3

I'm interested in the answer to this question from the perspective of Shri Vaishnavism, though I would be interested in the position of other Vaishnava schools (other than ISKCON/GV, which I am familiar with. The Gaudiyas claim that God is a being with arms and legs just like a human being, only not made up of material elements.)

I also wonder whether, from the Shri Vaishnavism point of view, avatars who descend into the material world have material bodies.

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Improve this question
4
  • Question is good- gives an insight into various Hinduism sampradayas.
    – ajitdas
    Sep 14 at 12:26
  • "atropomorphic" is probably anthropomorphic
    – ajitdas
    Sep 14 at 12:37
  • Thank you for the correction
    – Jeeva
    Sep 14 at 12:58
  • perhaps the anthropomorphism of narayana comes from the nasadiya sukta of rigveda. search for nasadiya.pdf. it refers to "unillumined water"
    – blue_ego
    Sep 16 at 16:36

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

I also wonder whether, from the Shri Vaishnavism point of view, avatars who descend into the material world have material bodies.

This one is pretty clear. They are not material. In Bhagavad Gita 4.9 Krishna says जन्म कर्म च मे दिव्यमेवं यो वेत्ति तत्त्वतः। Ramanuja says दिव्यम् means अप्राकृतं (not physical).

From a fundamental point-of-view Brahman is beyond speech and mind (Taittiriya Upanishad). Any description of Brahman will be limiting. Therefore any anthropomorphic conceptualization is also limiting. The Srivaishnavas understand this to be the grace of the infinite Lord who has restricted Himself so that jIvas can experience Him.

The Jitante Stotram from the PancharAtra Agama makes a reference to this in the verse - न ते रूपं न चाकारो नायुधानि न चास्पदम्। तथापि पुरुषाकारो भक्तानां त्वं प्रकाशसे. One interpretation of this is "you have no form nor shape". However the word ते can mean either the dative case (तुभ्यम्) or the genitive case (तव). When interpreted as the dative (which the Srivaishnava Acharya Periyavachan Pillai does), it can be translated as "Your form is not for yourself. Your shape is not for yourself". It is for His devotees.

So coming to your question "Is Narayana understood in Shri Vaishnavism as an anthropomorphic being"?

Yes and No.

Yes because His form and shape as an anthropomorphic being are real; NOT SYMBOLIC.

No because He is much more than that.

Improve this answer
1
  • (1) The question is about what Srivaishnavas feel and my answer is about what Ramanuja has said about this verse. (2) Look at the context of those 5 verses. Krishna is describing avatAras (sambhavAmi yuge yuge). That the Krishna form exists beyond the avatAra is a concept unique to some Vaishnava schools but NOT the Srivaishnava school.
    – hashable
    Sep 21 at 13:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .