Answers to Sri Mani + Agni and Vishnu in Rig vEdas.

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

At the outset let me confess that I possess no qualification to

write, leave alone, comment on this topic. I have not known the

passages quoted by so many on this topic, nor even strayed into

related commentaries by scholars. Yet, as has always happened, I am

tempted to poke my nose, thanks to 'avaa' and 'aasthai' (convenient

excuse -ļ)

 

What I gather from the many posts on this topic is there are open-

ended questions like

„« why Ramanuja didn't rely on Rig Veda / quote from the same in his

commentaries

„« where does the different gods as mentioned in Rig vedas stand in

relation to each other, particularly the status of Vishnu in the

scheme of things.

 

(My humble opinion on these questions are given here. I request the

bhagavathas to excuse me/ pardon me for the probable out-stretches I

will be making in my characteristic non-conformist way.)

 

( As usual, I am responding to this topic very late, thanks to the

many gods and demi-gods surrounding us in our small, sleepy town -

like the striking telephone employees who like legendary gods are

not be seen by mortal eyes, even after the strike call is withdrawn,

the ever-busy electricity employees, whose dharshan is so scarce

that we must have done tonnes of punyam, and above all the sudden-

springing into action of the Rain god, always siding with the just

mentioned demi-gods, in giving them handy excuses for their akarma in

karma.)

 

If we analyse the verses in their 'face value', we will be only

drawing erroneous conclusions. For example if we compartmentalize

the various gods as superior or inferior to the other at the face

value of the outer meaning, we will be only negating the famous Rig

vedic statement, 'ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti' (1.164.46)

If Truth is Almighty, the different names by which it is known can

not contradict each other in essence.

 

Even though some gods are stated to be superior or so, there must be

some meta physical implication attached. For example a controversy is

still smouldering in scholarly circles in the Indian print media,

that the numerous references to 'samudra' in vedas must have meta-

physical relevance only, as the people then would not have seen any

ocean as they were far removed from the ocean and were land-locked.

 

It will make better sense to buy the meta-physics theory in general,

for the Vedas, particularly the Rig veda (RV) is supposed to the

most complex one. A major part of it are prayers seeking some

fortunes. Different deities are invoked that include even inanimate

objects like grinding stones, qualities like faith and emotions like

anger.

 

One feature of such prayers is that they draw their potency from

sound vibrations and not from the meaning. The one example I can

quote is the research done in Agni Hotra by German scientists. After

making sure that the ingredients used in the homa, the time factor

etc., do play a part in bringing out the effects, they found that

these in the absence of manthras could not produce optimum results.

They zeroed in on just a two-liner manthra as giving the actual

results.

 

The ones dedicated to Surya and Prajapathi in the morning Homa and

Agni and Prajapathi in the evening Homa were tested in various ways.

Liners with same meaning from as many as 17 ancient languages and the

languages that bear close resemblance to Sanskrit were tried.

Manthras with the same meaning but different words in sanskrit also

were tried. Even a mix up of Surya with Agni in the evening Homa was

tested . That is, the morning manthra was tested in the evening Homa.

But the results were not satisfactory. Only the original Sanskrit

words (manthras) produced the desired results, making them conclude

that vibrations mattered. The chanting of the manthra should also

be done in a particular pitch and not very loudly or in murmurs. The

meaning seemed to matter the least.

 

So the one conclusion we may draw is that the hymns are vibration

oriented -the meaning mainly meta-physical or highly complex but

certainly not absurd or irrelevant. If we infer so, ( that is, it is

difficult to support some of the passages for their meaning etc) we

will be contradicting the famous vachan that we find

Mukhtikopanishad.

In this upanishad, Sri Rama is quoted to have told Hanuman, the

number of shakas in the four vedas, the importance of ten upanishads

and the benefits of chanting these even once. ('sakru-shravaNa

mAthrENa sarvAghaugha - nikruthnam.')

 

The passage starting with, 'Rig vEdati vibhakEna vEda shatvAra

eerita:" highlights (in Rama's words) the greatness of Maandukya

upanishad as just enough for mokham. " mAndUkya mEka-mEvAlam

mumukshUNAm vimukthayE".

Rama, though extols the vedas, nevertheless places on record the

greatness of MandUkya upanishad. Shall we then say that he according

to Him, other upanishads and Vedas are untenable / less important?

We can not, for if we say so, we will be undermining His other

assertion that shravaNa mAthrENa one can destroy 'sarva- ghaugham'.

By saying this, He has placed all these equally on the same pedestal.

Remember, RamO dwir na abhi bhAshatE. Therefore Rama must be right

both ways - when he gives credit to all of them and when He

specifically gives credit to one among them.

This, I am drawing to answer why Ramanuja did not rely on Vedas. (RV

in this context). The omission of RV does not warrant an

interpretation that Ramanuja must have felt parts / whole of it

untenable. Ramanuja certainly could not have harboured any

apprehension towards it. But that he greatly by-passed them might be

explained as follows.

 

If we take a holistic approach, we find that the Hindu thought from

Rig vEdas to the more recent BharaNyaasam is a progressive

simplification of philosophical as well as meta-physical views. The

vEdas were the most complex and the upanishads came as a

simplification of the vedas.The Aranyaaks followed suit and further

simplification for mass consumption occurred in the form of

Ithihaasas.

 

This simplification can be noticed in the concept of moksham (taking

moksham as an example- concept. Another important one to have

undergone progressive simplification is the concept of Sri) (Sri

Sadapgopan Iyengar of 'Mr Mahalakshmi' to kindly take note). The aham

annam and aham annadam which explained one kind of route to moksham

in the upanishad was replaced by bhakti in BG period and prapatti by

Ramanuja. Some future acharya may even bring out a much simpler

route depending on the needs / demands of the time.

 

What we must take note of in this progressive simplification is that

the authors have relied on the next immediate complex ( the

preceding one) form of thought. To give an example, Mumukshuppadi

(MP) draws the conclusion from arulicheyal and not from upanishads or

vedas. If someone were to use MP as the preceding pramana to further

simplify the concept of moksham, he would probably say that it

is 'osmosis' of the Paramathma permeating the Jivathma, with the

individuality of the jivathma not being lost and equality with the

Paramathma established.

For this is the simplest way of interpreting the MP's final

conclusion - "muththanaar mukunthanaar pugundu nammuL mEvinaar'.

 

Taking this logic to why Ramanuja omitted RV, we can say that his

task was to ascertain and explain the vEdantic thought for which he

would have to naturally rely on upanishads. If he were to comment on

upanishads, perhaps a recourse to RV and other vedas would have

become necessary.

 

I also wonder whether we are right in disclosing that Ramanuja did

not quote RV at all. For we can find references to RV in his bhashyam

to Vedanta sutras of Badarayana.

 

 

An interesting reference to Agni, the God can be found in the above

said Bhashyam.

In substantiating that Jyothis is Brahman (25 th aphorism of the 1st

chapter of Vedanta sutras), Ramanuja says that Jyothis is the Highest

person in the form of Agni, the digestive heat for the purpose of

attaining the fruition of the desired results. He quotes the

BG15.14, " Becoming the Vaisvanara, I dwell in the bodies of all

living things."

The foot note here says that the reference in vaisvanara is to Agni,

in accordance with the scriptural passage, "this fire within man and

by which food is digested - that is vaisvanara." (Bri Up-5.9.1)

 

Here again we can note the progressive simplification from Agni in

vEdAs, to vaisvanara in upanishad, to Lord claiming Himself as the

Vaisvanara / Agni in all beings in the BG. Therefore whatever is said

of Agni in RV is actually about the Supreme Being.

 

The different deities of RV may thus have concealed information.

Depending on the context and the results desired, the names of

deities including the name Vishnu might have been used.

 

In fact Vedanta sutras equate Brahman with jyothis, AkAshA,

gAyathri, PrAnA and IndrA. Our immediate question is how indrA can be

called the Brahman.

But look at what Ramanuja has got to say about this which he has

given as a nutshell in the concluding part of his commentary.

 

" Wherever particular individual selves from the four-faced Brahma

downwards and particular non-intelligent things from the prakruthi

downwards are found mentioned in association with the peculiarly

characteristic attributes of the Supreme Self, - or wherever the

words denoting them (i.e., those intelligent individual selves and

those non-intelligent things) are seen to be grammatically equated

with the words denoting the Supreme Self; - in all such cases, what

is intended to be taught is the continued meditation of the Brahman

as forming the inner Self of those particular intelligent and non-

intelligent entities. Consequently, it is an established conclusion

that he who is denoted by the word Indra and Prana here (i.e., in

the context under reference) is the supreme self Himself, who is a

different entity from individual selves."

 

 

Jayasree Sarnathan

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

Dear Ms. Sarnathan,

 

I enjoyed your post and would like to see replies from other members of

this list. I have researched art history in detail and especially of

various Indian deities, both vedic and non-vedic alike. The pasts of these

deities is as colorful as the references to them in the vedas, and they by

no means match their present form (and status) attributed to them in

today's devotions. On the note of the role of other deities and their

status with regards to Sri Vishnu, Hindu scriptures are notably

henotheistic (def: Belief in one god without denying the existance of

others). For example the Bhagavat Purana which extols Vishnu can be quoted

to cite the Role of Vishnu as the Supreme deity. However, the Devi

Bhagavatham can be cited to show the supremacy of Parashakthi as the

Absolute deity. Neither scripture denies other deities and may well

mention them, however, a lot of time groups take one scripture and hold it

as the "perfect" one (unfortunately this occurs in other religions too,

the Bible being another well-known example).

 

I would be interested to find out if the Sri Ramanuja cited other texts

that were dedicated to other vedic deities that show the supremacy of Sri

Vishnu. The idea that a small group of people are right and somehow

everyone else is wrong seems a bit dated. The well known saying "You can't

fool everyone all the time" holds true...

 

adiyen,

 

Krishnan