VAIKUNTA STHAVAM 2: CACTUS IS NOT A TREE!

[Guest guest]

VAIKUNTA STHAVAM 2: " CACTUS IS NOT A TREE! "

(Anbil Ramaswamy)

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

Anyatra thu kvachana kEchit iha Isa sabdAth

LOka prasiddhim upagamya tham Isam aahuhu /

Thaischa prsiddhi vibhavasya samoolathAyai

GrAhyA trayee, tvyi thu sA achyuthah!sammukheenA//

(VaikunTa Sthavam SlOkam 18)

MEANING:

Oh! Achyutha! (The one who never forsakes His devotees)

As there are some words in some works (kvachana) which describe other deities

(anyatra thu) as " Iswara " (Isa sabdAth) in certain contexts, some people

(kEchith) are led to believe that the word refers to those deities (tham Isam

aahuhu) on the basis of customary usage (lOka prasiddham upagamya) . But even

these people have to depend ultimately (grAhyA) on the Vedas like Rig, Yajur

and SAman. The totality of all these Vedas, however, establish ONLY YOU as

that " Iswara " and none else (sA thu tvayi sam mukheenA) "

 

SRIVATSANKACHAR SWAMI'S COMMENTS:

As reference to Lord Siva is scarce in the Vedas, scriptures such as Saivam,

pAsupatham, KalAmukham, KApAlikam etc resort to Agamas where he is mentioned.

Also, as " NiganTu " (dictionaries) and common parlance mention him, they argue

that words like " Isa " , " Iswaran " , " IsAnan " etc should be taken to refer to

Siva. Drawing inspiration from statements such as " Isa swAmin RudrE cha "

occurring in some KOsas (lexicons), they seek to interpret the following

Vedic statement (Sruthi Vakhyam) as referring to Lord Siva as the " ParamAtma "

" SabDOyam Iswara ithi Sruthi gOcharah san

tvamEva bOdhayathi Natha! NijArtha pOshAth "

But, this very Veda specifically excludes the impermanent (a-sAswatham) jiva

who forsakes (chytham) and points to Lord Narayana alone as eternal

(sAswatham) and unforsaking (A-chyutham) as the " AathmEswaran " - the Lord of

all Jivas.

Therefore indeed, ONLY THOU ART THE ISWARAN "

Vide- " Pathim ViswEswaram Iswaram SAswatham Sivam Achyutham " . Here the word

" Sivam " means " one who is auspicious " and NOT Lord Siva.

 

Some were called " Iswaras " ; Some became " MahEswaras " ; Yet others became even

" LOka mahEswaras " . But, Lord Narayana is declared by Vedas as " BhOkthAram

yajnatapasAm SarvalOka mahEswaram " .

 

This is in amplification of Vedic statement " Tham IswarANAm paramam

mahEswaram " . It is based on this that AzhwAn challenged NaloorAn, when

forced to sign the statement- " Sivam was great " . Actually, he declared that

" Sivam was no doubt great but DrONam was greater than Sivam " (even in the

matter of units of measurement!)

 

In StOtra BAshyam, the AchArya makes this point explicitly:

mahAvriksha samAkhyEva balavan mAna bhAdithA/

mahEswarE mahEndrAdhi samAkhyApi atra nishphalaa//

Meaning:

The prickly Cactus plant with long thorny pear shaped leaves (NagathALi)

goes by the name of " MahA vriksham " . But, it is by no means a tree, not even

a bush but a mere measly shrub. So also, no siddhAntham can succeed by

adopting a mere appellation like " Iswara " as referring to anyone other than

Sriman Narayana.

 

By merely being called a tree, a shrub does not become a tree.

It is futile to call one " ParamAtma " by the mere appellation like

" MahEswara " , 'MahEndra " etc.

 

" SamAkhya " in the above SlOka means " Word in common speech, usage, customary,

courteous expression etc. (ulaga upachAra vazhakku in Tamizh).

 

" This customary usage is no match to and cannot compete with Sruthi " says

Jaimini in " SruthilingAdhikaraNam.

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

VAIKUNTA STHAVAM 3: will follow

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