Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 Dear Smt Nappinnai, When Perumal asked Lakshmana to stay in Ayodhya, it was because it would hurt Perumal more if Lakshmana suffers in the forest, than it would if Lakshmana is physically away from him. But, when Lakshmana replied saying "aham sarvam karishyami", it really takes us back to the initial subject of all these threads, i.e. it displays is "saatvika ahamkaaram":-)). Now, if you place yourself against saatvika ahamkaaram, then you can't support Lakshmana's pAratantrya nature(if any). Well per our aachaarya's, he never displayed pAratantrya behaviour, but was displaying the naicchya/kainkarya swabhavam that pertains to the seshatvam. There is a catch with regards to pAratantryam. If we do something to the Lord because we think it is good for the lord, it is pAratantryam. pAratantryam breaks in cases where the lord Himself explicitly demands something and we do something totally different from it because we think it is good for the lord. ewww...I hope am trying to communicate clearly that which is in my mind Now, I should display some lakshmana kind of behaviour by keeping quiet for sometime, assuming it is all good for others Adiyen, Ramanuja Dasan ramanuja, "vaidhehi_nc" <nappinnai_nc> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: > Dear Sri Vanamamalai Padmanabhan, > Humble praNAms to you. Along with your continuing post > on bharata,satrghna...kindly dispel my doubt. When thAyar is never > separated from perumAL(NammAzhvAr's agalagillEn)and we go by SVB:8, > why shouldn't we consider lakshmaNa for the same pAratantryam also > when he is never separated from the Lord(senRAm kudaiyAm irundhAl > simhAsanamAm...)like thAyAr. I would like to be very clear along > these lines. Once I listened Sri Chinna Jeeyar swami's upanyAsam on > BG(7th chapter and last three slokas). Swamiji said that even when > they were in cradle,and when sumitra tried to take lakshmaNa away > from the Lord,both started crying! Same thing happened with bharata > and satrgna also. Swamiji also narrated a story(not mentioned in > vAlmIki rAmAyaNam)wrt Srirama and lakshmaNa. The bottom line of this > story is perumAL can't live and miserable without lakshmaNa > either!!! > It is b'coz of the inherent gnAtrtvam in the individual > soul, the jIvA puts self-effort(against pAratantryam)and can have > erroneous understanding of the upAyam(like jIvAtma's effort in > mOksha;let's ignore the upEyam for we, within the sriramanuja > community,know that Lord is the upEyam) the time and also finally > indulge in slef-delight! My contention is one can do "complete" self- > less service(like lakshmaNa) only when pAratantryam is inherent in > that jIvA. Correct me if I'm wrong. I want to be crystal clear with > SVB. > > AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam > dAsAnu dAsI > NC Nappinnai > > ramanuja, Padmanabhan <aazhwar@v...> wrote: > > srEvachana bhUshaNam > > sUthram 83 > > > > "pasiyarAyiruppAr attasORum vuNNa vEANum, adugiRa sORum > vuNNavEaNum, ennuma pOlEa, kAttukku pOgiRa pOdhu iLaya perumAL > piriyil thariyamaiyai munnittu, adimai seiyya vEANum, ellA adimaiyum > seiyya vEANum, yEAvik koLLa vEANum enRAr; > > padai vEttil pugundha pinbu kAttil thani idathil swayampAgathAl > vayiRRa peRukkina padiyAlEA, oppUN vuNNamAttAdhEa,oru thirukkaiyAlEA > thiruveN koRRak kodaiyaiyum, oru thirukkaiyAlEA thiru veN > sAmarathaiyum tharithu adimai seidhAr' > > > > > > Those who are very hungry desire to eat the food that is already > cooked and also being cooked.When the Lord left for exile, sri rAmA > asked lakshmaNA to be at ayOdhyA. The request was "please take me as > your kinkaran" Further, he also mentioned that he will not survive > if he gets separated from the Lord. > > > > As per his shEshathvam, sri lakshmaNA desired to serve the LOrd. > All kind of services. Blemishless services. Absolutely no > independence. To serve as per the dictum of the Lord -yEAvik koLLa > vEANum. > > > > Earlier when they were alone in the forest, sri lakshmaNA had done > simultaneously all the kainkaryam-s. Akin to that, unlike others who > were contented with just one service, sri lakshmaNA held high, the > royal umbrella on the one hand, and the sAmaram on the other. > > > > Such an outstanding example of 'upEyam' is sri lakshmaNA's > character. > > (to be continued) > > vanamamalai padmanabhan > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 Swamin, All the 3 have diplayed all the forms of Bhakti, and there is no ahamkaram either in saativika bhava or other way. One has to go thro the full of Ayodhya Kanda to understand the Bhakti Bhava displayed by 3 of them. Not only Sage Valmiki but also Kamban and Tulsidasji have rendered unlearned souls like me a great help in describing these bhavas. Dasan/raghavan Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann wrote: Dear Smt Nappinnai, When Perumal asked Lakshmana to stay in Ayodhya, it was because it would hurt Perumal more if Lakshmana suffers in the forest, than it would if Lakshmana is physically away from him. But, when Lakshmana replied saying "aham sarvam karishyami", it really takes us back to the initial subject of all these threads, i.e. it displays is "saatvika ahamkaaram":-)). Now, if you place yourself against saatvika ahamkaaram, then you can't support Lakshmana's pAratantrya nature(if any). Well per our aachaarya's, he never displayed pAratantrya behaviour, but was displaying the naicchya/kainkarya swabhavam that pertains to the seshatvam. There is a catch with regards to pAratantryam. If we do something to the Lord because we think it is good for the lord, it is pAratantryam. pAratantryam breaks in cases where the lord Himself explicitly demands something and we do something totally different from it because we think it is good for the lord. ewww...I hope am trying to communicate clearly that which is in my mind Now, I should display some lakshmana kind of behaviour by keeping quiet for sometime, assuming it is all good for others Adiyen, Ramanuja Dasan ramanuja, "vaidhehi_nc" <nappinnai_nc> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: > Dear Sri Vanamamalai Padmanabhan, > Humble praNAms to you. Along with your continuing post > on bharata,satrghna...kindly dispel my doubt. When thAyar is never > separated from perumAL(NammAzhvAr's agalagillEn)and we go by SVB:8, > why shouldn't we consider lakshmaNa for the same pAratantryam also > when he is never separated from the Lord(senRAm kudaiyAm irundhAl > simhAsanamAm...)like thAyAr. I would like to be very clear along > these lines. Once I listened Sri Chinna Jeeyar swami's upanyAsam on > BG(7th chapter and last three slokas). Swamiji said that even when > they were in cradle,and when sumitra tried to take lakshmaNa away > from the Lord,both started crying! Same thing happened with bharata > and satrgna also. Swamiji also narrated a story(not mentioned in > vAlmIki rAmAyaNam)wrt Srirama and lakshmaNa. The bottom line of this > story is perumAL can't live and miserable without lakshmaNa > either!!! > It is b'coz of the inherent gnAtrtvam in the individual > soul, the jIvA puts self-effort(against pAratantryam)and can have > erroneous understanding of the upAyam(like jIvAtma's effort in > mOksha;let's ignore the upEyam for we, within the sriramanuja > community,know that Lord is the upEyam) the time and also finally > indulge in slef-delight! My contention is one can do "complete" self- > less service(like lakshmaNa) only when pAratantryam is inherent in > that jIvA. Correct me if I'm wrong. I want to be crystal clear with > SVB. > > AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam > dAsAnu dAsI > NC Nappinnai > > ramanuja, Padmanabhan <aazhwar@v...> wrote: > > srEvachana bhUshaNam > > sUthram 83 > > > > "pasiyarAyiruppAr attasORum vuNNa vEANum, adugiRa sORum > vuNNavEaNum, ennuma pOlEa, kAttukku pOgiRa pOdhu iLaya perumAL > piriyil thariyamaiyai munnittu, adimai seiyya vEANum, ellA adimaiyum > seiyya vEANum, yEAvik koLLa vEANum enRAr; > > padai vEttil pugundha pinbu kAttil thani idathil swayampAgathAl > vayiRRa peRukkina padiyAlEA, oppUN vuNNamAttAdhEa,oru thirukkaiyAlEA > thiruveN koRRak kodaiyaiyum, oru thirukkaiyAlEA thiru veN > sAmarathaiyum tharithu adimai seidhAr' > > > > > > Those who are very hungry desire to eat the food that is already > cooked and also being cooked.When the Lord left for exile, sri rAmA > asked lakshmaNA to be at ayOdhyA. The request was "please take me as > your kinkaran" Further, he also mentioned that he will not survive > if he gets separated from the Lord. > > > > As per his shEshathvam, sri lakshmaNA desired to serve the LOrd. > All kind of services. Blemishless services. Absolutely no > independence. To serve as per the dictum of the Lord -yEAvik koLLa > vEANum. > > > > Earlier when they were alone in the forest, sri lakshmaNA had done > simultaneously all the kainkaryam-s. Akin to that, unlike others who > were contented with just one service, sri lakshmaNA held high, the > royal umbrella on the one hand, and the sAmaram on the other. > > > > Such an outstanding example of 'upEyam' is sri lakshmaNA's > character. > > (to be continued) > > vanamamalai padmanabhan > > > > > > azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam ramanuja/ ramanuja 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.