Guest guest Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Dear Shri Vishnu / Smt Nappinnai, I guess you both have missed out the following statement that I had included in my earlier post: "To this Jeevatma, it did nothing to qualify for the moksham, and it is only due to the Nirhetuka krupai of the lord that it attained the moksham." Please note the point->"it did nothing to qualify for the moksham". This includes the self realization act too. But, please remember, if we say "knowledge of swaroopam / opening of the mind is too due to the lord's Nirhetuka krupai" to those with a layman perspective, then we put our Purvacharyas into trouble, because, here our statement would be perceived as if the Lord is partial i.e he opens up the mind only for those whom he likes. So, we should be careful in defining the Nirhetuka krupai. In fact Shri Vimal quite caught this point in his first post itself and asked about the same. This was why I tried to set up the background before defining the lord's Nirhetuka krupai. My opinion is that Sahetuka/Nirhetuka krupai needs to be understood only from the "appropriate" perspective:) which I tried to explain in my earlier post. So, for Azhwar it may be HIS nirhetuka krupai and for the lord it may be because of Azhwar's efforts, because these two understood rather realize each other's swaroopam(of-course, for the lord, there is nothing called realizing of his swaroopam). But for those who don't realize HIM, it should not be projected as if the lord is partial towards great people like Azhwar and Acharyas. So, Azhagiya Manavala Perumal Nayanar too claims it only as "Acharya Hrudhayam" and not his own view:) is what my point is. Hope, I saved the younger brother too:)) Kindly pardon for my mistakes if any. Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Lakshmi Narasimhan By the way, (a) and (b) that I had mentioned in my earlier post does not reflect a TK or VK perspective, I mean, that was not my intent. ramanuja, "nappinnai_nc" <nappinnai_nc> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: > Dear Lakshmi narasimhan, > Your post was very interesting indeed(this time Sri Pillai > lOkAcArya was saved by you but his brother is caught!). I am just > reflecting my thoughts on your post. > > > [While this is so, in my earlier post, I had made a mistake of not > > clearly explaining what I meant as "adopting bhakthi". Adopting > > bhakthi may be due to two reasons: a) Because the jeevatma has > > realized its swaroopam and makes performing bhakthi as a swabhavam > > with no intent of grabbing lord's grace - an unconditional act > > (Bhakthi is not an upayam, because the lord is the upayam and the > > upeyam). b) Performing bhakthi to attain moksham(upayam) i.e > > a conditional act. Azhwars and great souls fall in category > > (a) while others fall in (b). > > I do not know what exactly you mean by statement (a). But if > I understand it 'rightly' I would like to point out that this > knowledge of swarUpam also happens due to "only" Lord's grace. This > is well explained in AcArya hrdhayam and also EmperumAnAr's > explanation in gita bhAShyam[cf 7.14-20]. Your statements sound as if > NammAzhvAr "realized" his swarUpam and performed bhakthi without the > intention of grabbing His grace. According to swami Azhagiya MaNavALa > PerumAL NAyanAr,nammAzhvAr had even this realization due to God's > grace ONLY. NammAzhvAr skipped para-bhakthi,para-jnAna and directly > reached the state "parama-bhakthi" which again is due to God's grace > and NammAzhvAr himself declares that he hasn't done "anything" to > attain this parama-bhakthi in TVM 4.7.9! AzhvArs' love is neither a > sADhana bhakthi(bhakthi as the "means/upAyam" to reach the > end/upEyam/mOksha) nor sADhya bhakthi(bhakthi itself as the > end/upEyam/mOksha). > > ubhayamum anRikkE - AH 101 [ubhayam-sADhana and sADhya] > > In the terminology of Swami Azhagiya MaNavALa PerumAl NAyanAr,this > bhakthi of AzhvArs is called "swayamprayOjana bhakthi(non-stop,and > eternal bhakthi/love done to please Him)" > > > This difference in mindset makes the major difference between > > prapannas and others. A prapannan(a) attributes everything to the > > lord's Nirhetuka krupai and hence to him, the Lord > > was the means(Upayam) and the end(Upeyam) too. For others(b), the > > bhakthi is the Upayam(Sahetukam) and the Lord is the Upeyam. > > I think here you need to be cautious in defining. In (a) > nirhetukam,the stress is given to the "greatness of the Lord" while > in (b)sahetukam the stress is given to the "human efforts". Whatever > be the perspective, prapatti is there for both the sects with TK > giving importance to (a)[when one compares the greatness of the Lord > with the efforts of the jivatma,the latter is insignificant and hence > dropped/neglected only as far as comparison is concerned] and VK to > (b). Neither of the two deny (a) or (b). For TKs, the Lord > is "sidDhOpAyam" and I doubt if this is the same view held by VKs. > Sri MA Venkatakrishnan's talk on doctrinal differences was very clear > and it will be really great if Swami MAV can post an article where > Swami Desikan differs from/agrees with Sri PiLLai lOkAcArya. > > All our obstacles are removed by the Lord Himself. So, the > "realization of the swarUpam" also comes only after Lord sheds His > grace on us thereby removing the obstacle of ahankAram/mamakAram > (jivatma thinking that it belongs to so and so instead of Sriman > Narayana). > > Forgive all my blabberings. I'm trying to swim through SVB and AH and > hence all credits go to the brothers and discredits to me. > > Azhvr emperumAnar jIya thiruvadigaLE sharaNam > NC Nappinnai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha I guess what you are missing is that this is the perspective of the "Lord". He wants to attribute the moksham/his krupai to "its" act (Sahetukam). But from the jeevatma's(prapanna) perspective, it realizes that it did nothing to attain moksham and that it was HIS unconditional krupai(Nirhetukam) that gave it the moksham. I guess I have pretty much explained these different perspectives in my previous post. Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Lakshmi Narasimhan ramanuja, "nappinnai_nc" <nappinnai_nc> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: > > > This is exactly what I had explained in my previous post regarding > > swaroopam and swabhavam. Lord loses nothing as per his swaroopam. > > But his swabhavam is such that he eagerly expects the jeevatma to > > turn towards HIM out of "its" will and not by HIS will. > > This "turning towards Him" also happens due to His grace only and the > jIvatma realizes that it has realized its swarUpam(wrt God) because > of God's grace ONLY and not out of its "own will". I have the english > trasnlation by van buitenan of EmperumAnAr's gita bhAShyam. I don't > have the book right now but can quote the exact words(that this > realization happens due to His grace ONLY)sometime later if one > wants. Nowhere in divya prabandham,AzhvArs claim/declare that they > realized their swarUpam out of their "own will" but by His will only. > > AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam > NC Nappinnai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: > Please note the point->"it did nothing to qualify for the moksham". > This includes the self realization act too. But, please remember, > if we say "knowledge of swaroopam / opening of the mind is too due > to the lord's Nirhetuka krupai" to those with a layman perspective, > then we put our Purvacharyas into trouble, because, here our > statement would be perceived as if the Lord is partial i.e he > opens up the mind only for those whom he likes. So, we should be > careful in defining the Nirhetuka krupai. Whether or not layman catches the point,it's left to God's grace. Just because a layman doesn't catch the point,it doesn't put our pUrvAcAryAs into trouble! Whether or not I like Sun rising in the east,it is not going to change its course of direction! If somebody thinks that Lord is partial,let him think so with full freedom. When the time comes he will realize that Lord is not partial. Whichever direction one goes,one will only see the board "nirhetuka krpa". BTW,do you think that by your definition of nirhetuka krpa in English,a layman will get a crystal clear picture of the topic and also pUrvAcAryAs will be intact? It is Lord's(or AcAryAs) headache to correct the jIvAtmAs that are straying away from Him. BTW,nirhetuka krpa is the top and prime doctrinal difference between the two sects. Just to make a layman's life easy(not to think that Lord is partial),you don't introduce sahetukam or make it "sound like" sahetukam in pUrvAcAryAs works! Do you understand Lord better than NammAzhvAr? NammAzhvAr says he has not done anything and one has to accept it as a fact if divya prabandham is drAvida vedam/shruthi! You write from perspective of the Lord as if you know the Lord''s mind very well. PS:In the preface of SVB book that I have,Sri TA Sampathkumaracarya says if someone(layman/neophyte) feels that some of these teachings can not be appreciated or practised,let him understand that he has not reached the "necessary state of moral development". I totally believe in this. AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam NC Nappinnai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha > Just to make a layman's life easy(not to think that Lord is > partial),you don't introduce sahetukam or make it "sound like" > sahetukam in pUrvAcAryAs works! Do you understand Lord better than > NammAzhvAr? I humbly request you to first read my post in entirty and then make such accusations:) I did not introduce nor did I make it sound like sahetukam. From jeevatma's perspective it is Nirhetukam "ONLY". I have mentioned this many times. I apologize for I can't explain this any better. I request again, to read the post in its entirty and try to understand it before making such statements. Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim Adiyen RAmanuja Dasan, Lakshmi Narasimhan ramanuja, "nappinnai_nc" <nappinnai_nc> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: > > > Please note the point->"it did nothing to qualify for the moksham". > > This includes the self realization act too. But, please remember, > > if we say "knowledge of swaroopam / opening of the mind is too due > > to the lord's Nirhetuka krupai" to those with a layman perspective, > > then we put our Purvacharyas into trouble, because, here our > > statement would be perceived as if the Lord is partial i.e he > > opens up the mind only for those whom he likes. So, we should be > > careful in defining the Nirhetuka krupai. > > Whether or not layman catches the point,it's left to God's grace. > Just because a layman doesn't catch the point,it doesn't put our > pUrvAcAryAs into trouble! Whether or not I like Sun rising in the > east,it is not going to change its course of direction! If somebody > thinks that Lord is partial,let him think so with full freedom. When > the time comes he will realize that Lord is not partial. Whichever > direction one goes,one will only see the board "nirhetuka krpa". > BTW,do you think that by your definition of nirhetuka krpa in > English,a layman will get a crystal clear picture of the topic and > also pUrvAcAryAs will be intact? It is Lord's(or AcAryAs) headache to > correct the jIvAtmAs that are straying away from Him. BTW,nirhetuka > krpa is the top and prime doctrinal difference between the two sects. > Just to make a layman's life easy(not to think that Lord is > partial),you don't introduce sahetukam or make it "sound like" > sahetukam in pUrvAcAryAs works! Do you understand Lord better than > NammAzhvAr? NammAzhvAr says he has not done anything and one has to > accept it as a fact if divya prabandham is drAvida vedam/shruthi! You > write from perspective of the Lord as if you know the Lord''s mind > very well. > > PS:In the preface of SVB book that I have,Sri TA Sampathkumaracarya > says if someone(layman/neophyte) feels that some of these teachings > can not be appreciated or practised,let him understand that he has > not reached the "necessary state of moral development". I totally > believe in this. > > AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam > NC Nappinnai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: Dear Lakshmi Narasimhan, Accusation is a very strong word to use. Mine was only a sincere question. I read your post completely. From the perspective of the jivatma it is fine, but don't stress anything too much from the perspective of the Lord. From the jivatma perspective alone there are two sects with two different viewpoints! If we go out of SV,there are many more views. The latter aspect(God) can be assured by a person who has seen the God and knows Him very well. That was all my contention. > So, for Azhwar it may be HIS nirhetuka krupai and for the lord it > may be because of Azhwar's efforts, because these two understood > rather realize each other's swaroopam(of-course, for the lord, > there is nothing called realizing of his swaroopam). But for > those who don't realize HIM, it should not be projected as if the > lord is partial towards great people like Azhwar and Acharyas. NammAzhvAr clearly says he hasn't made any effort and whatever he uttered like "tirumAl irum sOlai" or "mADhava" etc are unexpected ones. These can not be counted as "real" efforts/sahEtukam for the incomparable mOksha(or anything) that the Lord grants out of His nirhEtuka krpa. If what AzhvAr says is untrue,divya prabandham can not be treated as shruthi. No matter how much effort you put in trying to convince people about Lord being impartial,you will always find jIvAtmAs with "differing views". Kaliyan was thinking about looting the Lord. Did he have telepathy or realize beforehand that he is going to receive manthra upadhEsham from the Lord? Absolutely NO. > I guess what you are missing is that this is the perspective of > the "Lord". He wants to attribute the moksham/his krupai to "its" > act(Sahetukam). But from the jeevatma's(prapanna) perspective, it > realizes that it did nothing to attain moksham and that it was HIS > unconditional krupai(Nirhetukam) that gave it the moksham. I guess > I have pretty much explained these different perspectives in my > previous post. Do you mean to say that PerumAL gave mOksham to SisupAla attributing to latter's act of cursing the Lord with His nama? All our AzhvArs (spokesperson for the Lord) and our AcAryAs would not be happy about your statement. I guess AzhvArs especially strongly declare that even "from the perspective of the Lord",the mOskham is granted ONLY out of His nirhEtuka krpa. If I'm wrong,I would love to be corrected by the devotees. BTW I do object to your usage "perspective of the Lord". Read your own statement(and also read the last statement)in the above paragraph. > Please note the point->"it did nothing to qualify for the > moksham". This includes the self realization act too. But, > please remember, if we say "knowledge of swaroopam / opening > of the mind is too due to the lord's Nirhetuka krupai" to those > with a layman perspective,then we put our Purvacharyas into > trouble, because, here our statement would be perceived as if > the Lord is partial i.e he opens up the mind only for those > whom he likes. So, we should be careful in defining the > Nirhetuka krupai. In this paragraph,you first agreed in the first statement and then in the very second sentense you say that a layman will think Lord is partial and hence we should define nirhetuka krpa very carefully. What do you mean by that? Why there is a "but" sitting in between the two statements? I'm not as "smart" as you are to catch the subtleties. > But his swabhavam is such that he eagerly expects the jeevatma to > turn towards HIM out of "its" will and not by HIS will. Kindly explain the above statements in detail. This statement of yours do not go with the second/third(i don't remember)prakaraNam "iRaivanin vishEsha katAksham" in AH. AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam NC Nappinnai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Dear Smt Nappinnai, >"You write from perspective of the Lord as if you know the Lord''s > mind very well." You should have read my first paragraph in my post on this subject: "I request that this post be evaluated by learned scholars and I request them to correct my mistakes. This post does not have any authenticity as it does not qualify as a perspective of the purvacharyas and hence is not for all." Moreover, do you mean to say one should not even talk about how that lord would think about us? >BTW,do you think that by your definition of nirhetuka krpa in >English,a layman will get a crystal clear picture of the topic and >also pUrvAcAryAs will be intact? It is Lord's(or AcAryAs) headache >to correct the jIvAtmAs that are straying away from Him. By making these statements, are you saying that Ramanuja sampradayam is an exclusive one i.e no one else should be understanding the sampradayam other than those who are in the sampradayam? If that is the case, why did our purvacharyas write such works? Why didn't they let the lord deal with that? For that matter, why Nammazhwar even came back and gave Nathamunigal all the 4000 prabandhams? > Do you understand Lord better than NammAzhvAr? NammAzhvAr says he > has not done anything and one has to accept it as a fact if divya > prabandham is drAvida vedam/shruthi! Is this the way ShriVaishnavas accuse others? That too, not even realizing what the other person is saying? Did I ever say that Nammazhwar talks about his own efforts anywhere? Why would you want to "assume" something that I did not even convey and based on the assumption, accuse unnecessarily? Kindly think about these. Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Lakshmi Narasimhan ramanuja, "nappinnai_nc" <nappinnai_nc> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: > > > Please note the point->"it did nothing to qualify for the moksham". > > This includes the self realization act too. But, please remember, > > if we say "knowledge of swaroopam / opening of the mind is too due > > to the lord's Nirhetuka krupai" to those with a layman perspective, > > then we put our Purvacharyas into trouble, because, here our > > statement would be perceived as if the Lord is partial i.e he > > opens up the mind only for those whom he likes. So, we should be > > careful in defining the Nirhetuka krupai. > > Whether or not layman catches the point,it's left to God's grace. > Just because a layman doesn't catch the point,it doesn't put our > pUrvAcAryAs into trouble! Whether or not I like Sun rising in the > east,it is not going to change its course of direction! If somebody > thinks that Lord is partial,let him think so with full freedom. When > the time comes he will realize that Lord is not partial. Whichever > direction one goes,one will only see the board "nirhetuka krpa". > BTW,do you think that by your definition of nirhetuka krpa in > English,a layman will get a crystal clear picture of the topic and > also pUrvAcAryAs will be intact? It is Lord's(or AcAryAs) headache to > correct the jIvAtmAs that are straying away from Him. BTW,nirhetuka > krpa is the top and prime doctrinal difference between the two sects. > Just to make a layman's life easy(not to think that Lord is > partial),you don't introduce sahetukam or make it "sound like" > sahetukam in pUrvAcAryAs works! Do you understand Lord better than > NammAzhvAr? NammAzhvAr says he has not done anything and one has to > accept it as a fact if divya prabandham is drAvida vedam/shruthi! You > write from perspective of the Lord as if you know the Lord''s mind > very well. > > PS:In the preface of SVB book that I have,Sri TA Sampathkumaracarya > says if someone(layman/neophyte) feels that some of these teachings > can not be appreciated or practised,let him understand that he has > not reached the "necessary state of moral development". I totally > believe in this. > > AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam > NC Nappinnai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Dear all >From whatever little I have heard... Is there anything that we can really do which will (forget about equating but even) go near what the lord grants( Moksha). So irrespective of what we think, it is his nirhEthuka Krupa. Just because someone did Bakthi yoga for 1000 lives or other tasks etc It never comes anywhere near the ultimate gift. It is only our level of maturity of wanting him that the lord is looking at. For this , our acharyas say that it is like playing with a small child. We can forcefully play with the child. But when the child comes to us out of his/her own volition , the enjoyment is infinitely better. This is only reason lord waits rather than forcefully take us in. For Sisupala's case also I have heard from learned scholars that just at that second when the his head is about to be cut off he "really" sees the beauty and form of lord and wants it absolutely. Though the time is short the intensity of his desire is very high and so he is granted moksham. (Refer to Chintayanthi in Bhagavatham). Adiyen Srinivasa dasan The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Dear Smt Nappinnai, "but don't stress anything too much from the perspective of the Lord." - This is the key point. How could we not see his perspective on us? How could you say Azhwars cannot accept HE giving moksham to sisupala just because HE used the reason of sisupala's cursing? Same is the story with Ajamilan? Lord does want us to turn towards HIM. Even if one does not, and if the lord wants to give him moksham, the lord quotes some stupid reason so as to give the credits to the jeevatma. But, this should not be "wrongly" understood that the jeevatma has to put in some efforts. It is such a nice dialogue between the Azhwar and the lord where the lord gives the credit to the azhwar while the azhwar claims that it was only the lord who made it possible. Acharya Hrudhayam Sutram 186 - Clearly explain the "Lord's" perspective: "Angeekarikka avakasam paarkkum swamithvam perunagarile paer petradhu" Maamunigal Vyaakyanam: Azhwar says "Thirumalirumsolai" and the lord immediately uses this as a reason and comes and resides inside Azhwar's heart. "Swa angeekaratthukku udalaana sukrutham illadhavarayum, madi mangai idumaappole, en ooraicchonnai ithyadhiyana agnyatha sukruthangalai aaropitthum angeekarikkaikkidam paarkkum avanudaya swamithvam thirupper nagarile prasittham". [so as to take up the atma/body (to play with) of those who do not qualify for moksham as per the leela vibhuti rules, the lord waits to quote some dumb reason like "you mentioned my name, my place" etc in order to grant the moksham. This act of the lord is as that of those who put the mangoes in one's lap when he/she is asleep and claim that he/she has the mangoes.] Azhwar Pasuram: Thirumalirumsolai ennen enna Thirumal vandhu en nenju nirayappugundan Kurumaa mani undhu punal ponnitthenbal Thirumal sendru servidam thenthiruppere! The following is "based" on the Sutram 196 from Acharya Hrudhayam (please note that, it is based on, but not exactly the meaning of it). The "but" was put because: If a person wants to get into our sampradayam and hears Shri Vaishnavas saying that, one gets realization only out of the lord's will then what would be the first question that would araise? Didn't Shri Vimal clearly point this out? Does not it make it look like lord is partial. We can't make statements like "it is god's headache" to take care of those people. Then why did Shri Ramanujar tell all the rahasyams to everyone? Why did not he let Lord handle it? Why did Nammazhwar come back and give the 4000 to Shri Nathamunigal? Is it only for the Vaishnavas who claim so? Our purvacharya granthams are for everyone, it will answer even the layman. I request some learned scholar to clearly explain people out here, what was the purpose of Acharya Hrudhayam, what is it all about, before even people try to quote it. If we say Azhwar was like this and like that, I humbly request those to go sit under a tamarind tree and stop eating food, breathing the air and claim that it is all his Nirhetuka krupai because of which it is happening. What would happen to the "jagath vyaparam" of the lord if everyone sits like that? One must understand that, first people get attracted towards moksham and put in efforts for the same i.e they are instructed to do sharanagathi and prapatti. As they "realize" the atma swaroopam, they would also realize that it was not "they" who put efforts, but it was the "antaryami" who was doing all those and hence it is only HIS unconditional grace that took them to that level. But if everyone starts saying that they have "realized"(as opposed to knowing the same) atmaswaroopam as soon as they hear about these, then, it is like saying the mango is like this and that because someone says so and not because one has tasted it. Acharya Hrudayam is only an explanation of the dialogue between a "prapanna" jeevatma and the lord. It has to be understood and quoted only in that context. In fact, Azhwar, despite saying that only because of the Nirhetuka krupai of the Lord he realized HIM, instructs others to perform saranagathi out of "their" will ("Thirunaaranan Thaal kaalam pera sindhitthu uymmino"). The key is, he put the word "sindhitthu" i.e not just think, to realize. So, when one puts effort to realize HIM, he/she automatically realize that, he/she did not put any effort at all, and that, it was only due to the lord's unconditional krupai that he/she was able to realize too. This is a step by step process. As a general rule, you can't make a 1st grade student graduate(please don't quote exceptions:)) One has to first be made to believe god, and then believe in moksham i.e unison with HIM, and then must be instructed to perform any of the karma, bhakthi, gyana yogas or prapatti and then as one realizes the lord during this process, he/she will realize that he/she did not put in any efforts and that it was only Lord's leela / unconditional grace that gave him/her the spiritual upliftment. > These can not be counted as "real" efforts/sahEtukam for the > incomparable mOksha(or anything) that the Lord grants out of His > nirhEtuka krpa. You seem to miss the point again. I never said it is Azhwar's efforts. If you say the lord himself thinks of his Nirhetuka krupa, then you must quote the appropriate sutram to support that. This would first damage his kalyana gunas because it would appear as if he is pouring his grace only on selected souls and is being partial. In fact, you are completely contradicting AH Sutram 186 that I have quoted. Whether the efforts are significant or not, the lord uses it only as a dumb reason to grant moksham. Kindly refer to the sutram I have quoted in the above paragraphs. One final note: I still feel you haven't completely gone through my detailed post on this subject. I had clearly explained all these: Prapatti - Nirhetukam from Jeevatma's perspective(AH many sutrams) and Sahetukam from the lord's perspective(AH Sutram 186). Bhakthi and other yogas - Sahetukam from the jeevatma's perspective and Nirhetukam from the lord's perspective. The second one is strongly criticized, though, not condemned, by Thennacharya Sampradayam(I don't know about Vadakalai sampradayam and hence I can't speak for the same). I apologize for my mistakes and misinformation if any. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Lakshmi Narasimhan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: Dear Lakshmi Narasimhan, Thanks for taking the pains to explain. My only contention is that either it boils down to His nirhEtuka krpa or His kalyANa guNAs to consider some efforts on the part of jIvAtmA as dumb reasons to grant mOksha. This only highlights the "greatness of the Lord". JIvAtmA's efforts are so petty that it carries no weightage as far I'm concerned. With this I close this nirhEtuka/sahEtuka discussion from my side. Best regards AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam NC Nappinnai > This would first damage his kalyana gunas because it would appear > as if he is pouring his grace only on selected souls and is being > partial. In fact, you are completely contradicting AH Sutram 186 > that I have quoted. Whether the efforts are significant or not, > the lord uses it only as a dumb reason to grant moksham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan" <nrusimhan@h...> wrote: > Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha > > Dear Smt Nappinnai, > > > > It is such a nice dialogue between the Azhwar and the lord where the > lord gives the credit to the azhwar while the azhwar claims that it > was only the lord who made it possible. > > Acharya Hrudhayam Sutram 186 - Clearly explain the "Lord's" > perspective: "Angeekarikka avakasam paarkkum swamithvam perunagarile > paer petradhu" > > Maamunigal Vyaakyanam: Azhwar says "Thirumalirumsolai" and the lord > immediately uses this as a reason and comes and resides inside > Azhwar's heart. "Swa angeekaratthukku udalaana sukrutham > illadhavarayum, madi mangai idumaappole, en ooraicchonnai > ithyadhiyana agnyatha sukruthangalai aaropitthum angeekarikkaikkidam > paarkkum avanudaya swamithvam thirupper nagarile prasittham". [so as > to take up the atma/body (to play with) of those who do not qualify > for moksham as per the leela vibhuti rules, the lord waits to quote > some dumb reason like "you mentioned my name, my place" etc in order > to grant the moksham. This act of the lord is as that of those who > put the mangoes in one's lap when he/she is asleep and claim that > he/she has the mangoes.] Dear Sriman Narasimhan, I also heard of this "madi mangai" nyAyam. Now, where is the question of Lord's expectation from the Jeeva to turn toward Him? He Himself is attributing something which is not there! > > Azhwar Pasuram: > Thirumalirumsolai ennen enna > Thirumal vandhu en nenju nirayappugundan > Kurumaa mani undhu punal ponnitthenbal > Thirumal sendru servidam thenthiruppere! In the padhigam just before this, Alwar says "aru mAyatthu endadhuyirE! manamE! vAkkE! karumamE! orumAnodiyum piriyAn ennoozhi mudhalvan oruvanE!" Somebody may please post the meaning according to commentators. So when he is not leaving Alwar (including his manas, vAk, karmA etc.) even for a split second, is the Lord not instrumental in Alwar's saying "ThirumAlirumjOlai"? > If we say Azhwar was like this and like that, I humbly > request those to go sit under a tamarind tree and stop eating food, > breathing the air and claim that it is all his Nirhetuka krupai > because of which it is happening. What would happen to the "jagath > vyaparam" of the lord if everyone sits like that? That is why He does not allow everyone to sit like that! By preaching you do not have to make any efforts for your mOksha, Alwar is preaching a selfless religion. if we do not worry for mOksha, we can be useful to fellow human beings instead of making a ladder to heavens. Also whatever religious activity we do, will be in the mood of serving Him (His devotees) and not for anything else. >One must understand > that, first people get attracted towards moksham and put in efforts > for the same i.e they are instructed to do sharanagathi and >prapatti. > As they "realize" the atma swaroopam, they would also realize that it > was not "they" who put efforts, but it was the "antaryami" who was > doing all those and hence it is only HIS unconditional grace that > took them to that level. But if everyone starts saying that they > have "realized"(as opposed to knowing the same) atmaswaroopam as >soon > as they hear about these, then, it is like saying the mango is like > this and that because someone says so and not because one has >tasted > it. Acharya Hrudayam is only an explanation of the dialogue between > a "prapanna" jeevatma and the lord. It has to be understood and > quoted only in that context. In fact, Azhwar, despite saying that > only because of the Nirhetuka krupai of the Lord he realized HIM, > instructs others to perform saranagathi out of "their" will > ("Thirunaaranan Thaal kaalam pera sindhitthu uymmino"). The key is, > he put the word "sindhitthu" i.e not just think, to realize. So, when > one puts effort to realize HIM, he/she automatically realize that, > he/she did not put any effort at all, and that, it was only due to > the lord's unconditional krupai that he/she was able to realize too. > This is a step by step process. As a general rule, you can't make a > 1st grade student graduate(please don't quote exceptions:)) One has > to first be made to believe god, and then believe in moksham i.e > unison with HIM, and then must be instructed to perform any of the > karma, bhakthi, gyana yogas or prapatti and then as one realizes the > lord during this process, he/she will realize that he/she did not put > in any efforts and that it was only Lord's leela / unconditional > grace that gave him/her the spiritual upliftment. In our definition, SaraNAgati is nothing but accepting Him as upAya and upEya. Alwars NEVER say "Do not accept Him, Do not praise Him" etc. Singing His glory, accetping Him as our deliverer, all this is to be taken as something true to our nature (swarUpa yuktam) and not for moksha and other fruits. AlwArs never prescribe any upAya other than God. So ther is no question of prescribing us to perform SaraNAgati as a means to attain soemthing, despite saying His krupA is nirhEtukam! I heard they are vey consistent in their statements. ALawandAr, in his stotra ratna, who first offers himself to Him saying "ahamadyaiva mayA samapritah" corrects himself in the next Sloka by saying "athavA kinnu samarpayAmi tE?" ((when evrything is Urs, what can I offer you?) Once He Himself is the deliverer, there is no step by step process since He Himslef is the deliverer. That is why Acharyas "made so many efforts" to spread this sampradAya. Thinking that He is the only way will keep us away from our ahankAra. Otherwise a person who has doen more religious activity may think he is at a higher stage than those who have not done anything. What is meant by turning toward Him? Alwars, thru commentators, say that advEsham or not being averse to Him is enough. This we can find in kadanmallai pASurams of Thirumangai Alwar. Also I heard that our Acharyas make a discussion in their commentaries (at different places for different pASurams) and say that even this advEsham is not necessary (as a mental effort from us) and it is He who gives it. Also since it is for Him to do the virOdhi nirasanam (removal of ahankAra and mamakAra), He has to do it right from the beginning. So there need not be any initial turning toward Him from our side. Actually Acharyas make "a lot of effort" to show that we need not make any effort at any stage, in their commentaries. What if soemone says "Is your God not partial?"? We can tell him, "Accept Him and that acceptance (if happens) is only out of His krupA". Nobody would like to stay away from His krupA! > > > These can not be counted as "real" efforts/sahEtukam for the > > incomparable mOksha(or anything) that the Lord grants out of His > > nirhEtuka krpa. > You seem to miss the point again. I never said it is Azhwar's > efforts. If you say the lord himself thinks of his Nirhetuka krupa, > then you must quote the appropriate sutram to support that. This > would first damage his kalyana gunas because it would appear as if he > is pouring his grace only on selected souls and is being partial. In > fact, you are completely contradicting AH Sutram 186 that I have > quoted. Definitely works like Acharya Hrudayam, speak of paragata sweekAram and do not say He expects something from us. this is what I heard. Please correct me if I am wrong. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Vishnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Dear Shri Vishnu, > Now, where is the question of Lord's expectation from the Jeeva to > turn toward Him? If he does not want us to turn towards him, why would he say "Maam ekam Saranam Vraja" in His charama slokham? There are pre and post realization processes. Only when we realize Him, then we will realize His Nirhetuka krupa and that it was He who had been doing everything and we are just the toys. For those who haven't realized, if you tell them "Accept Him and that acceptance (if happens) is only out of His krupA" it would drive them away from our sampradayam, because for an analytical mind, it does not sound practical, but is hypothetical. For those who have not realized, as they do something as a upayam(like bhakthi, karma, gyana etc) the realization is at the end for them. For prapannas, the moment they realize He is the Upayam, then the realization is accomplished and atmaujjeevanam is over. They live the rest of their samsaric life just to support the jagath vyaparam and to get rid of the karmas that would support the deha-vyoham. And after the realization, they understand that even their realization was only because of His krupai. As you yourself said, "Thinking that He is the only way":) means some effort has to be put in(this is one of the initial steps to make one understand the sampradayam i.e pre-realization). But, after one starts "thinking", he/she will realize(due to His Grace) that he/she was able to realize Him only out of His will i.e post-realization. > So when he is not leaving Alwar (including his manas, > vAk, karmA etc.) even for a split second, is the Lord not > instrumental in Alwar's saying "ThirumAlirumjOlai"? Very true. But, same Azhwar sang "Mayakkoottha vamana... oru naal kaana vaaraye", "Katkilee unnai kaanumaaru arulai".. It is the lord's samslesha vishleshams. Azhwar gets into the Gyana dasai during his Samslesham and gets into the Bhakthi dasai during his Vishlesham. This must not be confused with the current subject "madi mangai nyayam", these are two different threads altogether. Please remember all Azhwars sang the prabandhams only after the realization. My point is that we have to understand their works only from that perspective. If we have really attained realization then we would automatically talk only about His Nirhetuka krupa. For those who have not, we must share our bhagavadh anubhavams and make them do something "for" Him ("including the sharanagathi"). But, once they do the sharanagathi, they would understand that it was His krupai that even made them perform the sharanagathi. Lord is indeed instrumental in everything as an antharyami. But, this understanding comes only after the realization doesn't it? Azhwar has realized it. How about others who haven't? How do we make them understand this? For them, if the lord is instrumental and the jeevatmas do "nothing" then aren't we advocating one of the aspects of the "Advaitam" i.e brahmam is only one that does everything and anything else that we perceive are just the maya? That is why I insist that Acharya Hrudhayam has to be felt from the position of Azhwar. It should not be discussed from our day to day samsaric perspective. It is purely from a prappana perspective. As Shri NC Narasimhan mentioned, these are Rahasya Granthams and need to be understood only from the right acharyan. We may read these and try to get familiarity with the information available in it and ask questions. But, this is different from the intent and the perspective of the author Swamy Azhagiya Manalavala Perumal Nayanar. > ALawandAr, in his stotra ratna, who first offers himself to Him > saying "ahamadyaiva mayA samapritah" corrects himself in the next > Sloka by saying "athavA kinnu samarpayAmi tE?" ((when evrything is > Urs, what can I offer you?) This is a perfect example of the pre and post realization process. > In our definition, SaraNAgati is nothing but accepting Him as upAya > and upEya. "accepting" him, itself is an effort isn't it(from a normal perspective). But for the person who realized his "incapability", this realization itself is due to the Lord's grace. Here is the catch in our sampradayam. "accepting" is different from "realizing". One may accept if one is forced or if one is convinced. Lord does not expect people to blindly "accept", otherwise, he would have incorporated that blind belief in the human design. Morever if we expect everyone to accept the lord as the upayam at the initial stage itself, this would get rid of many of the people. I have heard in many kalakshepams that He indefinitely waits for us. For what? If he uses his Nirhetuka krupa, we would not be here. Everyone should have been in moksham. All I am trying to say is that, we must not restrict the view of our sampradayam only to those people who are born and brought up in it and who could easily understand it. It is open to all and hence we must provide appropriate views depending on the audience. To me, we must not even let anyone have a doubt that the lord may be Partial because "HE IS NOT". My apologies in case of mistakes. Kindly correct me in case of mistakes. Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Lakshmi Narasimhan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2003 Report Share Posted May 5, 2003 ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan" <nrusimhan@h...> wrote: > Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha > > Dear Shri Vishnu, > > > Now, where is the question of Lord's expectation from the Jeeva to > > turn toward Him? > If he does not want us to turn towards him, why would he say "Maam > ekam Saranam Vraja" in His charama slokham? Dear Sriman Narasimhan, I did not mean God does not want us to turn toward Him. But it He Who makes us turn. Alwars say "it is His field, He will sow seeds" and many such things. Even SisupAla mOksha, according to Alwars, is only out of nirhEtuka krupA. Nowhere they say that u have given Him moskha for soemthing. One pAsuram I heard says You have given him mOksha despite His hatred for You (those knowing may please quote it). What He says in charama Sloka is take me as upAya. Bhattar replies that he is not even able to do that (prapattum analam..) in his explanation for charama SlokI. Is does not mean he is able to perform other upAyas. Actually he presents utmost helplessness. At the same time, he is happy that God is there to get him rid of all his aparAdhas. > > There are pre and post realization processes. Only when we realize > Him, then we will realize His Nirhetuka krupa and that it was He who > had been doing everything and we are just the toys. For those who > haven't realized, if you tell them "Accept Him and that acceptance > (if happens) is only out of His krupA" it would drive them away from > our sampradayam, because for an analytical mind, it does not sound > practical, but is hypothetical. For those who have not realized, as > they do something as a upayam(like bhakthi, karma, gyana etc) the > realization is at the end for them. For prapannas, the moment they > realize He is the Upayam, then the realization is accomplished and > atmaujjeevanam is over. >They live the rest of their samsaric life > just to support the jagath vyaparam and to get rid of the karmas that > would support the deha-vyoham. I am not saying leave all karmAs. All those karmAs again are due to Bhagavat sankalpam. However, since we cannot keep quiet, Alwars prescribe vAzhvinai (Bhagavat guNa kIrtanam) and adimai (serving His devotees) as anushtAnams not for mOksha but to live a life true to our nature. >And after the realization, they > understand that even their realization was only because of His >krupai. Then where is the question of sahEtukam from Lord's perspective? > > As you yourself said, "Thinking that He is the only way":) means some > effort has to be put in(this is one of the initial steps to make one > understand the sampradayam i.e pre-realization). But, after one > starts "thinking", he/she will realize(due to His Grace) that he/she > was able to realize Him only out of His will i.e post-realization. > >Please remember > all Azhwars sang the prabandhams only after the realization. My point > is that we have to understand their works only from that >perspective. But why they have given this literature? Not for our anushtAnam? (practice that He is the only upAya and making no efforts) > If we have really attained realization then we would auto matically > talk only about His Nirhetuka krupa. For those who have not, we must > share our bhagavadh anubhavams and make them do something "for" Him > ("including the sharanagathi"). >But, once they do the sharanagathi, > they would understand that it was His krupai that even made them > perform the sharanagathi. Lord is indeed instrumental in everything > as an antharyami. But, this understanding comes only after the > realization doesn't it? Azhwar has realized it. How about others >who > haven't? How do we make them understand this? Alwars are not speaking from a high platform but are very practcial. If we say you need to perfrom Sharanagati, that will also drive away people from the sampradAyam. How can one perform something which is a state of realization that He is the upAya and upEya? Once we convey them that He is the upAya and upEya and they are convinced about it, are they not SaraNAgatas? >For them, if the lord > is instrumental and the jeevatmas do "nothing" then aren't we > advocating one of the aspects of the "Advaitam" i.e brahmam is only > one that does everything and anything else that we perceive are >ust > the maya? That is why I insist that Acharya Hrudhayam has to be felt > from the position of Azhwar. It should not be discussed from our >day > to day samsaric perspective. It is purely from a prappana > perspective. It is very much different from advaitam because thinking I am God (by realization) will generate ego and superiority over nature. Our position is, even thinking that i have made some effort for mOksha will lead to ego and we are not supposed to have any sort of ego even to the smallest extent. As I said earlier,we need not keep quite but go ahead with anushtAnams (vAzhvinai and adimai). >s Shri NC Narasimhan mentioned, these are Rahasya > Granthams and need to be understood only from the right acharyan. >We > may read these and try to get familiarity with the information > available in it and ask questions. But, this is different from the > intent and the perspective of the author Swamy Azhagiya Manalavala > Perumal Nayanar. >From a Sri Vaishnava Acharya, I understood that this is the simplest sampradAya and there is no scope for misunderstanding. However, one problem is there. If it is too simple, people may not accept it as people want to "earn" everything including mOksha. > > > ALawandAr, in his stotra ratna, who first offers himself to Him > > saying "ahamadyaiva mayA samapritah" corrects himself in the next > > Sloka by saying "athavA kinnu samarpayAmi tE?" ((when evrything is > > Urs, what can I offer you?) > > This is a perfect example of the pre and post realization process. Another view point is, AlawandAr is conveying to us we need not even submit ourselves to Him since we are already His. Having faith in Him is enough. Our belief (as taught by Alwars) is that such faith is also his blessing. > > > > In our definition, SaraNAgati is nothing but accepting Him as upAya > > and upEya. > "accepting" him, itself is an effort isn't it(from a normal > perspective). But for the person who realized his "incapability", > this realization itself is due to the Lord's grace. That is what I have been trying to say. According to Alwars, that acceptance or realization takes place only out of His grace. > > Morever if we expect everyone to accept the lord as the > upayam at the initial stage itself, this would get rid of many of the > people. Since SaraNatagti by our definition is the realization that He is the upAya and upEya, what should we ask them to do in the initial stage? Will we not be contradticting ourselves at a later stage, when they are prapannas? > > I have heard in many kalakshepams that He indefinitely waits for >us. > For what? If he uses his Nirhetuka krupa, we would not be here. Since He wants this lIlA vibhUti to be there, we are here. When He uses His krupA, we will be in nitya vibhUti. > Everyone should have been in moksham. All I am trying to say is that, > we must not restrict the view of our sampradayam only to those people > who are born and brought up in it and who could easily understand >it. > It is open to all and hence we must provide appropriate views > depending on the audience. To me, we must not even let anyone have a > doubt that the lord may be Partial because "HE IS NOT". I am also of the same opinion. God is not partial and our sampradAyam must be open to everybody. Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Vishnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.