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

Re: VibhIshaNa saraNAgati

From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian (
Date: Sun Oct 18 1998 - 14:24:54 PDT

Parthasarati Dileepan wrote:

> 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.

But the one difference between puNya and pApa karma is that puNya karmas
can help in purifying the mind, which is essential, is it not? (So can
we say instead of golden handcuffs, handcuffs made of string, which one
can break easily?!) That's what the vishhNu purANa says, though
HiraNyakashipu had attained purity of mind by good deeds it was mixed
with passion. As for bhakti yoga/prapatti, for some it may happen
instantaneously as in the case of shishupAla, depending I suppose on
prArabdha. That's what the purANa also says in effect. At the last
moment he beheld Narayana as he actually is, after forgetting all his
hatred. Can't mean anything else other than bhakti/prapatti.

> 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?

No, it does not.

[ role of Piratti snipped for brevity]

> 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.

Thanks for this reference. I was thinking the same myself, how can one
kalyANa guNa separate and go away? Just because sItA was not present
physically I don't suppose we need to think that he can no longer bestow
his grace. Did he not exist at the same time as Rama, Parashurama and
also was present in Vaikuntha? I don't see why the same will not be the
case with laxmI, in fact it seems the same should be the case.