You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Oct 2003

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00173 Oct 2003

 
Oct 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


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]





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list