tirmanthram

[Guest guest]

SrimathE LakshmiNrsumha Parabrahmane Namah

Sri Vedanta Desika GuravE Namah

 

Some "bhAgavatottamas" have alluded to some portions of my last posting on

this subject and have misunderstood therefrom that the authority of texts of

our great achaaryas like the Sri Vachana Bhushana and Mumukshuppadi are

under question. I hasten to state that woe befall me if I had such

"bhAgavata-apacharam" in mind. I sincerely regret that the trajectory of my

arguments have given rise to such a surmise.In both the study and practice

of SriVaisnavism there could be no ignoramus greater than I.So please

forgive me for the sloppy way in which I may have conveyed the central

ideas of our achaaryas as I have absorbed (or think I have) it.

 

The gravamen of my views was that "sampradayam" dictates the ways in which

hallowed Vaishnava doctrines like "prapatti" are applied and in observance

of such "sampradaya" it is wiser for us to err on the side of caution than

to succumb to the temptation of rationalising what is expedient in our

age.In this view of mine I have been guided only by a question I posed to

myself. It runs like this :

 

Swami Desikan's magnum opus "Rahasyatraya-sara" deals with the doctrine of

prapatti and application of the ashtakshara/dvaya mantras and charama

shlokam that are central to its practice. Now one must pause here to wonder

why Swami titles it as "rahasya" if indeed there were essentially no

restrictions whatsoever on their dissemination, instruction,imbibing and

practice. Isn't it obvious that these doctrines are meant to be esoteric

rather than exoteric?

 

Now I learn from a "bhagavottatamar" that in his community, groups get

together and routinely chant the 'tirumanthram' lead by an 'advaitin'.The

question posed here is that why create a such a fuss about a 'mantra' which

people are willing to blissfully chant as part of congregational worship and

are none the worse for it?

 

Now an argument of this sort cannot be adequately countered in a question

involving "sat-vishayam". It puts one in a quandary of the sort faced when

queried,"Have you stopped beating your wife?". Any answer to that poser

damns the respondent and I submit I refuse to fall into the trap. In a

debate of this nature one can only deal with substantive issues raised and

clarified by the scriptures as revealed to us by our beloved "achaaryas".

 

Another argument that has been put forward is the age-old one of "primacy of

substance-over-form" and that what our acharyas have held rahasya is the

meaning(substance) of the mantra and not its acoustic 'swarupa'(form). Now

this is a very good line of reasoning (even our revered Sriman Mani

Varadarajan has referred to it in his latest posting).

 

But even in the face of this most formidable line of reasoning one can't

help a lingering whiff of doubt.Let me explain myself.

 

Our ancient vedic treatises consistently hail what are collectively known as

inviolable 'mantra-sastras'. They reiterate most emphatically that at the

essence of mantras lie the power of "shabda" --- primordial sound which is

reality i.e.Narayana Himself. The scriptures state in many ways that

"shabda" verily unravels reality.Our samhitas and smritis, I have heard

being explained by scholars,state at many places that ancient sages and

seers who had trancended mere "mantra-dhyana" actually "saw" the

mantras.("mantra-dhristhi").It is said that Sage Viswamitra actually

"perceived" the Gayatri mantra. Another instance of "mantra-dhristi" that

scholars have commented on is very interesting --- they allude to a shloka

in the "aranyakAnda" where Sage Valmiki refers to the Lord Rama,Sita and

Lakshmana treading through a forest pathway . Abruptly the shloka seems to

abort in mid-sentence with a non-sequitor "exclamation" of "Ha!" which

(scholars point out) is not deliberate poetic affectation or fancy but a

sign of genuine and spontaneous revelation.In describing the situation where

the Lord and Lady of Ayodhya tread through the forest, Sage Valmiki (the

scholars say) is overwhelmed by the word-picture he has painted, because

suddenly in the very moment of its creation, in a blinding flash, he

"actually perceives 'pranavam' in motion". Again (it is said as being

explained in various vedic treatises) rishis of yore actually could induce

"physico-chemical" phenomenon through mantras. For e.g. in "yagnyAs", it is

said in those days, rishis did not use "arani-kattai" to induce the

incipient fire; they induced the fire by the mere recitation of the

appropriate mantra beckoning the spirit of Agni-devata. One hesitates to

'pooh-pooh' these occurences since various 'mantra-siddhantas' categorically

state that 'mantras' yield results unfailingly. One has to merely look at

the secular (and humourous too) example of a "brahmacharin" utter

"bhavati-bhiksham-dEhi" and Lo! he receives "annadAnam"(the "mantra-phalan").

 

All this leads one to believe that, from the standpoint of pure faith,

mantra is both "form" and "substance". It is abundantly clear that at a

trancendent level, they cohere, so to say,into reality and there is nothing

to distinguish the mantra into its logical and semantic categories of Form

and Substance.

>From this angle one wonders how well the argument of 'mantra-svarUpa' being

contradistinct from 'mantrArtha' holds water.

 

I have read somewhere that in Swami Desikan's "SriSampradAya parisuddhi" he

has stated that :

 

vaishnava doctrines are either exoteric or esoteric but should be mutually

non-contradictory.

 

Where does that leave us?

 

I once again urge, in conclusion, all members of the prapatti group to treat

my participation in this discussion as merely the groping-in-dark of a

helpless, hapless student.I am sure you will all agree there is however

neither the danger of "bhagavath-" nor "bhAgavatha-apachAram" if the

student embarks on a journey of perennial inquiry in a spirit of humility.

 

 

SrimathE srivan sri narayana yatIndra mahadEsikAya namaha.

 

sudarshan.