Sriman nArAyanAya namaha Sri krishnAya namaha Srimathe rAmAnujAya namaha Sri vedAntadesikAya namaha It is interesting to learn that another school of vaishnavam has an inverted concept of Sriman nArAyanA versus Sri Krishna. It is easy to develop a prema on the Bhagavan in one form and identify that form alone as the primary cause of all. That is how all the theistic religions try to distinguish themselves from the others. But taking one and the same form and its manifestations and inverting the historical order of occurrence of its incarnations seems puzzling. In this context adiyen would like to add a few of my thoughts on the views of Gaudiya school from the north from the point of view of the Sri vaishnava school as well as the vedism of the south. This is in response to someone having asked me to examine what Gaudiya school has to say (through Brahma Samhita accepted by that school ) and provide my answers to a few questions. One should understand that vEda vyAsA attempted to reinforce Sriman nArAyana consciousness through Sri krishnAvatAram. The Vedic sampradAyam believes that the God does manifest occasionally on the earth to reestablish the dharma and root out adharma. The vedas portray various gods of ancient times, and the vedAntha unifies the God in Brahmam, and Sri Vaishnavas firmly believe, and even Adi Sankara opines, that it is sufficient to worship Sriman nArAyanA in our times, and identify Sriman nArAyanA as the protective power (vishnu) and satvic Lord capable of granting all the wishes in this life and providing the moksham eventually. This is the sum of all religious thought having a basis in the vedAntha. The schools that accept the vedas and upanishads should not question the primary conclusion expressed here since all have strong foundation in the prAsthAna trayam and the significant basis in the Gita. When Sri Krishna portrays himself to Arjuna in a form that he can easily comprehend and not be afraid of, Sri Krishna portrays himself as Sri nArAyana with chakra, radiant kiritA, etc. He does not protray himself as the Sri Krishna playing the flute. The frightening form that Sri arjuna sees is not a terrible form of Krishna but the viswam and all the elements portrayed in the vedas and upanishads and the authoritative purAnas. Also many lilas of Sri Krishna portray Him as superior to all the limited manifestations such as Indra. And When Sri Krishna was born, his original rupam seen by Devaki was that of Sriman nArAyana as authentically portrayed in the vedam. Thus Sri Bhagavad Gita, and other two in the prasthana trayam are properly interpreted by the Sri vaishnava sampradayam, and this accommodates the vishnu doctrine without being too much in conflict with the vedas and vedanthA. Other sampradayas that have taken Sri Bhagavatham, Gita and a few other minor works as their basis have only limited justification for their existence since any authentic Indian theistic vedic sampradAyam should consider the whole vedas, the itihAsAs, and the purAnas (including bhAgavatam), Gita and the brahma sutras and try to answer a few strong questions and try to establish themselves after resolving many conundrums posed by the knowledge starting with the vedas. Sri Vaishnava sampradAyam attempts to accomplish this difficult task and has resolved the difficulties by reinforcing the concrete tenets of Gita, vedas, and brahma sutras. The brahma sutras provide a basis for taking the vedantha and its unitary belief in brahman as the material and efficient cause of all; the Gita provides a basis for seeing Sri Krishna as the brahmam that manifests Itself as Sriman nArAyanA when Sri Arjuna wants a rupam that is not frightening; and the vedas and repeated incantations of 'Harihi Om' in it indicate that the protecter be invoked to safeguard all the great things we have. Though Sri vaishnavAs worship Sriman nArAyAna as the sole object of desire, His avatAras are not discarded; the dasAvatAras and more are accepted as the physical expansions of the Lord and many a time the objects of our prema. In this context, the authentic vedic sampradAyam is also not left high and dry: we do not discard the vedas since in its core it is polytheistic. The vedas do form the core of knowledge, and Sri vaishnavas would like to keep it as the basis of their knowledge. Many a debate among the mimAmsakAs tried to resolve the meaning of polytheism in the vedas, and they have concluded that such multifarious worship is not needed, and hence one should put our faith in the brahmam(atAto brahmajigyAsA), sat (ekam sat vipra bahuta vadanti), and the Protector. In specific, the mimAmsAs have tried to identify what the brahmam closely corresponds to: is it indra, agni, sUrya, sOma, kuberA, yamA, varuna, etc. Here is the secret from the exegesis. These deities are limited by karma and hence they have limited sovereignty. We are left to consider Siva or nArAyanA as possible limiting forms of the brahmam. According to Scriptures Siva or Rudra terminate in chaturmukha who in turn is expressed by equivalent terms hiranyagarbha, prajApati, and svayambhu. Only Sriman nArayana does not seem to terminate in other attributed limited manifestations. Thus it is proper to identify Sriman nArAyanA as the brahmam. This is the Isvara gyanA taught in the Sri vaishnava exegesis. In this context, we can deduce from the fact that Sri Krishna reduces his cosmic form to divine Sriman Narayana (as seen by Arjuna) and manifests himself as Arjuna's friend for a long time, and as the charioteer in the battlefield, Sri Krishna does not come before Sriman nArAyana, but it is other way around. At least this is what mostly accepted in the vedic circles. In this context, it is difficult for me to accept some tenets of Gaudiya vaishnavam. One of its followers provoked me specifically by asking me to provide Sri vaishnavas' answers to the following: 1) Gayatri is manifested from flute of Sri Krishna. 2) divya mangala vigraha of the Lord is impersonal/formless brahman. 3) Above Sriman Narayana's Vaikuntha is Sri Krishna's Goloka. 4) Shiva is transformation of Vishnu for the purpose of destruction. 5) Maha Vishnu or Narayana in ShirAbdi sayAnam a portion of a portion of Krishna. My answer to questions of this sort should be obvious to the reader from what has been said so far and what remains to be said in the following. The very purpose of mahAbharatam, Gita and rAmAyanA is to illustrate vedic concepts and to reinforce our faith in the protective aspect of the Lord manifested as Sri rAma and Sri krishna. Sri rAmAvatAram illustrates the upanishadic principles such as mAthru devo bhava, pithru devo bhava, AchArya devo bhava, satyam vada, dharman chara, etc. Sri rAmAvatAram also illustrates caranAgati and the power of Sri pAtukA. Thus Sri vaishnavas believe in the patukAs of the Lord (exemplified in the chatAri) as well as those of the achAryas. And Sri vedAntha Desika chose Lord's pAdukas and wrote pAdukA sahasram to win the competition started by a miscreant. The role of mAhAbharatam is to demonstrate power of the Lord through Sri krishnAvatAram. ( For illustrative purposes as well as to establish a dharma, krishnAvatAram was needed ). But some faithful reversed some roles by propounding contradictory thoughts through something titled as brahma samhita. But this literary freedom is contradictory to the main beliefs associated with krishnAvatAram. For some it seems to be difficult to understand the order of the cosmic expansion portrayed in the Gita. But the vedam is clear. It says: 'nArAyanAya vidmahe vasudevAya dimahe tanno vishnu prachodAyAt' And vedam also sees the Lord in colors of the opposite camps: 'rutagum satyam param brahma purusham **krishna pingalam** Urdvaretam virubAksham viswa rUpAyavai namo namaha'. Srimad Bhagavatam would amplify this Sriman nArAyanA-Sri vAsudevA aspect by mentioning the same concept in two different ways as follows: nArAyana parA vedA devA nArAyanAngajAha nArAyana parA lokA nArAyana para makhaha nArAyana paro yogo nArAyAna param tapaha nArAyana param gyanam nArAyana para gatihi (Bhagavatam: 2:5.15-16) vAsudeva parA vedA vasudeva parA makhaha vAsudeva parA yogA vasudeva parah kriyaha vAsudeva param gyAnam vAsudeva param tapaha vAsudeva paro dharmo vasudeva para gatihi (Bhagavatam: 1:2.28-29) Srimad Bhagavatam sees the Lord both as Sriman nArAyana and as Sri vAsudeva -- in equal breath -- just like the vedam would. The rishi does not extend this word play by mentioning Sri Krishna in the same fashion. Is Sri Krishna the Sri vAsudeva we are talking about? The main vedam does not talk about this explicitly; but the upanishads, purAnAs and bhAgavatam are clear about this. In fact Sri Krishna gAyatri from the tripAd mahAnArAyanopanishad can be stated as: "dAmodarAya vidmahe vAsudevAya dimahi tanna krishna prachchodayAt.' Sri vAsudevA is identified with the creator mentioned in the Purusha sukhtam and nArAyana sukhtam by the following slokam in Bhagavatam: paSyantyado rupam adabhra cakshushA sahasra padoru bhujAnanAdbhutam sahasra mUrdha SravanAkshi nAsikam sahasra maulyambara kuNdallollasat (Bhagavatam 1:3.4) The vedic obsession with sahasra sIrsha purusha is evident here as well. Moreover, Sri Krishna is portrayed as purAvatAram in the following slokam: rushayo manavo deVa manu putra mahaujasah kalAh sarve harereva sa prajapatayah smritAha ete camSa kalAh pumsaha krishnas tu bhagavAn svayam indrari vyAkulam lokam mridayanti yuge yuge (Bhagavatam 1:3.27-28) Thus when performing hArati to Sri Krishna we say 'itam vishnur vichakrame tretA nitate patam samuta masya bAgum sure'. However it is mentioned no where in the purAnAs or vedas that Sriman nArAyana is an expansion of Sri Krishna. Coming to the minor points, the slokas from the Bhagavatam can be interpreted as follows: it illustrates the KrishnAvatAram as purnAvatAram while comparing the mortals and demigods with various auspicious amsams of the Lord. And Bhagavatam unequivocally says 'Krishnas tu bhagavAn svayam' - Sri Krishna is sAkshAt Bhagavan ( Sriman nArAyana and Sri vAsudeva ). The slokam does not say the opposite - 'Sri vAsudeva is sakshat Krishna.' Moreover we can straightforwardly interpret that the veda and the gayatri mantram embedded in it are about the Lord. When we get past the internal inconsistencies of the vedAs, and see all the multifarious demigods in it as all refering to any one of the sahasra lakshanAs of the Lord, we can take the vedas as the unitary knowledge revealing Sriman nArayAna and Sri vAsudeva in its core. Sri mahAbhAratam, Gita, and Srimad bhAgavatam illustrate the purnAvatram of the Lord in the form of Sri Krishna. So the order of cosmic expansion is clear. Many other discordant interpretations of other schools of vaishnavam can be easily disposed of simply as faith or as unnecessary inversion of facts taught in the vedas and purAnAs. But their faith in Sri Krishna is respectable since He is certainly the purnAvatAram we have admired and worshipped for several millenia. deva na: subamAtanotu dAsan V. Varadarajan ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Would you Help a Child in need? It is easier than you think. Click Here to meet a Child you can help. http://us.click.yahoo.com/sTR6_D/I_qJAA/i1hLAA/VkWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: SriRangaSri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |