Fwd: Re: [t'vengadam] "shoonyah": "Lord Zero" of the Vishnu-Sahasranamam

06-13-2003, 01:05 PM

Dear Bhagavatas:
Here is an interestin interpretation of the term "Shoonya" to denote the
Lord, occuring in Sri VishNu Sahasranaamam, appearing in a sister list. Hope
you will enjoy reading.
Dasoham
Anbil Ramaswamy
================================================== ==

>From: bindinganavale suresh
>Reply-To: tiruvengadam (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>To: tiruvengadam (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: Re: [t'vengadam] "shoonyah": "Lord Zero" of the
>Vishnu-Sahasranamam
>Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Dear Sri Sudarshan,
> That was a nice article.Really thought
>provoking.I would like to share my thoughts and add
>more information about this topic with you and other
>members of this group.
>
>In the 6th chapter of Chandogya upanishad,known
>popularly as the sad vidya,Udalaka teaches his son
>svetaketu about Brahman in the state of cause and
>effect.Uddalaka teaches his son the concept of tat
>tvam
>asi through different approaches.In one such approach
>he arrives at this nama "shoonyah" i.e Zero or Nothing
>and equates it with Brahman.
>
>The teaching of Uddalaka to svetaketu about this
>approach is as follows :-
>
>Uddalaka first asks his son to get a particular fruit
>called "Nyagrodha" from a tree.His son gets the
>same.Uddalaka now asks him to open the fruit,svetaketu
>does the same.Uddalaka now asks his son what he sees
>in the fruit,his son replies that he sees some seeds.
>Uddalaka asks him to break one of them, svetaketu does
>the same. Uddalaka finally asks him what he sees now.
>Svetaketu relies that he sees "nothing" i.e shoonyah.
>
>From this uddalaka concludes his teaching that just
>as the big tree (from which his son had fetched a
>fruit) had come out of "nothing i.e shoonyah"
>,likewise
>the entire creation with all its contents has come out
>of "nothing" and this "Nothing" is none other than the
>One Brahman without a second.
>
>Now,how is this possible? , it might be a matter of
>common human experience what svetaketu had seen when
>he broke the seed to see nothing,but how does this
>point to Brahman?.
>
>This is where the earlier lesson of Uddalaka helps,he
>had said to his son," Dear boy, In the begining all
>this was Brahman himself known as existence. Some say
>that all these came out of non-existence,but how can
>existence which is self proved come out of
>non-existence i.e void ?,therefore it is to be
>concluded that Brahman,the only existence is the cause
>of all we see and experience".
>
>It is through the above teaching we have to understand
>the subtle truth that Brahman is the real cause but
>known as "shoonyah" when we view him from our common
>experience as svetaketu did.
>
>
>Sri Krishnaarpanamasthu
>Suresh B.N.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--- "M.K.Sudarshan"
>wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > One of the 'nAmA-s' in the Sahasranamam that I'm
> > always intrigued by
> > is the name "shoonyah" given to Vishnu and as it
> > apppears in shlOka
> > no: 79 --
> >
> > suvarna-varna hEmAngO varAngas-chandanAngadI
> > veeraha vishamah shoonyO
> > grutAshI-rachala-chalah
> >
> > The Sanskrit word "soonya" means "zero", "nullity",
> > "cipher",
> > "emptiness".
> >
> > It would strike anyone as extremely odd that the
> > Sahasranamam should
> > choose to call Lord Vishnu as 'Zero'! You can
> > understand God being
> > called "ekah", the One Supreme Being. The essence of
> > all monistic
> > theism lies in the belief that God is One (the
> > Upanishad says,
> > "sayaschAyam pUrUshE; yaschAsAvA'dityE; sa ekah").
> >
> > You can understand too God being addressed as
> > "anantah", the
> > Infinite, as in the Sahasranamam stanza---
> >
> > kAma devah kAmapAlah kaamI kAntah krutAgamah
> > anirdEshyavapu-vishnur-vIrO' anantah
> > dhananjayah (stanza 70)
> >
> > Since God is Immeasurable it seems plainly alright
> > to name Him
> > "anantah", the Infinite. But how is one to explain
> > hailing the
> > Almighty as 'shoonyah', the Cipher?
> >
> > There is a view that "If Infinity is immeasurable,
> > so is Zero".
> > Mathematically speaking, one could define 'zero' to
> > be
> > 'anti-infinity'. If 'Infinity' is immeasurable
> > plenitude, 'Zero' is
> > immeasurable emptiness. If you were to imagine, say,
> > an interminable
> > series of values, from zero to infinity, floating
> > somewhere out there
> > in endless space, then, surely, Zero would be at one
> > end of it while
> > Infinity would be found at the other end...
> > wherever, that is, the
> > two ends may be found, if at all. And if you reflect
> > upon it deeply,
> > that would make out 'Zero' and 'Infinity' to be two
> > sides of the same
> > un-graspable coin.
> >
> > By the same logic, you might say the Sanskrit
> > "anantah" and "shoonya"
> > might seem antonymous but in reality they mean the
> > same thing.
> > Hailing God Almighty as 'Lord Infinity' is hence no
> > different from
> > hailing Him 'Lord Zero'.
> >
> > Incredible logic notwithstanding, we know for a fact
> > however that the
> > 'Infinite' and the 'Cipher' are never really the
> > same thing. None of
> > us would be willing to exchange one for the other if
> > it came to a
> > real choice between the two. If I go up, for
> > instance, to a venerable
> > 'achArya' or 'guru' and prostrate at his feet, I
> > would expect him to
> > shower his benediction upon me saying, "May you be
> > blessed in life,
> > my son, with God's infinite Grace!". If instead the
> > man were to say,
> > "May God's zero grace be thine in life!", the
> > blessing would stand
> > transformed into a vicious curse, wouldn't it?
> >
> > *******
> >
> > So then, why is God, who is Infinite Being, being
> > called "shoonya", a
> > Zero -- the very opposite of infinity? The
> > traditional commentators
> > of the Vishnu-Sahasranamam offer us some explanation
> > in their
> > respective "bhAshyA-s".
> >
> > Let's take up Adi Sankara's "sahasranamam bhAshyA"
> > first.
> >
> > In his commentary, Sri Sankara (6th CE) explains
> > "shoonya" as an apt
> > 'nAmA' for God, the Supreme Brahman, who is
> > "nirguNa" -- i.e. the
> > Being who is totally devoid of any qualities or
> > attributes. In other
> > words, according to Sankara's school of metaphysics,
> > God is "guNa
> > shoonyan".
> >
> > According to this explanation, God transcends all
> > attributes. His
> > qualities like omnipotence, omniscience etc. only
> > serve to help us in
> > ascertaining His reality but they do not 'per se'
> > define Him. The
> > truth of God's existence cannot be grasped by us
> > with reference to
> > His qualities or 'guNA' alone, says Sankara. Brahman
> > is to be
> > apprehended as an Absolute Being who stands far
> > apart from and quite
> > beyond any of His infinitely ("anantah") great
> > qualities -- i.e. He
> > is 'nirguNa-brahman', a Being without qualities, a
> > Being with 'zero'
> > qualities. Hence it is fit to call Him "shoonyah".
> >
> > Let's turn to the other explanation found in the
> > commentary of Sri
> > Parashara Bhattar (11th CE) on the Vishnu
> > Sahasranamam titled
> > "bhagavadh-guNa-darpaNam".
> >
> > Bhattar explains "shoonyah" in the typical way of
> > the school of
> > VisishtAdvaita theology. According to this school,
> > God is the Supreme
> > Abode of all auspicious attributes. The Almighty is
> > full of
> > innumerable good qualities like "gnyAna", "bala",
> > "aiswarya",
> > "vIrya", "shakti" and "tejas". In VisishtAdvaita,
> > God is
> > "ananta-kalyANa-guna-gaNaan" (to use a famous
> > expression of Sri
> > RamanujAchArya) -- i.e. Brahman is Being with
> > infinite number of
> > happy and wholesome attributes. The theology next
> > states that God, by
> > corollary, is also totally devoid of inauspicious,
> > un-wholesome or
> > negative qualities.
> >
> > According to Bhattar, in so far as, Brahman is
> > replete with
> > infinitely good attributes, He is to be known as
> > "anantah". And in so
> > far as He is absolutely bereft of defective
> > qualities, He is to be
> > known as the God of "zero-defects" -- in other
> > words, He is
> > "shoonyah".
> >
> > From a purely theological standpoint both
> > explanations above are
> > equally valid and wholly satisfying (depending, of
> > course, upon
> > which school of Vedanta -- Sankara's or Ramanuja's
> > -- one is
> > predisposed towards). All the same, for one who is
> > not steeped in the
> > various nuances and niceties of Vedantic theology,
> > (especially for
> > one who cannot really appreciate the technical
> > difference between the
> > metaphysical "nirguNa-" and "savisesha-" Brahman),
> > the explanations
> > of AdiSankara and Parashara Bhattar for "shoonya"
> > might only seem to
> > resemble the case of the proverbial bottle that got
> > described as
> > "half-empty" by one and "half-full" by another.
> >
> > ---------------
> >
> > Even leaving theological considerations aside, one
> > can still regard
> > Zero to be a remarkably apt 'nAma' for the Almighty.
> > Common knowledge
> > of the world around us reveals how all-powerful the
> > concept of Zero,
> > "shoonya", truly is. When we look at the history of
> > Zero, we realize
> > why 'shoonya' is almighty indeed!
> >
> > Until about 1500 years ago nobody in the world
> > outside India could
> > count numbers beyond 9 without enormous difficulty.
> > The entire
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
>http://calendar.yahoo.com
>
>
>Namo VenkateshAya namah:
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to: tiruvengadam (AT) eGroups (DOT) com
>
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
>tiruvengadam-unsubscribe (AT) eGroups (DOT) com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus