Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Vishnu in Rig Vedam

From the Bhakti List Archives

Visu9 • October 17, 2002 


In a message dated 10/17/2002 8:36:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, mani@alum.calberkeley.org writes:

> I raise the question: why do you think Ramanuja makes this
> notable omission? Certainly not because he was unaware of them,
> because no good Vaidika would be ignorant of the Rg Veda. It
> also cannot be because he found them lacking in meaning, 
> because he cites a few of them in other contexts. 
> 
> To rephrase: if Vishnu paratva were so easily established 
> based on these Rg Vedic hymns, why did Ramanuja turn 
> elsewhere?

/Om namO nArAyaNAya |

/namastE Shri MaNi. It is not my intention to generate more controversies by my postings. But I thought that I will take another approach to the intriguing question you pose. 

I believe that words have a definite meaning, even though they can be conveniently identified in given situations. Let me explain with an example.

Take a point whose coordnate is 2 in 1-dimensional space, that is a line, say, for convenience, the x-axis. Call it P in 3-space. Now let us go to the plane, say the (x,y) plane. Then the point P has to have two coordinates say, (2,0). Now 2 is not the same as (2, 0). If we go to 3-space, the situation is no better. It is now (2, 0, 0). Hoever it is all the same point P. Thus 2 can be identified with  its image (2, 0) provided one UNDERSTANDS that it is an identification for certain purposes only. For example, the identification is useless, if we want to find the distance betwen P and another point Q USING COORDINATES. We need the 0 in (2,0) to calculate the distance. The number 2 standing alone is useless. 

The same applies to names of our Gods. We identify Shri /vishNu with Shri /nArAyaNA. That is fine, as long as one knows that /nArAyaNA has more dimensions than Shri /vishNu. For the fact is that ShrI vishNu is one of the /AditYas, and the gItA describes Him to be the Lord Himself AMONG THE /AdItyAs. "Among the /AdityAs I am /vishNu."  Now notice that this statement of the Lord gives the identification also, yet it makes it clear that /vishNu is limited in scope than "I" in that statement.

Because the /rig vEdA takes the stand that the /AdityAs are not much diferent from other forms like /varuNA and /indrA, /shRi vishNu's role is equated to that of /varuNA etc. The /vedAs move easily from one space to another. 

Each time a certain mapping is used for identification freely. And the highest map seems to be the mapping called /mahat. Thus using functional notation, /mahat(/vishNu) is quite differnt from /vishNu in terms of power and glory. The same applies to /nArAyaNA and /mahat(nArAyaNA). 

I humbly claim that there is no comparison between /ShrI vishNu and /shrI nArAyaNA if we restrict the powers to the bare meaning of words. Of course, we will not do it in practice. It is only for clarifying ideas to avoid pitfalls. 

It seems that this approach to the names of Gods begins to change immediately after the times of ShrI /nigam/Anta mahA/dESikar. It is obvious that there were strong historic reasons for that subtle change. 

/ShrI rAmAnujA belonged to earlier times. He would barely mention the name of /vishNu in discussing the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being is clearly /mahat(/nArAyaNan). Here, the /nArAyaNa sUktam comes in support of the mapping. And so, it is acceptable in practice that the Supreme being is /nArAyaNan. /vishNu can never come near /nArAyaNA in this sense. That is, using the barest minimum of meanings. The same applies to /purush/OttamA. Notice with intrigue that in /patanjalI's /yOgA, /mahat itself is an image of the pair (/purushA, pra/kruti). In that sense one can go farther and claim that the Supreme Being is /purush/OttamA. 

Anybody who can be mapped into the same image, namely /mahat(nArAyaNan) is also a Supreme Being. It is like this: If f(a) and g(b) are equal in the same codomain, and if  a is identified with f(a) and b with g(b) then a and b both have similar, if not identical, properties. The only question is to study the maps f and g. 

I believe that /shrI rAmAnujA took this approach. I do not know if he was concerned with another map like g. In practice, a map f may be more useful in daily life, and g may be needed only to handle specific problems. That seems to be consistent with the fact that /srImaN nArAyaNan wields the highest executive power. 

Even the /mahA/nArAyaNa upa/nishat accords very high place to /sOmA --- a fact that many memebers fascinated with the Sun seem to ignore. In that /upa/nishat, Lord /sOmA seems to outweigh the Sun.

/vantanam.

/nalan/tarum collai nAn kaNtu/koNtEn; /nArAyaNA ennum nAmam.


[ I have to say that there are so many factual errors in this post 
  and so many things in dissonance with Sri Ramanuja's own writings
  that I initially wanted to send it back to Visu for revision.
  However, I felt it best to approve it since others may be harboring
  similar thoughts. Vishnu properly refers to Narayana alone, and
  Ramanuja does not hesitate to use the name Vishnu often.  The equation
  of Vishnu with Narayana is made in the Vedas itself. "nArAyaNAya
  vidmahe vAsudevAya dhImahi; tan no vishNuH pracodayAt" -- the Vishnu
  Gayatri equates Narayana, Vasudeva, and Vishnu.  Yes, it is true
  that Narayana-Vishnu also takes an avatara as one of the tri-mUrtis
  (vide Vishnu Purana 1.2.66). However, in the same Purana, the name
  "Vishnu" is exalted as being of tremendous spiritual significance
  and indeed is the principle epithet used to describe the Supreme 
  Being Himself. So no distinction is ultimately made between Vishnu and
  Narayana.  These names are also not used differently by Sri Vedanta
  Desika, as Visu suggests. There is no evidence to substantiate such
  a claim.

  All in all, the term "Narayana" is preferred by our Alvars and acharyas 
  because it is a name most pregnant with meaning ("That which in all
  beings rest/find their source"). This, however, does not mean that "Vishnu"
  or "Vasudeva" are bereft of meaning or cannot denote the Supreme Being. 
  The latter also principally signify the omnipresence of the Supreme
  Being, just as the word Narayana does.  This is in stark contrast to
  a word like Indra, which simply means king, or Siva, which just means
  auspicious, and which is a rather generic term.

  I once again beseech members to not speculate wildly and come to totally
  unfounded conclusions such as the above. -- Moderator ]


--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/