Question - Ontological Status of Sree

[Guest guest]

Dearest bhaagawataas,

 

I think this issue has been discussed earlier in this net, but I will

raise it anyway, since I would like a better understanding on the

subject. E-mails may be posted directly to my address or to the e-

mail group depending on whether the moderator feels that this topic

is a repetition.

 

Q: What is the ontological status of Sree (Lakshmi - thaayaar)?

 

If it be accepted that Sree is another chetana " belonging " to the

paramaatma category, then we are left with two paramaatmas - the Lord

Himself and His consort. If Sree is a special chetana that is

neither a paramaatma and jeevatma but some other aatma, then we have

to accept three classes of chetanas, which I am not sure is supported

by the scriptures. If we accept that Sree is a jeevaatma, then the

single-versus-multiple-paramaatma problem is resolved. But, another

problem arises -- how can she become the primal reason for the origin

of the universe (jagat-kaaraNa vastu) and also the primary fruit of

salvation (siddha-upEya).

 

I have another theory (may not be original). If anything makes sense,

it is solely attributed to my aacharyas and all bhaagawatas that have

influenced me. The erroneous portions are mine.

 

Sree and Narayana are not two, but one, in the ontological sense.

Sree is ever-present with Narayana, just as His other qualities

reside in Him all the time. Sree is the most important aspect or

mode of Narayana, more important than even any of His other

distinguishing characteristics (swaroopa lakshaNas) such as satyam,

jnaanam, etc, or his intrinsic nature (swabhaavam - kalyANa gunams)

such as jnana, bala, aishwarya, sowsheelya, et al, or even the two

universes He controls: the material world (leela vibhuti) and the

transcendental world (nithya vibhuti). Sree is the most important

distinguishing characteristic (swaroopa-niroopaka-dharmam) of the

Lord. Her " sole " purpose is to qualify Narayana, who loses identity

if she is not present. In a sense she is more powerful than

Narayana, since she defines Him. So, if you ask Narayana: Who are

you?, he would reply: " Sri-ah-pathi. " Not " Narayana " or " Sarva-

sheshi " or even " Jagat-kaaraNa " lest we might think that He can be

without Sree. All the other epithets and names are only secondary.

He cannot be without Sree - his most important distinguishing

attribute -, just as much as Sree cannot be without Him - who else

would she qualify? No wonder she is ever present with Him and He

with Her everywhere. Remember Ramanuja's theory of all objects

(dravyas) being vishistha?

 

Now, comes the question: Is she a chetana or an achetana? She is a

chetana, but she is a special chetana whose only purpose is to

qualify (define) the Lord. Is she a jeevaatma or a paramaathma?

Moot point. Sree, unlike Bhu and NeeLa, is not a jeevaatma. She is

not a paramaathma either (at least not all by Herself), but serves

the most important job of qualifying that paramaatma. Since Sree

without Narayana is as real as a hare with horns, when we talk about

paramaathma, we have to say Sreeman-Narayana. So, in that sense,

there is only one paramaathma, albeit " composed " of two chetanas, one

of whom is the qualifier and the other the qualified. Is Narayana

the paramaathma? Only as long as He is qualified by Sree. So,

neither Narayana by Himself - (even if that is possible), nor Sree

can be individually called paramaathma, but the two together, yes.

 

Now come the secondary questions:

Is she jagat-kaaraNa vastu? Yes, in as much as the Lord is, because

after all, the Lord cannot exist without Sree. Is she is the upEya?

Same answer as before. Actually the jagat-kaaraNa vastu is

Sriyahpati, and so is the upEya. Is Sree a mother? Yes, as desired

by the Lord and Herself. Will she serve as a mediatrix between the

salvation-seeking-soul and " Her Lord " ? Yes, again by mutual consent.

 

Does this analysis - or loud rambling - make sense? Surely, there

would be hundreds of errors (even in this small a note), but I have

to admit that I have NOT studied the granthas under sadaacharyas. I

request knowledgeable members to shed light on this.

 

adiyen, murali kadambi.