Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Dear Shri Vimal, That is what I meant. In our sampradayam, thinking the root for the act. So, thinking is pretty much equivalent to an act(even if the act is not performed) and this is in Shruthi too. When one thinks of doing a sin, he/she gets the sin. The actual act need not have been performed. Kindly correct me if I was wrong. Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Lakshmi Narasimhan --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, vimalkumar ranganathan <panardasan@xxxx> wrote: > Sri: > > Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan, > Really intelligent posting > indeed!! I humbly request you to throw some more light > on the Sahetuka Kripai from the Lord's perspective. > For example, even in the case of Ajamila, does your > kind self mean to say that the Lord looked at > Ajamila's chanting "Narayana" as an "act" and hence > delivers him?? > > Dasan, > > Kidambi Soundararajan. > --- tavaradhan <tavaradhan@xxxx> wrote: > > Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha > > > > As I was thinking about this concept for a while, by > > God's grace, I > > got a mail from one of the scholars(Shri Vijay from > > Triplicane, my > > humble pranams to you, Swami!) amongst our group > > members who pointed > > out a mistake that I had done in my earlier post. I > > thank him for his > > kindness in pointing out my mistake in a nice > > fashion. And this > > question triggered more of my thought process and as > > I was thinking > > about this more, I ended up getting the lord's grace > > to get a > > different perspective on this subject and I ended > > with this post. I > > do not have any references to Acharya Granthams, as > > this perspective > > is what the lord showed me in my mind. If anything > > is wrong in this > > post, it is solely due to my ignorance, but if there > > is anything > > right at all, the credits go to the lord and that > > great scholar. > > > > > > I request that this post be evaluated by learned > > scholars and I > > request them to correct my mistakes. This post does > > not have any > > authenticity as it does not qualify as a perspective > > of the > > purvacharyas and hence is not for all. > > > > Nirhetuka and Sahetuka krupai: The perspectives > > > > Nirhetukam is the krupai of the Lord that requires > > no specific reason > > to be attributed to granting anything(including > > moksham) to the > > Jeevatma. > > Sahetukam is the krupai of the Lord that gives some > > specific > > reason(some effort put in by the jeevatma) to > > justify granting > > anything(including moksham) to the Jeevatma. > > > > > > Now, the perspective from which these concepts needs > > to be understood > > are: > > > > Sahetukam(from the perspective of the Lord) - A > > jeevatma > > does "something" that "according" to the lord is a > > reason for > > granting say "moksham". Even if the lord wants to > > grant moksham to > > someone of his choice, he does not want to force it > > and hence > > attributes the granting of moksham to some effort > > that was put in by > > the jeevatma. > > Nirhetukam(from the perspective of the Jeevatma) - > > The Jeevatma has > > realized its swaroopam and has starting thinking Him > > all the time and > > does everything as a kainkaryam to Him. This > > Jeevatma, having > > realized its incapability to do anything, attributes > > the moksham it > > is going to attain/has attained, to the Nirhetuka > > krupai of the Lord. > > This Jeevatma cannot digest the fact that "it" did > > something. To this > > Jeevatma, it did nothing to qualify for the moksham, > > and it is only > > due to the Nirhetuka krupai of the lord that it > > attained the moksham. > > > > > > [While this is so, in my earlier post, I had made a > > mistake of not > > clearly explaining what I meant as "adopting > > bhakthi". Adopting > > bhakthi may be due to two reasons: a) Because the > > jeevatma has > > realized its swaroopam and makes performing bhakthi > > as a swabhavam > > with no intent of grabbing lord's grace - an > > unconditional act > > (Bhakthi is not an upayam, because the lord is the > > upayam and the > > upeyam). b) Performing bhakthi to attain > > moksham(upayam) i.e > > a conditional act. Azhwars and great souls fall in > > category (a) while > > others fall in (b). This difference in mindset makes > > the major > > difference between prapannas and others. A > > prapannan(a) attributes > > everything to the lord's Nirhetuka krupai and hence > > to him, the Lord > > was the means(Upayam) and the end(Upeyam) too. For > > others(b), the > > bhakthi is the Upayam(Sahetukam) and the Lord is the > > Upeyam. It is > > such stupid statement that I have made to have > > projected Azhwars as > > those who adopted bhakthi as the Upayam and I humbly > > request EVERYONE > > to forgive me for the same. - Thanks to Shri Viji > > from Triplicane] > > > > So, in this eternal harmony[as per Prapatti > > philosophy], the lord > > keeps attributing the moksham to the effort put in > > by the jeevatma, > > while the jeeva keeps attributing the moksham that > > it attained, to > > the lord's nirhetuka krupa. The former is Sahetukam, > > while the latter > > is Nirhetukam. > > > > Now let us try to switch the perspectives and see > > how it looks like: > > Nirhetukam(from the perspective of the Lord) - If > > the lord thinks > > that HE gave moksham only because of HIS > > swathanthryam and not > > because the jeeva wanted the same, then it is > > compared to a husband > > who forces his love on his wife. It is considered to > > be a wrong act. > > The lord will not think that way, and we should not > > even imagine "HE" > > attributing this moksham to HIS own swathantharyam. > > (This is > > an "izhivu" for the lord if we say HE thinks so) > > > > Sahetukam(from the perspective of the Jeevatma) - If > > the jeevatma > > thinks that he got the moksham only because of his > > own efforts and > > not because of the Lord, then this feeling causes > > damage to the > > lord's Nirhetuka Krupa. Except prappanas, those who > > use the other > > margams including bhakthi margam as a "Upayam" to > > attain moksham > > would feel that it is Sahetuka krupai of the lord > > that granted the > > moksham i.e the jeeva thinks that the lord gave > > moksham only because > > it did bhakthi etc. (This is an "izhivu" for the > > jeevatma as well as > > the lord and is compared to a wife who thinks that > > the > > husband makes love to her only because she attracted > > him). > > > > To summarize: > > Sahetukam(from the perspective of the Lord) & > > Nirhetukam(from the > > perspective of the Jeevatma) - Upayam[Means], > > (credits to his > > Nirhetuka Krupai) is the lord and Upeyam[End Result] > > is the lord too - > > Prapatti and Prapanna philosophy. > > > > > > Nirhetukam(from the perspective of the Lord) & > > Sahetukam(from the > > perspective of the Jeevatma) - Upayam[Means], is the > > Karma, Gnyana, > > Bhakthi, Sankhya etc(credits to his Sahetuka Krupai) > > and the Upeyam > > [End Result] is the lord - Other Karma, Gnyana, > > Bhakthi, Sankhya > > margams. > > > > For Prapannas - > > > > So, Nirhetukam has to be understood and considered > > only from the > > Jeevatma perspective and thus this justifies all the > > act of the Lord > > including granting of mokshams to Azhwars, Acharyas > > and Ajamilan. > > I.E, according to the jeevas, i.e us, the lord sees > > no difference > > amongst the Azhwars, Acharyas for that matter any > > living being and > > pours his unconditional grace. > > > > This justifies the perspective of Azhwars who say > > that they did not > > do anything to attain the lord and it is all due to > > HIS krupai that > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________ > 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 |