ARADHANA 2007

Author: Vidwan Sri Keshava Tadipatri, USA

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Shri Raghavendra Swamiji's "Mantrartha Manjari" is pioneering contribution to Vedic literature. Mantrartha Manjari's "Preface" is torch light for for the students of Vedic literature. For the whole Vedic literature, it is a valuable introduction(bhoomike). It opens a door to astonishing world of vedas.

It was Acharya Madhwa who for the first time in history introduced Vedarth Chintana by writing bhashya to 40 suktaas to Ruk Samhite.

For the first time Acharya Madhwa declared:
1. All the Vedas essentially declare one God;
2. all words and sounds essentially are names of the God.
3. There is no word which doesn't refer to God's name.
 

Many of Panditas who were karmatas of old style (rigid) got a massive shock with the above thoughts. Many people are unable to digest this even as of today. Even after this declaration by Acharya people like SaayaNa still continued in the same line.

Acharya delcared "trayorthaah sarvavEdEShu", every mantra of  Veda has 3 meanings

The meemasaka who firmly belived " one word/sentence conveys one meaning" found it impossible to digest these words.  In reality every word has many meanings:
For ex: the word 'aatma' means
1. externally visible body
2. mind
3. self (jeeva)
4. paramaatma

This is natural way for the bhasha shaastra to interpret the meanings, but this didn't occur to meemasakas and surprisingly to "bhaasha shaastra" panditas. These panditas/meemasakas didn't adapt to Achrya's opinion,they continued cramming(getting by heart) the old way. This inner meaning of bhaasha shaastra was first made public by Achrya Madhwa.
Many panditas didn't understand Acharya's shastra/bhaaShya. To understand this these panditas started reading "tarkaShaastra", this yielded more confusion than making them understand Acharya's shastra/bhaaShya. The study of tarka shaastra instead of turning in to "sutarka" turned to "kutarka". Sadly these 'avidyavanta' panditas became famous ,bold and got recognition of the people. So tarka(logic) grew, while the reality suffered and suffocated.
Here the role of Sri RaaghavEndra swamiji becomes very important. He made "tarka" to "sutarka". He used meemasakas tarka itself to convince them about vedas having 3 meanings. He also supplemented tarka with "shaastra puraNa" to convince these meemasakas.With these explanations he challenged our thinking and made every one to think.
He said 3 meanings mean
1. 1 prominent meaning (mukhya artha)
2. 2 very prominent meaning (param mukhya artha)
He illustrated this with word "agnImILe" which means "I pray agni". Sri RaaghavEndra swamiji didn't pray fire, instead he prayed agni dEva inside the fire. He prayed "agni naaraayaNa" who dwells inside "agni dEva".
So the literal meaning of agni "fire" became less important. So
1. agni dEva is mukhya artha
2. "agni devaa's" antaryaami "agni naaraayaNa" is param mukhya artha, "shloka?", further to this,
3. agni just doesn't mean "agni antaryaami" it also mean "antaryaami of jeeva(mama)"(this is another param mukhya artha, essentially adhyatmik artha)
'aga'means immobile jeeva the mirror image of god. It is paramatma as antaryami is responsible for putting mobility in to this jeeva. So the paramatma is addressed as 'agni'.
During the yajna if one uses the term 'agni' it means "agni naaraayaNa" who dwells inside "agni dEva". During the meditation if a jeeva(worshipper/devotee) uses the term 'agni' it means "narayaNa the antaryami of that particular jeeva"
This way every deva mantra has "2 very prominenet meanings"
1. mantra's prominent devantargat narayaNa(in the above scenario agnyantargat narayaNa)
2. worshipper's bimba roopa(?) narayaNa.
By explaining this very well Sri RaaghavEndra swamiji has done a great service to all devotees.
What needs to be mentioned here is about Mantrartha Manjari's 'Preface'. This is an excellent contribution.
Acharya Madhwa in his support of tatvavaada quoted many references in his works. Some references out of this list are not available now.
This made people opposing 'tatvavaada' to say the list of references quoted by Acharya was 'self creation'. None of the ancient authors countered their argument except RaaghavEndra swami. He countered this with the following argument:
Elders(in this case Acharya) have seen lot scriptures, because of that they refer to them. RaaghavEndra swami said "it is improper of the foolish panditas having read few scriptures only to complain against Acharya. He said these panditas should be ashamed of themselves". This way he cautioned the people opposing 'tatvavaada' and Acharya.
He didn't stop there:
He said "there are many authors who referenced the non-existing scriptures and how can these people(accusing Acharya) accept this?". If this can be accepted then why not Acharya's literarture.
For every argument of ours there is attached our own religion/caste unknowingly. RaaghavEndra swami shows to us that why their argument is false, this he illustrtaes further:
"shaambara bhaashya" also quotes references which are not available now. What is take of meemasakas on this one?
Also "shaankara bhaashya"quotes references from some "vEda vaakya" which are no longer available? What is take of shamkaras followers on this one?
RaaghavEndra swami's these defending statements not only defend himself but also Acharya Madhwa. This way he analysed the problem in a wonderful way.
Luckily some parts of vEdas whom meemasakas called "self creation" are available now. This further extends support to RaaghavEndra swami's argument.
Like this many new thoughts guruRaaghavEndra's "Mantrartha Manjari" brings out, especially "Preface" which is very impoartant for Vedic literature. So Shree Raghavendra swami's this masterpiece to Vedic literature is invaluable.