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 |