7

If yes, what justification they provide? Please quote their original works.

  • 1
    Why would they talk about it? Did they write about grammar? Ramanujacharya never wrote on grammar as far as I know. What is the basis of the question? Why should they say Narayana is a proper noun? – Sarvabhouma Feb 06 '19 at 17:06
  • @Sarvabhouma It is a claim among many Sri Vaishnavas that Narayana is a proper noun. Hence the question. –  Feb 06 '19 at 17:08
  • @Sarvabhouma Explanation of etymologies of words is common in vedanta. –  Feb 06 '19 at 17:11
  • Yes, it's a proper noun but why should they speak of it? Do you always expect Shankaracharya to write about a topic which was raised by his successors? This looks like a grammar question rather than religious. When they used Narayana, they meant only one and specific and no one else. Is this not enough? – Sarvabhouma Feb 06 '19 at 17:12
  • @Sarvabhouma If you know the answer, please reply. –  Feb 06 '19 at 17:19
  • I'm asking the premise of the question. Why should they speak and what is the guarantee they should speak? This was first raised by Appayya Deekshitar.. Vedantacharya or Ramanujacharya never meant Narayana is Shiva or other God and only Lakshmi pati only. – Sarvabhouma Feb 06 '19 at 17:21
  • @Sarvabhouma I understand that when Sri Vaishnava acharyas talk of Narayana, they mean Vishnu only. I already told why I asked this question. It is because of the belief of Sri Vaishnavas. –  Feb 06 '19 at 17:23
  • 1
    Then I hope you know what is the meaning of a proper noun. "A proper noun is the name of a particular person, place, organization, or thing. Proper nouns begin with a capital letter". When they referred to only one person, what is it called besides a proper noun? A pronoun? – Sarvabhouma Feb 06 '19 at 17:27
  • 1
    @Sarvabhouma You raised a good point. But I have not seen Sri Vaishnavas claiming that the words Vishnu, Vasudeva, Govinda etc. are proper nouns. They claim proper noun status only for the word Narayana. Why? –  Feb 06 '19 at 17:30
  • 5
    what is not a proper noun is an attribute. They are saying "Siva" can either mean "auspicious" or the God Siva. But Narayana can ONLY mean the supreme vaishnavite God because of a rule in Panini. Even Srivaishnavites stopped saying this much lately because counterexamples have been found since the days of Appayya Dikshitar. – S K Feb 06 '19 at 17:55
  • 1
    It is actually a quality, a description of the Supreme Being. It means Support or Foundation. – M_Raghavan Feb 25 '19 at 04:18
  • @Pratimaputra As far as I know, Narayani is Lakshmi, not Durga. Shankara takes the word Narayana to mean Vishnu only. –  Apr 09 '19 at 07:25
  • @Pratimaputra We have mantra pushpam for Lakshmi, where she is called Narayani. So Narayani is Lakshmi for us. May be in Bengal, things are different. Regarding Uma, we already had this discussion. She is treated as an associate of brahman and not brahman herself. –  Apr 09 '19 at 07:41
  • @Pratimaputra May be, but as I said, in our mantra pushpam, Narayani is Lakshmi. So let us respect differences and move on. –  Apr 09 '19 at 07:45
  • @Pratimaputra Monier mentions both Durga and Lakshmi as Narayani. –  Apr 09 '19 at 07:46
  • Even Sanskritdictionary.com mentions both Lakshmi and Durga as Narayani. –  Apr 09 '19 at 07:49

1 Answers1

8

Vedanta Desika is fairly clear that the term Narayana is unambiguous.

In the Tattvamuktakalapa 3.5 Desika states:

nissādhāraṇya-nārāyaṇa-pada-viṣaye niścayaṃ yānty-abādhe
sad-brahm-ādyās-samāna-prakaraṇa- paṭhitāś śaṅkitānyartha śabdāḥ।
antaryantā ca nārāyaṇa iti kathitaḥ; kāraṇaṃ cāntar-ātmety
asmād-apy-aika kaṇṭhyam bhavati nirupadhis tatra śambhvādi śabdāḥ॥

In his own commentary on the Tattvamuktakalapa known as the Sarvartha Siddhi, in the context of the current verse, Desika states:

sad-śabdastāvat sattāyogiṣu sarveṣu pravṛttatayā na viśeṣa nirdhāraṇārhaḥ। brahmaśabdaḥ ekarūḍho'pi bahuṣu rūḍhavat prayuktatayā anyārthatva śaṅkārhaḥ syāt। ātmaśabdasca jīva-parādhi-sādhāraṇa-prayogaḥ। evaṃ puruṣa-prāṇ-ākṣara-śabdā api।

nārāyaṇaśabdastu na jātyupādhivacanaḥ, na vā'nekarūḍhaḥ। atastena anyeṣām viṣaya-viśeṣaṇa-nirdhāraṇam yuktam। tatra ca hetuḥ samāna-prakaraṇa-paṭhiṭatvam। anyathā paśvadhikaraṇāderapi bhaṅgassyāt।

  1. The word sad cannot connote a specific entity as it is used to refer to the ordinary jagat by the Sarvajagatsattāvādins.
  2. The word brahman although has a commonly understood single sense, it is applied in reference to multiple entities commonly. Therefore it cannot be used in a unique manner as it can cause confusion.
  3. The word Atman is used normally in many senses to refer to the jIva as well as the paramAtman.
  4. Similarly, words like puruSha, prANa, akShara also are incapable of denoting a unique entity.
  5. Unlike these, the word Narayana is neither used a descriptor of categories (jāti) nor attributes (upādhi).
  6. Nor is it commonly/popularly used to refer to many different things.
  7. Therefore it is proper (not ambiguous) for it to have a object-attribute relationship with other words (other words are the attributes).
  8. This is because of it (the word Narayana) being used identically (as the other words like sad, brahman, etc.) in the same context (where the other word appears).
  9. Otherwise chAga-pashu-nyAya and others would breakdown. (This refers to the principle of interpretation laid down by the Mimamsakas: when multiple terms are used in the same context, the term having a general meaning should be interpreted to bear the meaning of the term that is most specific.)

From #5 and #6, it is clear that Desika observes Narayana to be a term that is seen to be consistently applied (in extant scripture) to identify a unique entity and none else (either as a category or attribute or popular usage). The consequence of this is that whenever the term Narayana is used alongside other terms within a context in an identical fashion, the application of the principle of chAga-pashu-nyAya (#9) becomes appropriate. Thus in a context where both the term Narayana and another generic term like Sad, Atman, Brahman etc. are used in an identical manner, it is to be inferred that the other generic terms are used as a reference to Narayana.

hashable
  • 3,645
  • 18
  • 33
  • 2
    "Unlike these, the word Narayana is neither a descriptor of categories nor attributes" I would disagree with this. Narayana has atleast two etymologies which describe attributes, one of them being "refuge of man". –  Apr 09 '19 at 07:27
  • 1
    @Pratimaputra I was trying to convey the argument. I didn't intend that it be read as a translation. One has to read the entire context of the fairly large ArambhaNadhikaraNa to understand the logic. Nevertheless your point is well taken. I have temporarily removed the Ramanuja Bhashya portions until I can rewrite it better. – hashable Apr 09 '19 at 17:25
  • 1
    @LazyLubber I have clarified that the word is not "used" as a descriptor of categories or attributes (upAdhi). E.g. there are numerous places where the term "shiva" is used as a synonym of the adjective "shubha" to connote auspiciousness but the term Narayana is not used as an adjective applied to any entity. – hashable Apr 09 '19 at 17:30
  • @hashable Ok. That is interesting. –  Apr 09 '19 at 17:57
  • 1
    @Pratimaputra (1) Note that the terms Narayana and Vishnu are not the same for the purpose of this discussion. The different adjectives you described are what Gaudiyas apply to the term Vishnu, not Narayana. (2) Even assuming that Narayana was used as an upAdhi (which you have not proven) Gaudiyas are 150+ years post Vedanta Desika who is the subject of my answer so their thoughts are irrelevant to Desika's statement which is a reflection of the practice in his times and before him. – hashable Apr 09 '19 at 18:52
  • 1
    @Pratimaputra (3) Just because adjectives are applied to X doesn't make X an adjective. You have merely described that Gaudiyas apply some adjectives to Vishnu but not that the term Narayana is used in an attributive sense. E.g. If a forest becomes the home of a wanderer and is described as "nArAyaNa" , then it would become an upAdhi but we find no such uses. Whereas we see the word "shiva" used to mean "undisturbed" such as "shivAni tIrthajalAni" (undisturbed waters). – hashable Apr 09 '19 at 19:01
  • @Pratimaputra (4) Even if a modern Sanskrit dictionary like Apte's you will find the entry for Narayana fairly short containing no adjectival usages (See https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/apte_query.py?qs=%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%83&searchhws=yes) whereas the entry for shiva contains several adjectival usages. (See https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/apte_query.py?qs=%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5&searchhws=yes) – hashable Apr 09 '19 at 19:01
  • @Pratimaputra I think what ..hashable is trying to say is that the word narayana is not used in scriptures as an adjective anywhere. If I understand him correctly, he is not denying that the word narayana has an etymology. –  Apr 09 '19 at 19:13
  • @Pratimaputra What I said doesn't violate what OP says. The grammar of sanskrit allows you to modify a word and come up with derivative words; and to combine it with other words and make compound words. Neither changes the fundamental meaning of the original word. Just because there is a derived word "Narayani" or a compound word "Narayana-samAshritAH", it doesn't mean the original word Narayana becomes an upAdhi. Can you quote a single example where the word Narayana has been used as an upAdhi in pre-Desika texts? – hashable Apr 09 '19 at 19:15
  • @hashable What about Surya Narayana? –  Apr 09 '19 at 19:20
  • @Pratimaputra Please explain why it is being used as an upAdhi in your example. Do you understand what upAdhi means? Your example is taking a term like "President Obama" and saying it is proof of the word "Obama" being used as an adjective. – hashable Apr 09 '19 at 19:30
  • @hashable every aspect if the Absolute is Upadhi.And yes i studied sanskrit and i hope i was taught what upadhi means –  Apr 09 '19 at 19:34
  • In case you're interested in the Sanskrit proposal on Area 51: https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/123261/sanskrit-language – Say No To Censorship Oct 25 '19 at 02:57
  • Does Desikan say anything about the Na-kara of Narayana? A lot of modern Vaishnavas claim that the final "Na" makes the word into a proper noun according to a sutra of Panini. – Ikshvaku Dec 31 '19 at 13:53
  • Also, can't Narayana simply mean "one who rests on the waters", or "one who is the abode of naras (Jivas)"? In that case, it may not necessarily connote Vishnu. – Ikshvaku Dec 31 '19 at 13:53
  • @Ikshvaku To my knowledge, Desikan has not made any reference to the Nakara rule. Appayya Dikshita, a post Desikan advaitin and admirer of Desika is supposed to have made a reference to it. – hashable Dec 31 '19 at 18:06
  • @hashable Thanks. I thought that the na becomes a Na due to internal sandhi rules because of the ra in Narayana. So instead of Narayana, it should actually be spelled NarayaNa because of internal sandhi. So how does the sutra of panini relate to this na-kara thing? – Ikshvaku Dec 31 '19 at 18:11
  • @Ikshvaku Regarding your other question on meaning of Narayana, the point Desika is making is not based on grammar or etymology but rather one of usage. At the time of Desika, it seems to be pretty clear that there were no usages of the term Narayana in reference to anybody/anything other than Sriyahpati either in Vedic, classical, or colloquial usage. This is in stark contrast to other terms like Brahma or Shambhu (terms also used to denote the Parabrahman) which had several general usages. – hashable Dec 31 '19 at 18:16
  • @Ikshvaku . So the issue is not whether Narayana could or could not be applied etymologically to mean something other than Vishnu. Rather it is that it was never found to be used for anything else. (Whether or not it is due to Nakara is irrelevant to Desikas argument) – hashable Dec 31 '19 at 18:19
  • @hashable Ok thanks, and going off that, what about naming children Narayana? Nobody had that name back then? – Ikshvaku Dec 31 '19 at 18:20
  • @ Ikshvaku Why is that relevant? Does it change anything? There is still only one original 'meaning' of the term. Reusing that Vedic word as a name of a child doesn't change that. The meaning of the term Shiva is not ambiguous just because several people are named Shiva after Umapati-Shiva but because it is used to mean auspiciousness in general. E.g शिवाय गम्यताम्, ‘a prosperous journey to you!’ – hashable Dec 31 '19 at 18:35
  • @hashable Understood. And one more question, do you know how Panini's na-kara relates to the internal sandhi rule? I thought the na becomes a Na simply because there is ra in Narayana. Just like intstrumental vibhakti for "rama" is "rameNa" and not "ramena". – Ikshvaku Dec 31 '19 at 18:39
  • Is there a reference to the name narAyaNA in Rg Veda? We all know the name occurs in Krishna Yajur Veda (in The maHA nArAyanOpanisad), but is there a reference to the name nArAyaNA in either Rg or Sama Vedas? Don't ask me for relevance to the original question, and don't take this as an attempt to refute any of Sri Nigamanta Maha Desikan's works. Some of you, particularly @hashable raised the point the name was never used as an upAdhi prior to Desikan's times. So I am asking do we have any reference to the Vedic texts where the name of the Lord nArAyaNA (other than the Krishna Yajur Veda)? – Vidyarthi Jan 05 '20 at 01:47
  • The name "vishNu" is found in the Rg, Yajur, Sama, and also Atharva Veda (I need to jog my memory on the atharva Veda to remember where exactly). The famous VishNU suktam occurs in The Rg Veda. But I would like to see the origin of the word nArAyaNA in the Vedas. Looking for the oldest possible reference to the name nArAyaNA. That's the context behind this question. Just for discussion, similar difference exists with Rudra and Shiva. The Rg Veda mostly refers to Rudra, and The Yajur Veda contains a joint reference connecting both Rudra and Shiva (The Rudram, maHA nArAyanOpanisad). – Vidyarthi Jan 05 '20 at 01:50
  • If you accept that The RG Veda is the oldest (which some scholars dispute), then the notion that Lord Rudra and Lord Shiva meaning the same God or deity, gained momentum starting with the Yajur Vedic period. Likewise the earliest reference to Lord nArAyaNA I can remember is in the Yajur Veda. As in the case of Shiva and Rudra, The Yajur Veda combines both nArAyaNA and vishNU as one God or deity. Does any one else know of a reference in The Rg or Sama Vedas? PS: maHOpanisad can be quoted here, but it is attributed to sama Veda ..afaik, it is not found within the main sakhas extant today. – Vidyarthi Jan 05 '20 at 02:05
  • @Vidyarthi

    @hashable raised the point the name was never used as an upAdhi prior to Desikan's times.

    Actually it is Vedanta Desikan who makes that point. See the sentence "nārāyaṇaśabdastu na jātyupādhivacanaḥ" from the Sarvārtha Siddhi.

    So I am asking do we have any reference to the Vedic texts where the name of the Lord nArAyaNA (other than the Krishna Yajur Veda)?

    Shatapatha Brahmana (Shukla Yajur Veda) is much older than the Taittiriya Mahanarayanopanishad. It makes a reference to Narayana in 13.6.1.[1] when equating him with Purusha (puruṣo ha nārāyaṇo'kāmayata )

     – hashable Jan 05 '20 at 18:00
  • Thank you @hashable. That was my question. I don't know if Shatapata Brahmana is really older than mahA nArAyanOpanisad, though I know some scholars consider mahAnArAynOpanisad as khila. If you could provide some references that place Shatapata Brahmana timewise, that will help. Thanks in advance.

    But both references we have / know, seem to be part of The Yajur Veda (albeit different recensions though). Any case, my exploration and interest continues with the differences observed between the Rg Veda and the evolution of deities in the later Yajur Veda period.

     – Vidyarthi Jan 05 '20 at 19:52