You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : August 1997

Re: nArAyananE, namakkE

From: Sampath Rengarajan (srengara_at_ford.com)
Date: Wed Aug 06 1997 - 09:40:27 PDT

I enjoyed the posting from Sri Murali and the interpretations quoted by Sri
Thirumalai Anandappali Varadhan. On a quick review I submit to you all my own
interpretations based on certain commentaries i read for this.


On Aug 6,  9:31am, Thirumalai Anandanpillai wrote:
> Subject: Re:
> RANGASWAMY@plh.af.mil wrote:
>
> > Finally, the most significant contribution of Sri Andal is the
> > beautiful
> > portrayal of the all pervasiveness of Lord Narayana through the
> > salutations
> > "UnnakkE NamAzhchaivOm" and "NarayaNanE NammakE ParatharuvAn"
>
> >
>
> The use of NaaraayaNanE and namakkE is significant in the paasuram.Why
> should Andal use naaraayaNanE instead of naaraayaNan?
> Why should she use namakkE instead of namakku?
>
> Our poorvaachaaryaas say that the use of naaraayaNanE in this paasuram
> is
> to give us the message that it is NaaraayaNan *alone* who can give us
> mOksha. There is nothing we do, or nothing we can do that will do the
> same.

While it has been established by Sri Andal in th eprevious pAsurams that Sriman
narAyanan is th eonly daivam who is worthy of worshipping (ie meaning HE is the
only giver of mOksham and that only thing to get from HIM is mOksham). One can
goto these words "give" and "get" and  say that if HE is the only one who can
give and nothing (charanAgathi or prapatti) we can do will do the same, then
why must one expect "this moksham" or anything else to be "given". HE knows the
best so why not leave it to HIM ? Why ponder over whether our actions will
"get" us the mOksham or something else or not ?

ie Even if one says that it is logically provable that charanAgathi or prapatti
alone may not yield to moksham, then why  one must expect this '"get" moksham
to us through HIS grace alone"', and why not leave it to HIM and feel helpless
as per the last anga of prapatti and wait for HIS deliverance ? I donot know
the exact verbattum of poorvachariar's vyAkyAnam for this (by the way is this
by Sri PV Pillai  ?).

The closest meaning of "nArAyananE" both in Tamil language and here in the
context of the sequence and the flow of all these pasurams of thiruppAvai is
such that "HE Himself" (than HE only) will teach us the way to mOksham ie parai
tharuvAn. parai tharuvAn means "will teach us the way". If so, is there a way
that can lead to moksham? and if HE is gonna deliver this without any
realisation from our part then why must ANDAL say that there is a way that HE
will HIMself teach us ? If so, is there an other way or upAya ?

	Yes! Agian in the flow of these pasaurams the Lord here means Lord
Krishna. (It seems this gopiyar or nappinai) is aware ahead of time, that
charama slokam is to be delivered. HE (Lord Krishna) did teach to all and those
gOpiyars as well afterwards through Srimad bagwad Geetha the way through  "Mam
ekAm charaNam vraja" ("Surender to ME ...") at the end. The very fact that this
is at end of Srimad bagwad Geetha is such that this is the *most* important
purushArththam (prapatti) one "may" perform in his life that will lead to
mOksham.

ANDAL thiruvadikaLE charaNam
Sampath Rengarajan