Vishnu in Rig Vedam

[Guest guest]

Vishnu, is praised as the para-brahman very early in the Rig Vedam (1.22.17)

In that particular verse, the vyuhA avatArams are implied, therefore

putting to rest criticism from some quaters on the Pancharatra Agamam.

 

-Regards,

 

Malolan Cadambi

 

 

-

"ramamada gaura das" <ramananda_jps

<bhakti-list>

Friday, October 04, 2002 10:02 PM

verses

 

> Om namo Narayanaya

>

> My humble respect to all devotees.

>

> I would like to know verses and translation from the

> vedas regarding Vishnu is the supreme god.

>

> Thank you

>

> Ramananda

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, "Malolan Cadambi" <cadambi@h...> wrote:

> Vishnu, is praised as the para-brahman very early in the Rig Vedam

(1.22.17)

> In that particular verse, the vyuhA avatArams are implied,

therefore

> putting to rest criticism from some quaters on the Pancharatra

Agamam.

 

Malolan,

 

Here is Rg Veda 1.22.17:

 

idam vishNur vicakrame tredhA nidadhe padam

samUDham asya pAmsure

 

Translation:

 

Vishnu has stridden here. He has placed three sanctified

steps on this earth.

 

I fail to see any reference to the characteristic Pancaratra

doctrine of vyUha, nor to any unequivocal reference to Vishnu

as the Supreme. This is nothing but a reference to Trivikrama's

three steps, which is the most celebrated story of Vishnu found

in the Vedas.

 

Can you explain your interpretation? Or do I have the wrong

verse?

 

Thanks,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Nice verse you have quated, it will be very useful for

me. If theres anything similar verse as in Bhagavad

Gita chapter 10.8 Krsna telling i amthe source of

spritual and material world and i need something which

say similar in the rig,sama,yajur or atharava which

establishing vishnu is param brahman

 

thank your

 

Ramananda

[Guest guest]

Sri

SrimathE ramanujaya namaha

>Can you explain your interpretation? Or do I have the wrong

>verse?

>Thanks,

>Mani

 

Dear Mani,

 

Dr V Varadachary treats this in both his books, viz South Indian Agamas and

PAncharatra Agama. I will post details on this within this week.

 

-Regards,

 

Malolan

 

--

mail2web - Check your email from the web at

http://mail2web.com/ .

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimate Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha

 

Dear Chi. Malolan:

 

Perhaps you meant verse 1.22.20 from the Rk-veda:

 

tadvishnOh paramam padam sadA pashyanti sUryah -

divIva chakshurAtamam.

tadviprAso vipanyavo jagravAmsassaminiddhate -

vishnoryatparamam padam.

 

"The enlightened seers always see that supreme abode

of Vishnu, like the shining sun pervading the entire

sky as if it were an eye fixed in the heaven."

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan,

-Shreyas

 

 

bhakti-list, "Malolan Cadambi" <cadambi@h...> wrote:

> Vishnu, is praised as the para-brahman very early in the Rig Vedam

(1.22.17)

> In that particular verse, the vyuhA avatArams are implied,

therefore

> putting to rest criticism from some quaters on the Pancharatra

Agamam.

>

> -Regards,

>

> Malolan Cadambi

>

[Guest guest]

Mani,

Seeing this verse, small doubt has come...Whether avatars preceded vedas or

viceversa..as this vedic verse refers to thrivikrama avataram...

Regards,

Nanmaaran

 

--- Mani Varadarajan wrote: ---

Here is Rg Veda 1.22.17:

 

idam vishNur vicakrame tredhA nidadhe padam

samUDham asya pAmsure

 

Translation:

 

Vishnu has stridden here. He has placed three sanctified

steps on this earth.

 

[...] a reference to Trivikrama's

three steps, which is the most celebrated story of Vishnu found

in the Vedas.

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimate Rangaramanuja Mahadeshikaya Namaha

 

Dear Sri Ramananda:

 

I'm not sure if your question has been answered yet;

Listed below are some of the relevant hymns from the

Rk-Veda that establish the paratattvam (supremacy) of

Vishnu.

 

For a comprehensive discussion, with a translation

of these verses, please refer Chapters 1 and 7 of

Dr S.M. Srinivasa Chari's book, Vaishnavism - Its

Philosophy, Theology and Religious Discipline

(ISBN 81-208-1098-8).

 

Rk-Veda:

 

I.22.16:

ato devA avantu no yato vishnurvIchakrame -

prithivyAhsaptadhamabhih

 

I.22.17:

idam vishnurvichakrame tredhA nidadhe padam

 

I.22.18:

trini padA vichakrame vishnurgopA adAbhah

 

I.22.20:

tadvishnOh paramam padam sadA pashyanti sUryah -

divIva chakshurAtamam.

tadviprAso vipanyavo jagravAmsassaminiddhate -

vishnoryatparamam padam.

 

I.154.1:

vichakramAnasredhorugAyah

 

I.154.2:

yasyorushutrisuvikramaneshvadhikshiyanti bhuvanAni

vishvA

 

I.154.3:

eko vimame tribhiripadebhih

 

I.154.4:

yasya tripUrna madhunA padnAni....

....ya tridhAtu prithivImutadyAmeko dAdhAra bhuvanAni

vishvA...

....tattaditadidasya paumsyam granImasInasya trAtuh

 

I.155.4:

yah pArthivAni tribhirid-vigAmabhirurukramishta

 

VII.100.4:

vichakrame prithivimesha etAm kshetrAya

vishnurmanushe dashasyam

 

X.90.1: (The purusha sUkta)

 

Hope this helps,

 

sarvamsrikrishnaarpanmasthu,

-Shreyas

 

> I would like to know verses and translation from the

> vedas regarding Vishnu is the supreme god.

>

 

 

 

Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More

http://faith.

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, Shreyas Sarangan <sarangan> wrote:

> Sri:

> Srimate Rangaramanuja Mahadeshikaya Namaha

>

> Dear Sri Ramananda:

>

> I'm not sure if your question has been answered yet;

> Listed below are some of the relevant hymns from the

> Rk-Veda that establish the paratattvam (supremacy) of

> Vishnu.

>

> For a comprehensive discussion, with a translation

> of these verses, please refer Chapters 1 and 7 of

> Dr S.M. Srinivasa Chari's book, Vaishnavism - Its

> Philosophy, Theology and Religious Discipline

> (ISBN 81-208-1098-8).

 

[ citations from Rg Veda deleted ]

 

Dear Shreyas and others following this thread,

 

Unfortunately, these Rks do not demonstrate Vishnu's supremacy

and the passages in Dr. Chari's Vaishnavism book are not

convincing to impartial readers or to scholars belonging to

other traditions. The reason I say this is simple: for each

Rk cited that purportedly establishes Vishnu as the highest,

I can find 10 such hymns from the Rg Veda which use very similar

words to praise Varuna, Savitr, or Indra as the highest deity.

This, in fact, is the style of the Rg Veda. It is misleading

to take a handful of hymns addressed to Vishnu totally out

of context in the body of hymns, and use this *alone* to

demonstrate the supremacy or otherwise of Vishnu in the pantheon.

As you are no doubt aware, Vishnu is praised by name as such

in a minute number of Rks, and solely on the basis of the quality

of hymns a god like Varuna or Indra are far better candidates

for supremacy than Vishnu.

 

This is one of the reasons why the broad Vedantic tradition has

made a strong distinction between Veda and Vedanta. It is to the

latter that we must turn if we wish to find conclusive, philosophical

answers to the questions of First Cause, Supreme Deity, and Supreme

Truth. The latter clarifies and provides a means for understanding

the former. Without the Vedanta, the hymns of the samhitas appear

confusing and contradictory in their philosophy.

 

Here, I have found the approach taken by Bhagavad Ramanuja

very interesting and illuminating. Sri Vedanta Desika follows

him in large part in his selection of Vedic texts.

In the Vedarthasangraha, for example, Bhagavad Ramanuja preeminently

uses the Narayana Sukta, Purusha Sukta (uttara anuvAka), and

several Upanishads to demonstrate the ultimacy of Narayana.

(I hope to write about this in an upcoming message.) He does

not even once, in my recollection, take recourse to the Rks

commonly collected in the Vishnu Sukta to press his case.

 

I raise the question: why do you think Ramanuja makes this

notable omission? Certainly not because he was unaware of them,

because no good Vaidika would be ignorant of the Rg Veda. It

also cannot be because he found them lacking in meaning,

because he cites a few of them in other contexts.

 

To rephrase: if Vishnu paratva were so easily established

based on these Rg Vedic hymns, why did Ramanuja turn elsewhere?

 

--

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/17/2002 8:36:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mani writes:

> I raise the question: why do you think Ramanuja makes this

> notable omission? Certainly not because he was unaware of them,

> because no good Vaidika would be ignorant of the Rg Veda. It

> also cannot be because he found them lacking in meaning,

> because he cites a few of them in other contexts.

>

> To rephrase: if Vishnu paratva were so easily established

> based on these Rg Vedic hymns, why did Ramanuja turn

> elsewhere?

 

/Om namO nArAyaNAya |

 

/namastE Shri MaNi. It is not my intention to generate more controversies by my

postings. But I thought that I will take another approach to the intriguing

question you pose.

 

I believe that words have a definite meaning, even though they can be

conveniently identified in given situations. Let me explain with an example.

 

Take a point whose coordnate is 2 in 1-dimensional space, that is a line, say,

for convenience, the x-axis. Call it P in 3-space. Now let us go to the plane,

say the (x,y) plane. Then the point P has to have two coordinates say, (2,0).

Now 2 is not the same as (2, 0). If we go to 3-space, the situation is no

better. It is now (2, 0, 0). Hoever it is all the same point P. Thus 2 can be

identified with its image (2, 0) provided one UNDERSTANDS that it is an

identification for certain purposes only. For example, the identification is

useless, if we want to find the distance betwen P and another point Q USING

COORDINATES. We need the 0 in (2,0) to calculate the distance. The number 2

standing alone is useless.

 

The same applies to names of our Gods. We identify Shri /vishNu with Shri

/nArAyaNA. That is fine, as long as one knows that /nArAyaNA has more dimensions

than Shri /vishNu. For the fact is that ShrI vishNu is one of the /AditYas, and

the gItA describes Him to be the Lord Himself AMONG THE /AdItyAs. "Among the

/AdityAs I am /vishNu." Now notice that this statement of the Lord gives the

identification also, yet it makes it clear that /vishNu is limited in scope than

"I" in that statement.

 

Because the /rig vEdA takes the stand that the /AdityAs are not much diferent

from other forms like /varuNA and /indrA, /shRi vishNu's role is equated to that

of /varuNA etc. The /vedAs move easily from one space to another.

 

Each time a certain mapping is used for identification freely. And the highest

map seems to be the mapping called /mahat. Thus using functional notation,

/mahat(/vishNu) is quite differnt from /vishNu in terms of power and glory. The

same applies to /nArAyaNA and /mahat(nArAyaNA).

 

I humbly claim that there is no comparison between /ShrI vishNu and /shrI

nArAyaNA if we restrict the powers to the bare meaning of words. Of course, we

will not do it in practice. It is only for clarifying ideas to avoid pitfalls.

 

It seems that this approach to the names of Gods begins to change immediately

after the times of ShrI /nigam/Anta mahA/dESikar. It is obvious that there were

strong historic reasons for that subtle change.

 

/ShrI rAmAnujA belonged to earlier times. He would barely mention the name of

/vishNu in discussing the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being is clearly

/mahat(/nArAyaNan). Here, the /nArAyaNa sUktam comes in support of the mapping.

