[Prev][Next][Index]
Vishnu Purana (was Re: The Theism of the Upanishads)
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.UU.NET
-
Subject: Vishnu Purana (was Re: The Theism of the Upanishads)
-
From: vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)
-
Date: 22 Jun 1994 01:37:47 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
-
References: <2tnkn0$f5p@pdx1.world.net>
[I have to reply in parts to Mani's previous postings, because of the
protracted nature of this discussion. I have tried to partition my reply
according to the continuity of thought in each topic. ]
In the discusssion we have been having on Advaita and Visishtadvaita,
certain themes stand out. Mani maintains that Advaita borrows a lot from
non-Upanishadic sources. {To his credit, he acknowledges that
Visishtadvaita borrows non-Vedic elements too, when he says that Advaita
borrows more than Visishtadvaita does.} Specifically, the Advaitic
definition of the Nirguna Brahman, according to Visishtadvaita and
consequently according to Mani, is completely wrong, fundamentally flawed
and nothing but delusion. More specifically, it is claimed that Advaita
has borrowed the concept of Nirguna Brahman from Buddhism, and is
therefore nothing but Buddism in disguise. In other words, though Advaita
is perceived to be the dominant philosophy of the Vedanta, it is Buddhism
masquerading as Vedanta.
Mani's contention is that Brahman is always Saguna. There exists a
tradition of conceiving this Highest Brahman as Saguna, which is traced to
Bodhayana, one of the early commentators on the Vedanta, whose work is
however available only in quotations from later writers. Therefore, the
argument goes, the Vedantic Nirguna Brahman which is the Advaita
tradition, is a borrowal from Buddhism which can specifically be traced to
Gaudapada (6th-7th cent. A.D.), paramaguru (guru's guru) of Sankara, if
not earlier.
I, on the other hand, maintain that Nirguna Brahman as the Highest ideal
of Vedanta goes back to the Upanishads themselves. The Upanishadic
description of Brahman as Neti, neti is interpreted by Sankara to mean
that no determining characteristic (nirviSesha) can be asserted of this
Brahman, except that It exists. In other words, by definition Brahman is
Existence. Therfore, It is the only eternal. The Upanishads themselves
also support this interpretation when they say things like "sadeva ....
AsIt" - Existence alone was, and define this "sat" as Brahman. As regards
the supposed borrowal from Buddhism, I shall deal with it in a subsequent
posting of mine.
Furthermore, Mani tries to suggest indirectly that Sankara and his
disciple Suresvara slip into the practice of calling Vishnu the Supreme
Brahman, inspite of themselves. Now Vishnu is popularly identified as
Saguna, with "ananta kalyana gunas" - infinite auspicious attributes.
Therefore, even though Sankara maintains Nirguna Brahman to be the
Highest, he must have been himself a Vaishnava. Sankara's bhashya on the
Bhagavat Gita is cited here as testimony. Thus -
I - I do not deny the Vedic predilection towards Vaishnavism.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mani - Thank you. This is the primary point I was trying to make, and
that too, only in response to your claim that the preeminence of
Vishnu in Vedantic thought (both Sankara's and Ramanuja's) was
without cause.
Firstly, I never ever stated that the preeminence of Vishnu in Vedantic
thought was without cause. Mani is reading more in my statements than
there is in them. Secondly, Sankara's usage of the word "Vishnu" is in
keeping with the spirit of the Vedic tradition. Vishnu means
all-pervading. For Sankara, Vishnu and Brahman denote the same
philosophical entity - the Brahman, which is ultimately Nirguna, but is
Saguna when exercising the mysterious power of Maya. For that matter,
Sankara's frequent use of the word "Iswara" can be equally well cited to
"prove" that he is Saiva. On the other hand, at least one of the specific
aims of Ramanuja's philosophy is to find Upanishadic sanction for Agamic
thought, specifically the Pancharatra tradition. In the process, the
description of Brahman as Nirguna is diluted to mean "above the three
gunas of sattva, rajas and tamas." Therefore, I have always maintained
that Vedic Vaishnavism is one thing, Pancharatra and Bhagavata Vaishnavism
is another. I shall elaborate on this below.
Mani's view of Sankara's Vaishnavism is sought to be buttressed by -
Mani - Look at his [Sankara's] comments on a verse from the Gita:
6.47. Among even these yogins, he who, full of faith,
worships Me, his inner self, absorbed in Me---him I
deem the most integrated.
Commentary: Among all the yogins who meditate on the
Rudras, Adityas, etc, he who 'worships Me'---serves Me
with his inner self or whose inner self is absorbed in
Me, Vasudeva, and who is full of faith, i.e., who is a
believer---is considered by Me the foremost or the best
of the integrated.
Sankara goes much further than the text in saying that
exclusive devotion to Vasudeva makes one the foremost of
yogins.
I - Isn't Vasudeva Samkara among Rudras, etc.? The enumeration of
Rudras, Adityas etc. is just to draw the reader's attention to
this.
Mani - You're really stretching it here, Vidya. The enumeration of the
Rudras, Adityas, etc., is to show how inconsequential they are in
comparison to Vasudeva.
Really, Mani? If this is the view you attribute to Sankara, what quarrel
do you have with him in the first place? The use of "inconsequential" and
"exclusive" suggests sectarian narrowness. This is the first time I have
seen such sectarianism being attributed to Sankara. In any case, it is
amusing to see that Sankara who has been claimed till now by the Saiva and
Sakta sectarians, is also being claimed to suggest a Vaishnava
sectarianism. Which only goes to prove my point that Sankara is above all
sectarian considerations, so much so that each sect of 'Hinduism' finds
statements conducive to its own world-view in his writings.
What exactly do I mean by "Vedic predilection towards Vaishnavism"? To be
sure, the Vedas (which includes the Upanishads) mention and extol Vishnu
as the Supreme God. Among the auxiliary texts to the Vedas are the
Itihasa-PurANas. The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are the two Itihasas and
the Vishnu PurANa is one of the major Puranas of the Vedic tradition. Let
us see what the Vishnu Purana has to say. (Ref. :- A. K. Banerjee - The
Vishnu Purana and the Bhagavata Purana - in History of Philosophy Eastern
and Western, vol. I, edited by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan)
In the beginning of this purANa, Maitreya, the student asks ParASara, his
guru, to explain the ultimate truth about the origin, sustenance,
regulation and end of this jagat. ParASara replies, "The world originated
from Vishnu; it is in Him that this jagat is samsthitam; He is the sole
sustainer and controller of the world, and in truth, the world is He." He
goes on to say "Hiranyagarbha, Hari, Samkara, Vasudeva, Siva, Achyuta,
Narayana, Brahma and all such significant divine names are applied to Him
and Him alone." Furthermore, the Veda-vadins, the Vedanta-vadins,
Vaishnavas, Saivas, Pancharatrins, Bhagavatas, Pasupatas, Yogins, and all
other sects really worship the same Vishnu, though in different names and
forms, and all exclusiveness, sectarian bigotry and narrowness are born
out of ignorance.
Well and fine. This is perfectly neutral and acceptable to Vedantins of
all stripes and colors. Important to note is the fact that even in the
Vishnu Purana, Vaishnavas, Pancharatrins and Bhagavatas are identified as
different sects. I would suggest that these Vaishnavas are the Vedic
Vaishnavas, thereby identifiable as separate from the other two sects.
Similarly by Saivas are probably meant Vedic Saivas, thereby distinct from
Pasupatas who are also Siva worshippers, but non-Vedic in origin. The
Saivas and Vaishnavas are distinguishable from Veda-vadins only by
assuming that the Veda-vadins are the ritualists. Therefore, by
Veda-vadins and Vedanta-vadins, the Purana probably meant the predecessors
of the later PUrva mImAmsA and Vedanta (uttara mImAmsA) systems
respectively. A bold assertion could be probably made about the identity
of the Vedanta-vadins. Since Advaita was the dominant tradition of Vedanta
till Ramanuja's time, by Vedanta-vadins are meant the pre-Samkaran
Advaitins. How far is this statement valid?
