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".
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |