vibIshaNa saraNAgati

[Guest guest]

Srimathe nArAyaNAya namaha

 

Sri Mani wrote:-

------------------------------Quote-

This point is well taken; the only reason the question came up

in the first place, however, is that our acharyas emphatically

say that without Sita, Rama punishes, and with Sita, Rama is

gracious. My friend, who has a very soft spot for his dear

Rama, feels that Rama is inherently gracious, even without the

constant presence of Sita, and cites as his evidence Vibhishana

Saranagati. Knowing my friend, this is not a case of reason for

reason's sake! He is asking for a convincing explanation, given

the proposition that has been set forth.

---------------------------Unquote-

 

In my opinion one can never deny the fact that pirATTi is always

present in perumAL's thirumArbu. Now if the question arises because

all the kAlakshEba adhikhArIs say that with Sita, Rama was gracious

but without Sita, He punishes, then this gives rise to a serious

doubt whether pirATTi is always present in perumAL's thirumArbu.

 

If Sri Mani's friend's doubt is whether really Rama is not gracious

enough without the presence of SIta, then I can ask this as a

separate question with our elders and clarify it.

 

But one should understand clearly that the question was, how did our

pirATTi do purushakAram for vibhIshaNA. For that question I believe

Dr. Venkatakrishnan's reply was suitable. Also many members have

expressed their opinions on the same ground.

 

One more interesting point which I heard in Dr. Venkatakrishnan's

upanyAsam is

 

PurushakAratvam is one of the gunas prescribed for pirATTi. In the

15th and the 16th sutram in Sri Vachana BhooshaNam, Sri Pillai

LOkAcharyAr describes what are the attributes for PurushakArA and the

upAyA.

 

PurushakAra here is pirATTi who pleads to perumAL for accepting the

saraNAgati of His fellow bhaktA. upAyA is perumAL Himself, who is

granting the mOkshA for His bhaktA who has done the saraNAgati.

 

Now Pillai LOkAchAryAr explains two things here. They are

1) dhOsham and 2) guNa hAni.

 

dhOsham is nothing but" doing things that we are not supposed to do"

guNa hAni is nothing but " not doing the things that we are supposed

to do". The first is called as "akritya karaNam" and the second is

called as "krtya akaraNam".

 

The duty of PurushakAra is to plead to upAyA for His/Her bhakta even

when the bhaktA just thinks of doing the saraNAgati. If this is not

done by the purushakAra then he/she will get guNa hAni (krtya

akaraNam). Also if the purushakAra says I will do the purushakAram

for you only when you really get rid of all the bad deeds, even after

the bhaktA feels for it and does saraNAgati, then this amounts to

doing what is not to be done - dhosham (akrtya karaNam).

 

Coming to our vibhIshaNa saraNAgati case, when vibhIshaNa pleads in

front of RAvaNA for releasing pirATTi, she comes to know of it. This

is the case where the bhaktA is doing good deed. When he comes to

surrender before rAmA, then pirATTi, probably by the third way from

the ThirumArbu of RAmA does the purushakAratvam or else she will

incurr dhOsham and guNa hAni. Also if She wouldn't have done it from

within the ThirumArbu of Sri RAmA then the very dangerous question of

existence of pirATTi in perumAL's thirumAbu arises. No one,

irrespective of kalai bEdham in Sri Vaishnavites will say that

pirATTi is not existing in perumAL's thirumArbu.

 

Hope I have added my two cents worth and probably Sri Mani's friend

is convinced. Before I finish I will also add some interesting thing.

 

Pillai LOkAchAryAr says that dhOsham and guNa hAni can be incurred

by emberumAn also. How? The duty of emberumAn is to accept the

purushakAratvam done by pirAtti. If for some reason He fails to do it

then He incurs guNa hAni. Also if He says that He will accept the

saraNAgati only after His bhaktA renounces all his bad deeds even

after pirATTi has done purshakAratvam, then this is similar to doing

what is not to be done and thus incurs dhOsham.

 

This itself proves that our emberumAn is such a kAruNyan, that He

accepts all the bad deeds of His bhaktA with bhOgyam and gives Him

the mOksha. This is also beautifully explained by Swami Desikan in

his dayA sathakam in SlokA 97 starting "outsukhyam...". AdiyEn do not

know the exact slokA and so does AruLALap PerumAL emberumAnAr in his

gnAna sAram. I don't remember the pAsuram. Shall write about it

shortly.

 

adiyEn RAmAnuja dAsan

 

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

Regards

 

T.V.Venkatesh

E-mail : TVV

Phone: 91-44-4960455 extn. 5218

Fax : 91-44-4960913

Visit : http://www.sanmargroup.com

***** Message Was Scanned For Viruses *****

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Venkatesh wrote:

> This itself proves that our emberumAn is such a kAruNyan, that He

> accepts all the bad deeds of His bhaktA with bhOgyam and gives Him

> the mOksha. This is also beautifully explained by Swami Desikan in

> his dayA sathakam in SlokA 97 starting "outsukhyam...". AdiyEn do not

> know the exact slokA and so does AruLALap PerumAL emberumAnAr in his

> gnAna sAram. I don't remember the pAsuram. Shall write about it

> shortly.

 

The sloka by Swami Desikan is a beautiful one:

 

autsukya pUrvam upahRtya mahAparAdhAn

mAtaH prasAdayitum icchati me manas tvam |

Alihya tAn niravaSesham alabdha tRptiH

tAmyasyaho vRSagirISa dhRtA daye tvam ||

 

In this sloka, Desika poetically describes his interaction

with the overwhelming compassion of the Lord, personified here

as Daya Devi (our correspondent in Los Angeles, Sri Krishnaswami,

aptly calls this the "Love" of the Lord).

 

What can the helpless jIva offer the Lord who already has

everything (avAptasamastakAman)? Desika concludes that the

only thing that he has that the Lord does not have is his

mountainload of sins (mahAparadhAn). After all He is without

stain, and the jIva is full of it. Receiving these along with

his AtmA, Daya Devi takes all of these sins and licks them

all up (Alihya) and still is not satisfied! What a wonder

this is! exclaims Desika.

 

This verse sets forth the amazing purifying power of the Lord's

grace. Not even a mountainload of sins can exhaust the Lord's

grace. However, Desika did not take the philosophical position

that the Lord actually "enjoys" the sins of the jIva; some

other Sri Vaishnava acharyas took this position, but Desika

felt that if this were actually the case, this would mean that

the more sins a jIva commits, the more the Lord would be pleased!

Swami Desikan writes in his commentary on Ramanuja's Saranagati

Gadya that this "enjoyment of sins" position expressed by other

Sri Vaishnava acharyas was an exaggeration (ativAda), mentioned

to extol the Lord's grace, and not to be taken literally.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani