PDA

View Full Version : About Sri Venkateswara



Viraja
24 September 2013, 03:01 PM
Namaste,

Sri Venkatachalapathi's avatara seems to have happened in Kali yuga, with the mission of marrying Sri Padmavathi and to repay his debt to Kubera. If we see the Lord's other avataras, he has either killed a few bothersome asuras and restored peace or the Lord has been the utensil for some great mission such as saving world during mahapralaya or during Samudra Manthana. When compared to such causes, Sri Vishnu's avatara as Sri Venkateswara does not seem to carry any such important mission? He is regarded by many as embodiment of Saturn (he is particularly worshiped on Saturdays). What is his avatara kainkarya?

Also what is the reason why his 'thirumaN' or his tilaka on his forehead covers half his eyes? It is said that is purposeful as he is not supposed to view with his eyes fully open?

Thank you.

Sri Vaishnava
24 September 2013, 03:54 PM
Right, I believe posting here would not be controversial. I can see that my views would give the moderators quite a headache otherwise.:)

The archa form in temples is itself an avatArA. What is an avatArA? Krishna describes it in the gita - an avatArA descends, and exhibits two traits - 1)sAdhu paritrAnam 2) vinAshAya ca duskrtAm.

Now, what is sAdhu paritrAnam? Swami rAmAnujar describes it as giving darshan to devotees. The azhwars say that his act of rescuing devotees is mainly by appearing in front of them. If he did not do so, his devotees would die. So, sAdhu paritrAnAm is simply giving seva to devotees who cannot live without him.

The next aspect, vinAshAya ca duskrtAm - is only a side-effect of giving such seva. Obviously, there are many things that hinder the devotees from enjoying bhagavAn even if he appears in front of them - the tApatrayam, enemies, etc. So, bhagavAn destroys these obstacles so that they can see and serve him.

SrI vedAnta desikan summarizes it beautifully as follows - when planting crops, one automatically removes the weeds. Similarly, sAdhu paritrAnam entails destruction of asurAs. His killing of rAvana, sisupAla, the kauravas, etc are incidental. The main purpose was to give seva to devotees like Vibhishana, Guha, Akrura, Vidura, etc who were hindered by the likes of rAvana, duryOdhana from serving him. The killing of asurAs is NOT the main purpose of his avatAra.

Hence, the purpose of srI venkatEswara is his appearance itself.

Now, the reason why his eyes are closed - nammazhwar says that he possesses the guNam of dayA to an infinite extent in this particular form. So, the logic is this - His lotus eyes exude dayA like an ocean. If we saw his fully open eyes, we would be swept away by this ocean and our eyes would moisten with tears of happiness. These tears would obstruct us from seeing him properly. So, by covering his eyes, he hides his beauty and lets his dayA out gradually, rather than a torrent of karunA! This tattvam is mentioned by swami thondaradippodi azhwar.

Swami peryiavAcchan pillai calls this as the guNam of "satmya" (sAtmya bhOga pradE - says swami vedAnta desikan as well). This means, he does not seek to overwhelm the jivAs in ecstasy at once, but shows his wonderful guNams gradually and slowly for the jivA to take in properly and absorb it.

philosoraptor
24 September 2013, 04:47 PM
This is the Vaishnava subforum, so hopefully the arbiters of political correctness will not object to this discussion.

I have nothing to add to Sri Vaishnava's excellent explanation. This was also my understanding - that the main reason for the Lord's descent is for pleasing the devotees. He need not come merely to kill demons - that's just a perk. :-)

I do have a question related to this topic, however. The only purANic evidence I have found to date regarding shrInivAsa's avatAra is in the venkatesha mahAtmyam of the skandha purANa. Therein, it is stated that padmAvati performed a service for The Lord previously when He came as rAma. She took the place of sItA and was kidnapped by rAvaNa as a "mAyA-sItA," and real sItA only returned during the agni-parikSha. I'm told also that this version of the story (which I would note is not found in the rAmAyaNa of vALmIki) is also found in the sthala-purANa of the temple.

Now, the problem with this view, is that the idea that sItA herself was abducted and tormented is pretty central to the Sri Vaishnava's understanding of the rAmAyaNaM as a sharanAgati-shAstra (aside from being most consistent with what vALmIki wrote). I previously favored the "mAyA-sItA" explanation, as I could not stomach the idea that the Lord's consort could be touched by one such as rAvaNa. However, when I read the unabridged story, I was moved by sItA's grace under pressure and her uncompromising surrender to The Lord. I found myself thinking, "only one such as LakShmI-mAta can do this."

Yet, we have both of these views, and they contradict each other. And I have heard both views even within Sri Vaishnava circles. Why the contradiction? Is it an issue of kalpa-bedha? Or do Sri Vaishnavas consider the mAyA-sItA story to be a later interpolation? If the latter is the case, then who was padmAvatI that viShNu had to take avatAra just to wed her?

Viraja
24 September 2013, 04:51 PM
Now, the reason why his eyes are closed - nammazhwar says that he possesses the guNam of dayA to an infinite extent in this particular form. So, the logic is this - His lotus eyes exude dayA like an ocean. If we saw his fully open eyes, we would be swept away by this ocean and our eyes would moisten with tears of happiness. These tears would obstruct us from seeing him properly. So, by covering his eyes, he hides his beauty and lets his dayA out gradually, rather than a torrent of karunA! This tattvam is mentioned by swami thondaradippodi azhwar.

Swami peryiavAcchan pillai calls this as the guNam of "satmya" (sAtmya bhOga pradE - says swami vedAnta desikan as well). This means, he does not seek to overwhelm the jivAs in ecstasy at once, but shows his wonderful guNams gradually and slowly for the jivA to take in properly and absorb it.

How wonderful is the anubhavam of Sri Nammazhwar? I feel so overwhelmed by his wordings I wish I possess his bhakti towards the lord so I can feel the ecstatic joy he feels...

I had heard elsewhere a long time ago that Sri Venkateswara's eyes were so because he could not/supposed not to see with his full eyes as they were furious when opened fully (or something like that).. Maybe I got it wrong.

Also, I was imagining that Sri Venkateswara signifies something special being ridden with debt towards Kubera! I have heard somewhere that Sri Venkateswara blesses his devotees so much with material wealth to the point it makes them arrogant, then err out of it and finally repent it and pay a huge sum as an atonement to Sri Venkateswara which he uses to pay back his debt from Kubera! It doesn't sound too nice to say this about a god but this is what I have heard... So I was thinking something along those lines, to be his avatara mahima.. Like I have some questions as in knowing, why he is supposed to be embodiment of Saturn, why his avataram happened in Kali yuga, and what his debt signifies and so forth.. Maybe as you say, Sri Vaishnava ji, it is special form in Sri Venkateswara that bhagwan Sri Vishnu chose to bless his devotees during Kali yuga.

Thank you for the wonderful write-up and clarification! :)

Sri Vaishnava
24 September 2013, 04:56 PM
I do have a question related to this topic, however. The only purANic evidence I have found to date regarding shrInivAsa's avatAra is in the venkatesha mahAtmyam of the skandha purANa. Therein, it is stated that padmAvati performed a service for The Lord previously when He came as rAma. She took the place of sItA and was kidnapped by rAvaNa as a "mAyA-sItA," and real sItA only returned during the agni-parikSha. I'm told also that this version of the story (which I would note is not found in the rAmAyaNa of vALmIki) is also found in the sthala-purANa of the temple.

Now, the problem with this view, is that the idea that sItA herself was abducted and tormented is pretty central to the Sri Vaishnava's understanding of the rAmAyaNaM as a sharanAgati-shAstra (aside from being most consistent with what vALmIki wrote). I previously favored the "mAyA-sItA" explanation, as I could not stomach the idea that the Lord's consort could be touched by one such as rAvaNa. However, when I read the unabridged story, I was moved by sItA's grace under pressure and her uncompromising surrender to The Lord. I found myself thinking, "only one such as LakShmI-mAta can do this."

