Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: Dear Nappinnai, I think I may have put out a muddled post - not surprising considering that this a very difficult concept to grasp. Here are certain thoughts on this subject. In the case of Kakasuran too, note that Thayar's mediation on behalf of Kakasuran happened only after he fell down helpless. She could have mediated very early on, but She waited for him to reach that state first. The state of abject surrender here is not the obvious one where we feel that way in His presence by understanding our true nature and our relationship to Him. Instead, Kaksuran's was one of sheer inability to do anything and nothing more. A very interesting subject of study! The case of Thirukkannamangai Andan is an important one though. Did he really stop doing anything? Or did he stop doing anything for himself? I request bhAgavatas with knowledge of his story to clarify. Even if he ended up doing absolutely nothing, there are two things to note. One is this state has to be one of doing absolutely nothing - that is not even trying to eat, sleep or anything. That is, leave "everything" up to Him. This is a very difficult state to achieve. Second, this is a unique case. None of our other acharyas went to this state. All our acharyas did many things appropriate to the quality of being a Srivaishnava. They studied, taught, sang His namas, did service at the temple. So, while they said His grace was nirhetuka, that did not preclude them from following certain principles. Notice too that all these are actions are Srivaishnavic in nature. This is where my objection comes to interpreting the nirhetuka krpa as that one has to do nothing. I think one has to follow the paths laid down by the acharyas - otherwise you will have people killing each other, breaking down temples etc., stating that our actions do not matter. Notice also that His grace never seems to go to those who do bhAgavata apacharam, although it does appear to go to those who may even do bhagavat apachAram. Finally, I have heard some scholars (PBA Swami?) say the following: in gaining moksha, the step of sharanAgati is one small step compared to the zillion more steps that one has to take. He lifts us up those steps out of His krpa. This is why we cannot say that moksha was given due to the act of sharanAgati. That is, it is incorrect to equate the two as they are not comparable - hence, sharanAgati is not the upEyam. However, this does not mean that one does not have to perform sharanAgati at all. Note that all of our acharyas have performed the act of surrender through their acharyas. I realize that I have thrown out a bunch of thoughts without clear direction. I think this is one subject that should be addressed by learned scholars and not novices such as myself. So, I will stop showing my ignorance. Hopefully some of our elders and scholars will clarify our doubts in this forum. Azhvar Emperumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan --- nappinnai_nc <nappinnai_nc@xxxx> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: > Dear TCA Venkatesh, > What Sri TCA Srinivasa Ramanujan says is > correct according > to SVB 148 and 149. This, of course, is based on my > understanding of > SVB. > > SVB 148: krpaiyAlE varum pArathanthriyaththiR kAttil, > swAthanthryath- > thAlE varum pArathanthryam prabalam. > > SVB 149: ivvarththaththai vEdhapuruShan apEkshiththAn. > > ... __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |