Satya Vrat Shastri and S.K.Ramachandra Rao In Dialectical Contradiction

[Guest guest]

All Glories To Srila Prabhupada. Dear Hrishikeshananda et al;

 

Srila Panditji S.V.shastri has not given much dignity to the pranati term we all

use: " Nirvishesha " . Perhaps the words of the late

S.K. Rao can refresh his intellect,I hope he knows I am respectful.

This is a big chunk,but I will place in arrows the opinion that Nirvishesha

indicates clearly Mayavadi Shankara and his ideas and followers. I call him

Mayavadi Shankara because there are other

philosophers named Shankara who are loathe to be thought of as

Mayavadis. Please notice, Pprabhupapda

abbreviated " nirvisheshadvaita " as nirvishesa.

"

The Essence of Lakshmi Visishtadvaitam,a Vaikhanasa doctrine

 

 

 

Joined: 03 May 2008

Posts: 5

Location: Tirupati/Tirumala

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 12:55 am Post subject: The Essence of Lakshmi

Visishtadvaitam,a Vaikhanasa doctrine

Inputs from late Prof. S.K.Ramachandra Rao

 

Included in the celebrated Vedantic triad known as Prasthanatraya is the Sutra

compendium (called variously Vedanta sutras, Sariraka Sutras,

Sariraka-mimamsa-sutras, Brahma-sutras, Vaiyasika-sutras and

Uttara-mimamsa-sutras), ascribed to Badarayana or Vyasa (son of Parasara, hence

Parasarya), the other two being the Upanishads (properly called the Vedanta) and

the Bhagavad Gita. The sutra-text is described as Nyaya-prasthana, as it tries

to examine the existence and nature of Brahman vis a vis the world in a rational

context, with arguments and counter-arguments, with doubts raised and cleared,

and with suggestions for a final and incontoevertible conclusion (the sutra's

main function being to suggest conclusions, 'suchanat-sutram'). It seeks to

present a cogent, consistent and intellectually edifying account of the

Upanishadic philosophy (hence called Vedanta-sutras), and its merit consists in

the analytical spirit and the methodological approach of inquiry and examination

(which the expression, mimamsa, really meant).

It is aphoristic in nature (sutra-style), and the text consists of short,

cryptic and suggestive groups of words. The well-known definition of the sutra

is that it contains but few word (alpaksharam), which are unambiguous

(asandigdham), and suggestive of a world of meanings (saravad visvato-mukham).

However, the rigorous economy of the words, coupled with the highly suggestive

character of the arrangement of the words, has resulted in a variety of

interpretations. While the nature of the literary structure of the

Sutra-compendium as containing a large number of topics or adhikaranas arranged

in four chapters or adhyayas, each having four sections (or padas) is

universally accepted, the number of aphorisms and topics are not unanimously

given by the commentators on the text.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

The earliest commentator is Sankara (632-644 A.D.), whose approach to the Sutra

has been described as unqualified non-dualism (nirviseshadvaitha).

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It must be remembered that Badarayana was not the only Sutra-kara, although his

work it is that has survived till this day. He himself has mentioned the names

and views of some of the earlier sutra-karas, like Asmarathya, Kasakrtsna,

Audulomi, Badari and Jaimini (not the author of the Purvamimamsa-sutra). The

differences among the commentators may be due to the survival of the views of

these earlier sutra-kartas. Samkara, for instance, upholds the views of

Kasakrtsna.

Samkara, who hailed from South India take the text of Badarayana as consisting

of 555 aphorisms, (sutras) and 191 topics (adhikaranas). Bhaskara, who came

after him (around 1000 A.D.), and interpreted the text as favouring the

Aupadhika Bhedabheda (conditional dualism and non-dualism) view, took the text

as consisting of 534 sutras and 140 adhikaranas, For Ramanuja (1017-1150) whose

Sri-bhashya on the text favoured the Visishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism)

view, the text had 545 sutras and 140 adhikaranas. Anandatirtha (1238-1317),

whose commentary on the text is known as Brahma sutra-bhashya, projected the

Dvaita (pluralism and realism) view on the text, which according to him consists

of 534 sutras and 123 adhikaranas.

