iLaya perumAL-3-concluded.

[Guest guest]

Dear SrEvaishNavites,

I

Why did sri lakshmaNA refuse to heed sri ramA's direction to remain at ayOdhyA?

though this question is not directly taken up, the comentary -sri maNavALa

mAmunikal's vyAkyAnam has addressed this issue.

 

Two reasons have been attributed. 1. lakshmaNA could not stand separation from

the Lord. 2. He wanted to do all the service to the Lord- that is why he

mentioned 'aham sarvam karishyAmi'

 

Why should he say 'i will do all ' . This can also be inferred from the

vyAkyAnam:

"inna inna adimai seiyya vEaNum enRa oru niyadhi inRikkEa, ellA adimaiyum seiyya

vEANum ennum"

 

An event has been quoted here. When they were in pancha-vati, sri rAmA asked

lakshmaNA to build a parNa-sAlA at a place which is located near water source

and is also in a shadow area. sri lakshmANA felt doomed. Why? He felt that Lord

had mounted independence on him.

'nam thalaiyilEa swAthantharyathai vaitha pOdhu perumAL nammai kaivittAr enRu

vikrutharAi, pirAtti munnilaiyAga kaiyum anjaliyumAga ninRu- "yEavik-koLLa

vEANum' enRu prArthithAr.

 

The blemish of independence should not mix while doing kainkaryam.

 

II. In the 85th sUthram the important characteristics of upAyam and upEyam are

highlighted.

"upAyathukku sakthiyum,lajjaiyum, yathnamum kulaiya vEANum;

upEyathukku, prEAmamum, thannaip pEANAmaiyum, thariyAmaiyum vEANum" srEvacahana

bhUshaNam.

 

For upEyam - Immense emotional attachment and affection towards the Lord which

propels oneself not to be separated from Him adn do all the services.sri

laksmaNA excelled in this.

 

Recalling the event referred hereinabove, it is crystal clear that lakshmaNA had

feared independence while performing kainkaryam thus removing the defect of

independence and self enjoyment in the shEshathvam.

 

Does this not make iLaya perumAL a true role model of upEyam.

 

That is why we often correlate iLaya-perumAL with the thiru-voi-mozhip pAsuram

"vozhivil kAlam ellAm vudanAi manni, vazhuvilA adimai seiyya vEANum nAm" 3-3-1;

 

'lakshmaNO lakshmi sampannA:!"

 

concluded

rAmAnuja dAsan

vanamamalai padmanabhan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

A nice enlightening post. This covers only one aspect of the Bhakti that the

Atma has for God, Lakshmana also excelled in other forms. Will post seperately

on that.

 

Dasan/raghavan

 

Padmanabhan <aazhwar wrote:

Dear SrEvaishNavites,

I

Why did sri lakshmaNA refuse to heed sri ramA's direction to remain at ayOdhyA?

though this question is not directly taken up, the comentary -sri maNavALa

mAmunikal's vyAkyAnam has addressed this issue.

 

Two reasons have been attributed. 1. lakshmaNA could not stand separation from

the Lord. 2. He wanted to do all the service to the Lord- that is why he

mentioned 'aham sarvam karishyAmi'

 

Why should he say 'i will do all ' . This can also be inferred from the

vyAkyAnam:

"inna inna adimai seiyya vEaNum enRa oru niyadhi inRikkEa, ellA adimaiyum seiyya

vEANum ennum"

 

An event has been quoted here. When they were in pancha-vati, sri rAmA asked

lakshmaNA to build a parNa-sAlA at a place which is located near water source

and is also in a shadow area. sri lakshmANA felt doomed. Why? He felt that Lord

had mounted independence on him.

'nam thalaiyilEa swAthantharyathai vaitha pOdhu perumAL nammai kaivittAr enRu

vikrutharAi, pirAtti munnilaiyAga kaiyum anjaliyumAga ninRu- "yEavik-koLLa

vEANum' enRu prArthithAr.

 

The blemish of independence should not mix while doing kainkaryam.

 

II. In the 85th sUthram the important characteristics of upAyam and upEyam are

highlighted.

"upAyathukku sakthiyum,lajjaiyum, yathnamum kulaiya vEANum;

upEyathukku, prEAmamum, thannaip pEANAmaiyum, thariyAmaiyum vEANum" srEvacahana

bhUshaNam.

 

For upEyam - Immense emotional attachment and affection towards the Lord which

propels oneself not to be separated from Him adn do all the services.sri

laksmaNA excelled in this.

 

Recalling the event referred hereinabove, it is crystal clear that lakshmaNA had

feared independence while performing kainkaryam thus removing the defect of

independence and self enjoyment in the shEshathvam.

 

Does this not make iLaya perumAL a true role model of upEyam.

 

That is why we often correlate iLaya-perumAL with the thiru-voi-mozhip pAsuram

"vozhivil kAlam ellAm vudanAi manni, vazhuvilA adimai seiyya vEANum nAm" 3-3-1;

 

'lakshmaNO lakshmi sampannA:!"

 

concluded

rAmAnuja dAsan

vanamamalai padmanabhan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

 

 

 

ramanuja/

 

ramanuja

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri VijayaRaghavan,

Thank You. My intention was not to write in dertail about iLaya-perumAL but to

ward off the impression that by refusing to being separated from sri rAmA- going

with HIm to the exile- iLaya perumAL had no pArathanthriyam at all.

 

Hence, I took refuege in few AzhwAr's verses and vyAkyAnam-s and work of sri

piLLai lOkAchArya.

 

True, there are many more fascinating facets to sri lakshmaNA.

 

thank you and regards

rAmAnuja dAsan

vanamamalai padmanabhan

 

 

-

Vijaya Raghavan

ramanuja

Sunday, September 19, 2004 7:24 AM

Re: [ramanuja] iLaya perumAL-3-concluded.

 

 

A nice enlightening post. This covers only one aspect of the Bhakti that the

Atma has for God, Lakshmana also excelled in other forms. Will post seperately

on that.

 

Dasan/raghavan

 

Padmanabhan <aazhwar wrote:

Dear SrEvaishNavites,

I

Why did sri lakshmaNA refuse to heed sri ramA's direction to remain at

ayOdhyA? though this question is not directly taken up, the comentary -sri

maNavALa mAmunikal's vyAkyAnam has addressed this issue.

 

Two reasons have been attributed. 1. lakshmaNA could not stand separation from

the Lord. 2. He wanted to do all the service to the Lord- that is why he

mentioned 'aham sarvam karishyAmi'

 

Why should he say 'i will do all ' . This can also be inferred from the

vyAkyAnam:

"inna inna adimai seiyya vEaNum enRa oru niyadhi inRikkEa, ellA adimaiyum

seiyya vEANum ennum"

 

An event has been quoted here. When they were in pancha-vati, sri rAmA asked

lakshmaNA to build a parNa-sAlA at a place which is located near water source

and is also in a shadow area. sri lakshmANA felt doomed. Why? He felt that Lord

had mounted independence on him.

'nam thalaiyilEa swAthantharyathai vaitha pOdhu perumAL nammai kaivittAr enRu

vikrutharAi, pirAtti munnilaiyAga kaiyum anjaliyumAga ninRu- "yEavik-koLLa

vEANum' enRu prArthithAr.

 

The blemish of independence should not mix while doing kainkaryam.

 

II. In the 85th sUthram the important characteristics of upAyam and upEyam are

highlighted.

"upAyathukku sakthiyum,lajjaiyum, yathnamum kulaiya vEANum;

upEyathukku, prEAmamum, thannaip pEANAmaiyum, thariyAmaiyum vEANum"

srEvacahana bhUshaNam.

 

For upEyam - Immense emotional attachment and affection towards the Lord which

propels oneself not to be separated from Him adn do all the services.sri

laksmaNA excelled in this.

 

Recalling the event referred hereinabove, it is crystal clear that lakshmaNA

had feared independence while performing kainkaryam thus removing the defect of

independence and self enjoyment in the shEshathvam.

 

Does this not make iLaya perumAL a true role model of upEyam.

 

That is why we often correlate iLaya-perumAL with the thiru-voi-mozhip pAsuram

"vozhivil kAlam ellAm vudanAi manni, vazhuvilA adimai seiyya vEANum nAm"

3-3-1;

 

'lakshmaNO lakshmi sampannA:!"

 

concluded

rAmAnuja dAsan

vanamamalai padmanabhan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

Links

 

ramanuja/

 

ramanuja

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

 

 

 

ramanuja/

 

b..

ramanuja

 

c..

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

ramanuja, Padmanabhan <aazhwar@v...> wrote:

> Dear SrEvaishNavites,

> I

> Why did sri lakshmaNA refuse to heed sri ramA's direction to remain

at ayOdhyA? though this question is not directly taken up, the

comentary -sri maNavALa mAmunikal's vyAkyAnam has addressed this

issue.

>

> Two reasons have been attributed. 1. lakshmaNA could not stand

separation from the Lord. 2. He wanted to do all the service to the

Lord- that is why he mentioned 'aham sarvam karishyAmi'

>

> Why should he say 'i will do all ' . This can also be inferred from

the vyAkyAnam:

> "inna inna adimai seiyya vEaNum enRa oru niyadhi inRikkEa, ellA

adimaiyum seiyya vEANum ennum"

>

> An event has been quoted here. When they were in pancha-vati, sri

rAmA asked lakshmaNA to build a parNa-sAlA at a place which is

located near water source and is also in a shadow area. sri lakshmANA

felt doomed. Why? He felt that Lord had mounted independence on him.

> 'nam thalaiyilEa swAthantharyathai vaitha pOdhu perumAL nammai

kaivittAr enRu vikrutharAi, pirAtti munnilaiyAga kaiyum anjaliyumAga

ninRu- "yEavik-koLLa vEANum' enRu prArthithAr.

>

> The blemish of independence should not mix while doing kainkaryam.

 

Respected Swami,

 

We are learining from your beautiful explanations.

 

SEshatvam is explained in stOtra ratna. AchArya says:

SarIra bhEdai: tava SEshatAm gatai: which means AdiSEsha is for Him

in differen forms like cot, pillow etc. So the statement "aham sarvam

karishyAmi" has to be understood from this perspective, which means

blemishless service as ordained by Him. Also lakshmaNa is younger

brother who has to serve the elder one as per his order, in our Vedic

culture. Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

 

Dasan

Vishnu

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Vishnu,

 

While it is true that service is as ordained by Him,

it is the svarUpa of the soul, and that the younger

brother has to serve the elder - the fact remains

that Laskhmana refused a direct order from Sri Rama.

In fact, he threatened to committ suicide when he

was told to stay back - forcing Rama to take him

along.

 

On the other hand, Sri Bharata, who too could have

threatened some dire action and demanded that Rama

come back or that he too be taken along with Rama

(and Rama might have obliged, going by past

experience), did no such thing and in fact returned

happily to Ayodhya ("ArurOha ratham hruShta:"). The

key things here is that he did not come back sad

thinking that he had failed; he came back happy that

he was doing what his brother wanted.

 

It is said that when Guha first saw Lakshamana, he

was greatly impressed by him and wondered at the

greatness of such a brother. But when he saw Bharata

later, he said that 'here indeed is a true brother'.

 

I heard this is in an upanyasam: Guha attempted to

explain Lakshmana's greatness to Bharata - Nampillai

records this as someone trying to move the water in

an ocean with his hands. But, he also mentions that

explaining Lakshmana's greatness to Bharata is like

explaining the greatness of a 'kazhi' (a small amount

of water collected from an ocean to extract the salt)

to the ocean itself.

 

As far as my understanding goes, it is our pUrvAchAryas

stand that Bharata's greatness far exceeds that of

Lakshmana - because of his pAratantryam as opposed

to Lakshmana's sEshatvam.

 

The ascending order of greatness amongst the four

brothers is - 1. Rama, 2. Lakshmana, 3. Bharata and

4. Shatrughna. The reasons are shown in the vyakhyanam

extract that adiyEn posted a couple of days ago.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

 

 

--- Vishnu <vsmvishnu wrote:

>

> SEshatvam is explained in stOtra ratna. AchArya says:

> SarIra bhEdai: tava SEshatAm gatai: which means AdiSEsha

> is for Him

> in differen forms like cot, pillow etc. So the statement

> "aham sarvam

> karishyAmi" has to be understood from this perspective,

> which means

> blemishless service as ordained by Him. Also lakshmaNa is

> younger

> brother who has to serve the elder one as per his order,

> in our Vedic

> culture. Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

>

> Dasan

> Vishnu

>

 

 

 

 

_______________________________

 

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.

[Guest guest]

One point adiyEn forgot to mention. When Bharata

accepted Rama's order that he rule Ayodhya, he

must have known what that represents - that is,

he is the king and Rama becomes his subject. This

is borne by the fact that many a times, Rama does

mention that Bharata is the king and he is a

representative of Bharata (for eg, see Rama's

explanation to Vali why he chose to kill him).

 

To me, this seems to be an example of "sEshathvaththai

azhikkum pOdhu" - and being a true paratantra, Bharata

accepted the reversal of roles between sesha and

seshi.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

 

> On the other hand, Sri Bharata, who too could have

> threatened some dire action and demanded that Rama

> come back or that he too be taken along with Rama

> (and Rama might have obliged, going by past

> experience), did no such thing and in fact returned

> happily to Ayodhya ("ArurOha ratham hruShta:"). The

> key things here is that he did not come back sad

> thinking that he had failed; he came back happy that

> he was doing what his brother wanted.

>

 

 

 

 

 

New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages!

 

[Guest guest]

Swamin,

 

Pardon me if I am wrong. I think the conclusion on the order of greatness is in

favour of Lakshmana.

 

But I would like to go as per Kamban "AAYIRAM RAMAR NIN KEEZH AAVARO"

for reasons as simple as this.

 

A soul that nayed the offer of kingdom, pleasure of family or the other benefits

and lived like his brother wearing matted hair and all.

 

Dasan/raghavan

 

TCA Venkatesan <vtca wrote:

Dear Sri Vishnu,

 

While it is true that service is as ordained by Him,

it is the svarUpa of the soul, and that the younger

brother has to serve the elder - the fact remains

that Laskhmana refused a direct order from Sri Rama.

In fact, he threatened to committ suicide when he

was told to stay back - forcing Rama to take him

along.

 

On the other hand, Sri Bharata, who too could have

threatened some dire action and demanded that Rama

come back or that he too be taken along with Rama

(and Rama might have obliged, going by past

experience), did no such thing and in fact returned

happily to Ayodhya ("ArurOha ratham hruShta:"). The

key things here is that he did not come back sad

thinking that he had failed; he came back happy that

he was doing what his brother wanted.

 

It is said that when Guha first saw Lakshamana, he

was greatly impressed by him and wondered at the

greatness of such a brother. But when he saw Bharata

later, he said that 'here indeed is a true brother'.

 

I heard this is in an upanyasam: Guha attempted to

explain Lakshmana's greatness to Bharata - Nampillai

records this as someone trying to move the water in

an ocean with his hands. But, he also mentions that

explaining Lakshmana's greatness to Bharata is like

explaining the greatness of a 'kazhi' (a small amount

of water collected from an ocean to extract the salt)

to the ocean itself.

 

As far as my understanding goes, it is our pUrvAchAryas

stand that Bharata's greatness far exceeds that of

Lakshmana - because of his pAratantryam as opposed

to Lakshmana's sEshatvam.

 

The ascending order of greatness amongst the four

brothers is - 1. Rama, 2. Lakshmana, 3. Bharata and

4. Shatrughna. The reasons are shown in the vyakhyanam

extract that adiyEn posted a couple of days ago.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

 

 

--- Vishnu <vsmvishnu wrote:

>

> SEshatvam is explained in stOtra ratna. AchArya says:

> SarIra bhEdai: tava SEshatAm gatai: which means AdiSEsha

> is for Him

> in differen forms like cot, pillow etc. So the statement

> "aham sarvam

> karishyAmi" has to be understood from this perspective,

> which means

> blemishless service as ordained by Him. Also lakshmaNa is

> younger

> brother who has to serve the elder one as per his order,

> in our Vedic

> culture. Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

>

> Dasan

> Vishnu

>

 

 

 

 

_______________________________

 

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.

 

 

 

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

 

 

 

ramanuja/

 

ramanuja

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Swamins / Bhagavathas,

I apologize for mistakes if any.

 

> That is why we often correlate iLaya-perumAL with the thiru-voi-

mozhip pAsuram

> "vozhivil kAlam ellAm vudanAi manni, vazhuvilA adimai seiyya vEANum

nAm" 3-3-1;

 

Lakshmana is quoted for "udanAi manni", but his failure is known

in "vazhuvilA adimai". No doubt Lakshmana, Bharatha and Shatrugna are

quoted in different contexts for different amazing facets of

prapannas. "udanAi manni" has to be understood in the context of

functional separation. As my Swamy used to say, Paramathma is always

within us. He is never separated out. So why would we want to be with

him? Though we are not separated out of Him structurally /

phenomenally / physically, we are separated out functionally via

disobedience, ignorance etc.

 

Lakshmana need not have been physically with the Lord to perform

kainkaryam. So, in the context of "aham sarvam karishyAmi", Lakshmana

did prove his Seshatvam, but, he was a big failure in terms of

pAratantryam. "vazhuvilA adimai" was what Bharatha did. If the Lord

says "you do this", you better do it, be it whatever.. That is the

state of a paratantran. Rama tried the same thing with Hanuman too

and Hanuman too failed in this case. Rama asked Hanuman to come to

Vaikuntam. Hanuman denied giving some excellent reasons. Who cares...

Rama was definitely led down by Hanuman at that point.

Well, Bharatha had his own mistakes in wounding the lord. He never

ruled Ayodhya. He fulfilled Rama's order only half the way. He quit

from forest and returned to Ayodhya. It was Shatrugna who made the

Lord happy by keeping all his people happy via ruling the country.

Bottom line is, these three brothers were role-models in different

angles, and no one could ever try to blame these. But, as a matter of

analysis, when a comparison is made, it helps us understand the state

of different prapannas. That is why Acharyas have kept different

levels like Shatrugnan padi, Bharathan padi and Lakshmanan padi.

 

I understand we must only try to see the best out of anything and so

must be with historical prapannas. Like Koorathawar said, "he lost

his eyes because he probably thought some time some where that some

Bhagavatha's Thiruman was not properly put", if we try to find fault

with them, we naturally suffer for the same. Since this subject of

pAratantryam is off the usual ones, I have tried to explain what I

have heard from the kalakshepams. Kindly pardon me of all my

ignorance.

 

I hope everyone views these posts as an analysis on prapannas' state

of mind, rather than grasping the so called faults of the quoted

historical characters.

 

sarva aparAdhAn kshamasva.

 

Adiyen,

Ramanuja dAsan

Off the line, I humbly feel, no one else other than the Lord himself

could depict such wonderful pAratantrym as in the case of Parashu

Rama chopping off His own mother's head when instructed by His father

Jamadagni.

 

ramanuja, Padmanabhan <aazhwar@v...> wrote:

> Dear SrEvaishNavites,

> I

> Why did sri lakshmaNA refuse to heed sri ramA's direction to remain

at ayOdhyA? though this question is not directly taken up, the

comentary -sri maNavALa mAmunikal's vyAkyAnam has addressed this

issue.

>

> Two reasons have been attributed. 1. lakshmaNA could not stand

separation from the Lord. 2. He wanted to do all the service to the

Lord- that is why he mentioned 'aham sarvam karishyAmi'

>

> Why should he say 'i will do all ' . This can also be inferred from

the vyAkyAnam:

> "inna inna adimai seiyya vEaNum enRa oru niyadhi inRikkEa, ellA

adimaiyum seiyya vEANum ennum"

>

> An event has been quoted here. When they were in pancha-vati, sri

rAmA asked lakshmaNA to build a parNa-sAlA at a place which is

located near water source and is also in a shadow area. sri lakshmANA

felt doomed. Why? He felt that Lord had mounted independence on him.

> 'nam thalaiyilEa swAthantharyathai vaitha pOdhu perumAL nammai

kaivittAr enRu vikrutharAi, pirAtti munnilaiyAga kaiyum anjaliyumAga

ninRu- "yEavik-koLLa vEANum' enRu prArthithAr.

>

> The blemish of independence should not mix while doing kainkaryam.

>

> II. In the 85th sUthram the important characteristics of upAyam and

upEyam are highlighted.

> "upAyathukku sakthiyum,lajjaiyum, yathnamum kulaiya vEANum;

> upEyathukku, prEAmamum, thannaip pEANAmaiyum, thariyAmaiyum

vEANum" srEvacahana bhUshaNam.

>

> For upEyam - Immense emotional attachment and affection towards the

Lord which propels oneself not to be separated from Him adn do all

the services.sri laksmaNA excelled in this.

>

> Recalling the event referred hereinabove, it is crystal clear that

lakshmaNA had feared independence while performing kainkaryam thus

removing the defect of independence and self enjoyment in the

shEshathvam.

>

> Does this not make iLaya perumAL a true role model of upEyam.

>

> That is why we often correlate iLaya-perumAL with the thiru-voi-

mozhip pAsuram

> "vozhivil kAlam ellAm vudanAi manni, vazhuvilA adimai seiyya vEANum

nAm" 3-3-1;

>

> 'lakshmaNO lakshmi sampannA:!"

>

> concluded

> rAmAnuja dAsan

> vanamamalai padmanabhan

>

>

[Guest guest]

Swamin,

 

Yes all brothers and whole of ramayana is treatise on different forms of Bhakti.

 

Dasan/raghavan

 

Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann wrote:

Dear Swamins / Bhagavathas,

I apologize for mistakes if any.

 

> That is why we often correlate iLaya-perumAL with the thiru-voi-

mozhip pAsuram

> "vozhivil kAlam ellAm vudanAi manni, vazhuvilA adimai seiyya vEANum

nAm" 3-3-1;

 

Lakshmana is quoted for "udanAi manni", but his failure is known

in "vazhuvilA adimai". No doubt Lakshmana, Bharatha and Shatrugna are

quoted in different contexts for different amazing facets of

prapannas. "udanAi manni" has to be understood in the context of

functional separation. As my Swamy used to say, Paramathma is always

within us. He is never separated out. So why would we want to be with

him? Though we are not separated out of Him structurally /

phenomenally / physically, we are separated out functionally via

disobedience, ignorance etc.

 

Lakshmana need not have been physically with the Lord to perform

kainkaryam. So, in the context of "aham sarvam karishyAmi", Lakshmana

did prove his Seshatvam, but, he was a big failure in terms of

pAratantryam. "vazhuvilA adimai" was what Bharatha did. If the Lord

says "you do this", you better do it, be it whatever.. That is the

state of a paratantran. Rama tried the same thing with Hanuman too

and Hanuman too failed in this case. Rama asked Hanuman to come to

Vaikuntam. Hanuman denied giving some excellent reasons. Who cares...

Rama was definitely led down by Hanuman at that point.

Well, Bharatha had his own mistakes in wounding the lord. He never

ruled Ayodhya. He fulfilled Rama's order only half the way. He quit

from forest and returned to Ayodhya. It was Shatrugna who made the

Lord happy by keeping all his people happy via ruling the country.

Bottom line is, these three brothers were role-models in different

angles, and no one could ever try to blame these. But, as a matter of

analysis, when a comparison is made, it helps us understand the state

of different prapannas. That is why Acharyas have kept different

levels like Shatrugnan padi, Bharathan padi and Lakshmanan padi.

 

I understand we must only try to see the best out of anything and so

must be with historical prapannas. Like Koorathawar said, "he lost

his eyes because he probably thought some time some where that some

Bhagavatha's Thiruman was not properly put", if we try to find fault

with them, we naturally suffer for the same. Since this subject of

pAratantryam is off the usual ones, I have tried to explain what I

have heard from the kalakshepams. Kindly pardon me of all my

ignorance.

 

I hope everyone views these posts as an analysis on prapannas' state

of mind, rather than grasping the so called faults of the quoted

historical characters.

 

sarva aparAdhAn kshamasva.

 

Adiyen,

Ramanuja dAsan

Off the line, I humbly feel, no one else other than the Lord himself

could depict such wonderful pAratantrym as in the case of Parashu

Rama chopping off His own mother's head when instructed by His father

Jamadagni.

 

ramanuja, Padmanabhan <aazhwar@v...> wrote:

> Dear SrEvaishNavites,

> I

> Why did sri lakshmaNA refuse to heed sri ramA's direction to remain

at ayOdhyA? though this question is not directly taken up, the

comentary -sri maNavALa mAmunikal's vyAkyAnam has addressed this

issue.

>

> Two reasons have been attributed. 1. lakshmaNA could not stand

separation from the Lord. 2. He wanted to do all the service to the

Lord- that is why he mentioned 'aham sarvam karishyAmi'

>

> Why should he say 'i will do all ' . This can also be inferred from

the vyAkyAnam:

> "inna inna adimai seiyya vEaNum enRa oru niyadhi inRikkEa, ellA

adimaiyum seiyya vEANum ennum"

>

> An event has been quoted here. When they were in pancha-vati, sri

rAmA asked lakshmaNA to build a parNa-sAlA at a place which is

located near water source and is also in a shadow area. sri lakshmANA

felt doomed. Why? He felt that Lord had mounted independence on him.

> 'nam thalaiyilEa swAthantharyathai vaitha pOdhu perumAL nammai

kaivittAr enRu vikrutharAi, pirAtti munnilaiyAga kaiyum anjaliyumAga

ninRu- "yEavik-koLLa vEANum' enRu prArthithAr.

>

> The blemish of independence should not mix while doing kainkaryam.

>

> II. In the 85th sUthram the important characteristics of upAyam and

upEyam are highlighted.

> "upAyathukku sakthiyum,lajjaiyum, yathnamum kulaiya vEANum;

> upEyathukku, prEAmamum, thannaip pEANAmaiyum, thariyAmaiyum

vEANum" srEvacahana bhUshaNam.

>

> For upEyam - Immense emotional attachment and affection towards the

Lord which propels oneself not to be separated from Him adn do all

the services.sri laksmaNA excelled in this.

>

> Recalling the event referred hereinabove, it is crystal clear that

lakshmaNA had feared independence while performing kainkaryam thus

removing the defect of independence and self enjoyment in the

shEshathvam.

>

> Does this not make iLaya perumAL a true role model of upEyam.

>

> That is why we often correlate iLaya-perumAL with the thiru-voi-

mozhip pAsuram

> "vozhivil kAlam ellAm vudanAi manni, vazhuvilA adimai seiyya vEANum

nAm" 3-3-1;

>

> 'lakshmaNO lakshmi sampannA:!"

>

> concluded

> rAmAnuja dAsan

> vanamamalai padmanabhan

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

 

 

 

ramanuja/

 

ramanuja