Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Sriman Narayanan's Parathvam

From the Bhakti List Archives

Madhavkkannan, Vasudevan • March 29, 1999 


Sri:

Dear Sri Mukunda Vijaya Raghavan,

You had mentioned a few queries related to Sriman Narayanan's parathvam (on
March 24th.). But this is my ramble (a belated one).

You had clubbed three different questions grouped together in your post.

For my clearer understanding, I reqord the statements: (please correct me if
I am wrong in misreading your statements)

1. Sriman Narayanan is the Parathvam and He is the antharyaami in everyone
and in everything. Hence, I consider Him as the indweller in other demigods
thereby it is still okay to pay our obeisance to them.

2. What about other bhakthas of other sampradayam, like Jnanaeshwar,
Tukaram, Mirabai, Thygaraja, Ragavendra ? (Did they perform formal prapatti
and if not, how did they get mOksham? Or didn't they? 

3. Other paths (may be you refer to dwaitham- because you yourself have
excluded advaitham), are also okay- since they all glorify  Narayanan and
devotion to Him (but do not consider formal Prapatti)

adiyEn's (little) understanding on the above:

1. From the unicellular organism amoeba to Brahma, everyone is a simple
soul, subservient to the Lord Sriya: Pathih Sriman Narayanan (who is always
with PiraaTTI MahAlakshmi). "They" (Eka sEshi) is our Master, for all souls.
Siva, Brahma are indeed Narayanan's appointed positions. (I was told that
AnjanEyar is going to be next Brahma, after this Brahma's term expires or
retires!). So, they are like other souls (if they are called demi gods so be
it!). They are like other beings; If Siva is a great Bhagawatha, why should
we not pay obeisance to him and go to his temple? Due to thriguNa
sambhandham, like us, the jIvAthmas, sivan too is also subjected to thamasa
rajjasa guNam, he gets into the ahamkara, mamakaram. May be due to his
position, he thinks that he is independent, he is stronger and can oppose
Narayanan when he had supported bhANasuran. Puraanaas tell us that Sivan
fought against Lord Vishnu on behalf of Kaasiraajan also.  Some claim that
Rudran is equal to, or even greater than, Narayana.  For these reasons the
term devotee, as used by Azhvaars, does not apply to Sivan.  But, since
Sivan and Brahma are His creation we should not harbor any enimity.  We
should not dishonor or disrespect these deities, however. Taking these
incidents, Srivaishnavas do not pay obeisance to Sivan as a stand alone
bhAgawatha, for his apacharams to Bhagawaan. 

2. When great Bhagawthas that you have enlisted like Jnanaeshwar, Tukaram,
Mirabai, Thygaraja, Ragavendra et al are referred to, please note that they
were REALLY GREAT BHAKTHAS. They  immersed themselves deeply in Parama
Bhakti and could not think of being away from the Lord even for a fraction
of a second. It is NOT appropriate for us to see if they had performed
formal saraNAgathy for them to be granted mOksham. They had actually
performed (I would say) Swa nishtai. Or they had performed Bhakti Yogam (for
that is also another means for mOksham). They are incomparable, dear. 

It is Divya Dampathi's anugraham and Ramanujacharya's grace that the most
compassionate AchArya came out with the doctrine of surreneder taking the
cue from the assuaging reassurance from Lord Krishna in His Charama slOkam;
It is for us, lowly selves- the incorrigible ones- who have been erring
since time immemorial, (theriyEn baalakanaay pala theemaigaL seidhu vittEn)
- through the mind, words and the deeds, from time immemorial (for so many
births), the mistakes, blunders (apachArams) have been committed; that too,
tremendously, infinite number of apachArams- doing the ones which should not
have been done; not doing the ones which should be done as per shAstrAs;
committing apachArams to the Lord; to the BhAgavathALs; committing
unforgivable, unpardonable apachArams; . It is for us, Sri Ramanujacharya,
out of His mercy on us- has given such a treasure of prapatti, with correct
saasthric interpretation also. So formal prapatti alone thorugh AchArya
nishtai is what can SAVE US. 

3. Regarding other doctrines- (other than VisishtAdvaitham)- they also
glorify Narayanan. Are they also valid and correct because they glorify
Narayanan?. For us, Hindus, Vedas are the moola pramaaNams; only proof; for
they are apaurushEyam (not authored by anyone). If there is a religion, sect
that can interpret ALL MEANINGS- ALL STATEMENTS of Vedas (not simply reading
a statement or two and interpret them out of context, which actually
contradicts with some other statement of sruthis), most accurately, so that,
when viewed from any angle, any context, with any arguments, still, it does
not conflict or contradict with sruthis, then, THAT IS THE ONLY RELIGION
THAT CAN BE ACCEPTED. If there is a religion (or a sect) that can give 99
percent accurate interpretation, but fails to justify one percent or one
statement of sruthi, it is STILL NOT FULL AND COMPLETE. (Unless you jump the
well fully, you still fall inside only, whether it is 99% or 1%). 

IT IS ONLY SRI RAMANUJACHARYA'S visishtadvaitha philosophy that reflects all
sruthi's statements, with 100 % most accurate interpretation also, pointing
the fallacies, pitfalls of other interpretations! Even if they glorify
Narayanan, they do not correctly interpret JIvAthmA's existence; they do not
correctly refer to the servitude/ nature of the jIvAthmAs; they do not ....
etc.. etc.. (virivanji nirutthugiROm). 

So to sum it up: 

1. Let us not bother about other sects... We have a rich treasure with us
worth trillions and trillions. Don't see the neighbour's 1000 dollar note in
his hands and feel that since he also has money and will he not feel happy?.


2. Let us not prostrate to the minister, the gate keeper, et al, when we, as
princes, go to see the King. It is they who will welcome us. Of course, we
should not dislike them; we have regards for them. The Father, in front of
all those assembly of minsiters and Devas, will take us by lifting us and
placing us -(His darling children) on His lap. ("en appA! vandhadaindhEn!
adiyEnai AtkoNdaruLE!).  

3. When we are to serve only one Master, Will the Master allow or accept
seeing us serving or obeying to his other servants, inf front of Him? Will
He not get angry? Or when He asks us to serve other servants of His (as in
the case of His Bhagawathas and devotees - tvath bruthua bruthya
parichaaraka bruthy bruthya) as a part of our duty to serve Him, won't He
feel angry if we don't?
    
I hope, I have not confounded the confusion.

Narayana Narayana   

Narayana Dasan Madhavakkannan