shrI: - Introduction

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha parabrahmaNE nama:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha divya paduka sevaka

srivan satakopa sri narayana yatindra mahadesikaya nama:

 

Translator's preface

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

The ontological status of shrI: (Piratti) within Sri Vaishnavam is an issue

that separates the two Sri Vaishnava branches. Is She just a Jiva or is

She Iswari? Is She just atomic ( " aNu " ) or is She " vibhu " , i.e. all

pervading? Is She a means, i.e. " upayam " for " moksham " , or does She just

play the " purushakara " role? Does She participate in the creation of the

universe or is that a function uniquly Perumal's? Answers to these

questions have separated the two kalais.

 

In the commentary on Sri Alavandhaar's Chatusloki, Swami Sri Desikan states

five positions with respect to the status of Sri.

 

[1] shrI: is a member of Jivas and thus she is atomic, not all pervading

i.e. not vibhU.

[2] shrI: is a member of Jivas, but due to sabhdha pramanas she, unlike any

other Jiva, is vibhu.

[3] shrI: is neither Jiva, nor Iswari; Emperumaan's Lordship is different

from that of shrI:; shrI: does not participate in the sport of creation

with the Lord.

[4] shrI: is Iswari; she is Lord for everyone except herself and Perumal;

she is not a cause for creation, only Perumal is; all these qualities of Sri

manifest only due to Perumal's sankalpam, i.e. discretion and fancy.

[5] shrI: is Lord on her own independent right; out of her own desire she

accepts PerumaaL's lordship over her. She is all pervading, cause for

creation, a means for salvation.

 

These five views are further explained with a translation from Srimad

Rahasya ThraiyasAra vivraNam by Srimad Azhagiya Singar.

 

View 1:

Lakshmi's swaroopam is atomic. Perumal's swaroopam is vibhu, i.e. He

pervades everything. Since Piratti's swaroopam is atomic she belongs to the

category of Jivas.

 

However, there are pramaNAs that state that Lakshmi's swaroopam pervades all

the worlds. Then, the above view that Piratti is atomic contradicts

pramaNas. But those who hold this view say that it is Lakshmi's

" dharmabhUta j~nAnam " that pervades all the worlds, similar to the

dharmabhUta j~nAnam of Nithyasoorees and Mukthas. Therefore, they claim,

there is no contradiction.

 

View 2:

Piratti is a Jiva, but she is not atomic. The statements that show that all

Jivas are atomic does not include Piratti. That statement is true for all

other Jivas except Piratti. This view accepts the Vibhuthvam of Piratti,

but she is still considered a Jiva.

 

View 3:

Piratti is neither a Jiva, nor an Iswari. Her swaroopam is Vibhu.

Therefore she does not belong to the group of Jivas. On the other hand, she

is subservient to Perumal and under His control. Therefore, she cannot

belong to the class of Iswara. Thus, Piratti is not a Jiva, neither is she

an Iswara. She belongs to a separate category (i.e. tattvam).

 

View 4:

Piratti is Iswari. Her swaroopam is Vibhu. She pervades all. Perumal is

Iswaran, and Piratti is Iswari. But there are differences between the two

of them. Perumal is the Lord for everything except Himself. But Piratti is

the sovereign over all, except herself and Perumal.

 

She is not a creator (jagat kAraNatvam). Only Perumal is creator. Further,

all the glories of Priatti are only due to Perumal's will (sankalpam).

 

View 5:

Like Perumal, Piratti is a Iswara thattvam. Gunas such as j~nAna, etc.

belong to both of them. Yet, by mutual consent, they have divided the

auspicious qualities between the two, with all male-gunas going to Perumal,

and the female-gunas gong to Piratti. In this view, Piratti is also a

creator. The three qualities, " saraNyatvam " (i.e. upayam or means for

salvation), " Iswaratvam " (i.e. Lorship), and " Prapyatvam " (i.e. upeyam,

fruit), belong to Piratti also.

 

At this point in his commentary on Catusloki, Swami Sri Desikan simply

states that only one of the above five views is consistent with shastras

without actually naming which one it is.

 

Sri Uttamoor Swami in his Chatusloki commentary states that based on the

flow of writing, and the authority of Swami Sri Desikan's other works such

as Gadya Bhashyam, SarasAsthram, and nyAya siddhAnjanam, Swami Sri Desikan's

preferred view is the fifth view. However, the ambiguity has given room to

some to claim that the fourth view not the fifth, is Swami Sri Desikan's

preferred view. They go on to say that the followers of Desika Sampradayam

have completely misunderstood Swami Desikan.

 

In the recent past Sri Puttur Krishnaswami, publisher of Sri Sudarshanam

magazine, openly challenged Sri Nrisimha Priya with this and other positions

that separate the two kalais. Initially Sri Nrisimha Priya ignored the

challenge. Srimad Azhagiya Singar was of the opinion that we must not

engage in discrediting other point of views. In stead, HH felt, we must

spend our energies in studying our poorvaacharyas and understanding the

respective views. However, Sri Puttur Swami persisted in his challenge and

even suggested that Sri Nrisimha Priya is not capable of giving proper

answers. He even started a series called " pancama pakSha sada dhooshaNi " .

At this point it became necessary to protect sishyas from false propaganda.

Therefore, Srimad Azhjagiya Singar started a series called shrI: tattva

dIpikai from the November 1997 issue of Sri Nrisimha Priya.

 

The objections can be summarized as follows.

 

(i) VedashastrAs proclaim that only one entity is the cause for the universe

and he is the Paramatma. How can a couple (mitunam) be the cause?

 

(i) The shrutIs say that by knowing one we know everything. So, what is the

justification to say that by knowing a dual (mitunam) we know everything?

 

(iii) Since Piratti is known to be a quality of Perumal, and therefore

dependent upon Him, how can she be co-equal to Perumal?

 

(iv) All pramanas proclaim there is only one Brahmam. What is the

justification that both Perumal and Piratti are Brahmams?

 

(vi) If there are two masters the world will suffer the negative

consequences of dual rulership.

 

Over eight issues of Sri Nrisimha Priya, starting from November 1997, Sriamd

Azhagiya Singar presented the views of poorvacaryas beyond any shadow of

doubt with specific authority that all Sri Vaishnavas accept. HH

established that the fifth view is the preferred position held by not just

Swami Desikan, but by Sri Parasara Bhattar, and Sri Alavandhaar as well.

The shAstric pramANAs cited are from Sruthi, Smrithi, and works of

poorvaacharyaas.

 

The answers can be summarized as follows.

 

* There are pramaNAs from the words of Perumal and Piratti to indicate that

Piratti is an equal partner in the act of creation. Perumal and Piratti are

material (upadana), instrumental (nimitta) and sahakaari (supportive) cause

for this universe.

 

* Since there is shabdha pramaana for Piratti's upadhana karanam there is

no contradiction in saying that knowing a " mitunam " everything is known.

Further, since Piratti is an inseparable characteristic of Perumal, use of

singular noun, such as just " Perumal " , does not exclude Piratti under any

context.

 

* Piratti's subservience to Perumal is due to mutual consent. Nowhere does

the fifth view say that they are equal. Therefore this objection is

baseless.

 

* Even though Piratti is not openly identified as Brahmam by Swami Sri

Deskan, or Swami Emperumanar, or Alavandhar, this view cannot be refuted

when their statements from various texts are assembled into a cohesive view.

 

* For example, the four chapters of Sri Bhashyam establish (i) role of

creation, (ii) absence of invalidation of the role of creation, (iii)

Perumal is the means (upAyam), and (iv) Perumal is the fruit (phalam). The

same four principles are established by the four verses of Catusloki.

Piratti is in every respect suitable to Perumal. Further, there is direct

evidence that She is Brahmam.

 

* Since Piratti's rulership is desirable to Perumal, there can never arise

disagreement between them. Therefore, there is no negative consequences of

dual rulership.

 

What is unique about this grantham is the simple examples the Jeeyar uses to

drive home the esoteric principles that even learned scholars so easily

miss. Let me cite just one such example here that illustrates the reason

for confusion and also escorts us into the right understanding.

 

Consider a farm managed by a husband and wife team. The master and mistress

jointly run all aspects of the farm, including overseeing production, wages,

supervising food distribution, etc. The farm hands understood that both the

master and mistress were there providers, protectors, and controllers.

 

One day one of the farm hands saw the mistress bowing down to the master.

Seeing this he concluded that the mistress is just like any one of the farm

hands because the master is the one and only supreme master of the farm. He

started advocating this to the other farm hands. However, another man

counseled that the mistress's obedience to the master is not the same as

their obedience to the master. Between them it is due to their relationship

as husband and wife. However, with respect to the farm hands, the

mistress's lordship does not diminish due to her obedience to the master.

 

This story is for us to realize that Sri's acquiescence for PerumaaL's

lordship is out of mutual consent. It in no way diminishes her role as

Iswari, creator, protector, and giver of mOksham.

 

Translating this unique grantham is a manumental task for one such as myself

with scant knowledge and skill. However, with the urging of Sri Krishna

Kalale and his promise to help me with Sanskrit slokas adiyEn approached

Srimad Azhagiya Singar for HH's command and blessings. HH readily gave HH's

divine consent. HH wants us to keep in mind that this text is written with

an intent to clearly understand our position on this important issue. It is

not intended to discredit anybody. Please do not use this series to start

arguments with anyone. adiyEn would like to once again put on record that

this series must remain within the confines of Sri Malola Net archives.

Please do not forward it to anyone. If anybody who is not a member is

intersted in a copy please direct them to me.

 

A word of caution at this point is appropriate. Every effort was made to

ensure faithfulness and intent of the original text. But, in spite of best

intentions, there may be some errors. Not all of Srimad Azhagiya Singar's

intent may have come through. We request the readers to attribute such

error to the carelessness of the translator and point them out for

correction. We also ask the serious students to read the original. This

translation is intended only for bhaktas who are not familiar with Tamil.

 

Srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

 

– adiyEn ramanuja dasan

 

p.s.

[1] Future posts on this series will be shorter.

[2] All sanskrit phrases and slokas are in ITRANS format.