These three view points (excluding Bhaskara's) are widely prevalent in the

country to this day, and they have been explained by numerous glosses and

annotations over the years. Among other commentaries on the text may be

mentioned the vedanta-parijata of Nimbarka (around 1250 A.D.) of Central India,

whose text consists of 549 sutras and 161 adhikaranas and who favoured the

Dvaitadvaita viewpoint; the Saiva-bhashya of Srikantha (around 1270 A.D.) from

Kashmir, who interpreted the text (of 544 sutras and 182 adhikaranas) in the

Saiva-visishtadvaita context; the Srikara-bhashya of Sripati (around 1400 A.D.)

who favoured the Sakti-Visishtadvaita Viewpoint; the Anubhashya of Vallabha

(around 1500 A.D.) of Gujarat, which takes the text as consisting of 554 sutras

and 171 adhikaranas and as favouring Suddhadvaita viewpoint; the

Vijnanamruta-bhashya of Vijnana-bhikshu (around 1600 A.D.), projecting the

Avibhagadvaita view; and the Govinda-bhashya of Baladeva (around 1725)

supporting the Achintya-bhedabheda doctrine. While these commentaries have come

down to us, there are many which have been lost. Among the references available,

we find that Yadavaprakasa, who lived after Bhaskara and before Ramanuja (or

rather during Ramanuja's days) had written a commentary, now no longer extant,

upholding the view of Svabhavikabhedabheda (natural dualism and non-dualism),

modifying Bhaskara's view.

A comentary that is little known but is of great importance is called

Lakshmi-visishtadvaita )of Sri-visishtadvaita)-bhashya prepared by

Srinivasa-makhin (Srinivasa-dikshitulu, Srinivasadhvari) of the Vaikhanasa

tradition, which is the hoary antiquity. The name 'Visishtadvaita' was brought

into vogue by the work of Ramanujacharya (1017-115-), who however called his own

commentary on the Sariraka-sutras Sri-bhashya. The expression 'Visishta'

(meaning " qualified " ) associated with 'advaita' (the one, without a second as

the sole reality) refers here to the Brahman having the sentient and insentient

orders of existence as his own body (chidachid-prakara).

We do not find the expression Visishtadvaita in Atri's Samurtarchadhikarana or

Bhrigu's Prakirnadhikara as signifying the Vaikhanasa view point.

Srinivasa-makhin specifies that the Brahman (Narayana) is invariably associated

with Lakshmi, and that it is in this sense that he is 'visishta'. Thus

Ramanuja's Visishtadvaita which Srinivasa-makhin expounded, as it is commonly

misconceived.

The Vaikhanasas viewpoint had been prevailing from very ancient times, and even

the Alwars were acquainted with it, long before the days of Ramanuja. It is not

unlikely therefore that Ramanuja was to some extent influenced by the Vaikhanasa

approach to divinity and Deity. This may explain the similarity of ideas that we

find in Sri-bhashya and Lakshmi-Visishtadvaita-bhashya. It is not to be

construed that the latter borrowed from the former. The differences in the

approaches are too conspicious to be ignored. They will be indicated later.

Ilattur Sundara-raja-Bhattacharya, who claims to be a student of

Srinivasa-makhin ('natir me yam guravestu tasmai', 41), has written a short

biographical account of his master, entitled 'Srinivasa-dikshitendra-charitram'.

He mentions here that Srinivasa-makhin was born in 4030 of the Kali-era

('trimsad-uttara-chatuhsahasregha-vyatiteshu'), corresponding to about 1030 A.D.

This would make him a junior contemporary of Ramanuja. The book also makes a

specific reference to Srinivasa-makhin being earlier to Venkatanatha who is

celebrated as 'Vedanta-Desika' (b.1268). Srinivasa-makhin also had this title,

as also 'Sarvatantra-svatantra' in common with Venkata-natha. According to the

book, Srinivasa-makhin was the son of Govindacharya Deekshitulu, who was the

chief priest of the Hill shrine of Vengadam, the present day Tirumala-Tirupati

in AndhraPradesh. The boy was invested with the sacred thread when he was five

years old, and brought before the Venkateswara idol in the sanctum to begin his

hereditary vocation as priest. He filled this position in later life with great

devotion. It is probable that Ramanuja visited the shrine when Govindacharya was

the priest, and that the two met.

Srinivasa-makhin was unusually talented, and distinguished himself as a

versatile scholar, poet and writer. He wrote many books, more than 25, all in

Sanskrit to highlight the significance of the Vaikhanasa community to the

religious traditions of the country. His works explain and vindicate the

Vaikhanasa point of view regarding Siddhanta as well as Sampradaya. He was

honoured widely. But he continued to serve as priest in the Hill shrine all his

life.

Among his works, of particular interest to us here are his commentary on the

Sariraka-sutra (Vedanta-sutra), a gloss an Paramatmikopanishad and an

independent work called Uttamabrahma-vidya-saram. //Sundara-raja's biographical

account also mentions that Srinivasa-makhin wrote a commentary on Valmiki

Ramayana another on Vaikhanasa-sutra, and some independent books like

Tithinirnaya, Srauta-vishaya-prayaschitta and Vaikhanasa-mahima-manjari. He was

also a staunch votary of Karmakanda, having performed all the prescribed

paka-yajnas, havir-yajnas and soma-yagam. It was therefore that he was called

'makhin' (dikshitulu, adhvari).

Now his commentary known as Sri-bhashya on Badarayana's Vedanta-sutra or

Sarirakae-sutra in a short descriptory form is below. The alternate name for

this work is Lakshmi-Visishtadvaita-bhashyam or more properly

Sri-Vaikhanasiya-Lakshmi-Visishtadvaitha-bhashyam. There is a fairly elaborate

gloss on this commentarial work prepared by his disciple, Illatur

Sundara-raja-Bhattacharya. This is known as Nigama-chuda-darpana (The mirror to

the crest-jewel of the Vedic corpus).

This work is to highlight the indispensible calue of idol worship (samurta

archana), which is traditionally regarded as the crown of Jnana-kanda, both as a

religious practice and as a spiritual expedient. The commentator and the

glossator attempt to defend this position valiantly by bringing together a large

mass of Vedic passages (mostly from Upanishads) in support. The commentator

quotes extensively from Paramatmikopanishad (on which text also he has written a

commentary) and from Marichi's Vimanarchana Kalpam. The commentary style closely

follows the Purva-mimamsa methodology of pointing out the subject

matter(vishaya), raising doubts(visaya), suggesting prima facie arguments and

establishing the correct position (siddhanta or raddhanta), and explaining the

connection between topics (sangati).

 

The Bhashya opens with an invocatory verse dedicated to the commentator's

tutellary deity(kuladaiva), who is also chosen deity(Ishta daiva), Venkateswara

of the Tirumala shrine:

 

nirupama gunasindhurnityalakshmi sametO nikhilanigamavEdayE nistulO venkatEsa:|

nijacharaNasamarchasaktubhaktaugharakshI nivasatu hrudaye me svAnghribhaktim

vitanvan||

 

It may be remembered that Ramanuja also offers the invocatory prayer to the same

deity(called here Srinivasa) at the commencement of his Sribhashya. The two

prayers are very similar in intent, and emphasize the Lord's role as the

protector of all beings, his knowability through scriptures, and the

incomparable value of devotion (bhakti). Srinivasa-makhin's verse, however, adds

an important detail, distinguishing the Vaikhasa approach from other approaches;

that the deity is ever associated with Lakshmi (nitya Lakshmisaetah). This is

what distinguishes this visishtadvaita (qualified Brahman) from Ramanuja's

Visishtadvaita (which refers to brahman as being qualified by Chetana and

achetana, chid-achid-visishta, as his body), The supreme reality in the

Vaikhanasa approach is Brahman (Vishnu or Narayana), who contains within himself

inseperably the element of Lakshmi.

 

The advaita here is non-difference between Narayana and Lakshmi.

It is sometimes wrongly construed that the Vaikhanasa doctrine is borrowed from

the Visishtadvaita of Ramanuja. Here is what Sundara-raja has to say on this

point:

 

Two points of difference have been noted here:

(1) While for Ramanuja devotion (bhakti) is sufficient means for salvation, the

Vaikhanasa-sastra insists that worship with devotion (pujana, archana,

samaradhana) is that means;

(2) For Ramanuja, the division of Agama known as Pancharatra is valid, while for

the Vaikhanasa system it is not.

It must be noted that the concept of Lakshmi, accepted in Visishtadvaita, is

typically the Pancharatra view, whereas the idea of Lakshmi in

Lakshmi-visishtadvaita relies heaqvily on Paramatmikopanishad. Lakshmi in the

chid-achid-visishta-advaita frame-work, is for practical purposes, and in line

with Lakshmi-tantra, an independent deity with her own purushakaratva, upayatva

and upeyatva (the akara-traya); //she becomes owned by Vishnu, and of her own

will as Parasara Bhatta describes and Lakshmi become relevant only as the spouse

of Vishnu.

Infact Vishnu creates the world only at Lakshmi's suggestion which is binding on

him: (from Srigunaratnakosa and Kuresar's Sri stavam).

_________________

Archakam Ramakrishna Deekshitulu

Archaka-Temple Priest

Srivari Temple, Tirumala Hills

[Guest guest]

Bro,

 

You become the greatest Sanskrit scholar on Earth, and THEN you're fit to

discuss this with Shastri.

 

Until then, think what you like.

 

Y/s,

R-

 

sacred-objects , " robb7thurston " <robb7thurston

wrote:

>

> All Glories To Srila Prabhupada. Dear Hrishikeshananda et al;

>

> Srila Panditji S.V.shastri has not given much dignity to the pranati term we

all use: " Nirvishesha " . Perhaps the words of the late

> S.K. Rao can refresh his intellect,I hope he knows I am respectful.

> This is a big chunk,but I will place in arrows the opinion that Nirvishesha

indicates clearly Mayavadi Shankara and his ideas and followers. I call him

Mayavadi Shankara because there are other

> philosophers named Shankara who are loathe to be thought of as

> Mayavadis. Please notice, Pprabhupapda

> abbreviated " nirvisheshadvaita " as nirvishesa.

> "

> The Essence of Lakshmi Visishtadvaitam,a Vaikhanasa doctrine

>

>

>

> Joined: 03 May 2008

> Posts: 5

> Location: Tirupati/Tirumala

> Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 12:55 am Post subject: The Essence of Lakshmi

Visishtadvaitam,a Vaikhanasa doctrine

> Inputs from late Prof. S.K.Ramachandra Rao

>

> Included in the celebrated Vedantic triad known as Prasthanatraya is the Sutra

compendium (called variously Vedanta sutras, Sariraka Sutras,

Sariraka-mimamsa-sutras, Brahma-sutras, Vaiyasika-sutras and

Uttara-mimamsa-sutras), ascribed to Badarayana or Vyasa (son of Parasara, hence

Parasarya), the other two being the Upanishads (properly called the Vedanta) and

the Bhagavad Gita. The sutra-text is described as Nyaya-prasthana, as it tries

to examine the existence and nature of Brahman vis a vis the world in a rational

context, with arguments and counter-arguments, with doubts raised and cleared,

and with suggestions for a final and incontoevertible conclusion (the sutra's

main function being to suggest conclusions, 'suchanat-sutram'). It seeks to

present a cogent, consistent and intellectually edifying account of the

Upanishadic philosophy (hence called Vedanta-sutras), and its merit consists in

the analytical spirit and the methodological approach of inquiry and examination

(which the expression, mimamsa, really meant).

> It is aphoristic in nature (sutra-style), and the text consists of short,

cryptic and suggestive groups of words. The well-known definition of the sutra

is that it contains but few word (alpaksharam), which are unambiguous

(asandigdham), and suggestive of a world of meanings (saravad visvato-mukham).

However, the rigorous economy of the words, coupled with the highly suggestive

character of the arrangement of the words, has resulted in a variety of

interpretations. While the nature of the literary structure of the

Sutra-compendium as containing a large number of topics or adhikaranas arranged

in four chapters or adhyayas, each having four sections (or padas) is

universally accepted, the number of aphorisms and topics are not unanimously

given by the commentators on the text.

> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>

> The earliest commentator is Sankara (632-644 A.D.), whose approach to the

Sutra has been described as unqualified non-dualism (nirviseshadvaitha).

>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> It must be remembered that Badarayana was not the only Sutra-kara, although

his work it is that has survived till this day. He himself has mentioned the

names and views of some of the earlier sutra-karas, like Asmarathya, Kasakrtsna,

Audulomi, Badari and Jaimini (not the author of the Purvamimamsa-sutra). The

differences among the commentators may be due to the survival of the views of

these earlier sutra-kartas. Samkara, for instance, upholds the views of

Kasakrtsna.

> Samkara, who hailed from South India take the text of Badarayana as consisting

of 555 aphorisms, (sutras) and 191 topics (adhikaranas). Bhaskara, who came

after him (around 1000 A.D.), and interpreted the text as favouring the

Aupadhika Bhedabheda (conditional dualism and non-dualism) view, took the text

as consisting of 534 sutras and 140 adhikaranas, For Ramanuja (1017-1150) whose

Sri-bhashya on the text favoured the Visishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism)

view, the text had 545 sutras and 140 adhikaranas. Anandatirtha (1238-1317),

whose commentary on the text is known as Brahma sutra-bhashya, projected the

Dvaita (pluralism and realism) view on the text, which according to him consists

of 534 sutras and 123 adhikaranas.

> These three view points (excluding Bhaskara's) are widely prevalent in the

country to this day, and they have been explained by numerous glosses and

annotations over the years. Among other commentaries on the text may be

mentioned the vedanta-parijata of Nimbarka (around 1250 A.D.) of Central India,

whose text consists of 549 sutras and 161 adhikaranas and who favoured the

Dvaitadvaita viewpoint; the Saiva-bhashya of Srikantha (around 1270 A.D.) from

Kashmir, who interpreted the text (of 544 sutras and 182 adhikaranas) in the

Saiva-visishtadvaita context; the Srikara-bhashya of Sripati (around 1400 A.D.)

who favoured the Sakti-Visishtadvaita Viewpoint; the Anubhashya of Vallabha

(around 1500 A.D.) of Gujarat, which takes the text as consisting of 554 sutras

and 171 adhikaranas and as favouring Suddhadvaita viewpoint; the

Vijnanamruta-bhashya of Vijnana-bhikshu (around 1600 A.D.), projecting the

Avibhagadvaita view; and the Govinda-bhashya of Baladeva (around 1725)

supporting the Achintya-bhedabheda doctrine. While these commentaries have come

down to us, there are many which have been lost. Among the references available,

we find that Yadavaprakasa, who lived after Bhaskara and before Ramanuja (or

rather during Ramanuja's days) had written a commentary, now no longer extant,

upholding the view of Svabhavikabhedabheda (natural dualism and non-dualism),

modifying Bhaskara's view.

> A comentary that is little known but is of great importance is called

Lakshmi-visishtadvaita )of Sri-visishtadvaita)-bhashya prepared by

Srinivasa-makhin (Srinivasa-dikshitulu, Srinivasadhvari) of the Vaikhanasa

tradition, which is the hoary antiquity. The name 'Visishtadvaita' was brought

into vogue by the work of Ramanujacharya (1017-115-), who however called his own

commentary on the Sariraka-sutras Sri-bhashya. The expression 'Visishta'

(meaning " qualified " ) associated with 'advaita' (the one, without a second as

the sole reality) refers here to the Brahman having the sentient and insentient

orders of existence as his own body (chidachid-prakara).

> We do not find the expression Visishtadvaita in Atri's Samurtarchadhikarana or

Bhrigu's Prakirnadhikara as signifying the Vaikhanasa view point.

Srinivasa-makhin specifies that the Brahman (Narayana) is invariably associated

with Lakshmi, and that it is in this sense that he is 'visishta'. Thus

Ramanuja's Visishtadvaita which Srinivasa-makhin expounded, as it is commonly

misconceived.

> The Vaikhanasas viewpoint had been prevailing from very ancient times, and

even the Alwars were acquainted with it, long before the days of Ramanuja. It is

not unlikely therefore that Ramanuja was to some extent influenced by the

Vaikhanasa approach to divinity and Deity. This may explain the similarity of

ideas that we find in Sri-bhashya and Lakshmi-Visishtadvaita-bhashya. It is not

to be construed that the latter borrowed from the former. The differences in the

approaches are too conspicious to be ignored. They will be indicated later.

> Ilattur Sundara-raja-Bhattacharya, who claims to be a student of

Srinivasa-makhin ('natir me yam guravestu tasmai', 41), has written a short

biographical account of his master, entitled 'Srinivasa-dikshitendra-charitram'.

He mentions here that Srinivasa-makhin was born in 4030 of the Kali-era

('trimsad-uttara-chatuhsahasregha-vyatiteshu'), corresponding to about 1030 A.D.

This would make him a junior contemporary of Ramanuja. The book also makes a

specific reference to Srinivasa-makhin being earlier to Venkatanatha who is

celebrated as 'Vedanta-Desika' (b.1268). Srinivasa-makhin also had this title,

as also 'Sarvatantra-svatantra' in common with Venkata-natha. According to the

book, Srinivasa-makhin was the son of Govindacharya Deekshitulu, who was the

chief priest of the Hill shrine of Vengadam, the present day Tirumala-Tirupati

in AndhraPradesh. The boy was invested with the sacred thread when he was five

years old, and brought before the Venkateswara idol in the sanctum to begin his

hereditary vocation as priest. He filled this position in later life with great

devotion. It is probable that Ramanuja visited the shrine when Govindacharya was

the priest, and that the two met.

> Srinivasa-makhin was unusually talented, and distinguished himself as a

versatile scholar, poet and writer. He wrote many books, more than 25, all in

Sanskrit to highlight the significance of the Vaikhanasa community to the

religious traditions of the country. His works explain and vindicate the

Vaikhanasa point of view regarding Siddhanta as well as Sampradaya. He was

honoured widely. But he continued to serve as priest in the Hill shrine all his

life.

> Among his works, of particular interest to us here are his commentary on the

Sariraka-sutra (Vedanta-sutra), a gloss an Paramatmikopanishad and an

independent work called Uttamabrahma-vidya-saram. //Sundara-raja's biographical

account also mentions that Srinivasa-makhin wrote a commentary on Valmiki

Ramayana another on Vaikhanasa-sutra, and some independent books like

Tithinirnaya, Srauta-vishaya-prayaschitta and Vaikhanasa-mahima-manjari. He was

also a staunch votary of Karmakanda, having performed all the prescribed

paka-yajnas, havir-yajnas and soma-yagam. It was therefore that he was called

'makhin' (dikshitulu, adhvari).

> Now his commentary known as Sri-bhashya on Badarayana's Vedanta-sutra or

Sarirakae-sutra in a short descriptory form is below. The alternate name for

this work is Lakshmi-Visishtadvaita-bhashyam or more properly

Sri-Vaikhanasiya-Lakshmi-Visishtadvaitha-bhashyam. There is a fairly elaborate

gloss on this commentarial work prepared by his disciple, Illatur

Sundara-raja-Bhattacharya. This is known as Nigama-chuda-darpana (The mirror to

the crest-jewel of the Vedic corpus).

> This work is to highlight the indispensible calue of idol worship (samurta

archana), which is traditionally regarded as the crown of Jnana-kanda, both as a

religious practice and as a spiritual expedient. The commentator and the

glossator attempt to defend this position valiantly by bringing together a large

mass of Vedic passages (mostly from Upanishads) in support. The commentator

quotes extensively from Paramatmikopanishad (on which text also he has written a

commentary) and from Marichi's Vimanarchana Kalpam. The commentary style closely

follows the Purva-mimamsa methodology of pointing out the subject

matter(vishaya), raising doubts(visaya), suggesting prima facie arguments and

establishing the correct position (siddhanta or raddhanta), and explaining the

connection between topics (sangati).

>

> The Bhashya opens with an invocatory verse dedicated to the commentator's

tutellary deity(kuladaiva), who is also chosen deity(Ishta daiva), Venkateswara

of the Tirumala shrine:

>

> nirupama gunasindhurnityalakshmi sametO nikhilanigamavEdayE nistulO

venkatEsa:|

> nijacharaNasamarchasaktubhaktaugharakshI nivasatu hrudaye me svAnghribhaktim

vitanvan||

>

> It may be remembered that Ramanuja also offers the invocatory prayer to the

same deity(called here Srinivasa) at the commencement of his Sribhashya. The two

prayers are very similar in intent, and emphasize the Lord's role as the

protector of all beings, his knowability through scriptures, and the

incomparable value of devotion (bhakti). Srinivasa-makhin's verse, however, adds

an important detail, distinguishing the Vaikhasa approach from other approaches;

that the deity is ever associated with Lakshmi (nitya Lakshmisaetah). This is

what distinguishes this visishtadvaita (qualified Brahman) from Ramanuja's

Visishtadvaita (which refers to brahman as being qualified by Chetana and

achetana, chid-achid-visishta, as his body), The supreme reality in the

Vaikhanasa approach is Brahman (Vishnu or Narayana), who contains within himself

inseperably the element of Lakshmi.

>

> The advaita here is non-difference between Narayana and Lakshmi.

> It is sometimes wrongly construed that the Vaikhanasa doctrine is borrowed

from the Visishtadvaita of Ramanuja. Here is what Sundara-raja has to say on

this point:

>

> Two points of difference have been noted here:

> (1) While for Ramanuja devotion (bhakti) is sufficient means for salvation,

the Vaikhanasa-sastra insists that worship with devotion (pujana, archana,

samaradhana) is that means;

> (2) For Ramanuja, the division of Agama known as Pancharatra is valid, while

for the Vaikhanasa system it is not.

> It must be noted that the concept of Lakshmi, accepted in Visishtadvaita, is

typically the Pancharatra view, whereas the idea of Lakshmi in

Lakshmi-visishtadvaita relies heaqvily on Paramatmikopanishad. Lakshmi in the

chid-achid-visishta-advaita frame-work, is for practical purposes, and in line

with Lakshmi-tantra, an independent deity with her own purushakaratva, upayatva

and upeyatva (the akara-traya); //she becomes owned by Vishnu, and of her own

will as Parasara Bhatta describes and Lakshmi become relevant only as the spouse

of Vishnu.

> Infact Vishnu creates the world only at Lakshmi's suggestion which is binding

on him: (from Srigunaratnakosa and Kuresar's Sri stavam).

> _________________

> Archakam Ramakrishna Deekshitulu

> Archaka-Temple Priest

> Srivari Temple, Tirumala Hills

>