Sri Kasturi rangan, "Ganesha' was of course a Vedic Demi God. No doubt about that. He wrote Mahabharatha on the request /Dictation of Sri Vedvyasa. However, worship of 'Ganesha' as a primoridla God started in Tamil nadu after Vathapi was burnt down by Pallva kings while on fight with Pulekesi. There was a famous Nayanmar (Later called as Siruthondar), who fought against Vathapi kingdom, found out an Idol of Ganesha among the ruins of Vathapi. This sight changed his mind and he took that idol to Tamil kingdom. Ever since that time, Ganesha's worship became famous. Even before Pallava kings, the works of Nayanmars, like Thirumandiram etc has many emntion of Ganesha. The Suklambharathram slokam is for Vishvakesena only. The uttara part of the slokam clearly salutes elephant faced with 2 trunks. Ganesha is has only single trunk. In tamil he is also called as 'Aingkaran' due to this. Ganesha as a primordial diety was later added on with many stories (Puranams) which does not have approval from Vedantic scholors. Regards KM Narayanan ----- Original Message ----- From: amshuman_k To: ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 3:22 PM Subject: [ramanuja] An old SRS discussion (shuklAmbaradharam vishNum...) 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 azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ramanuja/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: ramanuja-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [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 |