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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00132 Oct 2003

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


Dear All,
We should be well aware of the proliferation of texts calling 
themselves "upanishads" unattached to any vedas. However, I quoted 
from Atharva veda parishiShTa, which identifies 28 atharva 
upanishads. I hasten to add that from the context there is no 
evidence that the "Ganapathy" is elephant-faced or having a big belly 
etc. etc.

(Does the lack of mention of Narayana as sesha-saayi or Garudadvaja 
or one who took Rama or Nrusimha or Krishna avatars in Vedas forbid 
us to worship the Vedic Vishnu/Narayana in that form? Why should the 
atharvanics be forbidden to use the elephant symbol to worship 
Ganapathy?)

We cannot claim that the upanishads mentioned by Atharva veda 
parishishTas are spurious because our "Acharyas" haven't commented 
upon them. 

To my limited knowledge the atharvashiras has a legitimate claim on 
being part of shruthi than "Lakshmi-NarayaNa hridayam" supposed to be 
in Atharva-rahasyam. Lakshmi-Narayana hridayam is a tantric work.


Regards...

--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "VenkatarAghavan K.S" 
<ksvenkat@xxxx> wrote:
> Dear All
> 
> This rejoiner was expected.
> 
> It is so pathetic that people have started to identify new
> upanishads.. and some say 108 and some say 1008(Thanks to 
Ramakrishna
> mutt).
> 
> However serious and honest vedanthis wouldnt accept more than say 30
> or odd upanishads.. and that includes the the so called 10 principle
> upanishads as commented by Adi sankarachAryA.
> 
> There could have been innumerable upanishads in infinite vedAs. but
> the problem is many of them as appearing now are spurious.. and
> "latter" day texts.
> 
> so it is better we take upansihads that were quoted in poRvAchAryAs 
of
> all vedanthic thoughts work as pramAnam..
> 
> I am not sure about the validity of such upanishdas as mentioned by
> Sri Kasturi Rangan.
> 
> However please note the concept of pilliar having a "thondhi" etc 
etc
> are influence of Buddhist cult in post Adhi sankarA era..
> 
> Yes indeed kArthikeyA is portrayed as Subramanyan (one who is 
praised
> well) in vedAs.
> 
> On a etirely different context.. I want to mention here that 
Taitriya
> nArayanavalli aka nArayAna upanishad is taken as a part of taitriya
> upanishad by sri vaishnavAs. 
> 
> But also note sankarAcharya has not commented on this part..
> 
> The dramida pAdam and Telugu pAdam of taitriyam differs with the
> latter having many inclusions. clearly showing some influneces of 
post
> sankarA followers during vijayanagar era.
> 
> yes indeed vinAyaga is reffered in taitriyam. but as supreme being??
> and particularly is vinAyaga identified as "thondhi" pilliAr?? all
> these are matter of serious discussion.
> 
> As said earlier it has been proved by all achAryAs beyond doubt that
> attains "samnvayam" with the term nArAyana.
> 
> Let us have our discussion and confine it within well known and 
widely
> accepted pramAnAs(valid sources of knowledge etc etc) and works and
> follow only pOrvAchArya thiruvullam(all the three vedAnthic 
including
> Adi shankarA MAdhvA and SrE bAshyakArA)
> 
> Who knows probably some time down the line rAmakrishnA mutt and 
other
> associates of that mutt could come up with iyanAro upanishad and a
> asAnkara bAshyam for it with one of their mutt heads including him 
in
> daily worship... some may also go to an extent saying that adi
> sankarAchArya wrote a stotram on "iyanAr" namely iyanAra lahari.
> 
> However I will anyways consult with any atharvanikas and get back on
> this.but give Me sometime.
> 
> regards
> Venkat
> 
> --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k@xxxx> 
wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > To the question, "Where in vedas does the so called ganapati aka 
> > pilliAr being praised as supreme??" --
> > 
> > Ganapathy atharvashiras mentions that. The atharvanikas identify 
that 
> > as a valid upanishad apart from Narayanopanishad (re-appearing in 
> > Taittriya aranyakam book X), Nilarudropanishad, part of pippalada 
> > samhita and others. Note that even the swaram of 
> > Ganapthyatharvashiras survives (implying a living tradition - 
unlike, 
> > say kAThaka yajurveda, where swaram is lost for more 2/3rd of the 
> > shruthi vakyas).
> > 
> > As for Skanda, he is a later deity and his worship appears in 
Atharva 
> > veda parishishTa as skanda yaaga. The atharvaniks regard this as 
a 
> > valid yaaga apart from other rites like vishasahi (to Agni-
Vishnu) 
> > etc.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Kasturi Rangan .K
> > 
> > --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "VenkatarAghavan K.S" 
> > <ksvenkat@xxxx> wrote:
> > > SrI:
> > > 
> > > Dear all
> > > 
> > > This is really reaching a level of annoyance.
> > > 
> > > Where in vedas does the so called ganapati aka pilliAr being 
praised
> > > as supreme?? please quote.also quote about MurugAn being 
praised as
> > > supreme.





[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