Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan Thanks for the information on Purusha suktam. I was also going through thetranslation of Vishnu suktam of Rigveda. I am giving below these two mantras(verses) and respective meaning. Rigveda (1.22) ____________________________________________ idam vişhņur vichakrame tredhā nidadhe padam samūļham asya pāmsure ||17|| Meaning: Through this Vishnu strode; thrice he placed his foot, and the whole world lay in the dust of his feet. ____________________________________________ trīnÙi padā vichakrame vişhņur gopā adābhyaĥ ato dharmāņi dhārayan ||18|| Three steps he made, Vishnu the Guardian undeceivable; from there upholding the eternal Laws. ____________________________________________ I have taken this translation from "SAKSIVC" website www.vedah.com. Well, if we go by this translation, I don't think we will have any doubt regarding Vishnu paratvam. However, I am not sure if translation by others differ from this or not. Can you please comment on this. Regards Adiyen Mohan Ramanujadasan On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 amshuman_k wrote : >Dear Shri Mohan & Shri Lakshmi Narasimhan, > Just a correction - Purusha sUktam appears in shaunakIya atharvaNa >vedam too with minor modifications from Rg reading. It still doesn't >contain uttara anuvAkam appearing in taittriya Aranyakam. It is from >the uttara anuvAkam of taittriya Aranyakam we find that purusha of >Rig Veda being identified with Vishnu/Narayana. Till them Purusha was >supposed to be "primeval" or "cosmic" man. Shathapatha brAhmaNa >features somebody called "purusha nArAyaNa", implying the completed >identification of Rig Vedic purusha with nArAyaNa. Though shri Mohan >doesn't agree with the conclusion that the pUrva anuvAkam, almost >same as Rig vedic reading, is of 'earlier date' and 'uttara anuvAkam' >(new material) is of 'later date', I generally agree with this >observation. This is a separate discussion though. > >Identity of "Virat Purusha" with "vyUha vAsudeva" is pAncharAtric >interpretation of the rig vedic sUkta {vaguely recall that it is from >brahma samhita. Learned scholars can clarify}. Though this in itself >is not for or against the validity of pAncharAtra, we have to keep in >mind regarding to what is interpretation and what is original. > >Regards, >Kasturi Rangan .K > >--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Mohan Ramanujan" ><mohan_ramanujan@xxxx> wrote: > > Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan, > > > > While my line of thinking regarding Supremacy of Narayana is same >as that of yours, I have a small clarification/doubt regarding >Purusha Suktam. > > > > > > It is true that Purusha Suktam appears in Rig,Yajur & Sama vedas. >However, I have noticed a difference between Rigvedic version and >Yajurvedic version.(I have not read sama vedic version, so I don't >know about it) > > Differences: > > 1)There are only 16 verses in Rigvedic version whereas in >Yajurvedic version, there are 22 verses or so. > > 2) The verses that refer to Hree & Lakshmi is absent in Rigvedic >version whereas it is present in Yajurvedic version. > > > > I believe, there must be some reasons for this difference. (I have >heard in one of the debate that Rigvedic version is original & old >and the additional verses in Yajurveda was addedd later on.---> Well >I don't really believe this). > > > > May I request you & others in the group to throw some light on this. > > > > Regards > > > > Adiyen > > Mohan Ramanujadasan > > > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 Lakshmi Narasimhan wrote : > > >Dear Kasturi Rangan, > > >Kindly forgive me for pursuing this thread and please feel free to > > >correct me if I am wrong. I've heard that Purusha Suktham is in all > > >the 3 (rik, yajur and sama) vedas. It talks about the manifestation > > >of the Leela Vibhuthi - Material World(starting from 'braahmanosya > > >mukham aaseeth') from a being called Virata Purushan('tasmaat >viraat > > >ajaayatha'). It is stated that the devas performed an yagya called > > >sarva aahuthi('tasmaat yagyaath sarvahutha:') upon which the Virata > > >Purusha was satisfied and he came before them and initiated the >leela > > >vibhuti manifestation. It is also stated that the whole universe > > >(Leela Vibhuti) thus came into existence from his 'Naval'('Naabhya > > >aaseeth anthariksham'). > > >Now, a) who is this Virata Purushan? b) Why weren't the other >deities > > >not able to manifest the leela vibhuthi the way this Virata >Purushan > > >was able to? > > >Answer to a) is, this Virata Purushan is the form that we worship, > > >that we call as Narayana - (in artha panchakam, this Virata >Purushan > > >is the Vyuha Vasudevan?!), reasons being: 1) Both these forms have > > >been known for the lotus coming out of the naval, and this lotus > > >leading to the creation of this universe that we see and live. 2) >The > > >same purusha sukta continues to say that this Virata Purusha is the > > >one who has Hree and Lakshmi as his wives - (hreeshca) Hree and > > >(lakshmishca) Laskhmi are (patnyau) wives (te) to you - (reference > > >http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-6.html#6). Per innumerous > > >references from the same vedas, we infer that Narayana aka Vishnu >is > > >the one who has Hree and Lakshmi as his wives. > > >Answer to b) - I don't know. Some learned one could elaborate on >the > > >same. Well, I could only infer that this is the best form of the > > >brahmam(and hence is an equivalent and prime form of the brahmam as > > >revealed to the vedic seers) that "is" capable of the "jagat > > >vyaparam" and as per the brahma sutras, jagat vyaparam is unique to > > >the paramatma. Hence, it is clear without any doubt that this form, > > >Narayana, could be claimed and worshipped as the supreme one, per > > >vedas. > > > > > >There are other statements like 'devAnAm parama:' etc. Why even go >to > > >that, 'tat tvam asi svetha ketho' could be interpreted to mean that > > >svethakethu is the brahmam;). There are innumerous ways to >interpret > > >these statements. Our acharyas had mastered all the vedas and hence > > >they could define the context, usage and hence the appropriate > > >interpretation for the same, unlike us, who try to interpret the > > >same, line by line and hence quote one or two lines from the vedas >to > > >support our view. > > > > > >I haven't heard about any other form being claimed by the Vedas as > > >the one that performs jagat vyaparam. Learned scholars, kindly feel > > >free to correct me. > > > > > >My apologies for my ignorance and mistakes. Absolutely, no offense > > >intended upon anyone. > > > > > >Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jaamaataram Munim > > > > > >Adiyen, > > >Ramanuja Dasan > > > > > > > (b) Legitimacy of other vedic 'deities' claim to be brahman: > > > > If we accept the 'entire shruthi' as pramANa, rudra is mentioned > > > > as 'devAnAm parama:' supreme God in Taittriya Aranyaka and also > > > > termed as pashupathi. Brihaspathi is called brahman!!!!! in > > >numerous > > > > places in the very first khanda of taittriya samhita. This is no > > > > different from another line in nArAyaNopanishad which > > >says 'nArAyaNa > > > > param brahma'. Do you think we have to turn a blind eye to all > > >these > > > > with the escape sequence 'all vedanta acharyas didn't doubt > > > > NarayaNa's paratvam?'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > > > > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> >Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles. >No Late Fees & Free Shipping. >Try Netflix for FREE! >http://us.click.yahoo.com/vhSowB/XP.FAA/3jkFAA/.itolB/TM >---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > >azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |