You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : October 1998

Re: VibhIshaNa saraNAgati

From: Parthasarati Dileepan (
Date: Sun Oct 18 1998 - 11:59:53 PDT

At 07:33 PM 10/17/1998 -0400, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:


>As shishupAla, however, at the last moment before he was killed, his
>passion and hatred ceased, and he attained moxa, because of his
>exceedingly high store of puNya.

The following is based on adiyEn's understanding
from Swami Sri Desikan's RTS commentary by
Sri Uttamoor Swami.  Please feel free to correct
me if it is wrong.

MOksha can be attained only when we are completely 
free of all the accumulated karmas (paapaa + puNya),
sanchita as well as prarabhdha karma. Thus, puNya is
as much an impediment for attaining mOksha as paapaa.
Using a lowkeeka example, if paapa is a handcuff made
of steel, puNya is also a handcuff, albeit a golden 
one.  Only by bhakthi yoga or prapatti will the Lord 
release the karma and grant mOksha.  When we do 
prapatti the Lord frees us of sanchita karma and 
that part of the prarabdha that has not started 
manifesting.  From the part that has begun giving
its effect, that part of the prarabdha that 
still remains at the end of a prapanna's stay in 
his/her body is distributed by the Lord with 
all the remaining paapam going to those who 
acted against the prapanna and all the puNyam 
going to those who acted favorably.

Sometime back there was a distraught comment that
the phrase "baddha jiva" sounds very  much like 
"paavikaLE" of Christianity.  Again, it is my 
understanding, please correct me if it is wrong, 
baddha here means bounded, not _necessarily_ a 
sinner.  Even the most puNyavaan is considered 
baddha as he/she is bounded to suffer or enjoy 
the consequences of karma.  Some of these baddas 
include the present Vasishtar, Siva, Brahmma, and
even Hanuman.  If anything, "baddhas" can be thought 
of as "karma palanai anubhavippavarkaLE".  That 
does not sound awful does it?


>Which brings me to my original question. Is it held as a fact that the
>Lord's grace can separate and go away from him? If so I'd like some
>references from Sri Ramanuja or Sri Vedanta Desika's writings.

It is my understanding that the kalyaNa guNas of the Lord are
"apradhak siddhi", i.e. they are inseparable part of the Lord.
Similarly, piratti is also "apradhak siddi" for the Lord.  
Piratti is inseparable from the Lord.  In Thiruvaaymozhi, 
which is thiru + vaaymozi, i.e. divine truth, Azhvaar uses
the adjective "ahalakillEn iRaiyum" for piraatti.  Thus, 
piraatti is never absent from the Lord, not even for a 
fraction of a moment.  Conversely, the Lord does not 
exist even for a fraction of a moment without piraatti.  
Thus, whether it was at the time the Lord killed Maricha, 
or when He released Akalikai from her stony prison, or 
when He went to Mahabali as a young bachelor, in all 
these instances, Piratti was ever present.

With this background it is easy to see that one cannot 
surrender to just the Lord.  There is a difference of 
opinion about the role Piraatti plays in prapatti, 
not whether or not she plays any role at all.  Even here,
there is no difference of opinion with respect to  
"purushakarathvam" of Piratti.  Arguing about whether 
there was Purushakarathvam present or not is like 
arguing whether a unicorn's color is white or black.

Swami Sri Desikan explains in Srimad RTS, with pramaaNaas 
that no one refute, that Piraatti is not only a "purushakara", 
but She plays the role of Upaya as well, along with PerumaaL.

-- adiyEn raamaanuja daasan.