Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Free will

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA

APPAN THIRUVADIGALE SARANAM

 

 

 

Dear Bhagavatas. Accept my pranam.

 

Doubts are expressed about Nirhethuka Krubai, Moksham and action.

 

Let us analyse these points.

 

Action: Action can be done instinctively with or without knowledge or thought.

The result may be anything

 

A humorous illustration: One of my friend was wandering with men in a road ,

rather area. away from his habitat. On questioning his motive, the reply was :

Swamin, yesterday I was walking in this road .Suddenly a rickshaw passed by me

crushing the tail of a dog lying nearby, which immediately bit me as I was the

nearest target. The doctor who treated me wants the dog to be produced to verify

whether it was a mad one or not. See my fate! For no fault of mine I am running

after a stray dog besides being bitten by it.

The dog acted on its free will with out any thought. A reflex action.

Most of us act or react in similar situations.similarly

 

2. Action based on insufficient knowledge. The result will not be as desired.

 

3. Action based on complete knowledge and sufficient efforts under ideal

conditions

We can expect the results

 

 

These conditions apply to material goods and may apply to some extent to

spiritual efforts also. The parameters for MOKSHA are many. Hence, it cannot be

definitely said that results can be achieved by our actions.

 

 

 

MOKSHA; Release from Samsara once for all. The enlightened soul will not be

affected the results of his actions, be it a pleasure or pain. He will consider

both on a par and will be interested in getting away from samsara. He has no

more desire to be full filled or no more work to be carried out here. He may not

get PARAPAPADAM or Emperuman Sriman Narayanan, if he had not concentrated his

thoughts and actions on HIM. Perhaps he may get KAIVALYA MOKSHAM.

Periyazhvar,Nammazhvar , other alwaras and our Poorvacharays have explained this

point very well.

 

So, should we not do something to reach Sriman Narayanan? YES.

 

1. We are believers in a supreme GOD who only can grant Moksha.

2. Nonbelievers are free to exercise their will as they like and enjoy or

endure the results.

3. In the first place we find apart from self there are other human beings,

living things, matter and Supreme God.

4. We find that we or other human beings cannot create anything as original

which has not existed before. We cannot create ourselves also.

5. We utilize the surrounding things and human beings as available to us

6. Such utilizations can be called as discovery or invention etc.,

7. But, how did the things used by us came into existence in the world.?

8. Definitely not by our free will or effort.

9. So, the Supreme God is the creator of entire things for his pleasure.

10. Our elders say so and we can accept it.

11. Because, the Supreme God is all-powerful, etc., and no one is equal to

him or greater than him.

12. So when everything is the creation of the supreme god. it is his property

only and we are allowed to have them for some specific purpose. We are

caretakers or DHARMAKARTAS. Can a cashier in a bank think all the money handled

by him while doing his duty as his own?

13. So, the very thought I, mine is shaky.

14. While doing your duty at times, you will have to exercise some option.

You opt for based on the knowledge you have at that time. If you use the word

“WILL’ it is a misnomer. There is nothing free. You have done an act as

considered by you as correct.

15. You cannot usurp the property of Emperuman as yours and think you have

done something.

16. Our actions are influenced by the reactions of our previous acts and our

gunas and our knowledge

17. We do not know our previous births . We will not know our future births.

 

When such is our condition : We cannot create ourselves or any other thing and

do not know our future. How is it possible to call our thoughts as free will and

construe the bodies as ours and the things in our control to be of ours ? A

MISCONCEPTION

 

WE ARE IN SAMSARA TO GAIN SOME EXPERIENCE because of our previous actions.

Nothing belongs to us. Our actions are influenced by the bodies we have got this

time {ie., the gunas, indriyas,and our knowledge etc.,}

 

This type of birth and death will go on forever and it is for us decide whether

we want this world or to get away from it once for all. This option also occurs

to us after a long journey in samsara and at some point we have had the

opportunity of getting God’s grace

Knowingly or unknowingly. That is grace and you have not resented to it. So,

further progress happens.

Let us see more in the next mail Adiyen Ramanuja dasan, T.Parthasarathy.

 

_

Impress your clients! Send mail from me @ mycompany.com .

Just Rs.1499/year.

Click http://www.rediffmailpro.com to know more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

Dear Shri Bhagavadhottamas,

 

>God will shower His grace without any act of surrender. We are

>already His. That is what Sri Alawandar conveys in stotra ratna

>("mama nAtha yadasti yOsmyaham...).

 

>If we have to do soemthing, how can His grace be nirhEtukam?

 

>Prapatti as an act is not there in all thenkalai paramparAs. What I

>mean is, some AchAryas do not include this as a ritual in their

>samASrayaNam. So whoever is belonging to these paramparAs does not

>do something that is considered by others as prapatti.

 

In the above,

>God will shower His grace without any act of surrender.

I strongly disagree with the above statement due to the absence of

the word "too" at the end. God will shower His grace, without any act

of surrender too. This does not mean that one should take for granted

God will anyway shower His grace, and hence can do whatever he/she

wants. This is not as per our Sampradayam.

 

>Prapatti as an act is not there in all thenkalai paramparAs.

Prapatti as a "physical" act is not there in all Thenkalai

paramparAs. For any act, the cause is the intent. Whether followed by

act or not, the intent is pretty much the actual karma and not the

physial act. As elders say, for Brahmanas, even a thought of killing

a cow or anything else becomes a papam. Why would they say so? Hence,

if the intent is what is the actual karma(immaterial of whether an

act follows it or not), then realizing prapatti or understanding it

or following it whatever, whether for moksham(means) or as His

kainkaryam, all these things become "our" acts.

 

Iranyan, Sisupalan, Ravanan, pretty much all those asuras who died

out of lord's hands(or weapon) got the moksham. This is what is

Nirhetuka krupai of the lord. He uses His free will. He may choose

anyone at random and give him/her moksham. At the same time, if one

does bhakthi, karma, raja, sankhya yogas etc, then ALSO He would give

moksham(He has promised Himself in Gita). If one "does" prapatti,

then also He would give moksham. If this weren't true, out of 18

chapters, whatever the lord had promised saying one would attain

moksha if he/she does those yogas, would be breached.

 

Moreover, there are various types of mokshams(Salokyam, Sarupyam,

Sameepyam, Sayujyam, Kaivalyam etc). The moksham attained by Sahetukam

(we doing something for attaining moksham) is not valued as that of

the one attained by Prapatti, is what is my understanding of the

Thennacharya Sampradayam. Note: Sahetukam does not lead to Kaivalyam.

Kaivalyam is a moksham where the atma enjoys itself. Sahetukam "may"

lead to this i.e this Kaivalyam is a trap and hence our Acharyas have

warned us about this. This by no means stops one from following the

Karma, Raja, Bhakthi yogas.

 

In other yoga margams, one is instructed to do certain things i.e one

must follow certain disciplines in order to attain the results. One

could do prapatti and still live the way one wants to live.

Prapatti is an advanced stage of other yogas. In Prapatti, one

realizes that he/she belongs to Him and hence He is the upayam and

upeyam. The moment we say "He" is the means, then, this too becomes

an effort by us to use Him as a means to attain Him. Whether we go by

markata or marjara nyaya, the point is one puts effort. If a baby

doesn't cry, a mother feeds the baby automatically is what we say. If

the baby is bit by a snake and still doesn't cry, the mother will not

know about this, only to see her baby die. So, we can use these

examples to support individuals views. If we are going to sit like a

baby not doing "anything" assuming he would shower his Nirhetuka

grace, what happens to the world? Is this what our Acharyas told us?

Ok. Assume, you do kainkaryam, instead of sitting idle. Why would you

do kainkaryam? Why not something else? Even then the lord will shower

His grace right? So, why was the concept of Kainkaryam even

introduced/insisted by our Acharyas? Why they introduced the concept

of "change in mindset" which they call as Prapatti? Why did our

Acharyas bring in the tradition of so many things in the name of

kainkaryam, while we could do anything and everything(including what

we call the sinful actions) having realized Prapatti? The only answer

is, when one realizes Prapatti, he/she will automatically tend to

think whatever he/she does as a kainkaryam. So, any act done by a

Prapannan becomes a kainkaryam(and by default, the Prapannan would

not get into sinful actions). But, for this, one needs to know, how

it is, to realize Prapatti and atma swaroopam. No one can make other,

realize Prapatti, by making them read his/her writings because, one

could realize Prapatti only by the lord's grace(or Acharya's grace

i.e the lord's grace through a person).

 

What Smt Sumithra said was correct from a different point of view. We

could always bring in statements in support of / against, other's

understandings/views. But we need to understand that these mails or

articles can, in no way enlighten people. These articles can add

value. We could discuss so many other things that add value instead

of discussing these rahasyams which lead to combative articles due to

lack of expressiveness, understanding, interpretations etc. I

apologize to everyone to have written many posts on this subject and

has caused a chaos not realizing that this subject is not for these

kind of internet discussions. This is my last post on this subject

and hence request others not to expect any further reply from me on

this, while they could continue to comment/criticize this post at

their will.

 

My humble apologies in case of any offense perceived.

 

Adiyen,

Ramanuja Dasan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Srimad Vara Vara Munaye nama:

 

> In the above,God will shower His grace without any act of surrender.

> I strongly disagree with the above statement due to the absence of

> the word "too" at the end. God will shower His grace, without any

> act of surrender too. This does not mean that one should take for

> granted God will anyway shower His grace, and hence can do whatever

> he/she wants. This is not as per our Sampradayam.

 

Whether or not "too" appears at the end "does not" matter. Moreover,

Vishnu didn't write anywhere that the Lord "will not" shower His

grace on those who surrender!!! ALL what matters is "His fee will and

nirhEthu krpa". Long time back Tirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh wrote a

nice article expressing the views of TennAcArya sampradAyam. The

relation between ParamAtma & jIvAtmA is similar to the relation

between jIvAtmA & acit.

 

One can not do whatever one wants when one realizes "the true nature"

of God's grace. I can quote "my own" personal life as an example! I'm

born in a TK family and my parents have taught us the gist(beware not

the details!) of TK sampradAyam and yet I used to indulge in "some"

negative acts which I don't do anymore. Why? It's because of

the "proper knowledge" of the nirhEthuka krpa and the "essential

nature of the self". Why did not the Lord give me this knowledge, say

a decade ago? Everyday I ask the Lord "why didn't You do this yrs

back? and things would have been different! Why,why,why?" And then I

laugh loudly at myself looking at the photo of "uRanguvAn pOl yOgam

seidhu" SriRanganATha:-)

 

> Whether we go by markata or marjara nyaya, the point is one puts

> effort. If a baby doesn't cry, a mother feeds the baby

> automatically is what we say. If the baby is bit by a snake and

> still doesn't cry, the mother will not know about this, only to see

> her baby die. So, we can use these examples to support individuals

> views. If we are going to sit like a baby not doing "anything"

> assuming he would shower his Nirhetuka grace, what happens to the

> world? Is this what our Acharyas told us?

 

In the "mArjara" case,the effort on the part of the kitten is "so

minuscule" that it "DOES NOT" deserve "ANY" credit/mention! First of

all,the mother is not going to leave the baby in the backyard or

frontyard for the baby to get bitten by a deadly spitting cobra!

If she does, she is either a fool or knowledgeable,"knowingly well"

what might happen to her baby.

 

It is "HIGHLY IMPOSSIBLE" for anyone to sit idle and not

do "ANYTHING". You can refer to BG. I don't remember the sloka but

I'm 200% sure that it is said in there. Atleast the jIvAtmA will go

to the restroom,or atleast drink a glass of water. This is the nature

of prakrthi. JIvAtmA/AcAryA(Cf AcArya lakshaNam in SVB) "need not"

worry about the world for the world is not "it's creation"! The

person/Lord who created/invented needs to worry and it is solely His

business/concern to rectify what He created/invented acit/jIvAtmA.

Could EmperumAnAr change the entire lIla vibhUthi? NO. Why?

Because,by emperumAnAr's own words(to UyyakkoNdAr),the jIvAtmA

"lacks" the "grace of the Lord" and that is it's fate and that's why

this lIla vibhUthi is still on-going and we are writing posts and

exchanging/sharing views in Ramanuja e-list!

 

> So, why was the concept of Kainkaryam even introduced/insisted by

> our Acharyas? Why they introduced the concept of "change in

> mindset" which they call as Prapatti? Why did our

> Acharyas bring in the tradition of so many things in the name of

> kainkaryam, while we could do anything and everything(including

> what we call the sinful actions) having realized Prapatti?

 

The AcAryAs "did not introduce" any new "concept of kaimkaryam". It

is the "innate" or "inherent" trait of the jIvAtmAs! But due to

prakrthi maNdalam,that is relegated to the back door and ego and

other traits have taken predominance thereby "conceiling" the

essential nature of the jIvAtmA. If we say that our AcAryAs

"introduced" some new concept "in the middle" then we can't

claim/chant "lakshmI nATha samArambAm...." in the Guru Parampara

lineage. Our AcAryAs brought out the tradition/concepts,that was

existing time immemorial,to the lime light. That is all. They did not

introduce any new concepts.

 

> could always bring in statements in support of / against, other's

> understandings/views. But we need to understand that these mails or

> articles can, in no way enlighten people. These articles can add

> value. We could discuss so many other things that add value instead

> of discussing these rahasyams which lead to combative articles due

> to lack of expressiveness, understanding, interpretations etc.

 

So what kind of "philosophical" or "esoteric stuff" or "other things"

one can discuss in R's e-list? If we say R sampradAyam,everything

(mOksham,hence tirumanthram,prapatti then automaticallly other three

yogas,so on and so forth!) is "INTER-RELATED". If the

jIvAtmA has ego,obviously everything will appear as offensive.

Mind,with Ego in full swing,has the capacity to take anything as

offensive. If there is a value in the post,the reader should take it

otherwise leave/reject it. Or (i)R's list can be shut down! (ii)make

it only TK forum (iii) even among TKs,allow only those "who get recos

from jIyars/AcAryAs" as members. But if it becomes "limited or

restricted" it loses the status to retain the title "Ramanuja/

emperumAnAr dharshanam"! Kindly pardon me and my expressive mind.

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Sri:

 

Srimate Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Respected Adiyaars,

 

As the person who started this topic of

discussion, I would like to add a few points.

 

* According to Smt. Sumithra, it is the will of the person who gives food or

alms to the beggar. Well, but still the beggar still has to beg for food,

right?? Only since the beggar made calls for alms, did the owner decides or

does't not decide to give alms. So, the act of the beggar becomes the main cause

of food. Considering this example alone, Moksha then becomes Sahetukam (Beggar

first makes call for alms, which means Jeevatma surrenders first)

 

* Lets talk about free will for a second. I had submited this point in a private

mail to one of the active members of this forum. Let me repost the same point

here:

 

If person A is God and person B is the jeeva. A controls B totally. B is totally

dependent on A. B cannot do any activites on his own (meaning no free will).

This is the scenario. Suppose if B performs something sinful, it is understand

that actually it is person A who is actually the doer. Given this, how can

person A tell person B, "hey, you have done this and not done that, so you go to

hell for that, or undergo karmic reactions for this". Sounds totally illogical,

right?? In other words, if A is the ultimate doer of things, how can he ask B to

do things like "Ask questions" or "Don't do this" or even "Surrender"?? I mean,

isn't it totally illogical if person A even asks B to do anything at all, given

that A is actually the doer??

 

* With respect to Nirhetukam which means, "Causeless Mercy". Well, the same

Bhagavad Gita, which speaks about Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and

finally Prapatti, somehow fails to talk about the "Causeless Mercy" of the lord.

Perumal only says, "surrender, do this, do that". Not in a single verse has he

said, "Just surrender unto me mentally and remain a vegetable physically". No.

 

Can I surrender to an Acarya, have Samashrayanam done and mentally pray to

Perumal, "I am yours. I have surrendered unto You. Whatver I do, You are the

Karta", and then end up watching a nice episode of Seinfeld?? Meaning, does it

reflect the traits of a prapanna??

 

* Based on what has appealed to my logic (which is totally inferior and flawed),

I am of the opinion that we do have a bare minimum of free will. Based on that

free will, we exercise options, we choose. We choose to surrender or not

surrender. If we don't surrender, then again we get lost in this cycle of

samsara.

 

If we do surrender, then Perumal grants us Moksha. Like Sri Lakshmi Narayanan

pointed out, perumal grants moksha to people are perceived to be undeserving

too, like Sisupala, etc. That is his causeless mercy, or Nirhetuka Kripai. Or in

other words, Nirhetuka Kripai cannot be perceived to be the ONLY means of

Moksham.

 

* The third idea that is suggested is this: We surrender, but still perumal

chooses to grant moksha or not, based on his will. I think it is a very

dangerous, demotivating point. Historically, there has never been a case in

which Perumal had failed to offer Moksha to somebody who had surrendered. He

might have tested them, like Sri Thondaradippodi AzhwAr, but had never failed to

offer to them Moksha.

 

* The same Carama Shloka ends with the phrase, "Ma Sucah", means "do not fear".

How many times has Perumal used words like "Asamsayah" which means, "do not

doubt", or even words like "Satyam", which means "Promise"!! The same perumal

who has used very powerful, assuring words like the above, cannot fail to offer

Moksha to a fully surrendered person.

 

* So, the crux of the matter is this: Instead of just relying on the "Nirhetuka

Kripa" of perumal, it is a good idea for us to follow His instructions. Accept

an AcAryan. Surrender unto Him. And follow the spiritual practices as laid down

by him. Why?? Because Perumal says so.

 

* Well, stickers to the idea of "ONLY-NIRHETUKA KRIPA" can raise this wonderful

point: They can say that it is the same Perumal who makes a person surrender

unto him. Meaning, if one is even remotely interested in Bhagavath Vishayam, it

is just because of the mercy of Perumal alone, or in other words, Perumal

chooses his surrenderers. We don't have any free-will, and anybody who even

"chooses" to surrender does so because of Perumal's Nirhetuka Kripa. But then

the counter-point is that, then Bhagavad Gita is just a stage-show for Perumal.

Since, he chooses his prapannas, he is just joking when he says things like

"Surrender unto me.." etc.

 

I really hope and pray that my views are not perceived to be offensive to

anyone. Illogical, unintelligent and immature, ofcourse!!

 

AzhwAr emperumANAr Jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saranam.

 

Dasan,

 

Kidambi Soundararajan.

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Adiyen too feels that such rahasyams cannot be clarified through just emails.

Hence adiyen doesnt want to continue any further. The best way is to clarify

from our acharyas or other scholars through kalashepams/upanyasams.

 

Alwar emperumAnAr Jeeyer thiruvadigale sharanam

Adiyen rAmAnuja dAsee

Sumithra Varadarajan

 

Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhan wrote:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

Dear Shri Bhagavadhottamas,

 

>God will shower His grace without any act of surrender. We are

>already His. That is what Sri Alawandar conveys in stotra ratna

>("mama nAtha yadasti yOsmyaham...).

 

>If we have to do soemthing, how can His grace be nirhEtukam?

 

>Prapatti as an act is not there in all thenkalai paramparAs. What I

>mean is, some AchAryas do not include this as a ritual in their

>samASrayaNam. So whoever is belonging to these paramparAs does not

>do something that is considered by others as prapatti.

 

In the above,

>God will shower His grace without any act of surrender.

I strongly disagree with the above statement due to the absence of

the word "too" at the end. God will shower His grace, without any act

of surrender too. This does not mean that one should take for granted

God will anyway shower His grace, and hence can do whatever he/she

wants. This is not as per our Sampradayam.

 

>Prapatti as an act is not there in all thenkalai paramparAs.

Prapatti as a "physical" act is not there in all Thenkalai

paramparAs. For any act, the cause is the intent. Whether followed by

act or not, the intent is pretty much the actual karma and not the

physial act. As elders say, for Brahmanas, even a thought of killing

a cow or anything else becomes a papam. Why would they say so? Hence,

if the intent is what is the actual karma(immaterial of whether an

act follows it or not), then realizing prapatti or understanding it

or following it whatever, whether for moksham(means) or as His

kainkaryam, all these things become "our" acts.

 

Iranyan, Sisupalan, Ravanan, pretty much all those asuras who died

out of lord's hands(or weapon) got the moksham. This is what is

Nirhetuka krupai of the lord. He uses His free will. He may choose

anyone at random and give him/her moksham. At the same time, if one

does bhakthi, karma, raja, sankhya yogas etc, then ALSO He would give

moksham(He has promised Himself in Gita). If one "does" prapatti,

then also He would give moksham. If this weren't true, out of 18

chapters, whatever the lord had promised saying one would attain

moksha if he/she does those yogas, would be breached.

 

Moreover, there are various types of mokshams(Salokyam, Sarupyam,

Sameepyam, Sayujyam, Kaivalyam etc). The moksham attained by Sahetukam

(we doing something for attaining moksham) is not valued as that of

the one attained by Prapatti, is what is my understanding of the

Thennacharya Sampradayam. Note: Sahetukam does not lead to Kaivalyam.

Kaivalyam is a moksham where the atma enjoys itself. Sahetukam "may"

lead to this i.e this Kaivalyam is a trap and hence our Acharyas have

warned us about this. This by no means stops one from following the

Karma, Raja, Bhakthi yogas.

 

In other yoga margams, one is instructed to do certain things i.e one

must follow certain disciplines in order to attain the results. One

could do prapatti and still live the way one wants to live.

Prapatti is an advanced stage of other yogas. In Prapatti, one

realizes that he/she belongs to Him and hence He is the upayam and

upeyam. The moment we say "He" is the means, then, this too becomes

an effort by us to use Him as a means to attain Him. Whether we go by

markata or marjara nyaya, the point is one puts effort. If a baby

doesn't cry, a mother feeds the baby automatically is what we say. If

the baby is bit by a snake and still doesn't cry, the mother will not

know about this, only to see her baby die. So, we can use these

examples to support individuals views. If we are going to sit like a

baby not doing "anything" assuming he would shower his Nirhetuka

grace, what happens to the world? Is this what our Acharyas told us?

Ok. Assume, you do kainkaryam, instead of sitting idle. Why would you

do kainkaryam? Why not something else? Even then the lord will shower

His grace right? So, why was the concept of Kainkaryam even

introduced/insisted by our Acharyas? Why they introduced the concept

of "change in mindset" which they call as Prapatti? Why did our

Acharyas bring in the tradition of so many things in the name of

kainkaryam, while we could do anything and everything(including what

we call the sinful actions) having realized Prapatti? The only answer

is, when one realizes Prapatti, he/she will automatically tend to

think whatever he/she does as a kainkaryam. So, any act done by a

Prapannan becomes a kainkaryam(and by default, the Prapannan would

not get into sinful actions). But, for this, one needs to know, how

it is, to realize Prapatti and atma swaroopam. No one can make other,

realize Prapatti, by making them read his/her writings because, one

could realize Prapatti only by the lord's grace(or Acharya's grace

i.e the lord's grace through a person).

 

What Smt Sumithra said was correct from a different point of view. We

could always bring in statements in support of / against, other's

understandings/views. But we need to understand that these mails or

articles can, in no way enlighten people. These articles can add

value. We could discuss so many other things that add value instead

of discussing these rahasyams which lead to combative articles due to

lack of expressiveness, understanding, interpretations etc. I

apologize to everyone to have written many posts on this subject and

has caused a chaos not realizing that this subject is not for these

kind of internet discussions. This is my last post on this subject

and hence request others not to expect any further reply from me on

this, while they could continue to comment/criticize this post at

their will.

 

My humble apologies in case of any offense perceived.

 

Adiyen,

Ramanuja Dasan.

 

 

 

Sponsor

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free online calendar with sync to Outlook.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

ramanuja, sumithra varadarajan

<sumivaradan> wrote:

> Adiyen too feels that such rahasyams cannot be clarified through

just emails. Hence adiyen doesnt want to continue any further. The

best way is to clarify from our acharyas or other scholars through

kalashepams/upanyasams.

 

SrImatE rAmAnujAya namah

 

Dear bhAgavatas,

 

Anybody teaching the sampradAyam is an AchArya. Is it not? Then what

is the exact differnece between AchAryas and scholars?

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Vishnu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Srimad Vara Vara Munaye nama:

Dear Soundar,

 

> According to Smt. Sumithra, it is the will of the person who gives

> food or alms to the beggar. Well, but still the beggar still has to

> beg for food, right?? Only since the beggar made calls for alms,

> did the owner decides or does't not decide to give alms. So, the

> act of the beggar becomes the main cause of food. Considering this

> example alone, Moksha then becomes Sahetukam (Beggar first makes

> call for alms, which means Jeevatma surrenders first)

 

By the above analogy,it is the Will of the Lord that matters in

granting or not granting mOskha to His subjects. So,it is "IMMATERIAL

and IRRELEVANT" whether or not the Subjects/jIvATmA begs/surrenders!

 

jIvATmA seeks alms/refuge;the Lord grants or denies.

jIvAtmA doesn't seek;the Lord grants or denies.

 

The only commonality is the Lord granting or denying. So jIvATmA's

role/action is disregarded. BTW,you haven't seen the Lord in person

and do not know His mind/actions! But w/o all the tips provided by

our AcAryAs,we have the audacity to shake the beauty of His kalyANa

guNAs(questioning the nirhEthuka krpa),to judge Him and if possible

even overthrow Him:-)

 

> If person A is God and person B is the jeeva. A controls B totally.

> B is totally dependent on A. B cannot do any activites on his own

> (meaning no free will). This is the scenario. Suppose if B performs

> something sinful, it is understand that actually it is person A who

> is actually the doer. Given this, how can person A tell person

 

For example I(jIvAtmA/sentient) invent/discover TV(acit/non-sentient).

TV exists "solely" for "my enjoyment" and not for its own! TV does

not jump and scream "Hey,I'm working great and enjoy myself,and

infact I entertain you. Hence I deserve the doership. What have you

gotta say, Man?". Imagine,when you reach home this evening,your TV

questions "where the hell have you been? why are you so late?" I can

bet the expression on your face would not be a "happy one". Or is it

going to say "hey soundar I felt lonely while you were away and I'm

so excited that you're back home!". When non-sentient starts

speaking/acting,that is the end of the world for jIvAtmA!!!

 

Due to my own discovery,once I switch "on" the button,TV starts

performing a set of operations. Otherwise it's going to remain

idle,dumb and an idiot box. It it doesn't work,it's entirely

upto "me" to repair or not to repair it. Out of "my nirhEthuka

krpa",I repair it(TV doesn't say: "will you work on me?")and make it

work again. If I need to replace some faulty parts,I may do so or may

not. If it's not worth repairing it(if the repairing costs exceed the

original cost of the TV!),I may break it into pieces with "my own

hands" and give it "vimOcanam/mOksha". WHatever be the situation,the

TV is under " my mercy". Without "my intervention",the TV is not

going to do "ANYTHING". It is not going to and capable of repairing

itself. TV is my property,my baby,my invention and what I do with it

is "entirely and solely" depends on me ALONE. TV has no business or

rights to have any claims over it. Apply this analogy to paramAtmA

and jIvAtmA. Replace jIvAtmA by paramAtmA and acit by jIvAtmA!

Yes,this may spur the ego of the jIvAtmA and it hardly takes

nanoseconds to rub the ego of a person. But this is the truth and

truth is "ALWAYS" bitter.

 

> With respect to Nirhetukam which means, "Causeless Mercy". Well,

> the same Bhagavad Gita, which speaks about Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga,

> Bhakti Yoga and finally Prapatti, somehow fails to talk about

> the "Causeless Mercy" of the lord. Perumal only says, "surrender,

> do this, do that". Not in a single verse has he said, "Just

> surrender unto me mentally and remain a vegetable physically". No.

 

There are hundreds of books on relativity but every boook is not a

bible. Similarly there are thousands of books on BG by various

authors but not all of them are "CLASSIC". In many places in BG,the

Lord says "EXPLICITLY" that it is "ONLY" out of His grace

(BG 11:47) that the puppet Arjuna is receiving "such such a thing".

Be it knowledge or vishvarUpa dharshanam. I'm dead sure that whatever

explanation you give for the BG slokas is not your own and surely

must have referred to some book. It matters "a lot" whose and which

book you refer to!

 

 

> Can I surrender to an Acarya, have Samashrayanam done and

> mentally pray to Perumal, "I am yours. I have surrendered unto You.

> Whatver I do, You are the Karta", and then end up watching a nice

> episode of Seinfeld?? Meaning, does it reflect the traits of a

> prapanna??

 

SamAshrayaNam is not the criterion/means for attaining mOskham.

Whether or not you realize that you're His,you're already His

property and you belong to Him only(read Tirumantra

prakaraNam,Mumukshuppadi by TCA Venkatesan). If you realize it,it's

well and great and if you don't it is well and great again! You

write "dasan" sometimes and at other times the full signature. If you

are crazy about your own "freewill" and "sahEthukam",the word "dAsan"

loses its beauty. That's why elders normally advise that one should

not write that without undergoing the samAshrayaNam. AcAryan will

explain all those things at the time of samAshrayaNam. I do know the

meaning but I have taken an oath and have drawn a LakshmaNa

line/kOdu/rEkhA for myself that I should put that stamp/signature

ONLY after I undergo the samAshrayaNam because nothing like receiving

the knowledge from the right AcAryan! It's an unparalleled moment

that I'm patiently waiting for it!

 

Most of us would forfeit to claim ourselves as prapanna in "strict

sense" because we are living in the 21st century and the society is

corrupted by science and technology. Do whatever you want,but give up

the doership! Here comes the tricky part!!! You had already asked "I

can committ crimes,robbery etc" and still say that it is the Lord who

did that. But when the mental realization happens,surely the person

would stop committing negative acts of all kinds. In today's world

you can'say that watching Seinfeld is a crime. It's just an

entertainment. But the question is "are you going to sit in front of

that idiot box all the 24 hrs" after realizing that "I'm Yours". I

don't think it's possible because "knowledge and ignorance do not co-

exist". Sometimes when I get bored I do watch animal planet(I adore

animals) or Seinfeld or some Sitcom apart from the academics and

learning about our sampradAyam. Did the Lord grant the j~nAnam and

bhakthi to NammAzhvAr in one-go? NO. I will quote AH in the next

post.

 

> Based on what has appealed to my logic (which is totally inferior

> and flawed), I am of the opinion that we do have a bare minimum of

> free will. Based on that free will, we exercise options, we choose.

> We choose to surrender or not surrender. If we don't surrender,

> then again we get lost in this cycle of samsara.

 

If you think you have "limited free will",you're entitled to stick to

your views. But then you can not claim yourself as TK! If I hold the

views of Christianity and follow the tenets of the same,only then can

I claim myself as Christian,otherwise I can not. It is as simple as

that. EVen if you don't surrender,you can get liberated. Even if you

surrender,you may not get liberated:-) That's the TK view! Because,We

don't know our past and future births. With fairly good

accuracy,astrologers can predict the past,present to some extent and

future little in the current birth.

 

Your actions CAN NOT become a "cause" for His actions. If so,you're

superior to Him! That is, there is one cause which supercedes the

First cause. He is the First Cause and hence there can not be any

further "causes"(prior to Him) for Him to grant anything/everything/

nothing(effect based on your actions/cause). That's why it is

called "nirhEthuka krpa".

 

 

> The third idea that is suggested is this: We surrender, but still

> perumal chooses to grant moksha or not, based on his will. I think

> it is a very dangerous, demotivating point. Historically, there has

> never been a case in which Perumal had failed to offer Moksha to

> somebody who had surrendered. He might have tested them, like Sri

> Thondaradippodi AzhwAr, but had never failed to offer to them

> Moksha.

 

The POINT is thondaradippodi AzhvAr did not surrender on his own.

It's only after His grace(and the mediation of thAyAr),he surrenders.

It's He who chooses the "muhUrtham" for that to happen! You're

dragged into His court and He is the Judge(of karma). The default

lawyer for jIvAtmA is thAyAr/mahAlakshmi. The jIvATmA has piled up

mountains of sins and how is it going to defend itself(by freewill &

sahEthukam) without any "mediator/referee" in front of the Judge?

JivAtmA's good deeds are so small that the jIvAtmA only deserves to

be thrown back into this samsAra and suffer for ever!

 

> So, the crux of the matter is this: Instead of just relying on

> the "Nirhetuka Kripa" of perumal, it is a good idea for us to

> follow His instructions. Accept an AcAryan. Surrender unto Him.

> And follow the spiritual practices as laid down by him. Why??

> Because Perumal says so.

 

Would you go for conditional love with your parents/brother/sister/

wife or whatever relation? There is some natural love between the

parents and children or brothers and sisters,friends-friends,husband-

wife etc. So is the natural love/relation is to serve The Divine

Couple and the bhAgavathAs unconditionally forever and eternally!

Without His green signal,no one can change oneself or others!!!

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

The following is only to explain that we could always argue on

certain things for ever without any productivity. I am not a

supporter of Sahetukam nor against Nirhetukam. So, please do not

perceive my comments/questions as if it is being raised against our

sampradayam.

 

Words like "You" etc, are for those readers, who strongly support

that the concept of Nirhetukam, 18 Rahasyams / Acharya Hrudhayam, are

not to be treated as "rahasyams" to be reserved for understanding

only via kalakshepams and that it could be easily understood via

internet posts.

 

> Whether or not "too" appears at the end "does not" matter.

> Moreover, Vishnu didn't write anywhere that the Lord "will not"

> shower His grace on those who surrender!!! ALL what matters is "His

> fee will and nirhEthu krpa".

 

"Too" does matter Smt Nappinnai. Kindly re-read my post.

 

a) When you say all what matters is "His free will", then it does not

guarantee moksham even if someone does any bhakthi, gnyana etc yogas.

But in the previous sentence you say that Shriman Vishnu didn't write

anywhere that the Lord "will not" shower His grace on those who

surrender... God will shower grace on those who surrender, but it is

upto Him? I see a contradiction(more to come)

 

b)

> Long time back Tirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh wrote a

> nice article expressing the views of TennAcArya sampradAyam. The

> relation between ParamAtma & jIvAtmA is similar to the relation

> between jIvAtmA & acit.

I am referring to the last phrase. Similar to jivatma and achit? So,

if I understood your statement, Jivatma is like achith to the lord

right? Then later in the post you are saying

 

>"It is "HIGHLY IMPOSSIBLE" for anyone to sit idle and not

> do "ANYTHING". You can refer to BG."

 

If jivatma is like achit, how could it perform some act? How can it

even think that it is like an achit, to the lord, when it is "way

different" from the achit?

 

c)

> You can refer to BG. I don't remember the sloka but

> I'm 200% sure that it is said in there. Atleast the jIvAtmA will go

> to the restroom,or atleast drink a glass of water. This is the

> nature of prakrthi.

Exactly!!! Jivatma "Will" go. Per your stands, shouldn't that be, the

lord controlling the Jivatma???

:)) We need not go upto Bhagavad Gita. Kindly re-read your own

statements after thinking for few seconds about "Nammazhwar"!!!! He

did not eat, drink. Forget all that. He did not even breath the Shata

Vayu, and hence his name "Shatakopan". And don't tell me he was an

exception. If that were so, we should not be discussing any further

in this list, for Vaishnavism's pride is Swami and his works.

 

d)

> In the "mArjara" case,the effort on the part of the kitten is "so

> minuscule" that it "DOES NOT" deserve "ANY" credit/mention! First

of

> all,the mother is not going to leave the baby in the backyard or

> frontyard for the baby to get bitten by a deadly spitting cobra!

> If she does, she is either a fool or knowledgeable,"knowingly well"

> what might happen to her baby.

Please come to reality. We are talking something practical. Tell me a

mother who takes care of a baby 24 hours? Are we taking the examples

too literally? If so, as per your statements, almost all mothers are

fools in this world ("only If so").

 

e)

> The AcAryAs "did not introduce" any new "concept of kaimkaryam". It

> is the "innate" or "inherent" trait of the jIvAtmAs! But due to

> prakrthi maNdalam,that is relegated to the back door and ego and

> other traits have taken predominance thereby "conceiling" the

> essential nature of the jIvAtmA. If we say that our AcAryAs

> "introduced" some new concept "in the middle" then we can't

> claim/chant "lakshmI nATha samArambAm...." in the Guru Parampara

> lineage. Our AcAryAs brought out the tradition/concepts,that was

> existing time immemorial,to the lime light. That is all. They did

> not introduce any new concepts.

 

Ok. I should have been explicit enough. Was there a madal goshti,

thiruveedhi purappadu or for that matter the ramanuja koodams that

served/serves as a shelter and protection for so many homeless(before

Shri Ramanujar)? These were the "kainkaryams" I was talking about.

People belonging to some caste were not even let in the temple before

Shri Ramanujar's time and he broke that and gave them different

kainkaryams, that "never" existed in practise before. Please do not

take things literally, because, same could be done pretty much by

everyone who has time and patience and provided it would add value to

the group. I saw this in the reply to Smt Sumitra's post. She was

giving a nice example only to depict a nice concept. You could have

seen people being ready to offer to the beggar who is in the next

house, but what if the beggar does not come to your house at all even

though you are ready with the food for him? And if he is already gone

that you can't find him on the streets? I know my statements do not

make any sense. But, that is exactly the point. These kind of

arguments would lead us nowhere.

 

f)

> So what kind of "philosophical" or "esoteric stuff" or "other

> things" one can discuss in R's e-list? If we say R

> sampradAyam,everything

> (mOksham,hence tirumanthram,prapatti then automaticallly other

> three

> yogas,so on and so forth!) is "INTER-RELATED". If the

> jIvAtmA has ego,obviously everything will appear as offensive.

> Mind,with Ego in full swing,has the capacity to take anything as

> offensive. If there is a value in the post,the reader should take

> it otherwise leave/reject it. Or (i)R's list can be shut down! (ii)

> make it only TK forum (iii) even among TKs,allow only those "who

> get recos

> from jIyars/AcAryAs" as members. But if it becomes "limited or

> restricted" it loses the status to retain the title "Ramanuja/

> emperumAnAr dharshanam"! Kindly pardon me and my expressive mind.

 

Wait a minute. On one side you are talking about the lord's nirhetuka

krupai and say that everything is done by lord and we should be like

achith. And on the other side you are talking about Jivatma, ego etc?

What is ego? When Jeevatma doesn't own itself and its body, to whom

does its ignorance and ego belong to? Doesn't it belong to the inner

controller i.e the lord? The reader leaving or rejecting is all in

the hand's of the lord. And you are mixing up way too many things.

One who takes up the stands of Nirhetuka krupai should not even care

or talk about the moksham, I believe.... Why are you so much bothered

when everything is happening because of the lord? And why should R

list be shut down? Why such extreme options?(I am not the moderator

and hence, I can't enforce any limitation to the group. It was/is

just my opinion that these rahasyams should not be discussed here and

so, ) We could share the anubhavams of Azhwars, not necessarily too

much on the philosophical front. We could share so many interesting

bhaagavadha anubhavams. We could just read the Mumukshuppadi

Vyakhyanams etc and memorize it and wait for the right moment of

interaction with an Acharyan. Initiate new kainkaryams and try to

involve everyone in the group. We could discuss about the sampradayam

(traditions). Someone was asking about Gayathri Manthram and

Astakshari? Gayathri Manthram should not be recited by ladies while

Astakshari is common for everyone. We could have so many discussions,

clarifications, without going into deeper stuffs that would a)

confuse the layman b) leads to argument alone because neither party

has been initiated or has properly attended the kalakshepams etc.

One can come up with a huge list of what could be discussed. How many

of us continued on the subject that Shri Varadhan had started, i.e

sharing of views on Perumal's thirumeni angams?

 

>But if it becomes "limited or restricted" it loses the status to

>retain the title "Ramanuja/emperumAnAr dharshanam"!

It is all in lord's hands isn't it? If we take the Nirhetuka stands

i.e "lord is the doer and everything is upto him" stands, we must be

consistent across. So, if the fate of the group is in the hands of

the lord, why would you be bothered about the group losing its status

to retain the title etc? Why even write up everytime when someone

says that the Rahasya Granthams should not be discussed in this kind

of group? Moreover, the more we open up and not discuss such extreme

philosophies in these kind of groups, the title "Ramanuja Darsanam"

gets justified as it reaches even the layman(and please!! I don't

mean those people who don't even know english - "I mean those who are

new to the sampradayam")

 

Finally, "me and my expressive mind" does not get along with

Nirhetuka/Freewill concepts. But, being a strong supporter of

Nirhetuka Krupai, you could always say that it is the lord who is

writing such things through you:)), but that would make other people

think of you no different from the clergies or the priests who do

whatever they want in the name of lord(that is pretty much the same

as the nirhetukam etc isn't it?). If you don't care about it, then

you are not adding value to the group. If you do care, then it is not

the lord's will but yours. We will end up only with contradictions on

things that we "haven't" realized. If we have realized, we won't be

talking about those precious things to everyone as it would become a

subject of criticism. If you say Rahasya Granthams are open for all

just because PBA swamy and others published those, I am sorry to say,

you are contradicting the very name of these granthams like "18

Rahasyams" etc. Those books are only for reference and not for

understanding. One can publish dozens of chinese books, that does not

mean those are for everyone. And if I read from the book and

understand whatever I could(I don't know chinese, so you can

imagine). We must understand the reasons behind the books, the

publications, the reason behind calling these as Rahasya Granthams

etc.

 

Again, I am very clear on one thing. Nirhetuka Krupai concept is too

much for a group like this. That is all am trying to say via the

above post and it is purely my opinion as it stands.

 

To answer Shri Vishnu's question, anyone who teaches/preaches

sampradayam is an Acharyan, while, not through his/her writing, but

through direct upadesam or via disciplic upadesams. Upa-ni-shad

explains it clear enough. I assume stress should be given at the

right place to Smt Sumitra's statement. The stress is on

the "kalakshepams or upadesams". When one is directly interacting

with an Acharyan, one can ask questions immediately and get

convincing replies/clarifications immediately. You "CAN NOT" do that

via internet posts.

 

I did not take any offense and I request you to not to perceive any.

Hope this post is taken in the light and right spirit.

 

Is someone up and ready to share their ideas/opinions on the

Bhagavan's Thirumeni? How about "Maivanna Narumkunchi" pasuram, that

talks about the vadivazhagu(beauty of the form) of the lord Rama?

Kamban also expresses a lo(s)t on Chakravarthi Thirumagan. Let us

move on..... At least, I am....

 

Adiyen,

Ramanuja Dasan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Srimate Ramanujaya nama:

 

Dear Friend,

 

Your points are logical.

 

The commandments in SAstra will be meaningless if the Lord werely

solely responsible for jIva-s actions.

 

The following submission of adiyen's might be of interest to you in

this context:

 

bhakti-list/message/15905

 

adiyen, Ramkumar

 

ramanuja, vimalkumar ranganathan

<panardasan> wrote:

>

> Sri:

>

> Srimate Ramanujaya Nama:

>

> Respected Adiyaars,

>

> As the person who started this topic

of discussion, I would like to add a few points.

>

> * According to Smt. Sumithra, it is the will of the person who

gives food or alms to the beggar. Well, but still the beggar still

has to beg for food, right?? Only since the beggar made calls for

alms, did the owner decides or does't not decide to give alms. So,

the act of the beggar becomes the main cause of food. Considering

this example alone, Moksha then becomes Sahetukam (Beggar first makes

call for alms, which means Jeevatma surrenders first)

>

> * Lets talk about free will for a second. I had submited this point

in a private mail to one of the active members of this forum. Let me

repost the same point here:

>

> If person A is God and person B is the jeeva. A controls B totally.

B is totally dependent on A. B cannot do any activites on his own

(meaning no free will). This is the scenario. Suppose if B performs

something sinful, it is understand that actually it is person A who

is actually the doer. Given this, how can person A tell person

B, "hey, you have done this and not done that, so you go to hell for

that, or undergo karmic reactions for this". Sounds totally

illogical, right?? In other words, if A is the ultimate doer of

things, how can he ask B to do things like "Ask questions" or "Don't

do this" or even "Surrender"?? I mean, isn't it totally illogical if

person A even asks B to do anything at all, given that A is actually

the doer??

>

> * With respect to Nirhetukam which means, "Causeless Mercy". Well,

the same Bhagavad Gita, which speaks about Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga,

Bhakti Yoga and finally Prapatti, somehow fails to talk about

the "Causeless Mercy" of the lord. Perumal only says, "surrender, do

this, do that". Not in a single verse has he said, "Just surrender

unto me mentally and remain a vegetable physically". No.

>

> Can I surrender to an Acarya, have Samashrayanam done and

mentally pray to Perumal, "I am yours. I have surrendered unto You.

Whatver I do, You are the Karta", and then end up watching a nice

episode of Seinfeld?? Meaning, does it reflect the traits of a

prapanna??

>

> * Based on what has appealed to my logic (which is totally inferior

and flawed), I am of the opinion that we do have a bare minimum of

free will. Based on that free will, we exercise options, we choose.

We choose to surrender or not surrender. If we don't surrender, then

again we get lost in this cycle of samsara.

>

> If we do surrender, then Perumal grants us Moksha. Like Sri

Lakshmi Narayanan pointed out, perumal grants moksha to people are

perceived to be undeserving too, like Sisupala, etc. That is his

causeless mercy, or Nirhetuka Kripai. Or in other words, Nirhetuka

Kripai cannot be perceived to be the ONLY means of Moksham.

>

> * The third idea that is suggested is this: We surrender, but still

perumal chooses to grant moksha or not, based on his will. I think it

is a very dangerous, demotivating point. Historically, there has

never been a case in which Perumal had failed to offer Moksha to

somebody who had surrendered. He might have tested them, like Sri

Thondaradippodi AzhwAr, but had never failed to offer to them Moksha.

>

> * The same Carama Shloka ends with the phrase, "Ma Sucah",

means "do not fear". How many times has Perumal used words

like "Asamsayah" which means, "do not doubt", or even words

like "Satyam", which means "Promise"!! The same perumal who has used

very powerful, assuring words like the above, cannot fail to offer

Moksha to a fully surrendered person.

>

> * So, the crux of the matter is this: Instead of just relying on

the "Nirhetuka Kripa" of perumal, it is a good idea for us to follow

His instructions. Accept an AcAryan. Surrender unto Him. And follow

the spiritual practices as laid down by him. Why?? Because Perumal

says so.

>

> * Well, stickers to the idea of "ONLY-NIRHETUKA KRIPA" can raise

this wonderful point: They can say that it is the same Perumal who

makes a person surrender unto him. Meaning, if one is even remotely

interested in Bhagavath Vishayam, it is just because of the mercy of

Perumal alone, or in other words, Perumal chooses his surrenderers.

We don't have any free-will, and anybody who even "chooses" to

surrender does so because of Perumal's Nirhetuka Kripa. But then the

counter-point is that, then Bhagavad Gita is just a stage-show for

Perumal. Since, he chooses his prapannas, he is just joking when he

says things like "Surrender unto me.." etc.

>

> I really hope and pray that my views are not perceived to be

offensive to anyone. Illogical, unintelligent and immature, ofcourse!!

>

> AzhwAr emperumANAr Jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saranam.

>

> Dasan,

>

> Kidambi Soundararajan.

>

>

>

>

> The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Sri Parthasarathi thunai

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

Sri Vara Vara MunayE Namaha

 

Dear Sri Vishnu,

 

That's a good question. As per adiyen's understanding, in our sampradayam, the

word acharya refers to "Oran vazhi acharya purushas" who are eligible to do

samasrayanam. Scholars are those who are well versed in ubhaya vedantham but

not eligible to do samasrayanam they can only educate us.

 

Alwar emperumAnAr Jeeyer thiruvadigale sharanam

 

Adiyen rAmAnuja dAsee

Sumithra Varadarajan

 

Vishnu <vsmvishnu wrote:

ramanuja, sumithra varadarajan

<sumivaradan> wrote:

> Adiyen too feels that such rahasyams cannot be clarified through

just emails. Hence adiyen doesnt want to continue any further. The

best way is to clarify from our acharyas or other scholars through

kalashepams/upanyasams.

 

SrImatE rAmAnujAya namah

 

Dear bhAgavatas,

 

Anybody teaching the sampradAyam is an AchArya. Is it not? Then what

is the exact differnece between AchAryas and scholars?

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Vishnu

 

 

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free online calendar with sync to Outlook.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear bhAgavathAs,

Such rahasyams can not only be clarified through emails but

even in person "unless HE showers His nirhEthuka krpa" on us. Anybody

teaching the sampradAyam is an AcAryA. We can have many AcAryAs apart

from the samAshrayaNam AcAryA. For me,Sri Parthasarathy iyengar is one

such AcAryA. Infact he is responsible for my obsession with Sri PiLLai

lOkAcAryA(and his brother too)!

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

 

 

> > Adiyen too feels that such rahasyams cannot be clarified through

> > just emails. Hence adiyen doesnt want to continue any further.

> > The best way is to clarify from our acharyas or other scholars

> > through kalashepams/upanyasams.

 

> Anybody teaching the sampradAyam is an AchArya. Is it not? Then what

> is the exact differnece between AchAryas and scholars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Sri Nappinnai,

The TV analogy is very apt. But still I

feel you have safely avoided addressing the issue: If

you created the same TV. Why would you instruct the TV

to do things?? That has always been the issue right

from the beginning. If the Lord created all of us for

his own enjoyment, leela Vibhuti.. etc, why should the

Lord give us tonnes and tonnes of instructions??

Again, why should he use words like, "Sathyamte", or

"Ma sucah", "asamsayah", etc. Well, these are plain

simple samskrit words. Logically, how can the doer

blame the instrument for what is being done?? If this

issue is answered, I am sure my mind will be free. I

think this question is the summum-bonum of all the

issues with respect to the position of the Jeeva, be

it free will, Nirhetuka Kripa etc.

 

With respect to being a TK and all, it is His

will that I am born in a Thennacharya sampradaya

family. Lets try not to look at it as a TK vs VK

dispute, it is a healthy argument on the philosophical

differences between Nirhetukam and Sahetukam. It is

dangerous to accept that since we are TKs, our

philosophy is the most superior. It fails to satiate

our logical and analytical minds.

 

AzhwAr emperumAnAr Jeeyar thiruvadigLE saranam

 

Kidambi Soundararajan.

 

 

--- nappinnai_nc <nappinnai_nc wrote:

> Sri:

> Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

> Srimad Vara Vara Munaye nama:

> Dear Soundar,

>

> > According to Smt. Sumithra, it is the will of the

> person who gives

> > food or alms to the beggar. Well, but still the

> beggar still has to

> > beg for food, right?? Only since the beggar made

> calls for alms,

> > did the owner decides or does't not decide to give

> alms. So, the

> > act of the beggar becomes the main cause of food.

> Considering this

> > example alone, Moksha then becomes Sahetukam

> (Beggar first makes

> > call for alms, which means Jeevatma surrenders

> first)

>

> By the above analogy,it is the Will of the Lord that

> matters in

> granting or not granting mOskha to His subjects.

> So,it is "IMMATERIAL

> and IRRELEVANT" whether or not the Subjects/jIvATmA

> begs/surrenders!

>

> jIvATmA seeks alms/refuge;the Lord grants or denies.

> jIvAtmA doesn't seek;the Lord grants or denies.

>

> The only commonality is the Lord granting or

> denying. So jIvATmA's

> role/action is disregarded. BTW,you haven't seen the

> Lord in person

> and do not know His mind/actions! But w/o all the

> tips provided by

> our AcAryAs,we have the audacity to shake the beauty

> of His kalyANa

> guNAs(questioning the nirhEthuka krpa),to judge Him

> and if possible

> even overthrow Him:-)

>

> > If person A is God and person B is the jeeva. A

> controls B totally.

> > B is totally dependent on A. B cannot do any

> activites on his own

> > (meaning no free will). This is the scenario.

> Suppose if B performs

> > something sinful, it is understand that actually

> it is person A who

> > is actually the doer. Given this, how can person A

> tell person

>

> For example I(jIvAtmA/sentient) invent/discover

> TV(acit/non-sentient).

> TV exists "solely" for "my enjoyment" and not for

> its own! TV does

> not jump and scream "Hey,I'm working great and enjoy

> myself,and

> infact I entertain you. Hence I deserve the

> doership. What have you

> gotta say, Man?". Imagine,when you reach home this

> evening,your TV

> questions "where the hell have you been? why are you

> so late?" I can

> bet the expression on your face would not be a

> "happy one". Or is it

> going to say "hey soundar I felt lonely while you

> were away and I'm

> so excited that you're back home!". When

> non-sentient starts

> speaking/acting,that is the end of the world for

> jIvAtmA!!!

>

> Due to my own discovery,once I switch "on" the

> button,TV starts

> performing a set of operations. Otherwise it's going

> to remain

> idle,dumb and an idiot box. It it doesn't work,it's

> entirely

> upto "me" to repair or not to repair it. Out of "my

> nirhEthuka

> krpa",I repair it(TV doesn't say: "will you work on

> me?")and make it

> work again. If I need to replace some faulty parts,I

> may do so or may

> not. If it's not worth repairing it(if the repairing

> costs exceed the

> original cost of the TV!),I may break it into pieces

> with "my own

> hands" and give it "vimOcanam/mOksha". WHatever be

> the situation,the

> TV is under " my mercy". Without "my

> intervention",the TV is not

> going to do "ANYTHING". It is not going to and

> capable of repairing

> itself. TV is my property,my baby,my invention and

> what I do with it

> is "entirely and solely" depends on me ALONE. TV has

> no business or

> rights to have any claims over it. Apply this

> analogy to paramAtmA

> and jIvAtmA. Replace jIvAtmA by paramAtmA and acit

> by jIvAtmA!

> Yes,this may spur the ego of the jIvAtmA and it

> hardly takes

> nanoseconds to rub the ego of a person. But this is

> the truth and

> truth is "ALWAYS" bitter.

>

> > With respect to Nirhetukam which means, "Causeless

> Mercy". Well,

> > the same Bhagavad Gita, which speaks about Karma

> Yoga, Jnana Yoga,

> > Bhakti Yoga and finally Prapatti, somehow fails to

> talk about

> > the "Causeless Mercy" of the lord. Perumal only

> says, "surrender,

> > do this, do that". Not in a single verse has he

> said, "Just

> > surrender unto me mentally and remain a vegetable

> physically". No.

>

> There are hundreds of books on relativity but every

> boook is not a

> bible. Similarly there are thousands of books on BG

> by various

> authors but not all of them are "CLASSIC". In many

> places in BG,the

> Lord says "EXPLICITLY" that it is "ONLY" out of His

> grace

> (BG 11:47) that the puppet Arjuna is receiving "such

> such a thing".

> Be it knowledge or vishvarUpa dharshanam. I'm dead

> sure that whatever

> explanation you give for the BG slokas is not your

> own and surely

> must have referred to some book. It matters "a lot"

> whose and which

> book you refer to!

>

>

> > Can I surrender to an Acarya, have

> Samashrayanam done and

> > mentally pray to Perumal, "I am yours. I have

> surrendered unto You.

> > Whatver I do, You are the Karta", and then end up

> watching a nice

> > episode of Seinfeld?? Meaning, does it reflect the

> traits of a

> > prapanna??

>

> SamAshrayaNam is not the criterion/means for

> attaining mOskham.

> Whether or not you realize that you're His,you're

> already His

> property and you belong to Him only(read Tirumantra

> prakaraNam,Mumukshuppadi by TCA Venkatesan). If you

> realize it,it's

> well and great and if you don't it is well and great

> again! You

> write "dasan" sometimes and at other times the full

> signature. If you

> are crazy about your own "freewill" and

> "sahEthukam",the word "dAsan"

> loses its beauty. That's why elders normally advise

> that one should

> not write that without undergoing the samAshrayaNam.

> AcAryan will

> explain all those things at the time of

> samAshrayaNam. I do know the

> meaning but I have taken an oath and have drawn a

> LakshmaNa

> line/kOdu/rEkhA for myself that I should put that

> stamp/signature

> ONLY after I undergo the samAshrayaNam because

> nothing like receiving

> the knowledge from the right AcAryan! It's an

> unparalleled moment

> that I'm patiently waiting for it!

>

> Most of us would forfeit to claim ourselves as

> prapanna in "strict

> sense" because we are living in the 21st century and

> the society is

> corrupted by science and technology. Do whatever you

> want,but give up

> the doership! Here comes the tricky part!!! You had

> already asked "I

> can committ crimes,robbery etc" and still say that

> it is the Lord who

> did that. But when the mental realization

> happens,surely the person

> would stop committing negative acts of all kinds. In

> today's world

> you can'say that watching Seinfeld is a crime. It's

> just an

> entertainment. But the question is "are you going to

> sit in front of

> that idiot box all the 24 hrs" after realizing that

> "I'm Yours". I

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear Smt Sumithra,

Accept my pranams. AcAryAs can be scholars too. And

scholars can be AcAryAs too! For example HH Chinna JIyar is an AcAryA

and he is a ubhaya vEdhAnthi(scholar). He does samAshrayaNam for

many. Swami Sri MA Venkatakrishnan is a PhD scholar(Professor in

Religion) who gives upanyAsam etc. He also comes under the lineage of

one of the 74 AcArya puruShAs. So he can do samAshrayaNam for others.

So,let us not use the English word scholar.

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

 

 

> That's a good question. As per adiyen's understanding, in our

> sampradayam, the word acharya refers to "Oran vazhi acharya

> purushas" who are eligible to do samasrayanam. Scholars are those

> who are well versed in ubhaya vedantham but not eligible to do

> samasrayanam they can only educate us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

ramanuja, sumithra varadarajan

<sumivaradan> wrote:

> Sri Parthasarathi thunai

> Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

> Sri Vara Vara MunayE Namaha

>

> Dear Sri Vishnu,

>

> That's a good question. As per adiyen's understanding, in our

>sampradayam, the word acharya refers to "Oran vazhi acharya

>purushas" who are eligible to do samasrayanam. Scholars are those

>who are well versed in ubhaya vedantham but not eligible to do

>samasrayanam they can only educate us.

 

Dear Smt Sumithra,

 

An AchArya strong in gnAna and anushtAna i.e. siddhOpAya nishtA,

authorizes a bhAgavtOttama to do samASryaNams after him. However,

those doing samASrayaNams alone are not the AchAryas. When a

knowledgeable SrIvaishNava says "this is opinion of my AchArya, my

AchArya said this" etc., he is actually referring to his kAlakshEpa

AchArya who may or may not be doing samASrayaNas. also many

traditional people chant their kAlakshEpa AchArya's thaniyans.

 

many of us do not belong to the samASrayaNa paramparAs of embAr and

Bhattar. similarly maNavALa mAmunigaL literally did not do

samASrayaNas to all AchAryas of his time. But are they not our

AchAryas? So the term AchArya can be used in a broader context, in my

opinion.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Vishnu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

 

> But in the previous sentence you say that Shriman Vishnu didn't

> write anywhere that the Lord "will not" shower His grace on those

> who surrender... God will shower grace on those who surrender,

> but it is upto Him? I see a contradiction(more to come)

 

> As per AcArya Hrdhayam,all happenings/events like "surrendering"

> or "non-surrendering" etc is by His grace only.

 

> I am referring to the last phrase. Similar to jivatma and achit?

> So, if I understood your statement, Jivatma is like achith to the

> lord right? Then later in the post you are saying

> If jivatma is like achit, how could it perform some act? How can it

> even think that it is like an achit, to the lord, when it is "way

> different" from the achit?

 

Don't take the words literally! Analogy means "similarity" not

the "equality". Ok? I'm using the word "simile" not a "metaphor".

Just as I am responsible for the movement of "some" acit items in

the household(like TV,or cot,microwave or anything),the Lord is

responsible for my movement,my thinking etc. This is what I meant.

Lord was the one who provided the body,mind,sense organs,intellect,

breath etc to the "individual souls/sentient/cit". So don't go out of

this circle to interpret whatever I wrote in the previous article!

 

> :)) We need not go upto Bhagavad Gita. Kindly re-read your own

> statements after thinking for few seconds about "Nammazhwar"!!!! He

> did not eat, drink. Forget all that. He did not even breath the

> Shata Vayu, and hence his name "Shatakopan". And don't tell me he

> was an exception. If that were so, we should not be discussing any

> further in this list, for Vaishnavism's pride is Swami and his

> works.

 

NammAzhvAr did all this AGAIN by the Lord's "nirhEthuka krpa" ONLY.

AH,3rd PrakaraNam,the 15th chUrNikai talks about the Lord's

greatness,the ten tens(ThiruvAymozhi) and what NammAzhvAr gained

by the Lord! Sri Azhagiya MaNavALa PerumAL NAyanAr says NammAzhvAr

gained all those pERus by the Lord's nirhEthuka krpa ONLY.

 

> Please come to reality. We are talking something practical. Tell me

> a mother who takes care of a baby 24 hours? Are we taking the

> examples too literally? If so, as per your statements, almost all

> mothers are fools in this world ("only If so").

 

You're the one who quoted that example. You should have chosen a

better example. Yeah,unfortunately most mothers are illiterate about

the sampradAyam and that's why children become confused about what

to follow and what not to. I can give many examples in my own

extended family circle(who are all none but come under one of the

74). Firstly,a mother has to be educated because she is the one who

carries the baby in her womb for 10x28 days and hence has a

greater influence on the baby than the father!

 

> the group. I saw this in the reply to Smt Sumitra's post. She was

> giving a nice example only to depict a nice concept. You could have

> seen people being ready to offer to the beggar who is in the next

> house, but what if the beggar does not come to your house at all

> even though you are ready with the food for him? And if he is

> already gone that you can't find him on the streets? I know my

> statements do not make any sense. But, that is exactly the point.

> These kind of arguments would lead us nowhere.

 

Smt Sumithra said what she knew. And I said because I felt that was

not said in AH(I have started reading it everyday and cross check

with people who are well versed in it!). What if the beggar doesn't

stop at our doorstep even when I have the food? You can think of

the Lord KrShNA visiting the Kaurava's camp to make settlement(peace)

instead of war. If duryODhana told the Lord "Hey,I am for peace,there

would not have been a mahAbhAratha nor BG". The Lord went in

person as a messenger and He couldn't change the mind of duryODhana

or rather He pretended(as He already had chosen the story,how the end

should be,how the scenes should go etc. He is the Director of the

play)that He couldn't change duryODhana!

 

It's like directing a movie(a rough analogy!). First the story comes

and the rest later. The story made up by human has flaws and at times

they may even the change the end of the good story to suit the taste

of the masses!

 

> Wait a minute. On one side you are talking about the lord's

> nirhetuka krupai and say that everything is done by lord and we

> should be like achith. And on the other side you are talking about

> Jivatma, ego etc? What is ego? When Jeevatma doesn't own itself and

> its body, to whom does its ignorance and ego belong to? Doesn't it

> belong to the inner controller i.e the lord? The reader leaving or

> rejecting is all in the hand's of the lord. And you are mixing up

> way too many things.

 

I'm not mixing up. WHatever little I know I am very clear about that.

That's also His grace and I'm ever indebted to that Lord

nay "emperumAnE RAmAnujA". I should have added my famous statement

"pORRuvAr pORRattum thURRuvAr thURRattum,pOgattum kaNNanukkE" wrt

accepting/rejecting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you now understand me?

 

> Why are you so much bothered when everything is happening because

> of the lord? And why should R list be shut down? Why such extreme

> options?(I am not the moderator and hence, I can't enforce any

> limitation to the group. It was/is just my opinion that these

> rahasyams should not be discussed here and so, )

 

We can talk about mOksham(with the body,he has given),think about

Him or His bhakthAs with the mind He has given, but we should not

worry about mOksham because it is not our job to do. I'm not bothered

about the things but i'm only sharing the views with another

bhAgavathA. I myself can not stop my action! I didn't enter this

Ramanuja e-list on my own. It came by itself. What I'm writing now is

the effect of that!

 

The moderator is not going to change the rules of the e-list just

because I said something! I only expressed what is going on in my

mind!

 

> We could share the anubhavams of Azhwars, not necessarily too

> much on the philosophical front. We could share so many interesting

> bhaagavadha anubhavams. We could just read the Mumukshuppadi

> Vyakhyanams etc and memorize it and wait for the right moment of

> interaction with an Acharyan. Initiate new kainkaryams and try to

> involve everyone in the group. We could discuss about the

> sampradayam(traditions).

 

We can't share the anubhavams of AzhvArs much without knowing the

meanings of their pAsurams. Frankly speaking,I don't qualify for it.

BhAgavatha anubhavams can be shared. That I agree. May be you can

start first with your own experience! Discussing about

sampradAyam??? Be specific about what sampradAyam to discuss,and how?

Is Mumukshuppadi not a rahasyam?? I would ask why should one put

even that effort of memorizing Mumukshuppadi vyAkhyAnams. Let us be

like PiLLaipiLLai AzhvAn and wait for an AcAryA like SriKUraththAzhvAn

to salvify us!

 

> Someone was asking about Gayathri Manthram and

> Astakshari? Gayathri Manthram should not be recited by ladies while

> Astakshari is common for everyone. We could have so many

> discussions, clarifications, without going into deeper stuffs that

> would a) confuse the layman b) leads to argument alone because

> neither party has been initiated or has properly attended the

> kalakshepams etc.

 

Not a bad idea. Now is the time for Moderator to work!

 

> One can come up with a huge list of what could be discussed. How

> many of us continued on the subject that Shri Varadhan had started,

> i.e sharing of views on Perumal's thirumeni angams?

 

One can not talk much about the Lord without seeing that Lord in

person(theoretically I can speak from my own experiences when I have

felt Him). To talk about the Lord's parts one needs to know about

some of our AcAryAs works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are back to square one. But we can always talk about bhAgavathAs.

I will post tomorrow/Monday about the bhAgavthA from whom I learnt

kOil tiruvAymozhi. I can even send his picture,and he wears a "pattai

thirumaN" and looks divinely/godly.

 

> consistent across. So, if the fate of the group is in the hands of

> the lord, why would you be bothered about the group losing its

> status to retain the title etc? Why even write up everytime when

> someone says that the Rahasya Granthams should not be discussed in

> this kind of group?

 

Don't forget that this group initially was open to only selected few.

The purpose of keeping the title "RAmAnuja whatever" is to

experience the greatness of the Lord,AzhvArs and AcAryAs

works,bhAgavathAs anubhavams with whoever is interested in learning

the same. When we do this,we shouldn't think about our doership. Okay

how many members constantly contribute to the group? Be any list,this

situation is faced and there will be only few members who would keep

(jobless!)posting constantly:-) Maybe the moderator should send a

note asking "how much the discussions have benefitted the members and

ask them for "feed back" say once in two months"! Then we will come

to know how much people(new to the sampradAyam)have understood about

the sampradAyam.

 

 

I'm not a hypocrite. Since I haven't undergone samAshrayaNam I

don't want to use the word adiyEn. It's understood and implicit that

whatever I'm writing,speaking etc is because of Him. Why? I did send

one post quoting Thathva Thrayam but it was not approved(not wrt TT)

by the moderator(So you don't know what I quoted in that post except

soundararajan, moderator,me and the Lord). So I told him that it's

upto him to do whatever he wants. If he accepts my post,well and good

and if he doesn't, that's also well and good. As I said earlier,I am

spending my free time in these things instead of indulging myself in

some mundane things in which my heart and my mind no longer

lingers!!!!!!!!

 

> If you say Rahasya Granthams are open for all just because PBA

> swamy and others published those, I am sorry to say, you are

> contradicting the very name of these granthams like "18 Rahasyams"

> etc. Those books are only for reference and not for understanding.

> One can publish dozens of chinese books, that does not

> mean those are for everyone. And if I read from the book and

> understand whatever I could(I don't know chinese, so you can

> imagine). We must understand the reasons behind the books, the

> publications, the reason behind calling these as Rahasya Granthams

> etc.

 

I frankly do not know how granthamAlA office works. It is my father

who is a great buyer of books. If I visit,I will surely put in the

suggesion box saying that "they should not sell it to all the

people whoever enter"! especially to dangerous people like me. I'm in

poverty and the guy who walks ahead of me keeps all the notes

($100/Rs 1000) in his pocket and that is visible. What do you think

will be the situation? I will be tempted to rob him! Do you think

everybody is bad by birth? It is the circumstances/association that

makes one good/bad. Similarly if you open a bookshop,whoever passes

by, will be curious,some may enter and some may not. Those who enter

may again get curious to come across some titles such

as "Mumukshuppadi or AcArya Hrdhayam"...and may flip through the

pages and may even buy unless or otherwise the shop-owner says "it's

only for DISPLAY not for selling". Why not the shop-owner asks the

customer for "reference"? First of all not everybody buys such books!

Only those who are starving for spiritual knowledge,those who believe

in God and not those who believe themselves as God(aham brahma asmi).

 

 

> explains it clear enough. I assume stress should be given at the

> right place to Smt Sumitra's statement. The stress is on

> the "kalakshepams or upadesams". When one is directly interacting

> with an Acharyan, one can ask questions immediately and get

> convincing replies/clarifications immediately. You "CAN NOT" do

> that via internet posts.

 

Very true. But even in person some things can not be clarified

(AcArya may clarify but the disciple may not catch the point or

appreciate prapatti and so on). Waiting for an AcAryan is great. But

what am I going to do with the mind which already thinks about Sri

PiLLai lOkAcAryA umpteen no of times a day??? Do you have a remedy

for it(to delete the person from the mind)? All my posts are effect

of the people who occupy my mind! That's why my mind desires to talk

about SVB! Moderator can only stop me from discussing about SVB in

R's e-list but not outside of e-list. I'm pretty sure that there are

many who would accompany me in this task,even if they were not

allowed to discuss SVB and other rahasyams in R's list.

 

 

> Is someone up and ready to share their ideas/opinions on the

> Bhagavan's Thirumeni? How about "Maivanna Narumkunchi" pasuram,

> that talks about the vadivazhagu(beauty of the form) of the lord

> Rama? Kamban also expresses a lo(s)t on Chakravarthi Thirumagan.

> Let us move on..... At least, I am....

 

I'm not as knowledgeable as you're wrt AzhvAr's pAsurams. That's

why I'm still not as comfortable with AH as I'm with SVB. You start

and I will join you with the Beautiful isolated(my mother hates us

bringing PerumAL's photo without thAyAr,she would even say that she

would throw the photo!) kOdhaNda rAma(I have ayODhi Raman also with

thAyAr and lakshmaNa),in a sitting posture. I don't know about the

pAsuram you wrote! But I can share my anubhavams of my SriRama. Don't

question me "why do you say "your" Srirama? You have ego....and

you're contradicting nirhEthuka krpa!!!" It is with the same internal

feeling that I write all the posts. Hope you catch this point:-)

 

PS:Even in direct communication,one can have miscommunication.

Generously forgive me if I said anything to hurt you,my kid

brother:-)

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear Soundar,

 

> Why would you instruct the TV to do things?? That has always been

> the issue right from the beginning. If the Lord created all of us

> for his own enjoyment, leela Vibhuti.. etc, why should the

> Lord give us tonnes and tonnes of instructions??

 

Because I have the power/shakthi to creat ANYTHING. It is my court

and I'm the judge and everything lives for my happiness. Replace I by

ParamAtmA. The LOrd gave us the shAsthrAs,without our asking Him,so

that we would know about Him. The shAsthrAs only say that "we are His

servant and doing service to Him is our essential nature". But our

nature is not to listen to Him or others! We immediately question the

other person "Are you a great vEdhANthin? Who are you to preach me?"

ShAsthrAs are one way of catching us!

 

You can refer to SVB 70-72. The salvation is ONLY by His grace. Then

the next question would be "Is jIvAtmA the Beneficiary?". NO. It is

the Lord. We are His property and He is the one who feels happy about

our re-union.

 

After I reach vaikuNTam(nam kUraththAzhvAn caraN kUdiya pin),on the

assumption that I depart before you do,I will tell the Lord that "I

need to make a Universal call to Soundararajan and tell him about

Your mind!" and let you know about the "paravAsudEvan and His

activities in vaikuNTam". I guess it must be pretty similar to or

exactly the same as expressed in SrivaikuNTa gadhyam!

 

 

> Again, why should he use words like, "Sathyamte", or

> "Ma sucah", "asamsayah", etc. Well, these are plain

> simple samskrit words. Logically, how can the doer

> blame the instrument for what is being done?? If this

> issue is answered, I am sure my mind will be free. I

> think this question is the summum-bonum of all the

> issues with respect to the position of the Jeeva, be

> it free will, Nirhetuka Kripa etc.

 

Do I blame my TV if it doesn't work? NO. But at times,we may give it

a kick,then it starts functining. Or we may listen(instead of

watching) to the TV,as the TV's picture tube is gone and now it

serves as the radio! Or, sometimes the picture/screen quality is so

bad that everybody(hero,heroine and villain) looks the same! I may

use TV non-stop,that the picture tube may burst one day! Is it TV's

fault? NO. I have mis-used it. I didn't take care of my TV.

Or "knowingly" I'm doing it. Will you be able to write a post if you

didn't have hands? Can a person talk if he is affected by aphasia

(loss of speech)? Don't break your head too much! Just keep it cool.

You will catch the point,when the time comes. ThoNdaradippodi

AzhvAr,as vipranArAyaNan, was going behind dEvadEvi and only after

the Lord's grace fell on him,did he leave her completely and become

an "AzhvAr". Since we are His property,He is the one Who has to take

the initiative and work towards the same!!!

 

> With respect to being a TK and all, it is His

> will that I am born in a Thennacharya sampradaya

> family. Lets try not to look at it as a TK vs VK

> dispute, it is a healthy argument on the philosophical

> differences between Nirhetukam and Sahetukam. It is

> dangerous to accept that since we are TKs, our

> philosophy is the most superior. It fails to satiate

> our logical and analytical minds.

 

It is not dangerous to accept that since we are TK's(not by birth but

by holding the views and following the same!),our philosophy is

superior. What is dangerous is to try to enforce it on others! A

change in oneself or in others is possible only by His grace. Do you

question your mother asking her "are you my mother? how?" Or,do you

go for some DNA test to verify the same? Ofcourse,one can do DNA test

and prove who the mother and father are! Wrt God,it is a matter and

question of faith. You can't prove faith/love(human beings/God) by

logic because the former completely defies logic. Faith or love is a

feeling which can not be expressed(completely) by logic nor the mind.

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Dear Shrimati Nappinnai,

>From your previous posts:

If the TV is not working, you said you would repair it out of your

Nirhetuka Krupai. We will replace you with Paramatma, and TV with

Jeevatma at the end of the post. I have a very simple question here.

If the TV does not work, who is the loser? You are the loser. You

lose the happiness because you cannot enjoy the TV anymore. And hence

you are selfish enough to repair the TV, for "your" happiness. Where

is the question of your nirhetuka krupai? Nirhetuka Krupai can be

appreciated only when there is an expectation on one side and the

krupai is showered from the other side. If you show nirhetuka krupai

to a TV that does not understand it, it does not make any sense. Now

let us go for replacing you and TV with Paramatma and Jeevatma. If

Jeevatma does not make the paramatma happy, and if Paramatma showers

the nirhetuka krupai on Jeevatma, why would the paramatma do that?

For its own happiness and not for the jeevatma's happiness. So, it is

pretty much a self centric act. Why would it be called as krupai

then? It is a selfish act. So, is this what we are getting at?

Akilaheya prathyanikanana parabrahmam now suddenly becomes an all

powerful entity that forces its way on the jeevatma to attain

happiness and could pretty much do whatever it wants with the

jeevatma and despite all this act, still be hailed as the one who

showers the Nirhetuka Krupa and we are quoting all our Acharya

granthas in support of this? Aren't we missing something here? If one

does not realize the value of Nirhetuka Krupa, what is the point in

the paramatma showering it to him? It is as good as doing bad to him

isn't it? It is like giving sweet to someone which is usually good.

But, if the person is diabetic and if you still give sweet to him?

Again, this is a very trivial example that I don't expect to equate

to the Nirhetuka Krupa. It is just a "similar" phenomenon. Kindly

clarify.

Adiyen,

Ramanuja Dasan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...