Search:
Bhakti List Archives

(no subject)

From the Bhakti List Archives

Anand Srinivasan • September 18, 1998 


Dear Friends, 

There was this strand of discussion on Sep 1, that was not 
followed up fully ( or maybe i missed it). could the members 
please answer these questions raised by mani on this 
date? i enclose a somewhat detailed insert as this was a while ago. 
anand


>Permit me to play devil's advocate in the rest of this
>email.
>
>>  "pirAtti" is also a "vishesanA" for nArAyaNA 
> 
>This is agreed. 
>
>>   ie. perumAL is the sarIrI & pirAtti is sarIrA for Him. 
>
>Let us also accept this for now.
>
>>   aprudhak siddha viseshanA exists between
>>   the two. Since perumAL is present as visEshyA & pirAtti as His
>>   aprudhak siddha visEshanA , both of them can be referred by a single
>>   word . This resolves all the "confusions" . "ekatvam" is not lost.
>
>Why then, is not ekatva lost if caturmukha-brahma is also taken
>as part of the "ekatva", since since caturmukha-brahma is
>also a viseshya in apRthak-siddhi relation to Brahman?
>
>pirATTi's viseshaNatva does not automatically lead to 
>ekatva of the jagat-kAraNa, because this could equally
>apply to any jIvAtmA in Brahman's SarIra, or worse, 
>to prakRti itself.
>
>>   But , pirAtti is also Brahman ( Jagad kAranatvam) & belongs to
>>   category of IswarA ie. she is neither a jIvAtmA nor prakruti, but
>>   Controller of all jIvAtmAs & achit . She is also "upAyA" & "upEyA".
>>   for baddha jIvAtmAs . 
>
>The supposition is that SrI and nArAyaNa are distinct tattva-s
>related in a viseshaNa-viseshyA relation. This being the case,
>the same objection from above can be applied here, that this does 
>not necessarily mean that SrI must have upAyatva. If furthermore,
>SrI is in the ISvara class as a separate tattva, how at the same
>time can she be SarIra to nArAyaNa? In other words, if the Lord 
>is already Infinite, how can she also be Infinite? Can there be
>two Ultimate Infinites?
>