Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatars,

 

re venerable NC Nappinai's arguments. Using scientific metaphors and

similies doesn't work here. One needs to look at the evidence and draw

conclusions, not fit the evidence to the scholastic conclusion. I think that

this is what we tend to do as Vaishnavas.

 

Objectively, all the "Vedic" evidence points towards a "nameless" Supreme

Being who can be called by whatever name one choses. Hence the various sects

can quite justifiably use the very same Vedas to support their claim of

sectarian monopoly on God.

 

The problem is the framing of the thesis. If we declare subjectively - "I

BELIEVE that the Supreme Being is Sriman narayana only" - then there is no

argument because it is a personal conviction. But when we declare

objectively - "THE SUPREME BEING IS NARAYANA ONLY" then we need to provide

objective Scriptural evidence to convince others. And I'm afraid such

exclusive evidence is lacking otherwise every Vedic scholar including

Sankara Acharya, Swami Dayananda, Tilak, Aurobindo and others would have

come to the same conclusion.

 

Adiyen

 

Sriram

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear devotees,

 

Science(goes by evidence) is matter and Sriman Narayana

is not matter alone(yes partly He is by one-many function defn). I

gave the example to illustrate the difficulty attached in proving or

disproving things! In the case of Einstein,it was by pure "intuition"

he proposed his theory(1916-General theory of relativity)which was 3

yrs later proved experimentally on a solar eclipse day. Einstein

cracked lot of jokes when his theory was proved right!

 

If I have to verify myself about Einstein's theory

experimentally,it is a waste of time(in one aspect) and I need to

equip myself with the knowledge to validate it. I have to invest lot

of time to do this. But,with the small mind that God has given me I

can see that there is sense in his theory and I just buy his theory

instead of investing my time verifying it(I can re-direct that time

for something else). Similarly,when I have not seen Sri Ramanuja(If I

have to go by evidence!)or verified his works personally,why should I

believe in him and his sampradayam? I just use my 3lb brain(no free

will concept used here) and see that there is more sense in his

theology than anyone else's. Science can help to some extent

understand the religion(goes by faith/belief). It is not easy to

prove faith/belief through evidence. Because they are in a different

plane! Einstein could see certain things far ahead than the rest at

scientific level. That's why he spent almost two decades like a

recluse searching alone for the Truth! And he was unsuccessful. I

would apply the same "analogy" to Azhvars and acaryas. Why Sankara

and others arrived at different conclusions? This again presupposes

the knowledge of their cognitive senses. I am not an expert in

English literature,so don't blame if my thoughts get transformed and

convey something else through language barrier:-)

 

BTW,I have heard(could be wrong)and read in some site that in all the

three(sankara's advaita,ramanuja's visishtadvaita,and madhwa's dvaita)

the guru paramapara starts only from Narayana and only the successive

acaryas differ in each sampradayam. Is it true? I have read couple of

books by people who do research in SV. They say that among the

followers of sankara's advaita,there is lot of discrepancy and people

who do research in advaita themselves agree that. Whereas there is a

perfect unanimity among those who understand and do research in R's

samskrt works with the exception of kalai issues. Anyway let me stop

here. It will not make any sense in communicating like this.

Best regards

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

> Objectively, all the "Vedic" evidence points towards a "nameless"

Supreme

> Being who can be called by whatever name one choses.

 

Dear Shri Swamis,

I believe Vedic evidence does not point to a "nameless" supreme

being, rather it points to a supreme being with innumerous names.

This is a subtle difference, though, is important enough. I believe

that the liberty of calling someone with any name probably comes from

the innumerous names and not from the nameless characteristic. The

point is, what could be "the" name that could describe the brahman at

the best? And from whose perspective? There is a small twist in here.

If it is subjective, then there is no argument. If it is objective,

human beings "can't" speak for all the other manifestations like

animals, plants etc. So, neither being subjective, nor being

objective, by taking an intermediatory position i.e from the

perspective of "human beings" alone, this question needs to be

answered - which basically makes sense. And the answer has been

that "Naraanaam Ayanaha ithi Narayana" i.e the resting abode/final

destination of all these naras(humans) (ofcourse, there is a lot more

explanation to this that is in Mumukshuppadi, but I just gave the

gist of the same). Hence Narayana shabdam best describes the brahmam

from the "human" perspective, for which, appropriate references from

Vedas, smruthis, ithihasas have been taken out by our acharyas and

has been proved. Shankara and others never debated, that Narayana

shabdam, and hence the Narayana Manifestation, is/isn't the best

shabda/form to describe the supreme being. Anyways, that is a

separate thread of discussion altogether by itself that is beyond the

scope of this subject. Also, we must remember, "we", the followers of

the Vedic tradition, believe in, that supreme being that has been

defined by our shastras - I request some learned scholars to throw

the light on the excellent bramha sutra - "SHAASTRAYONITVAAT". I

believe that this sutram clearly draws a boundary around the vedic

believers to indicate them that their belief is only to that extent

that the shastras expect them to. So, this is not necessarily a

belief, to be preached to others(while there is no harm in preaching

the fundamental humantary based living style etc). I am eagerly

expecting that the great scholars out here would really give us a

very good understanding of our tradition from this brahma sutra's

perspective.

 

I sincerely apologize for my mistakes and my ignorance.

 

Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jaamaataram Munim

 

Adiyen,

Ramanuja Dasan

 

ramanuja, purohit@b... wrote:

>

> Dear Bhagavatars,

>

> Objectively, all the "Vedic" evidence points towards a "nameless"

Supreme

> Being who can be called by whatever name one choses. Hence the

various sects

> can quite justifiably use the very same Vedas to support their

claim of

> sectarian monopoly on God.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas,

Thank you for your replies. Let me try to address certain things and

I mean no offence to our acharyas and esteemed members.

 

1. Vedic texts & Sriram's post:

Sriram beautifully summarized the central issue albeit with a minor

mistake - that the vedas talk about a "nameless or formless" supreme

being. Not necessarily and not always. That is a tangential issue

which we can ignore. The central point is, from vedic texts, we

cannot objectively examine the contents and conclude

that "Vishnu/Narayana is the supreme". We need to append Vaishnava

tantras, azhwar poems and other sectarian puranas to make that claim.

As Sriram pointed out, if that is not the case, every Vedic scholar

from Sayana to Bhatta bhaskara to Kapardi swami to Mahidhara would

have reached the same conclusion. This is ignoring western

indologists (accused of a hidden agenda?!).

 

2. Scientists/Azhwar analogy:

This is a weak analogy. Einstein's theory of relativity or

photoelectricity may be 'complex' for 'lay persons', not intutively

making sense or even worse contrary to common sense. However, the

physicists are unanimous on what the theory is about, what it

explains, and what are its limitations (if any). We cannot make an

analogy of theory of relativity & Vedic texts and scientists &

azhwars. Vedic scholars haven't come to a unanimous conclusion

that 'Narayana is supreme'.

 

3. Validity of itihasas & puranas:

If we allow puranas as a supplementary source of pramANa, shaivas &

shaktas would point out their respective sectarian puranas as

pramANa. If we dubiously proclaim that Vaishnava purANas are sattvic

and hence only they are to be counted as pramANa, we are in trouble

again. Naradiya purana, a sattvic purana, at the very beginning

asserts, "He who is Hari is same as Hara, Shiva. There is no

difference between them". (At least shaiva puranas are consistent in

that they proclaim Shiva as second to none and supreme :-) to Brahma,

Vishnu, Indra and other devas). There are other references to Hari-

Hara identity in 'sattvic' purANas which I didn't bother to catalogue.

 

To re-iterate, 'Narayana is supreme' is a matter of subjective

opinion, which is not necessarily wrong. However the claim

that 'Narayana is supreme and this is attested in the Vedas' can be

objectively evaluated by examining vedic text themselves.

 

4. Observation of Indo-Iranian texts - Avesta:

This is a side issue. The Avestan language is very similar to vedic

sanskrit and the gathas could be translated from avestan persian to

sanskrit and vice versa with few simple phonetic rules. Besides, a

lot of vedic deities reappear in Avesta *including vishnu*. ( we have

to keep in mind though, that daevas are the bad guys and ahuras are

the good guys).

 

ahura mazda - asura medhira=varuNa)

mithra - mitra

rashNu - viShNu

verethraghna - vR^itrahan=indra

sraosha - sharva=rudra

vAyu/vAta- vAyu/vata

ardvi sura anAhitA- sarasvati

baga - bhaga (as in baghdad!)

 

It is interesting to note how the Indo-Iranian religion evolved (in a

different direction) compared to vedic religion. Varuna is the

supreme God and Rashnu is a minor deity, and is the judge of souls

seeking entrance into heaven. In Zoroastrian religion the souls of

the dead must cross the Cinvat Bridge which links heaven and earth.

That is where Rashnu guards and makes the soul wait three days, while

he reviews the records in the book of life where good and bad deeds

have been recorded.

 

An indirect evidence that 'supremacy of Vishnu' is a later 'purANic

evolution' and unattested by Vedic canon (or else, among Indo-

Iranians, Rashnu would have been supreme - not Varuna).

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

 

{Moderator's note:

The "subjectivity" of the assertion that "VishNu is the Supreme Being" is srI.

Anshuman's opinion only. That is not an authoritative opinion taught by our

AchAryAs -

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan}

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

 

Dear Sriman Kasturirangan,

My point was that all physicists propound

their "profound" theories without thinking if a layman would

understand. Analogy(refer to brittanica for the defn) is only to

elucidate certain points. You shouldn't take it "literally". It is a

common sense that physics deals with matter and what we are talking

about is beyond matter. Obviously there is no transformation from a

material plane to a non-material one to explain this. Modern physics

is not only relativity. Einstein,till his death,was in complete

disagreement with Quantum Mechanics. Only when physicists find

one "single" equation to represent this Universe,you can say that

they are in conformity with one another. Until then,we do and will

see "differring" mentalities among the physicists.

 

Let us take only Shankara,Ramanuja and Madhwa. I have

personlly seen current "Jayendra swamigal of kanchi mutt". He always

ends his talk with "narayana,narayana,narayana". When he signs,he

writes narayana smrti. I don't know if he does this all the time but

when I heard him in person and also on TV,this was the case. I have a

good no. of madhwa friends whose names are one of the thousand names

of Vishnu. I would say that they are more orthodox than even some of

the iyengars as the formers don't even step into shaivite temples.

Interesting point to note is that it is only Adi shankara who

composed Acytua shtakam,govinda ashtakam, kanakadhara

sthothram,krishna ashtakam,bhaja govindam etc. I don't know about

Madhwacarya. Ramanuja didn't compose slokams like shankara except for

the Gadya trayam. In BG commentary also,Shankara only quotes vishnu

puranam and hence Ramanuja sticks to the same rule to refute the

former(basically Ramanuja beats the opponent in the same arena using

the same weapons). Why not some tamasic puranams which invoke shiva?

 

Assume that there are two persons(one with good vision and the other

with color blindness) observing the sunset. Do you think both are

going to agree to each other's views? Similarly AzhvArs had perfect

vision/divine eye and divine knowledge,granted by Lord Himself and we

don't need any "external",blind sources to tell us who the Supreme is

and who(which vedic scholar) agrees to it and who does not are

totally irrelevant to us. All matters is "who passes the judgement".

Period. There ends the discussion. Certain Universal laws are easily

verifiable and certain others are not.

 

Instead of learning little of each and every field,which throws the

mind into a state of turmoil and also leads to permanent head damage

with the conclusion taht we know everything,we should learn

everything of little and go slowly from there. If anyone

reads/studies vedas here and there,he will only arrive at self-

contadicting theories. Who knows,one may come up with new and weird

theories everyday!

 

Back to square one: Do you have a problem in believing the Supremacy

of SrimanNarayana or you just want to share with all of us what you

think is right/wrong? Did the question arise due to the doubt in your

mind or someone else's mind? Remember that all realizations happen

through "direct" experience only.

Best Regards

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

 

Quote for the day: The best thinking has been done in solitude. The

worst has been in turmoil - Edison

 

 

> 2. Scientists/Azhwar analogy:

> This is a weak analogy. Einstein's theory of relativity or

> photoelectricity may be 'complex' for 'lay persons', not intutively

> making sense or even worse contrary to common sense. However, the

> physicists are unanimous on what the theory is about, what it

> explains, and what are its limitations (if any). We cannot make an

> analogy of theory of relativity & Vedic texts and scientists &

> azhwars. Vedic scholars haven't come to a unanimous conclusion

> that 'Narayana is supreme'.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Nappinnai,

 

"Did the question arise due to the doubt in your mind or someone

else's mind? "

 

Very much in my mind. On a side note, I discovered similar issues

discussed by Shri Mohan Sagar in the old archives of Bhakti list.

 

Back to the central question:

"Back to square one: Do you have a problem in believing the Supremacy

of SrimanNarayana "

My point as always :-) - No I don't, from my heart. However, I have a

problem when we (as in Shri Vaishnavas) claim that this is attested

in Vedas.

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

[Guest guest]

Is the question:

 

Is Sriman Narayana The Supreme?

Or

Is The Supreme Sriman Narayana?

 

--- amshuman_k <amshuman_k wrote:

> Dear Shri Nappinnai,

>

> "Did the question arise due to the doubt in your

> mind or someone

> else's mind? "

>

> Very much in my mind. On a side note, I discovered

> similar issues

> discussed by Shri Mohan Sagar in the old archives of

> Bhakti list.

>

> Back to the central question:

> "Back to square one: Do you have a problem in

> believing the Supremacy

> of SrimanNarayana "

> My point as always :-) - No I don't, from my heart.

> However, I have a

> problem when we (as in Shri Vaishnavas) claim that

> this is attested

> in Vedas.

>

> Regards,

> Kasturi Rangan .K

>

>

>

> ------------------------ Sponsor

>

> azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

SrI:

 

Dear all

 

I guess doubting the supremeacy of nArAyanA is totally uncalled for.

 

All the vedAnthins have agreed about vishnu parathvam.

 

That is one point which they never debate on.

 

If one wants to step out of vedanthA and argue the supremeacy of

nArAyana and say some other devatAnthram is suprene we have nothing

to say.

 

Once when you call yourself a vedAnthin it is a clear cut fact and is

agreed upon by all vedAntha achAryAs.

 

I dont want to go in detail about this. there ahev eben lots of

discussions elsewhere in Sri vaishnavam related email lists Please go

hrough them patiently.. but in short..I will summarise and say that...

 

VedAs talk about so many deities(devathAs) and refer to them as

supreme.. in one context or the other but at a different context they

are reffered to be as born out of a karmA..

 

whenever vedas talk about nArAyanA it talks and refres to him only as

the supreme indweller the paramAthan the one without the second etc

etc and never as anything lesser.

 

Vedas never anywhere has said anything lesser than about nArAyanA..

 

There are no statements that say that nArAyanan is "born" or is

subjected to karmA or influenced by karmA or controlled by someother

diety etc etc..

 

I suggest to read books written by puttur swAmi on this because he

provides an answer in such a way that such questions or doubts will

never ever raise for anyone who reads it.

 

This is just not a matter of belief it is a matter of concrete proof

in vedAs and vedAnthas.

 

regards

Venkat

[Guest guest]

I cannot recall ever having written anything in which I doubted whether

Vedas ever proclaimed the supremacy of Sriman Narayana, but if I did, it was

at a time where I failed to place myself under the mercy of an AchAryan who

could clear up these doubts for me. And, now that I am learning from a

teacher, I realize that using my limited intellect to try to explain the

vast difference between the nature of the debates in this forum and what is

actually understood by those who truly know our Vedic culture would

either result in my offending someone or in someone questioning the validity

of my Acharya.

 

But, since Mr. Kasturi Rangan has somehow decided that my name should be

used to validate his doubts, I suppose I should throw in my two cents worth:

 

There are a great number of incorrect assumptions being made in arguements

like this which are largely based on our primary school level of education

in a language called Sanskrit, and our egotistically believing that we can

use it it to interpret the the Veda. We have gone so far to even limiting

the term Veda as being just four books, and then based solely on our blind

faith either in ourselves or our teacher trying to argue some point how a

very subjective perception of Deity either does or does not define the

Absolute Reality.

 

If we can all begin to humble ourselves a bit, as I had to the hard way, we

will understand that Veda is the sum total of all knowledge and includes

everything, itihAsas, purAnas, prabhandams (which are not just in Tamil),

the six theistic systems of philosophy, the six atheistic systems, along

with 1131 sAkhas of a sabdam of which we only know the famous four, being

just a part. The language of all this wisdom is not Sanskrit or Tamil in

the sense that it has a particular script, contains x number of letters, and

can easily be understood by those who have taken a course or two in it or

because of geographic origin speak some language that emerged from it. It

is a language all its own, with no particular script and a very precise

meaning that requires years of study and meditation to even begin to

understand.

 

But, in the sum total of all of that, one word has stood out in the minds of

all those who sought to understand the Veda in its totality - Narayana.

This term, of course, conjures up in our mind a four-armed deity lying on a

thousand-headed serpent. But, this is only because those seeking to worship

and contemplate on a form that will cultivate Sattwa guna recognized this

concept of Deity to be the most sweet and accessible. But, the form is not

as relevant as a proper understanding of the name. Narayana is one term

that helps to define the Reality behind all that makes this Universe what it

is; He (and we use this gender since it allows us to understand that this is

a Personal Being) is the energy behind all of us and hence the true doer of

all action; He is the ultimate Beneficiary and ultimate Benefactor for this

Universe as this Universe is the body for Him, who acts as its Soul, and it

is He who is the very mystery and wonder of Love.

 

Meditating upon that Reality, advaitins, dvaitins, and visistadvaitins

offered slightly different interpretations of the truth. And, they all

realized that this Reality is the only one being referred to in all the

rituals, as it is the action of that Being in the Fire that makes Him known

as Agni, the energy behind all of the processes that lead to rain that makes

Him known as Varuna, His Energy and Movement being referred to as Rudra,

etc., etc. If seen from this perspective, then the arguement really

becomes moot, because whatever name and form we wish to give to Him, He will

assume for our sake.

 

Please note that what I have shared above is only a small sampling of the

crude understanding of a well-intentioned "American Joe" who is trying very

hard to learn something from his Teacher. So, please either go easy on me

easy, or better yet, keep me out of this.

 

Ramanuja dasan

Mohan

 

 

 

 

-

"amshuman_k" <amshuman_k

<ramanuja>

Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:38 PM

[ramanuja] Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana

 

 

> Dear Shri Nappinnai,

>

> "Did the question arise due to the doubt in your mind or someone

> else's mind? "

>

> Very much in my mind. On a side note, I discovered similar issues

> discussed by Shri Mohan Sagar in the old archives of Bhakti list.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan,

I have a small suggestion here based on my little

analysis. Kindly see if it makes any sense.

If you really only go by number of hymns

dedicated to praise of Indra in say Rigveda, as we

understand it today, Indra should be ultimate god of

Vedas. Obviously there should have been a reasonably

strong theistic tradition existing today which has

Indra as the ultimate diety. There doesn't seem to be

one. There does not seem to be evidence of one such

tradition existing at least since composition of

Mahabharata. Same is the case with many other dieties

of Vedic pantheon. This strikes me odd. Probably it

may mean that it was not the way our ancestors

understood Vedas.

Another important point one should keep in

mind, in my opinion, is that there has always been an

unbroken chain of interpretative tradition existing in

learning and propagation of Veda and its

supplimentary texts.Exposition of meaning of Vedic

texts has always been in the context of this

interpretative tradition. As I see it the

interpretative tradition of Vissitadvaita/

Srivaishnava as expounded by SriRamanuja goes back to

Bodhayana who was a direct disciple of Sri Vedavyasa.

My humble opinion is that if we have to really

find how our Purvacharyas upheld Narayana paratvam one

should probably explore the roots of our tradition

(assuming one needs to do this at all). I feel that

any other way of trying to decipher Vedic texts only

from the meaning of Sanskrit words as we know today

may not help much. By the way, I do not have any

special grudge against western indologists (hidden

agenda does not trouble me much), except that they

have definitely not given due importence to

interpretative tradition of Veda and Vedanta in their

quest to understand Vedic texts. This does not look

really scholarly to me.

By the way, I feel that our Purvacharyas

conviction of Narayana paratva is based more on

Upanishad texts than the Samhitas.May be one can see

whole thing only in the light of Vedanta as we any way

believe that importence of karam mimansa is more in

karma.

I know I have not really made any body wiser

by this note. Just to share some stray thoughts.

 

Adiyen

Srinivasadasa

--- amshuman_k <amshuman_k wrote:

> Dear Shri Nappinnai,

>

> "Did the question arise due to the doubt in your

> mind or someone

> else's mind? "

>

> Very much in my mind. On a side note, I discovered

> similar issues

> discussed by Shri Mohan Sagar in the old archives of

> Bhakti list.

>

> Back to the central question:

> "Back to square one: Do you have a problem in

> believing the Supremacy

> of SrimanNarayana "

> My point as always :-) - No I don't, from my heart.

> However, I have a

> problem when we (as in Shri Vaishnavas) claim that

> this is attested

> in Vedas.

>

> Regards,

> Kasturi Rangan .K

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Mohan Sagar,

I was referring to your post on our "Ubhaya-vedanta tradition" and

bhakti religion from south India in Bhakti list (was it 1995 archive?)

I apologize if I implied that you had doubts regarding Vedas or

Shriman Narayana and your earlier views validate my doubts. I am

sorry for not explicity mentioning that you talked about the origins

of our "Ubhaya vedanta tradition".

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

I was about to write on the origin of our unique tradition -

synthesized from vedic & tantric traditions, azhwars' devotional

outpourings and systematized by Shri Ramanuja. I figured that Shri

Mohan Sagar had written about this long time back.

 

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jan97/0124.html

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jan97/0132.html

 

Nowhere does he doubts the authority of Vedas or our perumal's

supremacy.

 

I was about to use this as a central claim in my 'discussion' - that

our 'tradition' is not entirely vedic, but a synthesis of vedic,

tantric, puranic as well as our azhwars' works. (Not that this is

wrong or it 'invalidates' our tradition).

 

I hope Shri Mohan Sagar would forgive me.

 

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

 

 

ramanuja, "Mohan Sagar" <m_raghavan@e...>

wrote:

> I cannot recall ever having written anything in which I doubted

whether

> Vedas ever proclaimed the supremacy of Sriman Narayana, but if I

did, it was

> at a time where I failed to place myself under the mercy of an

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Srinivasachary,

Thanks for your reply. Please do not take my reply as an offence.

 

1. Absence of theistic tradition of other 'deities':

This is an interesting question (at least for a student of history).

Let us for the moment ignore sanskrit tradition and visit tamil

sangam literature. Sangam literature talks about five landscapes (5

thiNai), mullai, marudam, kurinji, neidal and pAlai. It also talks

about five deities presiding over those landscapes - vendan, varunan,

maayon, seyon and kotravai. In 'popular' terms, they are Indra,

Varuna, Vishnu, Muruga and Devi/Goddess.

 

>From silappathigaram, we see that the Indira-vizha was a colorful,

joyous festival. (I gather that Indra mahotsav is still celebrated in

Nepal). We, tamils don't celebrate. Also, we see that Varuna was

worshipped with 'fish-bones'?! Vishnu was worshipped with a form of

dance (is Ras-lila in Manipur related to this?)

Out of these 5, Vishnu, Murugan and Devi worship became prominent and

Indra, Varuna worship faded into background (maybe except in places

like Nepal).

If we relax our criterion to include Persia, the 'cult' of Mithra,

another Vedic deity was prevalent in Iranian regions upto Roman

colonies (also defunct, thanks to proselytizing religions).

 

2. A question on Baudhayana:

I am aware that Shri Ramanuja quotes him as an authority for

Vishistadvaita. I am not aware that he was a Vaishnava (and

Vishishtadvaita tradition could be independent of Vaishnavism, right?)

 

3. Samhitas & Upanishads:>

"By the way, I feel that our Purvacharyas

> conviction of Narayana paratva is based more on

> Upanishad texts than the Samhitas.May be one can see

> whole thing only in the light of Vedanta as we any way

> believe that importence of karam mimansa is more in

> karma."

Thanks for mentioning this. I have come across the claim that "for

us, the whole shruthi is authority" (an argument which we supposedly

used against mimamsakas for whom samhita/brahmaNa portions are

sufficient to conduct flawless yagnya and upanishad portions are

redundant). If we include those, aren't we in trouble, as we are

dragging texts that say the supremacy of 'other deities' as well?

 

 

Once again, if I have offended you and other devotees, I apologize.

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan

 

ramanuja, srinivasa chary <srinivasadasa>

wrote:

> Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan,

> I have a small suggestion here based on my little

> analysis. Kindly see if it makes any sense.

> If you really only go by number of hymns

> dedicated to praise of Indra in say Rigveda, as we

> understand it today, Indra should be ultimate god of

> Vedas. Obviously there should have been a reasonably

[Guest guest]

Sri Krishnaya Namah!

 

 

On a question as to whether Sriman Narayana is supreme or not, as per Veda,

here are my views:

 

If one were go by Veda, then one should thoroughly go through the entire

Vedas, including karma kanda and seek for answers Period.

 

I read somewhere that even Sage Bharadhwaja cannot study the vedas in its

entirety and it requires many births to great sages to digest vedas. Even

Brahma who have been taught Vedas by Narayana Himself, loses it and forgets

sometimes and then meditates on Narayana to gain the knowledge. Just like

a MBBS qualifies one as a doctor, in the same way, Brahma was a qualified

creator after gaining the knowledge of Vedas.

 

If one were go by Acharyas(Sri Adi Shankara, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhwa) - a

question arises as to whether they have commented on Vedas in their own

way(by influencing the work with their notions) or they simply put that

across without any additions, as they have understood. If the former is

true then Vedas has to be left alone and their work can be called an

intellectual work on spirituality and if the latter is true, we must follow

their preachings. Somebody should throw some light on this as the

acharyas (especially the main three) are godsent and have divine powers.

 

On a different platform, we have many proofs in terms of Purusha sooktha,

Narayana Suktha, Vishnu Suktha, Sri Suktha, Mahanarayana

Upanishat/Chandogya Upanishat(out of 10 principle upanishats) to prove

WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that Narayana is the Supreme and "NA DWITHIYOSTHI

KASCHITH". Icing on the cake is the celestial song - Bhagavadgita, which

has got such a universality that there is a need for the present day

mankind to study this in its entirety. Vibhooti yoga in BG clearly states

that it is He who is the cause for all and none else, and whatever be our

ishtadeva and our kainkaryams towards Him will finally reach Him and He

will bless us in the form being cherished by us. Somebody should list down

these so that bhagavathas are happy for being a Perumal bhakthas with very

little knowledge on Veda.

 

Also, can anyone refute the knowledge behind BG or Srimad Bhagavatha being

a sathvik purana. Atleast in my wildest dreams, I will bank on the

preachings of alwars, acharyas (including Sri Adi Shankara) except for a

miniscule shaivites, shakthites and ganapathites as my mind is made up for

Narayana.

 

Let BG lights our mind's eye and thwarts all these doubts.

 

 

Sukumar

 

Sri Krishnaparabrahmane Namah!

[Guest guest]

As I had mentioned in my previous note, these words were written long before

I had placed my full faith and trust in an AchAryan who could teach me

properly. I guess it is true what they say about someone's past coming back

to haunt them.

 

Please note that tantra and prabhandam also are part of Veda, not just the

four famous books that even wegrade school students in America know as the

Four Sacred Scriptures of Hinduism. Veda is wisdom, and as such in

non-contradictory and all inclusive. While from a Western anthropologist's,

it could be argued to distinguish Tamil from Sanskrit culture, from the

standpoint of Vedic scholars, this arguement has logical basis.

 

Ramanuja dasan

Mohan

 

 

 

 

-

"amshuman_k" <amshuman_k

<ramanuja>

Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:33 PM

[ramanuja] Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana

 

 

> Dear devotees,

> I was about to write on the origin of our unique tradition -

> synthesized from vedic & tantric traditions, azhwars' devotional

> outpourings and systematized by Shri Ramanuja. I figured that Shri

> Mohan Sagar had written about this long time back.

>

> http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jan97/0124.html

> http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jan97/0132.html

>

> Nowhere does he doubts the authority of Vedas or our perumal's

> supremacy.

>

> I was about to use this as a central claim in my 'discussion' - that

> our 'tradition' is not entirely vedic, but a synthesis of vedic,

> tantric, puranic as well as our azhwars' works. (Not that this is

> wrong or it 'invalidates' our tradition).

>

> I hope Shri Mohan Sagar would forgive me.

>

>

> Regards,

> Kasturi Rangan .K

>

>

> ramanuja, "Mohan Sagar" <m_raghavan@e...>

> wrote:

> > I cannot recall ever having written anything in which I doubted

> whether

> > Vedas ever proclaimed the supremacy of Sriman Narayana, but if I

> did, it was

> > at a time where I failed to place myself under the mercy of an

>

>

>

>

> azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

I respectfully disagree with the proposition that the rig vedic

suktas are like "Masters degree" and the other Riks are like high

school syllabi.

Examination of Rig veda mandalas would directly answer whether this

proposition is tenable or not.

Assume that the suktas devoted to Vishnu are indeed esoteric in that

they are 'superior' somehow with respect to other Rik suktas. What

should be the arrangement of the mandalas if this assumption is true?

The suktas on Vishnu would form a separate mandala by itself.

That is not actually the case...

 

Vishnu gets his own suktas in

(a) Rig 1.154 - Vishnu

(b) Rig 1.155 - Indra-Vishnu (first 3 verses to the diad, last 3

exclusively to Vishnu)

© Rig 1.156 - Vishnu

 

These rigs are immediately preceded and succeeded by suktas to Mitra-

Varuna and Ashvins. There are 191 suktas in first mandala. Of course

Vishnu is mentioned along other "gods" in lot of suktas (to

Vishvedevas, ashwamedha mantras etc. etc.).

 

It is interesting to note that Soma-Pavamana gets his entire mandala.

Not surprisingly, soma yaaga is one of the most important vedic

ritual - Sama gaanas' existence owes specifically to this yaaga -

Samans are to be sung in Soma yAga.

 

I pointed out earlier that the "Paramam padam" mentioned in Rig Veda

is not the "Abode of Vishnu" but "Vishnu's third step" symbolizing

the third phase of Sun's movement.

 

Things don't improve in Krishna yajur veda either. When Vishnu is

mentioned, he is mentioned along with other deities like Aditi, Agni,

Soma, Sarasvati, Indra and not in some special fashion. (Things do

improve in Shathapatha BrahmaNa of Shukla yajur veda - Purusha

Naryana debuts here).

 

Vishnu's steps symbol is used for a different purpose in Yajur veda -

abhichara (black magic - mostly the domain of Atharva veda...)

 

For a sample, here is mantra I.6.5.5 through I.6.5.8 from Taittriya

Samhita, a curse against enemies...

 

(5) Thou art the step of Visnu, smiting enmity; with the Gayatri

metre I step across the earth; excluded is he whom we hate.

 

(6) Thou art the step of Visnu, smiting imprecations; with the

Tristubh metre I step across the atmosphere; excluded is he whom we

hate.

 

(7) Thou art the step of Visnu, smiter of him who practiseth evil;

with the Jagati metre I step across the sky; excluded is he whom we

hate.

 

(8) Thou art the step of Visnu, smiter of the hostile one; with the

Anustubh metre I stop across the quarters; excluded is he whom we hate

 

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

 

 

ramanuja, "Mohan Ramanujan"

<mohan_ramanujan@r...> wrote:

> Dear all,

>

> Though I consider myself as a kid as far as this discussion is

considered, I also want to start participating. I hope you all don't

mind.