ParASara goes on to describe Vishnu and the world-process in more detail.
Vishnu is the Absolute Spirit. It is the sole ground for this
world-process, which passes through cycles of creation, development and
dissolution. This Absolute Spirit is IN ITSELF above the highest concepts
of human understanding, without any form or color, or any other
determining characteristic, without any special predicate in terms of
which It can be positively conceived, wihout any temporal qualities such
as birth, change, death, decay or destruction. This Absolute Spirit is
infinite, eternal, changeless, effortless, attributeless. Nothing can be
said of It except that It Eternally Exists. This is the ultimate nature of
Vishnu - "tad Vishno: paramam padam."
Maitreya now asks the classic doubt of all Vedanta - how is it that this
changeless, attributeless, indeterminate, Vishnu manifests Itself? Is the
world-origination an active creation? If so, how can Vishnu be effortless?
Origination of the world implies change. Then how is Vishnu changeless?
ParASara's answer is also classic of Vedanta - the question is above human
understanding; it is due to an inscrutable, inexplicable power called
mAyA-Sakti, which makes possible what is logically impossible to our
discursive knowledge. The rest of the Purana goes on to explain the
development and dissolution of the world in generic Samkhya terms, similar
to the Bhagavat Gita, and the various incarnations in human form.
Now Mani, don't you see exactly the Nirguna Brahman of Advaita in the
description of the Vishnu Purana? Do you see the absence in the ultimate
description of Vishnu as possessing splendor, bliss, jyoti, and other
auspicious qualities, as well as the absence of a description as
"satyakama, satyasankalpa" etc.? Do you see the inscrutability, the
inexplicability, the "anirvachaniya" nature of Maya, exactly as in
Advaita? If Maya were not inexplicable, why does ParASara hesitate to say
that it is a real power of Vishnu? Why doesn't he say that manifestation
and world-origination is a conscious act of will as you would have it?
Also, do you see why ParASara is counted in the Advaita tradition as one
of its earliest gurus? Do you see a very simple reason for Sankara to
quote the Vishnu Purana - that it presents Nirguna Brahman (Vishnu) as the
highest truth? Most importantly, do you see the existence of the major
tenets of Advaita prior to Sankara, prior to Gaudapada, and completely
independent of Buddhism?
According to your interpretation of Sankara's Gita-bhashya, exclusive
devotion to Vasudeva is stressed to show how inconsequential the others
are. This is totally alien to Advaita, though it fits in well with
sectarian Vaishnavism. Also, the Vishnu Purana's use of the term vAsudeva
is different, and fits in with Advaita rather than modern Vaishnavism. It
is not vasudevasya suta: vAsudeva: but ya: deva: sarve vasati iti
vAsudeva: - He who is immanent eternally in all. I am sure you will have
no problem in accepting the Immanence of Vasudeva in the world - it is one
of your cardinal tenets. In the Purana however, Vasudeva is not Saguna but
another name for the Nirguna Vishnu just described. In terms of the
Purana, Atman : Brahman :: Vasudeva : Vishnu. Vasudeva eternally
transcends the world and is immanent in it. Also no "soul's soul"
sophistry here - Vasudeva is the All-Soul; the self of every being is
Vasudeva. Thus Vasudeva is yet another name for the Nirguna Brahman. This
is nothing but the cardinal tenet of Advaita. Which is why it streses the
identity of the Atman immanent in every being with the Brahman which
transcends the world.
Need I point out that Advaita does not depend on this Purana as authority?
It is the other way round - according to the Purana, the Nirguna Brahman
is the "paramam padam" - the ultimate description of Vishnu. It is not
just the ekamevAdvitIyam of your interpretation, but of Advaita's. The
minimum this points to is that there existed a tradition of Advaita at the
time of composition of this Purana. Furthermore, this tradition is
sufficiently dominant to be presented as the starting point for explaining
the jagat. The inexplicability of mAyA is affirmed. Now what do you say
about "prachanna bauddham"?
Vidyasankar