And so, it is acceptable in practice that the Supreme being is /nArAyaNan.

/vishNu can never come near /nArAyaNA in this sense. That is, using the barest

minimum of meanings. The same applies to /purush/OttamA. Notice with intrigue

that in /patanjalI's /yOgA, /mahat itself is an image of the pair (/purushA,

pra/kruti). In that sense one can go farther and claim that the Supreme Being is

/purush/OttamA.

 

Anybody who can be mapped into the same image, namely /mahat(nArAyaNan) is also

a Supreme Being. It is like this: If f(a) and g(b) are equal in the same

codomain, and if a is identified with f(a) and b with g(b) then a and b both

have similar, if not identical, properties. The only question is to study the

maps f and g.

 

I believe that /shrI rAmAnujA took this approach. I do not know if he was

concerned with another map like g. In practice, a map f may be more useful in

daily life, and g may be needed only to handle specific problems. That seems to

be consistent with the fact that /srImaN nArAyaNan wields the highest executive

power.

 

Even the /mahA/nArAyaNa upa/nishat accords very high place to /sOmA --- a fact

that many memebers fascinated with the Sun seem to ignore. In that /upa/nishat,

Lord /sOmA seems to outweigh the Sun.

 

/vantanam.

 

/nalan/tarum collai nAn kaNtu/koNtEn; /nArAyaNA ennum nAmam.

 

 

[ I have to say that there are so many factual errors in this post

and so many things in dissonance with Sri Ramanuja's own writings

that I initially wanted to send it back to Visu for revision.

However, I felt it best to approve it since others may be harboring

similar thoughts. Vishnu properly refers to Narayana alone, and

Ramanuja does not hesitate to use the name Vishnu often. The equation

of Vishnu with Narayana is made in the Vedas itself. "nArAyaNAya

vidmahe vAsudevAya dhImahi; tan no vishNuH pracodayAt" -- the Vishnu

Gayatri equates Narayana, Vasudeva, and Vishnu. Yes, it is true

that Narayana-Vishnu also takes an avatara as one of the tri-mUrtis

(vide Vishnu Purana 1.2.66). However, in the same Purana, the name

"Vishnu" is exalted as being of tremendous spiritual significance

and indeed is the principle epithet used to describe the Supreme

Being Himself. So no distinction is ultimately made between Vishnu and

Narayana. These names are also not used differently by Sri Vedanta

Desika, as Visu suggests. There is no evidence to substantiate such

a claim.

 

All in all, the term "Narayana" is preferred by our Alvars and acharyas

because it is a name most pregnant with meaning ("That which in all

beings rest/find their source"). This, however, does not mean that "Vishnu"

or "Vasudeva" are bereft of meaning or cannot denote the Supreme Being.

The latter also principally signify the omnipresence of the Supreme

Being, just as the word Narayana does. This is in stark contrast to

a word like Indra, which simply means king, or Siva, which just means

auspicious, and which is a rather generic term.

 

I once again beseech members to not speculate wildly and come to totally

unfounded conclusions such as the above. -- Moderator ]

[Guest guest]

> This is one of the reasons why the broad Vedantic tradition has

> made a strong distinction between Veda and Vedanta. It is to the

> latter that we must turn if we wish to find conclusive, philosophical

> answers to the questions of First Cause, Supreme Deity, and Supreme

> Truth. The latter clarifies and provides a means for understanding

> the former. Without the Vedanta, the hymns of the samhitas appear

> confusing and contradictory in their philosophy.

 

Swami Desikan addresses theses questions in SeshAvara MimAmsam. But that

work is not complete, in the sense that Swami Desikan left it unfinished.

Still he authors "MimAmsa pAduka" which was commented upon by Kumar

Varadachariar, his son and in the 20th century by UttamUr

Veeraraghavachariar.

 

Here is a URL on Swami Abhinava Desikar :

http://www.abhinava-desika.freeservers.com

 

I remember reading a book by Dr.NSA which was printed sometime around 1974.

He quotes rks and explains them very well.

>if Vishnu paratva were so easily established

>based on these Rg Vedic hymns, why did Ramanuja turn elsewhere?

 

My understanding is this: Usually not much attention was given to the pUrva

mimAmsa atleast when compared to the uttara mimAmsa. This was during the

time of Ramanuja. Ramanuja was focussed on Shankara's Bhasyas in

particular. This however does not rule out the fact that he authored

commentaries which were not considered as polemics but commentaries only.

 

Shankara spends time criticising KumArila Bhatta, the proponent of the

mimAmsa school. It is plausible to think that Kumarila did not focus on the

antima bhAga of the veda, namely the vedAnta.

 

However, Swami Desikan addresses this issue in it's entirety with his above

mentioned sookthis.

 

Dr Varadachary explains the mapping of the pancharatram concepts in the

samhita portions pretty well. I do not have his book with me at present. I

will look it up when time permits.

 

These issues are well addressed in mimAmsa pAduka. Ideally, after this

weekend, I will try and post a gist if it is available in our library.

Perhaps HH Rangapriya Mahadesikan Swami or Dr NSA can cover these issues

during their Tele-conference.

 

Regards,

 

Malolan Cadambi

[Guest guest]

Sri Mani Varadarajan wrote:

> Unfortunately, these Rks do not demonstrate Vishnu's supremacy

 

Sri Mani:

 

Your points are valid. Among other things my bias was

certainly evident here.

 

I would re-phrase that these Rks support (rather than establish)

the paratattvam of Vishnu.

 

What, then, is relevance of verses (though not in the Samhita) such

as the the following from the Aitareya Brahmana of Rg-Veda?

"agnir avamo devatanAm vishnuh paramah"

(Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is highest among Gods)

 

> In the Vedarthasangraha, for example, Bhagavad Ramanuja preeminently

> uses the Narayana Sukta, Purusha Sukta (uttara anuvAka), and

> several Upanishads to demonstrate the ultimacy of Narayana.

> (I hope to write about this in an upcoming message.)

 

 

Since I haven't read the text of Vedarthasangraha, I request

you and other learned members to share the gist of the arguments

put forth by (primarily ) Sri Bhashyakarar or other later SV acharyas

on Vishnu's paratvam (based on the Sruti only).

 

Thanks,

adiyen ramanuja dasan,

-Shreyas

[Guest guest]

> To rephrase: if Vishnu paratva were so easily established

> based on these Rg Vedic hymns, why did Ramanuja turn elsewhere?

 

Dear Sri Mani,

 

I do not think Vishnu's 'paratvam' or His Supremacy can be deduced from

the quoted Rks that extol his 3 famous strides (as Gonda or MacDonnell

would put it). What on the contrary are needed are such hymns which do

one of the following:

 

a. Call Vishnu as para-brahman in no uncertain terms.

b. Establish Vishnu's unique-attributes or marks (linga), Brahman's

attributes and a relation between two.

c. Compare Vishnu to other gods and establish His Supremacy.

 

The 'trivikrama' hymns do none of the above. But the ones in

Narayanopanishad (which contains parts of the Uttaranuvaka), Narayana

sukta and later upanishads.

 

1. Narayana sukta says: "nArAyaNam paraM brahma". Point (a) is met.

However this is insufficient because Rudra is also praised thus.

2. Uttara-anuvaka talks of Brahman/Purusha's having Lakshmi as a wife.

Vishnu's wife is Lakshmi (as established in Rgveda Khila's Srisukta).

Point (b) is met.

3. Aiteraya Brahmana (agnir vai devAnAm avamo viShNuH paramaH) and

Shatapatha Brahmana (related to yajna, like 5.2.3.6) meet the point 3.

 

Subala Upanishad, Mudgala Upanishad are also helpful in this context.

 

Also, there are some Rks in the RgVeda that can do a combination of both

(b) and ©, since (a) is an insufficient criteria

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

P.S. I haven't read the Vedarthasangraha.