(Ramanuja) sEshatwam & pArathanthiryam

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

Respected Sri Venkatesan and Sri Vishnu,

 

Request your pardon for interfering in your scholarly

discussion on seshatwam, pArathanthiryam, saatvika

ahamkaaram etc. The following is the understanding to

my little knowledge which may be full of flaws. I

request the bhagavathas to pardon me and correct me.

 

Let me first give two interpretations to understand

the relationship (if any) between seshatwam and

parathanthiryam.

(1) It is said ‘avanandri vor aNuvum asaiyaadu’.

(nothing moves in this universe without His will).

Supposing the aNu (this is only as an example and not

to get into details of chit or achit) gets the potency

to move on its own, it must refrain itself from doing

it. If not, its “parathanthiryam azhiyum” and

‘swathanthiryam vandu, swaroopam azhiyum” (quotes are

mine). The aNu starts thinking itself as swathanthran

because it is able to move on its own. From verse 56 &

57 of Mumukshppadi it is deduced that if the aNu

starts thinking itself as swathanthran, pArathanthiyam

is lost, so also seshatwam. But seshatwam is something

which should not be lost even in Bhoga dasai (92). If

seshatwam is lost, bhoga dasai praapthi can not

happen. This is because it is in bhoga dasai, Ishwaran

gets into the process of destroying seshatwam of the

aNu. Since that process is enjoyed by Ishwaran, the

aNu is expected to show naichiam that it still is

under seshatwam! It is therefore concluded that

seshatwam is and continues to be the swarupam for the

aNu, (even in bhogadasai). Since the aNu exhibits

seshatwam, it is also a pArathanthiryan.

 

(2) This is about a father and his son and let us

imagine that the son resembles his father in all

aspects. It is almost that he is identical to his

father in all respects. Yet he can not be his father

and this makes him secondary to his father

(seshatwam), though he is capable of behaving like his

father in each and every way. In his capacity of

having been endowed with all the qualities of his

father, can he seek a relationship (I request the

bhagavathas to read this only as an example to

understand the concept better) with his father’s wife,

i.e., his own mother for procreation? He can not. He

is not at liberty to do this and if he does, he loses

his pArathanthiryam. This means he tries to usurp his

father’s position and if he really does so, he will

lose his swarupam. (stature as the son, in this case).

When sage Vishwamithra started creating the universe

for the sake of Thrishanku, (inspite of the injunction

that creation is forbidden for the one who is in

Brahmanhood), it is tantamount to taking up the role

of Brahman (father in this case). If not in other

aspects, it is in the matter of creation, the chetana,

even after attaining Brahman-hood can not behave like

a swathanthran. Seshatwam indicates that though he

(chetana) is like Him, he is not Him as he is only

secondary to Him. Parathanthiryam indicates that he

can not behave like Him, though he is quite capable of

behaving like Him because he in only subservient to

Him.

 

On two occasions in her life, Sita piratti came close

to losing pArathanthiryam, one in Ashoka vanam and the

other when left abandoned as a pregnant woman. Sri

vachana bhooshanam treats the 2nd occasion as an

exemplary example of pArathanthiryam. (naduvil

pirindadu, parathanthirayatthai veLiyidugaikkaaga). On

both the occasions she moots the idea of taking up

swathanthiryam, (1) by destroying Ravana with her

pathi viradaagni and (2) by terminating her life since

she has been abandoned by her husband. She refrains

from doing both because destroying of Ravana rests

with Rama and she has not been commanded by Rama to

destroy him. And in the latter case she has been

commanded by Rama to live, not die upon abandonment.

This latter occasion, not the former one in Ashoka

vana has been extolled by Acharyas as the supreme act

of pArathanthiryam, probably because she almost went

to the extent of leaving out her praaNan in the former

case (a case of shedding pAratahnthiryam) but for the

timely interference of Hanuman.

 

Seshatwam has been treated at 3 levels in general,

anya seshatwam, bhagavatha seshatwam and ananyaarha

seshatwam. Anya seshatwam must be given up at all

costs (61) (marandum puram thozhaa maandhar).

Bhagavatha seshatwam is superior to anya seshatwam

(89) because of the break down of mama kaaram in

bhagavatha seshatwam. (uttradum vunadu adiaarku

adimai). Seshatwam to Peria piratti is not taken up

here (90 &60) as that comes under a related discussion

on akaara, ukaara, makaara thathwas. Ananyaarha

seshatwam is what piratti did when she entered the

Bhoomi claiming that she has NEVER been secondary to

anyone other than Him. This shows that seshatwam is

the permanent guna that the chetana must have.

 

This idea is strengthened by the verse 92 that it is

for His enjoyment that the chetana continues to feign

seshatwam though it has been destroyed by Him in Bhoga

dasai. The chetana clings to naichiam as though he is

still in a state of seshatwam so that He would

continue to enjoy. (Sarvam Narayana preethyartham).

 

When this takes place he becomes a ‘kruthakruthyan’

(94) by realising that He has taken up his body for

enjoyment and for doing whatever He likes to do.

(thanakkEyaaga enai-k-koLLa vENum). The chetana in

this state is not a swathanthran, nor even a

pArathanthryan in the truest sense of the term because

he can do whatever He wishes him to do. The qualifying

difference is that this ‘doing’ is not as he has

wished (which otherwise would destroy Parathanthiryam)

but as He has wished. This is known as ‘Parathanthirya

–prathipatthi’ which is supposed to yield the chetana

‘sakala-sUkhrutham’. He need not do yajyas, nor

actions for praayaschittham etc, for none of them are

going to be of any ‘prayOjanam’ to him. Whatever he

does are done by Him for His pleasure. This is

comparable to the state in which king Janaka was, as

extolled by Gitacharyan. The ‘kruthakruthyan’ wields

‘sama dhrushti’ and nothing but enjoying the enjoyment

of Him is filled in him.

 

The 20 ‘Ini’ from Thiruvai mozhi(TVM), quoted by PBA

Swamy as vyakhyanam for verse 230 of Acharya Hrudhayam

describes the state of aarthi, which looks like the

preceding state to bhoga dasai. Here is quoted 4

verses from the last 10 of 1000 (TVM) which, to my

chittrarivu appears like azhwar clinging to seshatwam

in the face of losing it by Bhagavan’s krupa.

(1) ‘emparam saadhikkaluttrEn, ennai-ip-pOra

vittittAyE’ (10-10-4)

(2) ‘enathenbadu en? YAn enbadu en?’ (10-10-5)

(3) ‘manakkaaraamai manni uNdittaai, ini undozhiyaai’

(10-10-6)

(4) ‘unnai-p-petru ini-p-pOkkuvanO?’ (10-10-7).

 

The comparison is as follows:-

# Dilution of Seshatwa in Bhoga dasai by Him gives

rise to pArathanthirya –prathipatthi.

 

# In bhoga dasai, seshatwam is destroyed (by Him). In

Parathanthirya-prathipatthi, pArathanthiryam is not

destroyed. Instead his paapam is destroyed and his

‘balam’ is increased. The chetana can do anything but

only as a vehicle (deham) for Him. It is He who

actually does – something realised by the chetana.

(Even though it is He who has done earlier and always,

the dawning of such realisation in the chetana gives

rise to Parathanthirya prathipatthi.)

 

# The inference therefore is that pArathanthiryam is

never to be lost. Bringing in the analogy of father

and son, the son is like his father, because it is his

father who has begotten him. If you say that he is his

father, that means he has to begotten himself, which

is not possible. This is where pArathanthiryam reaches

its limits! (quote from Thiruchanda viruttham- yanum

nee adandri en piraanum nee ramanE –This can be said

from the point of view of the chetana (son). The

reverse can not be said by the father (God) about his

son (chetana). It is always that He is the Piraan

having swatahnthram. The chetana can never come to

embody swathanthiryam.)

 

Coming to the question of satvika-ahankaram, Ramanuja

establishes in his Sribhashya to the 1st sutra of

Badarayana that the self whose essential nature is

knowledge can not be said to have ahankara by being

the knower. “Knowership which is of this aforesaid

nature, belongs only to the self whose essential

character is intelligence and consequently, this

knowership can not possibly belong, at any time, to

the non-intelligent principle of egoity (i.e.,

ahankara). Ramanuja draws input from Yamunacharya’s

works to substantiate this proposition. The Lord says

umpteen times that He knows everything, He is all

Knowledge and He is superior to all. The verses

expressed to this effect are many in Gita but do we

call this as arising out of ahankara? The answer is no

because it is in His nature to be all knowledgeable.

So too with the self, reasons out Ramanuja. It is

perhaps with this realisation minus ahankara and for

the sake of posterity, he, with insightful sama

dhrushti, allowed the making of 2 two idols in his

image and even did the aalinganam to them to make them

himself. It is perhaps for the same reason, he allowed

Thiruvarangaththamudanaar to compose a Nootrandaathi

in his name while he was alive. Similarly with Swami

Desika in the verses under discussion. (I am unable to

elaborate as I am not conversant with them. But it is

clear that what holds for Bhagavath Ramanuja, holds

good for Swami Desika too.)

 

If we go to rural Karnataka or rural Andhra we still

find people introducing themselves as so and so, the

son of so and so. The identification is all the more

important and necessary with maha purushas, as we are

required to remember them and pass on their message to

future generations. It is a kind of documentation,

complete with all particulars about the honors and

works they are associated with. Without such

documentation, we may not have been in a position to

pay obeisance to seers as we do during upakarma!

 

Regards,

Jayasree saranathan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - You care about security. So do we.

 

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImathE Ramanujaya namah:

 

Dear Smt Jayshree

As usual, you have flabbergasted us with your rich write up.

excellent!

adiyEn's two cents worth:

what i had listened to from asmadhAchAryan:

 

SEshathvam is LakshmaNan;

Paarathanthriyam- Bharathan...

 

Lakshmanan was willing to serve the Lord at all times under all

circumstances; and it was as if it was His duty... and he deserves

that... Stay in Ayodhya; look after appA, ammA... while I go to the

forest..

No.. never. I will accompany You. Manni, please let me follow you

both. Please tell Rama... Lakshmanan pleads and has his way to

serve. sEshan...

 

while Bharathan acted what the Lord had asked him to do, whether he

(Bharathan) likes it or not); Go back to Ayodhya... ok...[though he

had come with an intent to take back Rama to ayodhyA]- itta

vazhakkaay irutthal.. Exists merely for the pleasure of the

Lord.. "as if" achethanam .. and still be a chEthanan... Seeing Him

pleased would make him pleased..

 

Please forgive adiyEn for my indulgence

Regards

Namo narayana

dasan

 

 

 

ramanuja, jasn sn <jayasartn> wrote:

> SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

>

> Respected Sri Venkatesan and Sri Vishnu,

>

>

[Guest guest]

Respected Swami,

 

I understand that lakshmaNa is primarily an example for SEshatvam and

Bharata for pArartantryam.

 

However, SEshatvam does not mean doing service. What u wrote for

pAratantryam "Exists merely for the pleasure of the

Lord" is apt for SEshatvam, as defined in "nivAsa SayyAsana..."

SlOkam of yAmuna muni.

 

If SEshatvam means doing service, perumAL cannot be aSEsha chidachit

vastu SEshi bhUta... SEshI for all sentient and non-sentient things.

 

lakshmaNa's pleading with the Lord can be understood

from "nirAsakasyApi na tAvadutsahE mahESa! hAtum tava pAda

pankajam..." perspective of yAmuna muni. In case of Bharata, he is

duly compensated as he got His pAdukAs!

 

dAsAnudAsan

Vishnu

 

ramanuja, "srivaishnavan" <srivaishnavan>

wrote:

> SrI:

> SrImathE Ramanujaya namah:

>

> Dear Smt Jayshree

> As usual, you have flabbergasted us with your rich write up.

> excellent!

> adiyEn's two cents worth:

> what i had listened to from asmadhAchAryan:

>

> SEshathvam is LakshmaNan;

> Paarathanthriyam- Bharathan...

>

> Lakshmanan was willing to serve the Lord at all times under all

> circumstances; and it was as if it was His duty... and he deserves

> that... Stay in Ayodhya; look after appA, ammA... while I go to the

> forest..

> No.. never. I will accompany You. Manni, please let me follow you

> both. Please tell Rama... Lakshmanan pleads and has his way to

> serve. sEshan...

>

> while Bharathan acted what the Lord had asked him to do, whether he

> (Bharathan) likes it or not); Go back to Ayodhya... ok...[though he

> had come with an intent to take back Rama to ayodhyA]- itta

> vazhakkaay irutthal.. Exists merely for the pleasure of the

> Lord.. "as if" achethanam .. and still be a chEthanan... Seeing Him

> pleased would make him pleased..

>

> Please forgive adiyEn for my indulgence

> Regards

> Namo narayana

> dasan

>

>

>

> ramanuja, jasn sn <jayasartn> wrote:

> > SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

> >

> > Respected Sri Venkatesan and Sri Vishnu,

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

 

Dear Vishnu,

 

I am borrowing Sri Sridhar's statement: pAratantryam is

quintessential sEshatvam.

I am under the impression(!)that this is what lakshmaNa

displayed.He was like fish out of water without Srirama. SEshatvam

(service to the Lord) is the essential attribute of the individual

soul compared to teh other attribute "gnAtrtvam" because sEshatvam

differentiates the jIvA from the Lord while the other differentiates

the jIvA from the non-sentient/matter. PeriyAzhvAr's "thirumAlE

nAnum unakku pazhavadiyen". In strict terms, no servant has any form

of independence!!!

I don't understand how you made the statement that

bharata for pArantantryam. If I 'm wrong I want to be corrected by

the devotees. It is bharata who displayed swagata swIkAram,trying to

get hold of the Lord(effort on the individual part)and that's why

Srirama didn't oblige bharata's wish. In the case of lakshmaNa,even

while rendering service, he would not excercise his own volition but

only seek the orders of Srirama and the Lord couldn't resist but

only yield to devotion of such high order. Since it is only

sEshatvam which sustains the individual soul and makes it thrive,

lakshmaNa couldn't stay apart from the Lord and could thrive only by

serving the Lord in all possible ways. Bharata and satrughna

rendered only particular service while lakshmaNa everything to the

Lord. In short, lakshmaNa displayed that he has no independent

existence without that Srirama. Well, don't blame me if my english

language didn't exactly convey what I wanted to say. Please correct

me if I'm wrong.

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

dAsAnu dAsI

NC Nappinnai

 

 

> I understand that lakshmaNa is primarily an example for SEshatvam

and

> Bharata for pArartantryam.

 

 

>

> However, SEshatvam does not mean doing service. What u wrote for

> pAratantryam "Exists merely for the pleasure of the

> Lord" is apt for SEshatvam, as defined in "nivAsa SayyAsana..."

> SlOkam of yAmuna muni.

>

> If SEshatvam means doing service, perumAL cannot be aSEsha

chidachit

> vastu SEshi bhUta... SEshI for all sentient and non-sentient

things.

>

> lakshmaNa's pleading with the Lord can be understood

> from "nirAsakasyApi na tAvadutsahE mahESa! hAtum tava pAda

> pankajam..." perspective of yAmuna muni. In case of Bharata, he is

> duly compensated as he got His pAdukAs!

>

> dAsAnudAsan

> Vishnu

[Guest guest]

Dear Ms Vaidehi,

 

I simply agreed since a learned member said so! You are also right.

All are conceptual, over which we have no control.

 

ramanuja, "vaidhehi_nc" <nappinnai_nc>

wrote:

> Sri:

> Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

>

> Dear Vishnu,

>

> I am borrowing Sri Sridhar's statement: pAratantryam is

> quintessential sEshatvam.

 

Swami is 100% accurate.

 

> I am under the impression(!)that this is what lakshmaNa

> displayed.He was like fish out of water without Srirama.

 

Exactly that is what said by me when I quoted yAmuna's SlOkam

(nirAsakasyApi...). Hope I corrected myself in my previous mail:)

 

> SEshatvam

> (service to the Lord) is the essential attribute of the individual

> soul compared to teh other attribute "gnAtrtvam" because sEshatvam

> differentiates the jIvA from the Lord while the other

>differentiates

> the jIvA from the non-sentient/matter.

 

SEshatvam does not mean service. I requested you to get the meaning

from Indian math textbooks:) We should go thru the meaning and then

apply it to service, that also not while discussing pAratantryam, as

people can mistinterpret.

 

Dasan

Vishnu