You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Oct 2003

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00094 Oct 2003

 
Oct 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha
This is an excellent point. Thanks to Shriram Swamin. It has already 
been figured out by our ancenstors(including the dvaita, advaita and 
vishistadvaita and certain other philosophers), that, per 
vedas, "Narayana Parambrahma, tatvan Narayana para:" i.e Narayana 
is "the" shabda that best describes the brahmam. As Shriram Swamin 
had mentioned, the problem arises when we debate on "who" is the 
supreme. It is a simple fact, that we miss all the while, in most of 
our discussions. Brahmam as we know manifests himself in so many 
forms and acts as the inner controller of all those. So, who is the 
supreme? obviously has an answer: "Brahmam" - as taittriyam says -
"sa eko brahmana ananda: sayaschaayam purushe! sa eka: sa ya evam 
vith" and so on. So, no one doubts on who is supreme as there is an 
obvious answer. Now, as we know, we human beings(exceptions 
excluded;) need some form or other to worship. As Swami Nammazhwar 
put in his pasurams, "Uyavara uyar nalam udayavan evan avan", he 
never mentions the name of this brahmam nor the form of this brahmam 
in his first ten of his magnum opus - Thiruvaimozhi. To me, Swami 
Nammazhwar is no less than the vedic seers, in fact, he is better 
than them in all the ways(personal opinion). But, as he moves on with 
his pasurams, his pasurams reveal that he has been blessed with the 
dhrushti(vision) of the brahmam himself, in the "brahmam's" most 
liked form, i.e the Narayana, Hari, the dasavataras etc. While all 
these manifestations of brahmam i.e from Narayana to Kalki, are 
treated at par, the other manifestations like Shiva, Brahma etc 
haven't attracted Swami like that of the former ones. The reason 
being, either 1) obvious - unlike one time creation or destruction, 
the sustainance form is the best revealed, or, 2) the reason is 
unknown. Even in the last pasuram, he says "avaavaracchoozh, ariyai, 
ayanai, aranai alatri". That is, he recognizes all the three major 
manifestation, for he sees only the paramatma in all the three, but, 
he still keeps the "ari" at the first of the sequel, due to his 
affection. The sustainance form namely, the Vishnu and his vyuha, 
vibhava, archa forms are more in number and have attracted the most, 
in those times. And hence, this form is more praised, often, than 
others. But, a true philosopher(like all our acharyas) would never 
deny, that it is the same paramatma that dwells in "every-thing". So, 
back to square one, one of the reasons for worshipping Narayana is 
more out of the affection, will, attraction, one could name it 
whatever, to the name itself(thirumanthram), that defines the bond 
between us, the humans, and the supreme. This is one of the reasons 
why, our acharyas never instructed us to strictly follow them, but 
have "recommended" following these ideas. And to me(personal opinion 
again), following our acharyas is probably the best, for they have 
given us the best out of "their" experience and based on the 
experience of "their acharyas". So, why even bother whether Narayana 
or Siva or Brahma is the supreme. The supreme is one, while the best 
form he portrays(based on the avataras, vedic seers' statements(the 
most mentioned form in the shrutis), smruthis, azhwars texts and our 
acharya granthams) is Narayana i.e the one who has the Shankha, 
Chakram, Kreeta Kundalam, Peeta Vastram, Koustubam and the 
Chathurbhujam. Well, one may argue that there are similar things that 
could be mentioned in favor of the manifestation of Rudra too, but, 
that is probably a form that was just mentioned in vedas that does 
not come with so many leelas, does not come with such a beautiful 
form and does not have so many archa roopams as we see for the 
Narayana form and hence probably fails to attract many. And hence, 
anyone but Narayana, would only be "next" liked(for the most) to him. 
All said, I have nothing against any other manifestations starting 
from brahma till the agni the lowest of the devathas, for the inner 
controller is still our supreme being. 

To answer one of Shri Kasturi Rangan's question: Yes. We, as we claim 
ourselves as Vaishnavas, are more interested in the Vishnu roopam and 
hence the Vishnu paratvam is completely a subjective view of us of 
the vedas. But the point is, given a chance, we could convince all 
others, who are interested in a debate like say tharkam vadam whatever
(but with basis being the vedas), that the Narayana form is worth 
this most affection and liking as compared to "any other" form that 
we are aware of from the shrutis, and hence, though at this point, 
one cannot declare the Vishnu Paratvam as an objective view of vedas, 
we(if not, I) "believe" it is an objective view and is a matter of 
time to let people get convinced about this, as they come to know 
this tradition better and better in the future.


My 2 cents - worth or not is upto what the reader could get from it:)

Please forgive me for my ignorance and mistakes.

Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim

Adiyen,
Ramanuja Dasan

--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, purohit@xxxx wrote:
> 
> Dear Bhagavatars, some of us seem to be missing the point on this 
discussion
> on the Vedas and the Supremacy of Narayana. No one is doubting the
> "supremacy" of Narayana - seeing that Narayana means the "ground of 
all
> being" - therefore the name in itself is self-evidently absolute. 
The
> problem arises when we enter into this Puranic discussion about who 
is
> supreme - like debating who is the president is it A or is it B. 
The Vedas
> declare "khalvidam brahma" "sarvam vai rudra", "tvameva (ganesha) 
sarvam
> khalvidam brahmasi", "narayana evedagam sarvam". 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list