Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: Dear Lakshmi Narasimhan, Accusation is a very strong word to use. Mine was only a sincere question. I read your post completely. From the perspective of the jivatma it is fine, but don't stress anything too much from the perspective of the Lord. From the jivatma perspective alone there are two sects with two different viewpoints! If we go out of SV,there are many more views. The latter aspect(God) can be assured by a person who has seen the God and knows Him very well. That was all my contention. > So, for Azhwar it may be HIS nirhetuka krupai and for the lord it > may be because of Azhwar's efforts, because these two understood > rather realize each other's swaroopam(of-course, for the lord, > there is nothing called realizing of his swaroopam). But for > those who don't realize HIM, it should not be projected as if the > lord is partial towards great people like Azhwar and Acharyas. NammAzhvAr clearly says he hasn't made any effort and whatever he uttered like "tirumAl irum sOlai" or "mADhava" etc are unexpected ones. These can not be counted as "real" efforts/sahEtukam for the incomparable mOksha(or anything) that the Lord grants out of His nirhEtuka krpa. If what AzhvAr says is untrue,divya prabandham can not be treated as shruthi. No matter how much effort you put in trying to convince people about Lord being impartial,you will always find jIvAtmAs with "differing views". Kaliyan was thinking about looting the Lord. Did he have telepathy or realize beforehand that he is going to receive manthra upadhEsham from the Lord? Absolutely NO. > I guess what you are missing is that this is the perspective of > the "Lord". He wants to attribute the moksham/his krupai to "its" > act(Sahetukam). But from the jeevatma's(prapanna) perspective, it > realizes that it did nothing to attain moksham and that it was HIS > unconditional krupai(Nirhetukam) that gave it the moksham. I guess > I have pretty much explained these different perspectives in my > previous post. Do you mean to say that PerumAL gave mOksham to SisupAla attributing to latter's act of cursing the Lord with His nama? All our AzhvArs (spokesperson for the Lord) and our AcAryAs would not be happy about your statement. I guess AzhvArs especially strongly declare that even "from the perspective of the Lord",the mOskham is granted ONLY out of His nirhEtuka krpa. If I'm wrong,I would love to be corrected by the devotees. BTW I do object to your usage "perspective of the Lord". Read your own statement(and also read the last statement)in the above paragraph. > Please note the point->"it did nothing to qualify for the > moksham". This includes the self realization act too. But, > please remember, if we say "knowledge of swaroopam / opening > of the mind is too due to the lord's Nirhetuka krupai" to those > with a layman perspective,then we put our Purvacharyas into > trouble, because, here our statement would be perceived as if > the Lord is partial i.e he opens up the mind only for those > whom he likes. So, we should be careful in defining the > Nirhetuka krupai. In this paragraph,you first agreed in the first statement and then in the very second sentense you say that a layman will think Lord is partial and hence we should define nirhetuka krpa very carefully. What do you mean by that? Why there is a "but" sitting in between the two statements? I'm not as "smart" as you are to catch the subtleties. > But his swabhavam is such that he eagerly expects the jeevatma to > turn towards HIM out of "its" will and not by HIS will. Kindly explain the above statements in detail. This statement of yours do not go with the second/third(i don't remember)prakaraNam "iRaivanin vishEsha katAksham" in AH. AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam NC Nappinnai
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |