You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : April 1999


From: Anand Karalapakkam (
Date: Fri Apr 09 1999 - 12:01:19 PDT

Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha
Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAAdukA sEvaka SrivaNN-
SatakOpa Sri nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

namO nArAyaNA.

 Dear Sri Mani and Sri MuraLi,

  Probably Sri krishna kalale is busy. adiyEn just thought
  of  posting this in the meantime.

  summary :
  Bhakti yOga ie. upAsana doesn't end in prapatti (done
  for moksham). UpAsana is a separate route , prapatti
 (for moksham) is a separate route. Both are valid routes
 to be adopted by a mumukshu according to his/her
 qualification/taste etc.

> Thank you for that detailed analysis. However, I think
> his question still remains unanswered.  In the end,
> only the Lord can achieve moksha for the jIva. Only the
> Lord is the siddhopAya.  The jIva must not only realize
> that the Lord is helpful in bhakti-yoga, but that his
> efforts will be of no avail without the Lord's sankalpa
> to take him to moksha. Recall Swami Desika's statement
> in Srimad Ashtabhujashtakam: tvayi pravRtte mama kim
> prayAsai:, tvayyapravRtte mama kim prayAsai:.

  There is no doubt that PerumAL is the siddhOpAya etc.
 But that same PerumAL has putforth in the sAstrAs that
 "upAsana" as a sAdhyOpAya _needs_ to be performed and
 completed for Him to grant moksham. Here it is a
 sAstric injunction to take up upAsana, if one is
 interested in moksham. Thats why, one has to perform
 upAsana. If PerumAL would have told that, daily, one has
 to run 10 miles for 30 days chanting "namO nArAyaNA",
 and then He will grant mOksham, then one has to do that,
 if he/she aspires for moksham ( :-) ). The bottomline is
 that "Do upAsana for moksham" is a sAstric injunction
 to be obeyed by a mumukshu if he needs kainkaryam at

  Please go through the beginning portion of the
 previous posting as well.

> Now, if the bhakti-yogi must also realize that the Lord
> alone can accomplish the burden of taking him to moksha,
> how is this different from prapatti? Does this not make
> prapatti alone the true sAdhyopAya?

  What is meant by "Lord alone can accomplish the burden
  of taking him to moksha" ?

  This only means that PerumAL is the siddhOpAyam ie.
  just because one is performing bhakti yOgA doesn't
  mean that it automatically gives him moksham; it is
  the PerumAL who being satisfied with the completion
  of that upAsana grants the moksham.

 If you meant that a bhakti yOgi _should_ realize that
 PerumAL _alone_ can stand in the place of bhakti yOgA
 (ie. take the burden), then it is not correct.

 SAstrAs never say that one should quit upAsanA; rather
 one should take it up and complete it. Only if one
 is incompetent, then as an akinchanA, with great
 kArpanyam one should perform prapatti
(bhara samarpanam etc).

 There is a huge difference between these two statements :

 a. "Realize that upAsana as the sAdhyOpAyam can't be
     done by you(all jIvAtmAs) and thus put the burden
     on PerumAL (to stand in place of upAsana) and perform
     prapatti  "

 b. " If you feel unqualified for performing upAsana
      as the sAdhyOpAyam, put the burden on PerumAL
      and perform prapatti ".

    Statement "a" is not supported by sAstrAs.
    Upanishads never say that upAsana has to be
    quit and nyAsa vidya has to be adopted instead.
    PerumAL leaves the choice to the individual (based
    on his/her qualification).

    We can't say that a bhakti yOgi should take
    up prapatti only as a sAdhyOpAyam. Its upto the
    mumukshu. vyAsar, sukar, bheeshmar,
    thirukkurugaik kAvalappan (nAthamunigaL's sishyar)
    and others have adopted it. But, they will have immmense
    bhagavad anubhavam and almost no problems are
   caused by their material bodies (perfect control);
   thus, they don't feel the pressure of time and thus
   continued to perform upAsana.

   Its perfectly within the capacity of a baddha
   jIvAtma to perform upAsana and many have done
   in the past to adopt it and obtain moksham.
   If it is not within the capacity of a jIvAtmA
   to perform upAsana, then sAstrAs wouldn't
   have given that injunction (if so, those
   injunctions would become meaningless ;
   whole brahma sUtram, SribAshyam becomes
   meaningless etc -> clear absurdity).

   So, its not a rule that a bhakti yogi should
   feel as if he can't do upAsana, when he
   actually can (ofcourse with the blessings
   of PerumAL).

> I believe this is the heart of his question.  I do
> not have an answer to it, which is why I have not followed
> up myself.
> In other words, does bhakti-yoga not only begin with
> prapatti, but also end with prapatti, because the jIva
> realizes his or her complete inability to achieve moksha
> without the Lord's grace? And in throwing himself at the
> Lord's feet out of this recognition of the inability, how
> is he or she any different from the prapanna?

  already answered. If at some point of time a yOgi feels
  that he can't pursue upAsana, he can pursue nyAsa
  vidya (prapatti) instead. The bhagavad anubhavam
  one obtains through upAsana makes that yOgi forget
  everything else; he is absorbed in it ; he willingly
  does it; PerumAL reciprocates; time is almost forgotten
  by them ......etc; only when one reaches such stage can
  one understand why bhakti yOgins continue to perform
  upAsana. Ofcourse, karma is anAdi and freewill is
  also there => no one can say that a mumukshu will
  follow this upAsanA out of the 32 prescribed ones /
  a mumukshu will follow prapatti only etc. Its
  entirely left to the mumukshu who according to the
  karma/sukrudams etc factors, performs some

 Bhakti and prapatti are separate sAdhyOpAyams
 and it is not that bhakti leads to prapatti.

 One can only say "bhakti" ie. devotion in the sense
 of  sravanam, keertanam will lead to prapatti.
 Sri Mani:  This is just for clarification ; You anyway already
 know that these two sAdhyOpAyams are separate.

  adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan
  ananthapadmanAbha dAsan