Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha
The following is only to explain that we could always argue on
certain things for ever without any productivity. I am not a
supporter of Sahetukam nor against Nirhetukam. So, please do not
perceive my comments/questions as if it is being raised against our
sampradayam.
Words like "You" etc, are for those readers, who strongly support
that the concept of Nirhetukam, 18 Rahasyams / Acharya Hrudhayam, are
not to be treated as "rahasyams" to be reserved for understanding
only via kalakshepams and that it could be easily understood via
internet posts.
> Whether or not "too" appears at the end "does not" matter.
> Moreover, Vishnu didn't write anywhere that the Lord "will not"
> shower His grace on those who surrender!!! ALL what matters is "His
> fee will and nirhEthu krpa".
"Too" does matter Smt Nappinnai. Kindly re-read my post.
a) When you say all what matters is "His free will", then it does not
guarantee moksham even if someone does any bhakthi, gnyana etc yogas.
But in the previous sentence you say that Shriman Vishnu didn't write
anywhere that the Lord "will not" shower His grace on those who
surrender... God will shower grace on those who surrender, but it is
upto Him? I see a contradiction(more to come)
b)
> Long time back Tirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh wrote a
> nice article expressing the views of TennAcArya sampradAyam. The
> relation between ParamAtma & jIvAtmA is similar to the relation
> between jIvAtmA & acit.
I am referring to the last phrase. Similar to jivatma and achit? So,
if I understood your statement, Jivatma is like achith to the lord
right? Then later in the post you are saying
>"It is "HIGHLY IMPOSSIBLE" for anyone to sit idle and not
> do "ANYTHING". You can refer to BG."
If jivatma is like achit, how could it perform some act? How can it
even think that it is like an achit, to the lord, when it is "way
different" from the achit?
c)
> You can refer to BG. I don't remember the sloka but
> I'm 200% sure that it is said in there. Atleast the jIvAtmA will go
> to the restroom,or atleast drink a glass of water. This is the
> nature of prakrthi.
Exactly!!! Jivatma "Will" go. Per your stands, shouldn't that be, the
lord controlling the Jivatma???
:)) We need not go upto Bhagavad Gita. Kindly re-read your own
statements after thinking for few seconds about "Nammazhwar"!!!! He
did not eat, drink. Forget all that. He did not even breath the Shata
Vayu, and hence his name "Shatakopan". And don't tell me he was an
exception. If that were so, we should not be discussing any further
in this list, for Vaishnavism's pride is Swami and his works.
d)
> In the "mArjara" case,the effort on the part of the kitten is "so
> minuscule" that it "DOES NOT" deserve "ANY" credit/mention! First
of
> all,the mother is not going to leave the baby in the backyard or
> frontyard for the baby to get bitten by a deadly spitting cobra!
> If she does, she is either a fool or knowledgeable,"knowingly well"
> what might happen to her baby.
Please come to reality. We are talking something practical. Tell me a
mother who takes care of a baby 24 hours? Are we taking the examples
too literally? If so, as per your statements, almost all mothers are
fools in this world ("only If so").
e)
> The AcAryAs "did not introduce" any new "concept of kaimkaryam". It
> is the "innate" or "inherent" trait of the jIvAtmAs! But due to
> prakrthi maNdalam,that is relegated to the back door and ego and
> other traits have taken predominance thereby "conceiling" the
> essential nature of the jIvAtmA. If we say that our AcAryAs
> "introduced" some new concept "in the middle" then we can't
> claim/chant "lakshmI nATha samArambAm...." in the Guru Parampara
> lineage. Our AcAryAs brought out the tradition/concepts,that was
> existing time immemorial,to the lime light. That is all. They did
> not introduce any new concepts.
Ok. I should have been explicit enough. Was there a madal goshti,
thiruveedhi purappadu or for that matter the ramanuja koodams that
served/serves as a shelter and protection for so many homeless(before
Shri Ramanujar)? These were the "kainkaryams" I was talking about.
People belonging to some caste were not even let in the temple before
Shri Ramanujar's time and he broke that and gave them different
kainkaryams, that "never" existed in practise before. Please do not
take things literally, because, same could be done pretty much by
everyone who has time and patience and provided it would add value to
the group. I saw this in the reply to Smt Sumitra's post. She was
giving a nice example only to depict a nice concept. You could have
seen people being ready to offer to the beggar who is in the next
house, but what if the beggar does not come to your house at all even
though you are ready with the food for him? And if he is already gone
that you can't find him on the streets? I know my statements do not
make any sense. But, that is exactly the point. These kind of
arguments would lead us nowhere.
f)
> So what kind of "philosophical" or "esoteric stuff" or "other
> things" one can discuss in R's e-list? If we say R
> sampradAyam,everything
> (mOksham,hence tirumanthram,prapatti then automaticallly other
> three
> yogas,so on and so forth!) is "INTER-RELATED". If the
> jIvAtmA has ego,obviously everything will appear as offensive.
