Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Dear Smt Nappinnai, "but don't stress anything too much from the perspective of the Lord." - This is the key point. How could we not see his perspective on us? How could you say Azhwars cannot accept HE giving moksham to sisupala just because HE used the reason of sisupala's cursing? Same is the story with Ajamilan? Lord does want us to turn towards HIM. Even if one does not, and if the lord wants to give him moksham, the lord quotes some stupid reason so as to give the credits to the jeevatma. But, this should not be "wrongly" understood that the jeevatma has to put in some efforts. It is such a nice dialogue between the Azhwar and the lord where the lord gives the credit to the azhwar while the azhwar claims that it was only the lord who made it possible. Acharya Hrudhayam Sutram 186 - Clearly explain the "Lord's" perspective: "Angeekarikka avakasam paarkkum swamithvam perunagarile paer petradhu" Maamunigal Vyaakyanam: Azhwar says "Thirumalirumsolai" and the lord immediately uses this as a reason and comes and resides inside Azhwar's heart. "Swa angeekaratthukku udalaana sukrutham illadhavarayum, madi mangai idumaappole, en ooraicchonnai ithyadhiyana agnyatha sukruthangalai aaropitthum angeekarikkaikkidam paarkkum avanudaya swamithvam thirupper nagarile prasittham". [So as to take up the atma/body (to play with) of those who do not qualify for moksham as per the leela vibhuti rules, the lord waits to quote some dumb reason like "you mentioned my name, my place" etc in order to grant the moksham. This act of the lord is as that of those who put the mangoes in one's lap when he/she is asleep and claim that he/she has the mangoes.] Azhwar Pasuram: Thirumalirumsolai ennen enna Thirumal vandhu en nenju nirayappugundan Kurumaa mani undhu punal ponnitthenbal Thirumal sendru servidam thenthiruppere! The following is "based" on the Sutram 196 from Acharya Hrudhayam (please note that, it is based on, but not exactly the meaning of it). The "but" was put because: If a person wants to get into our sampradayam and hears Shri Vaishnavas saying that, one gets realization only out of the lord's will then what would be the first question that would araise? Didn't Shri Vimal clearly point this out? Does not it make it look like lord is partial. We can't make statements like "it is god's headache" to take care of those people. Then why did Shri Ramanujar tell all the rahasyams to everyone? Why did not he let Lord handle it? Why did Nammazhwar come back and give the 4000 to Shri Nathamunigal? Is it only for the Vaishnavas who claim so? Our purvacharya granthams are for everyone, it will answer even the layman. I request some learned scholar to clearly explain people out here, what was the purpose of Acharya Hrudhayam, what is it all about, before even people try to quote it. If we say Azhwar was like this and like that, I humbly request those to go sit under a tamarind tree and stop eating food, breathing the air and claim that it is all his Nirhetuka krupai because of which it is happening. What would happen to the "jagath vyaparam" of the lord if everyone sits like that? One must understand that, first people get attracted towards moksham and put in efforts for the same i.e they are instructed to do sharanagathi and prapatti. As they "realize" the atma swaroopam, they would also realize that it was not "they" who put efforts, but it was the "antaryami" who was doing all those and hence it is only HIS unconditional grace that took them to that level. But if everyone starts saying that they have "realized"(as opposed to knowing the same) atmaswaroopam as soon as they hear about these, then, it is like saying the mango is like this and that because someone says so and not because one has tasted it. Acharya Hrudayam is only an explanation of the dialogue between a "prapanna" jeevatma and the lord. It has to be understood and quoted only in that context. In fact, Azhwar, despite saying that only because of the Nirhetuka krupai of the Lord he realized HIM, instructs others to perform saranagathi out of "their" will ("Thirunaaranan Thaal kaalam pera sindhitthu uymmino"). The key is, he put the word "sindhitthu" i.e not just think, to realize. So, when one puts effort to realize HIM, he/she automatically realize that, he/she did not put any effort at all, and that, it was only due to the lord's unconditional krupai that he/she was able to realize too. This is a step by step process. As a general rule, you can't make a 1st grade student graduate(please don't quote exceptions:)) One has to first be made to believe god, and then believe in moksham i.e unison with HIM, and then must be instructed to perform any of the karma, bhakthi, gyana yogas or prapatti and then as one realizes the lord during this process, he/she will realize that he/she did not put in any efforts and that it was only Lord's leela / unconditional grace that gave him/her the spiritual upliftment. > These can not be counted as "real" efforts/sahEtukam for the > incomparable mOksha(or anything) that the Lord grants out of His > nirhEtuka krpa. You seem to miss the point again. I never said it is Azhwar's efforts. If you say the lord himself thinks of his Nirhetuka krupa, then you must quote the appropriate sutram to support that. This would first damage his kalyana gunas because it would appear as if he is pouring his grace only on selected souls and is being partial. In fact, you are completely contradicting AH Sutram 186 that I have quoted. Whether the efforts are significant or not, the lord uses it only as a dumb reason to grant moksham. Kindly refer to the sutram I have quoted in the above paragraphs. One final note: I still feel you haven't completely gone through my detailed post on this subject. I had clearly explained all these: Prapatti - Nirhetukam from Jeevatma's perspective(AH many sutrams) and Sahetukam from the lord's perspective(AH Sutram 186). Bhakthi and other yogas - Sahetukam from the jeevatma's perspective and Nirhetukam from the lord's perspective. The second one is strongly criticized, though, not condemned, by Thennacharya Sampradayam(I don't know about Vadakalai sampradayam and hence I can't speak for the same). I apologize for my mistakes and misinformation if any. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Lakshmi Narasimhan
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |