Re: A Question for Sri Vidyasankar
From the Bhakti List Archives
• September 11, 1997
Dear Sri Jagannath Bharadwaj, To the best of my knowledge, advaita AcAryas have not entered into a discussion along the lines raised by you at all. From a grammatical viewpoint, just as Siva, gaNeSa etc. have etymological meanings, as auspiciousness, lord of the gaNas, etc. the name nArAyaNa also has such a meaning, i.e. support/refuge of all men. In other words, in the Sanskrit language, these names can all serve as common nouns. So it is not as if some are exclusively common nouns and some exclusively proper nouns. In the vedArthasangraha, SrI rAmAnujAcArya draws attention to the taittirIya AraNyaka, and says that nArAyaNa represents the cause, while Siva, indra and others represent the level of effects. If I remember the text right, he also includes the name vishNu in the level of effects. As far as the advaitin is concerned, there can be no objection to this statement, but it should be pointed out that in advaita, the ultimate cause is the nirguNa brahman. We say that name and form do not characterize the parabrahman, so that anything with form is in the level of effects. Therefore, while advaitins will also say that nArAyaNa is the cause, they de-emphasize the form, i.e. the four-armed, sleeping-on-AdiSesha, holding-conch-and-discus form is still a form, and therefore on the level of effects. According to us, the essential nature of nArAyaNa is not all this, but pure consciousness. Now, the essential nature of any jIva is also pure consciousness, and realization of this constitutes moksha. Moreover, this pure consciousness is beyond name or form, so it does not matter much to advaitins whether It is called nArAyaNa or sadASiva. Both names refer to the same reality, but different sages call it by different names. That is why, philosophical debates aside, almost any advaita teacher will say that the essentially formless One takes on form, in order to bless the devotee. The only thing to remember is that this taking on of form is not an ultimately "real" event, so that it does not limit the Lord at all. Regards, Vidyasankar
- Next message: Ramprasad Santhanakrishnan: "piLLaiyAr"
- Previous message: Jaganath.Bharadwaj_at_nrecatao.nreca.org: "A Question for Sri Vidyasankar"
- In reply to: Jaganath.Bharadwaj_at_nrecatao.nreca.org: "A Question for Sri Vidyasankar"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]