विचार विमर्श

http://raghu-vraghava.blogspot.com/

Do Baranyaasam restrains a sthoola shareer from functioning in its wish?


A true Shrivaishnava is one who shows compassion to fellow humans and the nature,the rest are very ritualistic.

Since we follow the doctrine of chit-Achit Visishtam ,we are attributing importance to the whole lot of Prakriti which was categorised as Maya by Adi-shankara and Shoonya by the Buddha.
The Visishta Bhava compels us to be in love with all the individual and transient and intransient soul,to attain salvation.In that context i strongly believe we are not in a position to categorise and seggregate between..what is and what is not,since what is not is supposedly visishta in our philosophy.

The rigidity of ritualism will definitely drag us away from the absolute and make us remorse and resolute often.

This should not stop us from enjoying the absolute the way our ancestors have perceived upon us,
*****************************************************
http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jan98/0147.html



(1) Ideally, Baranyasam shoud be a reflection of the state of one's mind
rather than being a mere ritual. Mumukshus (one desirous of obtaining
Moksha) discards all activities leading to Ihaloka sukham or welfare and
his only goal is to reach Bhaghavan. He is not bothered with such
questions as; can I pray for this or can I pray for that etc., Such an
ideal state is the state of a Paramaikantin. The Vidwan merely awaits his
release from this world to join the world of Muktas.

2) On the otherhand an Ekantin (who is in the process of becoming a
paramaikantin) is still interested in his yogakshemam. While he
theoretically appreciates that the pleasures of this world are temporary
and must be discarded to reach the ideal state of moksha, he has still not
developed the vairagyam to lead a life that would reflect this ideal.
Hence an Ekantin resorts to actions that gains felicity in this world. This
he does with one restriction viz. For all his needs he will approach none
other than Sriman Narayana. Nonetheless, an Ekantin's position is less
than the ideal.
3) All Gods and for that matter even human beings are vested with some
power to grant other's wishes. Resorting to them one can easily appease
one's desires. However, scriptures tell us that only Emperuman can grant
the highest. It is the goal of our acharyas that we must attune ourself to
praying to Emperuman alone for whatever may be our needs. This way one is
gradually lead into the state of paramaikantikatvam.

(4) Why do we resort to other devatas. Scriptures tell us Lord Narayana is
generally slow in granting boons! He does not quickly respond. Devatas
like the Navagraha etc., can mitigate the effects of Karma more quickly
than the "leela-oriented" perumal who knows what His bhakta actually needs
and therefore may not grant your wish at all!

(5) Like Emerson once said: "Patience and patience wins at last". This is
what we must experience to reach the highest goal of existence. I think
there are no short-cuts.
Vijayaraghavan Srinivasan

****************************************************
Nice to read your email on this topic. I am in agreement with your next email. But in this email you have stated about compassion to fellow beings as the only essence of Sri vaishnavism and then proceeded to dismiss everything else as a ritual. I am not in a position to accept that part after continuously listening and further continuing to listen to the deeper meaning of Nammalwar and Acharyas. There are many things we cannot comprehend and cannot also create when compared to what has been done by the Guruparampara of the Desikan lineage or the Pillailogacharya line.We have not spent that much of concentrated time on these areas. Better accept and not dismiss the tradition would be my view point.You will never get one more Nammalwar or Ramanuja in the immediate furture.
Regards
A.N.Raman

**************************************************
You are right on the last para,but is it also not true that Sambhavami Yughae Yughae,and in swami Nammalvars Own words....Ulan Iru thagaimaiyodu Ozhivilan Parandhae.

And Bhagvan in Geeta has pointed to Yo yo yam yam tanum Bhakta "shradhdhaya"
Thus i agree there is an amount of ritualisation in all philosophic plane at the same time the crux of explaining the nothingness and somethingness travels beyond mundane thought process into the empty space of silence and introspection.

My reading on the upanishads highlights this very thought process after probing into Asti(he/it is...an affirmation)naasti(he/it is not...a negation).

Well Philosophy..spirituality ...and culture travels on a distinct planes and it is good to appreciate them distinctly,while we often confuse between these three with reference to the messages passed from our poorvacharyas.

While the concept of Narayana as the reliever from bondage is well taken in the srivashnavism...is it the sthoola representation or its sookshma roop that is material is often debated on account of lack of grip on the distinction of deliverance between "Philosophy...culture".

What the Bhasyakarar had pointed is highly philosophical in relation to establishing a relation between Prakriti..purusha and Iswara.

Hence in that context the demifying relation are culture and the same need to be respected to a limited extent of lower level congregation.

The concept of Vishnu has been structured in the following five forms explain the structural process of realisation of individuals belief system.:
Para
Vyuha
Vibhava
Antaryami
Archa

Finally Dharma is a Inward looking concept(agam)as against Religion which external(puram) a community fabric of realisation.

With Kindest Regards
R.Veeraraghavan.