[sri ramanuja] Mukti/Liberation! Is it that cheap?

[Guest guest]

Shri Hari

 

Respected elders!

 

Please enlighten me on an issue that has been lingering on my mind for a

while..

 

Is Mukti/Liberation as cheap as it is "portrayed/interpreted" as in our

Shastras???

 

In my very little reading recently I have come across many places/references

that I am sure everyone has themselves come across where the Shastra says

 

If one .................................. he/she will be given liberation.

 

The gap can be filled with many references from our shastras....for eg

a) does Tirth darshan of xxxxxxxx or yyyyyyyyyyy

b) has a bathe in the river xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (like Ganga, Jamuna, Radha Kund)

c) drinks the charnamrita of Lord in his Deity or Salagram form, as per..

Akaal mrityu harnam, Sarva vyadhi vinashanam, Vishno(Salagram) padodakam

pitva, punar janma na vidyate

d) Offers one tulasi to the Lord (in the month of Kartika)

e) does dIpa dAnam to the Lord in kArtika

Similarly in various stotras or prayers written for the Lord...I am sure the

respected elders have come across stotras etc where in it there lies mention

of one who reads this nn number of times or on a certain day like pUrnimA or

ekAdasi etc are given Liberation.....

 

So as a young person I believe and see that

a) in this world that good things come with hard work

b) People sacrifice their whole life to get the love of the Lord

c) people in the past (ages and yugas) have gone through enormous pain to

enter the Lord's divya Dhaams

 

So for me...it seems that Mukti or Liberation is percieved as so cheap that

one can go to a local travel agent, book a ticket to a certain Teerth sthaan

and visit and take darshan and as a result attain a GUARANTEED ticket to the

LORDS DHAAM when they leave their body....and irrespective of what the

person does in their daily lives....including

a) not taking shelter of Acharyen

b) be involved in consuming Liquor and meat

c) not practising devotion in their daily lives

 

 

I am not contesting our shastras...I have great faith in them... I believe

that I am not interpreting them correctly as per the "desired" meaning.

So please I beg the respected and Wise elders to enlighten me to what

"seems" as a great inconsistency, unfairness, anomaly in our shastras.

Please pardon my offences...I am genuinely seeking enlightenment.

 

Your servant.

Deepak

 

Shri Hari

Narayana Narayana Narayana

[Guest guest]

Respected Members and Bhakthas

 

Mukthi is NOT cheap BUT very EASY in Sri Vaishnavism by What Acharyas call

Saranagathi to SRIMAN Narayana

It has certain PRE requisites MAINLY Pari Porana Vishvasam to the Lord and

to ACHARYAN

 

To get that BELEIF and DEVOTION and be someone to do KAINKARYAM as its

called is what is required to attain Paramapadam ultimately

 

Once the person gets it in his system definitely he will not stoop to LOWLY

things

 

I hope i have made the point as I have understood

 

Shall be OBLIGED for any CORRECTION

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan

 

 

On 11/7/06, Deepak Vinod <deepak.vinod (AT) lansa (DOT) com.au> wrote:

>

> Shri Hari

>

> Respected elders!

>

> Please enlighten me on an issue that has been lingering on my mind for a

> while..

>

> Is Mukti/Liberation as cheap as it is "portrayed/interpreted" as in our

> Shastras???

>

> In my very little reading recently I have come across many

> places/references that I am sure everyone has themselves come across where

> the Shastra says

>

> If one .................................. he/she will be given liberation.

>

> The gap can be filled with many references from our shastras....for eg

>

> a) does Tirth darshan of xxxxxxxx or yyyyyyyyyyy

> b) has a bathe in the river xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (like Ganga, Jamuna, Radha

> Kund)

> c) drinks the charnamrita of Lord in his Deity or Salagram form, as per..

> *Akaal mrityu harnam*, Sarva vyadhi vinashanam, Vishno(Salagram)

> padodakam pitva, punar janma na vidyate

> d) Offers one tulasi to the Lord (in the month of Kartika)

> e) does dIpa dAnam to the Lord in kArtika

> Similarly in various stotras or prayers written for the Lord...I am sure

> the respected elders have come across stotras etc where in it there lies

> mention of one who reads this nn number of times or on a certain day like

> pUrnimA or ekAdasi etc are given Liberation.....

>

> So as a young person I believe and see that

> a) in this world that good things come with hard work

> b) People sacrifice their whole life to get the love of the Lord

> c) people in the past (ages and yugas) have gone through enormous pain to

> enter the Lord's divya Dhaams

>

> So for me...it seems that Mukti or Liberation is percieved as so cheap

> that one can go to a local travel agent, book a ticket to a certain Teerth

> sthaan and visit and take darshan and as a result attain a GUARANTEED ticket

> to the LORDS DHAAM when they leave their body....and irrespective of what

> the person does in their daily lives....including

>

> a) not taking shelter of Acharyen

> b) be involved in consuming Liquor and meat

> c) not practising devotion in their daily lives

>

> I am not contesting our shastras...I have great faith in them... I

> believe that I am not interpreting them correctly as per the "desired"

> meaning.

>

> So please I beg the respected and Wise elders to enlighten me to what

> "seems" as a great inconsistency, unfairness, anomaly in our shastras.

>

> Please pardon my offences...I am genuinely seeking enlightenment.

>

> Your servant.

> Deepak

>

> Shri Hari

> Narayana Narayana Narayana

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Many have given very great replies to this question. I am only adding a little to it.

 

Yes like one member said, Mukti is not cheap but easy. Vishnu had hit the point hard and right on target. Yes it is easy. Sri Peyazhwar says in this pAsuram, "poruppidaiyE nindRum, punal kuLithum, aindhu neruppidayE niRkkavum neer vEndA, viruppudaya vehkkavE sErndhAnai mei malar thooik kai thozhudhAl, akkAvE theevinaigaL Aindhu". Yes , he says that you dont have to do any kind of penance like standing atop the hill, or between the fire etc. What you need to do is to just fold your hands and offer your honest heart with ultimate viswAsam. That is all required to get rid of all your worldly connection. Actually I forgot the source, but I remember in one of the upanyAsams, that, you dont have to to all these penances, but He will be doing all these to take you to Him. How perfect it is?

 

Isn't it that easy? But why are we all struggling. It is this which has to be answered. We all struggle, because our ego is so high that we to the extent of questioning Him as to how can He do this or how can He do that etc. After all, He is "otthAr mikkArai ilaiyAya mAmAyan". There is none equal or above Him. So as pure slaves what right do we have to question Him?

 

Like Vishnu said in his mail earlier, this is also supported by the the words "veridhE aruL seivar". The same Sri Desikar has said in his commentary on "amalanAdhipirAn", in the opening sentences, "kAraNa vasthu innadhendRu aRudhiyiDa muDiyAdha kripA kaDAkshatthinAlE". Read the words carefully, he talks here about the "Causeless Mercy" of Sriman Narayanan. This is what is called as "nirhEthuka kripA".

 

So it is clear that the cause for the mukthi or moksham is only Him. Even the act of Surrendering to Him is only in the vein as being a charactersitic of a jeevAthmA to accept only emperumAn as the sole protector and upAyam for attaining mOksha. The concept of saraNAgathi is better explained by the slOkA " tvamEva upAyabootho mE bava ithi prArthanA mathi: saraNAgathi". Meaning, It is "just the prayer" that You be my cause of salvation is called saraNAgathi. Doing saraNagathi is only a svabhAvam of a realised soul. There is no relation between the performance of saraNAgathi and getting mOksha.. As our emperumAn's character is nirankusa swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He may or may not give the mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

 

If one does saraNAgathi with the fruit of mokshA in mind, then it goes against His word "sarva dharmAn parithyajya...". Do not do anything for the results.

 

So summing all the above up, Sri Arulalaperumal Emperumanar in his gnyAna sAram, says "...thurisaRRu sAthagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE pArtthirutthal kOthil adiyAr guNam". The guNam or character of His subjects is just that they have to yearn for emperuman's grace and not try to earn. This act is referred to as "pArathanthriyam" or "itta vazhakkAi irutthal". This is the quality that one needs to have towards emperumAn and His grace.

 

How simple it is? Isn't it? And how complicated we are making it!!!!!

 

AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

________

India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new

http://in.answers./

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha;

 

Dear Vaishnavas,

 

I would like to mention here, that

mukthi is not cheap. But bhakthi is superior to

mukthi.Mukthi is the servant maid of bhakthi.Bhakthi

is sincere devotion to Lord without any personal

motive, but total surrender to Him and serving Him

only for His sake.Mukthi automatically will follow

bhakthi.

 

Krishna Dasi

 

Vedavalli Ranganathan.,

 

 

 

 

 

--- Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

<vinjamoor_venkatesh > wrote:

 

> srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> srImadh varavara munayE namaha

>

> Many have given very great replies to this

> question. I am only adding a little to it.

>

> Yes like one member said, Mukti is not cheap but

> easy. Vishnu had hit the point hard and right on

> target. Yes it is easy. Sri Peyazhwar says in this

> pAsuram, "poruppidaiyE nindRum, punal kuLithum,

> aindhu neruppidayE niRkkavum neer vEndA, viruppudaya

> vehkkavE sErndhAnai mei malar thooik kai thozhudhAl,

> akkAvE theevinaigaL Aindhu". Yes , he says that you

> dont have to do any kind of penance like standing

> atop the hill, or between the fire etc. What you

> need to do is to just fold your hands and offer your

> honest heart with ultimate viswAsam. That is all

> required to get rid of all your worldly connection.

> Actually I forgot the source, but I remember in one

> of the upanyAsams, that, you dont have to to all

> these penances, but He will be doing all these to

> take you to Him. How perfect it is?

>

> Isn't it that easy? But why are we all struggling.

> It is this which has to be answered. We all

> struggle, because our ego is so high that we to the

> extent of questioning Him as to how can He do this

> or how can He do that etc. After all, He is "otthAr

> mikkArai ilaiyAya mAmAyan". There is none equal or

> above Him. So as pure slaves what right do we have

> to question Him?

>

> Like Vishnu said in his mail earlier, this is also

> supported by the the words "veridhE aruL seivar".

> The same Sri Desikar has said in his commentary on

> "amalanAdhipirAn", in the opening sentences,

> "kAraNa vasthu innadhendRu aRudhiyiDa muDiyAdha

> kripA kaDAkshatthinAlE". Read the words carefully,

> he talks here about the "Causeless Mercy" of Sriman

> Narayanan. This is what is called as "nirhEthuka

> kripA".

>

> So it is clear that the cause for the mukthi or

> moksham is only Him. Even the act of Surrendering to

> Him is only in the vein as being a charactersitic of

> a jeevAthmA to accept only emperumAn as the sole

> protector and upAyam for attaining mOksha. The

> concept of saraNAgathi is better explained by the

> slOkA " tvamEva upAyabootho mE bava ithi prArthanA

> mathi: saraNAgathi". Meaning, It is "just the

> prayer" that You be my cause of salvation is called

> saraNAgathi. Doing saraNagathi is only a svabhAvam

> of a realised soul. There is no relation between the

> performance of saraNAgathi and getting mOksha. As

> our emperumAn's character is nirankusa

> swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He may or

> may not give the mOksha to the one who has performed

> saraNAgathi.

>

> If one does saraNAgathi with the fruit of mokshA in

> mind, then it goes against His word "sarva dharmAn

> parithyajya...". Do not do anything for the results.

>

>

> So summing all the above up, Sri Arulalaperumal

> Emperumanar in his gnyAna sAram, says "...thurisaRRu

> sAthagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE pArtthirutthal

> kOthil adiyAr guNam". The guNam or character of His

> subjects is just that they have to yearn for

> emperuman's grace and not try to earn. This act is

> referred to as "pArathanthriyam" or "itta vazhakkAi

> irutthal". This is the quality that one needs to

> have towards emperumAn and His grace.

>

> How simple it is? Isn't it? And how complicated we

> are making it!!!!!

>

> AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

>

>

>

>

________

> India Answers: Share what you know. Learn

> something new

> http://in.answers./

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsored Link

 

Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr - MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Associate

Click now to apply http://.degrees.info

[Guest guest]

>

 

>

 

>

Dear Sriman Venkatesh,

 

This is further echoed by Swami Desikan in Dramidopansihat Tatparya

Ratnavali introductory verses, where he summarizes

ThiruvAimozhi "sEvya: SrImAn svasiddhE: karaNam iti vadan Ekam

artham sahasrE" - The entire thousand hinges around the single point

that SrimannArAyaNa is the means for His attainment.

 

adiyen

Vishnu

>

> So it is clear that the cause for the mukthi or moksham is only

Him. Even the act of Surrendering to Him is only in the vein as

being a charactersitic of a jeevAthmA to accept only emperumAn as

the sole protector and upAyam for attaining mOksha. The concept of

saraNAgathi is better explained by the slOkA " tvamEva upAyabootho

mE bava ithi prArthanA mathi: saraNAgathi". Meaning, It is "just the

prayer" that You be my cause of salvation is called saraNAgathi.

Doing saraNagathi is only a svabhAvam of a realised soul. There is

no relation between the performance of saraNAgathi and getting

mOksha. As our emperumAn's character is nirankusa swathanthriyam

(Unfettered Independence), He may or may not give the mOksha to the

one who has performed saraNAgathi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Swamins,

I would beg to disagree with the following lines a little bit.

>There is no relation between the performance of saraNAgathi and

>getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's character is nirankusa

>swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He may or may not give the

>mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

 

The lord definitely is Sarva Tantra Svatantran by his "svarUpam".

But, he will not do whatever he wants to. He has given us the

shAstrAs and promises to give moksham to those who have performed

saraNAgati. So, it would not be correct to say that he may not grant

moksha for those who have performed saraNAgathi etc.

 

Also, regarding "there is no relation between the performance of

saraNAgathi and getting mOksha" - The very meaning of saraNAgathi is

nothing but just a simple understanding of Atma svarUpam and

paramAtma svaBAvam which will DEFINITELY grant mOksham. Please see

the texts in point d below for the same.

 

Let us examine the other subject "mukthi" part also.

 

The beauty of EmperumAnAr's darisanam is that it focuses on something

that no other Vedic philosophies or seer have ever realised. Many or

most of us see the lord's svarUpam and get trapped in the same.

Though he is complete in himself, does not need anyone to perform

saraNAgati as it would add no value to his svarUpam, what really

matters is his svaBAvam. I am reminded of his great lines that my

swamy quotes very often - "vAsudevas sarvamiti sa mahAtma su-

durlaba:" and "aham sa cha mama priya:". These display his svaBAvam.

 

Now let us see the correlation between, understanding of our svarUpam

(AtmasvarUpam), paramAtma svarUpam, His svaBAvam and saraNAgati.

 

AzhwAr clearly says "vaikuntam puguvadhu maNNavar vidhiye" which

means every jeevAtmA will attain vaikuntam and that is the destiny.

So, what is the big deal about mokham? Now the point is, even though

everyone will eventually reach Vaikuntm, how soon shall they would,

is the question i.e who craves for that mukthi, when and why?.

 

 

a. Some jeevAtmAs, being proud of themselves(and also tired of the

leela vibhuti and hence want the physical liberation at the

earliest), perform upAsanA of themselves. Since AtmA is a nitya

vastu, these upAsakAs are granted a place in the nitya vibhuti as a

result of their upAsanai(per the promise of the lord that he gives

what people ask from him).

 

b. Some jeevAtmAs are tired of this leela vibhuthi and divert

themselves to the lord. They enjoy by thinking and praising the lord

(and hence want the liberation at the earliest). Here, it should be

noted that this category thinks of the lord only for their enjoyment.

These people crave for the eternal happiness of performing bhakti to

the lord and attain moksham.

 

c. Some jeevAtmAs understand that by svarUpam, we are anyway

dependent on the lord, and hence think that there is no other

alternative other than to surrender(and hence want the liberation at

the earliest). So, they dedicate themselves to the lord, but only

with the realization in their mind that they do not have any choice.

Though they do everything to make him happy, they themselves many a

times don't feel happy. These people also crave for the eternal

kainkaryam for the lord and attain moksham.

 

d. Remaining rare ones understand that by svarUpam, we are always

attached to him and are part of his body and neither we nor the lord

lose anything. But they understand that though physically they are

together, they have been functionally separated out due to their own

design, karma etc and hence they feel bad about this separation and

also find that the lord is also missing them every kshanam during

this separation. So, their realisation comes into immediate effect

and they really do not crave for moksham, but they crave for

satisfying the lord's expectation. When lord feels happy, they feel

happy. When he is sad, they are also sad. When their body is fit,

these people do not crave for moksham, rather in this leela vibuthi

itself they indulge in bhagavath, bhAgavatha, AchArya kainkaryam that

would simply make the lord happy("thirumAladiyArgalai pUsikka

nOtRArkaLe"). Also, when they find their body to be misfit for any

such kainkaryam then these people crave for moksham to make the lord

happy in a forever fashion("kUvikkoLLumkAlam innam kuRugAthO"). This

way, they get attached to the lord in the most desirable fashion all

the time, that is a result of the understanding of not just the

svarUpam but the svaBAvam of the lord as well. For these people,

liberation is not the physical one, it is the liberation of the mind

i.e the very gnyanam of the saranAgati is just more than enough to

liberate them.

 

Category a are kaivalyarthis who attain kaivalyam (also called as

yedu nilam in tamizh) in the nithya vibuthi where there is no

presence of the bhagavath/bhAgavatha/Acharya kainkaryam - This place

is also called as SAALOKYAM (they get the lokam samam to that of the

lord, but nothing else at all) - they are not touched by amAnavas

whose touch will grant SAARUPYAM. For these jeevAtmAs the upEyam is

themselves and upAyam is upAsanA.

 

Category b are categorized as that of LakshmanAzwAn who said "aham

sarvam karishyAmi". Though he wanted to serve the lord at his own

will, the lord did not want him to come to the forest and suffer.

Lakshmana did not understand the mind of the lord, but he simply

wanted to perform kainkaryam ("sendRAl kudaiyam, irundhAl

singAsanamAm"). This is something that comes out of bhakthi that

makes us enjoy, but this category fails to see if the lord is happy

or not. This category of people do what "they" think will make the

lord feel happy. They attain moksham and attain the rupam of the lord

but are kept in a place where they enjoy themselves praising the lord

and think of his leelas and perform kainkaryam as "they" desire. This

moksham is called as SAARUPYAM (sama-rupam). These jeevAtmAs use

bhakthi as an upAyam though they understand upEyam is the lord.

 

Category c are categorized as that of BharatAzwAn who did not come to

forest as per the Rama's instruction(actually came to forest and went

back as per Rama's orders). He felt that he is a slave of Rama and

accepted his orders, but was simply missing him and was whining all

the while, not taking care of Ayodhya. This category of people simply

do what the lord say, but they don't get excited in doing that, due

to the feeling of slavery. They attain a place in moksham called

SAAMEEPYAM(sameepam i.e near the lord) and are like wood that will

let it be used by the way the master would like to. Here an

additional point is that these jeevAtmAs understand that the lord is

the upAyam and upEyam.

 

Category d is the ShatrugnAzhwan padi who knows the mind of the lord.

He knew that governing and taking care of the people of ayodhyA will

make bharathan as well as the lord happy, and hence did not bother

about anything else. He simply ruled the country the way Rama would

have done in Rama's absence and handed over the rule when Rama came

back. This category understands that upAyam and upEyam is the lord.

This category does not question what the lord does. Does not see the

kind of work that is assigned. They simply get excited to do whatever

kind of work that is given, simply to make the lord happy, and by

seeing him happy, they become happy, and by seeing them happy, the

lord becomes happy and this loop goes on. They know what is in his

mind. He knows what is in their mind. They think alike. They do

things alike. They make each other happy. That is what this moksham

is all about. And that is what all our Azhwars have asked

for "padiyAi kidandhu un pavala vAi kAnbene". This is what is the

best of the mokshAs i.e. SAAYUJYAM. Many people claim that by

attaining the moksha we become like paramAtma. It is not so just in

the context of svarUpam, it is also in the context of svaBAvam,

which, can be understood only by those who are blessed to be the part

of emperumAnAr darsanam.

 

Well, there is one more place in moksham that could be attained by

something called as "charama parva nishtai" where, when AchAryAs

perform kainkaryam to the lord, some very rare blessed(by AchAryas)

jeevAtmAs perform kainkaryam to these AchAryAs in the same moksham

(Madurakavi-Azhwar, Vaduganambi Swamy). Though this is the most

desired moksham, it is almost close to impossible to attain this as

this needs a strong detachment from the lord and an equal or more

strong attachment towards another jeevAtmA who has dedicated the self

to the lord's kainkaryam. ("than guruvin thALiNaigal thannil

anbondrillAthAr, anbu thanpAl seidhAlum ambuyaikOn, 'inbamigu

viNNadu' thAnaLikka vEndiyirAn AdhalAl naNNAravargaL thirunAdu" says

swamy mAmunigal). Note the clause 'inbamigu viNNadu'. Erudite

scholars may explain the details of the quotes.

 

So, being believers of vedas and followers of emperumAnAr darsanam we

must first understand what is mukthi/moksha, then crave for the same

(if you still think you need the same:) depending on where in moksha

you would want to be and how.

 

Apologies for all mistakes in the above. Corrections / Comments /

Criticisms are always welcome as usual.

 

adiyEn,

dAsan.

 

ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu wrote:

>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

> Dear Sriman Venkatesh,

>

> This is further echoed by Swami Desikan in Dramidopansihat Tatparya

> Ratnavali introductory verses, where he summarizes

> ThiruvAimozhi "sEvya: SrImAn svasiddhE: karaNam iti vadan Ekam

> artham sahasrE" - The entire thousand hinges around the single

point

> that SrimannArAyaNa is the means for His attainment.

>

> adiyen

> Vishnu

> >

> > So it is clear that the cause for the mukthi or moksham is only

> Him. Even the act of Surrendering to Him is only in the vein as

> being a charactersitic of a jeevAthmA to accept only emperumAn as

> the sole protector and upAyam for attaining mOksha. The concept of

> saraNAgathi is better explained by the slOkA " tvamEva upAyabootho

> mE bava ithi prArthanA mathi: saraNAgathi". Meaning, It is "just

the

> prayer" that You be my cause of salvation is called saraNAgathi.

> Doing saraNagathi is only a svabhAvam of a realised soul. There is

> no relation between the performance of saraNAgathi and getting

> mOksha. As our emperumAn's character is nirankusa swathanthriyam

> (Unfettered Independence), He may or may not give the mOksha to the

> one who has performed saraNAgathi.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Venkatesh,

 

A few more thoughts came to me in agreement with yours.

 

prArthanA nirapEkshatA or not expecting a prayer is the characteristic

of bhagavAn as Bhattar says in bhagavad guNa darpaNam (parjanya: pAvana:

anila:).

 

As he clarifies at more than one place e.g. siddha: = upAyai: na sAdhya:

- not attainable by any means, nothing can be an upAya other than Him.

 

But, on the contrary, Bhattar also says He can be attained by any means

whether those prescribed in SAstras or adopted by the self, for

sarvayOga vinissrta:. How do we reconcile? Anything can be an upAya if

He so wishes [] Need not be those prescribed in the sanskrit texts.

 

Attaching too much of importance to SAstras paritcularly the sanskrit

texts and saying He is bound by them, goes against His nature of

nirankuSa swAtantryam.

 

He need not wait for anything - goes against rakashApEkshAm pratIkshatE.

 

Even those who go to paramapadham can return if He so wishes - goes

against anAvrtti: SabdAt anAvrtti: SabdAt.

 

So the best and practical way is only to look at Him the mAyan with

wonder and love Him for the sake of loving.

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan

 

Vishnu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ramanuja, Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

<vinjamoor_venkatesh wrote:

 

 

>

> So it is clear that the cause for the mukthi or moksham is only Him.

Even the act of Surrendering to Him is only in the vein as being a

charactersitic of a jeevAthmA to accept only emperumAn as the sole

protector and upAyam for attaining mOksha. The concept of saraNAgathi is

better explained by the slOkA " tvamEva upAyabootho mE bava ithi

prArthanA mathi: saraNAgathi". Meaning, It is "just the prayer" that You

be my cause of salvation is called saraNAgathi. Doing saraNagathi is

only a svabhAvam of a realised soul. There is no relation between the

performance of saraNAgathi and getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's

character is nirankusa swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He may

or may not give the mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

>

> If one does saraNAgathi with the fruit of mokshA in mind, then it goes

against His word "sarva dharmAn parithyajya...". Do not do anything for

the results.

>

> So summing all the above up, Sri Arulalaperumal Emperumanar in his

gnyAna sAram, says "...thurisaRRu sAthagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE

pArtthirutthal kOthil adiyAr guNam". The guNam or character of His

subjects is just that they have to yearn for emperuman's grace and not

try to earn. This act is referred to as "pArathanthriyam" or "itta

vazhakkAi irutthal". This is the quality that one needs to have towards

emperumAn and His grace.

>

> How simple it is? Isn't it? And how complicated we are making it!!!!!

>

> AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

>

>

>

> ________

> India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new

> http://in.answers./

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Vishnu,

 

> Attaching too much of importance to SAstras paritcularly the

> sanskrit texts and saying He is bound by them, goes against His

> nature of nirankuSa swAtantryam.

 

The above statement is pretty damaging:) The more we insist on

swAtantryam, the more we express as if our philosophy is weak. With

swAtantryam if the lord may do anything and everything, then he is

subjected to a defect called partiality i.e. he does good for some,

and bad for some and if one asks why, we would say it is his "will".

If this is so, then the lord is partial. How do we get around this

defect? This is dealt in very detail in SriBhashya("vaishamya

naighrunyAdikaranam") and I request scholars to elaborate the same

over here. But, the gist is, though he has nirankuSa swAtantryam, he

himself abides by the law that he created. Why do we want to see the

SAstras different from him? He created the SAstras and they are very

much to be respected as himself. Moreover, all his statements in his

own Gita, point to the fact that he created the SAstras and he abides

by that. This is his svaBAvam. Though he can do anything and

everything, he does not. For, in a second, he could make everyone as

parama Vaishnavas and that is it. What is the need for leela viBUthi?

The reason could be checked out in the avatArikai of GuruparampaRa

praBavam("loona paksha ivAndaja:") - I think this book is a must read

for everyone in this forum. He created this leela viBUthi, then the

SAstras, then he incarnated, then he brought in AzhwArs and then the

AchAryas. If we praise and focus his swAtantryam, then it is a big

trap that puts us into a mode wherein we could do whatever we want,

because anyway the lord is going to do whatever he wants - there is

as such no bonding or mutual attachment.

 

Let me know your thoughts.

 

> He need not wait for anything - goes against rakashApEkshAm

> pratIkshatE.

If this were true, what was the lord doing when kUraththAzhwan was

made to lose his eyes? The lord had to be patient and had to wait and

watch it happen as per the design. There was no alternative.

 

>Even those who go to paramapadham can return if He so wishes - goes

> against anAvrtti: SabdAt anAvrtti: SabdAt.

"anAvrtti: SabdAt anAvrtti: SabdAt" really means that those who get

liberated do not need liberation again which means they do not get

entangled in the mAya of leela viBUthi - it does not mean they cannot

come back. When the liberated ones come back to leela viBUthi, they

don't go through the kArmic happiness / pain - their happiness and

pain is "abhinayamAtram" i.e. only for aligning to the way of living

in leela viBUthi[] Well such concept of coming back is also as per

his sankalpam and there is no doubt about that, but, at the same

time, it also aligns with the SAstrAs instead of being contradictory.

 

> As he clarifies at more than one place e.g. siddha: = upAyai: na

sAdhya:

> - not attainable by any means, nothing can be an upAya other than

Him.

>

> But, on the contrary, Bhattar also says He can be attained by any

means

> whether those prescribed in SAstras or adopted by the self, for

> sarvayOga vinissrta:. How do we reconcile?

Is there any contradiction here? What is it actually? I don't see

any:) Please explain. "upAyai: na sAdhya:" means not

attainable "completely" by any means. He is complete in himself. But,

for example, if you perform bhakti-yoga as a means to attain him, you

will not really attain him completely, but will attain a moksha that

is inferior in nature i.e like saameepyam, saarupyam etc. To attain

him completely, "he" is the only way. Whereas, "sarvayOga vinissrta:"

conveys that every means will lead to him "avar avar vidhi vazhi

adaiya nindranarE" and everyones vidhi is what? "vaikuntam puguvadhu

maNNavar vidhiyE".

 

The greatness of our philosophy is to align to SAstrAs and at the

same time explain every nature of the lord in agreement with these

SAstrAs. If we say ignore the SAstrAs(be it the sanskrit or tamil

ones), it does not fit well into the darsanam that we belong to -

don't you think so?

 

adiyEn,

dAsan.

 

ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu wrote:

>

>

> Dear Sriman Venkatesh,

>

> A few more thoughts came to me in agreement with yours.

>

> prArthanA nirapEkshatA or not expecting a prayer is the

characteristic

> of bhagavAn as Bhattar says in bhagavad guNa darpaNam (parjanya:

pAvana:

> anila:).

>

> As he clarifies at more than one place e.g. siddha: = upAyai: na

sAdhya:

> - not attainable by any means, nothing can be an upAya other than

Him.

>

> But, on the contrary, Bhattar also says He can be attained by any

means

> whether those prescribed in SAstras or adopted by the self, for

> sarvayOga vinissrta:. How do we reconcile? Anything can be an upAya

if

> He so wishes [] Need not be those prescribed in the sanskrit

texts.

>

> Attaching too much of importance to SAstras paritcularly the

sanskrit

> texts and saying He is bound by them, goes against His nature of

> nirankuSa swAtantryam.

>

> He need not wait for anything - goes against rakashApEkshAm

pratIkshatE.

>

> Even those who go to paramapadham can return if He so wishes - goes

> against anAvrtti: SabdAt anAvrtti: SabdAt.

>

> So the best and practical way is only to look at Him the mAyan with

> wonder and love Him for the sake of loving.

>

> adiyen ramanuja dasan

>

> Vishnu

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ramanuja, Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> <vinjamoor_venkatesh@> wrote:

>

>

> >

> > So it is clear that the cause for the mukthi or moksham is only

Him.

> Even the act of Surrendering to Him is only in the vein as being a

> charactersitic of a jeevAthmA to accept only emperumAn as the sole

> protector and upAyam for attaining mOksha. The concept of

saraNAgathi is

> better explained by the slOkA " tvamEva upAyabootho mE bava ithi

> prArthanA mathi: saraNAgathi". Meaning, It is "just the prayer"

that You

> be my cause of salvation is called saraNAgathi. Doing saraNagathi is

> only a svabhAvam of a realised soul. There is no relation between

the

> performance of saraNAgathi and getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's

> character is nirankusa swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He

may

> or may not give the mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

> >

> > If one does saraNAgathi with the fruit of mokshA in mind, then it

goes

> against His word "sarva dharmAn parithyajya...". Do not do anything

for

> the results.

> >

> > So summing all the above up, Sri Arulalaperumal Emperumanar in his

> gnyAna sAram, says "...thurisaRRu sAthagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE

> pArtthirutthal kOthil adiyAr guNam". The guNam or character of His

> subjects is just that they have to yearn for emperuman's grace and

not

> try to earn. This act is referred to as "pArathanthriyam" or "itta

> vazhakkAi irutthal". This is the quality that one needs to have

towards

> emperumAn and His grace.

> >

> > How simple it is? Isn't it? And how complicated we are making

it!!!!!

> >

> > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> >

> >

> >

> > ________

> > India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new

> > http://in.answers./

> >

>

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamy,

 

As for the points that you have disagreed with, it is always a point

of contention, between the two kalais. However adiyEn would like to

add few points to your message to clarify what I have written. This

is only a quick reply to one part of your message and will try to

reply elaborately for the other parts, later, as I am currently away

from my home and dont have access to many of the scriptures.

 

=======================Quote=================================

> I would beg to disagree with the following lines a little bit.

> >There is no relation between the performance of saraNAgathi and

> >getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's character is nirankusa

> >swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He may or may not give

the

> >mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

>

> The lord definitely is Sarva Tantra Svatantran by his "svarUpam".

> But, he will not do whatever he wants to. He has given us the

> shAstrAs and promises to give moksham to those who have performed

> saraNAgati. So, it would not be correct to say that he may not

grant

> moksha for those who have performed saraNAgathi etc.

>

> Also, regarding "there is no relation between the performance of

> saraNAgathi and getting mOksha" - The very meaning of saraNAgathi

is

> nothing but just a simple understanding of Atma svarUpam and

> paramAtma svaBAvam which will DEFINITELY grant mOksham. Please see

> the texts in point d below for the same.

===========================Unquote=============================

adiyEn's reply:

 

It is very correct to say that He reserves the judgement to confer

the verdict on the jeevAtmA, who has performed saraNAgathi, just like

to the jeevAtmA who has not performed.

 

Thirumazhisai Azhwar says, in Thirucchandha viruttam, (I forgot the

pAsuram number) "naccharAvaNaik kiDandha nAtha, pAdha

pOthinil...vaitha sindhai vAnguvitthu neenguvikka nee inam, meitthan

vallai AdhalAl, aRindhanan nin mAyamE, mayakkal ennai mAyanE". AdiyEn

had referred to this pAsuram a numerous times in this very list,

earlier, on almost similar discussions. AdiyEn would like to use it

once again. Here the AzhwAr says, "You are capable of even removing

the thoughts about You, which You Yourself gave me. But please do not

do this to me". What does this mean? When read along with Thirumangai

AzhwAr's pAsuram "yEzhai yEdhalan.." where he says "un manathAl en

ninaindhirundhAi", it clears one's doubt that He is nirankusa

swathanthran and hence He is capable of doing anything and will do

it.

 

NammAzhwar says in his Periya thiruvandhAdhi "neRi kAtti

neekuthiyO...". If one says that the concept of saraNAgathi was

ordained by emperuAn Himself, then why does NammAzhwAr say "neRi

kAtti needkuthiyO", meaning, "are you trying to keep me away from

You, by asking me to adhere to the sAsthrAs?".

 

Now confusing isn't it? No it is not at all. It will confuse us only

when we think that emperumAn is bound by the sAsthrAs, that He

Himself had ordained. But please note He is " eeDum eDuppum il eesan"

and "otthAr mikkArai illayAya mAmAyan". If He has to be bound by

those sAsthrAs, then those sAsthrAs, atleast become equal to Him,

which, though we can argue that it is His brainchild so we can equate

to Him, will nullify the above statements.

 

Also please remember all these sAsthrAs are nothing but a way of life

given my emperumAn, for us, the jeevAthmAs, to lead a peaceful life.

saraNAgathi is one of those ways, a prapanna should lead, to live a

pious life while in this world. He need not stick to it as there is

no one to question Him. Who can question the other? Only someone who

is either equal or above that person. Isn't it? So is there any one

or any thing that is equal or above Him? No. Then how can we be

questioned. This is the true character "kOdhil adiyAr guNam" of the

jeevAthma, which is also called pArathanthriyam or "iTTa vazhakkAi

irutthal".

 

Also please note that NammAzhwAr performed saraNAgathi in

his "ulagamuDa peruvAyA" padhigam, but He did not get mOksham until

he had atleast completed all the works of his that we have now. One

may argue that, it is only for the saraNAgathi that he did in

the "ulagamunDa peruvAyA" padhigam, he got the mOksham after the

completion of all his works. But then what saraNAgathi did Hiranyan

or SisupAlan do to get their mOkshams or what saraNAgathi

did "dadhipANdan" and his mud vessel do to earn mOksham. In fact

dadhipANdan actually traded for it. Now will one agree that we can do

a trade with emperumAn to get mOksham? No isn't it!!!

 

That is why we say that there is no relation to the act of performing

saraNAgathi and getting mOksham. If one still insists, then it is

only the limited understanding of the Human brain that makes them do

so. Because, it is only our ego which will force us to say, "How can

a result be turned down when I have actually met all the prescribed

criteria", even if the person being contested is emperumAn Himself.

This is what is explained in the "thirumAlai" by ThoNDaraDippoDi

AzhwAr in "mEmporum pOga vittu...", where in he says "vAzhum sOmbarai

ugatthi pOlum". Who are these vAzhum sOmbar? They are those, who very

clearly know that it is only His wish that could grant them mOksham

and do nothing to earn it. Remember, I am not saying that they would

not have performed saraNAgathi, but I am saying that, though they had

performed it, it is not with the result in mind, but in their true

nature of a parathanthran.

 

In fact in my earlier message, adiyEn wrote about aruLALap perumAL

emperumAnAr's gnyAna sAram pAsuram "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl nAdhan

thanadharuLE pArthirutthal kOdhil aDiyAr guNam". While I gave the

translation, I forget to mention the "uvamai" to the "sAdhagam" in

it. The sAdhagam is nothing but the Phoenix bird, which will do

nothing all along the year but will only wait for just a drop of

water on a particular full moon day, which will happen only once in a

year. That is its food. A jeevAthama should be like that. You only

have to be looking forward for emperumAn to take you. This knowledge

is what is named by aruLALap perumAL emperumAnAr as "kOdhil".

kOdhu=blemish: il=less, means blemishless. When will the guNam of His

adiyAr become blemishless? It is when the prapanna, does not bind Him

to some sAsthrAs as He has no bounds.

 

Last but not the least, "vaikuntham puguvadhu maNNavar vidhiyE" does

not mean that the jeevAthmA gets mOksham in that birth itself.

Thirumangai Azhwar dedicates one full padhigam in the 11th

decad "mainninRa karungaDal vAi ulanginRi..." to elaborate that

emperumAn takes every atmA during the praLayam and releases them for

the next cycle of creation. So have many others. While some get

mOksham during a particular birth, all others get the mOksham at the

end however. This is what is maNNavar vidhi.

 

To my very limited knowledge, adiyEn have tried explaining what

adiyEn wrote earlier. While there may be controversies around it,

adiyEn have said only with respect to the Thenkalai philosophy.

adiyEn don't want to argue on the beliefs based on kalai bEdham.

adiyEn believes this strongly, atleast now. If others believe a

different way, still it is fine as afterall, this(difference of

thoughts) is also sanction by our beloved NammAzhwAr in his

Thiruviruttham "vaNangum thuriagaL pala palavAkki, madhi vikaRppAl

piNangum samayam pala palavAkki, avaiavai thoru aNangum pala

palavAkki, nin moorthi parappi vaitthAi, iNangu ninnOrai illAi,

ninkaN vEtkai yezhuvippaNE". The AzhwAr says, He has created all

these differences for His enjoyment.

 

AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

[Guest guest]

ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu wrote:

>

>

> Dear Sriman Venkatesh,

>

> A few more thoughts came to me in agreement with yours.

>

> prArthanA nirapEkshatA or not expecting a prayer is the

characteristic

> of bhagavAn as Bhattar says in bhagavad guNa darpaNam (parjanya:

pAvana:

> anila:).

>

> As he clarifies at more than one place e.g. siddha: = upAyai: na

sAdhya:

> - not attainable by any means, nothing can be an upAya other than

Him.

>

> But, on the contrary, Bhattar also says He can be attained by any

means

> whether those prescribed in SAstras or adopted by the self, for

> sarvayOga vinissrta:. How do we reconcile? Anything can be an upAya

if

> He so wishes [] Need not be those prescribed in the sanskrit

texts.

>

> Attaching too much of importance to SAstras paritcularly the

sanskrit

> texts and saying He is bound by them, goes against His nature of

> nirankuSa swAtantryam.

>

> He need not wait for anything - goes against rakashApEkshAm

pratIkshatE.

>

> Even those who go to paramapadham can return if He so wishes - goes

> against anAvrtti: SabdAt anAvrtti: SabdAt.

>

> So the best and practical way is only to look at Him the mAyan with

> wonder and love Him for the sake of loving.

>

> adiyen ramanuja dasan

>

> Vishnu

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ramanuja, Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> <vinjamoor_venkatesh@> wrote:

>

>

> >

> > So it is clear that the cause for the mukthi or moksham is only

Him.

> Even the act of Surrendering to Him is only in the vein as being a

> charactersitic of a jeevAthmA to accept only emperumAn as the sole

> protector and upAyam for attaining mOksha. The concept of

saraNAgathi is

> better explained by the slOkA " tvamEva upAyabootho mE bava ithi

> prArthanA mathi: saraNAgathi". Meaning, It is "just the prayer"

that You

> be my cause of salvation is called saraNAgathi. Doing saraNagathi is

> only a svabhAvam of a realised soul. There is no relation between

the

> performance of saraNAgathi and getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's

> character is nirankusa swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He

may

> or may not give the mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

> >

> > If one does saraNAgathi with the fruit of mokshA in mind, then it

goes

> against His word "sarva dharmAn parithyajya...". Do not do anything

for

> the results.

> >

> > So summing all the above up, Sri Arulalaperumal Emperumanar in his

> gnyAna sAram, says "...thurisaRRu sAthagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE

> pArtthirutthal kOthil adiyAr guNam". The guNam or character of His

> subjects is just that they have to yearn for emperuman's grace and

not

> try to earn. This act is referred to as "pArathanthriyam" or "itta

> vazhakkAi irutthal". This is the quality that one needs to have

towards

> emperumAn and His grace.

> >

> > How simple it is? Isn't it? And how complicated we are making

it!!!!!

> >

> > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> >

> >

> >

> > ________

> > India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new

> > http://in.answers./

> >

>

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Vishnu,

 

Absolutely right. This is what adiyen had referred to as the

explanation of the pAsuram "neRi kATTi neekuthiyO..". Yes attaching

too much importance to the sAsthrAs will take away the importance to

emperumAn and hence will become just ritualistic without actual Love

for emperumAn.

 

How many of us, when we do "gAyathri japam", really don't get other

thought in our mind. Please don't jump on this. While our good

intention is to only remember emperumAn, when we close our eyes we do

get a lot of disturbing thoughts and we will some times, give in to

it and some times get rid of it during the japam. This is where

BhoothathAzhwar says " nagaram aruL purindhu nAnmukaRkkup poomEl

pagara maRai payandha paNban peyarinayE pundhiyAl sindhiyAdhu Odhi

uRuveNNum andhiyAlAm payanangen". "What is the use of doing the

rituals like sandhyAvandhanam etc, if one cannot think about Him

during this and do it just in a ritualistic manner.

 

If too much importance is attributed to the sAsthrAs, the above state

is what it will lead us to.

 

AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu wrote:

>

>

> Dear Sriman Venkatesh,

>

> A few more thoughts came to me in agreement with yours.

>

> prArthanA nirapEkshatA or not expecting a prayer is the

characteristic

> of bhagavAn as Bhattar says in bhagavad guNa darpaNam (parjanya:

pAvana:

> anila:).

>

> As he clarifies at more than one place e.g. siddha: = upAyai: na

sAdhya:

> - not attainable by any means, nothing can be an upAya other than

Him.

>

> But, on the contrary, Bhattar also says He can be attained by any

means

> whether those prescribed in SAstras or adopted by the self, for

> sarvayOga vinissrta:. How do we reconcile? Anything can be an upAya

if

> He so wishes [] Need not be those prescribed in the sanskrit

texts.

>

> Attaching too much of importance to SAstras paritcularly the

sanskrit

> texts and saying He is bound by them, goes against His nature of

> nirankuSa swAtantryam.

>

> He need not wait for anything - goes against rakashApEkshAm

pratIkshatE.

>

> Even those who go to paramapadham can return if He so wishes - goes

> against anAvrtti: SabdAt anAvrtti: SabdAt.

>

> So the best and practical way is only to look at Him the mAyan with

> wonder and love Him for the sake of loving.

>

> adiyen ramanuja dasan

>

> Vishnu

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ramanuja, Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> <vinjamoor_venkatesh@> wrote:

>

>

> >

> > So it is clear that the cause for the mukthi or moksham is only

Him.

> Even the act of Surrendering to Him is only in the vein as being a

> charactersitic of a jeevAthmA to accept only emperumAn as the sole

> protector and upAyam for attaining mOksha. The concept of

saraNAgathi is

> better explained by the slOkA " tvamEva upAyabootho mE bava ithi

> prArthanA mathi: saraNAgathi". Meaning, It is "just the prayer"

that You

> be my cause of salvation is called saraNAgathi. Doing saraNagathi is

> only a svabhAvam of a realised soul. There is no relation between

the

> performance of saraNAgathi and getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's

> character is nirankusa swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He

may

> or may not give the mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

> >

> > If one does saraNAgathi with the fruit of mokshA in mind, then it

goes

> against His word "sarva dharmAn parithyajya...". Do not do anything

for

> the results.

> >

> > So summing all the above up, Sri Arulalaperumal Emperumanar in his

> gnyAna sAram, says "...thurisaRRu sAthagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE

> pArtthirutthal kOthil adiyAr guNam". The guNam or character of His

> subjects is just that they have to yearn for emperuman's grace and

not

> try to earn. This act is referred to as "pArathanthriyam" or "itta

> vazhakkAi irutthal". This is the quality that one needs to have

towards

> emperumAn and His grace.

> >

> > How simple it is? Isn't it? And how complicated we are making

it!!!!!

> >

> > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> >

> >

> >

> > ________

> > India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new

> > http://in.answers./

> >

>

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan

 

Please pardon me for jumping in. I thought I can take the privilege

of answering some of these to my very little knowledge.

 

===========================Quote============================

> > Attaching too much of importance to SAstras paritcularly the

> > sanskrit texts and saying He is bound by them, goes against His

> > nature of nirankuSa swAtantryam.

>

> The above statement is pretty damaging:) The more we insist on

> swAtantryam, the more we express as if our philosophy is weak. With

> swAtantryam if the lord may do anything and everything, then he is

> subjected to a defect called partiality i.e. he does good for some,

> and bad for some and if one asks why, we would say it is

his "will".

> If this is so, then the lord is partial. How do we get around this

> defect? This is dealt in very detail in SriBhashya("vaishamya

> naighrunyAdikaranam") and I request scholars to elaborate the same

> over here. But, the gist is, though he has nirankuSa swAtantryam,

he

> himself abides by the law that he created. Why do we want to see

the

> SAstras different from him?

=========================Unquote==============================

 

Our messages crossed each other. It is exactly for this question I

have quoted from various pAsurams to prove He can do anything.

Now, I repeat, it is only our Human Ego which is the most dangerous

thing that makes us say that emperumAn should not do this or that. At

times we do it without realising it. I mean, without realising that

what we are talking is out of sheer ego. The reason for this is the

mAya or the saTa vAyu.

 

As you say, He might still, follow the sAsthras laid down by Himself,

but that can never be a prerogative. He cannot be bound. Remember the

pAsuram, "... en vuNarvinuLLE irutthinEn, adhuvum avandhu innaruLE".

 

Now this vaishamya-nairkrunya dOsham aspect is dealt very clearly in

Srivachana BhooshaNam. I don't have the book with me now. So I

request learned scholars in this list to address this part. I will

dwell upon that once I am back in India. But it will be a month

before I come back.

 

================================Quote==============================

> > He need not wait for anything - goes against rakashApEkshAm

> > pratIkshatE.

> If this were true, what was the lord doing when kUraththAzhwan was

> made to lose his eyes? The lord had to be patient and had to wait

and

> watch it happen as per the design. There was no alternative.

=============================Unquote===============================

If I have understood you correctly, what you say is absolutely

correct. But however He does not need to be patient as it is only His

design and He knows what is going to happen. Patience is only for

those who does not know what is in the offing in the future. So this

itself is a proof that He carries out everything as per His will and

is not bound by anything.

 

==============================Quote===============================

> >Even those who go to paramapadham can return if He so wishes - goes

> > against anAvrtti: SabdAt anAvrtti: SabdAt.

> "anAvrtti: SabdAt anAvrtti: SabdAt" really means that those who get

> liberated do not need liberation again which means they do not get

> entangled in the mAya of leela viBUthi - it does not mean they

cannot

> come back. When the liberated ones come back to leela viBUthi, they

> don't go through the kArmic happiness / pain - their happiness and

> pain is "abhinayamAtram" i.e. only for aligning to the way of

living

> in leela viBUthi[] Well such concept of coming back is also as

per

> his sankalpam and there is no doubt about that, but, at the same

> time, it also aligns with the SAstrAs instead of being

contradictory.

=============================Unquote===============================

Well Honestly I don't know much of sanskrit to talk about the

adherence and contradictions to the words above. But Sri MS

Rangachariar swamy (also known as Malliam Babu swamy) once gave me a

good explanation on this. Sri Vishnu can still reach him and clarify

him. I forgot that because of my very little knowledge of Sanskrit. I

hope Sri Vishnu remembers it.

 

Sri Vishnu, can you please elaborate on that.

 

==============================Quote===============================

 

> The greatness of our philosophy is to align to SAstrAs and at the

> same time explain every nature of the lord in agreement with these

> SAstrAs. If we say ignore the SAstrAs(be it the sanskrit or tamil

> ones), it does not fit well into the darsanam that we belong to -

> don't you think so?

 

============================Unquote===============================

You are very correct here. The greatness of our dharsanam is to align

with the sAsthrAs. But due to the agnyAna that pervades us, we fail

to understand that this alignment is for us, the jeevAthmAs and not

for Him the paramAthmA as again, He is nirankusa swathanthran.

 

If we can get out of this agnyAnA, then we become enlightened and

this is what in my opinion is "gnyAnAn mOksha:". The gnyAnam that He

is "nirankusa swathanthran", that He is "otthAr mikkArai ilayAya

mAmAyan" and et all and finally the knowledge that He is

the "siddhOpAyam" is what will lead us to mOksham as, with this

knowledge, the agnyAnam and the ego are cut of completely.

Thondaradippodi AzhwAr, says "....kAmbarath thalai siraitthu" in

the "mEmporuL pOgaviTTu" pAsuram in ThirumAlai. The "thalai" here is

referred to the ego that we have, because of which we go to the

extent of even binding the boundless emperumAn to the sAsthrAs.

 

AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

[Guest guest]

ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

<nrusimhann wrote:

>

 

 

>

> Let me know your thoughts.

>

> > He need not wait for anything - goes against rakashApEkshAm

> > pratIkshatE.

> If this were true, what was the lord doing when kUraththAzhwan was

> made to lose his eyes? The lord had to be patient and had to wait

> and

> watch it happen as per the design. There was no alternative.

 

Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan,

 

prArthanA nirapEkshatvam is Acharya Parasara Bhattar's concept and

not mine. There is one SlOka in pAdukA sahasram which also says

similar thing i.e. the Lord need not wait for anything since His

pAdukAs are there to lead Him!

>

> >Even those who go to paramapadham can return if He so wishes -

goes

> > against anAvrtti: SabdAt anAvrtti: SabdAt.

 

If anAvrtti: SabdAt is interpreted the way you have done (must be

with some valid reference), that is fine. My intention is to write

about what Bhattar meant by the name "adhrta:", where He returns the

vaidika putras from the place of no return i.e. parama padham.

 

> "anAvrtti: SabdAt anAvrtti: SabdAt" really means that those who

get

> liberated do not need liberation again which means they do not get

> entangled in the mAya of leela viBUthi - it does not mean they

cannot

> come back. When the liberated ones come back to leela viBUthi,

they

> don't go through the kArmic happiness / pain - their happiness and

> pain is "abhinayamAtram" i.e. only for aligning to the way of

living

> in leela viBUthi[] Well such concept of coming back is also as

per

> his sankalpam and there is no doubt about that, but, at the same

> time, it also aligns with the SAstrAs instead of being

contradictory.

>

> > As he clarifies at more than one place e.g. siddha: = upAyai: na

> sAdhya:

> > - not attainable by any means, nothing can be an upAya other

than

> Him.

> >

> > But, on the contrary, Bhattar also says He can be attained by

any

> means

> > whether those prescribed in SAstras or adopted by the self, for

> > sarvayOga vinissrta:. How do we reconcile?

> Is there any contradiction here? What is it actually?

 

You did not quote it fully:)

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan

Vishnu

[Guest guest]

Dear Swamin,

Just to clarify, I very much represent only Thenkalai way of

philosophy and I too do not want to get into other issues with kalai

bedams etc.

 

And to further clarify, "vaikuntham puguvadhu mannavar vidhiye" meant

that some day or other everyone has to go to vaikuntham. I never

mentioned anywhere that moksham will be attained in the same birth by

that quotes:)

I just wanted to make sure we all, as a group, should also represent

the Thenkalai philosophy right and hence am trying my best with my

limited knowledge to share what I know about our philosophy.

 

One thing I just want to strongly mention here in the forum - somehow

many of us think Thenkalai sampradayam gives up SAstrAs in compromise

to SaranAgathi. This is not true - for if it were - the very

brahmasUtram - SAstrayOnitvAt - would not have been dealt in detail

by emperumAnAr.

 

When SaranAgathi succeeds, i.e. when one comes into complete

realization, the very understanding is that the jeevAtmA comes into

complete alignment with SAstrAs and performs anything and everything

as per the SAstrAs only - to say it better, whatever they do actually

becomes SAstrA. Does not mean, we mundane people could also assume

our saranAgathi has succeeded and whatever we do can be accepted.

 

We must do what we have been told by the SAstrAs. And the very

SAstram includes the charama slokam which covers both the points a)

The lord is sarva tantra svatantran "maam", and we may leave

everything that has been mentioned in SAstras(rest of the gItA)

provided we do the saranAgathi as per "Ekam SaraNam". Then it makes

sense to deviate from the SAstrAs and be the way the lord wants us to

be. This is the level of enlightenment of AzhwArs and AchAryAs. This

concept should not be used to advise other mundane people like us to

follow, for this is very much a subject for excuse, misuse and abuse

(most of the sampradayam has been into turmoil due to the previous

generations of many of ours misinterpreting and mentioning that we

can do whatever we want, after all the lord will take care of us:).

 

I think this is a very interesting subject and we should continue

discussing this and clarify(and get clarified) to the best possible,

the right view of ThennAchArya sampradAyam. Please do continue

posting when you find time.

 

adiyEn,

dAsan

ramanuja, "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

<vinjamoor_venkatesh wrote:

>

> srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> srImadh varavara munayE namaha

>

> Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamy,

>

> As for the points that you have disagreed with, it is always a

point

> of contention, between the two kalais. However adiyEn would like to

> add few points to your message to clarify what I have written. This

> is only a quick reply to one part of your message and will try to

> reply elaborately for the other parts, later, as I am currently

away

> from my home and dont have access to many of the scriptures.

>

> =======================Quote=================================

> > I would beg to disagree with the following lines a little bit.

> > >There is no relation between the performance of saraNAgathi and

> > >getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's character is nirankusa

> > >swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He may or may not give

> the

> > >mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

> >

> > The lord definitely is Sarva Tantra Svatantran by his "svarUpam".

> > But, he will not do whatever he wants to. He has given us the

> > shAstrAs and promises to give moksham to those who have performed

> > saraNAgati. So, it would not be correct to say that he may not

> grant

> > moksha for those who have performed saraNAgathi etc.

> >

> > Also, regarding "there is no relation between the performance of

> > saraNAgathi and getting mOksha" - The very meaning of saraNAgathi

> is

> > nothing but just a simple understanding of Atma svarUpam and

> > paramAtma svaBAvam which will DEFINITELY grant mOksham. Please

see

> > the texts in point d below for the same.

> ===========================Unquote=============================

> adiyEn's reply:

>

> It is very correct to say that He reserves the judgement to confer

> the verdict on the jeevAtmA, who has performed saraNAgathi, just

like

> to the jeevAtmA who has not performed.

>

> Thirumazhisai Azhwar says, in Thirucchandha viruttam, (I forgot the

> pAsuram number) "naccharAvaNaik kiDandha nAtha, pAdha

> pOthinil...vaitha sindhai vAnguvitthu neenguvikka nee inam,

meitthan

> vallai AdhalAl, aRindhanan nin mAyamE, mayakkal ennai mAyanE".

AdiyEn

> had referred to this pAsuram a numerous times in this very list,

> earlier, on almost similar discussions. AdiyEn would like to use it

> once again. Here the AzhwAr says, "You are capable of even removing

> the thoughts about You, which You Yourself gave me. But please do

not

> do this to me". What does this mean? When read along with

Thirumangai

> AzhwAr's pAsuram "yEzhai yEdhalan.." where he says "un manathAl en

> ninaindhirundhAi", it clears one's doubt that He is nirankusa

> swathanthran and hence He is capable of doing anything and will do

> it.

>

> NammAzhwar says in his Periya thiruvandhAdhi "neRi kAtti

> neekuthiyO...". If one says that the concept of saraNAgathi was

> ordained by emperuAn Himself, then why does NammAzhwAr say "neRi

> kAtti needkuthiyO", meaning, "are you trying to keep me away from

> You, by asking me to adhere to the sAsthrAs?".

>

> Now confusing isn't it? No it is not at all. It will confuse us

only

> when we think that emperumAn is bound by the sAsthrAs, that He

> Himself had ordained. But please note He is " eeDum eDuppum il

eesan"

> and "otthAr mikkArai illayAya mAmAyan". If He has to be bound by

> those sAsthrAs, then those sAsthrAs, atleast become equal to Him,

> which, though we can argue that it is His brainchild so we can

equate

> to Him, will nullify the above statements.

>

> Also please remember all these sAsthrAs are nothing but a way of

life

> given my emperumAn, for us, the jeevAthmAs, to lead a peaceful

life.

> saraNAgathi is one of those ways, a prapanna should lead, to live a

> pious life while in this world. He need not stick to it as there is

> no one to question Him. Who can question the other? Only someone

who

> is either equal or above that person. Isn't it? So is there any one

> or any thing that is equal or above Him? No. Then how can we be

> questioned. This is the true character "kOdhil adiyAr guNam" of the

> jeevAthma, which is also called pArathanthriyam or "iTTa vazhakkAi

> irutthal".

>

> Also please note that NammAzhwAr performed saraNAgathi in

> his "ulagamuDa peruvAyA" padhigam, but He did not get mOksham until

> he had atleast completed all the works of his that we have now. One

> may argue that, it is only for the saraNAgathi that he did in

> the "ulagamunDa peruvAyA" padhigam, he got the mOksham after the

> completion of all his works. But then what saraNAgathi did Hiranyan

> or SisupAlan do to get their mOkshams or what saraNAgathi

> did "dadhipANdan" and his mud vessel do to earn mOksham. In fact

> dadhipANdan actually traded for it. Now will one agree that we can

do

> a trade with emperumAn to get mOksham? No isn't it!!!

>

> That is why we say that there is no relation to the act of

performing

> saraNAgathi and getting mOksham. If one still insists, then it is

> only the limited understanding of the Human brain that makes them

do

> so. Because, it is only our ego which will force us to say, "How

can

> a result be turned down when I have actually met all the prescribed

> criteria", even if the person being contested is emperumAn Himself.

> This is what is explained in the "thirumAlai" by ThoNDaraDippoDi

> AzhwAr in "mEmporum pOga vittu...", where in he says "vAzhum

sOmbarai

> ugatthi pOlum". Who are these vAzhum sOmbar? They are those, who

very

> clearly know that it is only His wish that could grant them mOksham

> and do nothing to earn it. Remember, I am not saying that they

would

> not have performed saraNAgathi, but I am saying that, though they

had

> performed it, it is not with the result in mind, but in their true

> nature of a parathanthran.

>

> In fact in my earlier message, adiyEn wrote about aruLALap perumAL

> emperumAnAr's gnyAna sAram pAsuram "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl nAdhan

> thanadharuLE pArthirutthal kOdhil aDiyAr guNam". While I gave the

> translation, I forget to mention the "uvamai" to the "sAdhagam" in

> it. The sAdhagam is nothing but the Phoenix bird, which will do

> nothing all along the year but will only wait for just a drop of

> water on a particular full moon day, which will happen only once in

a

> year. That is its food. A jeevAthama should be like that. You only

> have to be looking forward for emperumAn to take you. This

knowledge

> is what is named by aruLALap perumAL emperumAnAr as "kOdhil".

> kOdhu=blemish: il=less, means blemishless. When will the guNam of

His

> adiyAr become blemishless? It is when the prapanna, does not bind

Him

> to some sAsthrAs as He has no bounds.

>

> Last but not the least, "vaikuntham puguvadhu maNNavar vidhiyE"

does

> not mean that the jeevAthmA gets mOksham in that birth itself.

> Thirumangai Azhwar dedicates one full padhigam in the 11th

> decad "mainninRa karungaDal vAi ulanginRi..." to elaborate that

> emperumAn takes every atmA during the praLayam and releases them

for

> the next cycle of creation. So have many others. While some get

> mOksham during a particular birth, all others get the mOksham at

the

> end however. This is what is maNNavar vidhi.

>

> To my very limited knowledge, adiyEn have tried explaining what

> adiyEn wrote earlier. While there may be controversies around it,

> adiyEn have said only with respect to the Thenkalai philosophy.

> adiyEn don't want to argue on the beliefs based on kalai bEdham.

> adiyEn believes this strongly, atleast now. If others believe a

> different way, still it is fine as afterall, this(difference of

> thoughts) is also sanction by our beloved NammAzhwAr in his

> Thiruviruttham "vaNangum thuriagaL pala palavAkki, madhi vikaRppAl

> piNangum samayam pala palavAkki, avaiavai thoru aNangum pala

> palavAkki, nin moorthi parappi vaitthAi, iNangu ninnOrai illAi,

> ninkaN vEtkai yezhuvippaNE". The AzhwAr says, He has created all

> these differences for His enjoyment.

>

> AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

>

[Guest guest]

ramanuja, "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

<vinjamoor_venkatesh wrote:

>

..

> =============================Unquote===============================

> Well Honestly I don't know much of sanskrit to talk about the

> adherence and contradictions to the words above. But Sri MS

> Rangachariar swamy (also known as Malliam Babu swamy) once gave me

a

> good explanation on this. Sri Vishnu can still reach him and

clarify

> him. I forgot that because of my very little knowledge of

Sanskrit. I

> hope Sri Vishnu remembers it.

 

Dear Sriman Venkatesh,

 

I will check with swamiji at appropriate time. What Sri Lakshmi

Narasimhan wrote also appears to be agreeable to me:) It is adimai

which is more important than going to Paramapadham, right?

 

My intention was to say, we are not here to draw lines to Perumal in

the name of Sastras. Even Lord Himself says in Gita, "yad gatvA na

nivartantE taddhAma paramam mama". Can we say He went against His

own words since He returned the sons of the Vaidika at dwaraka? No.

He is not bound or held by anything and hence is "adhrta:" says

Bhattar. (adhrta: svadhrta: svAshtya:)

 

>

> Sri Vishnu, can you please elaborate on that.

>

 

Once we are blessed with this gnAna, no more worries towards moksha.

This is reiterated by Bhattar again for the name "siddha:" (sulabha:

suvrata: siddha:) as "svatattva sthiti vidAm ayatna sAdhya:" - for

those who are blessed to know His nature (atarkita anugrahatvam,

prArthanA nirapEkshatvam etc.), He is attainable without an iota of

effort.

 

It is only siddhOpAyam that works is reiterated in "duratikrama:"

where he says for anyone there is no means other than His feet.

 

We may say bhattar, azhwars etc. are speaking from a high platform

and their teachings are not for us. Then whose teachings are for us?

Do we mean to say all the rituals are prescribed by those on a low

platform? No offences meant, heartily.

 

adiyen

Vishnu

 

>

> If we can get out of this agnyAnA, then we become enlightened and

> this is what in my opinion is "gnyAnAn mOksha:". The gnyAnam that

He

> is "nirankusa swathanthran", that He is "otthAr mikkArai ilayAya

> mAmAyan" and et all and finally the knowledge that He is

> the "siddhOpAyam" is what will lead us to mOksham as, with this

> knowledge, the agnyAnam and the ego are cut of completely.

> Thondaradippodi AzhwAr, says "....kAmbarath thalai siraitthu" in

> the "mEmporuL pOgaviTTu" pAsuram in ThirumAlai. The "thalai" here

is

> referred to the ego that we have, because of which we go to the

> extent of even binding the boundless emperumAn to the sAsthrAs.

>

> AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaghawathas

 

Adiyen has no scriptural knowledge other than just a

chance to fall on the feet of my AcHAryA once. Hence

kindly excuse this child if there is any mistakes.

 

Adiyen's childish mind thinks moksha is some thing

that removes the limitations imposed by the existence

of material form not just 5 elements of this physical

gross body but also the mind, intellect and ego (which

are available in varying degree in different people

hence they are also material).

 

Now awareness which is function of experience of the

soul, and soul (here equivalent to conscousness) uses

that awareness to further its journey. Now this

consciousness wonders to many things to hook on to.

Due to the grace of Supreme, it chances upon the

stratum (lotus feet) of an "AcHAryA", whom himself is

already chanced on the stratum of his "AcHAryA" who

inturn is hooked to the ultimate Supreme

Consciousness.

 

Now as the soul is neither created nor destroyed, its

journey is perpetual. Hence always there need to be a

journey for the soul and when a soul chanced up on the

stratum that leads to the divine Consciousness, the

Moksham is already attained since it starts doing

which is its swabhawa. Since it is no more performing

actions for itself but for its AcHAryA, who inturn

does for his AcHAryA and that finally leading to the

action for Supreme. So in this endless journey, the

jiva is placed in line with the journey of Supreme,

hence becomes the dasabHoothA of supreme himself.

 

When a jiva gets the aquintance and acceptance by an

AcHAryA who has practised to seeing the supreme in

every aspects of creation, he is able to share that

vision to the normal jiva. This is mearly a byproduct

of that journey which in turn also gives confirmation

to other jivas on the fringe to take up to that path

as right path. Now once the jiva has got that special

vision of seeing every thing as Supreme or his

handiwork. It gets its realization of original

constitutional position in relation to the Supreme.

 

When a jiva chanced up on this understanding, we are

in a different journey than a normal ones.

Unfortunately some souls require some material proof

even after chanced up on an AcHAryA as every soul in

this world is trained to think that it needs material

proof for any thing like attaining some siddhi or

scriptural knowledge etc to be equivalent of that

person attaining the mercy of the supreme. But they

are not aware that, supreme's mercy is different and

can come in any way. And people like rAvanA who has

mastered all siddhis and scriptural knowledge has not

got the right knowledge about his original

constitutional position with supreme. Hence there is

no physical proof required other than the

"maHaviswasam" on the part of jiva on the lotus feet

of an able "AcHAryA".

 

Hence as soon as the AcHAryA's proper sambandam takes

place, one is already in alignment with the journey of

supreme. Since the journey has begun, it has already

attained the Moksha. Hence it attaining Moksha is

easy. Provided a soul can surrender to the service of

the lotus feet of its AcHAryA who has practised

dasatwam to the supreme Sriman Narayana.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

 

Suresh

 

 

--- Vishnu <vsmvishnu (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:

 

> ramanuja,

> "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

> <vinjamoor_venkatesh wrote:

> >

> .

> >

>

=============================Unquote===============================

> > Well Honestly I don't know much of sanskrit to

> talk about the

> > adherence and contradictions to the words above.

> But Sri MS

> > Rangachariar swamy (also known as Malliam Babu

> swamy) once gave me

> a

> > good explanation on this. Sri Vishnu can still

> reach him and

> clarify

> > him. I forgot that because of my very little

> knowledge of

> Sanskrit. I

> > hope Sri Vishnu remembers it.

>

> Dear Sriman Venkatesh,

>

> I will check with swamiji at appropriate time. What

> Sri Lakshmi

> Narasimhan wrote also appears to be agreeable to

> me:) It is adimai

> which is more important than going to Paramapadham,

> right?

>

> My intention was to say, we are not here to draw

> lines to Perumal in

> the name of Sastras. Even Lord Himself says in Gita,

> "yad gatvA na

> nivartantE taddhAma paramam mama". Can we say He

> went against His

> own words since He returned the sons of the Vaidika

> at dwaraka? No.

> He is not bound or held by anything and hence is

> "adhrta:" says

> Bhattar. (adhrta: svadhrta: svAshtya:)

>

> >

> > Sri Vishnu, can you please elaborate on that.

> >

>

> Once we are blessed with this gnAna, no more worries

> towards moksha.

> This is reiterated by Bhattar again for the name

> "siddha:" (sulabha:

> suvrata: siddha:) as "svatattva sthiti vidAm ayatna

> sAdhya:" - for

> those who are blessed to know His nature (atarkita

> anugrahatvam,

> prArthanA nirapEkshatvam etc.), He is attainable

> without an iota of

> effort.

>

> It is only siddhOpAyam that works is reiterated in

> "duratikrama:"

> where he says for anyone there is no means other

> than His feet.

>

> We may say bhattar, azhwars etc. are speaking from a

> high platform

> and their teachings are not for us. Then whose

> teachings are for us?

> Do we mean to say all the rituals are prescribed by

> those on a low

> platform? No offences meant, heartily.

>

> adiyen

> Vishnu

>

> >

> > If we can get out of this agnyAnA, then we become

> enlightened and

> > this is what in my opinion is "gnyAnAn mOksha:".

> The gnyAnam that

> He

> > is "nirankusa swathanthran", that He is "otthAr

> mikkArai ilayAya

> > mAmAyan" and et all and finally the knowledge that

> He is

> > the "siddhOpAyam" is what will lead us to mOksham

> as, with this

> > knowledge, the agnyAnam and the ego are cut of

> completely.

> > Thondaradippodi AzhwAr, says "....kAmbarath thalai

> siraitthu" in

> > the "mEmporuL pOgaviTTu" pAsuram in ThirumAlai.

> The "thalai" here

> is

> > referred to the ego that we have, because of which

> we go to the

> > extent of even binding the boundless emperumAn to

> the sAsthrAs.

> >

> > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> >

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

http://new.mail.

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamin.

 

Please pardon me. I am not trying to be sarcastic here. But the way

you had opposed the "nirankusa swAthanthriyam" of emperumAn and other

wordings made me feel I should write this note. I don't want to get

into

sectarian disputes here. But it is surprising to note that being a

Ramanuja

Sampradaya Devotee, your view points are a not in line with what our

purvacharyas have taught.

 

The only answer to all that you have written about the sAsthrAs and

its supremacy and the need to align with it, is the Periya

ThiruvandhAdhi pAsuram of NammAzhwAr, that I quoted even

earlier. "neRi kATTi neekuthiyO..".

 

You are saying that TK devotees think that we are giving up sAsthrAs

to

saraNAgathi is very inaccurate, for, saraNAgathi itself is the

essence of all the sAsthrAs. In short, we use the "brahmAsthram"

called saraNAgathi and don't need any other sAsthrAs for us.

 

As for your statement that the "realised soul" status are only for

the AzhwArs and AchAryAs, it is very true. But that does not give us

the right to distort the truth to be presented even if none of us are

even near perfect like those noble souls. So even if we are

imperfect, the truth need to be presented as it is to everyone. There

is no need for sugar coating in this.

 

It is exactly this aspect (the thought that adherence to the sAsthrAs

are of primary importance than to the love of God Himself) that pulls

us away from Him as per the above pAsuram. And also, this, in the due

course of time, makes us purely ritualistic, without the element of

Bakthi or Prapatti in all our doing, which is why BoothathAzhwAr

said," nagaram aruL purnindhu.........peyarinayE pundhiyAl

sindhiyAdhu Odhi uruveNNum andhiyAlAm payanangen".

 

I hope you went through the above two pAsurams before you replied.

 

Well, all said and done, if you feel adherence to the sAsthrAs are of

primary importance, then it is still granted as per the

pAsuram "vaNangum thuRaigaL pala palavAkki...". Afterall, even the

flowers that were offered by Arjuna to Siva, reached emperumAn

finally as per the pAsuram "thIrthan ulagaLandha sEvadi mEl

pUnthAmam, sErthi avayE sivan mudi mEl thAn kaNDu, pArthan

theLindhozhinda painthuzhAyAn perumai, pErthum oruvarAl pEsak

kiDandhadhE".

 

So I would humbly like to say that, without any offense, the views

given by you on the nirankusa swAthanthriyam is NOT the view of the

thennAchArya sampradhAyam. Again please remember the

thiruchandhaviruttam pAsuram "nacharAvaNaik kiDandha.,", in this

regard. I request all the learned people in this forum to either

validate my statement of refute it.

 

Lastly, I dont believe in just the mouth service by saying He is a

nirankusa swathantran etc. When we say and accept that He is

nirankusa swathanthran, He is in all possibilities, with no frills

attached. This is called mahAvisvAsam. The moment we question Him,

then our total understanding about Him is in shambles. No point in

doing sarANagathi or prapatthi or any exotic rituals.

 

"thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE pArthirutthal kOdhil

adiyAr guNam".

 

AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

 

 

ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

<nrusimhann wrote:

>

> Dear Swamin,

> Just to clarify, I very much represent only Thenkalai way of

> philosophy and I too do not want to get into other issues with

kalai

> bedams etc.

>

> And to further clarify, "vaikuntham puguvadhu mannavar vidhiye"

meant

> that some day or other everyone has to go to vaikuntham. I never

> mentioned anywhere that moksham will be attained in the same birth

by

> that quotes:)

> I just wanted to make sure we all, as a group, should also

represent

> the Thenkalai philosophy right and hence am trying my best with my

> limited knowledge to share what I know about our philosophy.

>

> One thing I just want to strongly mention here in the forum -

somehow

> many of us think Thenkalai sampradayam gives up SAstrAs in

compromise

> to SaranAgathi. This is not true - for if it were - the very

> brahmasUtram - SAstrayOnitvAt - would not have been dealt in detail

> by emperumAnAr.

>

> When SaranAgathi succeeds, i.e. when one comes into complete

> realization, the very understanding is that the jeevAtmA comes into

> complete alignment with SAstrAs and performs anything and

everything

> as per the SAstrAs only - to say it better, whatever they do

actually

> becomes SAstrA. Does not mean, we mundane people could also assume

> our saranAgathi has succeeded and whatever we do can be accepted.

>

> We must do what we have been told by the SAstrAs. And the very

> SAstram includes the charama slokam which covers both the points a)

> The lord is sarva tantra svatantran "maam", and we may leave

> everything that has been mentioned in SAstras(rest of the gItA)

> provided we do the saranAgathi as per "Ekam SaraNam". Then it makes

> sense to deviate from the SAstrAs and be the way the lord wants us

to

> be. This is the level of enlightenment of AzhwArs and AchAryAs.

This

> concept should not be used to advise other mundane people like us

to

> follow, for this is very much a subject for excuse, misuse and

abuse

> (most of the sampradayam has been into turmoil due to the previous

> generations of many of ours misinterpreting and mentioning that we

> can do whatever we want, after all the lord will take care of us:).

>

> I think this is a very interesting subject and we should continue

> discussing this and clarify(and get clarified) to the best

possible,

> the right view of ThennAchArya sampradAyam. Please do continue

> posting when you find time.

>

> adiyEn,

> dAsan

> ramanuja, "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

> <vinjamoor_venkatesh@> wrote:

> >

> > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> > srImadh varavara munayE namaha

> >

> > Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamy,

> >

> > As for the points that you have disagreed with, it is always a

> point

> > of contention, between the two kalais. However adiyEn would like

to

> > add few points to your message to clarify what I have written.

This

> > is only a quick reply to one part of your message and will try to

> > reply elaborately for the other parts, later, as I am currently

> away

> > from my home and dont have access to many of the scriptures.

> >

> > =======================Quote=================================

> > > I would beg to disagree with the following lines a little bit.

> > > >There is no relation between the performance of saraNAgathi

and

> > > >getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's character is nirankusa

> > > >swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He may or may not

give

> > the

> > > >mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

> > >

> > > The lord definitely is Sarva Tantra Svatantran by

his "svarUpam".

> > > But, he will not do whatever he wants to. He has given us the

> > > shAstrAs and promises to give moksham to those who have

performed

> > > saraNAgati. So, it would not be correct to say that he may not

> > grant

> > > moksha for those who have performed saraNAgathi etc.

> > >

> > > Also, regarding "there is no relation between the performance

of

> > > saraNAgathi and getting mOksha" - The very meaning of

saraNAgathi

> > is

> > > nothing but just a simple understanding of Atma svarUpam and

> > > paramAtma svaBAvam which will DEFINITELY grant mOksham. Please

> see

> > > the texts in point d below for the same.

> > ===========================Unquote=============================

> > adiyEn's reply:

> >

> > It is very correct to say that He reserves the judgement to

confer

> > the verdict on the jeevAtmA, who has performed saraNAgathi, just

> like

> > to the jeevAtmA who has not performed.

> >

> > Thirumazhisai Azhwar says, in Thirucchandha viruttam, (I forgot

the

> > pAsuram number) "naccharAvaNaik kiDandha nAtha, pAdha

> > pOthinil...vaitha sindhai vAnguvitthu neenguvikka nee inam,

> meitthan

> > vallai AdhalAl, aRindhanan nin mAyamE, mayakkal ennai mAyanE".

> AdiyEn

> > had referred to this pAsuram a numerous times in this very list,

> > earlier, on almost similar discussions. AdiyEn would like to use

it

> > once again. Here the AzhwAr says, "You are capable of even

removing

> > the thoughts about You, which You Yourself gave me. But please do

> not

> > do this to me". What does this mean? When read along with

> Thirumangai

> > AzhwAr's pAsuram "yEzhai yEdhalan.." where he says "un manathAl

en

> > ninaindhirundhAi", it clears one's doubt that He is nirankusa

> > swathanthran and hence He is capable of doing anything and will

do

> > it.

> >

> > NammAzhwar says in his Periya thiruvandhAdhi "neRi kAtti

> > neekuthiyO...". If one says that the concept of saraNAgathi was

> > ordained by emperuAn Himself, then why does NammAzhwAr say "neRi

> > kAtti needkuthiyO", meaning, "are you trying to keep me away from

> > You, by asking me to adhere to the sAsthrAs?".

> >

> > Now confusing isn't it? No it is not at all. It will confuse us

> only

> > when we think that emperumAn is bound by the sAsthrAs, that He

> > Himself had ordained. But please note He is " eeDum eDuppum il

> eesan"

> > and "otthAr mikkArai illayAya mAmAyan". If He has to be bound by

> > those sAsthrAs, then those sAsthrAs, atleast become equal to Him,

> > which, though we can argue that it is His brainchild so we can

> equate

> > to Him, will nullify the above statements.

> >

> > Also please remember all these sAsthrAs are nothing but a way of

> life

> > given my emperumAn, for us, the jeevAthmAs, to lead a peaceful

> life.

> > saraNAgathi is one of those ways, a prapanna should lead, to live

a

> > pious life while in this world. He need not stick to it as there

is

> > no one to question Him. Who can question the other? Only someone

> who

> > is either equal or above that person. Isn't it? So is there any

one

> > or any thing that is equal or above Him? No. Then how can we be

> > questioned. This is the true character "kOdhil adiyAr guNam" of

the

> > jeevAthma, which is also called pArathanthriyam or "iTTa

vazhakkAi

> > irutthal".

> >

> > Also please note that NammAzhwAr performed saraNAgathi in

> > his "ulagamuDa peruvAyA" padhigam, but He did not get mOksham

until

> > he had atleast completed all the works of his that we have now.

One

> > may argue that, it is only for the saraNAgathi that he did in

> > the "ulagamunDa peruvAyA" padhigam, he got the mOksham after the

> > completion of all his works. But then what saraNAgathi did

Hiranyan

> > or SisupAlan do to get their mOkshams or what saraNAgathi

> > did "dadhipANdan" and his mud vessel do to earn mOksham. In fact

> > dadhipANdan actually traded for it. Now will one agree that we

can

> do

> > a trade with emperumAn to get mOksham? No isn't it!!!

> >

> > That is why we say that there is no relation to the act of

> performing

> > saraNAgathi and getting mOksham. If one still insists, then it is

> > only the limited understanding of the Human brain that makes them

> do

> > so. Because, it is only our ego which will force us to say, "How

> can

> > a result be turned down when I have actually met all the

prescribed

> > criteria", even if the person being contested is emperumAn

Himself.

> > This is what is explained in the "thirumAlai" by ThoNDaraDippoDi

> > AzhwAr in "mEmporum pOga vittu...", where in he says "vAzhum

> sOmbarai

> > ugatthi pOlum". Who are these vAzhum sOmbar? They are those, who

> very

> > clearly know that it is only His wish that could grant them

mOksham

> > and do nothing to earn it. Remember, I am not saying that they

> would

> > not have performed saraNAgathi, but I am saying that, though they

> had

> > performed it, it is not with the result in mind, but in their

true

> > nature of a parathanthran.

> >

> > In fact in my earlier message, adiyEn wrote about aruLALap

perumAL

> > emperumAnAr's gnyAna sAram pAsuram "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl

nAdhan

> > thanadharuLE pArthirutthal kOdhil aDiyAr guNam". While I gave the

> > translation, I forget to mention the "uvamai" to the "sAdhagam"

in

> > it. The sAdhagam is nothing but the Phoenix bird, which will do

> > nothing all along the year but will only wait for just a drop of

> > water on a particular full moon day, which will happen only once

in

> a

> > year. That is its food. A jeevAthama should be like that. You

only

> > have to be looking forward for emperumAn to take you. This

> knowledge

> > is what is named by aruLALap perumAL emperumAnAr as "kOdhil".

> > kOdhu=blemish: il=less, means blemishless. When will the guNam of

> His

> > adiyAr become blemishless? It is when the prapanna, does not bind

> Him

> > to some sAsthrAs as He has no bounds.

> >

> > Last but not the least, "vaikuntham puguvadhu maNNavar vidhiyE"

> does

> > not mean that the jeevAthmA gets mOksham in that birth itself.

> > Thirumangai Azhwar dedicates one full padhigam in the 11th

> > decad "mainninRa karungaDal vAi ulanginRi..." to elaborate that

> > emperumAn takes every atmA during the praLayam and releases them

> for

> > the next cycle of creation. So have many others. While some get

> > mOksham during a particular birth, all others get the mOksham at

> the

> > end however. This is what is maNNavar vidhi.

> >

> > To my very limited knowledge, adiyEn have tried explaining what

> > adiyEn wrote earlier. While there may be controversies around it,

> > adiyEn have said only with respect to the Thenkalai philosophy.

> > adiyEn don't want to argue on the beliefs based on kalai bEdham.

> > adiyEn believes this strongly, atleast now. If others believe a

> > different way, still it is fine as afterall, this(difference of

> > thoughts) is also sanction by our beloved NammAzhwAr in his

> > Thiruviruttham "vaNangum thuriagaL pala palavAkki, madhi

vikaRppAl

> > piNangum samayam pala palavAkki, avaiavai thoru aNangum pala

> > palavAkki, nin moorthi parappi vaitthAi, iNangu ninnOrai illAi,

> > ninkaN vEtkai yezhuvippaNE". The AzhwAr says, He has created all

> > these differences for His enjoyment.

> >

> > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Looks like a misinterpretation from your side:) I never

opposed "nirankusa swAthanthiyam" at all.

 

Just quoting AzhwAr's pAsuram and the vyAkyAnam would not suffice to

help others realize what we have realized:) "neRi kATTi neekuthiyO.."

is an excellent statement from AzhwAr - but try to understand the

context too. After having such an intimate relationship with emperumAn

("samslesham"), when emperumAn also plays around with AzhwAr

via "vislesham" aka separation, AzhwAr is very upset as he

says, "after, all these relationship between us, are you still asking

me to stick to those shAstrAs that you have made? and is that because

of which you are avoiding me?" - It should be understood from this

level of AzhwAr who has felt the lord, who had the realized the

presence of lord in his entire self - "udal misai uyirenakkaRandhu

engum paranduLan".

 

Do you think any one of us would have felt like that? How many of us

are in such a high level of spiritual elevation?

 

AzhwAr pAsurams are the highest of the shAstrAs. Who ever can say no?

I will pick you on the other quote that you had mentioned -

"peyarinaiyE pundhiyAl sindhiyAdhu Odhi uruvennum andhi..." - look

at the very first word "peyarinaiyE". gAyatri is supposed to be

chanted, but how? "saraswathi ithyAthi rishi: devi gAyatri chanda:

savithA devata paramAtma devata" - look at the last clause here. We

must understand that it is all the paramAtma who is meant to be

worshipped during the chant. This is what exactly AzhwAr says. He

does not ask us give up sandyAvandanam.

 

I don't take your comments personal at all. But, as we get into our

sampradAyam, the first experience makes us feel that we can give up

everything and just feel that we are protected by the lord and

AchAryas. As we move on, in addition to the fact that we are taken

care by the lord and AchAryas, we would also find that, all of our

pUrvachAryas have indeed aligned to the so called shAstrAs. None of

them gave that up and being sincere followers of them, we will begin

to fall in line with that.

 

In fact, dear Vishnu had asked one question - if these works were

only for the level of AzhwArs and AchAryAs, then is it not applicable

for us. I will ask a counter question:

Initially, the veda shAstrAs and the essence were all kept as secrets

within a group of people and our dear emperumAnAr exposed it out for

the benefit of the entire world('Asai udayOrkkellAm AriyargAL

kUrum'). But then came swamy pillailOkachariar whose work was called

as 'ashtAdasa rahasyam' - why the keyword rahasyam? Even amongst the

followers of emperumAnAr, there were contradictions, confusions etc.

Hence, these works were called as rahasyam and were kept as a secret

and explained only to the right audience. Don't take me wrong here

immediately:) By that what I mean is - until the people get into the

right level of elevation, they are not supposed to be taught

these "rahasya granthAs" (check the summary at the end for a little

more explanation on this).

 

With regards to "nirankusa swAthanthriyam", no one can deny it. At

the same time it is something that is not worth praising about in

reference to the lord as it is his basic attribute. In fact

this "nirankusa swAthanthriyam" is actually dangerous:) - refer to

the vyakyAnam of the thaniyan "yo nithyam achyutha padAmbuja yukma

rukma vyAmohatha:... dayaika sindhO:" - the explanation on the

clause "dayaika sindhO:" attributed to swamy emperumAnAr is awesome.

kUratthAzwan swamy the author of this thaniyan says that emperumAn

has complete nirankusa swAthanthriyam and hence can protect as well

as punish anyone and everyone. BUT, emperumAnAr is capable of only

protecting and pouring the unconditional grace and hence he is our

lord("rAmAnujasya charanau SaraNam prapathyE") and not "sriman

nArAyaNa charanau SaraNam papathyE":)).

 

Also, as per your comments:

"When we say and accept that He is nirankusa swathanthran, He is in

all possibilities, with no frills attached. This is called

mahAvisvAsam."

 

Even this mahAvisvAsam is something he has to inject in us. So, how

could you say, "when we say and accept". Who are we to accept? I mean

what swAthanthriyam do we have to accept? If we are to accept, then

your following quote will fail.

"thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE pArthirutthal kOdhil

adiyAr guNam".

 

So, only at a level where in we are made by him to understand i.e.

not just knowing, but, also realizing, that he is everything, will we

automatically start behaving the way as per the above pUrvAchAryar's

quotes. Until then "stick to sAstrAs" ))))

 

Lastly,

"Well, all said and done, if you feel adherence to the sAsthrAs are

of primary importance, then it is still granted as per the

pAsuram "vaNangum thuRaigaL pala palavAkki.."

 

Here is where I feel you have misunderstood what I had mentioned - I

mentioned that adherence to sAsthrAs is of primary importance and I

did not stop with that. I also said that, our pUrvAchAryas adhered to

the same and that is why we should. What I strongly object is that

many of our own TK people say that our AZhwArs and AchAryAs have

asked us to give up sAsthrAs. This is not true and CANNOT be

accepted. Our AZhwArs and AchAryAs have indeed adhered and have been

abiding to the sAstrAs. If this is not so, then try challenging swamy

mAmunigaL's pAsuram "gnyAnam anuttAnam ivai nannAgavae udaiyanAna

guruvai adaindhakkAl". Swamy did not just say "gnyanam nannagavae

udaiyanAna". He knew our people would use it for their convenience.

That is why he put in the clause "anuttAnam".

 

To summarize:

1. "nirankusa swAthanthriyam" is basic nature of the lord. But, he

himself does not abuse it, he abides by the rules that he himself

created and doesn't bypass the same with this attribute.

2. purvAchAryas never ever mentioned that we must give up sAstrAs -

if so, you are defying emperumAnAr's statement of "varNAshrama dharMa

anugrahIta" in sriBhAshyam.

3. ashtAdasa rahasyam and Acharya hrudayam is not for everyone - I

mean, to be precise, it will make sense only for the right people -

again, if possible, try challenging mAmunigal's statement "aar

vachanabhUshanatthin aazhporuL ellAm arivAr, aar adhu sol naeril

anuttippAr - oorovar undAgil atthanai kaaN uLLamae ellArkkum

andAdhadhanno adhu". So, when we address this forum we must keep in

mind the forum is open to many and hence we must not simply advice

that we can give up sAstrAs and that only emperumAn is important etc.

If that were the case, bhagaVan himself would have said only charama

slokam all the time to arjunan and not any other slokam at all.

 

I hope I am in alignment with pUrvAchAryas - in case I am not, I

apologize and request all of you to thirutthi paNikoLLify me.

 

adiyEn,

dAsan

PS: Please feel free to pass on any type of your comments(sarcastic

or whatever) - you are most welcome. I don't take these as personal

comments. If it would give me a chance to stand corrected, I would be

the happiest person.

 

 

ramanuja, "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

<vinjamoor_venkatesh wrote:

>

> srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> srImadh varavara munayE namaha

>

> Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamin.

>

> Please pardon me. I am not trying to be sarcastic here. But the way

> you had opposed the "nirankusa swAthanthriyam" of emperumAn and

other

> wordings made me feel I should write this note. I don't want to get

> into

> sectarian disputes here. But it is surprising to note that being a

> Ramanuja

> Sampradaya Devotee, your view points are a not in line with what our

> purvacharyas have taught.

>

> The only answer to all that you have written about the sAsthrAs and

> its supremacy and the need to align with it, is the Periya

> ThiruvandhAdhi pAsuram of NammAzhwAr, that I quoted even

> earlier. "neRi kATTi neekuthiyO..".

>

> You are saying that TK devotees think that we are giving up

sAsthrAs

> to

> saraNAgathi is very inaccurate, for, saraNAgathi itself is the

> essence of all the sAsthrAs. In short, we use the "brahmAsthram"

> called saraNAgathi and don't need any other sAsthrAs for us.

>

> As for your statement that the "realised soul" status are only for

> the AzhwArs and AchAryAs, it is very true. But that does not give

us

> the right to distort the truth to be presented even if none of us

are

> even near perfect like those noble souls. So even if we are

> imperfect, the truth need to be presented as it is to everyone.

There

> is no need for sugar coating in this.

>

> It is exactly this aspect (the thought that adherence to the

sAsthrAs

> are of primary importance than to the love of God Himself) that

pulls

> us away from Him as per the above pAsuram. And also, this, in the

due

> course of time, makes us purely ritualistic, without the element of

> Bakthi or Prapatti in all our doing, which is why BoothathAzhwAr

> said," nagaram aruL purnindhu.........peyarinayE pundhiyAl

> sindhiyAdhu Odhi uruveNNum andhiyAlAm payanangen".

>

> I hope you went through the above two pAsurams before you replied.

>

> Well, all said and done, if you feel adherence to the sAsthrAs are

of

> primary importance, then it is still granted as per the

> pAsuram "vaNangum thuRaigaL pala palavAkki...". Afterall, even the

> flowers that were offered by Arjuna to Siva, reached emperumAn

> finally as per the pAsuram "thIrthan ulagaLandha sEvadi mEl

> pUnthAmam, sErthi avayE sivan mudi mEl thAn kaNDu, pArthan

> theLindhozhinda painthuzhAyAn perumai, pErthum oruvarAl pEsak

> kiDandhadhE".

>

> So I would humbly like to say that, without any offense, the views

> given by you on the nirankusa swAthanthriyam is NOT the view of the

> thennAchArya sampradhAyam. Again please remember the

> thiruchandhaviruttam pAsuram "nacharAvaNaik kiDandha.,", in this

> regard. I request all the learned people in this forum to either

> validate my statement of refute it.

>

> Lastly, I dont believe in just the mouth service by saying He is a

> nirankusa swathantran etc. When we say and accept that He is

> nirankusa swathanthran, He is in all possibilities, with no frills

> attached. This is called mahAvisvAsam. The moment we question Him,

> then our total understanding about Him is in shambles. No point in

> doing sarANagathi or prapatthi or any exotic rituals.

>

> "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE pArthirutthal kOdhil

> adiyAr guNam".

>

> AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

>

>

>

>

> ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

> <nrusimhann@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Swamin,

> > Just to clarify, I very much represent only Thenkalai way of

> > philosophy and I too do not want to get into other issues with

> kalai

> > bedams etc.

> >

> > And to further clarify, "vaikuntham puguvadhu mannavar vidhiye"

> meant

> > that some day or other everyone has to go to vaikuntham. I never

> > mentioned anywhere that moksham will be attained in the same

birth

> by

> > that quotes:)

> > I just wanted to make sure we all, as a group, should also

> represent

> > the Thenkalai philosophy right and hence am trying my best with

my

> > limited knowledge to share what I know about our philosophy.

> >

> > One thing I just want to strongly mention here in the forum -

> somehow

> > many of us think Thenkalai sampradayam gives up SAstrAs in

> compromise

> > to SaranAgathi. This is not true - for if it were - the very

> > brahmasUtram - SAstrayOnitvAt - would not have been dealt in

detail

> > by emperumAnAr.

> >

> > When SaranAgathi succeeds, i.e. when one comes into complete

> > realization, the very understanding is that the jeevAtmA comes

into

> > complete alignment with SAstrAs and performs anything and

> everything

> > as per the SAstrAs only - to say it better, whatever they do

> actually

> > becomes SAstrA. Does not mean, we mundane people could also

assume

> > our saranAgathi has succeeded and whatever we do can be accepted.

> >

> > We must do what we have been told by the SAstrAs. And the very

> > SAstram includes the charama slokam which covers both the points

a)

> > The lord is sarva tantra svatantran "maam", and we may leave

> > everything that has been mentioned in SAstras(rest of the gItA)

> > provided we do the saranAgathi as per "Ekam SaraNam". Then it

makes

> > sense to deviate from the SAstrAs and be the way the lord wants

us

> to

> > be. This is the level of enlightenment of AzhwArs and AchAryAs.

> This

> > concept should not be used to advise other mundane people like us

> to

> > follow, for this is very much a subject for excuse, misuse and

> abuse

> > (most of the sampradayam has been into turmoil due to the

previous

> > generations of many of ours misinterpreting and mentioning that

we

> > can do whatever we want, after all the lord will take care of

us:).

> >

> > I think this is a very interesting subject and we should continue

> > discussing this and clarify(and get clarified) to the best

> possible,

> > the right view of ThennAchArya sampradAyam. Please do continue

> > posting when you find time.

> >

> > adiyEn,

> > dAsan

> > ramanuja, "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

> > <vinjamoor_venkatesh@> wrote:

> > >

> > > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> > > srImadh varavara munayE namaha

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamy,

> > >

> > > As for the points that you have disagreed with, it is always a

> > point

> > > of contention, between the two kalais. However adiyEn would

like

> to

> > > add few points to your message to clarify what I have written.

> This

> > > is only a quick reply to one part of your message and will try

to

> > > reply elaborately for the other parts, later, as I am currently

> > away

> > > from my home and dont have access to many of the scriptures.

> > >

> > > =======================Quote=================================

> > > > I would beg to disagree with the following lines a little bit.

> > > > >There is no relation between the performance of saraNAgathi

> and

> > > > >getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's character is nirankusa

> > > > >swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He may or may not

> give

> > > the

> > > > >mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

> > > >

> > > > The lord definitely is Sarva Tantra Svatantran by

> his "svarUpam".

> > > > But, he will not do whatever he wants to. He has given us the

> > > > shAstrAs and promises to give moksham to those who have

> performed

> > > > saraNAgati. So, it would not be correct to say that he may

not

> > > grant

> > > > moksha for those who have performed saraNAgathi etc.

> > > >

> > > > Also, regarding "there is no relation between the performance

> of

> > > > saraNAgathi and getting mOksha" - The very meaning of

> saraNAgathi

> > > is

> > > > nothing but just a simple understanding of Atma svarUpam and

> > > > paramAtma svaBAvam which will DEFINITELY grant mOksham.

Please

> > see

> > > > the texts in point d below for the same.

> > > ===========================Unquote=============================

> > > adiyEn's reply:

> > >

> > > It is very correct to say that He reserves the judgement to

> confer

> > > the verdict on the jeevAtmA, who has performed saraNAgathi,

just

> > like

> > > to the jeevAtmA who has not performed.

> > >

> > > Thirumazhisai Azhwar says, in Thirucchandha viruttam, (I forgot

> the

> > > pAsuram number) "naccharAvaNaik kiDandha nAtha, pAdha

> > > pOthinil...vaitha sindhai vAnguvitthu neenguvikka nee inam,

> > meitthan

> > > vallai AdhalAl, aRindhanan nin mAyamE, mayakkal ennai mAyanE".

> > AdiyEn

> > > had referred to this pAsuram a numerous times in this very

list,

> > > earlier, on almost similar discussions. AdiyEn would like to

use

> it

> > > once again. Here the AzhwAr says, "You are capable of even

> removing

> > > the thoughts about You, which You Yourself gave me. But please

do

> > not

> > > do this to me". What does this mean? When read along with

> > Thirumangai

> > > AzhwAr's pAsuram "yEzhai yEdhalan.." where he says "un manathAl

> en

> > > ninaindhirundhAi", it clears one's doubt that He is nirankusa

> > > swathanthran and hence He is capable of doing anything and will

> do

> > > it.

> > >

> > > NammAzhwar says in his Periya thiruvandhAdhi "neRi kAtti

> > > neekuthiyO...". If one says that the concept of saraNAgathi was

> > > ordained by emperuAn Himself, then why does NammAzhwAr

say "neRi

> > > kAtti needkuthiyO", meaning, "are you trying to keep me away

from

> > > You, by asking me to adhere to the sAsthrAs?".

> > >

> > > Now confusing isn't it? No it is not at all. It will confuse us

> > only

> > > when we think that emperumAn is bound by the sAsthrAs, that He

> > > Himself had ordained. But please note He is " eeDum eDuppum il

> > eesan"

> > > and "otthAr mikkArai illayAya mAmAyan". If He has to be bound

by

> > > those sAsthrAs, then those sAsthrAs, atleast become equal to

Him,

> > > which, though we can argue that it is His brainchild so we can

> > equate

> > > to Him, will nullify the above statements.

> > >

> > > Also please remember all these sAsthrAs are nothing but a way

of

> > life

> > > given my emperumAn, for us, the jeevAthmAs, to lead a peaceful

> > life.

> > > saraNAgathi is one of those ways, a prapanna should lead, to

live

> a

> > > pious life while in this world. He need not stick to it as

there

> is

> > > no one to question Him. Who can question the other? Only

someone

> > who

> > > is either equal or above that person. Isn't it? So is there any

> one

> > > or any thing that is equal or above Him? No. Then how can we be

> > > questioned. This is the true character "kOdhil adiyAr guNam" of

> the

> > > jeevAthma, which is also called pArathanthriyam or "iTTa

> vazhakkAi

> > > irutthal".

> > >

> > > Also please note that NammAzhwAr performed saraNAgathi in

> > > his "ulagamuDa peruvAyA" padhigam, but He did not get mOksham

> until

> > > he had atleast completed all the works of his that we have now.

> One

> > > may argue that, it is only for the saraNAgathi that he did in

> > > the "ulagamunDa peruvAyA" padhigam, he got the mOksham after

the

> > > completion of all his works. But then what saraNAgathi did

> Hiranyan

> > > or SisupAlan do to get their mOkshams or what saraNAgathi

> > > did "dadhipANdan" and his mud vessel do to earn mOksham. In

fact

> > > dadhipANdan actually traded for it. Now will one agree that we

> can

> > do

> > > a trade with emperumAn to get mOksham? No isn't it!!!

> > >

> > > That is why we say that there is no relation to the act of

> > performing

> > > saraNAgathi and getting mOksham. If one still insists, then it

is

> > > only the limited understanding of the Human brain that makes

them

> > do

> > > so. Because, it is only our ego which will force us to

say, "How

> > can

> > > a result be turned down when I have actually met all the

> prescribed

> > > criteria", even if the person being contested is emperumAn

> Himself.

> > > This is what is explained in the "thirumAlai" by

ThoNDaraDippoDi

> > > AzhwAr in "mEmporum pOga vittu...", where in he says "vAzhum

> > sOmbarai

> > > ugatthi pOlum". Who are these vAzhum sOmbar? They are those,

who

> > very

> > > clearly know that it is only His wish that could grant them

> mOksham

> > > and do nothing to earn it. Remember, I am not saying that they

> > would

> > > not have performed saraNAgathi, but I am saying that, though

they

> > had

> > > performed it, it is not with the result in mind, but in their

> true

> > > nature of a parathanthran.

> > >

> > > In fact in my earlier message, adiyEn wrote about aruLALap

> perumAL

> > > emperumAnAr's gnyAna sAram pAsuram "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl

> nAdhan

> > > thanadharuLE pArthirutthal kOdhil aDiyAr guNam". While I gave

the

> > > translation, I forget to mention the "uvamai" to the "sAdhagam"

> in

> > > it. The sAdhagam is nothing but the Phoenix bird, which will do

> > > nothing all along the year but will only wait for just a drop

of

> > > water on a particular full moon day, which will happen only

once

> in

> > a

> > > year. That is its food. A jeevAthama should be like that. You

> only

> > > have to be looking forward for emperumAn to take you. This

> > knowledge

> > > is what is named by aruLALap perumAL emperumAnAr as "kOdhil".

> > > kOdhu=blemish: il=less, means blemishless. When will the guNam

of

> > His

> > > adiyAr become blemishless? It is when the prapanna, does not

bind

> > Him

> > > to some sAsthrAs as He has no bounds.

> > >

> > > Last but not the least, "vaikuntham puguvadhu maNNavar vidhiyE"

> > does

> > > not mean that the jeevAthmA gets mOksham in that birth itself.

> > > Thirumangai Azhwar dedicates one full padhigam in the 11th

> > > decad "mainninRa karungaDal vAi ulanginRi..." to elaborate that

> > > emperumAn takes every atmA during the praLayam and releases

them

> > for

> > > the next cycle of creation. So have many others. While some get

> > > mOksham during a particular birth, all others get the mOksham

at

> > the

> > > end however. This is what is maNNavar vidhi.

> > >

> > > To my very limited knowledge, adiyEn have tried explaining what

> > > adiyEn wrote earlier. While there may be controversies around

it,

> > > adiyEn have said only with respect to the Thenkalai philosophy.

> > > adiyEn don't want to argue on the beliefs based on kalai

bEdham.

> > > adiyEn believes this strongly, atleast now. If others believe a

> > > different way, still it is fine as afterall, this(difference of

> > > thoughts) is also sanction by our beloved NammAzhwAr in his

> > > Thiruviruttham "vaNangum thuriagaL pala palavAkki, madhi

> vikaRppAl

> > > piNangum samayam pala palavAkki, avaiavai thoru aNangum pala

> > > palavAkki, nin moorthi parappi vaitthAi, iNangu ninnOrai illAi,

> > > ninkaN vEtkai yezhuvippaNE". The AzhwAr says, He has created

all

> > > these differences for His enjoyment.

> > >

> > > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

<nrusimhann wrote:

>

Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan,

 

We already discussed concurred on this earlier:) Many our kith and

kin in both subsects dont do sandhyAvandanam and I am sure you are

not one of those who accuse them of nithya thIttu. It is only our

bhAgavata apachAram towards them who are better Vaishnavas than

adiyen, which is equal to nithya thIttu.

 

> must understand that it is all the paramAtma who is meant to be

> worshipped during the chant. This is what exactly AzhwAr says. He

> does not ask us give up sandyAvandanam.

>

 

After praising each and every azhwar, and nAdhamuni et al. who

brought into light their aruLichheyals (aruLpettha nAdhamuni

mudhalAna nam thEsiharai allAl) Manavala Mamunigal says from the

days of emberumAnAr it is called emberumAnAr thariSanam (emberumAnAr

thariSanamennE idharkku namberumAL pErittu nAttivaithhAr), as

Ramanuja simply spread the same message.

 

The term rahasyam means it should not be taught to those who have

not submitted themselves to Him (idham tEna athapaskAya - says

Parthasarathy - the only thapas in our sampradAyam is vaNangum thava

neri) and those who dont listen with concentration to the teacher.

It is not a rahasyam for "ASaiyudaiyOr". We should not misuse this

term to keep the sampradAyam limited to only our Iyengars with madi

and AchAram.

 

>

> In fact, dear Vishnu had asked one question - if these works were

> only for the level of AzhwArs and AchAryAs, then is it not

applicable

> for us. I will ask a counter question:

> Initially, the veda shAstrAs and the essence were all kept as

secrets

> within a group of people and our dear emperumAnAr exposed it out

for

> the benefit of the entire world('Asai udayOrkkellAm AriyargAL

> kUrum'). But then came swamy pillailOkachariar whose work was

called

> as 'ashtAdasa rahasyam' - why the keyword rahasyam? Even amongst

the

> followers of emperumAnAr, there were contradictions, confusions

etc.

> Hence, these works were called as rahasyam and were kept as a

secret

> and explained only to the right audience. Don't take me wrong here

> immediately:) By that what I mean is - until the people get into

the

> right level of elevation, they are not supposed to be taught

> these "rahasya granthAs" (check the summary at the end for a

little

> more explanation on this).

>

 

Agreed.

 

>

> Even this mahAvisvAsam is something he has to inject in us. So,

how

> could you say, "when we say and accept". Who are we to accept? I

mean

> what swAthanthriyam do we have to accept?

>

 

Sri Vishnu Purana says a brahmin is to be called "Sarma", a Sudra

dAsa etc.. But we all are rAmAnuja dAsas in our sampradAyam. There

are umpteen incidents in poorvacharyas' lives where Bhagavata

Seshatvam took precedence over varNASrama dharmas. There have been

examples even in the recent past i.e. one famous Jeeyar prostrating

before PBA swami.

 

> I also said that, our pUrvAchAryas adhered to

> the same and that is why we should. What I strongly object is that

> many of our own TK people say that our AZhwArs and AchAryAs have

> asked us to give up sAsthrAs. This is not true and CANNOT be

> accepted. Our AZhwArs and AchAryAs have indeed adhered and have

been

> abiding to the sAstrAs.

 

gnAnam - is knwoledge of upAOpEyatvam of the Lord, anushTAnam is the

practice of it i.e. prapatti or svapravrtti nivrrti - leaving all

our efforts and resorting to Him. Karma is nothing but Bhagavata

Seshatvam, bhakti is elaborately discussed in the divya prabandham

and it is His blessing. So Bhakti, gnAna, karma and prapatti are not

different upAyas for prapannas but ultimately are one and same.

 

>If this is not so, then try challenging swamy

> mAmunigaL's pAsuram "gnyAnam anuttAnam ivai nannAgavae udaiyanAna

> guruvai adaindhakkAl". Swamy did not just say "gnyanam nannagavae

> udaiyanAna". He knew our people would use it for their

convenience.

> That is why he put in the clause "anuttAnam".

>

 

Because of the presence of adhikaraNams like apaSUdrAdhikaraNam,

brahma sUtras are a shade inferior to Divya Prabandham. EmberumAnAr

commented on it, only to establish tattva trayam and ISwara's

paratvam to those outside His kootam and not for our anushTAnam as

asmadAdis are not qualified to follow and do numerous anusTAnams

prescribed in SAstras. He followed similar style in Gita Bhashyam

leaving the task of presenting emebrumAnAr thariSanam to

ThirukkuruhaippirAn piLLAn and parASara bhattar, by inspiring them.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Vishnu

 

> 2. purvAchAryas never ever mentioned that we must give up sAstrAs -

 

> if so, you are defying emperumAnAr's statement of "varNAshrama

dharMa

> anugrahIta" in sriBhAshyam.

> 3. ashtAdasa rahasyam and Acharya hrudayam is not for everyone - I

> mean, to be precise, it will make sense only for the right people -

 

> again, if possible, try challenging mAmunigal's statement "aar

> vachanabhUshanatthin aazhporuL ellAm arivAr, aar adhu sol naeril

> anuttippAr - oorovar undAgil atthanai kaaN uLLamae ellArkkum

> andAdhadhanno adhu". So, when we address this forum we must keep

in

> mind the forum is open to many and hence we must not simply advice

> that we can give up sAstrAs and that only emperumAn is important

etc.

> If that were the case, bhagaVan himself would have said only

charama

> slokam all the time to arjunan and not any other slokam at all.

>

> I hope I am in alignment with pUrvAchAryas - in case I am not, I

> apologize and request all of you to thirutthi paNikoLLify me.

>

> adiyEn,

> dAsan

> PS: Please feel free to pass on any type of your comments

(sarcastic

> or whatever) - you are most welcome. I don't take these as

personal

> comments. If it would give me a chance to stand corrected, I would

be

> the happiest person.

>

>

> ramanuja, "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

> <vinjamoor_venkatesh@> wrote:

> >

> > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> > srImadh varavara munayE namaha

> >

> > Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamin.

> >

> > Please pardon me. I am not trying to be sarcastic here. But the

way

> > you had opposed the "nirankusa swAthanthriyam" of emperumAn and

> other

> > wordings made me feel I should write this note. I don't want to

get

> > into

> > sectarian disputes here. But it is surprising to note that being

a

> > Ramanuja

> > Sampradaya Devotee, your view points are a not in line with what

our

> > purvacharyas have taught.

> >

> > The only answer to all that you have written about the sAsthrAs

and

> > its supremacy and the need to align with it, is the Periya

> > ThiruvandhAdhi pAsuram of NammAzhwAr, that I quoted even

> > earlier. "neRi kATTi neekuthiyO..".

> >

> > You are saying that TK devotees think that we are giving up

> sAsthrAs

> > to

> > saraNAgathi is very inaccurate, for, saraNAgathi itself is the

> > essence of all the sAsthrAs. In short, we use the "brahmAsthram"

> > called saraNAgathi and don't need any other sAsthrAs for us.

> >

> > As for your statement that the "realised soul" status are only

for

> > the AzhwArs and AchAryAs, it is very true. But that does not

give

> us

> > the right to distort the truth to be presented even if none of

us

> are

> > even near perfect like those noble souls. So even if we are

> > imperfect, the truth need to be presented as it is to everyone.

> There

> > is no need for sugar coating in this.

> >

> > It is exactly this aspect (the thought that adherence to the

> sAsthrAs

> > are of primary importance than to the love of God Himself) that

> pulls

> > us away from Him as per the above pAsuram. And also, this, in

the

> due

> > course of time, makes us purely ritualistic, without the element

of

> > Bakthi or Prapatti in all our doing, which is why BoothathAzhwAr

> > said," nagaram aruL purnindhu.........peyarinayE pundhiyAl

> > sindhiyAdhu Odhi uruveNNum andhiyAlAm payanangen".

> >

> > I hope you went through the above two pAsurams before you

replied.

> >

> > Well, all said and done, if you feel adherence to the sAsthrAs

are

> of

> > primary importance, then it is still granted as per the

> > pAsuram "vaNangum thuRaigaL pala palavAkki...". Afterall, even

the

> > flowers that were offered by Arjuna to Siva, reached emperumAn

> > finally as per the pAsuram "thIrthan ulagaLandha sEvadi mEl

> > pUnthAmam, sErthi avayE sivan mudi mEl thAn kaNDu, pArthan

> > theLindhozhinda painthuzhAyAn perumai, pErthum oruvarAl pEsak

> > kiDandhadhE".

> >

> > So I would humbly like to say that, without any offense, the

views

> > given by you on the nirankusa swAthanthriyam is NOT the view of

the

> > thennAchArya sampradhAyam. Again please remember the

> > thiruchandhaviruttam pAsuram "nacharAvaNaik kiDandha.,", in this

> > regard. I request all the learned people in this forum to either

> > validate my statement of refute it.

> >

> > Lastly, I dont believe in just the mouth service by saying He is

a

> > nirankusa swathantran etc. When we say and accept that He is

> > nirankusa swathanthran, He is in all possibilities, with no

frills

> > attached. This is called mahAvisvAsam. The moment we question

Him,

> > then our total understanding about Him is in shambles. No point

in

> > doing sarANagathi or prapatthi or any exotic rituals.

> >

> > "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE pArthirutthal

kOdhil

> > adiyAr guNam".

> >

> > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

> > <nrusimhann@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Swamin,

> > > Just to clarify, I very much represent only Thenkalai way of

> > > philosophy and I too do not want to get into other issues with

> > kalai

> > > bedams etc.

> > >

> > > And to further clarify, "vaikuntham puguvadhu mannavar

vidhiye"

> > meant

> > > that some day or other everyone has to go to vaikuntham. I

never

> > > mentioned anywhere that moksham will be attained in the same

> birth

> > by

> > > that quotes:)

> > > I just wanted to make sure we all, as a group, should also

> > represent

> > > the Thenkalai philosophy right and hence am trying my best

with

> my

> > > limited knowledge to share what I know about our philosophy.

> > >

> > > One thing I just want to strongly mention here in the forum -

> > somehow

> > > many of us think Thenkalai sampradayam gives up SAstrAs in

> > compromise

> > > to SaranAgathi. This is not true - for if it were - the very

> > > brahmasUtram - SAstrayOnitvAt - would not have been dealt in

> detail

> > > by emperumAnAr.

> > >

> > > When SaranAgathi succeeds, i.e. when one comes into complete

> > > realization, the very understanding is that the jeevAtmA comes

> into

> > > complete alignment with SAstrAs and performs anything and

> > everything

> > > as per the SAstrAs only - to say it better, whatever they do

> > actually

> > > becomes SAstrA. Does not mean, we mundane people could also

> assume

> > > our saranAgathi has succeeded and whatever we do can be

accepted.

> > >

> > > We must do what we have been told by the SAstrAs. And the very

> > > SAstram includes the charama slokam which covers both the

points

> a)

> > > The lord is sarva tantra svatantran "maam", and we may leave

> > > everything that has been mentioned in SAstras(rest of the

gItA)

> > > provided we do the saranAgathi as per "Ekam SaraNam". Then it

> makes

> > > sense to deviate from the SAstrAs and be the way the lord

wants

> us

> > to

> > > be. This is the level of enlightenment of AzhwArs and

AchAryAs.

> > This

> > > concept should not be used to advise other mundane people like

us

> > to

> > > follow, for this is very much a subject for excuse, misuse and

> > abuse

> > > (most of the sampradayam has been into turmoil due to the

> previous

> > > generations of many of ours misinterpreting and mentioning

that

> we

> > > can do whatever we want, after all the lord will take care of

> us:).

> > >

> > > I think this is a very interesting subject and we should

continue

> > > discussing this and clarify(and get clarified) to the best

> > possible,

> > > the right view of ThennAchArya sampradAyam. Please do continue

> > > posting when you find time.

> > >

> > > adiyEn,

> > > dAsan

> > > ramanuja, "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

> > > <vinjamoor_venkatesh@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> > > > srImadh varavara munayE namaha

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamy,

> > > >

> > > > As for the points that you have disagreed with, it is always

a

> > > point

> > > > of contention, between the two kalais. However adiyEn would

> like

> > to

> > > > add few points to your message to clarify what I have

written.

> > This

> > > > is only a quick reply to one part of your message and will

try

> to

> > > > reply elaborately for the other parts, later, as I am

currently

> > > away

> > > > from my home and dont have access to many of the scriptures.

> > > >

> > > > =======================Quote=================================

> > > > > I would beg to disagree with the following lines a little

bit.

> > > > > >There is no relation between the performance of

saraNAgathi

> > and

> > > > > >getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's character is nirankusa

> > > > > >swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He may or may

not

> > give

> > > > the

> > > > > >mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

> > > > >

> > > > > The lord definitely is Sarva Tantra Svatantran by

> > his "svarUpam".

> > > > > But, he will not do whatever he wants to. He has given us

the

> > > > > shAstrAs and promises to give moksham to those who have

> > performed

> > > > > saraNAgati. So, it would not be correct to say that he may

> not

> > > > grant

> > > > > moksha for those who have performed saraNAgathi etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also, regarding "there is no relation between the

performance

> > of

> > > > > saraNAgathi and getting mOksha" - The very meaning of

> > saraNAgathi

> > > > is

> > > > > nothing but just a simple understanding of Atma svarUpam

and

> > > > > paramAtma svaBAvam which will DEFINITELY grant mOksham.

> Please

> > > see

> > > > > the texts in point d below for the same.

> > > >

===========================Unquote=============================

> > > > adiyEn's reply:

> > > >

> > > > It is very correct to say that He reserves the judgement to

> > confer

> > > > the verdict on the jeevAtmA, who has performed saraNAgathi,

> just

> > > like

> > > > to the jeevAtmA who has not performed.

> > > >

> > > > Thirumazhisai Azhwar says, in Thirucchandha viruttam, (I

forgot

> > the

> > > > pAsuram number) "naccharAvaNaik kiDandha nAtha, pAdha

> > > > pOthinil...vaitha sindhai vAnguvitthu neenguvikka nee inam,

> > > meitthan

> > > > vallai AdhalAl, aRindhanan nin mAyamE, mayakkal ennai

mAyanE".

> > > AdiyEn

> > > > had referred to this pAsuram a numerous times in this very

> list,

> > > > earlier, on almost similar discussions. AdiyEn would like to

> use

> > it

> > > > once again. Here the AzhwAr says, "You are capable of even

> > removing

> > > > the thoughts about You, which You Yourself gave me. But

please

> do

> > > not

> > > > do this to me". What does this mean? When read along with

> > > Thirumangai

> > > > AzhwAr's pAsuram "yEzhai yEdhalan.." where he says "un

manathAl

> > en

> > > > ninaindhirundhAi", it clears one's doubt that He is

nirankusa

> > > > swathanthran and hence He is capable of doing anything and

will

> > do

> > > > it.

> > > >

> > > > NammAzhwar says in his Periya thiruvandhAdhi "neRi kAtti

> > > > neekuthiyO...". If one says that the concept of saraNAgathi

was

> > > > ordained by emperuAn Himself, then why does NammAzhwAr

> say "neRi

> > > > kAtti needkuthiyO", meaning, "are you trying to keep me away

> from

> > > > You, by asking me to adhere to the sAsthrAs?".

> > > >

> > > > Now confusing isn't it? No it is not at all. It will confuse

us

> > > only

> > > > when we think that emperumAn is bound by the sAsthrAs, that

He

> > > > Himself had ordained. But please note He is " eeDum eDuppum

il

> > > eesan"

> > > > and "otthAr mikkArai illayAya mAmAyan". If He has to be

bound

> by

> > > > those sAsthrAs, then those sAsthrAs, atleast become equal to

> Him,

> > > > which, though we can argue that it is His brainchild so we

can

> > > equate

> > > > to Him, will nullify the above statements.

> > > >

> > > > Also please remember all these sAsthrAs are nothing but a

way

> of

> > > life

> > > > given my emperumAn, for us, the jeevAthmAs, to lead a

peaceful

> > > life.

> > > > saraNAgathi is one of those ways, a prapanna should lead, to

> live

> > a

> > > > pious life while in this world. He need not stick to it as

> there

> > is

> > > > no one to question Him. Who can question the other? Only

> someone

> > > who

> > > > is either equal or above that person. Isn't it? So is there

any

> > one

> > > > or any thing that is equal or above Him? No. Then how can we

be

> > > > questioned. This is the true character "kOdhil adiyAr guNam"

of

> > the

> > > > jeevAthma, which is also called pArathanthriyam or "iTTa

> > vazhakkAi

> > > > irutthal".

> > > >

> > > > Also please note that NammAzhwAr performed saraNAgathi in

> > > > his "ulagamuDa peruvAyA" padhigam, but He did not get

mOksham

> > until

> > > > he had atleast completed all the works of his that we have

now.

> > One

> > > > may argue that, it is only for the saraNAgathi that he did

in

> > > > the "ulagamunDa peruvAyA" padhigam, he got the mOksham after

> the

> > > > completion of all his works. But then what saraNAgathi did

> > Hiranyan

> > > > or SisupAlan do to get their mOkshams or what saraNAgathi

> > > > did "dadhipANdan" and his mud vessel do to earn mOksham. In

> fact

> > > > dadhipANdan actually traded for it. Now will one agree that

we

> > can

> > > do

> > > > a trade with emperumAn to get mOksham? No isn't it!!!

> > > >

> > > > That is why we say that there is no relation to the act of

> > > performing

> > > > saraNAgathi and getting mOksham. If one still insists, then

it

> is

> > > > only the limited understanding of the Human brain that makes

> them

> > > do

> > > > so. Because, it is only our ego which will force us to

> say, "How

> > > can

> > > > a result be turned down when I have actually met all the

> > prescribed

> > > > criteria", even if the person being contested is emperumAn

> > Himself.

> > > > This is what is explained in the "thirumAlai" by

> ThoNDaraDippoDi

> > > > AzhwAr in "mEmporum pOga vittu...", where in he says "vAzhum

> > > sOmbarai

> > > > ugatthi pOlum". Who are these vAzhum sOmbar? They are those,

> who

> > > very

> > > > clearly know that it is only His wish that could grant them

> > mOksham

> > > > and do nothing to earn it. Remember, I am not saying that

they

> > > would

> > > > not have performed saraNAgathi, but I am saying that, though

> they

> > > had

> > > > performed it, it is not with the result in mind, but in

their

> > true

> > > > nature of a parathanthran.

> > > >

> > > > In fact in my earlier message, adiyEn wrote about aruLALap

> > perumAL

> > > > emperumAnAr's gnyAna sAram pAsuram "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl

> > nAdhan

> > > > thanadharuLE pArthirutthal kOdhil aDiyAr guNam". While I

gave

> the

> > > > translation, I forget to mention the "uvamai" to

the "sAdhagam"

> > in

> > > > it. The sAdhagam is nothing but the Phoenix bird, which will

do

> > > > nothing all along the year but will only wait for just a

drop

> of

> > > > water on a particular full moon day, which will happen only

> once

> > in

> > > a

> > > > year. That is its food. A jeevAthama should be like that.

You

> > only

> > > > have to be looking forward for emperumAn to take you. This

> > > knowledge

> > > > is what is named by aruLALap perumAL emperumAnAr

as "kOdhil".

> > > > kOdhu=blemish: il=less, means blemishless. When will the

guNam

> of

> > > His

> > > > adiyAr become blemishless? It is when the prapanna, does not

> bind

> > > Him

> > > > to some sAsthrAs as He has no bounds.

> > > >

> > > > Last but not the least, "vaikuntham puguvadhu maNNavar

vidhiyE"

> > > does

> > > > not mean that the jeevAthmA gets mOksham in that birth

itself.

> > > > Thirumangai Azhwar dedicates one full padhigam in the 11th

> > > > decad "mainninRa karungaDal vAi ulanginRi..." to elaborate

that

> > > > emperumAn takes every atmA during the praLayam and releases

> them

> > > for

> > > > the next cycle of creation. So have many others. While some

get

> > > > mOksham during a particular birth, all others get the

mOksham

> at

> > > the

> > > > end however. This is what is maNNavar vidhi.

> > > >

> > > > To my very limited knowledge, adiyEn have tried explaining

what

> > > > adiyEn wrote earlier. While there may be controversies

around

> it,

> > > > adiyEn have said only with respect to the Thenkalai

philosophy.

> > > > adiyEn don't want to argue on the beliefs based on kalai

> bEdham.

> > > > adiyEn believes this strongly, atleast now. If others

believe a

> > > > different way, still it is fine as afterall, this(difference

of

> > > > thoughts) is also sanction by our beloved NammAzhwAr in his

> > > > Thiruviruttham "vaNangum thuriagaL pala palavAkki, madhi

> > vikaRppAl

> > > > piNangum samayam pala palavAkki, avaiavai thoru aNangum pala

> > > > palavAkki, nin moorthi parappi vaitthAi, iNangu ninnOrai

illAi,

> > > > ninkaN vEtkai yezhuvippaNE". The AzhwAr says, He has created

> all

> > > > these differences for His enjoyment.

> > > >

> > > > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > > > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > > > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Vishnu,

 

Just to clarify a small comm gap that I feel exists in our

discussion. I am not into accusing anyone for not performing their

regular duties as per shastras at all. But, what I definitely do not

want to happen is, people to be mislead that it is ok to skip the

regular duties and that just sticking to the lord's feet would

suffice - if we are skipping all our regular duties like nithya

karma, the only reason must be that we are spending all our time (I

mean 100% of our time) in thinking about lord and doing service to

the lord(state of azhwArs / purvAchAryAs). Otherwise people like me,

would take excuse from nithya karma under the guise of prapannan and

will misuse the concept while working for a software company doing

neither service to lord nor getting a chance to think about him even

once a day:) These people will give up shastras and at the same time

will be incomplete prapannas as they spend their time in other

materialistic stuffs. And hence I still stick to the point that

Thennacharya Sampradayam (though it does not explicitly accuse those

who donot follow shastras), DOES NOT definitely encourages us to give

up following shastras in compromise to other material pleasures.

There is a widely known confusion and misinformation about TK

sampradayam that it encourages only vishesha dharma and to give up

the sAmAnya dharma and I am never able to stomach the same:) and

hence I've been posting these.

 

Kindly pardon for mistakes.

 

adiyEn,

dAsan

 

 

ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu wrote:

>

> ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

> <nrusimhann@> wrote:

> >

> Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan,

>

> We already discussed concurred on this earlier:) Many our kith and

> kin in both subsects dont do sandhyAvandanam and I am sure you are

> not one of those who accuse them of nithya thIttu. It is only our

> bhAgavata apachAram towards them who are better Vaishnavas than

> adiyen, which is equal to nithya thIttu.

>

> > must understand that it is all the paramAtma who is meant to be

> > worshipped during the chant. This is what exactly AzhwAr says. He

> > does not ask us give up sandyAvandanam.

> >

>

> After praising each and every azhwar, and nAdhamuni et al. who

> brought into light their aruLichheyals (aruLpettha nAdhamuni

> mudhalAna nam thEsiharai allAl) Manavala Mamunigal says from the

> days of emberumAnAr it is called emberumAnAr thariSanam

(emberumAnAr

> thariSanamennE idharkku namberumAL pErittu nAttivaithhAr), as

> Ramanuja simply spread the same message.

>

> The term rahasyam means it should not be taught to those who have

> not submitted themselves to Him (idham tEna athapaskAya - says

> Parthasarathy - the only thapas in our sampradAyam is vaNangum

thava

> neri) and those who dont listen with concentration to the teacher.

> It is not a rahasyam for "ASaiyudaiyOr". We should not misuse this

> term to keep the sampradAyam limited to only our Iyengars with madi

> and AchAram.

>

> >

> > In fact, dear Vishnu had asked one question - if these works were

> > only for the level of AzhwArs and AchAryAs, then is it not

> applicable

> > for us. I will ask a counter question:

> > Initially, the veda shAstrAs and the essence were all kept as

> secrets

> > within a group of people and our dear emperumAnAr exposed it out

> for

> > the benefit of the entire world('Asai udayOrkkellAm AriyargAL

> > kUrum'). But then came swamy pillailOkachariar whose work was

> called

> > as 'ashtAdasa rahasyam' - why the keyword rahasyam? Even amongst

> the

> > followers of emperumAnAr, there were contradictions, confusions

> etc.

> > Hence, these works were called as rahasyam and were kept as a

> secret

> > and explained only to the right audience. Don't take me wrong

here

> > immediately:) By that what I mean is - until the people get into

> the

> > right level of elevation, they are not supposed to be taught

> > these "rahasya granthAs" (check the summary at the end for a

> little

> > more explanation on this).

> >

>

> Agreed.

>

> >

> > Even this mahAvisvAsam is something he has to inject in us. So,

> how

> > could you say, "when we say and accept". Who are we to accept? I

> mean

> > what swAthanthriyam do we have to accept?

> >

>

> Sri Vishnu Purana says a brahmin is to be called "Sarma", a Sudra

> dAsa etc.. But we all are rAmAnuja dAsas in our sampradAyam. There

> are umpteen incidents in poorvacharyas' lives where Bhagavata

> Seshatvam took precedence over varNASrama dharmas. There have been

> examples even in the recent past i.e. one famous Jeeyar prostrating

> before PBA swami.

>

> > I also said that, our pUrvAchAryas adhered to

> > the same and that is why we should. What I strongly object is

that

> > many of our own TK people say that our AZhwArs and AchAryAs have

> > asked us to give up sAsthrAs. This is not true and CANNOT be

> > accepted. Our AZhwArs and AchAryAs have indeed adhered and have

> been

> > abiding to the sAstrAs.

>

> gnAnam - is knwoledge of upAOpEyatvam of the Lord, anushTAnam is

the

> practice of it i.e. prapatti or svapravrtti nivrrti - leaving all

> our efforts and resorting to Him. Karma is nothing but Bhagavata

> Seshatvam, bhakti is elaborately discussed in the divya prabandham

> and it is His blessing. So Bhakti, gnAna, karma and prapatti are

not

> different upAyas for prapannas but ultimately are one and same.

>

> >If this is not so, then try challenging swamy

> > mAmunigaL's pAsuram "gnyAnam anuttAnam ivai nannAgavae udaiyanAna

> > guruvai adaindhakkAl". Swamy did not just say "gnyanam nannagavae

> > udaiyanAna". He knew our people would use it for their

> convenience.

> > That is why he put in the clause "anuttAnam".

> >

>

> Because of the presence of adhikaraNams like apaSUdrAdhikaraNam,

> brahma sUtras are a shade inferior to Divya Prabandham. EmberumAnAr

> commented on it, only to establish tattva trayam and ISwara's

> paratvam to those outside His kootam and not for our anushTAnam as

> asmadAdis are not qualified to follow and do numerous anusTAnams

> prescribed in SAstras. He followed similar style in Gita Bhashyam

> leaving the task of presenting emebrumAnAr thariSanam to

> ThirukkuruhaippirAn piLLAn and parASara bhattar, by inspiring them.

>

> adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> Vishnu

>

> > 2. purvAchAryas never ever mentioned that we must give up

sAstrAs -

>

> > if so, you are defying emperumAnAr's statement of "varNAshrama

> dharMa

> > anugrahIta" in sriBhAshyam.

> > 3. ashtAdasa rahasyam and Acharya hrudayam is not for everyone -

I

> > mean, to be precise, it will make sense only for the right

people -

>

> > again, if possible, try challenging mAmunigal's statement "aar

> > vachanabhUshanatthin aazhporuL ellAm arivAr, aar adhu sol naeril

> > anuttippAr - oorovar undAgil atthanai kaaN uLLamae ellArkkum

> > andAdhadhanno adhu". So, when we address this forum we must keep

> in

> > mind the forum is open to many and hence we must not simply

advice

> > that we can give up sAstrAs and that only emperumAn is important

> etc.

> > If that were the case, bhagaVan himself would have said only

> charama

> > slokam all the time to arjunan and not any other slokam at all.

> >

> > I hope I am in alignment with pUrvAchAryas - in case I am not, I

> > apologize and request all of you to thirutthi paNikoLLify me.

> >

> > adiyEn,

> > dAsan

> > PS: Please feel free to pass on any type of your comments

> (sarcastic

> > or whatever) - you are most welcome. I don't take these as

> personal

> > comments. If it would give me a chance to stand corrected, I

would

> be

> > the happiest person.

> >

> >

> > ramanuja, "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

> > <vinjamoor_venkatesh@> wrote:

> > >

> > > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> > > srImadh varavara munayE namaha

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamin.

> > >

> > > Please pardon me. I am not trying to be sarcastic here. But the

> way

> > > you had opposed the "nirankusa swAthanthriyam" of emperumAn and

> > other

> > > wordings made me feel I should write this note. I don't want to

> get

> > > into

> > > sectarian disputes here. But it is surprising to note that

being

> a

> > > Ramanuja

> > > Sampradaya Devotee, your view points are a not in line with

what

> our

> > > purvacharyas have taught.

> > >

> > > The only answer to all that you have written about the sAsthrAs

> and

> > > its supremacy and the need to align with it, is the Periya

> > > ThiruvandhAdhi pAsuram of NammAzhwAr, that I quoted even

> > > earlier. "neRi kATTi neekuthiyO..".

> > >

> > > You are saying that TK devotees think that we are giving up

> > sAsthrAs

> > > to

> > > saraNAgathi is very inaccurate, for, saraNAgathi itself is the

> > > essence of all the sAsthrAs. In short, we use

the "brahmAsthram"

> > > called saraNAgathi and don't need any other sAsthrAs for us.

> > >

> > > As for your statement that the "realised soul" status are only

> for

> > > the AzhwArs and AchAryAs, it is very true. But that does not

> give

> > us

> > > the right to distort the truth to be presented even if none of

> us

> > are

> > > even near perfect like those noble souls. So even if we are

> > > imperfect, the truth need to be presented as it is to everyone.

> > There

> > > is no need for sugar coating in this.

> > >

> > > It is exactly this aspect (the thought that adherence to the

> > sAsthrAs

> > > are of primary importance than to the love of God Himself) that

> > pulls

> > > us away from Him as per the above pAsuram. And also, this, in

> the

> > due

> > > course of time, makes us purely ritualistic, without the

element

> of

> > > Bakthi or Prapatti in all our doing, which is why

BoothathAzhwAr

> > > said," nagaram aruL purnindhu.........peyarinayE pundhiyAl

> > > sindhiyAdhu Odhi uruveNNum andhiyAlAm payanangen".

> > >

> > > I hope you went through the above two pAsurams before you

> replied.

> > >

> > > Well, all said and done, if you feel adherence to the sAsthrAs

> are

> > of

> > > primary importance, then it is still granted as per the

> > > pAsuram "vaNangum thuRaigaL pala palavAkki...". Afterall, even

> the

> > > flowers that were offered by Arjuna to Siva, reached emperumAn

> > > finally as per the pAsuram "thIrthan ulagaLandha sEvadi mEl

> > > pUnthAmam, sErthi avayE sivan mudi mEl thAn kaNDu, pArthan

> > > theLindhozhinda painthuzhAyAn perumai, pErthum oruvarAl pEsak

> > > kiDandhadhE".

> > >

> > > So I would humbly like to say that, without any offense, the

> views

> > > given by you on the nirankusa swAthanthriyam is NOT the view of

> the

> > > thennAchArya sampradhAyam. Again please remember the

> > > thiruchandhaviruttam pAsuram "nacharAvaNaik kiDandha.,", in

this

> > > regard. I request all the learned people in this forum to

either

> > > validate my statement of refute it.

> > >

> > > Lastly, I dont believe in just the mouth service by saying He

is

> a

> > > nirankusa swathantran etc. When we say and accept that He is

> > > nirankusa swathanthran, He is in all possibilities, with no

> frills

> > > attached. This is called mahAvisvAsam. The moment we question

> Him,

> > > then our total understanding about Him is in shambles. No point

> in

> > > doing sarANagathi or prapatthi or any exotic rituals.

> > >

> > > "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE pArthirutthal

> kOdhil

> > > adiyAr guNam".

> > >

> > > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

> > > <nrusimhann@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Swamin,

> > > > Just to clarify, I very much represent only Thenkalai way of

> > > > philosophy and I too do not want to get into other issues

with

> > > kalai

> > > > bedams etc.

> > > >

> > > > And to further clarify, "vaikuntham puguvadhu mannavar

> vidhiye"

> > > meant

> > > > that some day or other everyone has to go to vaikuntham. I

> never

> > > > mentioned anywhere that moksham will be attained in the same

> > birth

> > > by

> > > > that quotes:)

> > > > I just wanted to make sure we all, as a group, should also

> > > represent

> > > > the Thenkalai philosophy right and hence am trying my best

> with

> > my

> > > > limited knowledge to share what I know about our philosophy.

> > > >

> > > > One thing I just want to strongly mention here in the forum -

> > > somehow

> > > > many of us think Thenkalai sampradayam gives up SAstrAs in

> > > compromise

> > > > to SaranAgathi. This is not true - for if it were - the very

> > > > brahmasUtram - SAstrayOnitvAt - would not have been dealt in

> > detail

> > > > by emperumAnAr.

> > > >

> > > > When SaranAgathi succeeds, i.e. when one comes into complete

> > > > realization, the very understanding is that the jeevAtmA

comes

> > into

> > > > complete alignment with SAstrAs and performs anything and

> > > everything

> > > > as per the SAstrAs only - to say it better, whatever they do

> > > actually

> > > > becomes SAstrA. Does not mean, we mundane people could also

> > assume

> > > > our saranAgathi has succeeded and whatever we do can be

> accepted.

> > > >

> > > > We must do what we have been told by the SAstrAs. And the

very

> > > > SAstram includes the charama slokam which covers both the

> points

> > a)

> > > > The lord is sarva tantra svatantran "maam", and we may leave

> > > > everything that has been mentioned in SAstras(rest of the

> gItA)

> > > > provided we do the saranAgathi as per "Ekam SaraNam". Then it

> > makes

> > > > sense to deviate from the SAstrAs and be the way the lord

> wants

> > us

> > > to

> > > > be. This is the level of enlightenment of AzhwArs and

> AchAryAs.

> > > This

> > > > concept should not be used to advise other mundane people

like

> us

> > > to

> > > > follow, for this is very much a subject for excuse, misuse

and

> > > abuse

> > > > (most of the sampradayam has been into turmoil due to the

> > previous

> > > > generations of many of ours misinterpreting and mentioning

> that

> > we

> > > > can do whatever we want, after all the lord will take care of

> > us:).

> > > >

> > > > I think this is a very interesting subject and we should

> continue

> > > > discussing this and clarify(and get clarified) to the best

> > > possible,

> > > > the right view of ThennAchArya sampradAyam. Please do

continue

> > > > posting when you find time.

> > > >

> > > > adiyEn,

> > > > dAsan

> > > > ramanuja, "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

> > > > <vinjamoor_venkatesh@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> > > > > srImadh varavara munayE namaha

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamy,

> > > > >

> > > > > As for the points that you have disagreed with, it is

always

> a

> > > > point

> > > > > of contention, between the two kalais. However adiyEn would

> > like

> > > to

> > > > > add few points to your message to clarify what I have

> written.

> > > This

> > > > > is only a quick reply to one part of your message and will

> try

> > to

> > > > > reply elaborately for the other parts, later, as I am

> currently

> > > > away

> > > > > from my home and dont have access to many of the scriptures.

> > > > >

> > > > >

=======================Quote=================================

> > > > > > I would beg to disagree with the following lines a little

> bit.

> > > > > > >There is no relation between the performance of

> saraNAgathi

> > > and

> > > > > > >getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's character is

nirankusa

> > > > > > >swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He may or may

> not

> > > give

> > > > > the

> > > > > > >mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The lord definitely is Sarva Tantra Svatantran by

> > > his "svarUpam".

> > > > > > But, he will not do whatever he wants to. He has given us

> the

> > > > > > shAstrAs and promises to give moksham to those who have

> > > performed

> > > > > > saraNAgati. So, it would not be correct to say that he

may

> > not

> > > > > grant

> > > > > > moksha for those who have performed saraNAgathi etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Also, regarding "there is no relation between the

> performance

> > > of

> > > > > > saraNAgathi and getting mOksha" - The very meaning of

> > > saraNAgathi

> > > > > is

> > > > > > nothing but just a simple understanding of Atma svarUpam

> and

> > > > > > paramAtma svaBAvam which will DEFINITELY grant mOksham.

> > Please

> > > > see

> > > > > > the texts in point d below for the same.

> > > > >

> ===========================Unquote=============================

> > > > > adiyEn's reply:

> > > > >

> > > > > It is very correct to say that He reserves the judgement to

> > > confer

> > > > > the verdict on the jeevAtmA, who has performed saraNAgathi,

> > just

> > > > like

> > > > > to the jeevAtmA who has not performed.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thirumazhisai Azhwar says, in Thirucchandha viruttam, (I

> forgot

> > > the

> > > > > pAsuram number) "naccharAvaNaik kiDandha nAtha, pAdha

> > > > > pOthinil...vaitha sindhai vAnguvitthu neenguvikka nee inam,

> > > > meitthan

> > > > > vallai AdhalAl, aRindhanan nin mAyamE, mayakkal ennai

> mAyanE".

> > > > AdiyEn

> > > > > had referred to this pAsuram a numerous times in this very

> > list,

> > > > > earlier, on almost similar discussions. AdiyEn would like

to

> > use

> > > it

> > > > > once again. Here the AzhwAr says, "You are capable of even

> > > removing

> > > > > the thoughts about You, which You Yourself gave me. But

> please

> > do

> > > > not

> > > > > do this to me". What does this mean? When read along with

> > > > Thirumangai

> > > > > AzhwAr's pAsuram "yEzhai yEdhalan.." where he says "un

> manathAl

> > > en

> > > > > ninaindhirundhAi", it clears one's doubt that He is

> nirankusa

> > > > > swathanthran and hence He is capable of doing anything and

> will

> > > do

> > > > > it.

> > > > >

> > > > > NammAzhwar says in his Periya thiruvandhAdhi "neRi kAtti

> > > > > neekuthiyO...". If one says that the concept of saraNAgathi

> was

> > > > > ordained by emperuAn Himself, then why does NammAzhwAr

> > say "neRi

> > > > > kAtti needkuthiyO", meaning, "are you trying to keep me

away

> > from

> > > > > You, by asking me to adhere to the sAsthrAs?".

> > > > >

> > > > > Now confusing isn't it? No it is not at all. It will

confuse

> us

> > > > only

> > > > > when we think that emperumAn is bound by the sAsthrAs, that

> He

> > > > > Himself had ordained. But please note He is " eeDum eDuppum

> il

> > > > eesan"

> > > > > and "otthAr mikkArai illayAya mAmAyan". If He has to be

> bound

> > by

> > > > > those sAsthrAs, then those sAsthrAs, atleast become equal

to

> > Him,

> > > > > which, though we can argue that it is His brainchild so we

> can

> > > > equate

> > > > > to Him, will nullify the above statements.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also please remember all these sAsthrAs are nothing but a

> way

> > of

> > > > life

> > > > > given my emperumAn, for us, the jeevAthmAs, to lead a

> peaceful

> > > > life.

> > > > > saraNAgathi is one of those ways, a prapanna should lead,

to

> > live

> > > a

> > > > > pious life while in this world. He need not stick to it as

> > there

> > > is

> > > > > no one to question Him. Who can question the other? Only

> > someone

> > > > who

> > > > > is either equal or above that person. Isn't it? So is there

> any

> > > one

> > > > > or any thing that is equal or above Him? No. Then how can

we

> be

> > > > > questioned. This is the true character "kOdhil adiyAr

guNam"

> of

> > > the

> > > > > jeevAthma, which is also called pArathanthriyam or "iTTa

> > > vazhakkAi

> > > > > irutthal".

> > > > >

> > > > > Also please note that NammAzhwAr performed saraNAgathi in

> > > > > his "ulagamuDa peruvAyA" padhigam, but He did not get

> mOksham

> > > until

> > > > > he had atleast completed all the works of his that we have

> now.

> > > One

> > > > > may argue that, it is only for the saraNAgathi that he did

> in

> > > > > the "ulagamunDa peruvAyA" padhigam, he got the mOksham

after

> > the

> > > > > completion of all his works. But then what saraNAgathi did

> > > Hiranyan

> > > > > or SisupAlan do to get their mOkshams or what saraNAgathi

> > > > > did "dadhipANdan" and his mud vessel do to earn mOksham. In

> > fact

> > > > > dadhipANdan actually traded for it. Now will one agree that

> we

> > > can

> > > > do

> > > > > a trade with emperumAn to get mOksham? No isn't it!!!

> > > > >

> > > > > That is why we say that there is no relation to the act of

> > > > performing

> > > > > saraNAgathi and getting mOksham. If one still insists, then

> it

> > is

> > > > > only the limited understanding of the Human brain that

makes

> > them

> > > > do

> > > > > so. Because, it is only our ego which will force us to

> > say, "How

> > > > can

> > > > > a result be turned down when I have actually met all the

> > > prescribed

> > > > > criteria", even if the person being contested is emperumAn

> > > Himself.

> > > > > This is what is explained in the "thirumAlai" by

> > ThoNDaraDippoDi

> > > > > AzhwAr in "mEmporum pOga vittu...", where in he

says "vAzhum

> > > > sOmbarai

> > > > > ugatthi pOlum". Who are these vAzhum sOmbar? They are

those,

> > who

> > > > very

> > > > > clearly know that it is only His wish that could grant them

> > > mOksham

> > > > > and do nothing to earn it. Remember, I am not saying that

> they

> > > > would

> > > > > not have performed saraNAgathi, but I am saying that,

though

> > they

> > > > had

> > > > > performed it, it is not with the result in mind, but in

> their

> > > true

> > > > > nature of a parathanthran.

> > > > >

> > > > > In fact in my earlier message, adiyEn wrote about aruLALap

> > > perumAL

> > > > > emperumAnAr's gnyAna sAram pAsuram "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl

> > > nAdhan

> > > > > thanadharuLE pArthirutthal kOdhil aDiyAr guNam". While I

> gave

> > the

> > > > > translation, I forget to mention the "uvamai" to

> the "sAdhagam"

> > > in

> > > > > it. The sAdhagam is nothing but the Phoenix bird, which

will

> do

> > > > > nothing all along the year but will only wait for just a

> drop

> > of

> > > > > water on a particular full moon day, which will happen only

> > once

> > > in

> > > > a

> > > > > year. That is its food. A jeevAthama should be like that.

> You

> > > only

> > > > > have to be looking forward for emperumAn to take you. This

> > > > knowledge

> > > > > is what is named by aruLALap perumAL emperumAnAr

> as "kOdhil".

> > > > > kOdhu=blemish: il=less, means blemishless. When will the

> guNam

> > of

> > > > His

> > > > > adiyAr become blemishless? It is when the prapanna, does

not

> > bind

> > > > Him

> > > > > to some sAsthrAs as He has no bounds.

> > > > >

> > > > > Last but not the least, "vaikuntham puguvadhu maNNavar

> vidhiyE"

> > > > does

> > > > > not mean that the jeevAthmA gets mOksham in that birth

> itself.

> > > > > Thirumangai Azhwar dedicates one full padhigam in the 11th

> > > > > decad "mainninRa karungaDal vAi ulanginRi..." to elaborate

> that

> > > > > emperumAn takes every atmA during the praLayam and releases

> > them

> > > > for

> > > > > the next cycle of creation. So have many others. While some

> get

> > > > > mOksham during a particular birth, all others get the

> mOksham

> > at

> > > > the

> > > > > end however. This is what is maNNavar vidhi.

> > > > >

> > > > > To my very limited knowledge, adiyEn have tried explaining

> what

> > > > > adiyEn wrote earlier. While there may be controversies

> around

> > it,

> > > > > adiyEn have said only with respect to the Thenkalai

> philosophy.

> > > > > adiyEn don't want to argue on the beliefs based on kalai

> > bEdham.

> > > > > adiyEn believes this strongly, atleast now. If others

> believe a

> > > > > different way, still it is fine as afterall, this

(difference

> of

> > > > > thoughts) is also sanction by our beloved NammAzhwAr in his

> > > > > Thiruviruttham "vaNangum thuriagaL pala palavAkki, madhi

> > > vikaRppAl

> > > > > piNangum samayam pala palavAkki, avaiavai thoru aNangum

pala

> > > > > palavAkki, nin moorthi parappi vaitthAi, iNangu ninnOrai

> illAi,

> > > > > ninkaN vEtkai yezhuvippaNE". The AzhwAr says, He has

created

> > all

> > > > > these differences for His enjoyment.

> > > > >

> > > > > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > > > > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > > > > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan,

 

As we are brahmins, it may look OK for us if someone tells we ought

to perfrom nithya karmas like sandhyAvandanam. But are we not cruel

if we advise some other Perumal devotee to cut someone's hair

ritualistically once a day to respect his varNASrama dharma?

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan

Vishnu

 

 

ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

<nrusimhann wrote:

>

> Dear Vishnu,

>

> Just to clarify a small comm gap that I feel exists in our

> discussion. I am not into accusing anyone for not performing their

> regular duties as per shastras at all. But, what I definitely do

not

> want to happen is, people to be mislead that it is ok to skip the

> regular duties and that just sticking to the lord's feet would

> suffice - if we are skipping all our regular duties like nithya

> karma, the only reason must be that we are spending all our time

(I

> mean 100% of our time) in thinking about lord and doing service to

> the lord(state of azhwArs / purvAchAryAs). Otherwise people like

me,

> would take excuse from nithya karma under the guise of prapannan

and

> will misuse the concept while working for a software company doing

> neither service to lord nor getting a chance to think about him

even

> once a day:) These people will give up shastras and at the same

time

> will be incomplete prapannas as they spend their time in other

> materialistic stuffs. And hence I still stick to the point that

> Thennacharya Sampradayam (though it does not explicitly accuse

those

> who donot follow shastras), DOES NOT definitely encourages us to

give

> up following shastras in compromise to other material pleasures.

> There is a widely known confusion and misinformation about TK

> sampradayam that it encourages only vishesha dharma and to give up

> the sAmAnya dharma and I am never able to stomach the same:) and

> hence I've been posting these.

>

> Kindly pardon for mistakes.

>

> adiyEn,

> dAsan

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear SreVaishNavites,

 

I have been keenly observing the discussion on this subject.

You would all agree that this subject is not one, which can be settled over a few mails but can be comprehended with the help of ones AchAryan. This is becasue the differences are not broad but fine and the dividing line is thin and a good number of mails have been dediated to this topic.

 

I would like to coclude as follows:

 

jAdhi Asrama dhEkshaigaLil bhEadikkum dharmangaL pOlEA, athANich sEvagathil poduvAnadhu nazhuvum-AchArya Hrudhyam 31

 

dasan

vanamamalai padmanabhan

-

Vishnu

ramanuja

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:48 PM

Re: [sri ramanuja] Mukti/Liberation! Is it that cheap?

 

 

Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan,

 

As we are brahmins, it may look OK for us if someone tells we ought

to perfrom nithya karmas like sandhyAvandanam. But are we not cruel

if we advise some other Perumal devotee to cut someone's hair

ritualistically once a day to respect his varNASrama dharma?

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan

Vishnu

 

ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

<nrusimhann wrote:

>

> Dear Vishnu,

>

> Just to clarify a small comm gap that I feel exists in our

> discussion. I am not into accusing anyone for not performing their

> regular duties as per shastras at all. But, what I definitely do

not

> want to happen is, people to be mislead that it is ok to skip the

> regular duties and that just sticking to the lord's feet would

> suffice - if we are skipping all our regular duties like nithya

> karma, the only reason must be that we are spending all our time

(I

> mean 100% of our time) in thinking about lord and doing service to

> the lord(state of azhwArs / purvAchAryAs). Otherwise people like

me,

> would take excuse from nithya karma under the guise of prapannan

and

> will misuse the concept while working for a software company doing

> neither service to lord nor getting a chance to think about him

even

> once a day:) These people will give up shastras and at the same

time

> will be incomplete prapannas as they spend their time in other

> materialistic stuffs. And hence I still stick to the point that

> Thennacharya Sampradayam (though it does not explicitly accuse

those

> who donot follow shastras), DOES NOT definitely encourages us to

give

> up following shastras in compromise to other material pleasures.

> There is a widely known confusion and misinformation about TK

> sampradayam that it encourages only vishesha dharma and to give up

> the sAmAnya dharma and I am never able to stomach the same:) and

> hence I've been posting these.

>

> Kindly pardon for mistakes.

>

> adiyEn,

> dAsan

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Vishnu,

You are pulling me into varNASrama dharma topic now First of all

there is a major misconception about varNASrama dharma itself. Most

of us have been told that we must follow varNASrama dharma as per the

Manu Smruthi. This is wrong. Manu Smruthi is only for Krutha Yuga.

Its applicability was not intended for Kali Yuga. We must practice

parASara smruthi in Kali Yuga. Now what does parASara smruthi tell? I

would sincerely request those who are interested to buy a book on the

same and read it through as it is very simple and self explanatory.

 

Coming back to cutting hair etc,

a) It is a commonly known fact that the vedas are only for those who

have pUNUl(sacred thread). Now, for those who do not have this, vedas

do not mandate anything. It is smruthi that governs these. And these

smruthi are not forcing any non-brahmins to cut someone's hair etc -

I have no clue on where from you grabbed this info. As I had

suggested, please please please do read the parASara smruthi to get

very good clarity on these.

b) Also, do not say that cutting someone's hair is bad. It may look

like a low profile job for those who don't care for. Every job is a

way of worship to lord for each person. Anyways, this discussion will

get nowhere if we get into varNASrama dharma issues:)

 

adiyEn,

dAsan.

 

 

ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu wrote:

>

> Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan,

>

> As we are brahmins, it may look OK for us if someone tells we ought

> to perfrom nithya karmas like sandhyAvandanam. But are we not cruel

> if we advise some other Perumal devotee to cut someone's hair

> ritualistically once a day to respect his varNASrama dharma?

>

> adiyen ramanuja dasan

> Vishnu

>

>

> ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

> <nrusimhann@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Vishnu,

> >

> > Just to clarify a small comm gap that I feel exists in our

> > discussion. I am not into accusing anyone for not performing

their

> > regular duties as per shastras at all. But, what I definitely do

> not

> > want to happen is, people to be mislead that it is ok to skip the

> > regular duties and that just sticking to the lord's feet would

> > suffice - if we are skipping all our regular duties like nithya

> > karma, the only reason must be that we are spending all our time

> (I

> > mean 100% of our time) in thinking about lord and doing service

to

> > the lord(state of azhwArs / purvAchAryAs). Otherwise people like

> me,

> > would take excuse from nithya karma under the guise of prapannan

> and

> > will misuse the concept while working for a software company

doing

> > neither service to lord nor getting a chance to think about him

> even

> > once a day:) These people will give up shastras and at the same

> time

> > will be incomplete prapannas as they spend their time in other

> > materialistic stuffs. And hence I still stick to the point that

> > Thennacharya Sampradayam (though it does not explicitly accuse

> those

> > who donot follow shastras), DOES NOT definitely encourages us to

> give

> > up following shastras in compromise to other material pleasures.

> > There is a widely known confusion and misinformation about TK

> > sampradayam that it encourages only vishesha dharma and to give

up

> > the sAmAnya dharma and I am never able to stomach the same:) and

> > hence I've been posting these.

> >

> > Kindly pardon for mistakes.

> >

> > adiyEn,

> > dAsan

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan,

 

As brahmins we are in an advantageous position with respect to the

so-called nithya karmas and hence there is no level playing

platform. That is what i was trying to say.

 

Assuming that professions like cutting hair are not prescribed by

the sanskrit texts for certain communities, should we still tell a

Vaisya devotee to ritualistically do some business (even if he lacks

knack and interest:)) and a kshatriya devotee to wage some war?

 

The software engineers you were mentioning earlier have probably

better understood thennacharya sampradayam by not being serious

about rituals:) Performance of sandhyAvandanam etc. do not make them

any less selfish, I feel. Any one Pasuram will make them better God

oriented than "imam mE varuNa:" etc.. The ability to think of

Perumal is His blessing as azhwars say "nirandharam ninaippadAha nI

ninaikka vEndumE" and no ritual can invoke it. There are two

approaches toward their teachings: 1. They are sharing their

anubhavam from a high platform 2. Their teachings are simple and

practical and that is why they are high.

I humbly reserve my opinion in favour of the latter.

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan

Vishnu

 

ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

<nrusimhann wrote:

>

> Dear Vishnu,

> You are pulling me into varNASrama dharma topic now First of

all

> there is a major misconception about varNASrama dharma itself.

Most

> of us have been told that we must follow varNASrama dharma as per

the

> Manu Smruthi. This is wrong. Manu Smruthi is only for Krutha Yuga.

> Its applicability was not intended for Kali Yuga. We must practice

> parASara smruthi in Kali Yuga. Now what does parASara smruthi

tell? I

> would sincerely request those who are interested to buy a book on

the

> same and read it through as it is very simple and self explanatory.

>

> Coming back to cutting hair etc,

> a) It is a commonly known fact that the vedas are only for those

who

> have pUNUl(sacred thread). Now, for those who do not have this,

vedas

> do not mandate anything. It is smruthi that governs these. And

these

> smruthi are not forcing any non-brahmins to cut someone's hair

etc -

> I have no clue on where from you grabbed this info. As I had

> suggested, please please please do read the parASara smruthi to

get

> very good clarity on these.

> b) Also, do not say that cutting someone's hair is bad. It may

look

> like a low profile job for those who don't care for. Every job is

a

> way of worship to lord for each person. Anyways, this discussion

will

> get nowhere if we get into varNASrama dharma issues:)

>

> adiyEn,

> dAsan.

>

>

> ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan,

> >

> > As we are brahmins, it may look OK for us if someone tells we

ought

> > to perfrom nithya karmas like sandhyAvandanam. But are we not

cruel

> > if we advise some other Perumal devotee to cut someone's hair

> > ritualistically once a day to respect his varNASrama dharma?

> >

> > adiyen ramanuja dasan

> > Vishnu

> >

> >

> > ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

> > <nrusimhann@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Vishnu,

> > >

> > > Just to clarify a small comm gap that I feel exists in our

> > > discussion. I am not into accusing anyone for not performing

> their

> > > regular duties as per shastras at all. But, what I definitely

do

> > not

> > > want to happen is, people to be mislead that it is ok to skip

the

> > > regular duties and that just sticking to the lord's feet would

> > > suffice - if we are skipping all our regular duties like

nithya

> > > karma, the only reason must be that we are spending all our

time

> > (I

> > > mean 100% of our time) in thinking about lord and doing

service

> to

> > > the lord(state of azhwArs / purvAchAryAs). Otherwise people

like

> > me,

> > > would take excuse from nithya karma under the guise of

prapannan

> > and

> > > will misuse the concept while working for a software company

> doing

> > > neither service to lord nor getting a chance to think about

him

> > even

> > > once a day:) These people will give up shastras and at the

same

> > time

> > > will be incomplete prapannas as they spend their time in other

> > > materialistic stuffs. And hence I still stick to the point

that

> > > Thennacharya Sampradayam (though it does not explicitly accuse

> > those

> > > who donot follow shastras), DOES NOT definitely encourages us

to

> > give

> > > up following shastras in compromise to other material

pleasures.

> > > There is a widely known confusion and misinformation about TK

> > > sampradayam that it encourages only vishesha dharma and to

give

> up

> > > the sAmAnya dharma and I am never able to stomach the same:)

and

> > > hence I've been posting these.

> > >

> > > Kindly pardon for mistakes.

> > >

> > > adiyEn,

> > > dAsan

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan,

 

We need to bear two things in mind:

 

1) Yearning for Lord is not any means to invoke His grace.

2) Yearning itself is His blessing since someone yearns for Him only

He reveals Himself. Continuous visulaization is possible only by His

grace and that is what is conveyed by viSlEsha pASurams.

 

adiyen

Vishnu

 

>

> Just quoting AzhwAr's pAsuram and the vyAkyAnam would not suffice

to

> help others realize what we have realized:) "neRi kATTi

neekuthiyO.."

> is an excellent statement from AzhwAr - but try to understand the

> context too. After having such an intimate relationship with

emperumAn

> ("samslesham"), when emperumAn also plays around with AzhwAr

> via "vislesham" aka separation, AzhwAr is very upset as he

> says, "after, all these relationship between us, are you still

asking

> me to stick to those shAstrAs that you have made? and is that

because

> of which you are avoiding me?" - It should be understood from this

> level of AzhwAr who has felt the lord, who had the realized the

> presence of lord in his entire self - "udal misai uyirenakkaRandhu

> engum paranduLan".

>

> Do you think any one of us would have felt like that? How many of

us

> are in such a high level of spiritual elevation?

>

> AzhwAr pAsurams are the highest of the shAstrAs. Who ever can say

no?

> I will pick you on the other quote that you had mentioned -

> "peyarinaiyE pundhiyAl sindhiyAdhu Odhi uruvennum andhi..." -

look

> at the very first word "peyarinaiyE". gAyatri is supposed to be

> chanted, but how? "saraswathi ithyAthi rishi: devi gAyatri chanda:

> savithA devata paramAtma devata" - look at the last clause here.

We

> must understand that it is all the paramAtma who is meant to be

> worshipped during the chant. This is what exactly AzhwAr says. He

> does not ask us give up sandyAvandanam.

>

> I don't take your comments personal at all. But, as we get into

our

> sampradAyam, the first experience makes us feel that we can give

up

> everything and just feel that we are protected by the lord and

> AchAryas. As we move on, in addition to the fact that we are taken

> care by the lord and AchAryas, we would also find that, all of our

> pUrvachAryas have indeed aligned to the so called shAstrAs. None

of

> them gave that up and being sincere followers of them, we will

begin

> to fall in line with that.

>

> In fact, dear Vishnu had asked one question - if these works were

> only for the level of AzhwArs and AchAryAs, then is it not

applicable

> for us. I will ask a counter question:

> Initially, the veda shAstrAs and the essence were all kept as

secrets

> within a group of people and our dear emperumAnAr exposed it out

for

> the benefit of the entire world('Asai udayOrkkellAm AriyargAL

> kUrum'). But then came swamy pillailOkachariar whose work was

called

> as 'ashtAdasa rahasyam' - why the keyword rahasyam? Even amongst

the

> followers of emperumAnAr, there were contradictions, confusions

etc.

> Hence, these works were called as rahasyam and were kept as a

secret

> and explained only to the right audience. Don't take me wrong here

> immediately:) By that what I mean is - until the people get into

the

> right level of elevation, they are not supposed to be taught

> these "rahasya granthAs" (check the summary at the end for a

little

> more explanation on this).

>

> With regards to "nirankusa swAthanthriyam", no one can deny it. At

> the same time it is something that is not worth praising about in

> reference to the lord as it is his basic attribute. In fact

> this "nirankusa swAthanthriyam" is actually dangerous:) - refer to

> the vyakyAnam of the thaniyan "yo nithyam achyutha padAmbuja yukma

> rukma vyAmohatha:... dayaika sindhO:" - the explanation on the

> clause "dayaika sindhO:" attributed to swamy emperumAnAr is

awesome.

> kUratthAzwan swamy the author of this thaniyan says that emperumAn

> has complete nirankusa swAthanthriyam and hence can protect as

well

> as punish anyone and everyone. BUT, emperumAnAr is capable of only

> protecting and pouring the unconditional grace and hence he is our

> lord("rAmAnujasya charanau SaraNam prapathyE") and not "sriman

> nArAyaNa charanau SaraNam papathyE":)).

>

> Also, as per your comments:

> "When we say and accept that He is nirankusa swathanthran, He is

in

> all possibilities, with no frills attached. This is called

> mahAvisvAsam."

>

> Even this mahAvisvAsam is something he has to inject in us. So,

how

> could you say, "when we say and accept". Who are we to accept? I

mean

> what swAthanthriyam do we have to accept? If we are to accept,

then

> your following quote will fail.

> "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE pArthirutthal kOdhil

> adiyAr guNam".

>

> So, only at a level where in we are made by him to understand i.e.

> not just knowing, but, also realizing, that he is everything, will

we

> automatically start behaving the way as per the above

pUrvAchAryar's

> quotes. Until then "stick to sAstrAs" ))))

>

> Lastly,

> "Well, all said and done, if you feel adherence to the sAsthrAs

are

> of primary importance, then it is still granted as per the

> pAsuram "vaNangum thuRaigaL pala palavAkki.."

>

> Here is where I feel you have misunderstood what I had mentioned -

I

> mentioned that adherence to sAsthrAs is of primary importance and

I

> did not stop with that. I also said that, our pUrvAchAryas adhered

to

> the same and that is why we should. What I strongly object is that

> many of our own TK people say that our AZhwArs and AchAryAs have

> asked us to give up sAsthrAs. This is not true and CANNOT be

> accepted. Our AZhwArs and AchAryAs have indeed adhered and have

been

> abiding to the sAstrAs. If this is not so, then try challenging

swamy

> mAmunigaL's pAsuram "gnyAnam anuttAnam ivai nannAgavae udaiyanAna

> guruvai adaindhakkAl". Swamy did not just say "gnyanam nannagavae

> udaiyanAna". He knew our people would use it for their

convenience.

> That is why he put in the clause "anuttAnam".

>

> To summarize:

> 1. "nirankusa swAthanthriyam" is basic nature of the lord. But, he

> himself does not abuse it, he abides by the rules that he himself

> created and doesn't bypass the same with this attribute.

> 2. purvAchAryas never ever mentioned that we must give up sAstrAs -

 

> if so, you are defying emperumAnAr's statement of "varNAshrama

dharMa

> anugrahIta" in sriBhAshyam.

> 3. ashtAdasa rahasyam and Acharya hrudayam is not for everyone - I

> mean, to be precise, it will make sense only for the right people -

 

> again, if possible, try challenging mAmunigal's statement "aar

> vachanabhUshanatthin aazhporuL ellAm arivAr, aar adhu sol naeril

> anuttippAr - oorovar undAgil atthanai kaaN uLLamae ellArkkum

> andAdhadhanno adhu". So, when we address this forum we must keep

in

> mind the forum is open to many and hence we must not simply advice

> that we can give up sAstrAs and that only emperumAn is important

etc.

> If that were the case, bhagaVan himself would have said only

charama

> slokam all the time to arjunan and not any other slokam at all.

>

> I hope I am in alignment with pUrvAchAryas - in case I am not, I

> apologize and request all of you to thirutthi paNikoLLify me.

>

> adiyEn,

> dAsan

> PS: Please feel free to pass on any type of your comments

(sarcastic

> or whatever) - you are most welcome. I don't take these as

personal

> comments. If it would give me a chance to stand corrected, I would

be

> the happiest person.

>

>

> ramanuja, "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

> <vinjamoor_venkatesh@> wrote:

> >

> > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> > srImadh varavara munayE namaha

> >

> > Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamin.

> >

> > Please pardon me. I am not trying to be sarcastic here. But the

way

> > you had opposed the "nirankusa swAthanthriyam" of emperumAn and

> other

> > wordings made me feel I should write this note. I don't want to

get

> > into

> > sectarian disputes here. But it is surprising to note that being

a

> > Ramanuja

> > Sampradaya Devotee, your view points are a not in line with what

our

> > purvacharyas have taught.

> >

> > The only answer to all that you have written about the sAsthrAs

and

> > its supremacy and the need to align with it, is the Periya

> > ThiruvandhAdhi pAsuram of NammAzhwAr, that I quoted even

> > earlier. "neRi kATTi neekuthiyO..".

> >

> > You are saying that TK devotees think that we are giving up

> sAsthrAs

> > to

> > saraNAgathi is very inaccurate, for, saraNAgathi itself is the

> > essence of all the sAsthrAs. In short, we use the "brahmAsthram"

> > called saraNAgathi and don't need any other sAsthrAs for us.

> >

> > As for your statement that the "realised soul" status are only

for

> > the AzhwArs and AchAryAs, it is very true. But that does not

give

> us

> > the right to distort the truth to be presented even if none of

us

> are

> > even near perfect like those noble souls. So even if we are

> > imperfect, the truth need to be presented as it is to everyone.

> There

> > is no need for sugar coating in this.

> >

> > It is exactly this aspect (the thought that adherence to the

> sAsthrAs

> > are of primary importance than to the love of God Himself) that

> pulls

> > us away from Him as per the above pAsuram. And also, this, in

the

> due

> > course of time, makes us purely ritualistic, without the element

of

> > Bakthi or Prapatti in all our doing, which is why BoothathAzhwAr

> > said," nagaram aruL purnindhu.........peyarinayE pundhiyAl

> > sindhiyAdhu Odhi uruveNNum andhiyAlAm payanangen".

> >

> > I hope you went through the above two pAsurams before you

replied.

> >

> > Well, all said and done, if you feel adherence to the sAsthrAs

are

> of

> > primary importance, then it is still granted as per the

> > pAsuram "vaNangum thuRaigaL pala palavAkki...". Afterall, even

the

> > flowers that were offered by Arjuna to Siva, reached emperumAn

> > finally as per the pAsuram "thIrthan ulagaLandha sEvadi mEl

> > pUnthAmam, sErthi avayE sivan mudi mEl thAn kaNDu, pArthan

> > theLindhozhinda painthuzhAyAn perumai, pErthum oruvarAl pEsak

> > kiDandhadhE".

> >

> > So I would humbly like to say that, without any offense, the

views

> > given by you on the nirankusa swAthanthriyam is NOT the view of

the

> > thennAchArya sampradhAyam. Again please remember the

> > thiruchandhaviruttam pAsuram "nacharAvaNaik kiDandha.,", in this

> > regard. I request all the learned people in this forum to either

> > validate my statement of refute it.

> >

> > Lastly, I dont believe in just the mouth service by saying He is

a

> > nirankusa swathantran etc. When we say and accept that He is

> > nirankusa swathanthran, He is in all possibilities, with no

frills

> > attached. This is called mahAvisvAsam. The moment we question

Him,

> > then our total understanding about Him is in shambles. No point

in

> > doing sarANagathi or prapatthi or any exotic rituals.

> >

> > "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl nAdhan thanadharuLE pArthirutthal

kOdhil

> > adiyAr guNam".

> >

> > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

> > <nrusimhann@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Swamin,

> > > Just to clarify, I very much represent only Thenkalai way of

> > > philosophy and I too do not want to get into other issues with

> > kalai

> > > bedams etc.

> > >

> > > And to further clarify, "vaikuntham puguvadhu mannavar

vidhiye"

> > meant

> > > that some day or other everyone has to go to vaikuntham. I

never

> > > mentioned anywhere that moksham will be attained in the same

> birth

> > by

> > > that quotes:)

> > > I just wanted to make sure we all, as a group, should also

> > represent

> > > the Thenkalai philosophy right and hence am trying my best

with

> my

> > > limited knowledge to share what I know about our philosophy.

> > >

> > > One thing I just want to strongly mention here in the forum -

> > somehow

> > > many of us think Thenkalai sampradayam gives up SAstrAs in

> > compromise

> > > to SaranAgathi. This is not true - for if it were - the very

> > > brahmasUtram - SAstrayOnitvAt - would not have been dealt in

> detail

> > > by emperumAnAr.

> > >

> > > When SaranAgathi succeeds, i.e. when one comes into complete

> > > realization, the very understanding is that the jeevAtmA comes

> into

> > > complete alignment with SAstrAs and performs anything and

> > everything

> > > as per the SAstrAs only - to say it better, whatever they do

> > actually

> > > becomes SAstrA. Does not mean, we mundane people could also

> assume

> > > our saranAgathi has succeeded and whatever we do can be

accepted.

> > >

> > > We must do what we have been told by the SAstrAs. And the very

> > > SAstram includes the charama slokam which covers both the

points

> a)

> > > The lord is sarva tantra svatantran "maam", and we may leave

> > > everything that has been mentioned in SAstras(rest of the

gItA)

> > > provided we do the saranAgathi as per "Ekam SaraNam". Then it

> makes

> > > sense to deviate from the SAstrAs and be the way the lord

wants

> us

> > to

> > > be. This is the level of enlightenment of AzhwArs and

AchAryAs.

> > This

> > > concept should not be used to advise other mundane people like

us

> > to

> > > follow, for this is very much a subject for excuse, misuse and

> > abuse

> > > (most of the sampradayam has been into turmoil due to the

> previous

> > > generations of many of ours misinterpreting and mentioning

that

> we

> > > can do whatever we want, after all the lord will take care of

> us:).

> > >

> > > I think this is a very interesting subject and we should

continue

> > > discussing this and clarify(and get clarified) to the best

> > possible,

> > > the right view of ThennAchArya sampradAyam. Please do continue

> > > posting when you find time.

> > >

> > > adiyEn,

> > > dAsan

> > > ramanuja, "vinjamoor_venkatesh"

> > > <vinjamoor_venkatesh@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> > > > srImadh varavara munayE namaha

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan swamy,

> > > >

> > > > As for the points that you have disagreed with, it is always

a

> > > point

> > > > of contention, between the two kalais. However adiyEn would

> like

> > to

> > > > add few points to your message to clarify what I have

written.

> > This

> > > > is only a quick reply to one part of your message and will

try

> to

> > > > reply elaborately for the other parts, later, as I am

currently

> > > away

> > > > from my home and dont have access to many of the scriptures.

> > > >

> > > > =======================Quote=================================

> > > > > I would beg to disagree with the following lines a little

bit.

> > > > > >There is no relation between the performance of

saraNAgathi

> > and

> > > > > >getting mOksha. As our emperumAn's character is nirankusa

> > > > > >swathanthriyam (Unfettered Independence), He may or may

not

> > give

> > > > the

> > > > > >mOksha to the one who has performed saraNAgathi.

> > > > >

> > > > > The lord definitely is Sarva Tantra Svatantran by

> > his "svarUpam".

> > > > > But, he will not do whatever he wants to. He has given us

the

> > > > > shAstrAs and promises to give moksham to those who have

> > performed

> > > > > saraNAgati. So, it would not be correct to say that he may

> not

> > > > grant

> > > > > moksha for those who have performed saraNAgathi etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also, regarding "there is no relation between the

performance

> > of

> > > > > saraNAgathi and getting mOksha" - The very meaning of

> > saraNAgathi

> > > > is

> > > > > nothing but just a simple understanding of Atma svarUpam

and

> > > > > paramAtma svaBAvam which will DEFINITELY grant mOksham.

> Please

> > > see

> > > > > the texts in point d below for the same.

> > > >

===========================Unquote=============================

> > > > adiyEn's reply:

> > > >

> > > > It is very correct to say that He reserves the judgement to

> > confer

> > > > the verdict on the jeevAtmA, who has performed saraNAgathi,

> just

> > > like

> > > > to the jeevAtmA who has not performed.

> > > >

> > > > Thirumazhisai Azhwar says, in Thirucchandha viruttam, (I

forgot

> > the

> > > > pAsuram number) "naccharAvaNaik kiDandha nAtha, pAdha

> > > > pOthinil...vaitha sindhai vAnguvitthu neenguvikka nee inam,

> > > meitthan

> > > > vallai AdhalAl, aRindhanan nin mAyamE, mayakkal ennai

mAyanE".

> > > AdiyEn

> > > > had referred to this pAsuram a numerous times in this very

> list,

> > > > earlier, on almost similar discussions. AdiyEn would like to

> use

> > it

> > > > once again. Here the AzhwAr says, "You are capable of even

> > removing

> > > > the thoughts about You, which You Yourself gave me. But

please

> do

> > > not

> > > > do this to me". What does this mean? When read along with

> > > Thirumangai

> > > > AzhwAr's pAsuram "yEzhai yEdhalan.." where he says "un

manathAl

> > en

> > > > ninaindhirundhAi", it clears one's doubt that He is

nirankusa

> > > > swathanthran and hence He is capable of doing anything and

will

> > do

> > > > it.

> > > >

> > > > NammAzhwar says in his Periya thiruvandhAdhi "neRi kAtti

> > > > neekuthiyO...". If one says that the concept of saraNAgathi

was

> > > > ordained by emperuAn Himself, then why does NammAzhwAr

> say "neRi

> > > > kAtti needkuthiyO", meaning, "are you trying to keep me away

> from

> > > > You, by asking me to adhere to the sAsthrAs?".

> > > >

> > > > Now confusing isn't it? No it is not at all. It will confuse

us

> > > only

> > > > when we think that emperumAn is bound by the sAsthrAs, that

He

> > > > Himself had ordained. But please note He is " eeDum eDuppum

il

> > > eesan"

> > > > and "otthAr mikkArai illayAya mAmAyan". If He has to be

bound

> by

> > > > those sAsthrAs, then those sAsthrAs, atleast become equal to

> Him,

> > > > which, though we can argue that it is His brainchild so we

can

> > > equate

> > > > to Him, will nullify the above statements.

> > > >

> > > > Also please remember all these sAsthrAs are nothing but a

way

> of

> > > life

> > > > given my emperumAn, for us, the jeevAthmAs, to lead a

peaceful

> > > life.

> > > > saraNAgathi is one of those ways, a prapanna should lead, to

> live

> > a

> > > > pious life while in this world. He need not stick to it as

> there

> > is

> > > > no one to question Him. Who can question the other? Only

> someone

> > > who

> > > > is either equal or above that person. Isn't it? So is there

any

> > one

> > > > or any thing that is equal or above Him? No. Then how can we

be

> > > > questioned. This is the true character "kOdhil adiyAr guNam"

of

> > the

> > > > jeevAthma, which is also called pArathanthriyam or "iTTa

> > vazhakkAi

> > > > irutthal".

> > > >

> > > > Also please note that NammAzhwAr performed saraNAgathi in

> > > > his "ulagamuDa peruvAyA" padhigam, but He did not get

mOksham

> > until

> > > > he had atleast completed all the works of his that we have

now.

> > One

> > > > may argue that, it is only for the saraNAgathi that he did

in

> > > > the "ulagamunDa peruvAyA" padhigam, he got the mOksham after

> the

> > > > completion of all his works. But then what saraNAgathi did

> > Hiranyan

> > > > or SisupAlan do to get their mOkshams or what saraNAgathi

> > > > did "dadhipANdan" and his mud vessel do to earn mOksham. In

> fact

> > > > dadhipANdan actually traded for it. Now will one agree that

we

> > can

> > > do

> > > > a trade with emperumAn to get mOksham? No isn't it!!!

> > > >

> > > > That is why we say that there is no relation to the act of

> > > performing

> > > > saraNAgathi and getting mOksham. If one still insists, then

it

> is

> > > > only the limited understanding of the Human brain that makes

> them

> > > do

> > > > so. Because, it is only our ego which will force us to

> say, "How

> > > can

> > > > a result be turned down when I have actually met all the

> > prescribed

> > > > criteria", even if the person being contested is emperumAn

> > Himself.

> > > > This is what is explained in the "thirumAlai" by

> ThoNDaraDippoDi

> > > > AzhwAr in "mEmporum pOga vittu...", where in he says "vAzhum

> > > sOmbarai

> > > > ugatthi pOlum". Who are these vAzhum sOmbar? They are those,

> who

> > > very

> > > > clearly know that it is only His wish that could grant them

> > mOksham

> > > > and do nothing to earn it. Remember, I am not saying that

they

> > > would

> > > > not have performed saraNAgathi, but I am saying that, though

> they

> > > had

> > > > performed it, it is not with the result in mind, but in

their

> > true

> > > > nature of a parathanthran.

> > > >

> > > > In fact in my earlier message, adiyEn wrote about aruLALap

> > perumAL

> > > > emperumAnAr's gnyAna sAram pAsuram "thurisaRRu sAdhagam pOl

> > nAdhan

> > > > thanadharuLE pArthirutthal kOdhil aDiyAr guNam". While I

gave

> the

> > > > translation, I forget to mention the "uvamai" to

the "sAdhagam"

> > in

> > > > it. The sAdhagam is nothing but the Phoenix bird, which will

do

> > > > nothing all along the year but will only wait for just a

drop

> of

> > > > water on a particular full moon day, which will happen only

> once

> > in

> > > a

> > > > year. That is its food. A jeevAthama should be like that.

You

> > only

> > > > have to be looking forward for emperumAn to take you. This

> > > knowledge

> > > > is what is named by aruLALap perumAL emperumAnAr

as "kOdhil".

> > > > kOdhu=blemish: il=less, means blemishless. When will the

guNam

> of

> > > His

> > > > adiyAr become blemishless? It is when the prapanna, does not

> bind

> > > Him

> > > > to some sAsthrAs as He has no bounds.

> > > >

> > > > Last but not the least, "vaikuntham puguvadhu maNNavar

vidhiyE"

> > > does

> > > > not mean that the jeevAthmA gets mOksham in that birth

itself.

> > > > Thirumangai Azhwar dedicates one full padhigam in the 11th

> > > > decad "mainninRa karungaDal vAi ulanginRi..." to elaborate

that

> > > > emperumAn takes every atmA during the praLayam and releases

> them

> > > for

> > > > the next cycle of creation. So have many others. While some

get

> > > > mOksham during a particular birth, all others get the

mOksham

> at

> > > the

> > > > end however. This is what is maNNavar vidhi.

> > > >

> > > > To my very limited knowledge, adiyEn have tried explaining

what

> > > > adiyEn wrote earlier. While there may be controversies

around

> it,

> > > > adiyEn have said only with respect to the Thenkalai

philosophy.

> > > > adiyEn don't want to argue on the beliefs based on kalai

> bEdham.

> > > > adiyEn believes this strongly, atleast now. If others

believe a

> > > > different way, still it is fine as afterall, this(difference

of

> > > > thoughts) is also sanction by our beloved NammAzhwAr in his

> > > > Thiruviruttham "vaNangum thuriagaL pala palavAkki, madhi

> > vikaRppAl

> > > > piNangum samayam pala palavAkki, avaiavai thoru aNangum pala

> > > > palavAkki, nin moorthi parappi vaitthAi, iNangu ninnOrai

illAi,

> > > > ninkaN vEtkai yezhuvippaNE". The AzhwAr says, He has created

> all

> > > > these differences for His enjoyment.

> > > >

> > > > AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> > > > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> > > > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

> > > >

> > >

> >

>