 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
I am also finding the animated dialogue between Sunil and Kunal
amusing. Their "my god is better than your god" arguments are
just another form of the neverending quest for totemistic
superiority.
However, it is important to distinguish these arguments from
the serious attempt of the ancient philosophers to determine the
attributes of the Divine Absolute worshipped by the seers of the
Vedas. Rather than pooh-poohing any discussion of the religious
nature of the Divine Absolute, one should place these exegetical
arguments in proper context. Undoubtedly, there is only one Divine
Absolute -- on this point all the various philosophical schools
and religious traditions are agreed. However, the Vedanta and Vedic
tradition also speak many distinct divine beings -- Indra, Varuna,
Vishnu, Siva, Ganesha, Parvati, Lakshmi, etc.
The exegetical question is who among these many _distinct_
divine personalities is the Divine Absolute worshipped by
the Vedic rishis. Naturally, the answer is not immediately
obvious, since in some places in the Upanishads (SvetASvatara)
the Absolute is described as Rudra, in others (taittirIya)
Narayana, in still others (chAndogya, bRhadAraNyaka) sat, prANa,
AtmA, etc.
One way to approach this question is to say that the distinctions
between the various personalities are entirely illusory, and all the
deities are merely subjective superimpositions upon a formless,
undifferentiated Absolute. This position hardly has any support
in the original texts themselves, since the various personalities are
clearly mentioned as distinct beings with distinct histories.
Furthermore, this would be tantamount to equating any random
individual with the religious Absolute -- something that no Vedic
philosopher of any tradition has ever done.
Another approach is to posit a super-Divinity who transcends all
these various deities and is the source or basis for the manifold
personalities. This is a perfectly valid way of understanding the
Vedas, except that it has just pushed the question one level back.
We are still left wondering about the characteristics that distinguish
the Absolute from minor divinities and what the Vedic conception
of it is.
The third approach taken by many traditional philosophers is that
the various epithets used in the Vedas, while apparently referring
to lesser deities, actually etymologically refer to the same Supreme
Divinity. While Ramakrishnan above may think this silly, this
exegetical method actually has the explicit approval of the
Vedanta-Sutras themselves and is perhaps the best way of reconciling
the various apparent contradictions in the Upanishads. Therefore,
while minds untutored in Vedanta may think that the word "vishnu"
refers to some lesser deity Vishnu, or that "rudra" refers to the
three-eyed being who is said to reside in a cemetery, they both
refer only to the All-Pervasive Supreme Self, with the true meanings
of "vishnu" and "rudra" referring only to those unique distinguishing
characteristics of the Absolute.
This etymological approach is not only relatively straightforward,
it brings out the universality and timelessness of the Vedic wisdom.
"Narayana" is considered the Absolute not because of a jealous
promotion of one's favorite deity, but because the word "Narayana"
means "that in whom all beings rest", implying the universal
causality of the Absolute, distinguishing it from all other lesser
constructions. "Siva" is also descriptive of the Divine Being,
not because it refers directly to the three-eyed one known to
us through the Puranas, but because the word "Siva" is indicative
of purity and auspiciousness.
Mani
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|