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]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |