Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Category B - Should we ask Him

From the Bhakti List Archives

M K Sudarshan • December 8, 1996 


srimathE lakshmi-nrsumha parabrahmaNe namaha
sri vedanta desika guravE namaha

Dear bhAgavatOttamas,

In our discussions on the question of "Should We Ask/Beg Him?", I had
hypothesised in my very first posting, if you will remember, on Categories
A, B and C. 

Permit me to say, rather jocularly, that the dust on Category C seems to
have settled down thanks largely to the initiative of our learned friend
Sriman.Sundar !

Similarly, thanks to Sri.Andal's phrase,"vAyAl pAdi, mannathinAl sindikka"
in the Tirupavai, it has now become clear that, much like Category A
subjects, we must all indeed "ask, ask and ask again".

Which leaves only Category B to deal with. On a very serious note, repeat,
serious note.

The two motions of contention in case of Category B, to summarise, are :

A. Did the Lord grant "mOksha" to Jatayu in return for the bird having
valiantly resisted Ravana's abduction of "pirAtti" OR,

B. Did Jatayu get "mOksha" on the strength of its status as a heroic martyr
for "dharma"

Dear bhAgavatOttamas, in examining the relative merits of the above motions
I tread with extreme circumspection because a member has in this case
invoked the views of our Most Revered 44th Jeeyar of the Ahobila Mutt.

Let me at the very outset state that, indeed, if the great pontiff did have
any explicit views on the matter we are discussing presently, then, dear
members, there is no iota of doubt that HIS VIEWS will be the FINAL ones and
the most CORRECT ones to accept and embrace.

I have not personally heard that great "mahAn's" views but I, as a humble
"mutt sishyA", prostrate at the feet of that member in this group who has
has been fortunate to have heard it directly from that great "achArya" of ours.

Let me make it clear, therefore, that whatever I am about to further express
below should NEVER under any circumstance or context be taken as a comment,
direct or otherwise, on the "mahAn's" sentiments. I beseech everybody in this.

Having said so much I now venture to examine the above two propositions in
the spirit of PURE ACADEMIC inquiry and not as pursuit of "sAstrai-c"
interpretation.Granting even that Srimad Azhagiyasingar has already
established the correct position on this issue, as the respected member in
this group has reported, surely, dear bhAgavatOttamas, there is no harm in
simply debating this point a little further just to satisfy our own
curiosity much in the manner of harmless, sometimes enlightening, banter
that takes place in Kamban "patti-mandrams" back in Tamil Nadu?! I fervently
believe the great pontiff himself would not mind it since he was himself
alleged to have had a marked predilection for "tarka-sAstram" in his times!!
In any case I consider all our "purvAcharyAs" as far too sophisticated in
their spiritual and intellectual stature to mind little debates of this
sort. Unlike the "mullahs" of Iran as we know them to be in the present day,
our "AcharyAs", both of the past and present, can never be faulted with
encouraging dogmatic posturing.

I hope you will all therefore indulge me in this little exercise of
examining the above two motions. Believe me, I have no other ulterior motive
in this other than "bhagavath-guna-anubhavam".

I shall therefore proceed to examine the issues related to Category B in my
next posting.

srimathE srivan satagopa sri narayana yathindra mahadesikAya namaha
sudarshan
srimathE lakshmi-nrsumha parabrahmaNE namaha
sri vedanta desika guravE namaha