A Question for Sri Vidyasankar (fwd)

[Guest guest]

Sriman Mani Varadarajan had sent me the following message before he left

on his vacation last week. It seemed like it was actually meant for the

bhakti list, and I waited for a while to see if it came again under the

list address, but it didn't. So I'm taking the liberty of forwarding it

here. The earlier posts with this subject line (from Jagannath Bharadwaj

and I) will be in the archives, for interested readers.

 

Regards,

Vidyasankar

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Thu, 11 Sep 1997 19:35:40 -0700 (PDT)

Mani Varadarajan <mani

vidya

Re: A Question for Sri Vidyasankar

 

I have been following this discussion with interest,

particularly since this issue is commonly used to

criticize Sri Vaishnavas for being stuck in the past

and intolerant.

 

Let us clarify the Sri Vaishnava perspective: without

a doubt God is only One, an absolutely unlimited, perfect

Being, encompassing all other entities within Itself as

its modes. The Absolute takes on an infinite variety of

forms to grace those who worship It. He appears to some

as the One with Sankha and cakra; to others He manifests

Himself otherwise, in a manner suitable to their liking.

Dare I say it, we should not deny the Absolute Lord the

power to appear before any devotee in whatever form the

devotee worships Him; the Lord very well may appear with

three-eyed, smeared with ashes, with a triSUlam in

hand to some devotees.

 

This point is made by Ramanuja in the first few sections

of his Sribhashya; it is also explicitly said by poygai

aazhvaar:

 

thamarukantha thevvuruvam avvuruvam thaanE,

thamarukantha theppErmaR RappEr, - thamarukanthu

evvaNNam sinthith thimaiyaa thirupparE,

avvaNNam azhiyaa Nnaam. (mudhal thiru, 44)

 

I find it hard to see how this theological position limits

God, as Vidya has stated. The question, obviously, is not

one of limiting God, but allowing God the power to truly

express Himself in any way. God, in His Absolute essence,

is that entity defined by the Vedas as being unconditionally

existent, conscious without limitation, infinite, pure, and

blissful. Such an entity alone is God, and God alone is such

an entity. Now, as far as the forms God takes, these He

takes of His own volition, to grace His beloved devotees -- but

in no way do these forms constitute any limitation nor are

they any less real than God's essence. God, after all, is the

source of these very forms!

 

What then is the issue? The conundrum is that the Vedas speak

very clearly of different beings -- rudra, vishNu, indra,

varuNa, just to name a few. In many instances, one is said

to worship another; quite clearly they are not absolutely

identical beings. The problem of who or what the Absolute is

is further compounded by the fact that sometimes the Vedic

rishis speak of breath as the ultimate; other times the mind;

at still other times effulgence. The task of reconciling all

these various descriptions is what the great philosopher-

theologians such as Ramanuja and Sankara set out to do.

 

In other words, the issue is purely a matter of understanding

and interpreting the Vedic recommendation as to the nature

of the Absolute, and *not* one of whimsically

promoting the superiority of one conception of God over

another.

 

Happily, a reconciliation is found in the body of the Veda itself.

The taittirIya AraNyaka of the yajur veda identifies the Absolute

of the purusha sUkta (theologically described as the Lord

of Lakshmi, i.e., Vishnu) with the Supreme Self of all

things, and proceeds to declare that this all-encompassing

Being is itself the highest effulgence, the end of all

thought, the very principle of life. The same infinite

God, who everywhere has hands and eyes, and is yet immeasurable,

is the primary meaning of etymological terms such as "Siva"

(auspicious), "indra" (lord), "brahmA" (great, edifying).

All other entities in the Vedas only secondarily derive their

existence and name from this God, as He is their indwelling

Self.

 

This is the extent of the issue.

 

Now, Vidya wrote:

> To the best of my knowledge, advaita AcAryas have not entered into a

> discussion along the lines raised by you at all. From a grammatical

> viewpoint, just as Siva, gaNeSa etc. have etymological meanings, as

> auspiciousness, lord of the gaNas, etc. the name nArAyaNa also has such a

> meaning, i.e. support/refuge of all men.

 

"nArAyaNa" as a name is distinct in a couple of ways. First of all,

it is the only name among all these various divinities that firmly

establishes the all-pervasiveness ("vyApakatva") of the Absolute.

This is most definitely a unique distinguishing characeristic of God.

Second, according to pANini's rules of Sanskrit grammar, the very

construction of the name makes it a proper noun [otherwise the

trailing "Na" would not be retroflexed, according to a Paninian

sutra.]

 

Once again, this is not to say that God is limited to one name;

to limit God in such a manner would be most un-Visishtadvaitic,

as well as downright illogical.

 

In essence, the issue is one of understanding the Vedas, properly

intepreting their import, and acting in accordance with their

guidelines.

> If I remember the

> text right, [rAmAnuja] also includes the name vishNu in the level of

> effects.

 

This is not correct. According to the SAstras as rAmAnuja sees

them, "vishNu" (lit. the all pervader) is identical with nArAyaNa,

the philosophical and religious Absolute. Theologically speaking,

nArAyaNa assigns the task of creation to brahmA, the task of

universal destruction to Siva, and Himself directly supervises

preservation of the universe because it is His resolve to nurture

the manifold classes of beings such that they will turn towards

Him.

> Therefore, while advaitins will also say that nArAyaNa is the

> cause, they de-emphasize the form, i.e. the four-armed,

> sleeping-on-AdiSesha, holding-conch-and-discus form is still a form, and

> therefore on the level of effects.

 

It is indeed ironic that instead of saying that God is not

limited by a single form, advaita proceeds to *deny* the totality

of forms as being ultimately real! Is not the former position

representative of true tolerance?

 

[Furthermore, as the astra-bhUshaNa-adhyAya of the

vishNu purANa elaborates in great detail, each of

the ornaments of the Lord, from ananta (the snake

of Infinity) to kaustubha (the jIvAtmA), have both

an esthetic and symbolic/yogic meaning. It is very

important to note that these descriptions are not

the result of mere emotionalism, but the recording

of yogic experience in a cultural context.]

 

At any rate, the Visishtadvaita sampradAya has always approached

God the other way around. We fully accept that God's essence is

beyond mental conception, that it is extremely abstract and

thoroughly different from anything mundane. However, we quickly

digest this state and move past it, as we ache to drink of God's

immense glories that are spread throughout this universe, including

His multifarious forms, avatAras, and vibhUtis.

 

After all, nammaazhvaar establishes that the Absolute is beyond

thought in the first few verses of the thiruvaaymozhi. Having

understood this, he then rejoices that such an Absolute being

has condescended to grace us with so much beauty in so many

ways!

 

Mani

 

-