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]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |