Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Dear Shri Vishnu / Smt Nappinnai, I guess you both have missed out the following statement that I had included in my earlier post: "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." Please note the point->"it did nothing to qualify for the moksham". This includes the self realization act too. But, please remember, if we say "knowledge of swaroopam / opening of the mind is too due to the lord's Nirhetuka krupai" to those with a layman perspective, then we put our Purvacharyas into trouble, because, here our statement would be perceived as if the Lord is partial i.e he opens up the mind only for those whom he likes. So, we should be careful in defining the Nirhetuka krupai. In fact Shri Vimal quite caught this point in his first post itself and asked about the same. This was why I tried to set up the background before defining the lord's Nirhetuka krupai. My opinion is that Sahetuka/Nirhetuka krupai needs to be understood only from the "appropriate" perspective:) which I tried to explain in my earlier post. So, for Azhwar it may be HIS nirhetuka krupai and for the lord it may be because of Azhwar's efforts, because these two understood rather realize each other's swaroopam(of-course, for the lord, there is nothing called realizing of his swaroopam). But for those who don't realize HIM, it should not be projected as if the lord is partial towards great people like Azhwar and Acharyas. So, Azhagiya Manavala Perumal Nayanar too claims it only as "Acharya Hrudhayam" and not his own view:) is what my point is. Hope, I saved the younger brother too:)) Kindly pardon for my mistakes if any. Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Lakshmi Narasimhan By the way, (a) and (b) that I had mentioned in my earlier post does not reflect a TK or VK perspective, I mean, that was not my intent. --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "nappinnai_nc" <nappinnai_nc@xxxx> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: > Dear Lakshmi narasimhan, > Your post was very interesting indeed(this time Sri Pillai > lOkAcArya was saved by you but his brother is caught!). I am just > reflecting my thoughts on your post. > > > [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). > > I do not know what exactly you mean by statement (a). But if > I understand it 'rightly' I would like to point out that this > knowledge of swarUpam also happens due to "only" Lord's grace. This > is well explained in AcArya hrdhayam and also EmperumAnAr's > explanation in gita bhAShyam[cf 7.14-20]. Your statements sound as if > NammAzhvAr "realized" his swarUpam and performed bhakthi without the > intention of grabbing His grace. According to swami Azhagiya MaNavALa > PerumAL NAyanAr,nammAzhvAr had even this realization due to God's > grace ONLY. NammAzhvAr skipped para-bhakthi,para-jnAna and directly > reached the state "parama-bhakthi" which again is due to God's grace > and NammAzhvAr himself declares that he hasn't done "anything" to > attain this parama-bhakthi in TVM 4.7.9! AzhvArs' love is neither a > sADhana bhakthi(bhakthi as the "means/upAyam" to reach the > end/upEyam/mOksha) nor sADhya bhakthi(bhakthi itself as the > end/upEyam/mOksha). > > ubhayamum anRikkE - AH 101 [ubhayam-sADhana and sADhya] > > In the terminology of Swami Azhagiya MaNavALa PerumAl NAyanAr,this > bhakthi of AzhvArs is called "swayamprayOjana bhakthi(non-stop,and > eternal bhakthi/love done to please Him)" > > > 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. > > I think here you need to be cautious in defining. In (a) > nirhetukam,the stress is given to the "greatness of the Lord" while > in (b)sahetukam the stress is given to the "human efforts". Whatever > be the perspective, prapatti is there for both the sects with TK > giving importance to (a)[when one compares the greatness of the Lord > with the efforts of the jivatma,the latter is insignificant and hence > dropped/neglected only as far as comparison is concerned] and VK to > (b). Neither of the two deny (a) or (b). For TKs, the Lord > is "sidDhOpAyam" and I doubt if this is the same view held by VKs. > Sri MA Venkatakrishnan's talk on doctrinal differences was very clear > and it will be really great if Swami MAV can post an article where > Swami Desikan differs from/agrees with Sri PiLLai lOkAcArya. > > All our obstacles are removed by the Lord Himself. So, the > "realization of the swarUpam" also comes only after Lord sheds His > grace on us thereby removing the obstacle of ahankAram/mamakAram > (jivatma thinking that it belongs to so and so instead of Sriman > Narayana). > > Forgive all my blabberings. I'm trying to swim through SVB and AH and > hence all credits go to the brothers and discredits to me. > > Azhvr emperumAnar jIya thiruvadigaLE sharaNam > NC Nappinnai
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |