Query on Paratvam- response ...

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImathE Gopala

Dear Sri Murali

 

You may find this most apt for clarifying your doubt on the query on Paratvam

 

In the Vedarthasangraha, Sri Ramanuja explains how Sriyah Pati

(Sriman Narayanan) alone is the Supreme Being described in

the Vedas and Vedanta. The Vedas declare the nature of

the Supreme Truth in many ways.

 

Sometimes them call It Brahman (the great and glorious

essence); other times they call It Sat (Being); still other

times they call It Purusha, other times Vishnu, Rudra, Atma,

Paramaatma, etc. How are we to reconcile all these various

names?

 

surely they all refer to one Supreme, as the Vedas declare

thatthere is only one Supreme Cause -- ekam eva

advitIyam. Fortunately, the Vedas themselves offer a

reconciliation ofall these names, contained

in the various Upanishads and even in the text of the

Veda proper.

 

In the Purusha Sukta, found in all four Vedas, the

Supreme Brahman is described as the Being who exists

everywhere. At the end of this glorious Sukta, the

Purusha is described:

 

hrISca te lakshmISca patnyau

 

He who has Hri (Bhudevi) and Lakshmi as His eternal

consorts or attributes.

 

similarly, in the Chhandogya Upanishad, we have the

description of the Supreme Person as ``tasya yatha

kapyaasam pundarikam eva akshini'' -- His eyes have

the beauty of the petals of a lotus, just unfolding

under the rays of the sun and crowning a rich stalk.

In all religious literature, only Vishnu is addressed

as the ``lotus-eyed one''.

 

There are even more direct Veda vaakyas. For example,

in the Rig Veda, we see tad viSNOh paramam padam, sadaa

paSyanti sUrayah

 

-- the enlightened seers always perceive the supreme abode

of Vishnu, a reference to the nitya suris. A similar

reference is found in the Katha Upanishad.

 

The Taittiriya Aranyaka explicitly reconciles all

the various names of the Supreme found in the Vedas

and encompasses them all under the term

``Narayana''

in the Narayana Sukta. Taking note of the terms

Sat, Brahman, Atma, Akshara, all found in the Upanishads,

the Sukta goes on to declare viSvam naaraayaNam devam

 

All is Narayana.

 

and

sa brahmA sa SivaH sendraH sO 'ksharaH paramaH svaraaT

 

Narayana is Brahma, Siva, Indra, the Imperishable, the

Supreme Independent.

 

these two vaakyas clearly enunciate the principle that

the concept of Narayana encompasses all other deities.

Even otherwise, the etymological meaning of

the word Narayana has perhaps the deepest philosophical

significance of any name of God, over and above even the

terms Vishnu Siva, Brahma, Indra, etc. The latter

terms respectively mean ``pure'',

``great'', and ``king'',

and are applicable to any number of things, including

the individual self. However, Narayana means ``That in

which all creatures rest'', which by implication

can only

refer to the Supreme.

 

It is true that the Vedas themselves often praise other

gods. However, usually these are in the context of

the Vedic sacrifice, which is not the highest essence

of Vedic teaching. When it comes to the purely

philosophical portions, it is quite clear that the

personality to which the vaakyas refer is only

Narayana.

 

Of course, we should not ignore the Bhagavad Gita,

considered by all Vedic acharyas as the essence of the

Vedas.

 

With this immense Vedic tradition behind them,

it is a wonder that some people call Sri Vaishnavas

closed-minded for choosing to worship only Narayanan!

 

This is not to say that the other forms of

worship, be it Saivism, worship of Devi, Christianity,

etc., are devoid of significance! Rather, we can

only say that they are not as firmly rooted in Vedic

tradition as is the concept of Narayana. Naturally,

Truth can be found outside the text of the Vedas, lending

authority to the various different creeds that exist.

The only point being made here is that the Vedas and

Divya Prabandham describe the Ultimate Truth as Narayana

and sanction worship of God conceived in those terms.

 

Aswe would have noted, even Sankaracharya considered

usd the name Narayana when referring to God. Many stotras

are ascribed to him when he may or may not have authored.

However, in his undisputed authentic works, such as his

commentaries on the Upanishads, Gita, and Brahma-sutras,

he invariably refers to Narayana as the Supreme Essence.

His immediate disciples do the same.

 

Trust this clarifies.

Regards

Namo narayana

dAsan

 

[The above is an extract from the archives as written by Sri Mani Varadarajan

from USA, few years ago for the same query.- Thanks to him for his permission]