from srI lakshmi narasimhan - on nirhEthuka/sahEthuka krupa

[Guest guest]

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

they have attained this level.While, this is so, Sahetukam has to be

understood and considered only from the perspective of the Paramatma.

He does not use HIS swathanthryam to award any moksham. He wants US

to change our mind and turn towards HIM and hence, HE calls it

Sahetukam and gives dumb reasons to justify granting of moksham

even to people like Ajamilan.

 

I apologize for all my mistakes and misunderstandings.

 

Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim

 

Adiyen Ramanuja DAsan,

Lakshmi Narasimhan

[Guest guest]

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 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 ===

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

> 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.

>

>

> azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

 

What a beautiful concept! Thank you so much for sharing this.

 

Ramanuja dAsan

Mohan

[Guest guest]

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

 

ramanuja, vimalkumar ranganathan

<panardasan> 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> 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 ===

>

>

>

>

> The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

> http://search.

[Guest guest]

>

> 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.

 

Dear Sriman Narasimhan,

 

If the God wants to give mOksha to the jIva, why would He expect

something in return? He neither loses nor gains in the process.

 

> 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.

>

 

Unquote:

Acoording to the Alwars, that realization comes only out of His grace.

 

>

 

..

>

> 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)

 

Unquote:

There are some obstacles in His getting us to His abode, which are

again there due to His lIlA. Thes obstacles are our ahankAram and

mamakAram. A jIva who is not willing to go therE will not go. But

will a jIva without any ahankAra, mamakAra, be unwilling to be placed

there? No. Who has to drive away these two enemies i.e. ahankAra and

mamakAra (virOdhi nirasanam)? It is God only, according to Alwars. So

it is He who creates the mind set that we are subservient to Him and

takes us to Him.

 

>

> 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).

 

I agree with you.

 

>

> 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.

 

So, where is the hEtu above from the perspectiuve of Lord?

 

>

>

> > 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

> they have attained this level.While, this is so, Sahetukam has to

be

> understood and considered only from the perspective of the

Paramatma.

> He does not use HIS swathanthryam to award any moksham. He wants US

> to change our mind and turn towards HIM and hence, HE calls it

> Sahetukam and gives dumb reasons to justify granting of moksham

> even to people like Ajamilan.

 

Unquote:

Alwars want us to be selfless and not have the slightest trace of

ahankAram ("nIr numadhennivai.." someone may please post the meaning

according to commentators). This is not just out of immense love for

Him but with the wisdom of giving a practical philosophy (in addition

to their love for the Supreme) for our anushtAnams (practices). So,

once He changes our mind set and make us accept Him as our master, we

need not do anything for our mOksha (even otherwise we need not), but

simply think of His qualities and be useful to others (bhAgavata

SEshatvam). On the other hand, if we believe in self-efforts,

everybody will be busy with his own efforts and there will not be any

concern for the fellow human beings.

 

Adiyen Ramanuja DAsan

Srimahavishnu Vinjamuri

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

Dear Shri Vishnu,

I apologize for not being able to understand your style of writing. I

don't know whether you are asking questions, or whether you are just

making some comments. Please forgive me for the same. Meanwhile, I

have tried to understand one of your questions and am replying to the

same.

 

> If the God wants to give mOksha to the jIva, why would He expect

> something in return? He neither loses nor gains in the process.

This is exactly what I had explained in my previous post regarding

swaroopam and swabhavam. Lord loses nothing as per his swaroopam. But

his swabhavam is such that he eagerly expects the jeevatma to turn

towards HIM out of "its" will and not by HIS will.

 

Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

 

Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

Lakshmi Narasimhan

[Guest guest]

ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

<nrusimhan@h...> wrote:

> Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

>

> Dear Shri Vishnu,

> I apologize for not being able to understand your style of writing.

I

> don't know whether you are asking questions, or whether you are

just

> making some comments. Please forgive me for the same. Meanwhile, I

> have tried to understand one of your questions and am replying to

the

> same.

>

> > If the God wants to give mOksha to the jIva, why would He expect

> > something in return? He neither loses nor gains in the process.

> This is exactly what I had explained in my previous post regarding

> swaroopam and swabhavam. Lord loses nothing as per his swaroopam.

But

> his swabhavam is such that he eagerly expects the jeevatma to turn

> towards HIM out of "its" will and not by HIS will.

>

 

Dear Sriman Narasimhan,

 

According to Alwars, that mind set of turning toward Him is also

created by Him. So it is He who opens our door, though we shut it.

You yourself have said that Alwars say that they have not done

anything to get Him. To me what they say appears to be logical and

convincing. That is why I am saying even the mind set is created by

Him and love for Him generated by Him. So nothing is forced on us.

 

In "Vadinen Vadi" pASuram, thirumangai Alwar says he got the

Thirumantra while he was going after ladies. So is he not conveying

that there need be no effort from us?

 

In the very beginning of ThiurvAimozhi, Nammalwar says, the gnAna abt

Him is given by Him out of His grace. Same thing is taught in

sanskrit by Alawandar as he says "aklishta gnAnam" (easy knowledge -

since it needs no efforts from the learner!) in the beginning of

stotra ratna.

 

As I said in previous posting, our ahankAra and mamakAra are the

stumbling block in His getting us and nobody goes there with ego.

But He Himself will do the virOdhi nirasanam i.e. removing those

obstacles as we are not supposed to protect ourselves (since we

cannot).

 

Alwars' teachings are very practical and confidence building, I was

taught.

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan

Vishnu

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

 

> This is exactly what I had explained in my previous post regarding

> swaroopam and swabhavam. Lord loses nothing as per his swaroopam.

> But his swabhavam is such that he eagerly expects the jeevatma to

> turn towards HIM out of "its" will and not by HIS will.

 

This "turning towards Him" also happens due to His grace only and the

jIvatma realizes that it has realized its swarUpam(wrt God) because

of God's grace ONLY and not out of its "own will". I have the english

trasnlation by van buitenan of EmperumAnAr's gita bhAShyam. I don't

have the book right now but can quote the exact words(that this

realization happens due to His grace ONLY)sometime later if one

wants. Nowhere in divya prabandham,AzhvArs claim/declare that they

realized their swarUpam out of their "own will" but by His will only.

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai