Fwd: [t'vengadam] "shoonyah": "Lord Zero" of the Vishnu-Sahasranamam

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas:

Here is an interestin interpretation of the term "Shoonya" to denote the

Lord, occuring in Sri VishNu Sahasranaamam, appearing in a sister list. Hope

you will enjoy reading.

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

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

 

 

>bindinganavale suresh <suresh_b_n

>tiruvengadam

>tiruvengadam

>Re: [t'vengadam] "shoonyah": "Lord Zero" of the

>Vishnu-Sahasranamam

>Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:36:20 -0700 (PDT)

>

>Dear Sri Sudarshan,

> That was a nice article.Really thought

>provoking.I would like to share my thoughts and add

>more information about this topic with you and other

>members of this group.

>

>In the 6th chapter of Chandogya upanishad,known

>popularly as the sad vidya,Udalaka teaches his son

>svetaketu about Brahman in the state of cause and

>effect.Uddalaka teaches his son the concept of tat

>tvam

>asi through different approaches.In one such approach

>he arrives at this nama "shoonyah" i.e Zero or Nothing

>and equates it with Brahman.

>

>The teaching of Uddalaka to svetaketu about this

>approach is as follows :-

>

>Uddalaka first asks his son to get a particular fruit

>called "Nyagrodha" from a tree.His son gets the

>same.Uddalaka now asks him to open the fruit,svetaketu

>does the same.Uddalaka now asks his son what he sees

>in the fruit,his son replies that he sees some seeds.

>Uddalaka asks him to break one of them, svetaketu does

>the same. Uddalaka finally asks him what he sees now.

>Svetaketu relies that he sees "nothing" i.e shoonyah.

>

>From this uddalaka concludes his teaching that just

>as the big tree (from which his son had fetched a

>fruit) had come out of "nothing i.e shoonyah"

>,likewise

>the entire creation with all its contents has come out

>of "nothing" and this "Nothing" is none other than the

>One Brahman without a second.

>

>Now,how is this possible? , it might be a matter of

>common human experience what svetaketu had seen when

>he broke the seed to see nothing,but how does this

>point to Brahman?.

>

>This is where the earlier lesson of Uddalaka helps,he

>had said to his son," Dear boy, In the begining all

>this was Brahman himself known as existence. Some say

>that all these came out of non-existence,but how can

>existence which is self proved come out of

>non-existence i.e void ?,therefore it is to be

>concluded that Brahman,the only existence is the cause

>of all we see and experience".

>

>It is through the above teaching we have to understand

>the subtle truth that Brahman is the real cause but

>known as "shoonyah" when we view him from our common

>experience as svetaketu did.

>

>

>Sri Krishnaarpanamasthu

>Suresh B.N.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>--- "M.K.Sudarshan" <sampathkumar_2000

>wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear friends,

> >

> > One of the 'nAmA-s' in the Sahasranamam that I'm

> > always intrigued by

> > is the name "shoonyah" given to Vishnu and as it

> > apppears in shlOka

> > no: 79 --

> >

> > suvarna-varna hEmAngO varAngas-chandanAngadI

> > veeraha vishamah shoonyO

> > grutAshI-rachala-chalah

> >

> > The Sanskrit word "soonya" means "zero", "nullity",

> > "cipher",

> > "emptiness".

> >

> > It would strike anyone as extremely odd that the

> > Sahasranamam should

> > choose to call Lord Vishnu as 'Zero'! You can

> > understand God being

> > called "ekah", the One Supreme Being. The essence of

> > all monistic

> > theism lies in the belief that God is One (the

> > Upanishad says,

> > "sayaschAyam pUrUshE; yaschAsAvA'dityE; sa ekah").

> >

> > You can understand too God being addressed as

> > "anantah", the

> > Infinite, as in the Sahasranamam stanza---

> >

> > kAma devah kAmapAlah kaamI kAntah krutAgamah

> > anirdEshyavapu-vishnur-vIrO' anantah

> > dhananjayah (stanza 70)

> >

> > Since God is Immeasurable it seems plainly alright

> > to name Him

> > "anantah", the Infinite. But how is one to explain

> > hailing the

> > Almighty as 'shoonyah', the Cipher?

> >

> > There is a view that "If Infinity is immeasurable,

> > so is Zero".

> > Mathematically speaking, one could define 'zero' to

> > be

> > 'anti-infinity'. If 'Infinity' is immeasurable

> > plenitude, 'Zero' is

> > immeasurable emptiness. If you were to imagine, say,

> > an interminable

> > series of values, from zero to infinity, floating

> > somewhere out there

> > in endless space, then, surely, Zero would be at one

> > end of it while

> > Infinity would be found at the other end...

> > wherever, that is, the

> > two ends may be found, if at all. And if you reflect

> > upon it deeply,

> > that would make out 'Zero' and 'Infinity' to be two

> > sides of the same

> > un-graspable coin.

> >

> > By the same logic, you might say the Sanskrit

> > "anantah" and "shoonya"

> > might seem antonymous but in reality they mean the

> > same thing.

> > Hailing God Almighty as 'Lord Infinity' is hence no

> > different from

> > hailing Him 'Lord Zero'.

> >

> > Incredible logic notwithstanding, we know for a fact

> > however that the

> > 'Infinite' and the 'Cipher' are never really the

> > same thing. None of

> > us would be willing to exchange one for the other if

> > it came to a

> > real choice between the two. If I go up, for

> > instance, to a venerable

> > 'achArya' or 'guru' and prostrate at his feet, I

> > would expect him to

> > shower his benediction upon me saying, "May you be

> > blessed in life,

> > my son, with God's infinite Grace!". If instead the

> > man were to say,

> > "May God's zero grace be thine in life!", the

> > blessing would stand

> > transformed into a vicious curse, wouldn't it?

> >

> > *******

> >

> > So then, why is God, who is Infinite Being, being

> > called "shoonya", a

> > Zero -- the very opposite of infinity? The

> > traditional commentators

> > of the Vishnu-Sahasranamam offer us some explanation

> > in their

> > respective "bhAshyA-s".

> >

> > Let's take up Adi Sankara's "sahasranamam bhAshyA"

> > first.

> >

> > In his commentary, Sri Sankara (6th CE) explains

> > "shoonya" as an apt

> > 'nAmA' for God, the Supreme Brahman, who is

> > "nirguNa" -- i.e. the

> > Being who is totally devoid of any qualities or

> > attributes. In other

> > words, according to Sankara's school of metaphysics,

> > God is "guNa

> > shoonyan".

> >

> > According to this explanation, God transcends all

> > attributes. His

> > qualities like omnipotence, omniscience etc. only

> > serve to help us in

> > ascertaining His reality but they do not 'per se'

> > define Him. The

> > truth of God's existence cannot be grasped by us

> > with reference to

> > His qualities or 'guNA' alone, says Sankara. Brahman

> > is to be

> > apprehended as an Absolute Being who stands far

> > apart from and quite

> > beyond any of His infinitely ("anantah") great

> > qualities -- i.e. He

> > is 'nirguNa-brahman', a Being without qualities, a

> > Being with 'zero'

> > qualities. Hence it is fit to call Him "shoonyah".

> >

> > Let's turn to the other explanation found in the

> > commentary of Sri

> > Parashara Bhattar (11th CE) on the Vishnu

> > Sahasranamam titled

> > "bhagavadh-guNa-darpaNam".

> >

> > Bhattar explains "shoonyah" in the typical way of

> > the school of

> > VisishtAdvaita theology. According to this school,

> > God is the Supreme

> > Abode of all auspicious attributes. The Almighty is

> > full of

> > innumerable good qualities like "gnyAna", "bala",

> > "aiswarya",

> > "vIrya", "shakti" and "tejas". In VisishtAdvaita,

> > God is

> > "ananta-kalyANa-guna-gaNaan" (to use a famous

> > expression of Sri

> > RamanujAchArya) -- i.e. Brahman is Being with

> > infinite number of

> > happy and wholesome attributes. The theology next

> > states that God, by

> > corollary, is also totally devoid of inauspicious,

> > un-wholesome or

> > negative qualities.

> >

> > According to Bhattar, in so far as, Brahman is

> > replete with

> > infinitely good attributes, He is to be known as

> > "anantah". And in so

> > far as He is absolutely bereft of defective

> > qualities, He is to be

> > known as the God of "zero-defects" -- in other

> > words, He is

> > "shoonyah".

> >

> > From a purely theological standpoint both

> > explanations above are

> > equally valid and wholly satisfying (depending, of

> > course, upon

> > which school of Vedanta -- Sankara's or Ramanuja's

> > -- one is

> > predisposed towards). All the same, for one who is

> > not steeped in the

> > various nuances and niceties of Vedantic theology,

> > (especially for

> > one who cannot really appreciate the technical

> > difference between the

> > metaphysical "nirguNa-" and "savisesha-" Brahman),

> > the explanations

> > of AdiSankara and Parashara Bhattar for "shoonya"

> > might only seem to

> > resemble the case of the proverbial bottle that got

> > described as

> > "half-empty" by one and "half-full" by another.

> >

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

> >

> > Even leaving theological considerations aside, one

> > can still regard

> > Zero to be a remarkably apt 'nAma' for the Almighty.

> > Common knowledge

> > of the world around us reveals how all-powerful the

> > concept of Zero,

> > "shoonya", truly is. When we look at the history of

> > Zero, we realize

> > why 'shoonya' is almighty indeed!

> >

> > Until about 1500 years ago nobody in the world

> > outside India could

> > count numbers beyond 9 without enormous difficulty.

> > The entire

> >

>=== message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

> Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook.

>http://calendar.

>

>

>Namo VenkateshAya namah:

>

>

>To Post a message, send it to: tiruvengadam (AT) eGroups (DOT) com

>

>To Un, send a blank message to:

>tiruvengadam- (AT) eGroups (DOT) com

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

 

_______________

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus