You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Aug 2004

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00129 Aug 2004

 
Aug 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


This aspect is very subtle and is answered in Mumukshuppadi sootra 92:

athAvathu bOghathasaiyil Isvaran azhikkumpOthu nOkka vENumenRu azhiyAozigai.

The meaning of this (taken from Sriman TCA Swamin's translation of 
PBAnnangarachar Swami's work) is as follows:

During the time that He mixes with the soul and enjoys it, if He destroys the 
soul's sEshatvam, the soul should not practise naicchiyam and consider that it 
should save its SvarUpam, and thereby destroy His pleasure. That is, the soul 
should accept every act of His. PeriAlwar - syththalai ezhunARRup pOl avan 
syvana seythu koLLa".

Please also refer to U.Ve.Velukkudi Swamin's upnyasam on this sutram in 
Tirumantratham . There he says in Ashraya dashai there is kramam. But in 
'anubhava dashai' there is NO kramam.... if you resist , His enjoyment will be 
reduced and thus becomes 'swaroopa nasham'. ..in that respect, the jeevAtma 
should be like achit. Kindly listen to that upanyasam for more clarity on 
this... 

Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann@xxxx> wrote:
Dear Sriman Vishnu / Bhagavathaas,
I have a small doubt. As I was reading this post I came across 
something like a paradox, regarding SEshatvam. We understand
(vaishnavites) that we all are the servants of the lord. SEshatvam is 
an eternal property that exists, whether we realise it or not is what 
is a different issue. Now, in a situation where the lord demands that 
HE wants to be a servant of us, we being a servant of HIM already, a) 
Do we just obey HIS orders and let him be our servant OR b) as we are 
HIS servants and want to stick to SEshatvam, just ignore his 
happiness of wanting to be our servant? This confuses me. Could 
someone clarify(with some reference if possible)? For example, in 
case of Thirumanga Mannan or Raamanujar or Maamunigal, the lord 
wanted to be their disciple. They obliged. But, we must remember 
that, the very sthaanam of acharya indicates a superior position, 
whether the acharya feels so or not being a different issue. So, if 
they accepted HIM as their disciple, it means, they were ok to take 
up the acharya's position for the lord. And they knew that the very 
position of acharya comes with a dangerous word "superior" hidden 
inside it. Is this acceptable? My apologies for my ignorance :(

Adiyen,
Ramanuja Dasan

>Quote:
>As you have said humility is different from inferiority complex and
>similarly there is a lot of difference between sAtvikka ahankaram and
>superiority complex (or common ego and pride)

>Unquote:
>Common or special, it is against SEshatvam.








azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

Yahoo! Groups Links








---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list