pArathanthriyam & shEshathvam

[Guest guest]

Dear sriTCA,

I am losing track of the whole thing.

 

For clarity, let me recall the sequence.

*

First it was nAnmugan thiruvandhAdhi.

Then, the question of why thiru-vallikkEANi and why not thiruk-kuRungudi came

up.

Then the qulities of thirukkuRungudi amidst a mild rejoinder.

The explanation to why thiruvallikkEaNi, if I remember correctly talked about

'sAthvika ahankAram'

Then ahankAram of any sort is not to be entertained - came floating around.

NO,- sAthvika ahankAram is desirable came up- illai enakkadhir was oft quoted.

Then came up the discussion on pArathanthriyam and shEshathvam

mumuKshuppadi suthram 92 came up for discussion.

sri lakshmaNA was then quoted but later rejected for lack of pArathanthriyam as

he did not obey the Lord's words.

The srivachana bhUshaNam sUthram-s and nedumARkadimai pAsuram-s emerged.

Still lakshmaNA was not found to be in majority as bharathA bagged more votes.

For this, sri peirya vAchAn piLLai vyAkyAnam and nam-piLLai vyAkyAnam-s

surfaced.

The order of importance in the ascending was then given, rAmA, lakshmaNA,

bharathA and chathrugNA.

 

Now , I am a bit clear. I just wanted to mention that lakshmaNa is being quoted

as a classic example of upEyam both in srEvachaNa bhUshaNam and in

thiru-voi-mozhi -ozhivil kAlam ellAm vudanAi manni. The terms in the first

pAsuram 'vudanAi manni and vazhuvilA' -nam-piLLAi vyAkyAnam goes to prove this

point unequivocally. Yes, he had pArathanthriyam, shEshathvam bereft of

independence while doing service to the Lord-vazhuvila adimai, ozhivil

kAlamellAm adimai and vudanAi manni adimai.This is indeed outstanding example of

service to the Lord -these three characteristics --all type of services like

achith. Hence, one cannot ignore this oft repeated reference to iLaya-perumAl

when talking about upEyam.In fact, swAmi nam-piLLai has clearly referred to sri

bharathAzhwAn in this vyAkyAnam and has picked up lakshmANA for this vyAkyAnam.

This also goes in line with the srEvachana bhUshaNa sUthram on upEyam or the

other way around.

 

Then, you may question what happens to the vyAkyAnam-s which you quoted from

kaNNinuN siruthAmbu and sri peirya-vAchAn piLLai.

 

Well, the above -ozhivil kAlam -referring to iLaya perumAL is with specific

micro reference to upEyam.

While, the reference to bharathA is regarding pArathanthriyam at a macro level

and not with particular reference to upEyam.( that is why perhaps, sri lakshmaNA

is referred to for upEaym and not for upAyam)

 

 

If we think in these lines, there will be no contradicitons and the ascending

order of greatness will hold good even in this angle.

 

I hope I am clear.

 

Thank YOu for a interesting sequence and i am not aware where this is finally

leading to.

 

rAmAnuja dAsan

vanamamalai padmanabhan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear Sri Vanamamalai Padmanabhan,

Humble praNAms to you(& other devotees) and thanks for

explaining lot of things. I love lakshmaNa and hence I am of the

view that he is for pAratantryam and sEshatvam! Even if Srirama

Himself comes and denies I will only say NO to Him. srI parAsara

bhaTTar quotes srimad vAlmIkI rAmAyaNam in SVS. One is lakshmaNa

tells srirama that "thAyar/sIta and I(lakshmaNa)will be like fish

out of water without You". PerumAl says "I can give up sIta, I can

give you/lakshmaNa up and I can give up my own life but not my vow".

Like you, I don't know either where this series of posts is leading

to.

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

dAsAnu dAsI

NC Nappinnai

 

> Thank YOu for a interesting sequence and i am not aware where this

is finally leading to.

>

> rAmAnuja dAsan

> vanamamalai padmanabhan

>

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

--- vaidhehi_nc <nappinnai_nc wrote:

> Even if Srirama

> Himself comes and denies I will only say NO to Him.

 

Now this is not a sign of a paratantra :-). Whatever

Rama says you will have to agree, to be like Bharata.

 

> PerumAl says "I can give up

> sIta, I can

> give you/lakshmaNa up and I can give up my own life but

> not my vow".

 

The part where Rama says He will give even Sita up is

interesting. This occurs in the Aranya Khandam where

Rama gives a vow to the Rishis that He will kill the

asuras and protect them. Sita tells Him that He is not

in the forest to take up such duties and that He should

desist from doing so. At this point, Rama makes this

statement.

 

Now, why would Sita ask Rama not to do this? This is

very unusual behavious for Her. The explanation for

this, is that Sita knew that She had to separate from

Rama, in order to take care of the reason why they had

come down to Earth - notice the use of the phrase

"siRai irundhavaL ERRam" in SriVacanaBhushanam rather

than "siRaippattavaL ERRam". But, She was not sure

whether Rama could handle separation from Her. So,

She tested Him with Her statement. When She heard His

reply, She was satisfied that He would be able to

handle Her separation in order to keep His original

vow.

 

Now, I do not know where any of this is leading - but

does bhagavat and bhAgavata anubhavam have to lead

anywhere? The discussions on Lakshmana & Bharata's

greatness - and now Sita's greatness - are so wonderful,

that the journey is itself the goal.

 

Azhvar Emberumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

 

 

 

_______________________________

 

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear Sri TCA Venkatesan,

Humble praNAms to you. AdisEsha/lakshmaNa/rAmAnuja(than

the Lord reclining on it) has brainwashed me:-)so,can't help it. Not

only did lakshmaNa disobey the brother in trEta yugam but also in

this kaliyugam emperumAnAr disobeyed thirukkOshtiyUr nambi! All

these posts add another dimension(and add strength) to our love for

our favorite(like mine for lakshmaNa and like yours for satrghna

(analogous to madhurakavi):-)).

I am going to stretch this post further wrt pAratantryam

and sEshatvam! Just kidding. Probably I will post it later after I

check with Sri Vanamamalai Padmanabhan. I am stuck with lakshmaNa no

matter what happens!!! The more you say against lakshmaNa I will

become more protective over lakshmaNa. So you are losing the game:-)

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

dAsAnu dAsI

NC Nappinnai

 

 

ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote:

> Sri:

> Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

>

> --- vaidhehi_nc <nappinnai_nc> wrote:

> > Even if Srirama

> > Himself comes and denies I will only say NO to Him.

>

> Now this is not a sign of a paratantra :-). Whatever

> Rama says you will have to agree, to be like Bharata.

>

> > PerumAl says "I can give up

> > sIta, I can

> > give you/lakshmaNa up and I can give up my own life but

> > not my vow".

>

> The part where Rama says He will give even Sita up is

> interesting. This occurs in the Aranya Khandam where

> Rama gives a vow to the Rishis that He will kill the

> asuras and protect them. Sita tells Him that He is not

> in the forest to take up such duties and that He should

> desist from doing so. At this point, Rama makes this

> statement.

>

> Now, why would Sita ask Rama not to do this? This is

> very unusual behavious for Her. The explanation for

> this, is that Sita knew that She had to separate from

> Rama, in order to take care of the reason why they had

> come down to Earth - notice the use of the phrase

> "siRai irundhavaL ERRam" in SriVacanaBhushanam rather

> than "siRaippattavaL ERRam". But, She was not sure

> whether Rama could handle separation from Her. So,

> She tested Him with Her statement. When She heard His

> reply, She was satisfied that He would be able to

> handle Her separation in order to keep His original

> vow.

>

> Now, I do not know where any of this is leading - but

> does bhagavat and bhAgavata anubhavam have to lead

> anywhere? The discussions on Lakshmana & Bharata's

> greatness - and now Sita's greatness - are so wonderful,

> that the journey is itself the goal.

>

> Azhvar Emberumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam

>

> adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

>

>

>

> _______________________________

>

> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

> http://vote.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavathas

 

Another rejoinder to the P and S discussion from my

father.

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan

 

Aravindan

 

 

******************************************

 

Let me pass on what little I know on the subject. I

would like to say I have still doubts, which may need

a good Acharyan to clarify.

 

 

 

We Vishitadvaithis ( as I told you, the word does not

mean Vishesha or special Advaitha but it means

animate, inanimate togethered and thus glorified

Brahmam is one-Vishista is not Vishesha) say there are

three Thathvas or principles Chit, Achit and Eswara-

Thathvatraya Soul or Chit has wisdom or Gnana, power

or ability to act and power or ability to enjoy as its

characteristics. They are called Gyantritvam,

Kartritvam and Bhogtritvam. Kartritvam is an agency

function or delegated power given by Eswara and

Bhogtritvam flows from Kartritvam Power to act is

delegated because the Vedas say that Brahmam is the

Niyantha or inner driver of the soul.

 

 

 

The best way to start discussing about S and P is to

quote Mumukshuppadi, a work of Pillailokacarya.(

Mumukshuppadi explains the meaning of

Rahasyatraya-namely Thirumathram, Dwayam and

Charamaslokam- I hope you are clear on the difference

between Thathvatrya and Rahasyatrya)

 

 

 

M55 Seshatvame Atmavukku Swarupam

 

M56 Seshtvam illatha pothu Swarupam illai.

 

 

 

While explaining the inner meaning of Thirumanthram,

PL says that the Akshara Ma in the first word namely

Pranavam signifies souls( Om Namo Narayanaya is

Thirumanthram and Om consists of Aa, U, Ma) Namaha is

Na and Ma meaning not mine. In other words Namaha

expands the Ma of Pranavam to say that the soul is not

owned by itself but is the sesha or servant of Eswara

or Seshi. This Servitude to God is the essential

characteristic of or Swarupa of the Soul.

 

The terms Seshi and sesha are difficult to define and

practically impossible to translate. They literally

mean Principal and Subordinate( or Remainder)In

sacrificial parlance they express the relationship

between the main rite and subsidiary rituals In

Srivaishnava usage Sesha-Seshi relationship is most

often illustrated in terms of the servant- master

relationship.

 

Thus we have four characteristics for the

Soul-Gyantritvam, Kartritvam, Bhogtritvam and

Seshatvam. Ramanuja states as under in his Vedartha

Sangraha( VS 246)about the relativities of these four.

 

The soul’s nature is distinct from(all kinds of

)bodies (gods etc), Has knowledge( gnana),as its one

characteristic( aakaara) and has subservience(

seshatva) to the Supreme as its sole nature(swarupa)

 

Thus Seshatva is more central to the Soul’s essential

nature than Gyantritva..

 

 

 

 

 

Now you can understand why Alvars and Andal have said

Ozhivil kalamellam----vazhuvila adimai seyyavedum,

Unakke nam Aatcheivom etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Now a little bit about Parathanthrium. P is an evolved

form of S .Let me quote from Acharya Hridhayam to

explain P.

 

 

 

AH 21

 

Seshatva Bhogtritvangal pol anre Parathanthria

Bhogytaigal

 

 

 

Manavalamamunigal explains as under this.

 

 

 

Seshtvam is to make oneself suitable for the actions

of the Lord.

 

 

 

Parathanthrium is allowing oneself to be utilised by

the Lord as He pleases.

 

 

 

Bhogtritvam is enjoying oneself the pleasures of

serving the Lord.

 

Bhogyatvam is allowing the Lord to enjoy the pleasures

of the service rendered by the soul. This is the

ultimate ego shattering practice. This is giving up of

Swayatnam even to preserve oneself . Thirukkanamangai

andan’s example is quoted here.

 

 

 

Seshatvam goes with Bhogtritvam . P goes with

Bhogyathai.

 

The Sutra says that Seshatvam and Bhogyatvam that goes

with S are different from P and Bhogyatahai that goes

with P. The latter is superior..

 

 

 

I am doubtful as to how one should practise P as all

these are mental attitudes.

 

 

 

Prabhathi or Saranagathi is the surrender of our free

will to act to the Lord ,telling Him that I don’t want

my autonomy as I will mess up my life, please take it

back and guide me. Are you able to see the link

between S and P on the one hand and Prabhathi on the

other?

 

 

 

Have I conveyed something useful?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages!

 

[Guest guest]

ramanuja, Arvind Rajagopalan <rwind_raj>

wrote:

> Dear Bhagavathas

>

> >

>

> >

>

> We Vishitadvaithis ( as I told you, the word does not

> mean Vishesha or special Advaitha but it means

> animate, inanimate togethered and thus glorified

> Brahmam is one-Vishista is not Vishesha) say there are

> three Thathvas or principles Chit, Achit and Eswara-

> Thathvatraya Soul or Chit has wisdom or Gnana, power

> or ability to act and power or ability to enjoy as its

> characteristics. They are called Gyantritvam,

> Kartritvam and Bhogtritvam. Kartritvam is an agency

> function or delegated power given by Eswara and

> Bhogtritvam flows from Kartritvam Power to act is

> delegated because the Vedas say that Brahmam is the

> Niyantha or inner driver of the soul.

 

Dear Sriman Arvind,

 

The ViSishta part is clear from the above message you have forwarded.

How about the advaita part?

 

>

> The terms Seshi and sesha are difficult to define and

> practically impossible to translate. They literally

> mean Principal and Subordinate( or Remainder)In

> sacrificial parlance they express the relationship

> between the main rite and subsidiary rituals In

> Srivaishnava usage Sesha-Seshi relationship is most

> often illustrated in terms of the servant- master

> relationship.

 

SEsham exactly means remainder in Indian math textbooks in vernacular

media (not Tamil perhaps). Fortunately or unfortunately, we have huts

called Eng. med. convents in the remotest villages of the country!

 

Dasan

Vishnu

[Guest guest]

ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu> wrote:

> >>

> Dear Sriman Arvind,

>

> The ViSishta part is clear from the above message you have

forwarded.

> How about the advaita part?

 

I am sorry. Respected your dad had covered that in the following:

 

as I told you, the word does not

mean Vishesha or special Advaitha but it means

animate, inanimate togethered and thus glorified

Brahmam is "one-Vishista" is not Vishesha.

 

The term "one-viSishta" or there is only one supremee being as

scriputes say "na dvitIyOsti kaSchit", answers my question.

 

Dasan

Vishnu