Chaagapasunyaaya -- Q & A

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

After Hari posted his article on the application of chaaga-pasu-nyaaya,

I sent him a number of questions and comments to which he has responded. I

enclose below these questions/comments and responses, along with fragments

of the original article. Apologies for the long post. Since I have only done

the editing, the responsibility for any major errors is definitely

Hari's. :-)

 

My summary of the whole thing as a layperson is this. When the vedas

use the word Narayana, it denotes the supreme being. This is so even when

a personality is being referred to. That is, the personality called

Narayana is the personality of the supreme being. Thus Narayana is a

vedic name for the supreme being.

 

Whereas with the words {Shiva, Indra, Rudra, Brahma} this is not the

case. The word `Shiva' is sometimes used to directly refer to the supreme

being. But sometimes it denotes the personality of an atman/being/jiva that is

different from the supreme being. At yet other times it denotes the

supreme being as the inner controller of the personality of a jiva called

Shiva.

 

The reason I have dared to summarize is to ask a question. I request

*one passage from Sruti* which is *universally accepted*

by all followers of the veda which implies/suggests that Rudra/Shiva

refers to a jiva and not the supreme being. That is, why can't Rudra, when

being spoken of as a personality, be thought of as another personality of the

supreme being?

 

For example, the passage "In the beginning was only Narayana, not

Brahma, not Isana" does suggest that Isana & Brahma do not denote

the supreme being here. But is this passage accepted as authoritative

by everybody? I should say that since this question just occured to

me, I have not posed it to Hari yet. I also have to emphasize that this

is only a question (and not a challenge since I know virtually nothing

of the veda).

 

Also I found a nice article by Mani on this topic:

www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/dec95/0142.html

 

thanks

Kasturi

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

Chaaga Pasu Nyaaya & Supremacy of Shreeman Naaraayana

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

Prelude

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

"Nyaaya" is a Sanskrit terms almost meaning "Maxim". Numerous such

nyaayas are used in philosophical discussions and debates to ascertain

the purport of interpretations and arguments. These maxim help us to

understand certain elements that are beyond the comprehension of our

senses because they are in the form of citing examples which are already

known to us. Nyaaya is a component of philosophy system as far as those

schools of philosophical thoughts, which are based on Vedas. In this

article, I am going to explain a Poorva Meemaamsaa nyaaya called Chaaga

Pasu Nyaaya to ascertain the Supremacy of Shreeman Naaraayana as

declared by the Vedas.

 

comment: Is maxim the correct word to use? Perhaps `syllogism' or

`inference rule' is better? Please check dictionary.

 

response: What you say is acceptable. The words that you have suggested are

more appropriate than maxim.

 

Chaaga Pasu Nyaaya - explained

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

 

-- portion deleted --

 

Analysis of Upanishad Texts - Important Kaarana & Chodaka Vaakyaas

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

In the following paragraphs, important upanishad texts are going to be

analyzed in the context of finding out who is identified as the Supreme

self in the Vedas. We will then subject this analysis with respect to

the chaaga pasu nyaayam, which is discussed above.

 

Question: Before we proceed to understand which personality is identified

with the supreme self, I want to know something. Are Narayana, Rudra, Indra,

Vayu, Brahma distinct personalities of the veda? How can we distinguish one

from another? Are there any characteristics for each of them?

 

Response: "Naaraayana - Lord of Godess Lakshmi" is one personality.

He is alone having the charecteristic of "Ubhaya Lingam" - two

identifications namely "Ananta Kalyaana Gunaakaratvam" (Having as

attributes infinite divine qualities unique to himself) and "Akila

Heya Pratyanekatvam" (Untouched by all impurities of chit/achit though

he is present inside and outside all chit/achit) ("Apahata Paapma Divyo

Devaha Eko Naaraayana:). And "Jagat Kaaraanatvam" (Being the only cause of

the universe) and "Chatur Purushaartha Pradatvam" (he who grants all

the four purushaarthas dharma,artha,kaama & moksha) are characteristics

of Naaraayana. Rudra(Paarvathy Pathy), Indra, Vayu, Brahmaa(Chaturmuka) -- who

are some of the other personalities -- are not having these characteristics.

 

The material birth of Rudra, Indra etc are stated in the Veda as per their

karma. It is stated in the Veda that "Rudra(Paarvathy Pathy) is the son of

Brahmaa. Rudra began to cry and asked his father (Chaturmuka Brahmaa) to give

him names so that he BECOMES purified and Brahmaa named him and gave him

powers". Also the Veda says "Brahmaa was born to Naaraayana from his mercy and

Rudra from his wrath". Rudra BECAME "Mahadeva" and "Siva" by doing

a sacrifice(Sarvamedha) by the mercy of Naaraayana. Rudra is called

"Siva" because he carries the Ganges which is the water flowing from

Hari's feet and BECAME pure. Brahmaa got his knowledge from Naaraayana

regarding Veda as stated in Veda. Similarly Indra and Vayu.

 

 

The upanishads otherwise known as Vedanta explains the Brahman's Swaroopa

(reality), Roopa (form), Guna (Charecteristics/attributes/qualities),

Vibhuthi-Iswaryam (Lordship). The upanishad texts are broadly classifiable

into Kaarana Vaakya and Chodaka Vaakya. Kaarana Vaakyas are those verses

of the upanishads which declares the Brahman as the only cause (material

and instrumental cause) of the universe. Chodaka Vaakyas are those

verses of the upanishads which declares the various infinite divine

qualities of the Brahman who is the only cause of the universe. Let us

now consider certain Kaarana Vaakyaas. In the "Sat Vidya" of Chandokya

Upanishad, we come across the verse "Sat Eva Sowmya Edamagre Aasit".

Here the upanishad declares that the cause of the universe by using the

term "Sat". "Sat" means the eternal existing supreme

soul, which is the cause, unchanging in nature. Is this "Sat" a sentient

being or an insentient being? When we analyze the Vedanta further, we

read another verse "Aatma va Edamekam Agre Aasit". Here the upanishad

says that "Sat" is "Aatma". "Aatma" is derived from "Aapnothi iti Aatma"

vytputhi. That it, "Aatma is the one which spreads on its body by its

knowledge in terms of supporting, controlling and owning its body". This

shows that the supreme self is sentient.

 

comment: This shows that sat is Aatma, the Self, and so is sentient.

"Supreme" does not seem appropriate yet, but only after it is

described as Brahman below.

 

response: You are right. It is a mistake to mention "Supreme" here.

 

 

Is the supreme self different from the Chit(Jeeva) or one amount

the Jeevas? Further down in the Vedanta, we find that this supreme self is

called by the name "Brahman" - "Yato va imani bhutaani jaayente yena

jaathani jeevanti yam prayanthi abhisamvisantithi tat vijgyaasasva tat

brahmethi".

 

comment: Translate this into English?

 

response: The Translation is "Know that entitiy as Brahman from who all

these (chit & achits) orginated, live and into him all these enter during

pralaya"

 

"Brahman" is the term, which is derived from the root "Brah" meaning,

greatness - greatness in terms of reality, form, attributes, and lordship.

This is not applicable to the Chit (Jeeva) though it is sentient but only

finite (Anu swaroopa) as declared in Vedas.

 

comment: In Geeta ramanuja interprets Brahman to mean jiva, nature etc.

in several places. How does that fit in with this claim? In the

upanishads, is Brahman always used to mean supreme self?

 

response: This is as per the context-being the cause of the universe in

upanishads.

 

 

Therefore the supreme sprit is different from the Jeeva and is

unparalleled and unsurpassed. Up to this, we comprehend that the supreme

self is different from the Jeevas and non-living matter but still we

need to know who this supreme self is? In the Vedanta, we

find the verse "Eko ha vai Naaraayana Aasit ... Na brahma nesaanaha" and

"Apahatapaapma Divyo devaha Eko Naaraayana:" These verses clearly says

that the supreme self called as "Sat", "Aatma" and "Brahman" is none

other than "Naaraayana". Now we apply the chaaga pasu nyaaya. It is to

be noted here very clearly that "Sat", "Aatma" and "Brahman" are common

nouns but the term "Naaraayana" is a particular noun identifying the

Lord of Goddess Lakshmi and Bhoomi "Hereeshca Te Lakshmischa Patniyow"

is the Purusha Sukta in Veda confirming this. "Naaraayana" is the term

derived from the vyutputhis "Naaraanaam Ayanam" and "Yesya Naaraaha

Ayanam". "Nara" means Vishnu (Naaraayana) because He is imperishable.

"Naara" means the entire universe composed of Chit & Achit entities

which originated from "Nara" as "Nara" is the cause of the entire

universe having the subtle chit & achit as his body before creation and

creates them by giving expanded form and having the expanded chit and

achit as his body. "Naaraanaam Ayanam" means "Naaraayana is

the base/support for all chit and achit tatvas". This shows the "Bhahir

Vyaapthi" - the manner in which Naaraayana pervades the universe. "Yesya

Naaraaha Ayanam" means "Naaraayana is present inside all chit and achit

entities as the ultimate controller (anthar-yaamin, soul) and owner

(Seshi-Lord) of everthing. This shows the "Anthar Vyaapthi" - the manner

in which Naaraayana is present inside everything. The "NAakaara" in the

end of the term "NaaraayaNA" without doubt says that the term

"Naaraayana" is a particular noun denoting the Lord of Goddess Lakshmi

who is Vishnu. This is confirmed by the grammatical rule of the Vedas

(Vyaakaranam - one among the six accessories of the Veda) and by

Paanini's grammatical treatise. Thus the Veda identifies the supreme

self (Brahman) as Shreeman Naaraayana. Thus is the application of the

Chaaga Pasu Nyaaya.

 

comment: This is very nice! The common nouns "aatma","sat" and "brahman"

thus refer to Narayana the particular noun. I think you should translate

all the sanskrit sentences in the syllogism -- In the beginning was

only Sat, In the beginning was only aatma, In the beginning was only

Narayana, not Brahma, not Isana. (My trans. is obviously not correct.) This

way the application of the nyaya will be clear even to those who don't

understand sanskrit.

 

Further the the Brahma Sutra recognizes only the Paancharaatra Aagama as

authoritative as the Veda and rejects all other authored works like

Saankya, Yoga, Vaisheshika, Charuvaaka, Bowdha, Jaina and Pasupata Saiva.

It further identifies the Supreme self by Ubhya Lingam - Two

identifications namely "Ananta Kalyaana Gunaakaratvam" (Supreme

self has infinite divine qualities) and "Akila Heya Pratyaneekatvam"

(Supreme self though is present in all chit and achit entities, is

untouched by all impurities). These two identifications apply only to

Shreeman Naaraayana and it does not apply to any other deity.

 

comment: Why do they not apply to any other deity?

 

response: The ubhayalingam (two identifications - having infinite divine

qualities and being untouched by all impurities of universe) only

apply to Shreeman Naaraayana as the Veda says "Apahatapaapma Divyo

Devaha Eko Naaraayana:". Further it does not apply to any body else as

the material-birth and karma-sufferings are told for all except

Shreeman Naaraayana.

 

 

Therefore it is ascertained without doubt from the authority of Veda

that Shreeman Naaraayanan is the unparalleled and unsurpassed Supreme

Self.

 

Few more texts from Upanishads - arguments and counter-arguments

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

There is someone who quotes from the veda a verse "Siva Eva Kevala:"

meaning "Siva is alone (the cause - therefore Siva is Supreme without a

second person). The person who has raised this objection has not studied

the Veda and the context where this verse occurs. The context is

regarding the cause of the universe, which is Brahman. "Siva" is a

common noun meaning "Auspicious". It assumes any gender as per its usage

as adjective with a noun in Sanskrit as it is a common noun. Further

here in this context, "Siva" is associated with all-pervasive nature and

by the term "Bhagavan" which are unique only to Shreeman Naaraayana.

Therefore the term "Siva" cannot mean "Paarvathy Pati -

Rudra" here, but only means "Lakshmi Pati - Vishnu". Vishu is ever

aspicious (Pure by his nature itself on the other hand Paarvathy pati

got his sins removed by Vishnu and became pure (siva) and he is not pure

by his nature).

 

question: Is rudra a particular noun? If not, what is the particular

noun identifying this deity?

 

response: No. Rudra is not a particular noun. It is again a common noun

derived in sanskrit "He who cries (tears flow)". The fact is all the words

finally end up by denoting Shreeman Naaraayana-even the pronouns

like "Aham (I)", "Tvam (you)" etc also denote finally Naaraayana only.

There are two ways by which all words finally denote Naaraayana. They

are

Way 1: By the derivation of the word and in the context of being

the cause of the universe etc.

Way 2: As Naaraayana is the soul of everything (all chit/achits)

all the words finally denote the soul who is Naaraayana as

everything is Naaraayanaa's body/mode only.

 

question: Is there no passage in upanishad which says "Rudra is Brahman"?

 

response: There are such passages but as per the Chaaga pasu nyaaya (way 1)

and way 2 told above, the term has to only denote Shreeman Naaraayana.

This point is very important. Why Rudra alone? In the "Pratardana

Vidya" of upanishads, Indra (lord of heaven(swarga)) says to

a person named Pratardana that "O Pratardana! You worship me (to

attain salvation)". This is explained in Brahma Sutra by Veda Vyasa

as "Saastra Drushtyaa Thuupadesho Vaamadevavat". Meaning, even in

the Sruti, a sage Vaamadeva spoke similar to Indra. But it has to

be understood here that as everything is the body/mode of Vishnu and

Vishnu is the soul of everything, only Vishnu is declared here. For

further doubts please write to me in this context.

 

question: Since the upanishads say "Rudra is Brahman" in some places and

"Narayana is Brahman" in others, why can't we conclude that the

supreme self is both Rudra and Narayana?

 

response: It cannot be conclued so because the

upanishads declare that the supreme self is only one. "Eko Sat",

"Sat Eva sowmya Edam agre Aasit" etc. Further "Rudra" cannot be considered

here as the Veda clearly says "Na Brahmaa Neshaanaha Divyo Deva: Eko

Naaraayana:" meaning in the begining (before creation) rudra and brahmaa were

not existing and only the divine Naaraayana was existing as the only cause".

 

question: In the passages that say "Rudra is Brahman", you have argued that

Rudra refers to Narayana. Why can't we apply the arguement the

other way around to conclude that in the passage "In the beginning

was only Narayana", Narayana refers to the deity Rudra?

 

response: The reverse as told here cannot be accepted as the answer to your

previous question is to be refered here. Further "Rudra" is again a

common noun and only "Narayana" is the proper/particular noun. Naaraayana

is identified as "Lord of Lakshmi".

 

question: What about the passage which says "NamastevayO tvameva pratyaksham

brahmAsi"? Is Vayu to be taken as referring to Narayana? Or does the

word "pratyaksham" have some significance?

 

response: Again use the Chaaga-pasu nyaaya here. But Madwaachaarya's views

are different in this context.

 

question: What about a similar passage in the `Ganapati Upanishad' -- "tvameva

pratyaksham brahmasi" or something like that?

 

response: This upanishad is not held authoritative even by Shree Adi Sankara

as Shree Adi Sankara has not handled this upanishad. Even if the upanishad

is taken, the word Ganapati is a common noun. Apply the "way 1" and

"way 2" here also. Please note that the Veda has said "Na Brahmaaa

Neshaanaha Divyo Devaha Eko Naaraayana:" meaning "In the begining

(before creation), even Brahmaa (chaturmuka) and Rudra(Paarvaty Pati)

were not present and only the Divine Supreme Self Shreeman Naaraayana

was present". This clearly states that only Shreeman Naaraayana is the

Supreme self and there is no room for any other person.

 

question: You have talked about two ways of interpretation -- way 1

(Chaaga-pasu Nyaaya) and way 2. I am confused about where way 1 should be

used and where way 2 should be used. Also, where should we take the words

as referring to the deities themselves?

 

response: This is very important. When the common nouns like siva, sambhu,

swambhoo, rudra, indra, hiranyagarbha etc occur in the context of

being the cause of universe, brahman's qualities etc, then these words

have to be taken to mean only "Naaraayana". If these words occurs in

the SAME CONTEXT but with strong identification of demi-gods like

"the destroyer of vruthaasura (who is indra)" etc., then these words

are to be taken to mean again Naaraayana who has these demi-gods

as his body. The brahma sutra ("Jeeva mukya praanaa lingaat Chethi na

tat vyaakyaatam") confirms this. The pratartana vidya and the upadesa

of Vaamadeva in sruthi are held as proof and example here (Brahma

Sutra "Saastra Drushtiya thu upadeso vaamadevavat"). When these common

nouns like Rudra, Indra etc., occur with qualities not that of Brahman

like being the cause of universe etc., but with individual qualities

like "became purified", "getting powers" etc., then these words only

denote the respective demi-gods as the context is not here. Chaaga-pasu

nyaaya cannot be applied from one context to another without appropriate

relation.

 

Another objection raises by quoting the vedic verse "Sambhuhu Aakaasa

Madye iDhyeyaha". The context in which this verse occurs ....

 

--- portion cut ---