A tale of two thieves

[Guest guest]

Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedantadesika

Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama:

 

A Tale of Two Thieves

______________________

 

Azhwars are enamoured of addressing Emperuman as

"KaLvA" (thief). Listen to Sri

Nammazhwar-"Kalva,emmaiyum Ezhulagum ninnuLLE tOtriya

Iraiva"

"en pollA karumAnikkamE en KaLvA"

"kaLavEzh veNNai toduvunda kaLvA". etc.

Sri Tirumangai Mannan is not far behind in calling Him

names-"kaLLa kuzhavi", "KaLvA" etc.

And what did the Lord do to earn this sobriquet? His

most obvious and endearing misdemeanour is that of

"navaneeta chouryam" or Butter Theft. The gopis of Sri

Gokulam are united in their complaint to Sri Yasodha

that ever since Sri Krishna was born, their milk and

butter were not their own, and kept disappearing

mysteriously ("karanda nar pAlum tayirum kadaindu uri

mEl vaittha veNNai, pirandadu mudalAga petrariyEn").

And the culprit, adding insult to injury, not only

emptied the pots of butter, but also banged them down,

breaking up all the pots. ("VeNNai vizhungi verum

kalatthai verpidai ittu adan Osai kEtkum")

(uruga vaittha kudatthodu veNNai uricchi udaitthittu

pOndu nindrAn").("pAlai ….sAitthu parugiittu pOndu

nindrAn").etc. The poor Lord, unused to thievery,

gets caught by the vigilant Gopis, and is roundly

cursed ("VeNNai undAn ivan endru Esa nindra

emperumAn") and beaten too ("Ayar kozhundAi avarAl

pudai uNNum en mAyappirAn"). And ultimately, when the

enchanting thief's exploits become unbearable, He is

also tied to the grinding stone with the aid of a

rope, restricting His movement ("Matthuru kadai veNNai

kaLavinil uravidai AppuNdu etthiram uralinOdu iNaindu

erindu Engia eLivE").

 

Itihyam has it that Sri Nammazhwar was so much

taken up with this Souseelyam (that of the Parabrahmam

getting tied up by an unlettered cowherdess, and

looking to her for liberation, with appealing eyes

full of tears), that he fell unconscious for six

months. Volumes have been and would still be written

about navaneeta chouryam, and it is not for a humble

soul like adiyen to add to the lore.

 

Theft of milk and butter is hardly a matter for

serious concern. Sri Satakopa Muni accuses Him of a

much graver offence-that of stealing his soul- and

warns others to beware of this Divine Thief.

"Senchor kavigAl uyir kAtthu Atcheymin-TirumAl irum

sOlai

Vanjak kaLvan mAmAyan mAyakkaviyAi vandu- en

Nenjum uyirum uL kalandu nindrAr ariyA vaNNam-en

Nenjum uyirum avai undu tAnE Agi niraindAnE"

And further, "neermayAl nenjam vanjitthu pugundu-ennai

Eermai seidu en uyirAi en

uyirundAn"etc.

Emperuman was so enamoured of Azhwar that He could not

bear his seperation, and though Azhwar did not invite

Him, He stole Azhwar's body and soul and became one

with him. Here, Azhwar asks Emperuman an embarrassing

question- "I have been toiling in this samsAra for

aeons, suffering through several cycles of births and

deaths. And though I have been crying out to You

repeatedly, You did not heed me and did little to

grant me liberation. And, in this janmA, when I have

done nothing to merit your attentions, You are

invading me perforce and insist on taking me to

SriVaikuntam (ViNNulagam taruvAnAi viraigindrAn).

Pray, tell me the reason for this? ( "indru ennai

poruLAkki tannai ennuL vaitthAn-andru ennai puram pOga

puNartthadu en seyvAn"). Emperuman does not have a

reply to this question, and stands silent before the

Azhwar, with eyes downcast with shame .The beautiful

sreesooktis of Sri Nampillai in the eedu and Swami

Desikan's interpretations of this pasuram are indeed

worthwhile perusing. Tempting as it is to dwell on

these excellent panktis, adiyen would like to stick to

the topic.

Summing up the case against His Lordship, one would

tend to agree with Azhwar that there is ample

justification for branding Emperuman as a "KaLvan".

However, we find that this thievery, instead of

bringing Him disrepute, adds to His glory .His theft

of butter, etc., and His getting punished for the

same, highlight the glorious attribute of Souseelyam,

while His stealing our bodies and souls is indicative

of His insatiable hunger for ChEtana lAbham.

 

This is a tale of two thieves: having seen the

machinations of the Divine Thief, who do you think is

the other thief? Please do not take offence if I say

that we human beings collectively form the second

class of thieves. Sri Kalian says, "KaLvan AnEn padiru

seidiruppEn" , "vampulAm koondal manaiviyai turandu

pirar poruL tAram endru ivattrai nambinAr" etc. Some

of us covet the riches, women and other belongings of

others, rendering us the worst sort of thieves,

whether or not we actually carry out the thoughts of

theft into action. As the saying goes, a true

SriVaishnava always looks at others' wives as his own

mother, others' riches as mere dust, and treats all

other beings as he would be treated himself.("Matruvat

para dArEshu, lOshtavat para dravyEshu, Atmavat sarva

bhootEshu ya:pasyati sa pasyati").

 

Going back to Sri Parakalan, the theft attributed to

him could be classified as sAtvic, as the proceeds,

though ill-gotten, were utilized not for his personal

benefit, but for tadeeyArAdhanam and for building

temple towers and compounds. Swami Desikan justifies

such unorthodox methods of fund-raising (as those

resorted to by Sri Kalian) in his (now extinct)work,

"StEyAvirOdham".

 

However, the misdemeanours mentioned above pale into

insignificance, when we consider the other type of

theft all of us are guilty of-that of "AtmApahAram".

By nature, the JeevAtma is the eternal slave of the

Lord, and exists solely to be of some use to Him.

"dAsa bhootAh:svata:sarvE hi AtmAna:paramAtmana:" says

the MantrarAja pada stOtram. We all, our bodies and

souls, are the undisputed property of Emperuman.

However, the age-old shackles of ahankAram and

MamakAram make us imagine that we are independent

agents with our own belongings. We delude ourselves

that we are responsible for our own well-being and

that of others " dependent" on us. Sri Nammazhwar puts

this state of mind succinctly thus-"YanE ennai

ariagilAdE, YanE entanadE endru irundEn".

Swami Desikan describes this as the worst possible

form of theft, from several angles:

1.the value of the stolen item, viz., the Jeevatma,

is beyond measure:

2. the person whose property is stolen is none less

than the Almighty:

3.even after the Lord, in His infinite mercy, points

out to us (through shastrAs and Acharyas) that we are

indeed His property, we tend to dispute it (by saying

"aham mE" when He claims "tvam ME").

Now, how do we get out of the mire of ahankArA and

mamakArA? Swami Desikan comes to our rescue with an

easy solution- return the stolen article to the

rightful owner, with profound apologies. Since, in

this case, the item stolen is the priceless jewel of

jeevatma, we should surrender ourselves, in body and

soul, to the Lord, with the conscious thought of

returning to Him what is His by right. This calls for

the realization,in Sri Nammazhwar's words, "yAnE nee,

en udaimayum neeyE"(I am indeed Yours, and all that I

consider mine is also Yours). Sri Alavandar puts this

beautifully thus-"mama nAtha yadasti yOsmi aham,

sakalam tat hi tavaiva Madhava". In other words, what

is required is Atma SamarpaNam, through an Acharya.

The Saranagati thus performed restores to the soul its

lost quality of sEshatvam. While the gravity of the

theft make us liable for maximum punishment, once we

perform Prapatti, the Divine Mother intercedes on our

behalf and ensures that we not only get off lightly,

but also gain admittance to the world of eternal

bliss, of uninterrupted kainkarya, to the Lord and His

divine consort.

 

 

Srimate Sri LakshmiNrsimha divya paduka sevaka

SrivanSatakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya

Nama:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./

[Guest guest]

sadagopan iyengar writes:

> In other words, what

> is required is Atma SamarpaNam, through an Acharya.

> The Saranagati thus performed restores to the soul its

> lost quality of sEshatvam.

 

Dear Sri Sadagopan svAmin and respected members,

 

I have had a long-time question regarding this

development in the doctrine of Saranagati in

our tradition. Why is that it is insisted that

the surrender *must* be done through an acharya?

 

Let me state at the outset that I am familiar with

the teachings of Sri Vedanta Desika in Srimad Rahasya

Traya Saaram, wherein the great acharya systematically

describes the various modes of Saranagati and invariably

mentions the vital role of the acharya. I am also

aware of Swami Pillai Lokacharya's gracious statements

that for one afflicted with ego (i.e., all of us) there is

no way out but the affection of the acharya (acArya-abhimAna).

 

Here, however, my feeble mind sees an apparent inconsistency.

While Sarangati through an acharya is a *sufficient* condition

for restoring the true nature of the self, is it invariably

a *necessary* condition for us? In other words, is an

individual who for whatever reason directly seeks refuge

wholeheartedly with the Lord truly lost?

 

Here is why I ask this question. It is well-established that

the Lord is an ocean of grace, and of mercy, compassion, and

kindness. He is eternally associated with the very embodiment of

mercy, Lakshmi pirATTi. The very names pirAn and pirATTi that we

use in Tamil to describe our Great God and Goddess both mean

'benefactor'. So, would it be appropriate for a Lord filled with

such 'sauSIlya' (gracious condescension) to look askance at

a poor soul who seeks refuge directly at His sacred feet?

Is this not what He has been waiting for from day one?

(gOra-mA-tavam seyda nankol ariyEn -- says Tiruppan Alvar.

The saint cannot fathom what terrible austerities the Lord has

been doing to secure a single soul for gracious communion.)

If He did not take care of such a soul, would it not be a

defect in His character?

 

The SaranAgata par excellence Nammalvar also says that a single

mention of His holy place of residence was the pretext upon which

He filled the saint's heart -- tirumAliruncOlai malai enREn, enna

tirumAl vandu en nencu niRaiya pukundAn.

 

Given all of this, I beg members to inform me as to what the

fate of one who wholeheartedly and sincerely directly seeks refuge

at the lotus of the Lord is. In my meagre studies of the

*mUla-SAstra*, i.e., the Sanskrit Vedanta, Divya Prabandham, and

itihAsa-purANa, I have not come across any declaration that

that the Lord will ignore such self-surrender. If anything,

the emphasis on the grace being the very nature of the Lord

convey entirely the opposite idea.

 

Let me make it very clear that in no way do I mean to show

disrespect to the role of the acharya nor to the acharyas

themselves. But I am seeking clarification on this bit of

doctrine. I also am very much aware of the post-Ramanuja

arguments -- that we are all ignorant, incapable of knowing

anything, and that we have no clue about how to take

refuge with the Lord. However, this very 'Akincanya' and

'ananya-gatitva' (helplessness and being without any other

refuge) to me appear to be *stronger* reasons that the Lord

Himself would be overjoyed to accept this self-surrender,

making it perfect in whatever way He saw fit. One could almost

say that He will lovingly accept the surrender *with* all its

faults.

 

Let me also say that I am *not* seeking mere quotations from

pUrvAcAryas such as Sri Pillai Lokacharya, Sri Desika, and Sri

Manavala Maamunigal unless they are laced with analysis that

specifically addresses *why* the acharya is considered both

necessary *and* sufficient, given my position as outlines above.

For example, I am aware that Swami Yamunacharya's concluding

sloka of 'stotra-ratna' is used as evidence of the necessity

of an acharya -- 'pitAmaham nAthamuni vilokya, prasIda mat

vRttam acintayitvA'. However, an impartial reading of this

sloka only proves the *sufficiency* of AcArya-sambandha, not

the necessity. The same can be said for the oft-cited pAsuram

of Andal in nAcciyAr tirumozhi, 'nallA en tOzhi...'

 

Bottom line question: would the Lord be so heartless as to say,

"no -- I see no acharya between you and me. Go back and do it right!"

 

With prostrations to acharyas, Alvars, and the prathamAchArya,

SrIman nArAyaNa,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Shri Sadagopan has stolen our hearts with this wonderful write-up. The

article on Bhaghavata Seshatvam and this article gave wonderful thoughts for

reflection.

 

Regarding Shri Mani's question, this is adiyen's personal opinion .

"Guru-Krupa" seems to be very fundamental to all our systems - SmartA -

VaishnavAs - ShAktAs etc.. Many people relate this KrupA to their personal

experience. It appears EmperumAn's first act of Daya or KarunA towards his

'innocent' (non-scholarly) devotee is to send a Guru to bless that devotee.

Therefore going through an achArya is in the scheme of things deviced by

EmperumAn. Reason comes later and one can reason it out either way. For

eg.: If shedding our 'ego' is fundamental to 'SharanAgati' (direct or

through an achArya), there is no question that Bhaghavata Seshatvam will

help that process. An achArya is the prathama BhagavatA.

 

Moreover, NyAsa Vimshati's 2nd sloka equates "Guru" and "EmperumAn" and we

must develop a mental attitude that would see no difference between them.

Then Guru Krupa will flow and we may have a chance to taste the bliss of

'moksha' right here. Guru is the conduit through which Emperuman's daya

flows.

 

I am not backing up what I have said with any sastraic pramAnams (eventhough

there are definitely pramAnams to substantiate what I have said). The

questions Shri Mani had asked has crossed my mind several times and may be

looking at it from the above angle will provide some satisfaction.

 

dAsan

 

S. Vijayaraghavan

Buffalo/NY

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>Given all of this, I beg members to inform me as to what the

>fate of one who wholeheartedly and sincerely directly seeks refuge

>at the lotus of the Lord is. In my meagre studies of the

>*mUla-SAstra*, i.e., the Sanskrit Vedanta, Divya Prabandham, and

>itihAsa-purANa, I have not come across any declaration that

>that the Lord will ignore such self-surrender.

 

Ofcourse He will NOT ignore the self surrenderer!!! It is by His

grace ALONE that He will show that person a sadAcharyan so he/she can

formally go thru what else is needed to be done for total surrender,

of which getting "SamAshrayanam" and "ThirumanthrArtha upadesham" are

considered the most improtant ones, for the surrender to take effect...

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./