Misconception
From the Bhakti List Archives
• May 3, 1997
Dear Bhakthi members: To further focus the question of whether or not Sri Krishna misunderstood Swami Sri Desikan I am reproducing a passage from the 23rd Chapter entitled "SiddhOpAya sOdhanA athikaaram" of Srimad RTS. I am not suggesting that you must agree with Sri Krishna. But you can't say that the Vadakalai POV as stated by him is a misunderstanding of Swami Sri Desikan. This in effect challenges its very legitimacy and thus should not be allowed to stand. I am sure this was not done intentionally. Not long ago Sri Varadan claimed Thenacharya sampradayam is equal to Sri Vaishnavam and Sri Vaishnavam is nothing but Thenacharya sampradayam, thus completing the necessary and sufficient conditions defining a Sri Vaishnava and quoted Sri PBA in support. However, he is yet to furnish the clarifications I requested. He further went on to accuse me of being sectarian!! While I have no interest in silly fights about Kalais, I am not going to be the one to simply stand by when views such as this are stated. Please remember, no one has suggested here that Desika Sampradayam is Sri Vaishnavam and Sri Vaishnavam is nothing but Desika Sampradayam! Thus, the origin of sectarian views is obvious. Let me also add for the sake of clarity, this note is not about Vadakalai vs. Thenkalai. Such fights are just a waste of time. Which of the two kalai's POV appeals to you is purely your personal decision and I am not here to say to you which should be the right choice for you. I would like to see the followers of both the "Then" and "Vada" acharya sampradayams respect each other and serve Sri Ramanuja Darsanam. It pains me when I see a Vadakalai disrespected just because of his affiliation. But it pains me without measure when I see the great Acharya Sri Manavala Maamunigal disrespected routinely in certain temples. Taking our cue from our Acharyas such as Srimad Azhagiya Singar and Sri Vaanamaamalai Jeeyar Swami, we, as expatriates, should lead the way in showing how the two kalais can coexist in a respectful way. One of the prerequisites for this to happen is to not label one or the other POV as misconceptions even unintentionally. Anyway, this note is mainly about Sri Krishna's views being characterized as misconception. Read the passage I have excerpted and decide for yourself. There is much more in Chapter 23 and other chapters of RTS dealing with this subject. But I think the passage I have quoted below clearly shows that Sri Krishna was right on the money; no misunderstanding, no misconceptions. Again, I am not suggesting any intentionality on the part of Sri Mani or Sri Mohan Sagar. I respect both of them. Sri Mani is a treasured friend. But I do feel we should be restrained in labeling other interpretations. Thanks, Dileepan =====Passage from the 23rd Chapter of Srimad RTS passage============ Doubt (1):- No upaya is necessary on the part of the jiva: (1) Iswara who ignored a man from beginningless time has now concerned Himself with him. (for his protection ). This is not due to any action or work on the man's part, but only to the Lord's omnipotence. If it is not so, how is it that when the Alwar asked:- "The Lord has now made me realise Him and placed Himself within me. Why is it that He allowed me formerly to stray from Him?," no reply was given except that "the cloud which adorned the measureless sky thundered in music." (TVM 10-9-1) The implication is that there is no answer to this question except that it was the Lord's will to do so. Therefore why should we perform or adopt any upaya (for securing His protection)? Some say, therefore, that, of His own accord, and at the time when He chooses, the Lord saves us and that the Lord bestows His grace on His servants and protects them when He is pleased to do so and that no endeavour of any kind is incumbent on us. This doubt may be cleared as follows:- Although Iswara is omnipotent, He makes the man adopt some gesture, some means vyaja ) or pretext on his part and, in consideration of it, protects him in order that the fault of partiality and cruelty (vaishamya, nairghrnya) may not stain Him. The Alwar himself has declared this truth in:- "I said "'Tirumalirunsolai" and immediately, the Lord of Lakshmi filled my mind with His presence." (The Vyaja, endeavour, or gesture, here, is the utterance of the word Tirumalirunsolai by the Alwar). It may be asked "This vyaja, too, is adopted by the Lord's grace. Why did He not make the person adopt it before?" The answer is as follows:- "The souls of men have streams of karma flowing from beginningless time. These streams of past karma produce their respective consequences at different times and Iswara has to bestow, on each individual, the rewards or punishments that are in accordance with such karma. If He were to do otherwise, He would be tainted with partiality (and injustice). Iswara did not make the person adopt the vyaja before, as the time for the ripening of the fruit of the karma had not yet come. Therefore from the effect we have to infer the cause, as stated above. If this view be not accepted, no follower of any system will be able to, answer the question why a person acquires, (at a certain time), such things as eagerness for moksha which did not exist before. That these are due to the varied nature of the streams of beginningless karma is the common explanation for both those who believe in Iswara and those. who do not. Iswara's independence and omnipotence, consist in His determination to protect the jiva when He chooses to do so, on the adoption of a vyaja or some form of upaya (endeavour) (or even an, apology for vyaja) and in there being no power to prevent Him from doing so. =========From the translation of Sri M.R. Rajagopala Aiyangar======
- Next message: Thirumalai Anandanpillai: "Re: Misconception"
- Previous message: Parthasarati Dileepan: "Re: Grace - part 0"
- Next in thread: Thirumalai Anandanpillai: "Re: Misconception"
- Reply: Thirumalai Anandanpillai: "Re: Misconception"
- Reply: Parthasarati Dileepan: "Re: Misconception"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]