You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : October 1996

More on Prapatti
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
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.
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
Bhagavad Kainkarya.

Daasanu Daasan,


>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.