika's writings.

 

 

It is my understanding that the kalyaNa guNas of the Lord are

"apradhak siddhi", i.e. they are inseparable part of the Lord.

Similarly, piratti is also "apradhak siddi" for the Lord.

Piratti is inseparable from the Lord. In Thiruvaaymozhi,

which is thiru + vaaymozi, i.e. divine truth, Azhvaar uses

the adjective "ahalakillEn iRaiyum" for piraatti. Thus,

piraatti is never absent from the Lord, not even for a

fraction of a moment. Conversely, the Lord does not

exist even for a fraction of a moment without piraatti.

Thus, whether it was at the time the Lord killed Maricha,

or when He released Akalikai from her stony prison, or

when He went to Mahabali as a young bachelor, in all

these instances, Piratti was ever present.

 

With this background it is easy to see that one cannot

surrender to just the Lord. There is a difference of

opinion about the role Piraatti plays in prapatti,

not whether or not she plays any role at all. Even here,

there is no difference of opinion with respect to

"purushakarathvam" of Piratti. Arguing about whether

there was Purushakarathvam present or not is like

arguing whether a unicorn's color is white or black.

 

Swami Sri Desikan explains in Srimad RTS, with pramaaNaas

that no one refute, that Piraatti is not only a "purushakara",

but She plays the role of Upaya as well, along with PerumaaL.

 

 

-- adiyEn raamaanuja daasan.

[Guest guest]

Parthasarati Dileepan wrote:

> of steel, puNya is also a handcuff, albeit a golden

> one. Only by bhakthi yoga or prapatti will the Lord

> release the karma and grant mOksha. When we do

> prapatti the Lord frees us of sanchita karma and

> that part of the prarabdha that has not started

> manifesting. From the part that has begun giving

> its effect, that part of the prarabdha that

> still remains at the end of a prapanna's stay in

> his/her body is distributed by the Lord with

> all the remaining paapam going to those who

> acted against the prapanna and all the puNyam

> going to those who acted favorably.

 

But the one difference between puNya and pApa karma is that puNya karmas

can help in purifying the mind, which is essential, is it not? (So can

we say instead of golden handcuffs, handcuffs made of string, which one

can break easily?!) That's what the vishhNu purANa says, though

HiraNyakashipu had attained purity of mind by good deeds it was mixed

with passion. As for bhakti yoga/prapatti, for some it may happen

instantaneously as in the case of shishupAla, depending I suppose on

prArabdha. That's what the purANa also says in effect. At the last

moment he beheld Narayana as he actually is, after forgetting all his

hatred. Can't mean anything else other than bhakti/prapatti.

> the consequences of karma. Some of these baddas

> include the present Vasishtar, Siva, Brahmma, and

> even Hanuman. If anything, "baddhas" can be thought

> of as "karma palanai anubhavippavarkaLE". That

> does not sound awful does it?

 

No, it does not.

 

[ role of Piratti snipped for brevity]

> Swami Sri Desikan explains in Srimad RTS, with pramaaNaas

> that no one refute, that Piraatti is not only a "purushakara",

> but She plays the role of Upaya as well, along with PerumaaL.

 

Thanks for this reference. I was thinking the same myself, how can one

kalyANa guNa separate and go away? Just because sItA was not present

physically I don't suppose we need to think that he can no longer bestow

his grace. Did he not exist at the same time as Rama, Parashurama and

also was present in Vaikuntha? I don't see why the same will not be the

case with laxmI, in fact it seems the same should be the case.

 

Rama

[Guest guest]

At 05:24 PM 10/18/1998 -0400, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

>

>But the one difference between puNya and pApa karma is that puNya karmas

>can help in purifying the mind, which is essential, is it not? (So can

 

This is a complex topic. AdiyEn's understanding could

be flawed, but will dare to present it in an informal

way, with the caveat that it can be properly understood

only under the strict guidance of a proper Acharya.

What follows is based on adiyEn's reading of two

commentaries of Srimad RTS, one by Sri Uttamoor Swamy

and one by Srimad Azhagiya Singar. If anything in the

following is correct, then adiyEn has understood them

correctly. If there are any mistakes then, adiyEn

has not understood them and have misrepresented their

views.

 

Swami Sri Desikan in artha pancaka athikaaram (Chapter 4

of Srimad RTS) describes a group of impediments for

mOksha, i.e. mOksha virOdhi vargam. They include,

avidhyA, karma, vasana, ruchi, and prakrithi sampandham.

Among these prominence is given to karma because it causes

the displeasure of the Lord (karmaavukku pradhaanyam -

Sri Uttamoor Swami). Here, both Sri Uttamoor Swami and

Prakritham Srimad Azhagiya Singar say karma includes

both paapa and puNya as they both are impediments to mOksha.

 

Actually, the impediment for mOksha is really the Lord's

displeasure. It is easy to see why paapaa causes His

displeasure. The reason even puNya causes His displeasure

is because of the nature of puNya. This is explained below.

 

Karma is classified into three categories, puNya,

paapa, and anubhAya karma. anubhAya karma are acts

that are done involuntarily, like breathing etc.

Acts that are forbidden by Sasthras are "paapaas".

pUnya are those karma that are enjoined for a

particular result in the Sasthras, i.e.,

 

"saasthirangaLil oru palatthukku sAdhanamAgach

seyyumpadi vidhikkap pattuLLa karmam puNyamaagum"

 

- Srimad Azhagiya Singar.

 

puNya, which are deeds done with a particular end in

mind, also causes displeasure to the Lord because the

jIva has chosen something that is of transient/lesser

value. For example, parents will be understandably

upset if their son does a lot of public service, but

fails to take care of their needs. (This example is

meant to understand why even a good deed may cause

displeasure; please do not extrapolate.)

 

Depending upon the predominance of paapa and puNya

of a jIva, the Lord gives different effects to the

jIvas. The Lord makes those for whom paapaas

predominate to be born in lives in which the

jIva cannot act according to Sasthras, like plants

and animals. Even if born in forms where one could

act according to Sasthras the Lord gives them

dangerous knowledge (vibhareetha j~nanam) and make

them confused, etc., etc. These keep the jIvas

in the vicious circle of birth, old age, death,

and birth again.

 

Those for whom puNya predominates, are given

life in svarga, or posts such as Indra, Siva,

or Brahmma. They may be born in high castes

and get the opportunity to perform upasana.

However, at the end of their tenure as Indira,

etc., or when they fail to complete their

upasana, they are no better off than those who

had committed paapaas. Swami Sri Desikan says:

 

"muppaththiraNdu adiyaana thuravuthaththuvaar

munadiyil vizhundhathOdu, muppathiOrAmadiyilE

vizhundhathOdu vaasiyillathaappOlE"

 

(When crossing a well that is 32 feet in width,

whether one falls at the very first feet or the

thirty-first feet, it makes no difference.)

 

The comparison Srimad Azhagiya Singar makes here is

between those who had to endure lives of animals and

birds on the one hand (those who fall at the first feet)

and those who perform upasana, but could not complete

it (those who fall at the thirty-first feet). The former

is perhaps characterized by a predominance of paapa,

and the later by a predominance of puNya. Even though

there are differences between these two groups in terms

of j~nayam, etc., they both are equal in terms of

not having been able to overcome the displeasure

of the Lord.

 

If even puNya is not sufficient to overcome Lord's

displeasure, what is the way? The only way to free

ourselves from the group of mOksha impediments that

causes the Lord's displeasure is, Swami Sri Desikan

quotes Sri Ramanuja:

 

"thaSya cha vasIkaraNam tachcharaNaaragatirEva"

 

(the only way to please the Lord is to surrender

at His lotus feet)

 

 

How would this come about? Due to the Lord's

overwhelming and unpredicated krupaa He looks

for some excuse (vyAjA) such as the jIva helping

a bhAgavatha, etc. and puts the jIva in contact

with a sadAcharya. Then, depending upon the choices

we make one thing will lead to another and finally,

the Lord will create circumstances in which the

Acharya would lead the jIva to perform "prpatti"

(sAdhyOpaya). Accepting this prapatti, the Lord,

out of His own compassion (siddhOpaya), graces the

jIva with mOksham at the end of his/her stay in

the current body.

 

In summary, puNya, which are actions according to

Saasthras for a specific end, is as much of an

impediment for mOksha, i.e. cause for Lord's

displeasure, as paapaa. The only way to be

released from this displeasure is the total

surrender to the Lord in the proper way.

 

 

-- adiyEn raamanuja daasan

 

p.s. Vishnu Puraanam is one of the primary pramanas

for our acharyas and they quote extensively from it.

In as much as the main points stated above are

that of our Acharyas, even if adiyEn may have made

mistakes here and there, adiyEn feels there ought not

be any contradiction between them and VP.