PramAnas for Brahman as being different from its Body

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha

 

Dear devotees,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

In the book "Philosophy and Theistic Mysticism of Alvars" by

SrI SMS Chari, he quotes two pramAnas to the effect that

Brahman as a metaphysical entity is different from its divine

body (pg 90, on Divine Personality, in the Doctrine of God).

They are reproduced here.

 

Saatvata Samhita, Poushkara Samhita and JayAkya Samhita are

regarded as the "Ratna Traya" (Three Jewels) in pAncAratra.

 

Saatvata Samhita (2.69-70) states

" SAntaha samvit-svarUpastu bhaktAnugraha-kAmyayA

anaupamyEna vapushAhy-amUrtO mUrtatAm gataha "

 

ie. " The Ultimate Reality is devoid of a form (amUrta), but it

assumes a limited form (mUrtatA) for the sake of devotees

and this limited form is incomparable (anupama) ".

 

This implies that the divyAtma svaroopa (ds) of Brahman is not

made up of a form, similar to how a jIvAtma's svaroopa doesn't

have any form. But, Brahman takes a form for the pleasure of

His devotees. Also, the divine body assumed by SrIman nArAyaNa

at SrI VaikUNTham is eternal and anAdi. Hence Brahman

certainly has a divine body eternally.

 

Another quote is from the JitantE Stotram, a khila sUkta of

Rg vEda :

 

" na tE rUpam na ca aakArO na-aayudhAni na ca-aaspadam |

tathApi purusha-AkArO bhaktAnAm tvam prakASasE || "

 

" You <in ds> donot have any physical qualities such as white or

black (rUpa) ; You <in ds> do not possess any physical organs

such as head or legs (aakAra) ; nor are there any weapons or

ornaments on You < in ds> (aayudha) ; nor do You have an

abode <ie. ds being all pervading, there is no specific abode

by which Brahman's presence is limited>; Neverthless out of

Your infinite compassion towards devotees <who can't

comprehend and reciprocate with You as ds>, You manifest

Yourself with a lusturous bodily form bedecked with ornaments

and weapons in an abode of Yours < Be it arcAvatAra, vibhava

avatAra etc>".

 

note : This has been explained very well by SrI PuttankOttakam

SrInivAsAchArya swAmi ( a great scholar of the last

century and well known contemporary of 42nd HH Jeeyar

of Ahobila Mutt viz. SrImad InjimEttu Azhagiyasingar ),

in his commentary. SrI SMS Chari has followed his

explanations.

 

There are many more pramAnas in pAncarAtra on this issue.

 

I will later quote the section from SrI VishNu purANam which

explains as to how the bhakti yOgi (upAsaka) in his matured final

stages of upAsana is able to meditate on the divyAtma swaroopam

of Brahman, with its characteristics as Satyatvam, jn~yAnatvam

etc, without the divine body.

 

For time being, please also refer to SrI BhAshyam on adhikaraNAs

like AntaradhikaraNa (1.1.21),SarvatraprasiddhyadhikaraNa (1.2.7),

AdruSyatvadhikaraNa (1.2.23-24), VaishwAnara-adhikaraNa

(1.2.30-31), Dahara-adhikaraNa (1.3.20), PramitadhikaraNa (1.3.24),

........and Ubhayalinga adhikaraNa (3.2.11+). This will give a

good picture on the distinction between Brahman and its form, the

need of the form taken by Brahman being for the purpose of

meditation by bhakti yOgis (upAsakas) etc.

---------------------

 

I will soon post couple of verses from HarivamSa regarding the

VishNu/KrishNa issue. I will come back to these issues after few

months. I will switch over to other priorities for now esp. the

UttamUr SwAmi's Books Publication project. Thanks for your

understanding.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan,

KrishNArpaNam.

[Guest guest]

Sri Anand cited the JitantE Stotram and added a translation:

> " na tE rUpam na ca aakArO na-aayudhAni na ca-aaspadam |

> tathApi purusha-AkArO bhaktAnAm tvam prakASasE || "

>

> " You <in ds> donot have any physical qualities such as white or

> black (rUpa) ; You <in ds> do not possess any physical organs

> such as head or legs (aakAra) ; nor are there any weapons or

> ornaments on You < in ds> (aayudha) ; nor do You have an

> abode <ie. ds being all pervading, there is no specific abode

> by which Brahman's presence is limited>; Neverthless out of

> Your infinite compassion towards devotees <who can't

> comprehend and reciprocate with You as ds>, You manifest

> Yourself with a lusturous bodily form bedecked with ornaments

> and weapons in an abode of Yours < Be it arcAvatAra, vibhava

> avatAra etc>".

 

While the provided meaning is not inappropriate,

Sri Periyavaaccaan Pillai gives a very different interpretation,

which I feel in some ways is more in line with the text. He

takes "na tE" as meaning "not for you", rather than "you do

not have". This is perfectly valid according to Sanskrit

usage and grammar. Furthermore, he takes "rUpa" not to mean

"form" but "svarUpa" or "essence", with the idea that otherwise

there would be a redundancy in the usage "AkAra" immediately

after, which very clearly means a defined form.

 

Given this, a translation according to Sri PVP's commentary

would be:

 

Your divine essence if not for you, nor is your form,

nor are your weapons, nor is your divine abode; rather

they are manifested by you for the sake of your

beloved devotees.

 

This avoids the problem of first saying that the Lord does

not have a form, etc., and then saying that he manifests it.

 

I find this interpretation a notch more appropriate -- and

what more should we expect from Swami PVP?

 

aDiyen raamaanuja daasan

Mani

[Guest guest]

-

Anand Karalapakkam <kgk

 

Saatvata Samhita, Poushkara Samhita and JayAkya Samhita are

regarded as the "Ratna Traya" (Three Jewels) in pAncAratra.

--------------------------------

 

While I do not normally take issue with nonshruti Samhitas, I must point out

that these are not exactly mainstream. Exactly on what basis should I accept

the Samhitas? I would be interested to know. The Puraanas, for example, are

explicitly described as the fifth Veda. Are there similar references in the

shrutis to the Pancharaatras?

 

Also, I would like to know if Saatvata Samhita is the same as Saatvata

Tantra?

 

---

Saatvata Samhita (2.69-70) states

" SAntaha samvit-svarUpastu bhaktAnugraha-kAmyayA

anaupamyEna vapushAhy-amUrtO mUrtatAm gataha "

 

ie. " The Ultimate Reality is devoid of a form (amUrta), but it

assumes a limited form (mUrtatA) for the sake of devotees

and this limited form is incomparable (anupama) ".

 

This implies that the divyAtma svaroopa (ds) of Brahman is not

made up of a form, similar to how a jIvAtma's svaroopa doesn't

have any form. But, Brahman takes a form for the pleasure of

His devotees. Also, the divine body assumed by SrIman nArAyaNa

at SrI VaikUNTham is eternal and anAdi. Hence Brahman

certainly has a divine body eternally.

---------------

 

Previously you wrote, ". This gives them [Gaudiya Vaishnavas] a very

contradictory metaphysical stand since BhagavAn is savisEsha (who has

various guNas, form etc) and He can't simultaneously be nirvisEsha"

(without any attributes whatsoever) as "NirguNa Brahman"."

 

But here now you are arguing for the existence of a Brahman separated from

its attributes, or somehow superior to its attributes. Either Brahman is the

same as its form or different from it. If different from it, then you are

arguing for the existence of two entities. In that case the criticism above

applies even more to your point of view.

 

Also, the idea that the formless Brahman is superior to Brahman with form is

contradicted by Bhagavad-Giitaa:

 

mattaH paratara.m naanyat ki~nchidasti dhana~njaya |

mayi sarvamida.m prota.m suutre maNigaNaa iva || giitaa 7.7 ||

 

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests

upon Me, as pearls strung on a thread (bhagavad-giitaa 7.7).

 

Here, "Me" can only apply to the person Krishna, and not to anything inside

Him taking that form, or whatever. This is a very straightforward statement,

and comes in a scripture that everyone accepts.

 

 

Another quote is from the JitantE Stotram, a khila sUkta of

Rg vEda :

------------------------------

 

Can you explain what you mean by this? Is this in fact from Rig Veda? If so,

could I get some verse numbers?

 

-------------------------------

" na tE rUpam na ca aakArO na-aayudhAni na ca-aaspadam |

tathApi purusha-AkArO bhaktAnAm tvam prakASasE || "

 

" You <in ds> donot have any physical qualities such as white or

black (rUpa) ; You <in ds> do not possess any physical organs

such as head or legs (aakAra) ; nor are there any weapons or

ornaments on You < in ds> (aayudha) ; nor do You have an

abode <ie. ds being all pervading, there is no specific abode

by which Brahman's presence is limited>; Neverthless out of

Your infinite compassion towards devotees <who can't

comprehend and reciprocate with You as ds>, You manifest

Yourself with a lusturous bodily form bedecked with ornaments

and weapons in an abode of Yours < Be it arcAvatAra, vibhava

avatAra etc>".

----

 

I have seen many verses like this, and I do not think one can argue that

they speak of a Brahman that is different from its body. Here, "ruupam" can

be taken to be a form made of prakriti, and the last part simply emphasizes

that the Brahman takes forms that are transcendental, or in other words, not

of prakriti. Otherwise it can be taken to mean that He takes the form of

archa-vigrahas in the temple, as you seem to be taking it. You are taking

"prakaaShase" as meaning that a formless Brahman takes a form, but when you

read the translation without the bracketed remarks then it is by no

means convincing of the point you are making.

 

I also have many more pramaanas to quote regarding the Krishna/Vishnu issue,

as well in regards the Bhagavaan/Brahman issue. I will save them for later,

since I will be out of town this weekend.

 

regards,

 

Krishna

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa-

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha

 

Dear SrI HarikrishNa,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

>> Saatvata Samhita, Poushkara Samhita and JayAkya Samhita are

>> regarded as the "Ratna Traya" (Three Jewels) in pAncAratra.

>> --------------------------------

>

> While I do not normally take issue with nonshruti Samhitas, I must

point out

> that these are not exactly mainstream. Exactly on what basis should

I accept

> the Samhitas? I would be interested to know. The Puraanas, for

example, are

> explicitly described as the fifth Veda. Are there similar references

in the

> shrutis to the Pancharaatras?

> Also, I would like to know if Saatvata Samhita is the same as

Saatvata

> Tantra?

 

SAtvata samhita is an authoritative pAncarAtra text.

Please refer to treatises like Agama prAmAnya of YAmunAchArya

(Trans. By Van Buitenen), PAncarAtra Raksha of SrI VEdAnta DESika,

AgamAs and South Indian Vaishnavism by Dr V.VaradAchAri,

The Glory of Lakshmi - the english trans. by Dr V.VaradAchAri, of

Pandit V.KrishnamAchArya's Sanskrit Introduction to the Lakshmi

Tantra, Introduction to pAncarAtra and Ahirbudhnya samhita by

Otto Schrader, pAncarAtra and early vaishnava theology by

Matsubara etc. These have more information for your questions.

 

> Previously you wrote, ". This gives them [Gaudiya Vaishnavas] a

> very contradictory metaphysical stand since BhagavAn is

> savisEsha (who has various guNas, form etc) and He can't

> simultaneously be nirvisEsha" (without any attributes whatsoever)

> as "NirguNa Brahman"."

>

> But here now you are arguing for the existence of a Brahman

> separated from its attributes, or somehow superior to its

> attributes. Either Brahman is the same as its form or different

> from it. If different from it, then you are arguing for the

> existence of two entities. In that case the criticism above

> applies even more to your point of view.

 

I am sorry to say again that you have misunderstood what I

have written. Please go through them again. Since Brahman is

saviSEsha, it has many attributes. This by itself clarifies

that Brahman is different from its attributes. The theory of

NirviSEsha Brahman refers to an entity which is not

characterized by any attribute at all.

 

Brahman being omniscient, knows everything. He knows through

the jn~yAna he has. That jn~yAna is technically referred to as

dharmabhUta jn~yAnam (dbj), which is present as an inseparable

attribute to Brahman. There are various states of its dbj

corresponding to various kalyANa guNas. Brahman also has an

eternal form, inseparable from it at SrI VaikuNTham. Brahman

also has chit and achit as its sarIra, inseparable from it.

Brahman's swaroopa is also characterized by Sattyatvam,

jn~yAnatvam, aanandatvam etc. Since Brahman is characterized

by many inseparable attributes, it is certainly SaviSEsha and

is not at all nirviSEsha.

>

> Also, the idea that the formless Brahman is superior to Brahman with

form is

> contradicted by Bhagavad-Giitaa:

>

> mattaH paratara.m naanyat ki~nchidasti dhana~njaya |

> mayi sarvamida.m prota.m suutre maNigaNaa iva || giitaa 7.7 ||

>

> O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything

rests

> upon Me, as pearls strung on a thread (bhagavad-giitaa 7.7).

>

> Here, "Me" can only apply to the person Krishna, and not to anything

inside

> Him taking that form, or whatever. This is a very straightforward

statement,

> and comes in a scripture that everyone accepts.

 

 

There is absolutely no contradiction. "Me" primarily refers

to the person, who is Brahman and not its attribute viz. the

"Divine Body". By the statement "Everything rests upon Me

as pearls strung on a thread", it obviously points to the

Brahman who is all-pervading and the supporter etc of chit

+achit. This is certainly the straight-forward meaning.

 

The person speaking is Brahman and not its body by itself. Hence,

"Me" is used by Brahman (KrishNa) to denote Himself and not His

body here. "Me" here, connotes Him, who is actually all-pervading.

Brahman while manifesting to Arjuna and speaking these words is

with a body of certain dimension. The "limited body" in front of

Arjuna is obviously not the thing that pervades everywhere

to support everything as a thread supporting the pearls.

Thus "Me" verily connotes the Brahman itself.

 

Also, there is absolutely _nothing wrong_ is connoting the "body"

by the word "Me/My" in certain cases. We can certainly frame

meaningful sentences like "My Weight is 70 kg" etc, wherein "My"

refers to the body. Lord KirshNa also has used the word "Me" to

connote His divine Body (Ex: BG 6.14,6.15, wherein the yOgi

aspiring for jIvAtma sAkshAtkAram is instructed to meditate

on the form of Lord which is SubhASrayam). Such persons

need not meditate upon the essential nature of Brahman

characterized by Satyatvam, jn~yAnatvam, aanandatvam etc.

Only the bhakti yOgi needs to meditate upon them alongwith

other kalyANa guNas and forms specific to the upAsana he

chooses. This is the distinction between the stages in the

meditation by the yOgis, who are aspiring for the jIvAtma

sAkshAtkAram and ParamAtma sAkshAtkAram : In the former, the

yOgi, who although knows about the svaroopa of Brahman as

being characterized by Satyatvam etc, needn't meditate upon

them, since his goal is only jIvAtma-sAkshAtkAram ; while in

the latter, the bhakti yOgi should certainly meditate upon

the essential characteristics of Brahman also apart from

other things, to attain his goal of ParamAtma sAkshAtkAram.

The meditation upon the divine form of Lord for the former

is to get rid of sins that obstruct from attaining the

goal of jIvAtma sAkshAtkAram. Once that yOgi attains a good

amount of concentration etc due to the blessings of PerumAL,

he should perform the dhyAna yOga as prescribed in BG and

ever meditate upon himself (jIvAtma svaroopa) with specific

characteristics. This will result in his jIvAtma sAkshAtkAram.

 

This jIvAtma sAkshAtkAram is a _must_ for ParamAtma

sAkshAtkAram, since only when the essential characteristics

of jIvAtma is realized (ie. sAkshAtkAram), the meditation upon

the sarIra-sarIri bhAvam between the yOgi, who is a jIvAtma and

ParamAtma can take place during the upAsana (bhakti yOga). I

will elaborate these things if needed, in a systematic way after

few months.

-------------------------

 

Third pAda of third adhyAya discusses the nature of various

upAsanAs ie. Brahma VidyAs. It gives the clarifications on

what all attributes of Brahman are essentail for meditation

in all Brahma VidyAs, and what are specific to certain Brahma

VidyAs etc.

 

In the Aananda adhikaraNa, Sage BAdarAyana (alias VyAsa)

states "aanandAdaya pradhAnasya" (3.3.11), which implies

that "Bliss etc qualities are a must for meditation in

all upAsanas". The qualities are the Satyatvam, jn~yAnatvam,

aanandatvam and anantatvam (all four from TaittirIya Up -

Aananda Vidya, which the current adhikaraNa is discussing about).

amalatvam (from Mundaka Up - akshara Vidya) as a quality of

Brahman to be meditated upon in addition to the above is stated

in the sUtra 3.3.33 - aksharadhi adhikaraNa. The present context

in Aananda adhikaraNa is on TaittirIya Upanishad.

 

Now, the question arises as to why not other qualities

of Brahman mentioned in TaittirIya Upanishad for Aananda vidya,

like the following is not included for meditation :

 

"tasya priyam-yEva Siraha | mOdO dakshiNa-pakshaha |

pramOda uttara pakshaha | aananda aatmA | bramha puccham

pratishThA | " (II.5)

 

ie."Priya <pleasure in seeing a thing> is his head, MOda

<pleasure in obtaining> is his right wing <hand>, pramOda

<pleasure in enjoying> is his left wing <hand>, aananda

<extreme pleasure> is his trunk and Brahma is the tail <leg>

that supports them all "

 

Sage BAdarAyana answers this doubt in the next sUtra (3.3.12):

 

" priya-Sirastvataadyapraptihi upacayApacayau hi bhEdE "

 

ie. "Having Priya as the head etc donot come in

<for meditation>; for with difference <of organs>, there

would be thickness and thinness <of Brahman>".

 

Bhagavad RAmAnuja in SrI BhAshyam says that the Upanishad

only makes up the representation of Brahman in a human form.

The argument is that, if Brahman <divyAtma svaroopam>

is made up of different organs/members such as head, wings

and tail, then some would be large and some small; some would

be thick and some thin, and this would be in conflict with the

passages like Taittriya Upanishad text occuring earlier,

defining Brahman viz. "Satyam <eternal and unchanging>, jn~yAnam,

anantam <all pervading> Brahma". In other words, the unchanging

and all-pervading characteristics of Brahman <divyAtma

swaroopam> will be violated if Brahman by itself is a

combination of different organs as in this case. It will also

violate texts which say that Brahman is neither thin nor thick:

"astUlam anaNu ahrasvam adIrgam ....." (BruhadAranyaka Up.

3.8.8) ie. "Brahman is neither gross nor subtle, neither short

nor long .....". This pramAnam is given in SrutaprakASika

explaining the term "etc" used by BhAshyakAra wrt the pramAnas

which would get violated.

 

In VEdAnta Deepam, BhAshyakAra makes the point that, understanding

of Brahman in this way will make Brahman be liable to change in

size and form, which will contradict Upanishad texts like

"Satyam jn~yAnam anantam Brahma", advocating all-pervasiveness

and unchangability.

 

Also, those texts that advocate the "partless" nature of Brahman

will be violated.

 

This sUtra certainly rejects the identity of Brahman with

a body composed of many organs and establishes that, the

essential nature of Brahman is only characterized by Satyatvam,

jn~yAtvam etc and they only needs to be meditated upon as the

essential characteristics of Brahman. Brahman certainly has an

eternal divine form with many organs and also takes up many

such forms in various avatAras. But, that divine body is not

verily the Brahman.

 

In the sUtra 3.3.14, Sage BAdarAyana gives the reason for

such description of Brahman in Upanishads :

 

"aadhyAnAya prayOjanAbhAvAt" ie. "For meditaion, since there

is no other purpose". BhAshyakAra comments that, various

varieties of Joy are being represented as various organs of

Brahman, to comprehend Brahman as "bliss" (aanandamaya). It

is for this specific Brahma Vidya.

 

In the next sUtra (3.3.15), Sage BAdarAyana adds a reason for

not taking these attributes (Priya as head etc) for meditation

in all the upAsans : "aatma-SabdAcca" ie. "On account of the

term aatma <being used>" { TaittirIya Upanishad : "anyo(a)ntara

aatmA(A)nandamayaha }. BhAshyakAra comments that, aatma

cannot have parts like head, trunk etc and its having Joy for

its head etc should thus only be a representation for the

sake of comprehending Brahman as "bliss".

 

Again its very clear that, Brahman being an aatma can't be

made up of parts like head, hands etc.

-------------------------

 

A upAsaka should also meditate upon the arcirAdi mAraga. There

are other upAsana-specific forms and upAsana-specific auspicious

qualities of Brhman that needs to be added in the meditation

of Brahman, in accordance with the upAsana adopted by a

bhakti yOgi.

---------------------------

 

To just give a sample of the references in Brahma sUtras

listed in the previous posting :

 

 

1. SUtra 1.2.7 belonging to SarvatraprasiddhyadhikaraNa is :

 

" armakaukastvAttadvyapadESAcca nEti cEnna nicAyyattvAdEvam

vyOmavacca "

 

"If it is said - 'No, because Brahman is stated to dwell in

a very small place and to be of very small size', the reply

is 'No ! Because He has to be so meditated upon ; in Himself

He is like ether <whole space of universe ie. all-pervading>".

 

This adhikaraNa is an enquiry into a passage in ChAndOgya

Upanishad. The message from this sUtra is that, though Brahman

in its essentail nature is all pervading, it is prescribed to

be meditated upon _as though_ in a very small place and size,

since a finite being can't meditate upon an infinite easily.

 

 

2. SUtra 1.2.30 belonging to VaiSvAnara-adhikaraNa is

 

"abhivyaktErityASmaratyaha" => "For the purpose of

(meditator) forming a vivid image / implying definiteness.

Thus opines ASmarathya <a Sage>.

 

Bhagavad RAmAnuja says that, this sUtra answers the

question "Why the highest aatma, who is unlimited, is

to be meditated upon in a limited form ? ".

 

Then BhAshyakArar says that the next sUtra answers the

question as to Why the Highest Brahman is represented like a

man having head and limbs in the VaiSvAnara Vidya.

 

That sUtra 1.2.31 is "anusmrutEhE BAdarihi" ie.

"For meditation; BAdarAyana <alias VyAsa> thinks".

 

Thus, its only for the sake of meditation.

 

note : ChAndOgya Up personifies Brahman ie.VaiSvAnara as

one with head, eyes, breath, trunk, chest, feet etc,

as representing tEjas, earth, components of a yaj~nya

etc.

 

 

3. Dahara adhikaraNa on Dahara Vidya.

 

ChAndOgya Upanishad instructs one to perform meditation

upon the one who is in a very small place of the body.

To clarify that, this is only for the purpose of meditation,

Sage VyAsa says :

 

"alpaSrutEhE iti chEt tat uktam" (1.3.20)

 

"How <ParamAtma> described as small (dahara) ? - Answered

already".

 

In VEdAnta Deepam, Bhagavad RAmAnuja (ie. BhAshyakAra)

comments :

 

"Objection : Since jIvAtma is like a point of an awl, it can

be described as small. How can the ParamAtma be described as

small when He is all-pervading - greatest of all ?

 

Reply : This has already been discussed in the <First adhyAya>

second pAda, first adhikaraNa, seventh sUtra (1.2.7). Its so

said, only for the purpose of meditation."

 

The gist of the sUtra is also give above.

 

 

4. In the next adhikaraNa viz. PramitadhikaraNa, a kaThopanishad

text is discussed, which says " Purusha, the controller of the

past and the future dwells in the heart of the meditator's

body, in a form of the size of the thumb ...."(4.12).

 

To the question as to why the limitless Brahman is said to

be of the size of the thumb, Sage BAdarAyana says

 

"Hrudi apEkshayA tu manushyAdhikAratvAt" (1.3.24)

 

implying :

 

"Because He is present in the heart, the mention of the

size is in consideration of human heart's size - He is

present in the heart for meditation to be performed by men".

 

------------------

 

Regarding the divine body of Brahman :

 

The all-pervading ParaBrahman SrIman nArAyaNa takes/has form,

and makes His devotees meditate, reciprocate lovingly etc in a

finite media. This act of great compassion by the infinite Lord,

only magnifies His glories. The Suddha Sattva material comprising

His divine body is also jn~yAnAnanda-maya, similar to His

essential characteristic, which is also jn~yAnAnanda.

It is in this light Sastras say that, Brahman and its

form are same in nature. Brahman, a chEtana, feels

the sense of "I" (ie.pratyaktvam) and has dbj. But, an

achEtana like Suddha Sattvam does not posses pratyaktvam

(ie. feeling of the "I" ness) and doesn't have dbj.

 

Hope that you get to understand other pramAnas quoted

earlier.

 

Please go through the originals patiently and also the

English books of SrI SMS Chari like Fundamentals of

ViSishtAdvaita VEdAnta and Vaishnavism, on these topics, for

understanding the concepts comprehensively.

> I also have many more pramaanas to quote regarding the

> Krishna/Vishnu issue, as well in regards the Bhagavaan/Brahman

> issue. I will save them for later, since I will be out of town

> this weekend.

 

Please do send them to me whenever you can. As suggested by

SrI Mani, we will take the discussion off-line. The stand of

ViSishtAdvaita (vEdAnta) <which has already been well

established based on pramAnas by Bhagavad RAmAnuja>, on these

issues has been explained convincingly for the SrI Vaishnava

list members. If you have something else to say, lets discuss

in private. Thanks for your understanding.

--------------

 

Reg. an allegation by a member that I posted an article after

requesting the topic to be closed in the list :

 

The mail in which I asked to close the discussion (of

elaborating GVs point of view, claiming it to be superior

etc) was posted by Fri, 21st Apr, 16:53:09 hrs in my time

zone. The member accusing me, then made the next posting on

Sat, 22nd Apr, 07:48:34 hrs in my time zone, claiming that

I have incorporated mAyAvAda in my posts and started again

elaborating GV philosophy. Thats why I sent a reply to the

list again and re-iterated him to wait patiently and go

through the SV books and read other postings, before

jumping to conclusions. There was absolutely no fault from

my side. With due respect to the objectives of the list, I am

not interested in replying back to the latest mail by that

member.

 

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa-

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha

 

Dear SrI Mani,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

SrI Mani Varadarajan wrote:

> Sri Anand cited the JitantE Stotram and added a translation:

>

> > " na tE rUpam na ca aakArO na-aayudhAni na ca-aaspadam |

> > tathApi purusha-AkArO bhaktAnAm tvam prakASasE || "

> >

> > " You <in ds> donot have any physical qualities such as white or

> > black (rUpa) ; You <in ds> do not possess any physical organs

> > such as head or legs (aakAra) ; nor are there any weapons or

> > ornaments on You < in ds> (aayudha) ; nor do You have an

> > abode <ie. ds being all pervading, there is no specific abode

> > by which Brahman's presence is limited>; Neverthless out of

> > Your infinite compassion towards devotees <who can't

> > comprehend and reciprocate with You as ds>, You manifest

> > Yourself with a lusturous bodily form bedecked with ornaments

> > and weapons in an abode of Yours < Be it arcAvatAra, vibhava

> > avatAra etc>".

>

> While the provided meaning is not inappropriate,

> Sri Periyavaaccaan Pillai gives a very different interpretation,

> which I feel in some ways is more in line with the text. He

> takes "na tE" as meaning "not for you", rather than "you do

> not have". This is perfectly valid according to Sanskrit

> usage and grammar. Furthermore, he takes "rUpa" not to mean

> "form" but "svarUpa" or "essence", with the idea that otherwise

> there would be a redundancy in the usage "AkAra" immediately

> after, which very clearly means a defined form.

>

> Given this, a translation according to Sri PVP's commentary

> would be:

>

> Your divine essence if not for you, nor is your form,

> nor are your weapons, nor is your divine abode; rather

> they are manifested by you for the sake of your

> beloved devotees.

>

> This avoids the problem of first saying that the Lord does

> not have a form, etc., and then saying that he manifests it.

>

> I find this interpretation a notch more appropriate -- and

> what more should we expect from Swami PVP?

 

SwAmi PVP certainly gives excellent interpretation for this

verse. But, adiyEn would like to add few points on the merits

of an equally good interpretation by SrI PuttankOttakam SwAmi(PS).

 

The context is that, in verse 2, it occurs "...sarvadA

caraNadvandvam vrajAmi SaraNam tava" implying performing

SaraNAgathi unto the Lord's feet. The next two verses also

glorifying Lord etc.

 

In the intro to this verse, SrI PS writes that this verse

dispells various doubts occuring in one's mind due to the

mention of Lord with a form viz. vEdAs say Brahman to be

"apANipAdO javanaha" <one with no hands,legs> ; Upanishads

also say starting with "yattadadrESyam" <Brahman can't be seen>

that Brahman does not have colours like white,yellow,black etc.

Then, how come Brahman is glorified with having colour, feet

etc and we perform SaraNAgathi (as expressed in previvous

verses)?

 

The verse thus answers these philosophical questions as to

how Lord certainly has form etc.

 

Also, adiyEn posted certain portions from SrI BhAshyam

on this issue and when seen in that light, this interpretation

brings out all those tattvas established in vEdAnta. There

is no "problem" in this interpretation as one may think.

 

Moreover, "rUpam" referring to "colour" is accepted as

an adravya in vEdAnta / ViSishtAdvaita and other systems

of thought like NyAya etc. Hence, that term is used by SrI PS

here as referring to colour. aakAra ofcourse refers to "form".

 

Thus, this interpretation is also as excellent as that of SrI

PVP's.

 

Please refer to the originals which is quite more detailed.

------------------------

Additional note :

 

By reading SrI PVP's interpretation one may have doubts as to

whether Brahman doesn't enjoy its ownself (swaroopa), rUpa

and other vibhUtis, and as to whether they are present only for

the enjoyment of devotees. This is because, by the definition of

"sAyujyam", the mukta and Brahman have common objects of enjoyment

viz. Swaroopa, rUpa ... and other vibhUtis of Brahman. Thus,

PerumAL does certainly enjoy Himself etc and thus, the swaroopa,

rUpa etc are for His enjoyment too. He enjoys bhOga rasa from

nitya vibhUti ( SrI VaikuNTham ) and lIlA rasa from leelA vibhUti

(material world). Since He is the SEshi, everything exits for

His purpose. One has to understand that, SrI PVP by his

interpretation only magnifies the great kalyANa guNa of PerumAL

in making even a jIvAtma (who has no comparison with the glories

of ParamAtma) enjoy Himself, His rUpa etc.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.