Yet, we have both of these views, and they contradict each other. And I have heard both views even within Sri Vaishnava circles. Why the contradiction? Is it an issue of kalpa-bedha? Or do Sri Vaishnavas consider the mAyA-sItA story to be a later interpolation? If the latter is the case, then who was padmAvatI that viShNu had to take avatAra just to wed her?

You are quite right. The mAya sitA story is not accepted by us. Furthermore, padmAvati is none other than srI mahA-lakshmi herself and not mAya sitA. On the other hand, we have a shrine for vakuLa mAtA near srI venkatEswara - it is said that this dEvi was yashoda in a previous birth, who attained mukti and took an avatAram as the mother of sri venkatEswara.

If you note, vAlmiki declares the real name of rAmAyaNa as "sita charitram". Our acharyas say that it talks more about the glories of sita than rAmA. In addition, they jocularly say that it was not rAvaNa who abducted sita, but actually sita who carried rAvana to Lanka! Because she wanted to be of solace to the deva strIs imprisoned by rAvaNa in Lanka and hence, went there as a prisoner to keep watch over them.

Both srI rAmA and sita had forgotten they were nArAyaNa and lakshmi by their own sankalpa in that avatAra. But since Brahman is avikArA, even if he forgets his nature voluntarily by his omnipotence, he still exhibits it. So, in every act of theirs, they displayed supremacy without even realising it! This is what sets srI rAmAvatArA apart from the others and why sri vaishnava AchAryAs favored srI rAmA above all other forms!

sita also tells hanuman that if she so wished, she could burn rAvaNa to ashes. But being the kind mother of the universe and also wishing srI rAmA to claim the fame of killing rAvaNa, she desists.


I was imagining that Sri Venkateswara signifies something special being ridden with debt towards Kubera

The kubera debt story is very mordern and not found in the original sthala purAnA to my knowledge. Obviously, it became popular when the temple itself became famous. Not that there is any harm in believing in it, but I would like to maintain the integrity of the original sthala purAnA.

philosoraptor
24 September 2013, 05:06 PM
If you note, vAlmiki declares the real name of rAmAyaNa as "sita charitram".

Do you have the verse reference for this? I would like to note it down



sita also tells hanuman that if she so wished, she could burn rAvana to ashes. But being the kind mother of the universe and also wishing srI rAmA to claim the fame of killing rAvana, she desists.

This verse I definitely remember reading:

असंदेशात्तु रामस्य तपसश्चामपालनात् | न त्वां कुर्मि दशग्रीव भस्म भर्मार्ह तेजसा || ५-२२-२० 20. dashagriiva = O Ravana!; bhasmaarha = (although you are) suited to be burnt into ashes; asaMdeshaat = not having mandate; raamasya = of Rama; anupaalanaat = (and) preserving; tapasaH = austerity; na kurmi = I am not making; tvaam bhasmam = you into ashes; tejasaa = (with my) glory.

"O Ravana! Although you are suited to be burnt into ashes, not having the mandate of Rama and preserving austerity, I am not reducing you into ashes with my glory." (rAmAyaNa 5.22.20 - Rao)


I took this as indicative of the mood of sharaNAgati. Although sItA could indeed have burnt rAvaNa to ashes, as a surrendered soul she did nothing without her Lord's consent, and made no independent effort to free herself, choosing to depend entirely on rAma.



The kubera debt story is very mordern and not found in the original sthala purAnA to my knowledge. Obviously, it became popular when the temple itself became famous. Not that there is any harm in believing in it, but I would like to maintain the integrity of the original sthala purAnA.

Does the sthala purANa mention the mAyA-sItA story? Because if so (as I was told), then Sri Vaishnavas don't accept it either, right?

I was under the impression that, as per the story, Kuvera funded the wedding after the arrangement was confirmed. If there is some other Kuvera debt story, then I am not aware of it.

regards,

Sri Vaishnava
24 September 2013, 05:30 PM
charitra vrata = sage who observed all sacred vows; kR^itsnam kaavyam = to entire, epic; raamaayaNam = Ramayana; siithayaH charitam mahat = Seetha's, legend, sublime; poulastya vadham = Ravana's, elimination; iti = thus [naming]; evam cakaara = that way, made, rendered.

(~vAlmiki rAmAyaNa 1.4.7) (pasted from valmikiramayan.net)

The ithihAsa has 3 names - rAmAyaNa, sita charitra and poulastya vadham (rAvaNa is the son of pulastya - hence, poulastya). Out of these, the first name is popular and the second name is favored by sri vaishnavas. Note the word "mahat" is used with respect to that name - her glory is greater than that of srI rAmA's!

srI pillai lOkAchAryar states that the rAmAyaNa came about to describe the glory of she who was a prisoner (sita) and the mahAbhArata came about to describe the glory of he who went as a messenger for the pAndavAs (srI krishna). These two incidents in the two ithihAsAs are of paramount significance and that is why achAryAn used them to describe his view. It is explained in detail in the work "srI vachana bhUshaNam".

And yes, Sita did not burn rAvaNa because of her dependence on srI rAmA. Wanting srI rAmA to have the fame of killing rAvaNa is one aspect of such dependence, ie, the jivA does not make self-efforts to attain bhagavAn.

Now, let the discussion on srInivAsa of tirumalA continue. This rAmAyaNa discussion may be considered taking the thread off topic.

Viraja
24 September 2013, 06:49 PM
Now, let the discussion on srInivAsa of tirumalA continue. This rAmAyaNa discussion may be considered taking the thread off topic.

Oh no! I don't have any problem with this as he (Govinda) is also 'Kausalya Supraja Rama'! :)

I only have a related question. In the Thirukalvanur divyadesa, the story says Sri Kamakshi amman divided the lord into being represented in temples in 3 different states - in Nindra kolam (standing posture) as in Tirumala, Kidantha Kolam - Lying posture as in SriRangam and Iruntha Kolam - Sitting posture as in various Narasimhar temples. Why is this bedham or differentiation necessary? Is there any difference in significance between the Lord's various postures?

smaranam
25 September 2013, 05:03 AM
Namaste

The mAyA-sItA story need not be an explicit story, but do we see how profound it is?
Come to think of it, SitA and mAyA-SitA. SitA is Bramhan. This is applicable to everyone. Are we not AtmA and Atma-mAyA ? Are we not supposed to stay alipta (aloof) from the mAyA aspects in/around/associated with/attached to us?

That is exactly what SitA did. She was a walkie-talkie Bramhan on earth. She lived the ved-vedAnta. So, when rAvaNa kidnapped "Her" WHO did he actually kidnap? Not SitA's antaranga that was always with Shri-rAma. He just kidnapped a body - which is mAyA-sitA.

This is what the story implies. The real sitA is untouched by the kidnapping. Agni as protector means sitA's True Self was protected by Bramhan; Agni aspect of Bramhan in this case.

Thanks for bringing this up - acceptance or unacceptance of this story. It made me think - tattva dnyAna.


sarva-devaika sharaNam sarva-devaika daivatam
samasta-deva kavacham sarva-deva shikhAmaNi || (Venkatesh Stotra)

_/\_

philosoraptor
25 September 2013, 01:36 PM
Namaste

The mAyA-sItA story need not be an explicit story, but do we see how profound it is?
Come to think of it, SitA and mAyA-SitA. SitA is Bramhan. This is applicable to everyone. Are we not AtmA and Atma-mAyA ? Are we not supposed to stay alipta (aloof) from the mAyA aspects in/around/associated with/attached to us?

That is exactly what SitA did. She was a walkie-talkie Bramhan on earth. She lived the ved-vedAnta. So, when rAvaNa kidnapped "Her" WHO did he actually kidnap? Not SitA's antaranga that was always with Shri-rAma. He just kidnapped a body - which is mAyA-sitA.

This is what the story implies. The real sitA is untouched by the kidnapping. Agni as protector means sitA's True Self was protected by Bramhan; Agni aspect of Bramhan in this case.

Thanks for bringing this up - acceptance or unacceptance of this story. It made me think - tattva dnyAna.


sarva-devaika sharaNam sarva-devaika daivatam
samasta-deva kavacham sarva-deva shikhAmaNi || (Venkatesh Stotra)

_/\_

Pranams,

I did not understand the reasoning offered above. But I can say this: the rAmAyaNa of vALmIki does not anywhere imply that anyone other than sItA was abducted. I can understand the desire to feel that sItA was not abducted and not tormented by rAvaNa. However, the reader is clearly meant to feel that she was. Her refusal to free herself, her complete dependence on the mercy of rAma, and her devotion in separation are all meant to exemplify the ideal of sharaNAgati.

Now, in the skandha purANa, we have a different story. Therein, it is mentioned that a lady by name vedavati was harassed by rAvaNa and that she became the mAyA-sItA who later became padmAvati in shrInivAsa-LILA. This is from memory - I can try to review the verses tomorrow when I get a chance. The SkP clearly endorses the mAyA-sItA story, and while I want to believe it, I cannot help but be moved by the plight of sItA as told in rAmAyaNa, and am left with the unequivocal conclusion that the author was glorifying sItA aka LakShmI.

regards,

Omkara
25 September 2013, 01:50 PM
The Brahmanda Purana contains the Adhyatma Ramayana which also contains the maya-sita story.

philosoraptor
25 September 2013, 02:43 PM
charitra vrata = sage who observed all sacred vows; kR^itsnam kaavyam = to entire, epic; raamaayaNam = Ramayana; siithayaH charitam mahat = Seetha's, legend, sublime; poulastya vadham = Ravana's, elimination; iti = thus [naming]; evam cakaara = that way, made, rendered.

(~vAlmiki rAmAyaNa 1.4.7) (pasted from valmikiramayan.net)

The ithihAsa has 3 names - rAmAyaNa, sita charitra and poulastya vadham (rAvaNa is the son of pulastya - hence, poulastya). Out of these, the first name is popular and the second name is favored by sri vaishnavas. Note the word "mahat" is used with respect to that name - her glory is greater than that of srI rAmA's!

Thank you for this quote - I have added it to my notes, and will take great pleasure in pointing it out next time I am confronted with another feminist anti-Hindu hater.

:-)

PR

philosoraptor
25 September 2013, 02:46 PM
The Brahmanda Purana contains the Adhyatma Ramayana which also contains the maya-sita story.

I checked the AITM translation that I have - could not find it. Do you have a chapter/verse reference?

philosoraptor
25 September 2013, 02:54 PM
Quick addendum to my previous posting about vedavati. The rAmAyaNa (vALmIki) does say that vedavati became sItA - this is in the uttara-khANDa. Please disregard my previous note about the skanda purANa - I need to review what it says that clarify.

Omkara
25 September 2013, 05:26 PM
I checked the AITM translation that I have - could not find it. Do you have a chapter/verse reference?

Strange, It seems to be all over the internet that the Adhyatma Ramayana is in Brahmanda purana but no site provides the location....

smaranam
25 September 2013, 05:51 PM
Pranams,

I did not understand the reasoning offered above. But I can say this: the rAmAyaNa of vALmIki does not anywhere imply that anyone other than sItA was abducted.
praNAm

I am not contesting the event at all. Real SitA was abducted, acc. to Valmiki Ramayana. Fine.

I am saying, I care not of which itihas purana says what. Do we see what happened? WHO was abducted? SitA's body i.e. mAyA-sitA. Her True Self remained untouched. This True AtmA inside Her, is the real SitA whose abode is the heart and Lotus Feet of Shri RAma.
SitA was a walkie-talkie Bramhan. SitA is Shri Herself. She is alipta, achala, despite manifested itihAs.

This was my point. For once, let us step out of the books and see what happened - on the level of adhyAtma.

:)

Just as Shri RAma and Shri KRshNa were always untouched by all the hardships and otherwise challenging and painful events in their lives from POV of ordinary humans.

Sitadevi ki jay
SiyA-vara rAmachandra ki jay

philosoraptor
25 September 2013, 07:03 PM
praNAm

I am not contesting the event at all. Real SitA was abducted, acc. to Valmiki Ramayana. Fine.

I am saying, I care not of which itihas purana says what. Do we see what happened? WHO was abducted? SitA's body i.e. mAyA-sitA. Her True Self remained untouched. This True AtmA inside Her, is the real SitA whose abode is the heart and Lotus Feet of Shri RAma.
SitA was a walkie-talkie Bramhan. SitA is Shri Herself. She is alipta, achala, despite manifested itihAs.

This was my point. For once, let us step out of the books and see what happened - on the level of adhyAtma.

:)

Just as Shri RAma and Shri KRshNa were always untouched by all the hardships and otherwise challenging and painful events in their lives from POV of ordinary humans.

Sitadevi ki jay
SiyA-vara rAmachandra ki jay

Pranams,

Perhaps I simply lack your level of realization. I get all my information from shAstra, and when apparent contradictions arise, I seek out reconciliation or at least explanation of why the contradiction exists. vALmIki is quite clear that real sItA-devI was abducted, real sItA-devI was tormented, and real sItA-devI showed the position of the surrendered devotee who always thinks of the Lord even during adversity.

Now, I'm still stuck at the level of trying to reconcile this with the mAyA-sItA story. Is the latter merely an interpolation? Or are both stories true, and this is merely an example of kalpa-bedha? I don't pretend that I will certainly get the answers here, but, like many issues, I find it helpful to put the issue out there and let people take it apart, discuss the merits of different points of view, etc.

smaranam
26 September 2013, 04:48 AM
praNAm

Perhaps I simply lack your level of realization.
I am sorry if I wrote something that made you say this.


vALmIki is quite clear that real sItA-devI was abducted, real sItA-devI was tormented, and real sItA-devI showed the position of the surrendered devotee who always thinks of the Lord even during adversity.

Now, I'm still stuck at the level of trying to reconcile this with the mAyA-sItA story. Is the latter merely an interpolation? Or are both stories true, and this is merely an example of kalpa-bedha?

What I am suggesting, and this is only a suggestion, is that these two things can be simultaneously true even if there is no kalpa-bheda.

Truth exists on multiple levels.
adhibhautic - physical
adhidaivic - owing to Divine choice, luck
adhyAtmic - internal, Atmic

1. RAvan kidnapped SitA ---- adhibhautic truth. WHO was kidnapped? A kAyA worn by SitA mAtA. Now we are getting into sAnkhya, tattva, neti neti.

2. Unfortunate events took place - Ram ran after deer for Sita, Lakshman left... -------- adhidaivic

3. Internally SitA remained calm, surrendered to Her Lord, Shri RAm, at His Lotus Feet as always irrespective of where she was geographically - Ashok van in Lanka or the kutir (RAm's hut) in the araNya (forest).

1. shows mAyA-sitA was abducted (adhibhautic satya - physical level truth). What does mAyA-sitA mean? It means this body, and not the AtmA. The real sitA is actually the sacchidananda AtmA.

3. Shows that real sitA i.e. AtmA stayed untouched. (adhyAtmic satya - intrinsic soul-level truth)

The fact that SitA refused to go with Hanuman because She wanted Shri RAm to win Her back, for His Glory, just showed what the consciousness of the real Sita was like.

- She could have gone back with Hanuman but didn't
- She could have done multiple things to Ravan and his palace but didn't
- She could have retaliated when the rAkshasis harrassed Her, but she didn't.

This is the real sita that knew she is not a product of maya that ravan thinks she is, but eternal saccidananda AtmA.

There is no contradiction. The maya-sita story found in puranas is valid on the adhyatmic level (- this is a realizaton I had just yesterday while reading this thread - thanks to all 3 of you),

while vAlmiki describes the adhibhautic itihas and leaves it to the readers to have their realizations (read between lines) by the grace of Shri RAm and Hanuman.

Vedavati was a previous birth of Sita (Lakshmi). At that time she was doing her tapascharya for VishNu, but thanks to Ravan her tapascharya remained incomplete. She gave ravan a shaap that she will come back to avenge this, and then burned herself in the yogic fire i.e. gave up the body via a yogic process.

The same Lakshmi Devi came here as Vedavati, Sita and Padmavati.

Kalpa-bheda may or may not be there.

I also remember reading/hearing (shravanam) that Vedavati went to Lord Shiva and said "Please give me my husband back" 5 times (she was distressed). Since she said this 5 times, Shiva said tathAstu (so be it) with a secret plan, and vedavati came back as Draupadi and had 5 husbands (pandav) because of this. Some say Shiva suppressed a smile while saying tathastu. While elsewhere we see that Draupadi was Durga or Yogmaya.

Now this could as well be kalpa-bheda and/or interpretations of shastra by saints pundits acharya. Ramayana occurs in each kalpa after all.


like many issues, I find it helpful to put the issue out there and let people take it apart, discuss the merits of different points of view, etc.
Of course. This is what makes HDF very enriching.

_/\_

Ramakrishna
26 September 2013, 01:58 PM
Sita Ram,



And yes, Sita did not burn rAvaNa because of her dependence on srI rAmA. Wanting srI rAmA to have the fame of killing rAvaNa is one aspect of such dependence, ie, the jivA does not make self-efforts to attain bhagavAn.


Can you please expand on what you mean by "self-efforts"? I understand that moksha ultimately comes from Bhagavan's grace alone, but is our sadhana not a "self-effort" towards that attainment?

Jai Sri Ram

Sri Vaishnava
26 September 2013, 02:07 PM
Sita Ram,



Can you please expand on what you mean by "self-efforts"? I understand that moksha ultimately comes from Bhagavan's grace alone, but is our sadhana not a "self-effort" towards that attainment?

Jai Sri Ram

Let me give you an example. You want to grow a tree in your garden (hypothetically, of gardens have trees!). So, you purchase the right type of soil, buy a plot of land, buy the seed, plant the seed, water the seed, feed it with fertilizer and then watch the tree grow.

How would you feel now, if the tree (hypothetically speaking) said, "I grew by my self-effort"? Is not the growth of the tree merely a course of nature, ie, a natural response to the actions taken by you, rather than a sAdhaNa?

Similarly, whatever we do is just the nature of the AtmA manifesting in response to bhagavAn's efforts. He provides the body. He provides a conducive birth. He gives us the sAstras. He waits for a lame excuse such as you walking accidentally into a temple (not even out of devotion) and foists punya karma on you. Then, using that punya as an excuse, he makes an AchArya appear in your life to guide you.

So, once all this has been done, and you do ths sAdhaNa, then to say "this is my self-effort" is as illogical as the tree claiming its growth is its self effort. It is the very nature of the jivA to do bhakti. It is not a self effort because it is not an alien effort taken by you, it is just a realisation of your nature.

This point is hammered home by the upanishads. On one hand, the upanshads say that the AtmA (Brahman) can be attained by hearing, seeing and meditating. On the other hand, Yama tells Nachiketa that the AtMA is only attained by those whom it chooses and not by those other means. The reconciliation is that those "means" are not really the "means", rather, it is just the manifestation of your true nature when you hear, see and meditate on sriman nArAyaNa. It is his grace which is the sAdhaNa, which is mentioned as "amrtasya sethu", ie, Brahman is the bridge.

The sAstras say that we passed through even animal births to become human? Can you imagine what sAdhaNa an animal can do to become a human in the next life? Nothing. It is bhagavAn who does the work. Perhaps, he sees an ant crawling over him in a temple and says "this creature has entered my temple" and heaps punya on it. That ant becomes a manushya in the next life, eligible for sAdhaNa. And so on.

Then, why do the sAstras call these other things like hearing, etc as sAdhaNas? All from our perspective. As we see these things as sAdhaNa, we call them sAdhaNa. But they make it clear that Brahman himself is the true sAdhaNa.

Omkara
26 September 2013, 08:27 PM
Let me give you an example. You want to grow a tree in your garden (hypothetically, of gardens have trees!). So, you purchase the right type of soil, buy a plot of land, buy the seed, plant the seed, water the seed, feed it with fertilizer and then watch the tree grow.

How would you feel now, if the tree (hypothetically speaking) said, "I grew by my self-effort"? Is not the growth of the tree merely a course of nature, ie, a natural response to the actions taken by you, rather than a sAdhaNa?

Similarly, whatever we do is just the nature of the AtmA manifesting in response to bhagavAn's efforts. He provides the body. He provides a conducive birth. He gives us the sAstras. He waits for a lame excuse such as you walking accidentally into a temple (not even out of devotion) and foists punya karma on you. Then, using that punya as an excuse, he makes an AchArya appear in your life to guide you.

So, once all this has been done, and you do ths sAdhaNa, then to say "this is my self-effort" is as illogical as the tree claiming its growth is its self effort. It is the very nature of the jivA to do bhakti. It is not a self effort because it is not an alien effort taken by you, it is just a realisation of your nature.

This point is hammered home by the upanishads. On one hand, the upanshads say that the AtmA (Brahman) can be attained by hearing, seeing and meditating. On the other hand, Yama tells Nachiketa that the AtMA is only attained by those whom it chooses and not by those other means. The reconciliation is that those "means" are not really the "means", rather, it is just the manifestation of your true nature when you hear, see and meditate on sriman nArAyaNa. It is his grace which is the sAdhaNa, which is mentioned as "amrtasya sethu", ie, Brahman is the bridge.

The sAstras say that we passed through even animal births to become human? Can you imagine what sAdhaNa an animal can do to become a human in the next life? Nothing. It is bhagavAn who does the work. Perhaps, he sees an ant crawling over him in a temple and says "this creature has entered my temple" and heaps punya on it. That ant becomes a manushya in the next life, eligible for sAdhaNa. And so on.

Then, why do the sAstras call these other things like hearing, etc as sAdhaNas? All from our perspective. As we see these things as sAdhaNa, we call them sAdhaNa. But they make it clear that Brahman himself is the true sAdhaNa.

This is a truly beautiful post.

Ramakrishna
26 September 2013, 11:52 PM
Sita Ram,


Let me give you an example. You want to grow a tree in your garden (hypothetically, of gardens have trees!). So, you purchase the right type of soil, buy a plot of land, buy the seed, plant the seed, water the seed, feed it with fertilizer and then watch the tree grow.

How would you feel now, if the tree (hypothetically speaking) said, "I grew by my self-effort"? Is not the growth of the tree merely a course of nature, ie, a natural response to the actions taken by you, rather than a sAdhaNa?

Similarly, whatever we do is just the nature of the AtmA manifesting in response to bhagavAn's efforts. He provides the body. He provides a conducive birth. He gives us the sAstras. He waits for a lame excuse such as you walking accidentally into a temple (not even out of devotion) and foists punya karma on you. Then, using that punya as an excuse, he makes an AchArya appear in your life to guide you.

So, once all this has been done, and you do ths sAdhaNa, then to say "this is my self-effort" is as illogical as the tree claiming its growth is its self effort. It is the very nature of the jivA to do bhakti. It is not a self effort because it is not an alien effort taken by you, it is just a realisation of your nature.

This point is hammered home by the upanishads. On one hand, the upanshads say that the AtmA (Brahman) can be attained by hearing, seeing and meditating. On the other hand, Yama tells Nachiketa that the AtMA is only attained by those whom it chooses and not by those other means. The reconciliation is that those "means" are not really the "means", rather, it is just the manifestation of your true nature when you hear, see and meditate on sriman nArAyaNa. It is his grace which is the sAdhaNa, which is mentioned as "amrtasya sethu", ie, Brahman is the bridge.

The sAstras say that we passed through even animal births to become human? Can you imagine what sAdhaNa an animal can do to become a human in the next life? Nothing. It is bhagavAn who does the work. Perhaps, he sees an ant crawling over him in a temple and says "this creature has entered my temple" and heaps punya on it. That ant becomes a manushya in the next life, eligible for sAdhaNa. And so on.

Then, why do the sAstras call these other things like hearing, etc as sAdhaNas? All from our perspective. As we see these things as sAdhaNa, we call them sAdhaNa. But they make it clear that Brahman himself is the true sAdhaNa.

Indeed, thank you for this enlightening post! Bhakti is our very nature! To see Him everywhere, to think of Him always, to serve and glorify Him in all that we do! It is all because of Him! It is all Him!

Jai Sri Ram!