|You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : October 1996|
Date: Fri Oct 18 1996 - 07:04:52 PDT
Mr. Jaganath writes: Performing another Prapatti for a spiritual purpose cannot immediately be considered to be a lack of faith in the first Prapatti. If that were the case then Thirumangai Azhwar should have waited for Bhagavan to have given Him money to build a temple instead of resorting to the violation of the principles of sAmAnya dharma. ---------------------- I am not familiar with the view that Thirumangai Azhwar performed another Prapatti to build a temple for the Lord. Within the context of the Srirangam School, his actions would instead be considered an expression of kainkarya, which results from the Prapanna's self - realization as a sesa of the Lord. Consequently, his actions would be such that they would be conducive to the Lord's Desires and would be performed in worshipful adoration of Him. <<<< I did not say that Thirumangai Azhwar performed another Prapatti. What I meant was that Yamunacharya's Prapatti was a kainkaryam to the Lord in the same fashion that Thirumangai Azhwar's looting of the bridal processions was a kainkaryam. Ramanujacharya was destined to do all the great things He did in order to promote Srivaishnavism. The power that enabled Him to achieve all that was the Prapatti performed by Yamunacharya. Yamunacharya was thus an instrument in the Lord's hands to bestow Ramanujacharya with kainkaryam, fame and all possible aishwaryam. In this connection one may note that while Bhima vowed to kill Duryodhana, it would have been impossible for Bhima to have accompalished this task, if Krishna had not dirupted Gandhari's attempts to render her son invincible. >>>> It is interesting to note that although many of these actions would conform to the expectations of the Dharma, some would seem to challenge it, or as in the Azhwar's case, even go against it. Another example of this involve the controversial actions of Vibhishana, who, after his Prapatti, sides with his own brother's enemy in battle. >From the perspective of our ordinary understanding of Dharma, this would be a sin, but as he was a Prapanna, his actions were undoubtedly Bhagavad Kainkarya. Daasanu Daasan, Mohan >From the perspective of any understanding this Vibheeshana's action cannot be considered a sin. Vibheeshana's actions were a practical demonstation of the meanings contained in ashtAkshara, dwaya and charama shlokas. Thirumangai Azhwar's actions could have been sinful, especially since no one knows how many among those that got looted were bhagavatas. However His life demonstrated that His Bhakti was so supreme, that He was ready to commit the greatest of Bhagavata apachAras and go to hell if necessary, as long as a shelter was provided for His Lord. That fact that Thirumangai Azhwar is worshipped today shows that one can take the greatest risk in Sriman Narayana's service, but will never be the loser for it. Jaganath.