Vedas as the supreme authority

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

 

I am under the assumption that for us Vedas are the supreme

authority (ignoring NDP for the moment). Puranas are also considered

authorities as long as they don't contradict shruti vakyas. The same

goes for Dharma sutras and smrities. Pancharatra agamas is also

added to the list (at this point we diverge from smarthas ?!).

 

Also, for us the vedas are a package deal. We vehemently oppose

mimamsakas in this - their claim that shruti vakyas that seem to

describe brahman/atman are not necessary to perform flawless yagnyas

and hence they are superfluous. All the parts - mantras, brAhmaNam,

Aranyakam & upanishads are considered equally valid according to us.

 

We also add to our claim that our Shriman Narayana, the Veda purusha

is declared as the supreme one in the Vedas.

 

I am having trouble with all these claims. Let me elaborate. For

reference, please also take a look at my previous post, which is

taken from fourteenth adhyaya of shathapatha brahmana belonging to

shukla yajurveda.

 

I am seeing They say curiosity killed the cat. It sure is true, as

my curiosity - a quest to know the contents of the Vedas that

started an avalanche effect. In my ideal world, the vedas would

declare the prabhAvam of shriman Narayana, the infinite compassion

of thayar, the power of Sudarshana, strength of Garuda, exploits of

Anantha, Vishnu paramatma's dashavatara and what not.

 

Reality looks very different. Sure, there are bits and pieces of

shruti vakyas that proclaim superiority of Vishnu (NarayaNa: param

Brahma", "devanam parama:") etc. Vishnu being the excellent of Gods

is said in shathapatha brahmaNa - only to find him beheaded in the

following verses.

 

The Naryana suktam which categorically states the superiority of

Narayana is stated by our own commentators like Sayanacharya as

khilani - i.e. addenda & supplement. It wasn't originally part of

Taittriya AmnAyam. That shouldn't discourage us though - It is an

atharvanic material after all. Actually even the brhigu valli in

Taittriya Aranyakam is atharvanic material, recycled in Taittriya

Aranyakam.

 

The problem is, in Atharvanic materials, Vishnu isn't all that

prominent. Let us forget that for a moment. In the same Taittriya

Aranyakam, a few chapters earlier, Rudra Pashupati is lauded in

superlative terms. In Brahmagavi hymns, Indra states, "I am he who

is worshipped as Brahman. I am the atman".

 

So, there are few other devas claiming superiority and identity with

Brahman - the supreme one in the upanishads.

 

The argument that there are a whole lot of Vedic shakhas that has

disappeared and probably Vishnu/nArAyaNa's superiority would have

been mentioned there is simply wishful thinking. Whatever shakhas

are available to us were only available to our acharyas and from

these only they have quoted while commenting of vedanta sutras.

 

To claim Vishnu's superiority, we have to go beyond the Vedas and

use vaishnava AgamAs and vaishnava purANAs. Likewise, there is

nothing to stop the shaivites to use Shaiva AgamAs and Shaiva

purANas and claim superiority of Shiva. At least I am aware of some

shaivite traditions that ignore vedas altogether and consider the

authority of shaiva agamas only.

 

In this scenario, how can we - with a straight face - claim

that "Vedas - the entire package" is our authority, or, "VedAs

declare NaryaNa's superiority"?

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanuja nama:

Dear sriman kasturi rangan,

My humble pranams to you. It looks like you are heading in

a wrong direction at the speed of 150 plus mph! Just kidding.

Beforehand,let me tell you,whatever I write may sound sheer nonsense

to you. I consider myself as a novice in everything.

Who do you want to convince regarding the Supremacy of

vedas and Sriman Narayana? Yourself or the society? If you want to

convince yourself,keep everything aside(reading all kinds of

religious books with the exception of BG)and just read only the

Bhagavad Gita sloka 4:34(how a disciple should serve and how he

receives spiritual knowledge from the AcArya). Don't torture your

mind. I have personally experienced its effect although I still do

not have an "official" AcArya!

If you want to convince some people/society,then you need

to re-think. Does Einstein care if a commoner understands his theory

of relativity? NO. Vedas are not for the "mediocre" minds. It's like

an Advanced course. There are thousands who are awarded a PhD degree

every year. Does everyone get a Nobel Prize? NO. Even among the Nobel

Laureates(say physicists),there are "levels" of intellectual thinking

that can be noticed.

You can not change others or the world but you can change

only yourself and that too "only" through association with

the "right" group. I am saying this because I used to have heavy

arguements(I will do an onslaught that the other person would

thouroughly get offended!) with other religious group members(some

claiming siva as the supreme and some srikrishna)and I wouldn't spare

them without putting forth my point(supremacy of sriman narayana)

despite my genetic attachemnet for Sri Parthasarathy. But still they

stuck to their own views. Only due to AcArya's anugraham(blessing),I

realized that I can not change others nor is it my responsibility

(when I'm myself dependent on someone else!). If I had said anything

wrong to offend your feelings,please forgive me.

Best Regards

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan,

 

This is why we look to Azhvars works and Acharyas

commentaries. I think it is granted that the Vedas

and the Upanishads can be and are confusing to

most of us.

 

Let me illustrate with an example. Our Nappinnai

likes to use Physics in her examples, so let's

take one from there. We all know that Einstein's

Theory of Relativity is not easily grasped. It is

a complex theory and does not jive with our normal

understanding of how things work around us. However,

none of us would simply take it up and read a few

books and go challenge a researcher or professor

in that area. Either we would study the subject

for a long time and then come to that position or

we would depend on the experts to do that and tell

us how to understand it.

 

In this case, the experts are the Azhvars and

Acharyas. Since most of us have neither the

inclination to spend a lifetime learning this nor

do we possess the qualifications to do so, we don't

have a choice but to listen to the experts. I am

not saying that you are not an expert or well

learned in this area - I am only representing the

position held by the rest of us.

 

Now, I know that you would protest to this as an

agnostic, stating that which expert do I believe

in - this is where faith in the sampradhayam comes

in. Recall Bhattar's explanation to his disciples

on why he honored an elder who was not a scholar

but ignored the well read pundit (see

http://www.acharya.org/articles/aditlooa/aditlooa011.html

).

 

Without this faith, we can't get anywhere. Even

amongst the physicists we put our faith in certain

people and their explanations. We use some reasoning

such as their integrity, the cause and effect, their

stake in what they say etc to believe in them. This

is what we need to do here also. Azhvar and Acharyas

don't have anything to gain by telling us all of this.

They could have kept their ideas to themselves. But

they did not and it allows us to use their expertise

to see where we need to go.

 

Finally on the question of Narayana paratvam, I leave

you with this poem by Pillai Perumal Iyengar:

 

mangaipAgan sadaiyil vaiththa gangai yAr

pathaththu neer?

vanasa mEvu munivanukku mainthanAnathillaiyO?

senkaiyAl iranthavan kapAlam Ar agaRRinAr?

seyyathALin malararan siraththil AnathillaiyO?

vengkaN vEzham mUlamenna vanthathungaL dhEvanO?

veeRuvANan amarilanRu viRal azhinthathillaiyO?

angkaN nyAlam uNda pOthu veLLi veRpaganRathO?

AthalAl arangananRi vERu theyvamillaiyE

 

There are those who say stories from itihAsas and

purANas should not be considered here and discussion

should be solely based on Vedas. However, this is

not a tenable position as our experts (azhvars and

acharyas) are clear that these cannot be ignored

for many number of reasons.

 

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

 

 

--- amshuman_k <amshuman_k wrote:

> Dear devotees,

>

> I am under the assumption that for us Vedas are the

> supreme

> authority (ignoring NDP for the moment). Puranas are also

> considered

> authorities as long as they don't contradict shruti

> vakyas. The same

> goes for Dharma sutras and smrities. Pancharatra agamas

> is also

> added to the list (at this point we diverge from smarthas

> ?!).

>

> ...

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search