23 Aug 2016
Shri Balaji asked: Veda says that Brahma and Shiva are Narayana (Brahmaah cha Naaraayanah...) and at the same time also says that Indra and sides like East are also Narayana (Indrashcha...Dishashcha...). How to understand these statements in a proper way?
Swami replied: Unless you understand every word with the detailed background involving Sanskrit grammar, logic etc., the final conclusion being incomplete and diverted to wrong path becomes confusion. Here, you must take the first point that Narayana is an energetic form in which the unimaginable God (Parabrahman) got merged. Similarly, Brahma and Shiva are also energetic forms in which the unimaginable God got merged. These three forms can be said as the basic eternal address of God since the unimaginable God never exits from these three forms. The reason for such conclusion is that the unimaginable God is defined as that one entity, which does creation, control and destruction of this world. This definition is given by the Veda (Yato vaa imaani...), the Brahma Sutras (Janmaadyasya...) and the Gita (Prabhavah Pralayastathaa…, Mayi sarvamidam..., te mayi...). Hence, all these three forms are mediated Parabrahman only. In such case, you can take any one of these three in the sense of Parabrahman. Narayana is Parabrahman. Brahma and Shiva are Narayana or Parabrahman only. Here, the world Narayana stands for Parabrahman only and not to the specific external energetic form. One form can never be another form just like one human being can’t be another human being since each human being has its own specific form. Forms of a swan and a parrot are made of sugar. Each item is having a seed of cashew nut in it. Now, if you say that the parrot is swan, it can have two meanings: 1) The word parrot represents the external formless sugar so that the word parrot stands for such formless sugar. When you say that parrot is swan, it means that both are made of the same formless sugar externally. Similarly, if Narayana stands for the energy present in His external form, it means that both Narayana and Brahma are having external forms made of the same common formless energy. Similarly, you can take Shiva in the place of Brahma. 2) The word parrot stands for the internal cashew nut seed and here both parrot and swan have the same internal cashew nut. Similarly, if Narayana stands for Parabrahman both Narayana and Brahma have the Parabrahman in their energetic forms. In this sense Narayana stands for Parabrahman.
Therefore, you must take the word Narayana either for the general formless energy existing in external form or you must take word Narayana for the internal Parabrahman while speaking that Brahma and Shiva are Narayana. In this context, you must not take word Narayana for its specific external form of energy. If you take the sense of specific external form only, then this context disappears and the result is that Narayana is Narayana, Brahma is Brahma and Shiva is Shiva. You must learn to take proper sense of the world in a suitable context. If you take other sense of other context, the present context gets cracked with contradiction. If you take this specific form as Narayana, objection comes in the very first step that one specific form can’t be the other specific form.
The one Parabrahman exists in all these three divine forms without any internal division. This concept is well explained by the form of God Dattatreya. This form is only one entity like Brahma or Narayana or Shiva. At the same time, this form has three faces of Brahma, Narayana and Shiva seen simultaneously. This form gives the meaning of the definition of Parabrahman that one entity only called Parabrahman is doing all the three works (creation, ruling and destruction) as indicated by one person having the three faces of creator (Brahma), Ruler (Narayana) and destroyer (Shiva).
The above statements given by you are from prayer on Narayana in the Veda. By saying that Narayana is Brahma and Shiva, it only means that the Ruler-Parabrahman in Narayana is the Creator-Parabrahman in Brahma and is Destroyer-Parabrahman in Shiva. Here, the devotees approaching Parabrahman through the specific external form called Narayana and is not simply approaching and sticking to the external form only. If the devotee sticks to the external form of Narayana only, he is Veera Vaishnava (conservative and rigid devotee of Vishnu) and if the devotee sticks to Parabrahman in Narayana only, he is Vaishnava (a devotee of Vishnu with analytical spiritual knowledge). In any sub-religion of Hinduism and in any religion of the world, both types of devotees invariably exist. Our sincere effort is to convert the first type of devotees to the second type of devotees to avoid criticism of other sub-religions in Hinduism and other religions in the world forgetting universal peace.
When you say that Indra is Narayana, you should take the word Indra in its root verbal sense. Indra means the Lord or God. The word Indra comes from the root word ‘Idi’, which means Lordship (Eishvarye). You can take any incarnation (energetic or human) of Parabrahman as Indra since we address every incarnation with the prefix word ‘Lord’. Even Brahma or Narayana or Shiva or Dattatreya can be called as Indra or Lord. In this way, you can interpret this statement as calling every incarnation having Parabrahman in it as Indra or Lord. After saying that Brahma, Narayana and Shiva are Lords, the Veda proceeds to say that not only these three, but also any other incarnation is Narayana or Parabrahman.
But, if you take Indra as mere deity (ordinary soul in energetic body) present in the energetic form, having certain mystic powers along with some duties allotted by Parabrahman, the above first sense of first mode of proposition can’t be taken. You have to take the help of Sanskrit grammar-rules giving various senses for modes of propositions (Vibhakti). When you say that Brahma is Narayana or Parabrahman, it comes to be the first mode (Prathamaa vibhakti), which says that the two are one and the same. If you say that he is Rama, there are no two entities as he and Rama. It indicates identity of both as one. You can use this mode even if two entities exist and become inseparable as one. Current and wire are two entities. When I say that the wire is current, it means both merged and result is only one entity called as electrified wire. In this sense, we can take that the energetic form Brahma and Parabrahman are merged together to result in Lord Brahma. Similarly, Narayana and Shiva. Here the first sense (Taadaatmya) of merge to become single item is to be taken in the case of Brahma or Narayana or Shvia or Dattatreya or any energetic or human incarnation. Here, the word Indra can stand for Dattatreya also indicating the single Lord or Parabrahman existing in all incarnations of God.
The second sense of this first mode is control of one item by the other item (tadadhina prathamaa). Salutations to Shri Ramanuja Aacharya for projecting this sense of first mode while explaining “all this world is Brahman” (Sarvam khalvidam Brahma). Similar Vedic statement exists in this context also “All this world is Narayana” (Narayana evedam sarvam). Here, if we take first sense, it shall mean that all this world is God. If it is so, bad should not appear in any part of the world. Similarly, no ignorance must exist anywhere in the world. Narayana also means abode of spiritual knowledge and there should not be lack of knowledge anywhere in this creation. All these objections don’t admit the first sense that God and world are one and the same item. This concept belongs to atheism, for whom there is no God other than this world. In order to remove all these objections, Ramanuja took the second sense of first mode interpreting that this entire world is under the control of God. If you take Indra as a deity only having several defects like going to beat Lord Shiva with his thunder weapon, cheating Ahalya, raining continuously against Lord Krishna etc., you can’t say that such Indra is God. In this case, you have to take the second sense and interpret that the deity Indra is under the control of God. Similarly, sides like East are under the control of God.
In the above simile of swan and parrot a cashew nut existing in any one of these two is compared to Parabrahman. This simile holds good if you are rigid that Parabrahman is in the soul of incarnation only due to which soul can be called as God but not its body. However, this is not valid since Parabrahman pervades all the soul and external body equally as said in the Veda (Antarbahischcha...). Since God is also in the body of boy Krishna, that tender body could lift the big mountain due to Its unimaginable nature. In such case, the above said cashew nut taken as its powder mixed with sugar exists all over the parrot or swan.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★