--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Lakshmi Narasimhan" <nrusimhan@xxxx> wrote: > Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha > > Dear Smt Nappinnai, > > > > 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.] Dear Sriman Narasimhan, I also heard of this "madi mangai" nyAyam. Now, where is the question of Lord's expectation from the Jeeva to turn toward Him? He Himself is attributing something which is not there! > > Azhwar Pasuram: > Thirumalirumsolai ennen enna > Thirumal vandhu en nenju nirayappugundan > Kurumaa mani undhu punal ponnitthenbal > Thirumal sendru servidam thenthiruppere! In the padhigam just before this, Alwar says "aru mAyatthu endadhuyirE! manamE! vAkkE! karumamE! orumAnodiyum piriyAn ennoozhi mudhalvan oruvanE!" Somebody may please post the meaning according to commentators. So when he is not leaving Alwar (including his manas, vAk, karmA etc.) even for a split second, is the Lord not instrumental in Alwar's saying "ThirumAlirumjOlai"? > 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? That is why He does not allow everyone to sit like that! By preaching you do not have to make any efforts for your mOksha, Alwar is preaching a selfless religion. if we do not worry for mOksha, we can be useful to fellow human beings instead of making a ladder to heavens. Also whatever religious activity we do, will be in the mood of serving Him (His devotees) and not for anything else. >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. In our definition, SaraNAgati is nothing but accepting Him as upAya and upEya. Alwars NEVER say "Do not accept Him, Do not praise Him" etc. Singing His glory, accetping Him as our deliverer, all this is to be taken as something true to our nature (swarUpa yuktam) and not for moksha and other fruits. AlwArs never prescribe any upAya other than God. So ther is no question of prescribing us to perform SaraNAgati as a means to attain soemthing, despite saying His krupA is nirhEtukam! I heard they are vey consistent in their statements. ALawandAr, in his stotra ratna, who first offers himself to Him saying "ahamadyaiva mayA samapritah" corrects himself in the next Sloka by saying "athavA kinnu samarpayAmi tE?" ((when evrything is Urs, what can I offer you?) Once He Himself is the deliverer, there is no step by step process since He Himslef is the deliverer. That is why Acharyas "made so many efforts" to spread this sampradAya. Thinking that He is the only way will keep us away from our ahankAra. Otherwise a person who has doen more religious activity may think he is at a higher stage than those who have not done anything. What is meant by turning toward Him? Alwars, thru commentators, say that advEsham or not being averse to Him is enough. This we can find in kadanmallai pASurams of Thirumangai Alwar. Also I heard that our Acharyas make a discussion in their commentaries (at different places for different pASurams) and say that even this advEsham is not necessary (as a mental effort from us) and it is He who gives it. Also since it is for Him to do the virOdhi nirasanam (removal of ahankAra and mamakAra), He has to do it right from the beginning. So there need not be any initial turning toward Him from our side. Actually Acharyas make "a lot of effort" to show that we need not make any effort at any stage, in their commentaries. What if soemone says "Is your God not partial?"? We can tell him, "Accept Him and that acceptance (if happens) is only out of His krupA". Nobody would like to stay away from His krupA! > > > 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. Definitely works like Acharya Hrudayam, speak of paragata sweekAram and do not say He expects something from us. this is what I heard. Please correct me if I am wrong. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Vishnu
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |