[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Vishnu Purana (was Re: Vedanta discussions)
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: Vishnu Purana (was Re: Vedanta discussions)
-
From: vijaypai@kachori.rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 18 Jan 1995 17:10:21 GMT
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Wed Jan 18 11: 58:08 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University
-
References: <3ff1hf$db9@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
As I pointed out in another post, I thought it was
unfriendly for our friend Vidya to call for peace and still
take a parting shot. With that in mind, I submit this deconstruction
of (most of) his posting.
In article <3ff1hf$db9@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>The Vishnu Purana is the most authentic Vaishnava Purana, and yet our
It's either authentic or not authentic. How can it be "more authentic"
or "less authentic". Vishnu Purana and others purport to be written
by Sage Vyasa; if they were, then they are clearly authentic. If not,
then not authentic. There can be no more or less in that matter.
>Vaishnava friends from ISKCON do not quote from it. On the other
As you are well aware, Gaudiyas draw primarily from Bhagavatam and
Bhagavad-Gita, to a lesser extent from works like Padma Purana
and Brahma Samhita, and also to commentaries on these subjects
by great acaryas (like Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu). However, Caitanya
Mahaprabhu cited from the Vishnu Purana in his discussions with the
mayavadis of Benares, and Prabhupada also cites from the Vishnu Purana
quite a bit in his commentaries on, say, Caitanya-Caritamrta.
>hand, Sankaracharya, the "mAyAvAdin" quotes this Purana in his
>commentary to the Bhagavad Gita. Let us see what the Vishnu Purana
>has to say, shall we?
Sounds fine by me. Also, just as a nit, Caitanya Mahaprabhu didn't
call Sankara a mayavadi, it was only his followers and his commentary
that were referred to in that way. The verdict was that any
transgressions Sankara committed were not his fault, as he
was doing those by the order of the Lord, as expressed in Siva
Purana and Padma Purana.
>In response to his student Maitreya's question, Parasara, the
>teacher, explains that Vishnu is the principle behind the origin,
>sustenance and destruction of the universe.
This is perfectly in tune with the Vaisnava concept.
>All names of Gods,
>including Hiranyagarbha, Hari, Siva, Sankara, Brahma, Achyuta,
>Vasudeva etc. are names of Vishnu. Therefore, even though the
>Veda-vadins, Vedanta-vadins, Vaishnavas, Saivas, Pancharatrins,
>Yogins etc. worship different Gods, all these Gods are only different
>forms, different manifestations of Vishnu.
This is quite in keeping with Vaisnava understanding. As expressed in
BG 9.23, those who are devotees of other gods are actually only
worshipping Krishna, but they do so with a wrong understanding.
Bhagavad Gita also says that whatever sacrifice is done, Krishna
is really the only enjoyer.
>Therefore, exclusiveness,
>sectarian bigotry and narrowness are born out of ignorance.
Exclusiveness is recommended in many places in the Bhagavad Gita.
You know what they say, the servant of all is the servant of none.
But of course sectarian bigotry is a product of ignorance; however,
no Vaisnava would say that the Vaisnava system is sectarian or
bigotted, since the truth cannot be sectarian.
>Maitreya, the student, is justifiably confused, and asks how this can
>be so. Parasara explains this in terms of the "not this, not this"
>idea of the Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad.
The "neti, neti" is generally understood to only negate materialistic
attributes. The same upanishads with nirguna-srutis also have saguna
srutis. The saguna show the Lord to be full of all auspicious spiritual
qualities, while the nirguna show the same Lord to be free of all
undesirable material qualities.
>In reality, Vishnu is nothing but the Absolute Spirit, the Para Brahman.
No Vaisnava will deny that Vishnu is the Para Brahman, the Supreme
Absolute Truth. You have said nothing so far to force an impersonalist
interpretation.
>This Absolute Spirit is IN
>ITSELF above the highest concepts of human understanding
Of course! That is why there are the Vedas and the parampara, to
enable humans to dwell in spiritualistic 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, formless,
>changeless, effortless, attributeless. Nothing can be said of It
>except that It Eternally Exists.
The Vedas give positive descriptions of Vishnu in terms of His
covering the universe with his 3 steps; they also show Him to be
the all pervading Absolute.
It is without a doubt that this Absolute Supreme Person is without
any material qualities. However, it is also shown that he is a
reservoir of spiritual qualities. He eternally exists, but it
is also said that he is full of knowledge and bliss also.
>This is the ultimate nature of
>Vishnu - "tad Vishno: paramam padam."
om tad visnoh paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah
The saintly persons are constantly seeing the supreme position
of Vishnu.
padam is sometimes also translated as abode or feet (rather than position)
surayah is also sometimes translated as demigods (as opposed to saints)
Agreed.
>This is in fact as good a description of Nirguna Brahman as you can
>find in any advaitic text.
This is a perfect description of the Nirguna Parambrahman, without a
doubt, but you have wrongly concluded that it is advaitic. I can
show you other verses from VP that are counter to advaita.
ekadesa sthitasyagner
jyotsna vistarini yatha
parasya brahmanah saktis
tathedam akhilam jagat
"Whatever we see in this world is simply an expansion of different
energies [sakti] of the Supreme Personality of Godhead [Para-Brahman],
who is exacly like a fire which spreads illumination for a long
distance although it is situated in one place"
Note that Para-Brahman (rather than just Brahman) is used to describe
Vishnu. The idea of this is that the living entities and cosmic
manifestation are indeed manifestations of the Lord's energies
but not quantitatively identical. Light : Fire :: Jiva : Vishnu
visnu-saktih para prokta
ksetrajnakhya tatha para
avidya-karma-samjnanya
tritiya saktir isyate
The potency [sakti] of Lord Visnu is summarized in 3 categories --
namely, the spiritual potency, the living entities, and ignorance.
The spiritual potency is full of knowledge; the living entities,
although belonging to the spiritual potency, are subject to bewilderment;
and the third energy, which is full of ignorance, is always visible in
fruitive activities.
These are more like Visistadvaita or Acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva
than advaita. Of course, you may just say that they are smrti and
don't count anyway.
>We now turn to the Vishnu Purana's
>description of Vasudeva. The Vishnu Purana's use of the term Vasudeva
>fits in perfectly with Advaita. The word means not just vasudevasya
>suta: vAsudeva: (Vasudeva's son) but ya: deva: sarve vasati iti
>vAsudeva: - He who is immanent eternally in all, i.e. the Atman.
>Vasudeva eternally transcends the world and is immanent in it.
The Vaisnava understanding also says that Vasudeva, in his form
as Paramatman "is immanent eternally in all ... eternally transcends
the world and is immanent in it". Remember "dva suparana sayuja ..."
There are 2 living entities in this body; one is the jivatman (who
is trying to enjoy the bitter fruit of the tree of karma) and the
other is the Paramatman who witnesses. This second one is clearly
the same as Vasudeva.
>Vasudeva is identical to Vishnu. Thus, Parasara explains, Atman :
>Brahman :: Vasudeva : Vishnu.
This makes sense since the conclusion of the analogy is
Atman : Brahman :: Paramatman : Parambrahman
Just like the atma is part of the spiritual potency (brahman),
the Paramatma is the same as the Parambrahman. There's a
reason why these "para"s and "parama"s and "paramam"s appear
in the Vedas, but Advaitins usually ignore them. Example -->
Advaitins usually cite "brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati" from
the Mundaka Upanisad [One who knows Brahman becomes the same
Brahman], but the verse says "paramam brahma veda brahmaiva
bhavati" (3.2.9) [One who knows the Supreme Brahman attains
Brahman]. There is always an understanding of supremacy attached
to the Lord, which is not given to the living entities (thanks
to Visnudasacarya for that example).
>When Maitreya asks how the universe can come out of Vishnu and leave
>Him unchanged, Parasara explains that this is due to the mysterious
>power called Maya. As such the world itself is in fact Maya, it is
>only an appearance, a relative reality at best, while Vishnu is the
>Sole Ultimate Reality.
The Vaisnavas agree that the world is a relative reality and that
Vishnu is the Absolute reality. It is the Advaitins who say "jagan
mithya"; the Vaisnavas recognize the world as one of Vishnu's
energies, so they wouldn't say that it was false, only that it
is temporary and false to identify with.
>Thus, right in the beginning, the Ultimate Nature of Vishnu is
>affirmed in terms pretty similar to Nirguna Brahman. Vishnu as
>Vasudeva is identified with the Atman that is immanent in all the
>Universe.
Rather as the Paramatman.
>No one questions the identity of Krishna Vasudeva with
>Vishnu.
Agreed.
>The non-difference of the Atman and the Para Brahman -
>(advaita!) - is thereby affirmed.
That, my friend, is not the conclusion. Otherwise there wouldn't
be all those "param"s thrown around, and there would be no need
for verses from the Visnu Purana that refer to everything around
us as energies of Visnu. They would have said that everything around
us is _directly_ Visnu, if advaita was the conclusion.
>The world as a creation is
>described in terms of Maya.
Who disagrees with this?
>Finally, sectarian narrowness is
>condemned as bigotry, and as arising out of ignorance.
Vaisnavas don't consider themselves sectarians.
>All this is in fact advaita at its most practical facet.
Sorry again, Vidya. See above.
>S. Vidyasankar
Yours,
Vijay
