Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: jantus & bandhus

From the Bhakti List Archives

Chandrasekaran. V • July 1, 1998 


Dear Bhagavathas,
   My Namaskarams to one and all. I have returned to India and
am back at work in Bangalore away from my native in tamizhnAdu.

 [ Sorry. I am sending this response belatedly to the subject post.
Earlier I tried posting this twice but from unsubscribed address which 
didn't go through. Now I am sending this from the subscribed address. ]

   This is with regard to the recent interesting series of posts
by Sri Sudarsan. This post is really kindling lot of our natural
spiritual instincts. How can the fellow mortals be our saviours
from this samsaric hurricane! The Great Lord Narayana, the Supreme
Brahman alone is the safe haven for us orphans as clearly elucidated
by Sri Sudarsan in the context of Srimad Desikar's kAmAsikAshtakam.
Teachings of Sage Yagnavalkya to his wife is a crystal clear truth
put quite plainly to explain how the jantu's every action has its
own self as the reason and how foolish we can get if we try to 
search perfect happiness and peace outside us without directing
our inner Self towards the infinite Narayana (man's refuge) Brahman. 

With this in mind I think the following para needs a slight/but 
crucial change. (I think Sri Sudarsan had only mistyped the para..)

>> "Hear me, O Maitreyi," he says, "a wife is dear to her husband not for the
>> sake of his wife but for the sake of his Self. So is a husband dear to his
>> wife for the sake of her Self. The children too are dear to us not for
>> their sake but for the sake of the Self. So is the case with our love of
>> our sake but for the sake of their Self. So is the case with our love of
>> wealth. We have affection for a person or an entity because it pleases our
>> Self. 
>> "What therefore do I mean by all this, my dear Maitreyi?"

It could read as,
########
"Hear me, O Maitreyi," he says, "a wife is dear to her husband not for the
sake of him but for the sake of her Self. So is a husband dear to his
wife for the sake of his own Self. The children too are dear to us not for
our sake but for the sake of their Self. So is the case with our love of
wealth. We have affection for a person or an entity because it pleases our
Self. 
"What therefore do I mean by all this, my dear Maitreyi?"
########

    I didn't clearly understand the point that is embedded in the
following para.

########
Thus, through the respective "itihAsi-c" instances of Gajendra, Vibeeshana
and Draupadi, the "AchArya-s" firmly establish the doctrinal position of
Vedanta that "the forsaking of/by our "bandhu-s" or "bandham-s"" is a
mortal condition PRECEDENT and ESSENTIAL to the discovery of our real
selves as "akinchinA-s" or "cosmic orphans".
########

    Why can't a jantu get enlightened by revelations by divine grace and 
get the knowledge of his/her/it being a "cosmic orphan" and there are instances 
where great atmas are born-realised (eg. Sri Sukha Brahmam, the holy son of
Sage Vyasa, hastAmalakar, disciple of Srimad Sankaracharya). Ofcourse Swami 
Desikan and other Acharyas also didn't preach this wisdom after getting 
forsaken by their bandhus. Why should the jantu be forsaken by his bandhus 
before this wisdom shines in him/her/it ? May be I interpreted the para 
literally and am getting confused. I can't resist quoting another great 
sage who realised this "cosmic orphanhood" when his relatives forsook him. 
The great Sage Valmiki.

    adiyArkku adiyEn,
    chandrasekaran