Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 1999 Dearest BhAgawatAs, In the context of the "prapatti" thread I have two separate questions: Q. Did prapanna-jana kooTastharAna nammALvAr actually receive moksha-phalam? At least one sreevaishNava AcArya - Sri NampiLLai (I believe, correct me if I am wrong) - has called sathakOpan a nitya-samsAri. I believe that such a view was made out of extreme respect for Sri NammALvAr without whose kAruNyam the prapatti sAstra would not have received the emphasis that it enjoys today. So, in a sense, NammALvAr exists in the psyche of every AcArya propagating the doctrine of prapatti and hence is a nitya-samsAri. This is the only explanation I have been able to give myself for the nitya-samsAri status of nammALvAr. Comments are welcome. Q 2. Why is there a dichotomy between prapatti and bhakti as two separate sAdhyOpAyas? As far as I understand it, without a siddhOpAya (i.e., sreemannArAyaNa) no upAya will work. Even for karma and j~nAna to mature and for the aspirant to attain Atma-sAkshAtkAra, the supreme being's help is required, let alone the matter for attaining the supreme being Himself. So, prapatti - which is the realization that none other than the siddhOpAya can save us from this sAmsAric misery - seems to be the ONLY upAya and sAdhana (because at some stage in one's spiritual quest, an aspirant should and will realize that the only sAdhya is prapatti). So, why not just say that prapatti is the only sAdhyOpAya? -- muraLi kaDAmbi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 1999 Sri Murali asks: > Q. Did prapanna-jana kooTastharAna nammALvAr actually receive > moksha-phalam? > At least one sreevaishNava AcArya - Sri NampiLLai (I believe, > correct me if I am wrong) - has called sathakOpan a nitya-samsAri. Yes, Swami Nampillai does call Nammalvar a nitya-samsAri. This occurs in the introduction (mahA-pravESam) of the Eedu vyaakhyaanam. His usage of the term 'nitya-samsAri' does NOT mean that Nammalvar is still sitting here in samsAra. Nampillai uses this word when considering the question of whether Nammalvar was someone different from humanity, a being sent merely to teach us something, or whether he was someone who actually went through the pains of samsAra as we all do. Nampillai, quoting Nammalvar himself, establishes that the Alvar was from time immemorial embroiled in samsAra just as we currently are, and that because of the Lord's unfettered, irresistible grace, he overcame it and was granted divine wisdom and devotion. Here, Nampillai cites the Alvar's own words "maaRi maaRip palapiRappum piRandhu..." (tvm 2.6.8 -- "Having been born countless times...") which describe his toils through samsAra. Alvar overcame this not through his own efforts, but through the Lord alone, who "mayarvu aRa madhi nalam aruLinan" (tvm 1.1.1 -- "[He is the One who] graced me with the knowledge of ripened bhakti which dispels all delusion.") In other words, 'nitya' should be taken as 'anAdi-kAla'. From this understanding, we are all 'nitya-samsAri-s'. Nampillai makes this point to show that the Lord's grace is available for everyone, not just for a select few beings. Nammalvar, a being in samsAra just like us [*], was the recipient of this grace, and so can we be. To answer your question, yes, Nammalvar does receive moksha. I will go and check the commentaries tonight to confirm this. > Q 2. Why is there a dichotomy between prapatti and bhakti as > two separate sAdhyOpAyas? > As far as I understand it, without a siddhOpAya (i.e., > sreemannArAyaNa) no upAya will work. Even for karma > and j~nAna to mature and for the aspirant to attain > Atma-sAkshAtkAra, the supreme being's help is required, > let alone the matter for attaining the supreme being Himself. > So, prapatti - which is the realization that none other > than the siddhOpAya can save us from this sAmsAric misery - > seems to be the ONLY upAya and sAdhana (because at some > stage in one's spiritual quest, an aspirant should and will > realize that the only sAdhya is prapatti). So, why not just > say that prapatti is the only sAdhyOpAya? Ramanuja's position on bhakti-yoga is actually quite different. While prapatti is of vital importance even in bhakti-yoga: eteshAm saMsAramocanam bhagavatprapattiM antareNa nopapadyate | Short of surrendering to the Lord, nothing else can save these individuals from samsAra. (para 90 in S.S. Raghavachar's edition) the practice of bhakti-yoga involves quite a bit of self-effort and self-reliance. In contrast, pure prapatti is not merely the realization that the siddopAya is the Lord; it is placing the *entire* burden on Him and relying on Him as the *sole* means. In bhakti-yoga, the process is quite different. For the actual attainment of moksha, God is the siddhopAya, but along the way, the aspirant must, through his devotional meditation, attain a level of God-perception that is as clear as vision itself. While God certainly helps in this process, the constant practice of bhakti-yoga is absolutely necessary. Consequently, a great degree of effort is required on the part of the aspirant. The surrender mentioned in Ramanuja's quote above precedes bhakti-yoga and is necessary to wipe off the countless loads of pApa and puNya (demerit and merit) that *obstruct the commencing of meditation.* This is prapatti: when an aspirant realizes that all his self-effort will be of no avail, and absolutely and urgently despairs for God, he or she gives everything up and places all of the burden on God Himself. There is no self-effort on the part of the aspirant here for moksha, because the aspirant has chosen God to be 100% of the means, all the way. Therefore, bhakti-yoga relies on self-effort, culminating in the beatific vision of God, upon which God leads this bhakta to Himself. The *vision* is what is the sAdhyopAya, not prapatti (see Ramanuja's Vedarthasangraha where he describes para-bhakti). Prapatti, on the other hand, relies purely on God from the time of surrender. In a minor sense, Ramanuja and Desika agree with what you are saying. Desika calls bhakti-yoga 'sa-dvAraka prapatti', self-surrender that begins the meditations of bhakti-yoga, and pure prapatti 'a-dvAraka prapatti', self-surrender that relies on nothing but God. [**] However, the distinction between the two paths needs to be maintained, as they are very different in nature. rAmAnuja dAsan Mani [*] Some acharyas have held the view that Nammalvar was a nitya-sUri, an eternally liberated angel of sorts sent down by the Lord to teach erring humanity the truth by example. This makes all of Nammalvar's poetic anguish an elaborate drama, enacted for our benefit. I frankly do not find this convincing. Acharyas today attribute this view to Vedanta Desika, but other than a vague sentence in an unrelated text, I cannot find support even in Desika's works for this position. This is just my personal opinion. [**] Some later acharyas (post 13th century) felt that bhakti-yoga, since it relies on self-effort, simply cannot be called a means for moksha. Murali's question tends toward this position. Why is self-effort invalid? Because it is a function of the ego asserting its independence, which goes against the very grain of the jIva's nature, they argued. Further, they said, the Lord alone is the means; what good can self-exertion do, when it is up to the Lord to achieve moksha for us? Therefore, complete self-surrender is the _only_ way, leaving everything up to the Lord. This argument becomes the characteristic "Thengalai" position in the 14th and 15th centuries. Sri Vedanta Desika convincingly (in my opinion) argues against this position. The devotional and meditational practices of bhakti-yoga are most definitely a means; after all, the Upanishads, Gita, and Brahma-sutras have waxed eloquently about them, and the shastras don't lie, do they? Furthermore, the self-effort involved in bhakti-yoga is enjoined by the Lord Himself as being consistent with our nature as slaves of the Lord. We are given the freedom to act by the Lord, and choosing to meditate (if capable) simply cannot be inconsistent with our nature. In the end, the Lord alone will achieve the moksha; but along the way, bhakti-yoga is a valid path, and is what secures the Lord's grace. Clearly, the feeling that bhakti-yoga is an invalid path is a later development. It is well known that Nathamuni's disciple Tirukkurugai Kaavalappan practiced bhakti-yoga with the approval of his acharya. Ramanuja teaches only bhakti-yoga in all his works save the Gadya-traya. Even Pillai Lokacharya accepts bhakti-yoga and speaks eloquently about it (see Artha-pancaka). However, the orthodox teaching from Ramanuja's time onwards has been that we are all incapable of the meditation involved in bhakti-yoga and must rely purely on the Lord for moksha. Effectively, the Thengalai position is correct (and is non-different from the "Vadagalai" position); none of us has the patience or ability to meditate a la bhakti-yoga; so we must rely wholly on the Lord. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 19, 1999 > Q. Did prapanna-jana kooTastharAna nammALvAr actually receive > moksha-phalam? Stupid that I am, I overlooked Nammalvar's own words in writing my previous reply. Alvar himself writes that he attained moksha. In his concluding paasuram, he describes himself as "veedu peRRa kurukoorch sadagOpan", Sadagopan of Kurugur who received moksha (veedu is the Tamil word for moksha). Sri Manavala Maamunigal also says in his summary of this last set of 10 paasurams, "paramapatthiyaal nandhu pangaiyarthaaL kOnai ... sErndhaan" (thiruvaaymozhi nooRRandhaadhi 100 -- "out of supreme love he attained the Lord associated with Lakshmi"). There are definitely similar statements by Swami Sri Desika in Srimad Rahasya Traya Saaram, but I do not have that text in front of me right now. aazhvaar emberumaanaar dEsikan jIyar tiruvaDigaLE SaraNam Mani P.S. By the way, Happy Yugadi to all of you! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 1999 Sri: SrimatE Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrivaNN - SatakOpa Sri nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha namO nArAyaNA Dear Sri MuraLi, > Q 2. Why is there a dichotomy between prapatti and bhakti as two separate > sAdhyOpAyas? > > As far as I understand it, without a siddhOpAya (i.e., sreemannArAyaNa) no > upAya will work. Absolutely. To obtain mOksham, SrIman nArAyaNA is the siddhOpAyA for both the sAdhyOpAyAs viz. Bhakti and prapatti performed for moksham . In the Katopanishad, Yaman declares to nachikEtas "sa kAshtA sa parAgati" ( Brahman is both the means and end ). This is discussed in Sri BAshyam. > Even for karma and j~nAna to mature and for the aspirant > to attain Atma-sAkshAtkAra, the supreme being's help is required, let alone > the matter for attaining the supreme being Himself. So, prapatti - which is > the realization that none other than the siddhOpAya can save us from this > sAmsAric misery - seems to be the ONLY upAya and sAdhana (because at some > stage in one's spiritual quest, an aspirant should and will realize that the > only sAdhya is prapatti). So, why not just say that prapatti is the only > sAdhyOpAya? A devotee performing bhakti ie. upAsanA also has the perfect understanding that Sriman nArAyaNA is the SiddhOpAyA (the final granter of mOksham). He also does everything with sAthvIka tyAgam. PerumAL spent 18 adhyAyam on Bhagavad gItA and this yOgI follows them sincerely. For PerumAL to grant the mOksham, bhakti needs to be done and must be fully completed. Thats how PerumAL has putforth in the sAstrAs - Upanishads, gItA etc. For Him to grant the moksham, the "vyAja" (excuse) is the completion of "bhakti yOgam" by the aspirant. This is the deciding factor for the PerumAL to choose ie. "the adhigAri (qualified person) to be given moksham is the one who completes bhakti yOgam". It is infact a sAstric command and Sri Bashyam deals a lot with this. Bhakti yOgi also knows that it is none other than Sriman nArAyaNA who is aiding him in all the activities pertaining to bhakti yOgam itself (kartrutva tyAgam etc is fully realized by the yOgi). So, it is not only a prapanna who has the realization that Sriman nArAyaNA is the siddhOpAyA, but also the one performing bhakti yOgam.Infact, without the completion of the sAdhyOpAyA bhakti, PerumAL _won't_ grant mOksham. This is very clear from sAstrAs. But, Upanishads also speak about nyAsa vidyA and the detailed explanation of it is found in AgamAs. In Bhagavad gItA also, PerumAL gives out the charama slOkam, only after Arjuna feels that Bhakti yOgam is far beyond his capacity. The point is this: For one to be qualified for prapatti, he should be an akinchanA ie. can't perform Bhakti yOgam ( may be due to inability OR one can't tolerate the slow pace of bhakti in giving mOksham etc).One of the angA is "kArpanyam" which is the feeling that one is bereft of all qualities needed for performing bhakti yOgam. The most important aspect in prapatti (for moksham) is that "Bhara Samarpanam" is done. Bharam ie.burden, refers to the bhakti yOgam. This is because, without the completion of bhakti yOgam, PerumAL won't grant mOksham.But, one may aspire for eternal kainkaryam at Sri VaikuNTham, though having no capacity/qualification for performing bhakti yOgam. Thus, "bhakti yOgam" is a burden for akinchanAs. Towards these akinchanAs says the most merciful Lord that Place Himself in the sthAnA of bhakti yOga. This is the bhara samarpanam. So, effectively, while performing the sAdhyOpAyA of prapatti, PerumAL (*) is pleaded to be present in the sthAnA of the other sAdhyOpAyA viz. bhakti. This is the bhara samarpanam component. Alongwith this, both Atma and phala samarpanam also needs to be performed ( ofcourse the 5 angAs are also there). Thus, the route of prapatti is an independent means to obtain mOksham, _only_ because, PerumAL is made to be present in the sthAnA of bhakti yOgA. Thatswhy while referring to prapatti, many a times it is told that PerumAL Himself is the upAyA (stands in place of bhakti yOgA, the sAddhOpAyA). The usage of the word "upAyA" in reference with prapatti is used for the above reason also, apart from the global reason (common to both bhakti and prapatti) that PerumAL is the (siddha)upAyam. Prapatti discussed above is the "prapatti for obtaining mOksham". But, prapatti ie. SaraNAgathi can also be done for some other goal. For example, kAkAsuran did prapatti to Lord rAma for getting relieved from the BrahmAstra (the exact nature of angA and angI change appropriately). Prapatti is also done by a bhakti yOgi to destroy the obstacles preventing Him from performing bhakti yOgA. This is the anga prapatti. This is the link between the two sAdhyOpAyAs. In SribAshyam bAshyakArar tells about the anga prapatti observed by bhakti yOgins : "tasya ca vaseekaraNam tachSaraNAgathirEva". In gItA bAshyam also, this anga prapatti is explained by bAshyakArar. Prapatti as a sAdhyOpAyam for moksham is explained in SaraNAgaThi gadyam. The anga prapatti performed by the bhakti yOgin is not a sAdhyOpAya (for obtaining moksham ofcourse). It is only the most important angA for him to perform the bhakti yOgam, which is the actual sAdhyOpAya. This means that, anga prapatti by itself won't be taken as the "vyAjA" by the SiddhOpAyam PerumAL, to grant moksham. But, for prapatti done directly for moksham, the sAdhyOpAyam is this prapatti itself; but, this prapatti includes the most important component of pleading the PerumAL Himself to be present in the place of bhakti yOgam, the another sAdhyOpAyam. Here again, it has to be understood that, mere knowledge of the facts like " for one has to obtain moksham, one needs to completely rely on PerumAL (in the sthAnA of bhakti yOgam) " etc, is not prapatti. One may master the whole prapatti sAstra and may explain everything in and out of it and may lead a life fully dedicated to PerumAL with great devotion etc. But, SwAmi Desikan explains in Srimad RTS, as to how this is also not prapatti, the sAdhyOpAyam for obtaining moksham. The knowledge about prapatti is tattva jn~Anam, born out of studying sAstrAs. But, the "hitam" (means) for obtaining the purushArtam is the "upAya roopa jn~Anam". The act of prapatti involves the mental faculty and is also jn~Ana roopam only. But, this is "upAya roopamAna jn~Anam", disticnt from the "vAkya janya jn~Anam" ( tattva jn~Anam). This prapatti has to be fully complete ie. all the 3 angIs namely Atma, Bhara and phala samarpanam has to be done ( with the 5 angAs) at once. The nature of the prapatti has to be understood from sAstrAs and thats how PerumAL has given in sAstrAs. Only when this prapatti as a sAdhyOpAya is complete in itself, will the siddhOpAya PerumAL grant moksham. If there are some pApa karmA obstructing the performance of prapatti, it won't let that jIvAtma perform prapatti (with full completion of angAs and angIs), though the jIvAtma may still be living a highly devoted and dedicated life towards PerumAL and bhAgavathAs. But, having reached that stage, its just a matter of time for that jIvAtmA to obtain a sadAchArya who can perform prapatti in an appropriate nishtA ; PerumAL will certainly aid him/her in that direction (or very rarely, by the blessings of the AchArya, one might acquire the full competence to know the exact thiru uLLam of PerumAL regarding the prapatti and may perform svanishta prapatti, completely satisfying the perumAL to have it as a "vyAja" for Him to grant moksham). In summary, the two sAdhyOpAyams are different. ------------------------------ Why should one Perform either Bhakti or prapatti as the sAdhyOpAyam ? The simple answer is "because sAstrAs says so" ie. the thiru uLLam (intention) of PerumAL as expressed in sAstrAs is that, only either bhakti or prapatti is the sAdhyOpAyam. All other processes like nAma sankeertanam, recitation of divya prabandham etc should culminate into either of these (ofcourse, in the current age, only prapatti is possible). In kartr-adhikaranA, BAdarAyanar (vyAsar) establishes that jIvAtma has kartrutvam. bAshyakArar in vEdAnta dIpA says : " The next topic for discussion is, whether the jIvAtman is not only a knower (has knowledge/jn~AnA) but also a kartA (doer) or not. The view of SAnkhyAs is that the jIvAtman is not a doer; according to them, jIvAtman merely imagines that he is performing actions, though the actual doers of the actions are the body and the senses, which are manifestations of the pradhAnA. This view is repudiated in this adhikarana " (sUtrA 2.3.33 ): kartA sAstrArtavatvAt ( jIvAtmA is doer; then only can sAstrAs be meaningful) bAshyakArar in vEdAnta dIpa answers the objection made by sAnkhyAs : " You must accept jIvAtman as the doer, if you want to make the vEdic passages to be meaningful, in giving injunctions to perform something like "Perform yaj~nA", "Do upAsanA (bhakti)" which are for the purpose of attaining "SwargA" and "mokshA" respectively. The injunction can only be addressed to a person who can understand it ie. to a chEtana and not to an achEtanA. Again, the injunctions "Perform yaj~nA" OR "Do upAsanA" neccessarily imply that the person addressed is the doer of the sacrifice OR of the upAsanA". So, bhakti yOgA is perfectly in accordance with the svaroopam of a jIvAtmA and is infact expected out of it to give a vyAjA(excuse) for PerumAL to grant the moksham. Similarly, Prapatti is also a sAstric injunction for those who are akinchanAs, to have the "vyAjA" for perumAL to grant moksham. It is PerumAL who issues these commands out of great mercy to these akinchanAs who can't perform upAsanA. BAshyakArar infact while criticizing advaitin's theory of vAkyajanya jn~Anam of tattvam asi (as per their interpretation) as the means of moksham, says about the "injunctions" in sAstrAs about "upAsanA" as a means for moksham ( jIvAtma as a kartA <doer> etc is established earlier; also the injunction in sAstrAs can't be made meaningless; thus upAsana has to be adopted by the mumukshu as a sAdhyOpAyam for obtaining moksham ). Sri PuruSai swAmi in an article on SaraNAgathi cites various injunctions in sAstrAs regarding the performance of prapatti like "SaraNam vraja", "AtmAnam mayI nikshipEd", "AtmAtmeeya bharanyAsO hi Atma nikshEpa uchyatE" etc. SwAmi Desikan points to the same arguments of BAshyakArar to make us understand that Prapatti as a sAdhyOpAyam also needs to be observed by the mumukshu (who has the neccessary qualification for adopting the prapatti) with five angAs and the three angIs, as enjoined in sAstrAs for PerumAL to give moksham. Thus, knowledge that one is a sEshan of PerumAL and that the relationship is inseparable ; knowledge that PerumAL's mercy is the cause for moksham and PerumAL is the upAyam and upEyam etc should culminate into the performance of prapatti in its completeness. It is also to be noted that, gOptrutva varaNam is an angI and the prayer towards PerumAL for granting moksham needs to be performed for the completeness of the prapatti. If one has the mentality that there is no need to ask PerumAL for performing kainkaryam at parama padam, then he/she won't be granted moksham, since PerumAL needs the "vyAja" as the complete prapatti as per His injunctions in the sAstrAs. Thus, in Srimad Rahasyatraya sAram, SwAmi Desikan declares "prapannAtanyEshAmna dicati mukundO nijapadam" ( Lord Mukunda <the granter of moksham> _won't_ grant moksham for those who doesn't perform prapatti ). It is PerumAL who as per the sukrutams of the jIvAtmA aids him in perform prapatti (kartrutva tyAgam). Also, asking for moksham is not for one's own sake, but for the pleasure of PerumAL (mamata and phala tyAgam component of prapatti). Here in the material world, howmuchsoever one has great love towards PerumAL,this material body having the triguNAs will never make the jIvAtma act perfectly according to its svaoopam. For a very simple illustration, many sleep for atleast 6 hours a day - uninterrupted kainkaryam is not possible in the material world; even while performing kainkaryam, complete perfectness in that kainkaryam will not happen in the material world due to the association with the material body. Srimad Azhagiyasingar in the recent tele upanyAsam mentioned that mAlOlan out of His abundant mercy has given the sort of mukthAnubhavam here itself since HH Jeeyar is always with mAlOlan; still HH Jeeyar says (with regret) that 2 to 4 hours in the night gets wasted due to sleep, to illustrate how in this material world, one can't perform kainkaryam properly, in comparison with Sri vaikuNTham, though one may be very much eager to serve PerumAL. Thus, due to the constant association of the material body, as long as one is the material world, one can give _only_ "leelA rasam" for PerumAL. _Only_ in Sri VaikuNTham, can a jIvAtmA give "bhOgya rasam" for PerumAL. PerumAL very eagerly wants the jIvAtmAs to come to Sri vaikuNTham and thats the sole reason He has given sAstrAs, jn~Anam, AchAryAs etc and also takes avatAram etc (upakAra sangraham of swAmi desikan is a masterpiece that needs to be completely understood; SwAmi Desikan ennumerates various helps PerumAL does to the baddha jIvAtmAs). Thus, for his pleasure, we have ask for kainkaryam at Sri VaikuNTham. It is very important to understand that, jIvAtmAs are merely objects to give pleasure to PerumAL ; We are for Him / His enjoyment ; We are not for ourselves. ------------------ Hope that this clarifies. Please do refer to the previous articles on "bhakti and prapatti" and related discussions in the archives. Sri Dileepan has kindly put the main article on "bhakti and prapatti" in the Sri Ahobila Matham webpage : http://www.cdc.net/~dileepan/philoso.html Kindly refer to it also. ---------- (*) : Whenever PerumAL is referred, pirAtti who is inseparable from Him, is automatically referred to and swAmi dESikan declares that the Divya Dampati together acts as the upAyam. More on this are discussed in Srimad Rahasya Traya sAram. PirAtti also has the additional role of performing the purushakAratvam. Just because She is performing this purushakAratvam doesn't mean that She is also an upAyA together with PerumAL. upAya dasai and purushakAratva dasai are different. --------------------------- AzhwAr, yemperumAnAr, dEsikan thiruvadigaLE SaraNam adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan ananthapadmanAbha dAsan krishNArpaNam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 1999 Re: Ananta Padmanabhan's (Anand's) article on Bhakti vs. Prapatti Anand, Thank you for that detailed analysis. However, I think Murali's question still remains unanswered. In the end, only the Lord can achieve moksha for the jIva. Only the Lord is the siddhopAya. The jIva must not only realize that the Lord is helpful in bhakti-yoga, but that his efforts will be of no avail without the Lord's sankalpa to take him to moksha. Recall Swami Desika's statement in Srimad Ashtabhujashtakam: tvayi pravRtte mama kim prayAsai:, tvayyapravRtte mama kim prayAsai:. Now, if the bhakti-yogi must also realize that the Lord alone can accomplish the burden of taking him to moksha, how is this different from prapatti? Does this not make prapatti alone the true sAdhyopAya? I believe this is the heart of Murali's question. I do not have an answer to it, which is why I have not followed up myself. In other words, does bhakti-yoga not only begin with prapatti, but also end with prapatti, because the jIva realizes his or her complete inability to achieve moksha without the Lord's grace? And in throwing himself at the Lord's feet out of this recognition of the inability, how is he or she any different from the prapanna? Krishna Kalale is the right one to solve this problem for us -- I hope he is not too busy and can answer this question. adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan Mani Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 7, 1999 Sri: Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrivaNN- SatakOpa Sri nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha namO nArAyaNA. Dear Sri Balaraman, thanks for your question. Balaraman M Sriram wrote: > Sri Anand Wrote: > > >All other processes like nAma > >sankeertanam, recitation of divya prabandham etc > >should culminate into either of these (ofcourse, in > >the current age, only prapatti is possible). > > How is it possible to make a blanket statement on > other processes like this ? Can this be > substantiated ? Upanishads prescribe Brahma vidyAs ie. the sAdhyOpAyAs that can be performed to obtain moksham (granted by PerumAL, the siddhOpAyam). Bhakti or upAsana can be made in 32 different ways. A yogI chooses according to his taste, a particular upAsanA and completes it and then ascents to Sri VaikuNTham. Upanishads also tell us about nyAsa vidya. This brahma vidya is the prapatti. This also is a sAdhyOpAya. There are no other mentioned brahma vidyAs in the Upanishads - be it nAma sankeertanam, performing archanA to deities etc. This is a well established fact in Brahma sUtrAs, bhagavad gItA etc. PerumAL Himself, in Ahirbudhnya samhitA categorically declares: " bhaktyA paramayA vA-pi prapattyA vA mahAmathe prApyoham na anyathA prApyO mama kainkarya lipsubhihi" PerumAL declares that bhakti and prapatti are the only means (sAdhyOpAyam, to be adopted by a jIvAtma) for which He will grant moksham (kainkaryam at Sri vaikuNTham) & for _no other means_ adopted by the jIvAtmA, will He grant moksham. Granthams like SribAshyam, Prapanna pArijAtam of nadAdUr ammAL, Rahasyatraya sAram of swAmi dEsikan extensively deals with these things. This doesn't mean anything bad about nAma sankeertanam - which is supremly glorifiable. But, nAma sankeertanam is not directly a sAdhyOpAyam; it has to lead to any of the prescribed brahma vidyAs. But, it is for sure that those who perform nAma sankeertanam with great devotion will certainly be aided by PerumAL to adopt a sAdhyOpAya soon to attain Him. Thus, one can also tell that nAma sankeertanam gives moksham, though its implied that it leads to a sAdhyOpAyam. > > In a different thread, Sriman Sadagopan wrote: > > >Thyaga Brahmam recited 15,000 Raama Naamms > >per day and by the age 38 completed 96 crores of > >Sri Raama naama Japam and had the Darsanam > >of Sri raamA and Sri LakshmaNA in the Yaaga- > >SamrakshaNa pose in front of his door . > > Doesnt this show reciting the names of the lord gives us > his darsanam. Is something more required than this ? An > average devotee doing nama sankirtanam chants > 16 X 108 beads X 16 names =27,648 names of the lord. > I would tend to believe this process keeps him > in touch with the lord the whole day than any other > means. Anything else will be more difficult than this. PerumAL certainly reciprocates to His devotees in various ways ; no one can comprehend it. He is bhakta vatsalan. Infact, King Dasaratha was very fortunate to have Lord Rama to be his son. He was constantly enjoying the company of PerumAL and it was not that he saw PerumAL just for a while. But, Dasarathar went only to svargA after his death, since he didn't complete either bhakti yOgam OR prapatti. PAndavAs also were very intimate with Lord Krishna. But, for moksham, they didn't perform either prapatti OR upAsanA, and thus didn't obtain moksham that time. But, during the rAmAvatAram, trijadai performed prapatti for herself and other rAkshasIs, and all of them obtained moksham !! PerumAL is sathya sankalpan and according to His sankalpam, as given in the sAstrAs one has to complete either of bhakti OR prapatti to finally attain Him. Ofcourse, its left to the devotee. If he chooses to be here and spend time in chanting and serving bhAgavathAs etc, PerumAL also doesn't force him to adopt a sAdhyOpAyam. Its left to the individual. The karmA associated with a jIvAtmA is anAdi. The present body of a jIvAtmA is due to the prArabdha karmA. This prArabdha karmA by itself may be giving, say 5 bodies in different species. Once this prArabdha karmA is over, from the bank of sanchita karmA, next prArabdha karmA starts acting ....this complicated process goes on. But, along such a journey, the jIvAtma acquires various sukrudams also. Thus, though according to the current prArabdha karmA, the jIvAtma may be deprived of bhagavad anubhavam, but due to the sukrudams it has accumulated from anAdi, that jIvAtmA will be made to perform prapatti by PerumAL and it will ascend to Sri VaikuNTham. For example, all the rAkshasIs were torturing sItA pirAtti ; but finally obtained moksham. Only due to their sukrudam, they were at asOka vanam with trijadai, sIta pirAtti and finally obtained moksham also due to the prapatti of trijadai for them. In another case, though in the current life one is highly devoted, some pApa(s) of the past may obstruct that jIvAtma from performing prapatti (or other sAdhyOpAyAs). > > If somebody cannot do this simple process regularly > where is he/her going to do nitya kaimkaryam in > Sri Vaikuntam eternally?. Practically speaking > most of us do not have enough time to complete > thier office work or education and/or attend social > functions.Theory is onething and its application > is another. Anyway adiyen just expressed his > humble opinion in a practical stand point.Any > offences may please be excused. > Your point is well taken. But sAstrAs will never go wrong. It is important that we understand it properly. Though people may be degraded (whatever relative scale you want to adopt), it is the most merciful Sri vaishnava Sat sampradAya AchAryas who perform the prapatti for them. Infact, there are many instances where prapatti's glories became pratyaksham (direct observation) itself (eg: some have performed Artha prapatti and have ascended to VaikuNTham, immedietly after the performance of prapatti by the AchArya; some have requested PerumAL to make them ascend to VaikuNTham on a specific date <to complete some kainkaryam here in the mean time> and have thus ascended to Sri vaikuNTham exactly on that date). But, the only thing needed is the "mahA visvAsam" on the Lord's assurance for prapannAs - Prapatti will NEVER be forsaken by PerumAL. There is not even an iota of doubt that once prapatti gets done by a jIvAtmA, in whatever nishta be it, moksham is assured by PerumAL at whatever time the jIvAtmA wanted. adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan ananthapadmanAbha dAsan krishNArpaNam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 9, 1999 Anand Karalapakkam [sMTP:anand] Friday, April 09, 1999 12:01 PM bhakti Re:Prappatti Sri: Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAAdukA sEvaka SrivaNN- SatakOpa Sri nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha namO nArAyaNA. Dear Sri Mani and Sri MuraLi, Probably Sri krishna kalale is busy. adiyEn just thought of posting this in the meantime. -------------------------------- summary : Bhakti yOga ie. upAsana doesn't end in prapatti (done for moksham). UpAsana is a separate route , prapatti (for moksham) is a separate route. Both are valid routes to be adopted by a mumukshu according to his/her qualification/taste etc. [Krishna Kalale] ------------------------------ [Krishna Kalale] NO Bhakti yoga will end in prapatti! (one has to understand the details clearly before opposing this statement). I was waiting to call Dr. N.S Anantharangachar. I did call him last night. I have some thing to say here though. He explained all these clearly. I did do some research in to this. I will write about this soon in detail. Please bear with me. > > Thank you for that detailed analysis. However, I think > his question still remains unanswered. In the end, > only the Lord can achieve moksha for the jIva. Only the > Lord is the siddhopAya. The jIva must not only realize > that the Lord is helpful in bhakti-yoga, but that his > efforts will be of no avail without the Lord's sankalpa > to take him to moksha. Recall Swami Desika's statement > in Srimad Ashtabhujashtakam: tvayi pravRtte mama kim > prayAsai:, tvayyapravRtte mama kim prayAsai:. There is no doubt that PerumAL is the siddhOpAya etc. But that same PerumAL has putforth in the sAstrAs that "upAsana" as a sAdhyOpAya _needs_ to be performed and completed for Him to grant moksham. Here it is a sAstric injunction to take up upAsana, if one is interested in moksham. Thats why, one has to perform upAsana. If PerumAL would have told that, daily, one has to run 10 miles for 30 days chanting "namO nArAyaNA", and then He will grant mOksham, then one has to do that, if he/she aspires for moksham ( :-) ). The bottomline is that "Do upAsana for moksham" is a sAstric injunction to be obeyed by a mumukshu if he needs kainkaryam at SrivaikuNTham. Please go through the beginning portion of the previous posting as well. > Now, if the bhakti-yogi must also realize that the Lord > alone can accomplish the burden of taking him to moksha, > how is this different from prapatti? Does this not make > prapatti alone the true sAdhyopAya? > What is meant by "Lord alone can accomplish the burden of taking him to moksha" ? This only means that PerumAL is the siddhOpAyam ie. just because one is performing bhakti yOgA doesn't mean that it automatically gives him moksham; it is the PerumAL who being satisfied with the completion of that upAsana grants the moksham. If you meant that a bhakti yOgi _should_ realize that PerumAL _alone_ can stand in the place of bhakti yOgA (ie. take the burden), then it is not correct. SAstrAs never say that one should quit upAsanA; rather one should take it up and complete it. Only if one is incompetent, then as an akinchanA, with great kArpanyam one should perform prapatti (bhara samarpanam etc). There is a huge difference between these two statements : a. "Realize that upAsana as the sAdhyOpAyam can't be done by you(all jIvAtmAs) and thus put the burden on PerumAL (to stand in place of upAsana) and perform prapatti " b. " If you feel unqualified for performing upAsana as the sAdhyOpAyam, put the burden on PerumAL and perform prapatti ". Statement "a" is not supported by sAstrAs. Upanishads never say that upAsana has to be quit and nyAsa vidya has to be adopted instead. PerumAL leaves the choice to the individual (based on his/her qualification). We can't say that a bhakti yOgi should take up prapatti only as a sAdhyOpAyam. Its upto the mumukshu. vyAsar, sukar, bheeshmar, thirukkurugaik kAvalappan (nAthamunigaL's sishyar) and others have adopted it. But, they will have immmense bhagavad anubhavam and almost no problems are caused by their material bodies (perfect control); thus, they don't feel the pressure of time and thus continued to perform upAsana. Its perfectly within the capacity of a baddha jIvAtma to perform upAsana and many have done in the past to adopt it and obtain moksham. If it is not within the capacity of a jIvAtmA to perform upAsana, then sAstrAs wouldn't have given that injunction (if so, those injunctions would become meaningless ; whole brahma sUtram, SribAshyam becomes meaningless etc -> clear absurdity). So, its not a rule that a bhakti yogi should feel as if he can't do upAsana, when he actually can (ofcourse with the blessings of PerumAL). > I believe this is the heart of his question. I do > not have an answer to it, which is why I have not followed > up myself. > > In other words, does bhakti-yoga not only begin with > prapatti, but also end with prapatti, because the jIva > realizes his or her complete inability to achieve moksha > without the Lord's grace? And in throwing himself at the > Lord's feet out of this recognition of the inability, how > is he or she any different from the prapanna? already answered. If at some point of time a yOgi feels that he can't pursue upAsana, he can pursue nyAsa vidya (prapatti) instead. The bhagavad anubhavam one obtains through upAsana makes that yOgi forget everything else; he is absorbed in it ; he willingly does it; PerumAL reciprocates; time is almost forgotten by them ......etc; only when one reaches such stage can one understand why bhakti yOgins continue to perform upAsana. Ofcourse, karma is anAdi and freewill is also there => no one can say that a mumukshu will follow this upAsanA out of the 32 prescribed ones / a mumukshu will follow prapatti only etc. Its entirely left to the mumukshu who according to the karma/sukrudams etc factors, performs some sAdhyOpAya. Bhakti and prapatti are separate sAdhyOpAyams and it is not that bhakti leads to prapatti. One can only say "bhakti" ie. devotion in the sense of sravanam, keertanam will lead to prapatti. ---------- Sri Mani: This is just for clarification ; You anyway already know that these two sAdhyOpAyams are separate. adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan ananthapadmanAbha dAsan krishNArpaNam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 10, 1999 > > Sri: > Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha > Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAAdukA sEvaka SrivaNN- > SatakOpa Sri nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha > > namO nArAyaNA. > Dear Sri Krishna, > -------------------------------- > summary : > Bhakti yOga ie. upAsana doesn't end in prapatti (done > for moksham). UpAsana is a separate route , prapatti > (for moksham) is a separate route. Both are valid routes > to be adopted by a mumukshu according to his/her > qualification/taste etc. > [Krishna Kalale] > > ------------------------------ > [Krishna Kalale] NO Bhakti yoga will end in prapatti! (one has to > understand the details clearly before opposing this statement). I was > waiting to call Dr. N.S Anantharangachar. I did call him last night. I > have some thing to say here though. He explained all these clearly. I did > do some research in to this. I will write about this soon in detail. > Please bear with me. In your posting, you have not explained anything contradictory to what adiyEn posted earlier. In your posting, you have only told that Bhakti and Prapatti are two alternative routes to different adhigAris and that a bhakti yOgi may choose to opt for prapatti ( say he is unable to wait further etc). You have not posted that bhakti _will_ end in prapatti performed for moksham. Can you please clarify whether you still claim that bhakti (upAsanA) _will_ end with prapatti (for moksham) , while in the same breath maintain that bhakti and prapatti are two different sAdhyOpAyAs ? thanks. > > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan > ananthapadmanAbha dAsan > krishNArpaNam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
