Lakshmi

[Guest guest]

Raghu Mudumba wrote:

> Elders say Lakshmi is Concept and not a figure.

> Raghu RD

 

Dear Raghu,

 

If this were the case, then all problems are solved

in the philosophical interpretation of Lakshmi and Narayana.

I may be wrong -- I will have to go check -- but I am pretty

sure that Vedanta Desika argues against the idea that Lakshmi

and Narayana are "aspects" or "concepts" of one another.

The reference here is Desika's catuh-SlokI-bhAshya.

 

He does not reduce Lakshmi to God perceived in female

form. For Desika, Narayana is God, and Lakshmi is God's

"patni" or eternal consort, representing two distinct

but inseparable realities. Desika quotes the vAkya from

the purusha-sUkta "hrIS ca te lakshmIS ca patnyau" in

support of his argument.

 

I will research this further to be certain.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Sri :

Srimate Sri Lakshmi Nrusimha Para Brahmane Namaha

Srimate Sri Lakshmi - Nrusimha Divya PAdukA Sevaka -

Srivan Shatagopa Sri NArAyana Yateendra MahAdesikAya Namaha

 

Dear Sri Raghu,Mani & other devotees,

Namo NArAyanA . kindly accept adiyen's pranAmams.

 

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Sri Mani Varadarajan wrote:

> Sri Raghu Mudumba wrote:

> > Elders say Lakshmi is Concept and not a figure.

> > Raghu RD

>

> Dear Raghu,

>

> If this were the case, then all problems are solved

> in the philosophical interpretation of Lakshmi and Narayana.

> I may be wrong -- I will have to go check -- but I am pretty

> sure that Vedanta Desika argues against the idea that Lakshmi

> and Narayana are "aspects" or "concepts" of one another.

> The reference here is Desika's catuh-SlokI-bhAshya.

>

> He does not reduce Lakshmi to God perceived in female

> form. For Desika, Narayana is God, and Lakshmi is God's

> "patni" or eternal consort, representing two distinct

> but inseparable realities. Desika quotes the vAkya from

> the purusha-sUkta "hrIS ca te lakshmIS ca patnyau" in

> support of his argument.

>

 

The "problem" which may be in Sri Mani's mind is that , if there

are two persons (Sri & nArAyaNA) who are the Ultimate Realities ,

equal in every respect, then the "ekatvam" ie. Single Ultimate

Reality" portrayed in the vedAs gets contradicted . Since the theory

or speculation (ie.has no basis from scriptures whatsoever ) that

"Sri" is a mere "concept" etc & not an actual "reality" removes the

above contradiction , it helps one to remove that "problem". Still ,

since this is only a speculation , one cannot be sure of it =>

results in confusion .

 

Over the last 10 issues of "Sri Nrusimha PriyA" , "Sri" tattvam is

explained in an excellent way by both Srimad AzhagiyaSingar & Sri

Purusai KrishnamAchArya swAmi . The answers to this "confusion" &

other allied confusions are beautifully illustrated with apt pramAnams

by these parama bhAgavathOthamAs .

 

adiyen would just list the essential points now & by bhagavad sankalpam

in the future would write little elaborately using pramAnams (ofcourse

every inch of it from "Sri Nrusimha PriyA" only ).

 

Based on "Sri Nrusimha PriyA" :

 

"pirAtti" is also a "vishesanA" for nArAyaNA ie. perumAL is the sarIrI

& pirAtti is sarIrA for Him. aprudhak siddha viseshanA exists between

the two. Since perumAL is present as visEshyA & pirAtti as His

aprudhak siddha visEshanA , both of them can be referred by a single

word . This resolves all the "confusions" . "ekatvam" is not lost.

 

But , pirAtti is also Brahman ( Jagad kAranatvam) & belongs to

category of IswarA ie. she is neither a jIvAtmA nor prakruti, but

Controller of all jIvAtmAs & achit . She is also "upAyA" & "upEyA".

for baddha jIvAtmAs .

 

From the point of view of baddha jIvAtmAs , PerumAL & pirAtti together

constitute "God" , they together act as "upAyA" , they together are

the "upEyA" as well. They together are cause for the world & are both

vibhu . Neverthless , pirAtti is paratantrA with respect to perumAL.

 

Hope that this helps for now .

 

Namo NArAyanA

Adiyen

Anantha PadmanAbha dAsan

Sarvam Sri KrishnArpanamastu

[Guest guest]

Sri Ananta Padmanabhan wrote:

> The "problem" which may be in Sri Mani's mind is that , if there

> are two persons (Sri & nArAyaNA) who are the Ultimate Realities ,

> equal in every respect, then the "ekatvam" ie. Single Ultimate

> Reality" portrayed in the vedAs gets contradicted .

 

Yes, this is exactly the problem that I have in mind.

Vedanta says, "ekam eva advitIyam" -- the cause of the

universe is One alone, without a second. Sri Ramanuja

says repeatedly that no one else cooperates or helps

Brahman in creation -- Brahman alone performs it.

 

Permit me to play devil's advocate in the rest of this

email.

> "pirAtti" is also a "vishesanA" for nArAyaNA

 

This is agreed.

> ie. perumAL is the sarIrI & pirAtti is sarIrA for Him.

 

Let us also accept this for now.

> aprudhak siddha viseshanA exists between

> the two. Since perumAL is present as visEshyA & pirAtti as His

> aprudhak siddha visEshanA , both of them can be referred by a single

> word . This resolves all the "confusions" . "ekatvam" is not lost.

 

Why then, is not ekatva lost if caturmukha-brahma is also taken

as part of the "ekatva", since since caturmukha-brahma is

also a viseshya in apRthak-siddhi relation to Brahman?

 

pirATTi's viseshaNatva does not automatically lead to

ekatva of the jagat-kAraNa, because this could equally

apply to any jIvAtmA in Brahman's SarIra, or worse,

to prakRti itself.

> But , pirAtti is also Brahman ( Jagad kAranatvam) & belongs to

> category of IswarA ie. she is neither a jIvAtmA nor prakruti, but

> Controller of all jIvAtmAs & achit . She is also "upAyA" & "upEyA".

> for baddha jIvAtmAs .

 

The supposition is that SrI and nArAyaNa are distinct tattva-s

related in a viseshaNa-viseshyA relation. This being the case,

the same objection from above can be applied here, that this does

not necessarily mean that SrI must have upAyatva. If furthermore,

SrI is in the ISvara class as a separate tattva, how at the same

time can she be SarIra to nArAyaNa? In other words, if the Lord

is already Infinite, how can she also be Infinite? Can there be

two Ultimate Infinites?

 

These are the classical objections to your viewpoint.

I know Desika has answered many if not all of them.

However, I am not 100% convinced by them, as I understand

them. I look forward to hearing your explanations.

 

My initial reconciliation was that SrI was indeed a

concept and not a distinct tattva -- a viseshaNa or guNa

in the true sense. My thought was that SrI was Brahman

acting in the most gracious, motherly fashion, and that

nArAyaNa was Brahman in the mode of the universal father and

progenitor. The Vishnu Purana states that all

things female in the universe are forms of SrI and all

things male are forms of vishNu.

 

An objection may be raised as follows: how then can

the Lord be described as SrIman-nArAyaNa? How about

SrI being described as the "patni" or consort of

the Highest Purusha?

 

My answer was that "SrI" represents, in essence,

the personifestation of all grace, compassion, patience,

and motherly love -- qualities which we are all

agreed exist in God. This does not make SrIdevi false

in any way, but a personification so we can relate better

to God. God in Its Infinite power manifests Itself

in two forms eternally united as SrIman-nArAyaNa to

show that the Infinite God, SrIman-nArAyaNa is at the

same time mother and father of the universe. This is

naturally within the power of God.

 

To me, this understanding solved all philosophical

problems.

 

I held this philosophical position until I read Desika's

comment that SrIdevI should not be seen as God taking

on a female form. And then I became completely befuddled.

 

Please write more, Dear Ananta Padmanabhan, so this

discussion can continue!

 

Mani