Do different interpretations of a common scripture necessitate
schism within a tradition? To what extent do these differences of
interpretation really matter to the practitioner? Can the pursuit
of philosophical detail obscure the message of the wider philosophy?
In this article Prof. Narasimhachary examines the division of the
Srivaisnava tradition into different schools according to their interpretation
of scripture. He considers to what extent such division can be avoided
by allowing that each side of a philosophical argument has its merits.
Are there lessons for ISKCON in this topic?
Interpretation (vyakhyana) based on proper methodology and
backed by analytical skills is undoubtedly a means of arriving at
truth. All religious and philosophical systems, theological or otherwise,
invariably depend upon interpretation for their own stability and
credibility. Sri Sankara, the celebrated exponent of Advaita, states
that logic is welcome in understanding scripture so long as it does
not transgress its own limits.[1]
In other words, logical and interpretational skills, however useful
they may otherwise be, cannot and should not be allowed to function
independently. Logic has its own soundness and its own position in
the scheme of epistemology, but beyond a reasonable state it tends
to become cumbersome and unacceptable. That is precisely why the Vedantins
do not accept the claim of the Tarkikas that the syllogistic method
of logic can establish the existence of God. For them, it is only
the Scripture (sruti) that can prove this beyond any speck
of doubt. Badarayana, the celebrated author of the Brahma-sutra,
has stated the same truth in the aphorism 'tarkapratisthanadapi
... '(Brahma-sutra 2.1.2).
We find in the Rg Veda polytheism, monotheism, monism and a
host of other concepts existing side by side. Western scholars, wishing
to find a developmental pattern in the profusion of concepts, consider
that hymns showing monotheistic tendencies occur later than hymns
showing polytheistic tendencies because this accords with their own
theory of the development of ideas from many to one, monotheism being
higher than polytheism. (Bowes, p. 201) But Hindus do not believe
in this, for in their tradition, these two are not opposites - they
are not mutually exclusive, nor is monotheism necessarily better than
polytheism, as each represents a different attitude toward the same
reality. They can occur together at the same time and can continue
to exist together. Yajnavalkya in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad
was asked how many gods there were. He gave at the same time the following
numbers: 3003, 303, 33, 6, 3, 2, 1, 1˝ and 1. The question could therefore
be answered in all these ways at the same time, not over a time sequence
during which man's ideas about God developed from 3003 to 1. (Bowes,
p. 201)
Hindus, being inclined toward the universal, are predisposed to see
what is common among things, while the Western intellectual, inclined
toward the particular, is predisposed to see what is different; when
different things are said to be the same, the Western intellectual
takes this as a sign of total lack of critical ability. To
the Hindu mind, the ultimate in its timeless dimension is beyond characterisation,
and so far as its temporal manifestation is concerned, it is not confined
to any particular personage or happening. (Bowes, p. 101)
The value of interpretation cannot be underestimated in understanding
the subtleties of a given system of thought. For example, the Brahma-sutra,
which comprises about five hundred and forty-five aphorisms, has been
interpreted by almost all the philosopher-preceptors of India in
totally different ways. Thus we have the commentaries of Sankara (Advaita),
Bhaskara (Bhedabheda), Yadavaprakasa (another kind of Bhedabheda),
Nimbarka (Dvaitadvaita), Ramanuja (Visistadvaita), Madhva (Dvaita),
Vallabha (Suddhadvaita) and Sri Krsna Caitanya (Acintya Bhedabheda
as interpreted by Baladeva Vidyabhusana) and so on. This list, of
course, does not include many earlier writers such as Guhadeva, Kapardin,
Bharuci, Bhartrmitra, Bhartrprapanca and others. How could so many
interpretations be given to a single text as the Brahma-sutra?
Yamuna asks: 'kim asya sutrasya hrdayam?'[2]
(What exactly is the 'heart' or import of this aphorism?)
Badarayana himself records the views of philosophers like ssmarathya,
Audulomin and Kasakrtsna regarding the nature of God and man in his
Brahma-sutra (1.4.20-2). What of a simple text like the Gita?
How many acaryas have not interpreted it in the light of their
own philosophical tradition. What can a layman who has no expertise
in interpreting the scriptures do? He has to follow one particular
preceptor, stick to one particular tradition and try to understand
the truth. There is no other way. There is, of course, the danger
of the wrong people giving the wrong interpretations to texts to make
gullible people believe their own doctrine to be right and all others
wrong.
With this background, let me now demonstrate how textual interpretation
has led to endless debates and dialogues, claims and counterclaims,
in a single tradition, viz., the Srisampradaya of Sri Ramanuja (1017-1137
AD). There are two important and powerful post-Ramanuja Srivaisnava
sects in Tamil Nadu (South India) called the 'Tenkalai' (Southern)
and the 'Vadakalai' (Northern) which govern almost all the activities
of a Srivaisnava living there. The heads of these two sects are known
as Pillai Lokacarya and Venkatanatha (popularly known as Vedanta Desika),
respectively. They were contemporaries who lived in the thirteenth
century. Although they were on friendly terms during their lifetime,
their followers in succeeding centuries became bitter critics of each
other's tradition. Through study and research, scholars have identified
eighteen doctrinal differences in the writings of these two stalwarts.[3]
Separate works were written highlighting these differences.
(Gupta, p. 93) For an impartial observer, however, the acrimonious
debates and criticisms that are extending even now are out of place
and unwarranted since, after all, they both represent the same sampradaya
of Ramanuja. What we now have is the small Srivaisnava community raising
narrow domestic walls that are, in fact, doing great injustice to
the spirit of Ramanuja, who strove all his life to bring harmony (samanvaya)
among several sections of society.
Let us now take up a few of these eighteen doctrinal differences many
of which are of pure academic interest and which, for some, make no
sense at all.
Doctrinal differences in Srivaisnavism
(1) The nature of God's grace
According to the Southern sect, God's grace is voluntary and unstrained.
It comes to a person without being sought. It comes to a person even
if he or she is unwilling to welcome it. But one has to remain 'passive'.
The analogy is that of a mother cat and her kitten, called the marjarakisora-nyaya.
The kitten does not do anything to be taken by its mother from place
to place. The mother grabs the kitten by its neck and takes it to
different places. Likewise, a devotee will also be taken care of by
God even if there is no conscious effort on the part of the former.
According to the Northern sect, God will not help a person unless
he does his little bit to deserve or earn His grace. The analogy is
that of a mother monkey and her young one, called the markata-kisora-nyaya.
The mother monkey hops from one tree to another while her baby clings
tightly to her. Unless the baby monkey does its own part, the mother
will not bother to protect it.
Now let us see how interpretation plays its own role here. For an
impartial seeker after truth, both these viewpoints appear reasonably
sound. It is true that one has to do his bit of work to earn the grace
of God, otherwise the world becomes an asylum of lazy people. Once
a devotee went to a spiritual master who could perform miracles and
asked him: 'Svamin! I am very poor. I want to become a millionaire
through the lottery. Kindly bless me so that I will be the lucky winner.'
The Svami said: 'All right. Have you bought a lottery ticket?' 'No,
I have not bought one,' replied the devotee. The Svami said, smiling:
'See, you have not done the minimum expected of you. What can I do?'
The message is clear. According to even the Southern sect, when the
mother cat takes the kitten in her mouth, a kind of co-operation on
the part of the kitten is required. If the kitten refuses to be taken
by its mother, what can the poor mother do? Or, to put it a different
way, if a devotee can remain as helpless, innocent and passive as
the kitten, then God will take personal care of that devotee. Remaining
in such an utter passive and helpless state, totally believing in
the saving grace of God, is indeed the most important characteristic
of a genuine prapanna. To be a prapanna means to have
unassailable faith (mahavisvasa) in the saviourship of God.
Having such a faith is in itself active involvement, however unconscious
it may be, on the part of the devotee. An act is an act, whether one
is aware of it or not. What is important is that the devotee has trust
in God, which serves the purpose.
(2) The position of Sri
Another issue on which debates have been continuing unabated among
the Srivaisnavas of South India is whether Sri (Laksmi), who is the
mother of the creation and the inseparable Consort of Lord Visnu,
forms part of the category of the living beings (jivakoti)
or is of the category of the Lord Himself (isvarakoti). For
the Southern sect, She belongs to the category of the individual souls,
although She is superior to them by virtue of the special status conferred
upon Her by the Lord by taking Her as His wife and thereby making
Her the Mistress of the Universe. She is 'anu' (atomic), like the
jivas themselves. By virtue of Her special status, She shares with
God all His glories, such as the eternal abode (Vaikuntha), where
She is attended by liberated souls like Ananta and Garuda.
However, the Northern sect believes that Sri is not a jiva. She belongs
to the category of the Lord Himself (isvarakoti) and is coeval
with Him in all aspects. She is all-pervasive (vibhu) and all-powerful
like Him. If He can confer liberation, so too can She, although She
never uses that power. Like the Lord, She is also capable of punishing
the wicked and evil-minded. However, being the mother benign, She
does not take that extreme step. The expression ivarim sarvabhutanam
(Srisukta) is taken in the literal sense, by which She is stated
to be the ruler of the universe. Can there be two rulers for a single
universe? The interpretation is that, although Laksmi can rule over
the world Herself, on the analogy of the laukikadampati (a
couple living in this world), with a perfect understanding with the
Lord, Her Husband, She prefers to have Him rule over the world. By
mutual agreement and identity of thought, the couple exert helpful
influence and rule over the universe.
Whatever the doctrinal differences are, both the Southern and Northern
sects accept Laksmi as the mother of all the creatures and that She
mediates between the Lord, who is the strict disciplinarian, on the
one hand and the erring human on the other. In this role she is technically
called the Purusakara. For a layperson, it matters little whether
Laksmi is as pervasive as the Lord Himself or is only an individual
soul raised to the level of Supremacy.
(3) God's pervasion of the souls, which are atomic in size (anuvyapti)
According to the Southern sect, God has infinite powers and can therefore
literally enter into the atomic souls. Since He is all-pervasive (vibhu),
He can be present simultaneously in every particle of matter. Thus
His presence in the souls is a real and indwelling pervasion.
However, according to the Northern sect, God, being infinite, cannot
pervade or penetrate into the atomic souls. His infinite magnitude
does not allow Him to dwell within the atomic soul. He pervades the
jivatmans from outside and not from inside. His presence in
souls is to be understood as co-existence, but not pervasion. (Srinivasachari,
p. 535)
This point is also of academic interest. The Tengalai view is based
on the scriptural statement: antar bahisca tat sarvan vyapya narayanah
sthitah (Narayananuvaka) ('Narayana pervades everything
in the universe from within and without'.) However, the view held
by the Vadagalais is based purely on the question of possibility.
Once we have committed ourselves to the vyapitva (all pervasiveness)
of the Lord, it must be taken in its fullest sense of possibility.
We should not compromise with any kind of diminution on the part of
the Lord's svarupa. Further, if the svarupa of the individual
soul is really atomic (anu), then it cannot and should not
have any room for the presence of any entity there, including that
of the Lord. However, one should not jump to the conclusion that the
Northern sect does not accept the immanence of the Lord; it does.
The Southern sect postulates an indwelling immanence, the Northern
sect a co-dwelling immanence. The former states that God dwells in
matter and souls; the latter, that He dwells on matter
and souls.
(4) Nature of God's parental love (vatsalya)
Differences arise between the two sects as to the nature of God's
vatsalya (the love that a parent has for a child). The Southern
school believes that God's love for His children is so wonderful that
He not only winks at their faults but also actually enjoys them. The
dirtier the child is, the dearer he becomes to the doting mother.
It is to the sinners and erring beings that God can pour out His love
and grace in full and render real help. A highly meritorious person
will automatically become acceptable to the Lord. But what glory is
there in such acceptability? Just as a poor man alone is in real need
of money and a sick person alone requires medicine, only one who is
utterly worthless and defective requires God's love and help. Yamuna
in his Stotraratna (v. 51) says:
tadaham tvadrte na nathavan
madrte tvam dayaniyavan na ca
vidhinirmitam etam anvayam
krpaya palaya ma sma jihapah
O Lord! Therefore it all means this: Without you
I am utterly without a master. Without me, you will not have a
proper recipient for your grace. This is our relation brought
about by Fate. Kindly honour it. Don't break it.
This particular taste that the erring human invokes or generates in
the Lord is called dosabhogyatva.
The Northern school, however, argues that this is a horrible doctrine
because it encourages one who is already a sinner to become a horrendous
criminal since he would then become more acceptable to God. But God,
being a strict disciplinarian, will not ignore the sins and faults
of the living beings. He is the dharmadhyaksa (the one who
supervises and ensures the proper function of the Law of Justice without
any fear or favour). Does He not declare in the Gita that He
is equanimous towards all the living beings and that there is none
who is either detestable or dear to Him?[4] The
Brahma-sutra (2.1.34) also states the same truth: vaisamya-nairghrnye
na sapeksatvat (The Lord is neither partial to some nor cruel
to others. The suffering of the living beings is dependent [on their
past acts].) Ignoring the faults and sins of living beings means ignoring
moral values and sacrificing justice and truth. According to this
school, the Lord may be said to wink at the faults of the devotee
(dosadarsitva). He may be said to pardon the sins of the devotee.
This implies that the Lord takes note of the sins but will not punish
them as a consequence. The concept of non-observance of the sins exalts
the uniqueness of God's love more than the doctrine of pardon without
at the same time discounting moral values or making sin respectful
and acceptable.
So is there any controversy in this matter? Seemingly yes, but really
no. The defects of the devotee will be enjoyable to the Lord provided
the devotee is genuine, believing in none but the Lord as his saviour,
father and mother. In his childlike innocence, even if a mistake or
two is committed, the Lord would not mind. He feels happy that the
mistakes really speak about the absolute abandon of the devotee. The
devotee is in such a state of total absorption that he is unaware
of the mistakes committed, and with that free and innocent state of
mind, he approaches God. But the real position is that such a devotee
will not normally go wrong. If a mistake or two should creep in, he
will atone for them in the prescribed way. So even on this issue there
need be no controversy. In fact, the following verse from Vedanta
Desika's Dayasataka (v. 97) seems to come closer to the view
of the Southern school:
autsukhyapurvamupahrtya mahaparadhan
matah! prasadayitumicchati me manastvam
alihya tan niravasesam alabdhatrptih
tamyasyaho! vrsagirisadhrta daye! tvam
Mother Daya! My mind, with great enthusiasm, wishes to
please you by offering all my horrible sins [as a present to you].
But being supported by the Lord of the Vrsagiri and even after having
licked clean all of them without any leftovers, You are not satiated
at all. What a wonder!
(5) Nature of God's mercy (daya)
According to the Southern school, God, out of His unbounded compassion,
actually suffers whenever His devotees suffer (paraduhkha-duhkhitvam).
This should not, however, be construed as a defect or imperfection.
He shares in their sufferings even as He participates in their happiness.
This only indicates His infinite compassion. Rama, as Valmiki depicts,
used to suffer greatly when his subjects were in difficulties. When
they had occasion to be happy, he would join them and celebrate the
event like their father.
vyasanesu manusyanam bhrsam bhavati duhkhitah
utsavesu ca sarvesu piteva paritusyati
So suffering on the part of God when His children suffer is not a
blot on the nature of God. Rather, it enhances His quality of compassion.
