Sri: Sri Nappinnai, " when you say that "one can perform even sinful actions" you are under the delusion that "you are the body". Refer to BG 3:27. prakrthE: kriyamANAni guNai: karmANi sarvasha: | ahankAra vimUDAthmA karthA(a)ham ithi manyathE || " So, who exactly is the sinner?? Can we blame Ishvara for the sins that we perform?? " What happens to the jIvAtma in a "state of coma"? What happens to its consciousness??? Think over it in connection with freewill and write in your next post." When the atma gets into coma, he is not conscious of anything. He is practically a vegetable. Whereas a normal Jeevatma is really conscious of everything around him. What is the analogy here?? My question (I believe) is fairly simple. If a person does a sinful act, who is to be blamed, himself or Ishvara?? If you say Ishvara is ultimately the doer of everything, then why are you and I discussing in this forum, we could rather get drunk in get involved in all kinds of vices and sinful reactions, and then easily blame Sriman NArAyaNA ascribing to the fact that he is the MoolakarthA of everything?? "But I have heard(and read)that one ISKCON devotee went into coma and those days she couldn't think of the Lord KrShNA. Why?" I don't know, ask that devotee. Anyway, on what context are you citing ISKCON here, I don't know. If a person is in a coma, he does not escape. In the 2nd chapter of BG, Krishna says, "VasAmsi JeernAni Yata Vihaya navAni grhnAti narOparAni | tata sarIrAni vihAya jeernAny anyAni samyAti navAni dehi ||" the soul still has karma and the karmic reactions will follow in the next lifebirth, but thats an aside. " KrShNA's AcArya was Sandipini,who knowing that KrShNA is the Lord sought the Lord for alpa/cheap puruShArTham(he asked the Lord to revive his dead son!). There is a AcAryA-sishya lakshaNam and something is lacking here. The Lord was disappointed by the AcAryA. Just like He chose Sandipini as His AcArya,He chose Arjuna to impart the knowledge to all. " Do you have any quotations or evidence in which Krishna reasons his choosing Arjuna, like the above mentioned?? Krishna did not impart any knowledge to Sandipani Muni. Whereas, he revealed the RAja Guhya to Arjuna. Big difference. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says he chose Arjuna because he is dear friend. Again, I can dispute Nirhetuka Kripai there, because if you see Arjuna had always been a close friend and devotee of Krishna. " Our relation/bond with the Lord can operate in two ways(two-way traffic)based on His "modus operandi" throwing us back again into samsAra based on karmas or granting us mOksha which is based on His voluntary grace. On the other hand,our link with the AcArya is a one- way traffic leading us to the final goal, salvation. AcArya is full of grace ONLY! That is why repayment to AcArya is IMPOSSIBLE because there are NO two Ishvaras and Four vibhUthis! So,seeking refuge at AcAryA's(means) feet is the ONLY remedy and the exclusive service to the AcArya is the goal(carama parva niShTa)" Dangerous point there Sri Nappinnai!! U mean to say that Perumaal grants us moksha based on his "voluntary" grace, whereas surrender to AcAryan leads to salvation for sure. Well, surrender to Acaryan then becomes an act, as a result of which we get perumaal's grace (moksham), SAhEtukam, right?? With respect to the state of prapatti being perfect or non-perfect, I still didn't get a clear answer, but I did see a very convincing point when somebody quoted Sri Thirumazhisai Azhwar who says that Sriman NArAyaNa can make the AzhwAr forget about him and send him back to materialistic ways, if He decides so. On that note, it appeals that Bhakti is a better practice than Prapatti, wherein you think for the lord, eat for the lord, whatever you do, you do it for the lord and his pleasure. To quote the 9th chapter, 27th shloka from the Gita: "yat karosi yad asnasi yaj juhosi dadasi yad yat tapasyasi kaunteya tad kurusva mad arpanam" "whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you give or whatever austerities you perform, do it as an offering to me". The question that arises that, what happens to a prapanna after he surrenders?? Arjuna didn't completely surrender. Gajendra surrendered. In Arjuna's case it was Nirhetuka Kripa (according to you), but still he failed. In Gajendra's case, he made the effort of calling the Lord's Names. Or so did Draupadi. It appears SAhetukam. BTW, do Bhakti and SAhEtukam have similarities?? Kindly pardon me for anything written wrong or hurtful. AzhwAr emperumANAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE Saranam. Dasan, Kidambi Soundararajan. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. [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 |