Anya devatha aradhana /Ganesha aradhana.

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya namaha.

 

Pranams.

The ongoing debate in this list on anya devatha

aradhana makes interseting reading.

I have given below a section of the mail(with some

modifications) I sent to Bahkti-list about a couple of

years ago when the same dabate was raging then.

 

adiyal,

jayasree

 

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

 

The issues are

(1) If one is desirous of getting specific benefits

(phalam), one goes to worship anya devathas.

(2) Can a sreivaishnavite who has done sharanagathi

worship anya devathas?

 

 

Sources.

 

As vEdas and upanishads are the chief pramAnAs, I

have based my arguments on these alone while relying

heavily on Sri Bhashya of Ramanuja. The

transliteration of the Sri Bhashya for the first 32

aphorisms of the 1st chapter of Brahma sutras (by

Rangacharya & M.B. Varadaraja Aiyangar, 1961 edition

of The Educational Publishing co) which will be quoted

as 'SB' and the book 'Brahma sutras, Sri Bhashya'

written by Swami Vireswarananda and Swami Adidevananda

which will be quoted as 'BS', are extensively quoted

in this mail. May Emperumanar guide me in my 'avA' of

obliging his foremost commandment of the six

kainkaryas in the best possible way.

 

The assumptions

 

The indestructible and undeniable assumptions we take

up are as follows: -

(1) Aphorism 3.2.36 of Brahma sutra: -

"By this (Brahman) everything is pervaded, as is known

from scriptural statements etc, regarding Brahman's

extent"

BS: - " 'whatever is seen or heard in this world is

pervaded inside and outside by Narayana' (Ma xii.5)

 

(2) Narayanopanishad (2): -

" Narayana yEvEdam sarvam yad bhotham yachcha bhavyam/

nishkalangO niranjanO nirvikalpO nirAkhyAth: shudhO

dEva

yEkO nArAyanO na dwithIyOsthi kaschith/"

(Everything is Narayanan who is nish-kaLangan,

nir-vikalpan, niranjan and shuddhan. He is ONE without

a second)

 

(3) Aphorism 3.2.32 of Brahma Sutra: -

" (Brahman is depicted as having size) for the sake of

easy comprehension (i.e. upasana) just like (four)

feet."

 

BS: - "The statements describing Brahman as having

four feet or sixteen digits are meant for the sake of

upAsana or meditation. Brahman which is infinite as

declared by texts like, "Truth, Knowledge, Infinite

is Brahman" can not be limited. The texts which

declare such limitation are meant only for meditation,

even as Brahman is imagined to have the organs of

speech, nose, eyes and ear as Its four feet (Chhan

iii. Xviii.2) for the sake of upAsana."

 

Now arguments.

 

Q: - What are devatas?

Do the scriptures that we have taken as pramAnA speak

of devatas?

 

A: - AitarEya Upanishad and Chhandogya upanishad

elaborately trace the birth of worlds, the presiding

deities of pancha bhoothas and the deities

(ati-devathas) for senses.

The realms of Bhu, Bhuvah and Suvah as being

controlled by the deities, Fire, Air and Sun

respectively are being spoken not only by AitharEya

but also Taiittriya upanishad. There may be other

vEdanthic texts too, but in my limited knowledge I am

able to quote only these.

 

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (III ii 2-9) (prAnavo vai

garbha…)

lists out 14 ati-devathas for 14 sense perceptions

that include apart from natural forces, gods like

Vishnu, Prajapathi, Brihaspathi, Kshetrajna, Indra,

Death, Moon, Rudra and Ishwara

 

Taking into consideration assumption (1) and (3), it

is deduced that Brahman had pervaded all the deities

-something asserted by Aitareya too while detailing

how worlds were created.

 

But worship / upasana in those days seemed to be in

the form of sacrifices and Homas.

To cite a case, let me draw your attention to Rama's

upasana of Sriman Narayana, (quoted from Valmiki

Ramayana) prior to his Pattabhisheka, which was in the

form of conducting a Homa and meditation.

 

In his commentary on the first aphorism of the first

chapter of Brahma Sutras, Ramanuja concludes that an

inquiry into sacrificial actions as commanded by the

Karma Khandam of the vEdas must precede an inquiry

into Brahman. He takes up discussion on various

sacrifices to ascertain whether the fruits from them

are inferior or superior to the fruits derived from

meditating on Brahman and Brahman alone. (We will

incorporate this at suitable contexts)

For the sake of knowing who / what these devatas are,

we, hereby take the liberty to equate different

deities as being associated with sacrificial actions

as bestowers of fruits of those sacrifices.

 

It is presumed that just as how Brahman is worshiped

as having form (assumption 3), the ati-devathas also

came to be worshipped as having forms. The primary

Ati-devathas (as mentioned earlier) namely Agni, Vayu

and Sun are seen incorporated with different deities

in agama sashtras and the variations have grown

manifold down the ages. As we have not taken up this

for our discussion, suffice it to say that discussion

on ati-devathas and the fruits of sacrifices are

inter-changeable with Anya devathas and the power of

jurisdiction of Anya devathas, (respectively) as we

know today.

 

Q (2): -

"What is the difference between Anya dEva upasana and

upasana of the Brahman and what happens in Anya dEva

upasana?

 

For better understanding, let us divide the discussion

here under 2 topics, phalam and form.

(1) what kinds of benefits are accrued in different

kinds of upAsana and

(2) in what forms deities receive the upAsana and

give the benefits.

The Phalam factor: -

BS (3.3.43) > The context is to find justification for

different kinds oblations for the same Brahman

" Texts mention a separate fruit of the meditation

which is apart from the fruit of the sacrifice itself.

Thus the quality of possessing greater strength is

the fruit, which is different from that of the

sacrificial rites. What is this greater strength? It

is non- obstruction of the fruit of sacrifice. The

fruit of a sacrifice might be obstructed by the fruit

of some other powerful performance. Thus the

mediations on the Udgitha (OM), though dependent on

auxiliaries to sacrifices, have different fruits from

those of the sacrifices" ….

…..The oblations to the Supreme Self is also different

for different reasons.

"He is to be meditated on in His essential nature in

the first place, and then there is the repetition of

the meditation with a view to realizing His auspicious

attributes.

This case is analogous to that of sacrificial

oblations. There is the text (Tai sam II.iii.6.2); 'He

has to offer "PurodAsha' to Indra, the ruler' etc.

Though Indra is one god, oblations are separately

offered to Indra, the ruler, the supreme ruler, and

the self-ruler according to his different capacities.

This principle is established in the Samkarshana

Khanda: 'as the deities are different, the oblations

are different'."

 

To throw more light on this refer BS (1.1.2)

 

"An action like meditation, which is enjoined, should

have the result of a particular nature and quality,

and we have to find this from other laudatory

statements, just as in the case of other Vedic

injunctions. In texts like 'He who desires Heaven must

perform Ashwametha sacrifice,' we do not have any

description of heaven; we have to gather it from

others statements like 'where there is neither heat

nor cold nor suffering' etc. Again in texts like 'he

shall perform the nocturnal sacrifices' no mention is

made of the result of such sacrifices, but later the

texts say, 'those who perform these sacrifices attain

eminence'. Similarly the result of mediation on

Brahman, which is prescribed by the scriptures, is the

attainment of Brahman has to be known from texts like

'He who knows Brahman attains the Highest' (Tai II.i)

The nature and attributes of Brahman also have to be

gathered from similar other texts."

 

The summary so far is that different deities are

capable of giving different benefits. Even the same

deity (like Indra) must be worshipped in different

ways to enable him give you different benefits

depending on what forms and for what purpose you are

worshipping him.

It is true of Brahman who is equated to Narayana

(assumption -1 & 2)

If it be said that Brahman is capable of 'giving

anything and everything,' we quote Ramanuja as

following (SB -1.1)

"The passage which makes known the result of worship

of the Brahman, viz, 'shoshnutE sarvAn KAAMAAN saha

brahmana vipaschita (tai up II.i.i) speaks also of the

infinitude of the qualities possessed by the Highest

Brahman who is intelligent. (The prose order of this

sentence runs thus)-'vipaschitA BrahmanA sarvAn kAmAn

samashnutE' The word 'kAmA' is derived from the root

'kam' to covet and means that which is covetable,i.e.,

auspicious qualities. The meaning (of the passage

accordingly) is that he (the successful worshipper)

attains along with the (intelligent) Brahman all those

(auspicious) qualities. The word 'with' (according to

Panini) (is used) to bring out prominently the

(possession of) qualities (by the Brahman) as it is

brought out in connection with the Dahara-vidya, viz,

"what exists within that (small space inside the

heart) that has to be sought after'. (chhand VIII.1.1)

That, between worship and its result, there is a

similarity of nature, is proved conclusively by the

scriptural passage which says - ' of whatever nature a

man's worship is in this world, of that same nature

that man becomes after death'. (chhand III.14.1)'

 

To understand this further let me quote the footnote

on Dahara -vidya.

" Dahara -vidya is that vidya or form of worshipping

the supreme Brahman, which consists in meditating on

Him as dwelling in the small ethereal space within the

heart. In connection with this vidya or form of

worship, the Brahman who has to be meditated upon is

declared in the context to be the 'Self who is devoid

of sin, is free from old age, free from death, free

from sorrow, free from hunger, free from thirst and

desires the Truth and wills the Truth."

 

In summary, if Brahman is meditated upon, one attains

Brahman along with the auspicious qualities of Brahman

and nothing less and nothing more, as 'there is

nothing higher than or different from Him' (sve III.9)

To apply this to the issues in question, (remembering

the assumptions we have taken up) meditation on

Narayana for the sake of attaining Him (moksha) gives

one nothing less and nothing more. The supreme wish of

moksham is granted by Him and not the lesser wishes.

Because (also) craving for lesser wishes is anathema

to the one desirous of Moksha

 

Q (3) Does not the above-drawn conclusion undermine

the Supremacy of the Supreme one?

 

A:- No, if we look at the following passages.

BS (3.2.39 & 40) :-

"Jaimini (thinks), for the same reasons(viz,

scriptural; authority and possibility), that religious

work (is what brings about the fruits of actions)'

"But Badarayana (thinks) the former (i.e., the Lord as

the bestower of the fruits of actions), on account of

His being declared to be cause (of the fruits of

actions)"

(BS cont'd)>

"the word 'but' refutes the view of the previous

sutra. Badarayana maintains that the supreme Person is

the bestower of the fruits of all actions. Scriptural

texts like "Let him who is desirous of prosperity

offer a white animal to Vayu.. and Vayu lead him to

prosperity (Tai SaII.i.1) show that the deities

worshipped bestow the results of the sacrifices

through which they are worshipped. But ultimately it

is the Lord, abiding in Vayu etc. as their inner self,

who, being pleased with the devotion of the

sacrificer, bestows on him the results: 'Offerings and

pious works, all these He bears, who is the nave of

the Universe. He is Agni Vayu: He is the Sun and the

moon' (Ma I.6.7). "He who dwells in Vayu… of whom Vayu

is the body' etc. (Br III.vii.7) Smrti also says the

same thing: "whichever divine form a devotee wishes to

worship.. and obtains from it the results he desires,

as ordained by Me" (Gita, VIII. 21-22). Giving up all

this teaching, where is the need to imagine an

'apurva'?"

 

Giving up all this teaching, may I ask how can a sri

vaishnavite, an ardent devotee of Sriman Narayana,

denounce anya deva aradhana?

If he denounces it, does it not amount to 'dhooshaNai'

of the Brahman to attain whom is his supreme desire?

What he must do instead is to renounce every kind of

desire (anya-Asai) which is other than the desire to

attain Him. (sarva dharmAn paridhyajya..)

He must denounce 'anya Asai' and not anya deva

Aradhanai. Because, I repeat, that is akin to

'apachAram' to Narayana as not willing to accept His

other 'qualities' like His ability to be in all bodies

(read deities) and bestow whatever the jiva asks for.

This must have been the original import of the

teachings of the Acharyas, but as has always happened

we have clung to the shell and missed the sap.

 

To continue this thread,

BS (3.3.43)

" On account of the abundance of indicatory marks (the

Narayana -anuvaka deals with the object of worship in

all the meditations); for, it (indicatory mark) is

stronger (than the contxt). This also (has been stated

by Jaimini)."

"The Taiitrriya text, immediately after the Dahara

-vidya, declares in the folowing way: " 'The

thousand-headed God, whoses eyes see every thing..who

is Narayana, the Imperishable, supreme Master' etc (Ma

XI.1). Here the doubt is raised whether the

meditation, as being identical with meditation

previously introduced, describes attributes which are

inculcated in that vidya, or whether it describes

those attributes of the Supreme self to be included in

all the meditations as enjoined in all the upanishads.

The opponent favours the former because of the

context; for in the previous section (anuvaka 10) the

meditation on the small ether is introduced as the

subject matter: 'The small space free from all evil,

the abode of the Supreme: within that is a small space

free from sorrow . What is in that should be mediated

upon' (Ma XI.7)

The Sutra-kara refutes this view and declares:

'on account of abundance of indicatory marks'. This

section of Mahanarayanopanishad has come just to

declare the characteristics of the supreme self, who

is the object of meditation, in all meditations. The

supreme being is denoted in all those meditations as

Akshara, Shiva, Shambhu, Para brahman, Paramjyothi

etc. Finally, the same entity is here declared to be

Narayana. There is abundance of authoritative marks to

prove that Narayana alone is the object of worship in

all meditations. Here the word 'linga' means symbol,

sign or indicatory mark. There are many passages which

contain indicatory marks. Such passages have,

according to Purva-Mimamsa, greater force than

context."

 

To summarize, worship of Brahman alone is one thing

and worship of deities in names other than Narayana is

another, though the second one is further categorized

into two, namely (1) deities like Vayu etc and

atidevathas of sacrifices etc which are capable of

giving specific benefits by the strength of Brahman

present in them and (2) deities in whose name Brahman

is worshipped as in the case of Akshara, shiva etc.

 

The second aspect forms the second category namely

'forms in which deities give benefits' which is

discussed below.

 

Forms: -

 

A conflict of idea seems to arise if we refer to 1.4

to 1.6 of Kenopanishad, which says 'this alone is

Brahman and not that which people worship'.

Bhagavad Ramanuja makes a reference to this passage

and writes thus:- (SB IV.4)

" If you say that by means of the scriptural passages

-' Not this which they worship'- (Keno) -the character

of being the object of meditation is denied (in

relation to the Brahman), it is replied that it can

not be so. The fact of the Brahman being the object

of meditation is not denied (herein), but the fact

that Brahman is distinct from the world is declared in

this passage. The meaning of this passage is this -"

this world which people here worship, - that is not

the Brahman. Know thou him alone to be the Brahman who

is not made out by speech and by whom speech is

brought into existence."

 

The worship that Brahman alone is supreme and the

goal of worship (which a devout Sri vaishnavite must

follow) is one and the worship of other forms and

names with or without the knowledge and expectation of

Inner reality is another.

In passages "Brahma Narayana:/ Shivascha Narayana:/

shakrascha Narayana;/ "( Na up 2) it is made out that

Narayana is worshipped in the worship of other

deities.

The controversial (if deemed so) passages (from

Svetahswathara) are given here which praise the other

forms as the Supreme and Ramanuja's reply also

follows.

 

1) " Ekohi Rudro na dwiti'ya'ya tasthurya ema'n

loka'ne's'atah e's'ani'bhib/

pratyangjana'stishth'ati sanchu koca'nta kale

samsr'jya vis'va bhuvana'ni gopa'h/ (sve 3.2)

(The supreme consciousness is described as Rudra.

Rudra is one only. The in-dwelling self watches the

deeds of men. He is the destroyer of sins and sorrows.

So he is called Rudra)

 

2) 'Yo dEvAnam prabhavasch choptavascha vishwAdhipo

RudrO maharshi:/ (sve 3.4)

( the one who creates the dEvas and takes care of

them, the one who is the Lord of the worlds, the one

who is the Rudra capable of wiping out sorrows..)

 

3) "yA tE rudra shivA tanu-raghOrApapakAshini/

tayA nastanuvA shantamayA girishantAbhichakashIhi:/ "

(sve 3.5)

(hey Rudra, the bestower of happiness to the world

from your abode of Kailash. Let that form by means of

which you destroy the sins to uplift into liberation,

brings all that is auspicious.)

 

4) "yamishum girichanda hastE bibharshyasthavE/

shivAm girithrathAm kuru ma himsI: purusham jagat:/"

(sve 3.6)

(Seated in Kailash, you bestow happiness. Seated in

Kailash you protect those who surrender unto you.

Please use your weapon in your hand with utmost

compassion, without giving any suffering to the

people)

 

5) "yO dEvAnAm prabhavaschOthbhavascha vishvAdhipo

rudrO maharshi:/

hiraNya garbham pashyata jayamanam sa nO buddhyA

shubhayA samyunaktu/ ( swe 4.12)

(The one who creates the dEvas and makes them

flourish, the one who is the Lord of all the worlds,

the one who is Rudra, the destroyer of sorrows, the

one who sees things beyond, who has seen the birth of

HiraNyagarbha, let Him give us best of knowledge.)

 

Rudra as explained in the above passages is none other

than Brahman / Narayana. To substantiate this, let me

quote the final conclusion of Ramanuja to chapter 1 of

Brahma sutras.

 

SB: - "wherever particular individual selves from the

four -faced Brahma downwards and particular

non-intelligent things from Prakruti downwards are

found mentioned in association with the particularly

characteristic attributes of the Supreme Self, -or

whatever the words denoting them (i.e., those

intelligent selves and non-intelligent things) are

seen to be grammatically equated with the words

denoting the Supreme Self: - in all such cases, what

is intended to be taught is the continued meditation

of the Brahman as forming the inner self of those

particular intelligent and non-intelligent entities."

 

It is therefore concluded that Brahman (Narayanan) by

any other name (anya devata) is Narayanan only as long

as the worshipper meditates on the supreme attributes

of the Self in those forms. (Same is true of the

repeated reference of 'Vishalakshi' to Sita in Valmiki

Ramayana and Uma dEvi showing who the Brahman is, to

Indra in Kenopanishad -these two form a separate issue

and yet for the purpose of drawing a parallel, quoted

here)

 

Even otherwise, he is said to worship Narayana in

those forms, in His being the bestower of benefits

through those forms.

But benefits are in accordance with what one asks for

/ meditates upon. (If liberation is what is desired,

the supreme form as Brahman. / Narayanan is

worshipped. If desires other than this are aimed at,

Brahman bestows them in those forms that have been

sanctioned as the ati-devatas for such desires. )

 

This can be understood the following way.

If the water supply to my house is affected, I have to

approach the Municipality that is directly involved in

supplying water. I may have known the President of

India but I can not refer this problem to him taking

advantage of my friendship with him. Even if I refer

it to him, he can not supply the water to me directly

but only direct the Municipality to do that for me.

But if a person facing the gallows need a respite, he

can not get it by any means other than petitioning the

President for mercy. Because the President is directly

responsible for it.

Even though all governmental functions are done in the

'pleasure' of the president, even though the president

is technically the chief of all that happens, there

are events that he directly deals with. Everything

else happens in his name, by drawing the power from

him, but he does not do them by himself.

Taking this analogy to our discussion,

The Brahman equated with Narayana, is the chief of

all.

Those who approach him for the exceptional benefit

(like mercy petition) are taken note of / granted

benefits as He may deem the recipient fit to be.

For everything else the benefits are siphoned out

through his agents (Anya devatas) under his grace.

 

Conclusion

 

Going by the above given (many) versions, may we

conclude

that

"He who knows Brahman attains the Highest"(tai II.1.1)

as the reply for the issue that it is Brahman who

grants Liberation and liberation alone - also

justified by the Taittriya passage 'soshnutE sarvAn

kamAn' - the meaning for kAmAn explained -(not as

desires),

That

Whatever worship is done to the anya devatas indeed

goes to Brahman who bestows the benefits through the

respective devatas and as such a devout Sri

vaishnavite must not resort to denouncement of anya

devata but instead make a resolve to not to desire

anything other than Brahman, for the gratification of

which he has to be always clinging to the feet of

Sriman Narayana,

That

For the gratification of specific benefits, specific

devatas must be worshipped (BS 1.1.2) as in the case

of AshwamEtha sacrifice and JyothistOmEna Homa for

reaching heaven,

And that

Even if one worships anyadevata by meditating on the

qualities associated with Brahman, he is said to be

worshipping the Brahman and Brahman alone and none

else.

 

Quotable story:-

 

Let me conclude with (once again a contrioversial

note:))the famous incident of Namperumal being carried

inside Thiruvannaikkaval Temple while Ramanuaja

stayed outside with his parivar when it rained.

 

 

When confronted with the question why he didn't go

inside, when his perumal didn't have any qualms to go

inside, (there are quite a few versions of Ramanuja's

answer. I take up the one as told by a swamin who

belongs to the Manavala mamunugal lineage and who is

doing kainkaryam in MAmunigal sannidhi at Sri

Rangam), he had answered, 'Pathi may go to any place.

But can the pathni follow him everywhere?'

 

The first part of ramanuja's answer does not negate

Lord's 'cosiness' with anya devas as an In-dweller in

them.

 

The second part does not negate a 'pure' vaishnavite's

obsession with Narayana thiruvadi sambhandam.

 

The entire thing does not negate what He can give as

'pathi' to His pathni and what anya devatas can give

-through Him.

 

 

 

Ever at the feet of Narayana,

adiyal,

jayasree

 

Quote of the mail:-

"urraikkindra mukkat pirAn yanE ennum,

urraikkindra thisai mugan yAnE ennum,

urraikkindra amararum yAnE ennum,

urraikkindra amara kOn yAnE ennum,

urraikkindra munivarum yAnE ennum,

urraikkindra mugil vannan yErakkollO?

Urraikkindra ulagathIriku en sollugEn

Urraikkindra en kOmaLa von kodikkE?

(Thiruvaimozhi 5.6.8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail is new and improved - Check it out!