Dear Shri Mohan & Shri Lakshmi Narasimhan, Just a correction - Purusha sUktam appears in shaunakIya atharvaNa vedam too with minor modifications from Rg reading. It still doesn't contain uttara anuvAkam appearing in taittriya Aranyakam. It is from the uttara anuvAkam of taittriya Aranyakam we find that purusha of Rig Veda being identified with Vishnu/Narayana. Till them Purusha was supposed to be "primeval" or "cosmic" man. Shathapatha brAhmaNa features somebody called "purusha nArAyaNa", implying the completed identification of Rig Vedic purusha with nArAyaNa. Though shri Mohan doesn't agree with the conclusion that the pUrva anuvAkam, almost same as Rig vedic reading, is of 'earlier date' and 'uttara anuvAkam' (new material) is of 'later date', I generally agree with this observation. This is a separate discussion though. Identity of "Virat Purusha" with "vyUha vAsudeva" is pAncharAtric interpretation of the rig vedic sUkta {vaguely recall that it is from brahma samhita. Learned scholars can clarify}. Though this in itself is not for or against the validity of pAncharAtra, we have to keep in mind regarding to what is interpretation and what is original. Regards, Kasturi Rangan .K --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Mohan Ramanujan" <mohan_ramanujan@xxxx> wrote: > 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 |