Dear bhAgavatAs, I stumbled onto an old sri-ranga-sri discussion regarding the s'lOka shuklAmbaradharam vishNum... A proposition was made that this was addressed to vinAyaka which was countered by lot of srI vaishNavAs. I request a pramANa for vishNu being described as a 'sashi-varNa' - 'moon-colored'. I also noticed a comment by somebody that ganEsha is a non-vedic deity and he is introduced into tamil nadu during pallava regime. If that is true, I request another clarification: taittriya AraNyaka 10.1.24 has this mantra "tatpurushAya vidmahe vakratundAya dhImahi tannO danti: pracodayAt " This mantra occurs with others addressed to family and extended family of shiva/shankara :) I understand that book X (famously called mahA-nArAyaNa upanishad) has multiple readings. Do we consider that this book of AraNyakam or this section is interpolated too after pallava regime? Even otherwise, ganEsha mantra occurs in maitrAyaNIya samhita 2.9.1 with a textual variant as "tatpurushAya vidmahe hastimukhAya dhImahi tannO danti: pracodayAt " So clearly ganEsha is 'very much vedic'. If we temrproarily supress maitrAyaNIya samhita evidence and consider mahAnArAyaNa upanishad reference as interpolation, we run into the problem of demoting nrsimha as non-vedic too, as I am not aware of mention of nrsimha (mantram or brAhmaNam discussion) anywhere else in vedic literature. I request the opinions of learned members. Regards, Kasturi Rangan .K
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |