Isvaran

[Guest guest]

This is in continuation of the discussion on Sivan

we had a little earlier. One thing that had puzzled

me in the past is the name "Isvaran" given to

Sivan. The verse "sri raama raamEthi ..." at the

end of Vishnu SaHasranaamam is attributed to

Sivan with "Isvara uvaaccha." Does that indicate

that Sivan is Isvaran? But, as sri vaishNavaas we

believe that our Lord Narayana is THE Isvaran.

 

Srimad azhagiya singar answered this in the

December 93 issue of Sri Nrusimha Priya. The

following is only an abstract of the answer, in my

own words. For more and complete details please

read the original article.

 

 

-- Dileepan

 

 

 

==========

Isvaran, a name given for Sivan, is to be

understood as just a proper noun. It is not

indicative of his nature or the function assigned to

him. For example, there could be a person in a

town called Boopalan. He may not own even a

small piece of land. Yet, people in that town may

call him and refer to him in conversation as

Boopalan. But the title Boopalan, when used as a

honorific, will always refer only to the King of the

town/country who literally owns the land.

Similarly, Lord Narayana is Isvaran due to His

nature and the function that He alone and no one

else performs.

 

There can be no difference of opinion on this

count as Sri Sankarar himself explains that Lord

Vishnu is Isvaran in his Vishnu SaHasranama

bhashyam. Three examples of this are (i)

"nirupaathikam aisvaryam aSya aStheethi

Isvara:.," (ii) "Sarva sakthimathvaath Isvara:," and

(iii) Sarvabootha niyanthruvaath Isaana:."

 

Now, is it possible that both Narayana and Sivan

are both Isvarans by nature. No! Upanishads tell

us that there is only one Isvaran, not two. ("Eka:

saasthaa na dhvatheeyO.") Therefore, Lord

Vishnu is the only Isvaran because of His nature

and actions. For Sivan, Isvaran is just a proper

noun like Boopalan for a landless person.

================

[Guest guest]

krish says:

 

>Mr. Algiya Singer seems to be twisting, a right he certainly possesses.

Easwara

>replies Parvathis's querry. Now Parvathi need not be Easwara's consort,

>per Singar.

 

 

Please read my post carefully. The part about

Isvara uvaacha was part of the doubt that I had

in MY mind, as clearly stated in the post. I have

not stated that srimad azhagiya singar said

anything about Parvati's question or Sivan's reply to her.

 

 

Srimad azhagiya singar was responding to articles

that had appeared in Jyaana Boomi and KalaimagaL

at that time. He was not looking for a controversy

with this article, he was just responding to certain claims.

Please read the original article if you must criticize.

 

 

-- Dileepan

[Guest guest]

Mr. Algiya Singer seems to be twisting, a right he certainly possesses. Easwara

replies Parvathis's querry. Now Parvathi need not be Easwara's consort,

per Singar.

One cannot understand the concern of Vishnu or Iswara. This is starting to

be like my Christian friend's statement about the only truth and only God.

For every Vaishnava Statement about Vishnu, there is a corresponding one

about Shiva. Whether there is a grain of truth, depends on the devotee!

[Guest guest]

Krish writes:

* One cannot understand the concern of Vishnu or Iswara. This is starting to

* be like my Christian friend's statement about the only truth and only God.

* For every Vaishnava Statement about Vishnu, there is a corresponding one

* about Shiva. Whether there is a grain of truth, depends on the devotee!

 

I am not sure what your concern is; don't you believe that ultimately

there is only one Truth, and one Supreme God? Your Christian friend is

not wrong in this respect.

 

But if he insists that there is only *one* path to that Truth, he is

in my view wrong. Each person needs to pick their own path, within some

common guidelines. Most learned Vaishnavas will not disagree if you

make such a statement.

 

The only question is -- why do Sri Vaishnavas worship Narayana and

Narayana alone? We do not thrust the name of Narayana down anyone's

throat; that has never been our way. Sri Azhagiya Singar's response

to this question is according to our Acharyas' understanding of the

Vedas, meditation and surrender to the Being embodied by the concept

Narayana is the surest means to everlasting bliss. That is all.

 

This is also confirmed by the Azhvaars' progressive experience of

reality. We believe that they are our best guide to knowing the

elusive Supreme.

 

Mani