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 |