However, the Northern school contends that although God will show
His compassion to living beings when they suffer, He Himself will
not suffer. He is perfect in all respects and is an abode of innumerable
auspicious qualities. Suffering is a defect, and it cannot be presumed
to be present in Him. How then should one explain the Ramayana
verse quoted above? It can only mean that Rama did all in his power
to alleviate the suffering of His people. Further, since Rama was
behaving as an ordinary mortal, he may have enacted suffering along
with His subjects. Being the Supreme Being, He is really above all
misery and suffering.
Again, this is a point of academic interest that can be interpreted
and understood in ways acceptable to both schools of thought. God
in his human form may appear to have suffered, but in His supreme
state He is always blissful, detached from everyone. The following
verse from the Brahmanda Purana reveals the true nature of
the Lord:
jnanam apratigham tasya vairagyam ca jajatpateh
aisvaryam caiva dharmasca sahasiddham catustayam
Unimpeded knowledge, detachment, absolute suzerainty and
righteousness are the four natural traits of the Lord of the Universe.
(6) Nature of the means of liberation
According to the followers of Vedanta Desika, all three yogas mentioned
in the Gita - karma (work), jnana (knowledge),
and bhakti (devotion) have their own role in effecting salvation.
Of these, bhakti is the direct means of liberation; the others
are indirect. Karma leads to jnana, jnana to
bhakti and bhakti to prapatti (surrender). Salvation
is mainly the result of self-effort.
The followers of Pillai Lokacarya hold that karma, jnana
and bhakti have no value compared to prapatti yoga,
since the Lord Himself declared so in the caramasloka (Bhagavad-gita
18.66)
sarva-dharman parityajya
mam ekam saranam vraja
aham tvam sarva-papebhyo
moksayisyami ma sucah
Renounce all dharmas and seek refuge in me alone. I shall set
you free from all sins; grieve not.
Once more, this is a point of interpretation. The word sarva-dharman
is taken literally by the Southern sect. According to this view,
all other yogas should be completely abandoned. Further, this school
contends that the path of bhakti is very difficult to follow.
One in thousands may be successful in bhakti yoga, which has
to be performed repeatedly. In contrast, prapatti need only
be done once, and is considered to be the easiest of all the yoga
disciplines, including bhakti. Therefore, whatever is the easiest
is also the best and only way open to ordinary people. It is, more
or less, the only way for salvation, the essence of prapatti
being the abandonment of self-effort.
Although the Northern school admits that prapatti looks comparatively
easier than bhakti, they hold that it is even more difficult
than bhakti to practice. The main auxiliary of prapatti
is mahavisvasa (unassailable faith in the saviourship of God).
If this particular anga is wanting, then prapatti becomes
diluted and will not attain the desired end. The illustration cited
is that of the brahmastra used by Ravana's son Indrajit to
arrest Hanuman as he was destroying the prestigious Asoka garden and
the city of Lanka. Hanuman was actually arrested by that powerful
weapon. However, Indrajit had a lurking doubt in his mind as to whether
the weapon really had any power against the formidable monkey. The
moment this doubt arose, the brahmastra lost its control over
Hanuman. Added to this, Indrajit had brought other materials such
as ropes and chains to bind Hanuman, which made the brahmastra
virtually powerless. Such will be the case if mahavisvasa is
lacking in a person who is undertaking prapatti.
When we examine both these views, we see that both are right in their
own way. It is true that bhakti is more difficult than prapatti
because of the problems involved; bhakti needs repeated practice.
The Brahma-sutra says that one-pointed meditation, which is
bhakti according to Ramanuja, has to be practised as long as
a person lives in this world (Cf. 4.1.12: a prayanat tatrapi hi
drstam). The aphorism avrttir asakrdupadesat (Brahma-sutra
4.1.1) also stresses the same point. However, prapatti is equally
difficult. In the absence of mahavisvasa, it becomes a wasted
exercise. Likewise, the seeker of prapatti must employ some
self-effort, however small, in order to attain prapatti. However,
if the seeker is aware that he or she is making this effort, then
it will entail egotism and a sense of independence, which are against
the nature of the individual soul. Therefore, the satisfactory solution
to this problem is that one should eschew even the idea of self-effort,
while at the same time effort should be maintained.
(8) The cause of prapatti
Another point of difference between the Northern and Southern schools
is the factor that forms the cause of prapatti. According to
the Northern sect, acts of merit performed by living beings in the
previous birth are the cause of prapatti, not the mere performance
of prapatti in this life. However, the Southern school believes
that God's free and spontaneous grace alone is the cause of prapatti.
Here again, the difference of opinion between these two sects is not
so serious. The Lord's grace alone is the cause of prapatti,
but the present life of a person is an extension and continuation
of his or her previous births. Ramanuja, while explaining the scripture
yamevaisa vrnute tena labhyah (Mundaka Upanisad
3.2.3), states that God loves a man because the man loves Him. It
is mutual and reciprocal. This means that the good done by a man in
his previous birth makes him virtuous and a devotee in his next life.
This naturally earns the grace of the Lord. Thus the arguments of
both sects find a common ground.
(9) Abandonment of dharma
The caramasloka (Bhagavad-gita 18.66), beginning with
sarva-dharman partityajya, has been interpreted differently
by these two schools. According to the Northern school, abandonment
of the dharmas does not mean giving up all the duties ordained
in the karma-kanda portion of the Vedas. It means abandoning
the desire for the fruits of those actions and abandoning the idea
that those deeds can yield fruits independent of the grace of God.
Even one who surrenders to the Lord (prapanna) cannot therefore
abandon the duties enjoined by the scriptures, since they are the
commandments of God. So says the Lord Himself:
srutismrti mamaivajne yastamullanghya vartate
ajnacchedi mama drohi madbhakto 'pi na vaisnavah
The srutis and the smrtis constitute My own command.
He who violates them will be going against My commandment. I consider
him as a traitor against Me. Although he may call Himself My devotee,
he is not a Vaisnava. (Visnudharma 76.31)
The Southern school contends that since the Lord Himself asked Arjuna
to give up all dharmas and surrender to Him, it is imperative
that a prapanna be exempt from doing any kind of dharma.
The word sarva-dharman as it appears in the caramasloka
must therefore be taken in its full force and significance. They
cite the example of Draupadi in support of this conclusion. As long
as Draupadi tried to defend herself while being disrobed by Duhsasana
in the open court, Lord Krsna did not interfere. But as soon as she
threw up her hands in despair, gave up all effort (dharma)
and made the following appeal, He sprang into action:
sankhacaragadapane! dvarakanilayacyuta!
govinda pundarikaksa! raksa mam saranagatam
O wielder of the conch, discus and club! O denizen of Dvaraka!
O unfailing One! Govinda! Lotus-eyed One! Save me as I have surrendered
to you![5]
Likewise, the story of the Elephant King (Srimad-Bhagavatam,
Eighth Canto) is a saga of the efficacy of wholehearted surrender.
As long as the elephant was fighting with the crocodile for survival,
he did not succeed. The moment he gave up all effort (sarva-dharma)
and surrendered to the Lord wholeheartedly, He appeared on the scene.
Therefore, sarvadharma-parityaga is the essence of prapatti.
Both these views can be justified. The Northern sect's belief that
one has to perform one's ordained duties is quite sustainable. For
example, the nitya and naimittika-karmas, such as
performing the sandhya and rituals for the departed manes
(sraddha), should never be given up even by a prapanna.
Cf, deva-pitr-karyabhyam na pramaditavya (Siksavalli).
It is said that Sri Ramanuja, who lived to the ripe old age of one
hundred and twenty, used to stand up with great difficulty and offer
sandhyavandhana every day. The view of the Southern school
that a prapanna should not do any other ritual can also be
conceded from a different standpoint. It would be more logical to
think that a prapanna cannot do any other ritual because
he is fully saturated with thoughts of God. Such a person would
not be able to do anything at all on his own. He would have to depend
upon others even for his day-to-day physical requirements such as
bathing, dressing and eating. Such a prapanna would become
an introvert and would be totally unaware of what is going on outside.
Would such a person really be expected to perform the normal dharmas
meant for others? The following verse of Lilasuka (Srikrsnakarnamrta
2.106) may be noted in this connection:
sandhyavandana! bhadramastu bhavate, bho snana!
tubhyam namah
bho devah! pitarasca! tarpanavidhau naham ksamah ksamyatam
yatra kvapi nisidya yadavakulottamsasya kamsadvisah
smaram smaram agham harami tadalam manye kimanyena me?
Sandhyvandana, may you keep well! O ablutions, salutations
to you! O Gods and Manes, forgive me since I am incapable of propitiating
and pleasing you. I will sit somewhere and remove my sins by repeatedly
recollecting the Enemy of Kamsa [Krsna] who is the Jewel of the
Yadava clan. I think that is enough for me. Of what avail are other
things?
Another point concerns the actual interpretation of the sentence,
sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja (Bhagavad-gita
18.66). Has one to give up all dharmas to become a prapanna,
or does one become a prapanna and then give up all dharmas?
The words of the text seem to suggest that giving up all dharmas
is a preparatory stage to becoming a prapanna. In actual fact,
however, all duties are given up only when one becomes a prapanna.
The solution to the puzzle lies in the sentence's interpretation.
This same problem can be found in Sanksrit grammar - which act precedes
which in sentences such as mukham vyadaya svapiti (He opens
his mouth and sleeps)? Does one open the mouth first and then sleep,
or does one fall asleep and then open the mouth? The latter is the
correct answer, but the former is used in everyday speech.
There need also be no doubt as to whether Arjuna was a prapanna
because in the second canto of the Gita itself we have evidence
to the effect that Arjuna did surrender to the Lord: sisyate 'ham
sadhi mam tvam prapannan (I am your disciple and have surrendered
to you. Kindly instruct me). It is thus clear that both sects are
right, in their own way, in understanding the need or otherwise to
perform dharmas in the case of prapannas. There is therefore
no controversy.
Conclusion
Thus far we have examined nine of the eighteen doctrinal differences
between the two prominent Srivaisnava sects of South India in an effort
to demonstrate that these so-called differences are merely the result
of variations in the interpretation of the authoritative texts such
as the srutis and smrtis. It must be borne in mind that
as far as the philosophy is concerned, it is known as Sri Ramanuja
Darsana or Sri-sampradaya only, both sects owing their allegiance
to it. The vast and wonderful literature that has been generated by
the advocates of their two sects is quite valuable, scholarly, amazing
and inspiring. However, their real merit lies in strengthening the
Sri-sampradaya from all external criticism and attack. Even today,
enormous harm is being done to the tradition by the petty skirmishes
indulged in by the advocates of these schools over issues which are
relatively minor and trivial and which, for the most part, are more
of an academic nature than of any substantial value to the ordinary
practitioner.
To conclude, I would like to briefly consider a different issue, which
has also become very important in the post-Ramanuja period: that is
the position of Sri Krsna. 'Is He one of the avataras of Lord
Visnu or is He the (avatarin) Supreme Being Himself?' is the
question we might ask. The Bhagavata-Purana has glorified Sri
Krsna as the Supreme Being, declaring: ete camsakalah pumsah
krsnastu bhagavan svayam (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.28).
'All others [i.e. other incarnations] are only fractions of partial
manifestations of the Supreme Being. Krsna is the Supreme Being Himself.'
The Srivaisnava system, perpetuated by the mystic saints, slvars and
acaryas accepts Sri Krsna as the most affable and perfect incarnation
of Visnu. He is the purnavatara. However, it does not accord
to Krsna the status of being the source of all other incarnations.
Sri Krsna is therefore considered to be an avatara of Visnu,
not the avatarin Himself. However, theological schools such
as the Suddhadvaita of Sri Vallabhacarya and the Acintyabhedabheda
of Sri Krsna Caitanya declare that even Visnu is an amsa of
Lord Sri Krsna. The Gitagovinda[6]
of Jayadeva is perhaps the most eloquent literary poem that proclaims
in lilting songs the supremacy of Lord Krsna. The Bhagavata-Purana,
to which all these songs attach the greatest importance, declares
this fact, they argue. Brahma-Samhita is another scripture
revered by the followers of Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu. According
to this tradition, He acquired the fifth chapter of this important
text from the sdikesava temple in Tamil Nadu, South India, during
His visit there. The opening verse of this text declares Sri Krsna
as the Supreme Godhead, the prime cause of all causes:
isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah sarva-karana-karanam
Why should there be this difference in the standpoints of Ramanuja
and those of other acaryas, although they are all Vaisnavas?
The cause can be traced to the importance given to the Bhagavata
and Brahma-samhita in ancient times and the interpretation
of the crucial verses mentioned above. While the followers of Ramanuja
see the Astaksari-mantra, centering around Sriman-Narayana,
as the mulamantra (being the vyapaka mantra),[7]
the other Vaisnava schools have formed their own mulamantras,
which centre around Lord Krsna,[8]
for sacred chanting and meditation.
However, this does not, and need not, bring in any controversy between
the various theology schools that have developed after Ramanuja. Interpretation
of the texts and the traditional beliefs and practices over the centuries
have paved the way for the various sects and schools. The strength
of the Vedanta system lies in its mosaic and the capacity to accommodate
different points of view which, of course, do not lead to any serious
area of dissent and discord among the votaries. Samanvaya,
or synthesis, is the genius of the Indian mind. The Rg Veda declares
with a trumpet voice that 'what exists is one, although wise men call
it by different names'.[9] While
variety is the art of nature, unity is the heart of God.
Notes
1 Vide Brahmasutrabhasya
1.1.1.
2 Agamapramanya (GOS), p.
66.
3 Cf. bhedah svamikrpa phala-anyagatisu
srivyatyupayatvayoh"tadvatsalya-daya-niruktivacasoh nyase e tatkartari
"dharmatyaga-virodhayoh svavihitake nyasanga hetutvayoh"prayascittavidhau
tadiyabhajane 'nuvyapti-kaivalyayoh
4 Cf. 9.29: samo'ham sarvabhutesu
na me dvesyo 'sti na priyah
5 Vide Mahabharata, Sabha.
6 Cf. dasakrtikrte krsnaya tubhyam
namah (1.1.12).
7 The mantra that speaks
about the all-pervasiveness (vyapti) of Lord Narayana (who
is vyapaka). According to the tradition, Narayana is the 'one
who is the ultimate goal and abiding place of all the living beings'
(narah ayanam yasya sah) and also the 'one in whom all the
living beings abide' (naranam ayanam).
8 For the followers of Sri Vallabhacarya,
who advocated the Suddhadvaita system, srikrsnah saranam mama
is the chief mantra.
9 Cf 1.164.46: ekam sad vipra
bahudha vadanti.
Bibliography
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Thakura (trans). Sri Brahma-samhita.
Bombay: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1994.
Bowes, Prathima. Between Cultures. New Delhi: Allied Publishers
Private Limited, 1976.
Das Gupta, Dr. S. N. History of Indian Philosophy (Vol. III).
New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991.
Gambhirananda, Swami (trans.). Brahmasutra of Badarayana with Sankara's
Commentary. Calcutta: Advaita Ashram, 1993.
Narasimhachary, Dr. M. 'sgamapramanya of Yamunacarya (Critical Edition
and Study)' in Gaekwad Oriental Series 160. Baroda, 1976.
Tapasyananda, Swami. Bhakti Schools of Vedanta. Madras: Sri
Ramakrishna Math, 1990 (Second edition).
Varadachari, Dr. V. Two Great Acaryas: Vedanta Desika and Manavala
Mamuni. Madras: Prof. M. Rangacharya Memorial Trust, 1983.
|
|