> Mind,with Ego in full swing,has the capacity to take anything as
> offensive. If there is a value in the post,the reader should take
> it otherwise leave/reject it. Or (i)R's list can be shut down! (ii)
> make it only TK forum (iii) even among TKs,allow only those "who
> get recos
> from jIyars/AcAryAs" as members. But if it becomes "limited or
> restricted" it loses the status to retain the title "Ramanuja/
> emperumAnAr dharshanam"! Kindly pardon me and my expressive mind.
Wait a minute. On one side you are talking about the lord's nirhetuka
krupai and say that everything is done by lord and we should be like
achith. And on the other side you are talking about Jivatma, ego etc?
What is ego? When Jeevatma doesn't own itself and its body, to whom
does its ignorance and ego belong to? Doesn't it belong to the inner
controller i.e the lord? The reader leaving or rejecting is all in
the hand's of the lord. And you are mixing up way too many things.
One who takes up the stands of Nirhetuka krupai should not even care
or talk about the moksham, I believe.... Why are you so much bothered
when everything is happening because of the lord? And why should R
list be shut down? Why such extreme options?(I am not the moderator
and hence, I can't enforce any limitation to the group. It was/is
just my opinion that these rahasyams should not be discussed here and
so, ) We could share the anubhavams of Azhwars, not necessarily too
much on the philosophical front. We could share so many interesting
bhaagavadha anubhavams. We could just read the Mumukshuppadi
Vyakhyanams etc and memorize it and wait for the right moment of
interaction with an Acharyan. Initiate new kainkaryams and try to
involve everyone in the group. We could discuss about the sampradayam
(traditions). Someone was asking about Gayathri Manthram and
Astakshari? Gayathri Manthram should not be recited by ladies while
Astakshari is common for everyone. We could have so many discussions,
clarifications, without going into deeper stuffs that would a)
confuse the layman b) leads to argument alone because neither party
has been initiated or has properly attended the kalakshepams etc.
One can come up with a huge list of what could be discussed. How many
of us continued on the subject that Shri Varadhan had started, i.e
sharing of views on Perumal's thirumeni angams?
>But if it becomes "limited or restricted" it loses the status to
>retain the title "Ramanuja/emperumAnAr dharshanam"!
It is all in lord's hands isn't it? If we take the Nirhetuka stands
i.e "lord is the doer and everything is upto him" stands, we must be
consistent across. So, if the fate of the group is in the hands of
the lord, why would you be bothered about the group losing its status
to retain the title etc? Why even write up everytime when someone
says that the Rahasya Granthams should not be discussed in this kind
of group? Moreover, the more we open up and not discuss such extreme
philosophies in these kind of groups, the title "Ramanuja Darsanam"
gets justified as it reaches even the layman(and please!! I don't
mean those people who don't even know english - "I mean those who are
new to the sampradayam")
Finally, "me and my expressive mind" does not get along with
Nirhetuka/Freewill concepts. But, being a strong supporter of
Nirhetuka Krupai, you could always say that it is the lord who is
writing such things through you:)), but that would make other people
think of you no different from the clergies or the priests who do
whatever they want in the name of lord(that is pretty much the same
as the nirhetukam etc isn't it?). If you don't care about it, then
you are not adding value to the group. If you do care, then it is not
the lord's will but yours. We will end up only with contradictions on
things that we "haven't" realized. If we have realized, we won't be
talking about those precious things to everyone as it would become a
subject of criticism. If you say Rahasya Granthams are open for all
just because PBA swamy and others published those, I am sorry to say,
you are contradicting the very name of these granthams like "18
Rahasyams" etc. Those books are only for reference and not for
understanding. One can publish dozens of chinese books, that does not
mean those are for everyone. And if I read from the book and
understand whatever I could(I don't know chinese, so you can
imagine). We must understand the reasons behind the books, the
publications, the reason behind calling these as Rahasya Granthams
etc.
Again, I am very clear on one thing. Nirhetuka Krupai concept is too
much for a group like this. That is all am trying to say via the
above post and it is purely my opinion as it stands.
To answer Shri Vishnu's question, anyone who teaches/preaches
sampradayam is an Acharyan, while, not through his/her writing, but
through direct upadesam or via disciplic upadesams. Upa-ni-shad
explains it clear enough. I assume stress should be given at the
right place to Smt Sumitra's statement. The stress is on
the "kalakshepams or upadesams". When one is directly interacting
with an Acharyan, one can ask questions immediately and get
convincing replies/clarifications immediately. You "CAN NOT" do that
via internet posts.
I did not take any offense and I request you to not to perceive any.
Hope this post is taken in the light and right spirit.
Is someone up and ready to share their ideas/opinions on the
Bhagavan's Thirumeni? How about "Maivanna Narumkunchi" pasuram, that
talks about the vadivazhagu(beauty of the form) of the lord Rama?
Kamban also expresses a lo(s)t on Chakravarthi Thirumagan. Let us
move on..... At least, I am....
Adiyen,
Ramanuja Dasan
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |