Guest guest Report post Posted August 14, 2004 >> When > it is the case for a girl who has come from some > village not well known what to say about adiyen who > has come from a DD that too adorned by our dear > kaliyan as "oppavarillA mAdhargal vAzhum mAda > mAmayilai thiruvallikeni" Is there anything wrong in > adiyen being filled with sAtvika ahankaram? Dear Smt Sumithra, Can ahankAram be sAttvikam? Vishnu > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 16, 2004 Dear Sri Vishnu, What was the quality of Embar when he said "eppozhudhum ethirAjan vadivazhagu en idhayaththuLadhAl illai enekkedhir illai enekkedhir illai enekkedhirE" adiyEn TCA Venkatesan ramanuja, Vishnu <vsmvishnu> wrote: > Dear Smt Sumithra, > > Can ahankAram be sAttvikam? > > Vishnu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 17, 2004 Srimathe ramanujaya Namaha Dear Sri Vishnu, Sure. our poorvacharyas have strongly said sAtvika ahankaram is a welcoming factor for any Sri Vaishnava. Refer Nanmugan thiruvandhAdhi paasuram-3 where thirumazhisai azhvar says, "pAlil kidandhadhuvum pandarangam mEyadhuvum Alil tuyindradhuvum ArarivAr- jnAlath oru porulai vAnavar tham mei porulai appilai aruporulai yAn arindha vAru" These are the words of azhvar that arised out of sAtvika ahankaram(There are many such paasurams to quote). He says that no one knows about the emperuman like him. Is it right on azhvar's part? Sri periavachan pillai answers, "avan kAttak kaNda nAnaRindha padi svayathnaththAl kANbArkku ariyappOgAdhu" So it is due to his grace that azhvar has come to know about the paratva sowlabhya gunas of emperuman whereas the rest on trying with their own effort to know the same. So is there not a difference in the two? (kAttavE kanda pAda kamalam nallAdai undi tEttarum vudharabhandam thiru mArbu kandam sevvAi vAttamil kaNgal mEni muniyEri tanikidandhu pAttinAl vAzhum pAnar thAl paravinOmE) So being proud having seen emperuman due to his nirheduka krupai is acceptable to any Srivaishnava. Another type of Satvika ahankaram, is that pride which arises due to being a disciple of our acharya. See embar declaring, "eppozhudum ethirAjar vadivazhagu en edhayaththuladAl ellai enakkedir ellai enakkedir ellai ennakkedirE!" See Mamunigal while talking about the great vadivazhagu of thirumangai mannan in thiruvali-thirunagari finally completes saying, "nindra endha nilamai en kannai vittu agandridAdu kaliyan Anai AnaiyE!" So we Srivaishnavas should surely be filled with pride that we are "His devotees" shisyas of our "revered acharya" and "close to all our azhvars and acharyas and all Srivaishnavas" What other wealth can we all possess more than the srivaishnava sri/Kainkarya Sri? Shouldnt we be proud of the same else it is like being born to a king and considering ourselves to be paupers. It is not an insult to us but to our leader, Sriman Narayanan. Azhvar emperumAnAr Jeeyer thiruvadigalE sharaNam Adiyen ramanuja dAsee Sumithra Varadarajan - Vishnu ramanuja Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:31 PM Re: [ramanuja] Digest Number 856 >> When > it is the case for a girl who has come from some > village not well known what to say about adiyen who > has come from a DD that too adorned by our dear > kaliyan as "oppavarillA mAdhargal vAzhum mAda > mAmayilai thiruvallikeni" Is there anything wrong in > adiyen being filled with sAtvika ahankaram? Dear Smt Sumithra, Can ahankAram be sAttvikam? Vishnu > > azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam ramanuja/ b.. ramanuja c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 21, 2004 ramanuja, "Sumithra Varadarajan" <Sumivaradan@h...> wrote: > Srimathe ramanujaya Namaha > > Dear Smt Sumithra, The word sAttvika ahankAram is self-contradicting. Similarly ahankAram and nirhEtuka krpA are mutually exclusive. ahankAram is something due to which you attribute something great to yourself in terms of your qualities, achievements etc. When you are attributing something to PerumAL's krpA, that cannot be termed ahankAram. The very purpose of the concept of nirhEtuka krpA is to root out any trace of ahankAram from the heart of the devotee as said in "nIr numadhennivai... " pASuram (ThiruvAimozhi 1.2.3). > Sure. our poorvacharyas have strongly said sAtvika ahankaram is a >welcoming factor for any Sri Vaishnava. Refer Nanmugan >thiruvandhAdhi paasuram-3 where thirumazhisai azhvar says, "pAlil >kidandhadhuvum pandarangam mEyadhuvum Alil tuyindradhuvum ArarivAr- >jnAlath oru porulai vAnavar tham mei porulai appilai aruporulai yAn >arindha vAru" These are the words of azhvar that arised out of >sAtvika ahankaram(There are many such paasurams to quote). He says >that no one knows about the emperuman like him. Is it right on >azhvar's part? Sri periavachan pillai answers, "avan kAttak kaNda >nAnaRindha padi svayathnaththAl kANbArkku ariyappOgAdhu" So it is >due to his grace that azhvar has come to know about the paratva >sowlabhya gunas of emperuman whereas the rest on trying with their >own effort to know the same. So is there not a difference in the >two? You have quoted something which is an example for "no ahankAram". >From what you quoted from the AchArya's commentary, the AchArya is preventing any misinterpretation that the AzhwAr's words are due to his ahankAram. Since the AzhwAr does not have any ahankAram, he has understood the qualities of PerumAL due to His grace, better than anyone else who make some efforts which involve ego. That is what the AchArya means. Also AzhwArs and other AchAryas do not intend to say something great about themselves. AzhwArs have sung only to share their anubhavams with others and give them confidence (thoNdarkkamudhuNNacchonmAlaihaL SonnEn - ThiruvAimozhi). They do not claim they have sung on their own since they are conceptually against jIva swAtantryam (thannaitthAn pAdi thennAvennnum ennammAn - ThiruvAimozhi). >(kAttavE kanda pAda kamalam nallAdai undi tEttarum vudharabhandam >thiru mArbu kandam sevvAi vAttamil kaNgal mEni muniyEri tanikidandhu >pAttinAl vAzhum pAnar thAl paravinOmE) So being proud having seen >emperuman due to his nirheduka krupai is acceptable to any >Srivaishnava. What does "kAttavE kaNda" have to do with the so-called sAttvika ahankAram? > > Another type of Satvika ahankaram, is that pride which arises due >to being a disciple of our acharya. See embar >declaring, "eppozhudum ethirAjar vadivazhagu en >edhayaththuladAl >ellai enakkedir ellai enakkedir ellai >ennakkedirE!" See Mamunigal >while talking about the great >vadivazhagu of thirumangai mannan in >thiruvali-thirunagari finally >completes saying, "nindra endha >nilamai en kannai vittu agandridAdu >kaliyan Anai AnaiyE!" This is being discussed in a parallel mail. What do the AchAryas convey? > > So we Srivaishnavas should surely be filled with pride that we >are "His devotees" shisyas of our "revered acharya" and "close to >all our azhvars and acharyas and all Srivaishnavas" What other >wealth can we all possess more than the srivaishnava sri/Kainkarya >Sri? One can be humble and confident but certainly not proud. One cannot be simultaneously proud and close to all Srivaishnavas. Our humility only will make us close to them. The very thought that I am doing this kainkaryam (ahankAram) and such a kainkarya SrI is my wealth (mamakAram) are the worst enemies to our nature says SrI Bhattar (prabalatara virOdhi). The kainkaryam shall be performed with the thought that He has ordained it and out of love for Him. Ultimately, it is bhAgavata kanikaryam which we have to do in the material world. What kainkaryam can be expected from an ahambhAvI? Also how a person proud of being a Srivaishnava can reach out to those who are not? >Shouldnt we be proud of the same else it is like being born to >a >king and considering ourselves to be paupers. It is not an insult >to us but to our leader, Sriman Narayanan. there is a difference between humility and inferiority complex. In our vEdic culture, vinayam (humility) has to grow with vidyA. One need not be a SrIvaishNava to know this. > > Azhvar emperumAnAr Jeeyer thiruvadigalE sharaNam > Adiyen ramanuja dAsan Vishnu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 24, 2004 Dear Sri Vishnu, It is true that ahankAram in general, has to be given up. But the concept of sAtvika ahankAram is totally different. For instance, we have 'aham' in "aham brahmOsmi (sOham)" and in "dAsOham" there is a wide difference between the two. //When you are attributing something to PerumAL's krpA, that cannot be termed ahankAram.// Anything we achieve is due to bhagavat krupai. But the realisation obtained by the Srivaishnavas (again due to his nirheduka krupai only) gives them a pride of being a Srivaishnava close to emperuman's heart. We have to cherish the relationship with the lord else even the lord will get bored with his leelas. So infront of Non-Srivaishnavas we have to lift our heads and be proud to be a SriVaishnava. //The very purpose of the concept of nirhEtuka krpA is to root out any trace of ahankAram from the heart of the devotee as said in "nIr numadhennivai... " pASuram (ThiruvAimozhi 1.2.3).// "Neer numadhu endrivai vErmudal mAiththu" is a beautiful paasuram that indicates that our ahankAram and mamakaram has to be shed in case of lowkika affairs. It has no connection with bhagavan or bhagavat vishayam. Else we will not call periya perumal as 'Nam-perumal', Azhvar as 'Nam- Azhvar', 'Nam-Jeeyer' and 'Nam-pillai'. Don't we all cherish calling nam swamy udaiyavar as "em-perumAnAr". Why have our poorvacharyas preferred these thirunAmams? Madurakavi azhvar says, "ten kurugoor nambi endrakkAl annikkum amudoorum en nAvukkE" Madurakavi azhvar doesnt just say nAvukkE instead he says en nAvukkE Why because he feels proud to possess such a tongue which cherishes reciting thiruvaimozhi. Though azhvars and acharyas do not claim that they have done anything great or they are superior they do possess the pride of being a Srivaishnavite being close to emperuman and his devotees. That pride is only termed as "sAtvika ahankAram". This will never affect anyone. When it comes to other Srivaishnavas they show their nAichyam/humility but in front of non-Srivaishnavas they never bow their heads ("marandhum puram thozhA mAndhar") The pride does not lie in Azhvar being able to visualise emperuman since that has been possible only due to his unconditional grace but surely there is a pride in being choosen by emperuman to bless him with his divine darshan. If even then one remains like a stone or wood then it means that he hasn't understood the greatness of what he has achieved. When embar says, "ethirAjar vadivazhaghu en edhayaththuladAl ellai enakkedir ellai ennakedir ellai ennakedirE!" He shows his pride of possessing swamy emperumAnAr inside his heart. EMperumAnAr has all the divya desa emperumAns inside his heart. Let us get to our memory the words of thiruvarangaththamudhanar at this point, "eruppidam vaikundam vEnkadam mAlirunchOlai ennum poruppidam mAyanukkenbar nallOr avaithannodum vandiruppidam mAyan erAmAnusan manaththu endravan vandhiruppidam endhan edhayaththullE thanakkinbhuravE" Again the same amudhanAr says, "ennaruvinaiyin tiram seRRiravum pagalum vidAdhu enthan sindhaiyullE niraindhopparavirundhAn 'enakkArum nigarillaiyE' what does amudhanar show by saying no one is equal to me? This is only called as sAtvika ahankaram in our sampradayam. The pride has not arised due to any of amudhanAr's greatness but it has arised due to the existance of swamy emperumAnAr inside his mind always. So this pride is harmless and welcomed by Srivaishnavas. Being filled with sAtvika ahankAram will never shatter our humbleness. Only a true Srivaishnava who knows the greatness of bhagavan and bhagavatas will be proud to be one among the Srivaishnava community. So he will be atmost humble to all bhagavatas and will never dare to do a bhagavat/bhAgavata apacharam. Only when one feels esteemed to be a Srivaishnava will he try to get all others struggling in this world of samsAram to this fold. While doing a kainkaryam we should not think that we are doing it or it is for our pleasure. But we should realise that the kainkaryam has been blessed to us by the supreme lord though we are not eligible for the same ("porulallAdha ennai porulAkki adimai kondAi"). A Srivaishnava cherishes doing more and more of kainkaryams to the lord and bhAgavatas. The very thought of he being a Srivaishnava instigates him to do more and more of Kainkaryam. Since the pride of Srivaishnava lies in doing kainkaryam and making the lord and the bhagavatas happy. A true Srivaishnava, considers all the jeevatmas to be part of emperuman and hence if he sees anyone (even an animal) in sorrow he feels for them and tries to help them in some manner. A Srivaishnavite never enjoys emperuman and bhagavat vishayam in solace but cherishes enjoying along with everyone "koodiyirundhu kulirindhElOr" All these feelings arise in him only because he has the feeling of being a Srivaishnavite. Thirumazhisai azhvar declares, "tErunkAl dEvan oruvanE endruraippar Arum ariyAr avan perumai" that no one knows the greatness of emperuman like azhvar does but does this pride in azhvar stop him from reaching common folks like us through his sweet paasurams? Does this sAtvikka ahankaram in any way stop azhvar from doing his kainkaryam to bhagavan and bhagavatas? As you have said humility is different from inferiority complex and similarly there is a lot of difference between sAtvikka ahankaram and superiority complex (or common ego and pride) Azhvar emperumAnAr Jeeyer thiruvadigalE sharaNam Adiyen ramanuja dAsee Sumithra Varadarajan - Vishnu ramanuja Saturday, August 21, 2004 10:16 PM [ramanuja] Re: Digest Number 856 ramanuja, "Sumithra Varadarajan" <Sumivaradan@h...> wrote: > Srimathe ramanujaya Namaha > > Dear Smt Sumithra, The word sAttvika ahankAram is self-contradicting. Similarly ahankAram and nirhEtuka krpA are mutually exclusive. ahankAram is something due to which you attribute something great to yourself in terms of your qualities, achievements etc. > Sure. our poorvacharyas have strongly said sAtvika ahankaram is a >welcoming factor for any Sri Vaishnava. Refer Nanmugan >thiruvandhAdhi paasuram-3 where thirumazhisai azhvar says, "pAlil >kidandhadhuvum pandarangam mEyadhuvum Alil tuyindradhuvum ArarivAr- >jnAlath oru porulai vAnavar tham mei porulai appilai aruporulai yAn >arindha vAru" These are the words of azhvar that arised out of >sAtvika ahankaram(There are many such paasurams to quote). He says >that no one knows about the emperuman like him. Is it right on >azhvar's part? Sri periavachan pillai answers, "avan kAttak kaNda >nAnaRindha padi svayathnaththAl kANbArkku ariyappOgAdhu" So it is >due to his grace that azhvar has come to know about the paratva >sowlabhya gunas of emperuman whereas the rest on trying with their >own effort to know the same. So is there not a difference in the >two? Also AzhwArs and other AchAryas do not intend to say something great about themselves. AzhwArs have sung only to share their anubhavams with others and give them confidence (thoNdarkkamudhuNNacchonmAlaihaL SonnEn - ThiruvAimozhi). They do not claim they have sung on their own since they are conceptually against jIva swAtantryam (thannaitthAn pAdi thennAvennnum ennammAn - ThiruvAimozhi). >(kAttavE kanda pAda kamalam nallAdai undi tEttarum vudharabhandam >thiru mArbu kandam sevvAi vAttamil kaNgal mEni muniyEri tanikidandhu >pAttinAl vAzhum pAnar thAl paravinOmE) So being proud having seen >emperuman due to his nirheduka krupai is acceptable to any >Srivaishnava. > > Another type of Satvika ahankaram, is that pride which arises due >to being a disciple of our acharya. See embar >declaring, "eppozhudum ethirAjar vadivazhagu en >edhayaththuladAl >ellai enakkedir ellai enakkedir ellai >ennakkedirE!" See Mamunigal >while talking about the great >vadivazhagu of thirumangai mannan in >thiruvali-thirunagari finally >completes saying, "nindra endha >nilamai en kannai vittu agandridAdu >kaliyan Anai AnaiyE!" This is being discussed in a parallel mail. What do the AchAryas convey? > > So we Srivaishnavas should surely be filled with pride that we >are "His devotees" shisyas of our "revered acharya" and "close to >all our azhvars and acharyas and all Srivaishnavas" What other >wealth can we all possess more than the srivaishnava sri/Kainkarya >Sri? One can be humble and confident but certainly not proud. One cannot be simultaneously proud and close to all Srivaishnavas. Our humility only will make us close to them. The very thought that I am doing this kainkaryam (ahankAram) and such a kainkarya SrI is my wealth (mamakAram) are the worst enemies to our nature says SrI Bhattar (prabalatara virOdhi). The kainkaryam shall be performed with the thought that He has ordained it and out of love for Him. Ultimately, it is bhAgavata kanikaryam which we have to do in the material world. What kainkaryam can be expected from an ahambhAvI? Also how a person proud of being a Srivaishnava can reach out to those who are not? >Shouldnt we be proud of the same else it is like being born to >a >king and considering ourselves to be paupers. It is not an insult >to us but to our leader, Sriman Narayanan. there is a difference between humility and inferiority complex. In our vEdic culture, vinayam (humility) has to grow with vidyA. One need not be a SrIvaishNava to know this. > > Azhvar emperumAnAr Jeeyer thiruvadigalE sharaNam > Adiyen ramanuja dAsan Vishnu azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam ramanuja/ b.. ramanuja c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2004 Dear Smt.Sumithra, One phrase of Thirumangai Azhwar would suffice to justify your point on the sAtvika ahankAram. 'ninthanakkum kurippaagil karkalaam kaviyin porul thaane' explains it all, where Azhwar tells perumal - 'hey, if you are so interested, then come down as my disciple and learn it from me'. The ahankAram in sAtvika ahsankAram must not be literally understood as Self's arrogance. It is more of a polite pride as Smt.Sumithra had pointed out. Sarva Aparaadhaan Kshamasva! Adiyen, Ramanuja Daasan ramanuja, "Sumithra Varadarajan" <Sumivaradan@h...> wrote: > Dear Sri Vishnu, > > It is true that ahankAram in general, has to be given up. But the concept of sAtvika ahankAram is totally different. For instance, we have 'aham' in "aham brahmOsmi (sOham)" and in "dAsOham" there is a wide difference between the two. > > //When you are > attributing something to PerumAL's krpA, that cannot be termed > ahankAram.// > > Anything we achieve is due to bhagavat krupai. But the realisation obtained by the Srivaishnavas (again due to his nirheduka krupai only) gives them a pride of being a Srivaishnava close to emperuman's heart. We have to cherish the relationship with the lord else even the lord will get bored with his leelas. So infront of Non- Srivaishnavas we have to lift our heads and be proud to be a SriVaishnava. > > //The very purpose of the concept of nirhEtuka krpA is to root out any > trace of ahankAram from the heart of the devotee as said in "nIr > numadhennivai... " pASuram (ThiruvAimozhi 1.2.3).// > > "Neer numadhu endrivai vErmudal mAiththu" is a beautiful paasuram that indicates that our ahankAram and mamakaram has to be shed in case of lowkika affairs. It has no connection with bhagavan or bhagavat vishayam. Else we will not call periya perumal as 'Nam- perumal', Azhvar as 'Nam- Azhvar', 'Nam-Jeeyer' and 'Nam-pillai'. Don't we all cherish calling nam swamy udaiyavar as "em-perumAnAr". Why have our poorvacharyas preferred these thirunAmams? Madurakavi azhvar says, "ten kurugoor nambi endrakkAl annikkum amudoorum en nAvukkE" Madurakavi azhvar doesnt just say nAvukkE instead he says en nAvukkE Why because he feels proud to possess such a tongue which cherishes reciting thiruvaimozhi. Though azhvars and acharyas do not claim that they have done anything great or they are superior they do possess the pride of being a Srivaishnavite being close to emperuman and his devotees. That pride is only termed as "sAtvika ahankAram". This will never affect anyone. When it comes to other Srivaishnavas they show their nAichyam/humility but in front of non-Srivaishnavas they never bow their heads ("marandhum puram thozhA mAndhar") > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 28, 2004 ramanuja, "Sumithra Varadarajan" <Sumivaradan@h...> wrote: > Dear Sri Vishnu, > > It is true that ahankAram in general, has to be given up. But the concept of sAtvika ahankAram is totally different. For instance, we have 'aham' in "aham brahmOsmi (sOham)" and in "dAsOham" there is a wide difference between the two. Dear Smt Sumithra, At least pUrvAchAryas do not use this self-contradicting term. There is no ahankAram in dAsOham and no mamakAram in my swAmI (emperumAn). The self is meant only for the Lord. That is what AchAryas mean when they say we have to please Him. Hence its existence cannot be meaningful (sAttvikam) if it has any kind of pride (garvam) and ego (ahankAram). > > //When you are > attributing something to PerumAL's krpA, that cannot be termed > ahankAram.// > > Quote: "Neer numadhu endrivai vErmudal mAiththu" is a beautiful paasuram that indicates that our ahankAram and mamakaram has to be shed in case of lowkika affairs. It has no connection with bhagavan or bhagavat vishayam. Unquote: It has connection only with Bhagavat vishayam. Also any part of life is not extraneous to Him. Quote: Else we will not call periya perumal as 'Nam-perumal', Azhvar as 'Nam- Azhvar', 'Nam-Jeeyer' and 'Nam-pillai'. Don't we all cherish calling nam swamy udaiyavar as "em-perumAnAr". Why have our poorvacharyas preferred these thirunAmams? Unquote: Our pUrvAchAryas preferred these thirunAmams because of their sowlabhyam. They consider themselves to be belongings of their devotees, like the Lord. We do cherish calling them so. Quote: Madurakavi azhvar says, "ten kurugoor nambi endrakkAl annikkum amudoorum en nAvukkE" Madurakavi azhvar doesnt just say nAvukkE instead he says en nAvukkE Why because he feels proud to possess such a tongue which cherishes reciting thiruvaimozhi. Unquote: AzhwAr's kaNNinuN SirutthAmbu is considered to be like nama: padam in Thirumantram, though I dont know the software and hardware part of it! AzhwAr very well knows that he is different from his body and He is the real owner of both body and soul. He does not say he is proud. He is just expressing his joy. He further tells that all his ahankAra and mamakAra are lost as his thoughts are on his AchArya's songs in "nAvinAl.." --- the very next pASuram. Quote: The pride does not lie in Azhvar being able to visualise emperuman since that has been possible only due to his unconditional grace but surely there is a pride in being choosen by emperuman to bless him with his divine darshan. Unquote: Assuming they are proud, they are proud of themselves or emberumAn? If not themselves, where is ahankAram? Quote: When embar says, "ethirAjar vadivazhaghu en edhayaththuladAl ellai enakkedir ellai ennakedir ellai ennakedirE!" He shows his pride of possessing swamy emperumAnAr inside his heart. Unquote: Why does he show his pride to us? Quote: Again the same amudhanAr says, "ennaruvinaiyin tiram seRRiravum pagalum vidAdhu enthan sindhaiyullE niraindhopparavirundhAn 'enakkArum nigarillaiyE' what does amudhanar show by saying no one is equal to me? Unquote: He further explains in the very next pASuram "niharinni ninna en nISadhaikku", that he is first from the last! This pASuram (niharinni..) is a translation of the beautiful SlOka "tadaham tvadrtE na nAthavAn..." of yAmuna replacing emberumAn with emberumAnAr. Also AchAryas give us confidence that He is there to take care of us despite all our defects. > Quote: While doing a kainkaryam we should not think that we are doing it or it is for our pleasure. But we should realise that the kainkaryam has been blessed to us by the supreme lord though we are not eligible for the same ("porulallAdha ennai porulAkki adimai kondAi"). Unquote: Hence no pride! Quote: A Srivaishnava cherishes doing more and more of kainkaryams to the lord and bhAgavatas. The very thought of he being a Srivaishnava instigates him to do more and more of Kainkaryam. Since the pride of Srivaishnava lies in doing kainkaryam and making the lord and the bhagavatas happy. Unquote: For a Srivaishnava, the bhOgyam is His qualities. One has to do kainkaryam without any mamakAram, clearly says Bhattar. The jIva is a mere instrument in the hand of the Lord and does not enjoy any swAtantryam for doing kainkaryam. The kainkaryam has to be with love and not pride. Quote: Thirumazhisai azhvar declares, "tErunkAl dEvan oruvanE endruraippar Arum ariyAr avan perumai" that no one knows the greatness of emperuman like azhvar does but does this pride in azhvar stop him from reaching common folks like us through his sweet paasurams? Does this sAtvikka ahankaram in any way stop azhvar from doing his kainkaryam to bhagavan and bhagavatas? unquote: It does not stop, since it is not there, as I wrote in previous mail! Quote: As you have said humility is different from inferiority complex and similarly there is a lot of difference between sAtvikka ahankaram and superiority complex (or common ego and pride) Unquote: Common or special, it is against SEshatvam. Azhvar emperumAnAr Jeeyer thiruvadigalE sharaNam Adiyen Vishnu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 29, 2004 Dear Sriman Vishnu / Bhagavathaas, I have a small doubt. As I was reading this post I came across something like a paradox, regarding SEshatvam. We understand (vaishnavites) that we all are the servants of the lord. SEshatvam is an eternal property that exists, whether we realise it or not is what is a different issue. Now, in a situation where the lord demands that HE wants to be a servant of us, we being a servant of HIM already, a) Do we just obey HIS orders and let him be our servant OR b) as we are HIS servants and want to stick to SEshatvam, just ignore his happiness of wanting to be our servant? This confuses me. Could someone clarify(with some reference if possible)? For example, in case of Thirumanga Mannan or Raamanujar or Maamunigal, the lord wanted to be their disciple. They obliged. But, we must remember that, the very sthaanam of acharya indicates a superior position, whether the acharya feels so or not being a different issue. So, if they accepted HIM as their disciple, it means, they were ok to take up the acharya's position for the lord. And they knew that the very position of acharya comes with a dangerous word "superior" hidden inside it. Is this acceptable? My apologies for my ignorance Adiyen, Ramanuja Dasan >Quote: >As you have said humility is different from inferiority complex and >similarly there is a lot of difference between sAtvikka ahankaram and >superiority complex (or common ego and pride) >Unquote: >Common or special, it is against SEshatvam. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 30, 2004 This aspect is very subtle and is answered in Mumukshuppadi sootra 92: athAvathu bOghathasaiyil Isvaran azhikkumpOthu nOkka vENumenRu azhiyAozigai. The meaning of this (taken from Sriman TCA Swamin's translation of PBAnnangarachar Swami's work) is as follows: During the time that He mixes with the soul and enjoys it, if He destroys the soul's sEshatvam, the soul should not practise naicchiyam and consider that it should save its SvarUpam, and thereby destroy His pleasure. That is, the soul should accept every act of His. PeriAlwar - syththalai ezhunARRup pOl avan syvana seythu koLLa". Please also refer to U.Ve.Velukkudi Swamin's upnyasam on this sutram in Tirumantratham . There he says in Ashraya dashai there is kramam. But in 'anubhava dashai' there is NO kramam.... if you resist , His enjoyment will be reduced and thus becomes 'swaroopa nasham'. ..in that respect, the jeevAtma should be like achit. Kindly listen to that upanyasam for more clarity on this... Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann wrote: Dear Sriman Vishnu / Bhagavathaas, I have a small doubt. As I was reading this post I came across something like a paradox, regarding SEshatvam. We understand (vaishnavites) that we all are the servants of the lord. SEshatvam is an eternal property that exists, whether we realise it or not is what is a different issue. Now, in a situation where the lord demands that HE wants to be a servant of us, we being a servant of HIM already, a) Do we just obey HIS orders and let him be our servant OR b) as we are HIS servants and want to stick to SEshatvam, just ignore his happiness of wanting to be our servant? This confuses me. Could someone clarify(with some reference if possible)? For example, in case of Thirumanga Mannan or Raamanujar or Maamunigal, the lord wanted to be their disciple. They obliged. But, we must remember that, the very sthaanam of acharya indicates a superior position, whether the acharya feels so or not being a different issue. So, if they accepted HIM as their disciple, it means, they were ok to take up the acharya's position for the lord. And they knew that the very position of acharya comes with a dangerous word "superior" hidden inside it. Is this acceptable? My apologies for my ignorance Adiyen, Ramanuja Dasan >Quote: >As you have said humility is different from inferiority complex and >similarly there is a lot of difference between sAtvikka ahankaram and >superiority complex (or common ego and pride) >Unquote: >Common or special, it is against SEshatvam. azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Enter now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 30, 2004 Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: Srimathe Vara Vara Munaye nama: Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan, Humble praNAms to you. There is no paradox. Since I come under aj~nAna prapanna(or probably worse than that),my reply is based on my maNdUka knowledge! If I understand your mail little bit, your second point(b) is there eternally. PerumAL choosing option (a) is unquestionable as He is parathvam(hence He shows His saulabhyam by becoming servants to His devotees). Our job is to do service with love and that's it. Period. He becoming our servant or not is not our problem. It is He who chooses whose disciple He wants to be. It is perumAL who made the statement "vashe kurvanti mAm bhakta: sat shriya: sat patim". No devotee said "perumAL becomes my servant". Happiness/unhappiness,pApam/puNyam etc is relative not in the jIvAtmA's eyes but paramAtmA's eyes. Wrt AcAryA's position being superior, I don't know if you're using the right word to convey what;s going on in your mind. I was fortunate to listen and learn(some srI vacana bhUShaNam and AcArya hrdayam) from Sri Chinna Jeeyar swamiji in person. Swamiji explained very beautifully the AcAryA's position. Nowhere swamiji used the word superior! We all perform actions. But what makes people differ from each other is the attitude they carry behind that action. If I digressed from your main point, please pardon me. As Vishnu poined out in the earlier mail,I feel sAtivIka ahankAram is against seshatvam. In AzhvArs cases(who come under bhakta prapannAs) it is a different scenario. Even in such cases, I don't think they prided themselves when they sang certain pAsurams. Experts in NDP will explain on my behalf(as I'm novice in that area). I feel if ordinary jIvAtmA like us has sAtivIka ahankAram, in "no time" it will get converted into dangerous ahankAram which will damage the soul forever! I request teh devotees to forgive my blabberings. AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam dAsAnu dAsI NC Nappinnai a) > Do we just obey HIS orders and let him be our servant OR b) as we are > HIS servants and want to stick to SEshatvam, just ignore his > happiness of wanting to be our servant? This confuses me. Could > someone clarify(with some reference if possible)? For example, in > case of Thirumanga Mannan or Raamanujar or Maamunigal, the lord > wanted to be their disciple. They obliged. But, we must remember > that, the very sthaanam of acharya indicates a superior position, > whether the acharya feels so or not being a different issue. So, if > they accepted HIM as their disciple, it means, they were ok to take > up the acharya's position for the lord. And they knew that the very > position of acharya comes with a dangerous word "superior" hidden > inside it. Is this acceptable? My apologies for my ignorance > > Adiyen, > Ramanuja Dasan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 30, 2004 Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan, Smt Sheela Belur has already addressed your query from Pillai Lokacharyar's Mumukshuppadi. As she pointed out this is an important concept. The two states you have mentioned are sEshatvam and pAratantriyam. While sEshatvam is no doubt the true nature of the soul, it is pAratantriyam that is given a higher status. pAratantriyam is letting Him dictate every thing - including the destruction of sEshatvam. The examples for these are Lakshmana and Bharata. Lakshmana practised sEshatvam. When Sri Rama asked him to stay back in Ayodhya, as He prepared to leave for the forest, Lakshmana refused to give up his sEshatvam ("aham sarvam karishyAmi"). When Sri Rama asked Bharata to give up his pleas to have Rama return to Ayodhya and also asked him to rule in His stead, Bharata immediately followed that. It is to highlight this greatness of Bharata, that Rama asks the question "Will all brothers be like Bharata?" to Lakshmana himself, when Lakshmana wonders that brothers Vali and Sugreeva could fight each other. Amongst the ten Azhvars, sEshatvam was practised by nine azhvars, while pAratantriyam was practised by Periyazhvar. Losing his svarUpam of being a sEsha bhUtan, and forgetting His sEshi bhAvam, Azhvar sings for His well being ("pallANdu") - "thAn azhigilum avan uyarththiyai/bhOgaththai vENduvadhu". Azhvar Emberumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan --- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann wrote: > Dear Sriman Vishnu / Bhagavathaas, > I have a small doubt. As I was reading this post I came > across > something like a paradox, regarding SEshatvam. We > understand > (vaishnavites) that we all are the servants of the lord. > SEshatvam is > an eternal property that exists, whether we realise it or > not is what > is a different issue. Now, in a situation where the lord > demands that > HE wants to be a servant of us, we being a servant of HIM > already, a) > Do we just obey HIS orders and let him be our servant OR > b) as we are > HIS servants and want to stick to SEshatvam, just ignore > his > happiness of wanting to be our servant? This confuses me. > ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 30, 2004 Deare srEvaishNavites, Wonderful! Wonderful! I am not worried whehter sAthvika ahankAram is necessary or not. I think this sAthvika ahankAram is indeed necessary as it has brought out from the shell Ms. nappinnai ; Ms Sheela Belur. this interaction was lacking for quite sometme. Thank YOu one and all. In fact, I was wondering what had happened to our steadfast Ms. nc vaidehi? I was thinking for quite sometime that Ms Shela Belur has not written at all. I think one more person is missing in the list . 'thiruvaranganaikamurucselvar'. Let him also please come up. 'andhamil pEAr inbathu adiyarOdu irundhamai' regards one and all vanamamalai padmanabhan POLIGA! POLIGA! POLIGA! - vaidhehi_nc ramanuja Monday, August 30, 2004 9:05 PM [ramanuja] Re: Digest Number 856 Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: Srimathe Vara Vara Munaye nama: Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan, Humble praNAms to you. There is no paradox. Since I come under aj~nAna prapanna(or probably worse than that),my reply is based on my maNdUka knowledge! If I understand your mail little bit, your second point(b) is there eternally. PerumAL choosing option (a) is unquestionable as He is parathvam(hence He shows His saulabhyam by becoming servants to His devotees). Our job is to do service with love and that's it. Period. He becoming our servant or not is not our problem. It is He who chooses whose disciple He wants to be. It is perumAL who made the statement "vashe kurvanti mAm bhakta: sat shriya: sat patim". No devotee said "perumAL becomes my servant". Happiness/unhappiness,pApam/puNyam etc is relative not in the jIvAtmA's eyes but paramAtmA's eyes. Wrt AcAryA's position being superior, I don't know if you're using the right word to convey what;s going on in your mind. I was fortunate to listen and learn(some srI vacana bhUShaNam and AcArya hrdayam) from Sri Chinna Jeeyar swamiji in person. Swamiji explained very beautifully the AcAryA's position. Nowhere swamiji used the word superior! We all perform actions. But what makes people differ from each other is the attitude they carry behind that action. If I digressed from your main point, please pardon me. As Vishnu poined out in the earlier mail,I feel sAtivIka ahankAram is against seshatvam. In AzhvArs cases(who come under bhakta prapannAs) it is a different scenario. Even in such cases, I don't think they prided themselves when they sang certain pAsurams. Experts in NDP will explain on my behalf(as I'm novice in that area). I feel if ordinary jIvAtmA like us has sAtivIka ahankAram, in "no time" it will get converted into dangerous ahankAram which will damage the soul forever! I request teh devotees to forgive my blabberings. AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam dAsAnu dAsI NC Nappinnai a) > Do we just obey HIS orders and let him be our servant OR b) as we are > HIS servants and want to stick to SEshatvam, just ignore his > happiness of wanting to be our servant? This confuses me. Could > someone clarify(with some reference if possible)? For example, in > case of Thirumanga Mannan or Raamanujar or Maamunigal, the lord > wanted to be their disciple. They obliged. But, we must remember > that, the very sthaanam of acharya indicates a superior position, > whether the acharya feels so or not being a different issue. So, if > they accepted HIM as their disciple, it means, they were ok to take > up the acharya's position for the lord. And they knew that the very > position of acharya comes with a dangerous word "superior" hidden > inside it. Is this acceptable? My apologies for my ignorance > > Adiyen, > Ramanuja Dasan azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam ramanuja/ b.. ramanuja c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 31, 2004 ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > > > > While sEshatvam is no doubt the true nature of the > soul, it is pAratantriyam that is given a higher > status. pAratantriyam is letting Him dictate every > thing - including the destruction of sEshatvam. > Dear Sriman Venkatesan, What is SEshatvam? How does pAratantryam destroy it? Dasan Vishnu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 31, 2004 Dear Sri Vishnu, sEshatvam is servitude. pAratantryam is complete dependence on the Lord. I did not mean that pAratantryam destroys sEshatvam. What I meant was that pAratantryam would even tolerate the destruction of sEshatvam - if it were to happen. That's what was also being said in the Mumukshuppadi sutra that Smt Sheela Belur quoted. If the Lord so desires that He serve us (reversing the roles) or that we stop our service to Him, then a paratantra would accept even that - even though it goes against his sEsha svarUpam. adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan --- Vishnu <vsmvishnu wrote: > Dear Sriman Venkatesan, > > What is SEshatvam? How does pAratantryam destroy it? > > Dasan > Vishnu > > > New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 31, 2004 Dear Sri vishNu, shEshathvam is being the state of soul being subservient to the Lord Almighty. pArathanthriyam is a state of not just being obedient but making oneself in a state of being used by HIm for His sake. pAratanthriyam does not destroy shEshathvam. A gold coin is valuable. It is good. However, cannot be used for ornaments or cannot be worn. On the contrary, jewels can be used. shEshathvam is like gold coin-ingot. pArathanthriyam is like jewels. "kattip pOl anREA paNip pon" is AchArya Hrdhya sUthram in this regard. Hope I have conveyed the point to a certain extent. regards vAnamamalai padmanabhan - Vishnu ramanuja Tuesday, August 31, 2004 9:42 PM [ramanuja] Re: Digest Number 856 ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > > > > While sEshatvam is no doubt the true nature of the > soul, it is pAratantriyam that is given a higher > status. pAratantriyam is letting Him dictate every > thing - including the destruction of sEshatvam. > Dear Sriman Venkatesan, What is SEshatvam? How does pAratantryam destroy it? Dasan Vishnu azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam ramanuja/ b.. ramanuja c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 1, 2004 Dear Sriman Venkatesan, I agree with Sriman Padmanabhan on this. The mUlam quoted by Smt Sheela also does not have any mention of SEshatvam specifically. SEsham means something which remains (for Him in our context) and such nature is SEshatvam. Our AchAryas have derived this as subservience, servitude etc., though the English words we choose may not be the best fit. This derviation is due to the fact that nothing can be superior or equal to Him. If we are SEshabhUtam for Him i.e. if we meaningfully remain for Him, we should not question whatever He wishes including those acts that are seemingly against our SEshatvam. Hence pAratantryam and SEshatvam are inter-linked. Thus pAratantryam makes our SEshatvam complete or perfect rather than destroying it or even tolerating its destruction. This can be seen in "nivAsa SayyAsana..." SlOka of yAmuna where SEsha serves Him as abode, bed, throne, footwear, pillow, umbrella etc. Here it is important to note that all the objects mentioned are non-sentient, indicating pAratantryam without any ahankAram. Thus SEsha has complete SEshatvam. Then how do we interpret sUtra 92? Dasan Vishnu ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote: > Dear Sri Vishnu, > > sEshatvam is servitude. pAratantryam is complete > dependence on the Lord. > > I did not mean that pAratantryam destroys sEshatvam. > What I meant was that pAratantryam would even tolerate > the destruction of sEshatvam - if it were to happen. > > That's what was also being said in the Mumukshuppadi > sutra that Smt Sheela Belur quoted. > > If the Lord so desires that He serve us (reversing > the roles) or that we stop our service to Him, then > a paratantra would accept even that - even though it > goes against his sEsha svarUpam. > > adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan > > > --- Vishnu <vsmvishnu> wrote: > > Dear Sriman Venkatesan, > > > > What is SEshatvam? How does pAratantryam destroy it? > > > > Dasan > > Vishnu > > > > > > > > > > > > > New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages! > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 1, 2004 Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya nama: Srimad Vara Vara Munaye nama: Dear Sri Vanamamalai Padmanabhan, Humble praNAms to you. This is very clear and you always explain things with no trace of doubt. I had been enjoying your mails silently for quite some time. How can I ever forget the two devotees(you and Sri Parthasarathy Iyengar)who put pichchai/bhiksha (in the form of knowledge of SVB and AH)for me. Devotees like you, sri parthasarathy iyengar, sri TA varadhan, sri sridhar srinivasan,sri mukunda pattangi, sri TCA venkatesan, Smt sheela belur,and Srirangapriya(thiruvarangaththuselvanai kAmuRal)and ofcourse dear srimahavishnu,Smt Sumithra are all jewels who decorate this srI rAmAnuja forum and people like me are observers who are lost forever in the admiration and adoration of these jewels. No words can express the gratitude I feel towards you and sri parthasarathy iyengar. Your kaimkaryam in this forum is incomparable and I(on behalf of other devotees also) thank you wholeheartedly for benefitting souls like me. I request devotees to forgive me if I left out some names. We are all THEIR children. AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam dAsAnu dAsI NC Nappinnai > shEshathvam is being the state of soul being subservient to the Lord Almighty. pArathanthriyam is a state of not just being obedient but making oneself in a state of being used by HIm for His sake. > > pAratanthriyam does not destroy shEshathvam. > > A gold coin is valuable. It is good. However, cannot be used for ornaments or cannot be worn. > > On the contrary, jewels can be used. > > shEshathvam is like gold coin-ingot. pArathanthriyam is like jewels. > > "kattip pOl anREA paNip pon" is AchArya Hrdhya sUthram in this regard. > > Hope I have conveyed the point to a certain extent. > > regards > vAnamamalai padmanabhan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 1, 2004 Dear Sri Vishnu, I think we may getting lost in the words here. If you separate sEshatvam as servitude only and pAratantryam as complete dependence, then, were a situation to arise where, for His pleasure, He wishes to reverse the sEsha sEshi bhAvam between us and Him, then pAratantryam would dictate that we accept that. Hence the difference between Lakshmana who refused to give up direct service to Rama and Bharata who accepted Rama's words. If we take it that pAratantryam is the height of sEshatvam, then you are right - we cannot say that pAratantrayam allows us to remove sEshatvam. Therefore, you could make the case that Bharata did not give up service to Rama; he was still performing service to Him by obeying His words. The point here though is that the jIvAtma cannot hold on to its nature of sEsha and feel that that position cannot be changed. A paratantra accepts even the destruction of his sEsha bhAvam if He so desires. This is what sutra 92 states. As examples, Manavala Mamunigal accepting the position of being an acharya to the Lord Himself - purely for His pleasure; and Nammazhvar allowing the Lord to even massage his feet - again for His pleasure. adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan --- Vishnu <vsmvishnu wrote: > Dear Sriman Venkatesan, > > I agree with Sriman Padmanabhan on this. > > The mUlam quoted by Smt Sheela also does not have any > mention of > SEshatvam specifically. > > SEsham means something which remains (for Him in our > context) and > such nature is SEshatvam. Our AchAryas have derived this > as > subservience, servitude etc., though the English words we > choose may > not be the best fit. This derviation is due to the fact > that nothing > can be superior or equal to Him. > > If we are SEshabhUtam for Him i.e. if we meaningfully > remain for Him, > we should not question whatever He wishes including those > acts that > are seemingly against our SEshatvam. Hence pAratantryam > and SEshatvam > are inter-linked. Thus pAratantryam makes our SEshatvam > complete or > perfect rather than destroying it or even tolerating its > destruction. > > This can be seen in "nivAsa SayyAsana..." SlOka of yAmuna > where SEsha > serves Him as abode, bed, throne, footwear, pillow, > umbrella etc. > Here it is important to note that all the objects > mentioned are > non-sentient, indicating pAratantryam without any > ahankAram. Thus > SEsha has complete SEshatvam. > > Then how do we interpret sUtra 92? > > Dasan > Vishnu > New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Dear Shri Vishnu, SEshatvam is an undeniable property of every chit and achit i.e. it is the swaroopam. pAratantryam is not a property. It is a behaviour depicted by a chit/achit i.e it is the swabhavam. The difference is, whether we think we are his servant or not, we are, by nature. You can never give up(destroy) the nature of SEshatvam, you may only give up the knowledge of SEshatvam and act arrogantly. Whereas pAratantryam/svAtantryam could be destroyed as it is not a swaroopam, but is a meagre swabhaavam. The only catch is, for performanace of pAratantryam, the knowledge of SEshatvam(swaroopa gnyanam) comes handy. To me, what shri Venkatesan swami mentioned, looks like, this knowledge of SEshatvam shall even be destroyed while trying to perform a complete pAratantrya behaviour - which is true. So, pAratantryam need not make SEshatvam complete, rather, cannot. pAratantryam can only make our acts more appropriate to our real swaroopam that is SEshatvam. By the way, SEsham, in this context, means, something that is incomplete and is dependent on something else for completeness. All achit and chit are incomplete in everything and is dependent on HIM. Whereas HE is complete(poornam....) in himself and makes us complete (by being our antaryami - the niyatha). sarva aparaadhaan kshamasva adiyen, Ramanuja Dasan. ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu> wrote: > Dear Sriman Venkatesan, > > I agree with Sriman Padmanabhan on this. > > The mUlam quoted by Smt Sheela also does not have any mention of > SEshatvam specifically. > > SEsham means something which remains (for Him in our context) and > such nature is SEshatvam. Our AchAryas have derived this as > subservience, servitude etc., though the English words we choose may > not be the best fit. This derviation is due to the fact that nothing > can be superior or equal to Him. > > If we are SEshabhUtam for Him i.e. if we meaningfully remain for Him, > we should not question whatever He wishes including those acts that > are seemingly against our SEshatvam. Hence pAratantryam and SEshatvam > are inter-linked. Thus pAratantryam makes our SEshatvam complete or > perfect rather than destroying it or even tolerating its destruction. > > This can be seen in "nivAsa SayyAsana..." SlOka of yAmuna where SEsha > serves Him as abode, bed, throne, footwear, pillow, umbrella etc. > Here it is important to note that all the objects mentioned are > non-sentient, indicating pAratantryam without any ahankAram. Thus > SEsha has complete SEshatvam. > > Then how do we interpret sUtra 92? > > Dasan > Vishnu > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 2, 2004 ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote: > Dear Sri Vishnu, > > I think we may getting lost in the words here. Dear Sriman Venkatesan, Certainly no! If we do not try to understand, why should we disucss:-) > > If you separate sEshatvam as servitude only and > pAratantryam as complete dependence, then, were a > situation to arise where, for His pleasure, He > wishes to reverse the sEsha sEshi bhAvam between > us and Him, then pAratantryam would dictate that > we accept that. Hence the difference between > Lakshmana who refused to give up direct service > to Rama and Bharata who accepted Rama's words. > > If we take it that pAratantryam is the height > of sEshatvam, then you are right - we cannot > say that pAratantrayam allows us to remove > sEshatvam. Therefore, you could make the case > that Bharata did not give up service to Rama; > he was still performing service to Him by obeying > His words. > > The point here though is that the jIvAtma cannot > hold on to its nature of sEsha and feel that that > position cannot be changed. A paratantra accepts > even the destruction of his sEsha bhAvam if He so > desires. This is what sutra 92 states. Exactly that is what I am trying to say. If at all there is some ahankAram associated with SEshatvam (as pointed by Smt Sumithra), pAratantryam destroys that too. This means I am not SEsham for Him on my own, but I remain for Him (SEsham) as He wishes. Thus, there is no ahankAram in perfect SEshatvam, as we remain for Him as He wishes. > > As examples, Manavala Mamunigal accepting the > position of being an acharya to the Lord Himself > - purely for His pleasure; and Nammazhvar allowing > the Lord to even massage his feet - again for His > pleasure. Agreed! Kindly forgive me for any mistakes. dasan vishnu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 2, 2004 srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha Dear srI vishNu: I was not planning on getting into this interesting thread, but something you say below prompted me to post this (so, please forgive me if there is some repetition of ideas from earlier posts). Also, this is a rather important point that is well delineated in mumukshuppaDi. ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu> wrote: > Dear Sriman Venkatesan, > > I agree with Sriman Padmanabhan on this. > > The mUlam quoted by Smt Sheela also does not have any mention of > SEshatvam specifically. .............................. > Here it is important to note that all the objects mentioned are > non-sentient, indicating pAratantryam without any ahankAram. Thus > SEsha has complete SEshatvam. > > Then how do we interpret sUtra 92? Well, the mUlam does say it explicitly (starting with sutram No. 86 ) though you will need swAmy maNavALa mAmunikaL's vyAkhyAnam for No. 92 to understand it (aside: there can never be any ambiguity in the words of our pUrvAchAryas; such confusion is usually a manifestation of our inability to comprehend:-). Here is the vyAkhyAnam from Swamy vishada vAk shikAmaNi: thanakkEyAga enRathai upapAdikkirAr (this is tirumantra prakaraNam, and we are talking about the true meaning of namaha) - meaning, in the previous sutram (91), swAmy PL says Eeshwaran thanakkEyAyirukkum, achitthu piRarRkEyAyirukkum, Atma tanakkum piRakkum bothuvAyirukkumenRu muRpaTTaninaivu, agnyananRikkE ******tanakkEyAga enaikkoLLavENum engirathu namassAl***** (vyAkhyAnam - just the last part which is the essential message of this sUtram - 'swAtantramE swaroopamAna Eeswaran swArtha paranAy irukkum; chaitanyarahitamAkaiyAlE tanakkengaikku yOgyatai inRikkE pAratantra swaroopAmAyirukkum achitthu parArthamAy irukkum; chaturthiyil sonna sEshatvathaiyum, makArathil sonna gnyAtrutvathaiyumuDaiyanAna Atma, gnyAtrutva balathAlE swArthathaikkum, *sEshatva* balaththAlE parArthataikkum pothuvAyirukkumenRu namassukku poorva padathiRpiRantha prathipaththi; appaDianRikkE, (this is important) parArthathai EkavEshamAna achithuppOlE *thanakkEyAgavenaikkOLLumeethE* engirapaDiyE aththalaikkE rasamAmpaDi viniyOgam koLLa vENum enRapEkshikkiRathu innamassAlE engai) swAmy mamunikaL says that pArathanthryam is the true manifest expression for sEshatvam; If we understand our sEshatvam, then we exist as parathantras; parArthathai Eka vEshamAna achitthuppOlE - a desired manifestation of our sEshatvam finds its complete expression in 'achitvat pAratantryam' - paDIyAykkidandhu un pavaLa vAy kANbEne - meaning, pAratantryam (and His swaroopam as sEshi) supersedes a perceived conflict stemming from gnyAtrutvam - awareness. Now, let us look at No. 92: bhOga dashaiyil Eeswaran azhikkumpOthu nOkkavENum enRu azhiyAthozhigai (this is very subtle, so we need the vyAkhyAnam) periya jeeyar's vyAkhyAnam (just the relevant part): thannODE kalandu parimArum dashaiyil bhOktAvAna Eeswaran *ATkoLvAnoththennu yiruNDA mAyan* engirapaDiyE aDimaikkoLvAraippOlE pugundhu than vyAmOhaththAlE thAzh ninRu parimAri iththalaiyil sEshathvaththai azhikkumpOdhu 'nam sEshatvaththai nAm nOkka vENum' enRu naichchyam bhAvithirAyththu avan bhOgaththai azhiyAthozhigai yengai achitvat pAaratantryam when we internalize sEshatvam to the point that His enjoyment supersedes everything we are; in which case, ** avan bhOgaththai azhiyAthozhigai**, His enjoyment is supreme, and we should show pArathantryam that is quintessential sEshatvam, we will be His master in His servitude, for His enjoyment, not for one moment should we allow our naicchyam to leave our awareness. Clearly, it is very difficult to translate the magnificent phrasing of swAmy maNavALa mAmunikaL; but the idea is very clear, that pAratantryam is the true representation of sEshatvam. aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, sridhar Note: I am sure that my translation is filled with errors and transgressions for which I ask for forgiveness from the learned bhAgavathas; the only way to understand these ideas is to learn from an Acharya (or through kAlakshEpams at the feet of erudite bhAgavathas such as srI ES BhoovarAhan Swamy or srI velukkudi krishnan swamy); the written english medium is grossly inadequate in communicating the subtlety of phrasing and profundity of ideas replete in the words of our poorvAchAryas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Wonderful! Dasohams. Vishnu ramanuja, "pataps" <pataps> wrote: > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha > > Dear srI vishNu: > > I was not planning on getting into this interesting thread, but > something you say below prompted me to post this (so, please forgive > me if there is some repetition of ideas from earlier posts). Also, > this is a rather important point that is well delineated in > mumukshuppaDi. > > ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu> wrote: > > Dear Sriman Venkatesan, > > > > I agree with Sriman Padmanabhan on this. > > > > The mUlam quoted by Smt Sheela also does not have any mention of > > SEshatvam specifically. > ............................. > > Here it is important to note that all the objects mentioned are > > non-sentient, indicating pAratantryam without any ahankAram. Thus > > SEsha has complete SEshatvam. > > > > Then how do we interpret sUtra 92? > > > Well, the mUlam does say it explicitly (starting with sutram No. 86 ) > though you will need swAmy maNavALa mAmunikaL's vyAkhyAnam for No. > 92 to understand it (aside: there can never be any ambiguity in the > words of our pUrvAchAryas; such confusion is usually a manifestation > of our inability to comprehend:-). > > Here is the vyAkhyAnam from Swamy vishada vAk shikAmaNi: > > thanakkEyAga enRathai upapAdikkirAr (this is tirumantra prakaraNam, > and we are talking about the true meaning of namaha) - meaning, in > the previous sutram (91), swAmy PL says > > Eeshwaran thanakkEyAyirukkum, achitthu piRarRkEyAyirukkum, > Atma tanakkum piRakkum bothuvAyirukkumenRu muRpaTTaninaivu, > agnyananRikkE > > ******tanakkEyAga enaikkoLLavENum engirathu namassAl***** > > (vyAkhyAnam - just the last part which is the essential message of > this sUtram - 'swAtantramE swaroopamAna Eeswaran swArtha paranAy > irukkum; chaitanyarahitamAkaiyAlE tanakkengaikku yOgyatai inRikkE > pAratantra swaroopAmAyirukkum achitthu parArthamAy irukkum; > chaturthiyil sonna sEshatvathaiyum, makArathil sonna > gnyAtrutvathaiyumuDaiyanAna Atma, gnyAtrutva balathAlE > swArthathaikkum, *sEshatva* balaththAlE parArthataikkum > pothuvAyirukkumenRu namassukku poorva padathiRpiRantha > prathipaththi; appaDianRikkE, (this is important) parArthathai > EkavEshamAna achithuppOlE *thanakkEyAgavenaikkOLLumeethE* > engirapaDiyE aththalaikkE rasamAmpaDi viniyOgam koLLa vENum > enRapEkshikkiRathu innamassAlE engai) > > swAmy mamunikaL says that pArathanthryam is the true manifest > expression for sEshatvam; If we understand our sEshatvam, then we > exist as parathantras; parArthathai Eka vEshamAna achitthuppOlE - a > desired manifestation of our sEshatvam finds its complete expression > in 'achitvat pAratantryam' - paDIyAykkidandhu un pavaLa vAy kANbEne - > meaning, pAratantryam (and His swaroopam as sEshi) supersedes a > perceived conflict stemming from gnyAtrutvam - awareness. > > Now, let us look at No. 92: > > bhOga dashaiyil Eeswaran azhikkumpOthu nOkkavENum enRu > azhiyAthozhigai (this is very subtle, so we need the vyAkhyAnam) > > periya jeeyar's vyAkhyAnam (just the relevant part): > > thannODE kalandu parimArum dashaiyil bhOktAvAna Eeswaran > *ATkoLvAnoththennu yiruNDA mAyan* engirapaDiyE > aDimaikkoLvAraippOlE pugundhu > than vyAmOhaththAlE thAzh ninRu parimAri iththalaiyil > sEshathvaththai azhikkumpOdhu > 'nam sEshatvaththai nAm nOkka vENum' > enRu naichchyam bhAvithirAyththu > avan bhOgaththai azhiyAthozhigai yengai > > achitvat pAaratantryam when we internalize sEshatvam to the point > that His enjoyment supersedes everything we are; in which case, ** > avan bhOgaththai azhiyAthozhigai**, His enjoyment is supreme, and we > should show pArathantryam that is quintessential sEshatvam, we will > be His master in His servitude, for His enjoyment, not for one > moment should we allow our naicchyam to leave our awareness. > > Clearly, it is very difficult to translate the magnificent phrasing > of swAmy maNavALa mAmunikaL; but the idea is very clear, that > pAratantryam is the true representation of sEshatvam. > > aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, > > sridhar > > Note: I am sure that my translation is filled with errors and > transgressions for which I ask for forgiveness from the learned > bhAgavathas; the only way to understand these ideas is to learn from > an Acharya (or through kAlakshEpams at the feet of erudite > bhAgavathas such as srI ES BhoovarAhan Swamy or srI velukkudi > krishnan swamy); the written english medium is grossly inadequate in > communicating the subtlety of phrasing and profundity of ideas > replete in the words of our poorvAchAryas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 4, 2004 Dear Sri Vishnu, adiyEn's apologies. I did not mean that we should not discuss the topic. What I meant was my concern that we were using the word 'sEshatvam' a little differently in our posts - which I hope I clarified in my last post. Such discussions are most useful for us - at least to raise questions and thereafter seek the answers from qualified scholars. --- Vishnu <vsmvishnu wrote: > ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan > <vtca> wrote: > > I think we may getting lost in the words here. > > Certainly no! If we do not try to understand, why should > we disucss:-) You are right. Truly, there is no ahankAram in any of the service we do for Him. As I explained before, my understanding of sAttvika ahankAram is that it is not really 'aham' kAram. It is a matter of pride in the greatness of the Lord and His bhAgavatas and nothing to do with our self. For example, Nammazhvar says 'naNugiNam nAmE', using 'nAm'. However, it is not used in the sense of his achieving anything. Instead, he is pointing out that the great Lord as explained in the first verse of Thiruvaymozhi has allowed him to come near Him. So, this 'nAm' is actually a celebration of the Lord's saulabhyam, saushIlyam and vAtsalyam. > Thus, there is no > ahankAram in perfect SEshatvam, as we remain for Him as > He wishes. adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan _______________________________ Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Enter now. http://promotions./goldrush Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 6, 2004 ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote: > Dear Sri Vishnu, > > adiyEn's apologies.adiyEn's apologies. I did not mean that we >should not discuss the topic. What I meant was my concern that we >were using the word 'sEshatvam' a little differently >in our posts - which I hope I clarified in my last > post. >Such discussions are most useful for us - at least to raise >questions and thereafter seek the answers from qualified scholars. Respected Swami, How will we discuss, if we keep apologizing, saying our posts are "blabberings" and frequently writing "forgive"? May be some "sAttvika ahankAram" is needed:) All of us, including self, use words like SEshatvam, kainkaryam etc. interchangeably. However, when it comes to SEshatvam vs pAratantryam, we need to go into what the terms originally mean. I referred to Manavala MamunigaL's commentary for mumukshuppadi and explanation of Sriman T.K.Gopaplacharya Swami. In that, Sriman T.K. swami defines what is SEshatvam. He says it is remaining as bhOgyam for PerumAL, like pushpam, chandanam etc. PirAtti's and other dEvIs' SEshatvam to PerumAL is explained in SrI guNa ratna kOSam of Bhattar in similar terms (bhOgyA vAmapi nAntarIyakatayA pushpAngarAgai: samam...) Dasanudasan Vishnu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 6, 2004 Dear Sri Vishnu, The apologies were for making you think that I did not want to continue the discussion :-). Now, looking at the chUrnai 92 in Mumukshuppadi - you are right. There is no explicit use of sEshatvam here. But it does talk of destroying something - 'azhikkum pOdhu'. If you check back, you see that chUrnai 89 states that nama: talks about the bhagavat and bhAgavata sEshatvam. As a continuation, the 92nd chUrnai talks about the destruction of this sEshatvam. Mamunigal's vyakhyanam does explicitly state that 'iththalaiyil sEshathvaththai azhikkum pOdhu'. One of the commenatries I have for Mumukshuppadi states that what is being destroyed is the nature of servitude ('adimai' - 'AtmAvidaththinil uLLa adimaiyai azhikkum pOdhu'). Mamunigal's vyakhyanam states that the soul should not profess naiccyam at this time thinking 'nam sEshathvaththai nAm nOkka vENum'. The commentary states this as 'nam adimaith thanmaiyai nAm kAththuk koLLa vENum'. In explaining chUrnai 93, Mamunigal also uses the phrase 'sEshatvamE AtmAvukku svarUpam'. Here it is used to answer the question whether a soul would do something to prevent His joy. The answer being that, it is the same sEshatvam which is the nature of the soul that also causes the soul to behave in this fashion. As you can see, these commenatries do explicitly state that sEshatvam is destroyed and that it is used in the sense of being a slave to the Lord. Interestingly, it is here that the vyAkhyAnams start using the word pAratantryam. PBA Swami states that the meaning of nama: is sEshatvam (in chUrnai 89), but that the highest meaning of nama: is pAratanryam ('parama tAtparyam') in chUrnai 94. Mamunigal states that chUrnai 94 celebrates the pAratantrya pratipatti. adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan --- Vishnu <vsmvishnu wrote: > ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan > <vtca> wrote: > > Dear Sri Vishnu, > > > > adiyEn's apologies.adiyEn's apologies. I did not mean > that we > >should not discuss the topic. What I meant was my > concern that we > >were using the word 'sEshatvam' a little differently > >in our posts - which I hope I clarified in my last > > post. > > >Such discussions are most useful for us - at least to > raise > >questions and thereafter seek the answers from qualified > scholars. > > Respected Swami, > > How will we discuss, if we keep apologizing, saying our > posts > are "blabberings" and frequently writing "forgive"? May > be > some "sAttvika ahankAram" is needed:) > > All of us, including self, use words like SEshatvam, > kainkaryam etc. > interchangeably. However, when it comes to SEshatvam vs > pAratantryam, > we need to go into what the terms originally mean. > > I referred to Manavala MamunigaL's commentary for > mumukshuppadi and > explanation of Sriman T.K.Gopaplacharya Swami. In that, > Sriman T.K. > swami defines what is SEshatvam. He says it is remaining > as bhOgyam > for PerumAL, like pushpam, chandanam etc. > > PirAtti's and other dEvIs' SEshatvam to PerumAL is > explained in SrI > guNa ratna kOSam of Bhattar in similar terms (bhOgyA > vAmapi > nAntarIyakatayA pushpAngarAgai: samam...) > > Dasanudasan > Vishnu > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
