Tiruvayamozhi - 9

[Guest guest]

Jai Srimannarayana!

Pasuram -.1.9

ulanenil ulan avan uruvam ivvuruvugal

ulanalan enil avan aruvam ivvaruvugal

ulan ena ilan ena ivai gunam udainmaiyil

ulaniru thaga:imaiyodu ozivilan parandhe:

 

ulan avan enil ulan- If it is claimed that He exists, He does.

avan uruvam ivvuruvugal- In which case all the forms are His.

ulan alan enil- If it is contended that He is not, then He becomes all

that is unmanifest, avan aruvam ivvaruvugal

ulan ena----udaimaiyil- He has both manifest and unmanifest as His modes. Hence

He is ozindhilan parandhuLan, all-encompassing, and all-pervading.

 

The existence and non-existence, both are His modes. In visishtadvaita

everything is real and the sentient and the non-sentient exist in the

manifest state after the creation of the Universe and in the unmanifest state

before creation. Destruction does not mean non-existence but only that the thing

exists in another state. When a pot is destroyed it does not cease to exist but

continues to exist as potsherds. What has been destroyed is only the form and

not the substance. It never ceased to exist even before its creation but existed

in the form of mud. Even those who deny God cannot deny Him altogether but only

deny Him as such.

 

Bha:va is being and abha:va is non-being, both are only the modes of Brahman.

Abhava can either be pra:gabha:va, prior nonexistence or

pradhvamsa:bha:va , posterior non-existence or destruction , both of which has

been denied in Brahman who is eternal and all those with form and those which

are formless are nothing but Brahman. Neither mutual nonexistence , anyonya

abha:va, as when we say that the pot is not the cloth is appropriate with

Brahman because there is nothing else except Him everywhere. Lastly the fourth

kind of abhava, namely

athyanthaabha:va, absolute non-existence, like that of skyflower, could be said

of Brahman because it is the sole reality.

 

That is why Azvar says that He is both form and the formless. When He is not it

is because He is not cognized by the normal means of knowledge. Moreover to say

a thing does not exist is possible only when assuming that thing o be capable of

existence as it is absurd to say that the horn of a hare does not exist. When

one says God is not he first assumes a thing called God and then denies it

because a thing that never existed cannot be denied.

 

Both existence and non-existence acquire their meaning because of Brahman

because He pervades all and exists as form and formless both of which are His

attributes.

 

Jai Srimannarayana!