Missing the point on Narayana

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatars, some of us seem to be missing the point on this discussion

on the Vedas and the Supremacy of Narayana. No one is doubting the

"supremacy" of Narayana - seeing that Narayana means the "ground of all

being" - therefore the name in itself is self-evidently absolute. The

problem arises when we enter into this Puranic discussion about who is

supreme - like debating who is the president is it A or is it B. The Vedas

declare "khalvidam brahmasarvam vai rudra", "tvameva (ganesha) sarvam

khalvidam brahmasi", "narayana evedagam sarvam". So by a process of logic if

A = X, B = X, C = X and D = X then the relationship between A,B,C,D must be

identical. This is then supported by the Ghataka sruti = "ekam sat vipra

bahudha vadanti" - the Truth is ONE but the wise describe is differently.

 

If we regard Narayana as a person who is different to Siva, Ganesha, Brahma

and that they are all contenders for the throne then we are divided into

different camps with different agendas and end up fighting and dirt raking

like a presidential election! When we understand that the Vedas repeatedly

say the trimurti comes from Narayana, and then the same trimurty comes from

Siva, Ganesha etc, we come to a non sectarian conclusion that they are all

aspects of the one Supreme Being, different forms of the same energy. We as

vaishnavas have a personal subjective bias towards Vishnu, but let us not

deny the validity of the Saivite or Ganapatya or Sakta approach. Let us

simply accept what Krishna has said in the Gita - that he accepts all people

in whatever way they wish to take refuge in Him, be it as Siva, Ganesha,

Sakti Brahma or as Vishnu.

 

The truth of Rig veda is that the majority of suktas are indeed addressed

to Indra and Agni, and only 3 or 4 to Vishnu, Narayana does not get a

mention. So let us not get carried away by fundamentalism and dogmatism. Let

us treasure our sampradaya and also respect and accept the sampradaya of

others. Let us pursue the path of unity in diversity which to me is the true

message of the Vedas.

 

Adiyen

Sri Ram

[Guest guest]

SrI:

 

Dear all

 

This is really reaching a level of annoyance.

 

Where in vedas does the so called ganapati aka pilliAr being praised

as supreme?? please quote.also quote about MurugAn being praised as

supreme.

 

It is accepted and undipsuted that IndrA is praised very highly so is

rudra so is akAshA so is hirnayagarbhA... and so many other deities..

No one disputes it.

 

I could appreciate a discusssion where one can talk about supremacy of

RudrA and compare it with Vishnu just for the sake of knowing how such

a contradiction is reconcilled.. because there are certainly certain

portions of vedaAs that raise and parise rudra to a very great extent.

 

But there are no yes no portions about the much celebrated and hyped

up "pillaiAr" or "Murugan" and hold them as supreme.

 

sAktham Saivam are totaly rejected by any vedAnthin be it

Adi-shankarAchAryA who is now being projectd as a shaivite at times

and sAktha at times for some reason or the other which is known only

to shriyapathi.

 

gAnabathyam and koumAram dont even get mentioned in any vedAntha work.

 

On careful analysis of karmAs vedAntha bAshyAs(BS bAshyA G bAshyA and

Up BAshya) by all the achAryAs of different vedAnthic traditions one

can easily come to the conclusion that if vedAntha talks about theism

it is purely monotheist and so talks about one supreme deity who is

none other than nArAyanA.

 

I am afraid that My post would go to pages volumes..I want to avoid

that so please yes please for some sake or the other for which you

have been unnecssarily raising this issue refer to so many articles

posted on bakthi list or mAlolan list.

 

If you are in India please take pains to get a copy of works by Puttur

KrishnaswAmy iyengar of tiruchy.

 

The answres provide by him in his works on such type of arguments are

befitting.

 

"Nail on the head" I would say.

 

Or better choose a AchAryA do a grantha kAlakshepam.

 

regards

Venkat

 

 

ramanuja, purohit@b... wrote:

>

> Dear Bhagavatars, some of us seem to be missing the point on this

discussion

> on the Vedas and the Supremacy of Narayana. No one is doubting the

> "supremacy" of Narayana - seeing that Narayana means the "ground of all

> being" - therefore the name in itself is self-evidently absolute. The

> problem arises when we enter into this Puranic discussion about who is

> supreme - like debating who is the president is it A or is it B. The

Vedas

> declare "khalvidam brahmasarvam vai rudra", "tvameva (ganesha) sarvam

> khalvidam brahmasi", "narayana evedagam sarvam". So by a process of

logic if

> A = X, B = X, C = X and D = X then the relationship between A,B,C,D

must be

> identical. This is then supported by the Ghataka sruti = "ekam sat vipra

> bahudha vadanti" - the Truth is ONE but the wise describe is

differently.

>

> If we regard Narayana as a person who is different to Siva, Ganesha,

Brahma

> and that they are all contenders for the throne then we are divided into

> different camps with different agendas and end up fighting and dirt

raking

> like a presidential election! When we understand that the Vedas

repeatedly

> say the trimurti comes from Narayana, and then the same trimurty

comes from

> Siva, Ganesha etc, we come to a non sectarian conclusion that they

are all

> aspects of the one Supreme Being, different forms of the same

energy. We as

> vaishnavas have a personal subjective bias towards Vishnu, but let

us not

> deny the validity of the Saivite or Ganapatya or Sakta approach. Let us

> simply accept what Krishna has said in the Gita - that he accepts

all people

> in whatever way they wish to take refuge in Him, be it as Siva, Ganesha,

> Sakti Brahma or as Vishnu.

>

> The truth of Rig veda is that the majority of suktas are indeed

addressed

> to Indra and Agni, and only 3 or 4 to Vishnu, Narayana does not get a

> mention. So let us not get carried away by fundamentalism and

dogmatism. Let

> us treasure our sampradaya and also respect and accept the sampradaya of

> others. Let us pursue the path of unity in diversity which to me is

the true

> message of the Vedas.

>

> Adiyen

> Sri Ram

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Sri Ram,

I have following observations on your note:

1. I do not think anybody is missing what you think is

the central point of discussion.With whatever little

understanding I have of our sampradaya, it is clear to

me that we hold that Narayana is the Vedic supreme and

Brahman of Vedanta is none other than Narayana. And

also Narayana is congruent to Vishnu and vice versa.

That is the position held by our Purvacharyas. And we

hold this as parama vaidika sampradayam. All other

references to contrary in vedic texts are reconciled

by our Acharyas in their inimitable style ( Refer to

chapter on Ishwara in Yateendra Matha Deepika ). Now

that is the position of our sampradayam.

2. We do not consider Shiva, Devi, Ganapathi as

different from Narayana in so far as Narayana is the

indweller of all.

3. If you imply this position of our sampradaya is

fundamentalist, then I am a fundamentalist and I do

not find anything wrong about believing in

fundamentals of our sampradayam.

4. We are monotheist in our practice. That is where

it ends. We do not go about fighting other systems on

everyday basis. At the same time we do not find any

reason to uphold the validity of other sampradayams as

our duty. I want to be a good srivaishnavite in the

way shown by our Acharyas.

5. In any case there more than enough people around

to uphold the validity of other schools. In my humble

opinion, it is more than sufficient for us to strive

to live upto tenets of our sampradayam.

6. No offence meant. I am not against honest

interrogation of one's own faith. But we should gaurd

against trying to draw too many conclusions about our

sampradayam with too little analysis.

7. Dasoham

adiyen

srinivasadasa

--- purohit wrote:

>

> Dear Bhagavatars, some of us seem to be missing the

> point on this discussion

> on the Vedas and the Supremacy of Narayana. No one

> is doubting the

> "supremacy" of Narayana - seeing that Narayana means

> the "ground of all

> being" - therefore the name in itself is

> self-evidently absolute. The

> problem arises when we enter into this Puranic

> discussion about who is

> supreme - like debating who is the president is it A

> or is it B. The Vedas

> declare "khalvidam brahmasarvam vai rudra",

> "tvameva (ganesha) sarvam

> khalvidam brahmasi", "narayana evedagam sarvam". So

> by a process of logic if

> A = X, B = X, C = X and D = X then the relationship

> between A,B,C,D must be

> identical. This is then supported by the Ghataka

> sruti = "ekam sat vipra

> bahudha vadanti" - the Truth is ONE but the wise

> describe is differently.

>

> If we regard Narayana as a person who is different

> to Siva, Ganesha, Brahma

> and that they are all contenders for the throne then

> we are divided into

> different camps with different agendas and end up

> fighting and dirt raking

> like a presidential election! When we understand

> that the Vedas repeatedly

> say the trimurti comes from Narayana, and then the

> same trimurty comes from

> Siva, Ganesha etc, we come to a non sectarian

> conclusion that they are all

> aspects of the one Supreme Being, different forms of

> the same energy. We as

> vaishnavas have a personal subjective bias towards

> Vishnu, but let us not

> deny the validity of the Saivite or Ganapatya or

> Sakta approach. Let us

> simply accept what Krishna has said in the Gita -

> that he accepts all people

> in whatever way they wish to take refuge in Him, be

> it as Siva, Ganesha,

> Sakti Brahma or as Vishnu.

>

> The truth of Rig veda is that the majority of

> suktas are indeed addressed

> to Indra and Agni, and only 3 or 4 to Vishnu,

> Narayana does not get a

> mention. So let us not get carried away by

> fundamentalism and dogmatism. Let

> us treasure our sampradaya and also respect and

> accept the sampradaya of

> others. Let us pursue the path of unity in diversity

> which to me is the true

> message of the Vedas.

>

> Adiyen

> Sri Ram

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

This is an excellent point. Thanks to Shriram Swamin. It has already

been figured out by our ancenstors(including the dvaita, advaita and

vishistadvaita and certain other philosophers), that, per

vedas, "Narayana Parambrahma, tatvan Narayana para:" i.e Narayana

is "the" shabda that best describes the brahmam. As Shriram Swamin

had mentioned, the problem arises when we debate on "who" is the

supreme. It is a simple fact, that we miss all the while, in most of

our discussions. Brahmam as we know manifests himself in so many

forms and acts as the inner controller of all those. So, who is the

supreme? obviously has an answer: "Brahmam" - as taittriyam says -

"sa eko brahmana ananda: sayaschaayam purushe! sa eka: sa ya evam

vith" and so on. So, no one doubts on who is supreme as there is an

obvious answer. Now, as we know, we human beings(exceptions

excluded;) need some form or other to worship. As Swami Nammazhwar

put in his pasurams, "Uyavara uyar nalam udayavan evan avan", he

never mentions the name of this brahmam nor the form of this brahmam

in his first ten of his magnum opus - Thiruvaimozhi. To me, Swami

Nammazhwar is no less than the vedic seers, in fact, he is better

than them in all the ways(personal opinion). But, as he moves on with

his pasurams, his pasurams reveal that he has been blessed with the

dhrushti(vision) of the brahmam himself, in the "brahmam's" most

liked form, i.e the Narayana, Hari, the dasavataras etc. While all

these manifestations of brahmam i.e from Narayana to Kalki, are

treated at par, the other manifestations like Shiva, Brahma etc

haven't attracted Swami like that of the former ones. The reason

being, either 1) obvious - unlike one time creation or destruction,

the sustainance form is the best revealed, or, 2) the reason is

unknown. Even in the last pasuram, he says "avaavaracchoozh, ariyai,

ayanai, aranai alatri". That is, he recognizes all the three major

manifestation, for he sees only the paramatma in all the three, but,

he still keeps the "ari" at the first of the sequel, due to his

affection. The sustainance form namely, the Vishnu and his vyuha,

vibhava, archa forms are more in number and have attracted the most,

in those times. And hence, this form is more praised, often, than

others. But, a true philosopher(like all our acharyas) would never

deny, that it is the same paramatma that dwells in "every-thing". So,

back to square one, one of the reasons for worshipping Narayana is

more out of the affection, will, attraction, one could name it

whatever, to the name itself(thirumanthram), that defines the bond

between us, the humans, and the supreme. This is one of the reasons

why, our acharyas never instructed us to strictly follow them, but

have "recommended" following these ideas. And to me(personal opinion

again), following our acharyas is probably the best, for they have

given us the best out of "their" experience and based on the

experience of "their acharyas". So, why even bother whether Narayana

or Siva or Brahma is the supreme. The supreme is one, while the best

form he portrays(based on the avataras, vedic seers' statements(the

most mentioned form in the shrutis), smruthis, azhwars texts and our

acharya granthams) is Narayana i.e the one who has the Shankha,

Chakram, Kreeta Kundalam, Peeta Vastram, Koustubam and the

Chathurbhujam. Well, one may argue that there are similar things that

could be mentioned in favor of the manifestation of Rudra too, but,

that is probably a form that was just mentioned in vedas that does

not come with so many leelas, does not come with such a beautiful

form and does not have so many archa roopams as we see for the

Narayana form and hence probably fails to attract many. And hence,

anyone but Narayana, would only be "next" liked(for the most) to him.

All said, I have nothing against any other manifestations starting

from brahma till the agni the lowest of the devathas, for the inner

controller is still our supreme being.

 

To answer one of Shri Kasturi Rangan's question: Yes. We, as we claim

ourselves as Vaishnavas, are more interested in the Vishnu roopam and

hence the Vishnu paratvam is completely a subjective view of us of

the vedas. But the point is, given a chance, we could convince all

others, who are interested in a debate like say tharkam vadam whatever

(but with basis being the vedas), that the Narayana form is worth

this most affection and liking as compared to "any other" form that

we are aware of from the shrutis, and hence, though at this point,

one cannot declare the Vishnu Paratvam as an objective view of vedas,

we(if not, I) "believe" it is an objective view and is a matter of

time to let people get convinced about this, as they come to know

this tradition better and better in the future.

 

 

My 2 cents - worth or not is upto what the reader could get from it:)

 

Please forgive me for my ignorance and mistakes.

 

Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim

 

Adiyen,

Ramanuja Dasan

 

ramanuja, purohit@b... wrote:

>

> Dear Bhagavatars, some of us seem to be missing the point on this

discussion

> on the Vedas and the Supremacy of Narayana. No one is doubting the

> "supremacy" of Narayana - seeing that Narayana means the "ground of

all

> being" - therefore the name in itself is self-evidently absolute.

The

> problem arises when we enter into this Puranic discussion about who

is

> supreme - like debating who is the president is it A or is it B.

The Vedas

> declare "khalvidam brahmasarvam vai rudra", "tvameva (ganesha)

sarvam

> khalvidam brahmasi", "narayana evedagam sarvam".

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan,

 

adiyEn's praNAm.

 

The first ten pasurams of Thiruvaymozhi are made to

explain the visishtadvaita sampradhayam. Where

devotees were likely to think that He is formless,

without qualities etc, Azhvar explains in clear

terms that He is full of divine qualities ("uyarvaRa

uyarnalam") and has a divine form ("sudar adi").

He also clarifies critical vedanta phrases such

as "tat tvam asi" in the fourth pasuram and so on.

 

However, one does not have to go far to find out who

Azhvar was talking about. In the second ten pasurams,

Azhvar says "vaN pugazh nAraNan".

 

And for those who wonder who this Narayanan is, Azhvar

explains that in the third ten pasurams - "malar magaL

virumbum".

 

While the last pasurams of Thiruvaymozhi may seem to

be talking about trimUrti sAmpyAptam, one only has to

read the "onRum dhEvum" pasurams to clarify Azhvar's

stand, where Azhvar in very strict terms lets everyone

know who the para deivam is.

 

And for those who are still confused, he says "avan

ivan enRu koozhElmin, avanAgum neeL kadal vaNNanE".

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

 

 

--- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhan wrote:

> As Swami

> Nammazhwar

> put in his pasurams, "Uyavara uyar nalam udayavan evan

> avan", he

> never mentions the name of this brahmam nor the form of

> this brahmam

> in his first ten of his magnum opus - Thiruvaimozhi.

> ...

> Even in the last pasuram, he says

> "avaavaracchoozh, ariyai,

> ayanai, aranai alatri". That is, he recognizes all the

> three major

> manifestation, for he sees only the paramatma in all the

> three, but,

> he still keeps the "ari" at the first of the sequel, due

> to his

> affection.

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ram & Lakshmi Narasimhan,

Thank you for your considered responses, which point to pragmatic

approaches to the position of Vedas in our tradition.

(a) We are in trouble only if we treat "Narayana" is different from

Rudra, Brahma, Devi, Ganapathy etc. etc. If we consider that

the "supreme" is one with different names, all the contradictions

would be solved.

(b) Vishnu paratvam is completely a subjective view of us (Sri

Vaishnavas) of the vedas.

 

#(b) is a bold stance to take!!

#(a), painting a "tolerant hindu" picture, seems to contradict our

traditional view on Narayana and other devatas (sorry if I am

mistaken). My understanding is Narayana is "supreme" as well

as "different from other devatas". All other devatas derive their

powers form the inner controller Narayana alone and he alone is

capable of giving "mukti".

 

Let me make my motives clear before I post any further. Call it

paranoia, but I feel that our "Indian" religions are under assault

from proselytizing ones (by this I am including Vaishnava, shaiva,

shakta, buddhism, jainism, sikhism, 'animism' - everything). Other

non-religious factors like "dravidian movement" in tamil nadu,

portraying anything brahmin/sanskrit is anti-thesis to

dravidian/tamil. Members might remember organized physical abuses on

brahmins during 60s-70s. There is a subtle malignation of "Hinduism"

in our history text books. A brahmin is sombody to be ridiculed in

tamil movies. (NOTE: I am not making the mistake of equating "Shri

vaishnavam" belonging to "brahmins alone" or anything. However most

of the masses do not see it that way.)

 

Our children in this generation are exposed to these instead of our

traditional values. The subtle brainwashing is successful to such an

extant that, our children feel ashamed to associate themselves with

hinduism (constant hammering of caste discrimination, exploitative

brahmins in school text books, movies, tv serials etc. etc). We can

escape most of the criticisms by claiming "we aren't hindus, we are

Shri Vaishnavas". I feel this is a dangerous passive position to

take. I feel that we have to come to terms with the assaults we are

facing.

 

What is the fundamental requirement on our part in this scenario? I

feel a thorough understanding of our traditional values - a knowledge

of our roots. This means our most fundamental root - the Vedas. All

my questions were framed in this context.

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

 

 

ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

<nrusimhan@h...> wrote:

> Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

> This is an excellent point. Thanks to Shriram Swamin. It has

already

> been figured out by our ancenstors(including the dvaita, advaita

and

> vishistadvaita and certain other philosophers), that, per

> vedas, "Narayana Parambrahma, tatvan Narayana para:" i.e Narayana

> is "the" shabda that best describes the brahmam. As Shriram Swamin

> had mentioned, the problem arises when we debate on "who" is the

> supreme. It is a simple fact, that we miss all the while, in most

of

> our discussions.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

To the question, "Where in vedas does the so called ganapati aka

pilliAr being praised as supreme??" --

 

Ganapathy atharvashiras mentions that. The atharvanikas identify that

as a valid upanishad apart from Narayanopanishad (re-appearing in

Taittriya aranyakam book X), Nilarudropanishad, part of pippalada

samhita and others. Note that even the swaram of

Ganapthyatharvashiras survives (implying a living tradition - unlike,

say kAThaka yajurveda, where swaram is lost for more 2/3rd of the

shruthi vakyas).

 

As for Skanda, he is a later deity and his worship appears in Atharva

veda parishishTa as skanda yaaga. The atharvaniks regard this as a

valid yaaga apart from other rites like vishasahi (to Agni-Vishnu)

etc.

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

 

ramanuja, "VenkatarAghavan K.S"

<ksvenkat@e...> wrote:

> SrI:

>

> Dear all

>

> This is really reaching a level of annoyance.

>

> Where in vedas does the so called ganapati aka pilliAr being praised

> as supreme?? please quote.also quote about MurugAn being praised as

> supreme.

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

Adiyen completely agree with this. Sorry that I did not explain this

in detail. My point was that, though the first 10 pasurams did not

literally call out the name or the form of the Shriman Narayana whom

we, Vaishnavas, worship, the whole work has to be understood in the

entirty in order to understand that the Narayana and hence the form

is the best or to put literally, the "closest" that represents the

brahmam and hence may be treated no different from the Brahmam

himself. Similarly one must understand the Vedas not by some specific

statements, but in its entirty - and this is exactly what Shri

Ramanujar did in order to explain Vishishtadvaita and so did Swami

Periyazhwar to prove the Vishnu Paratvam to the Pandiya King.

 

Thanks to Shri Venkatesan swamin for explaining and clarifying the

same.

 

As usual:) my ignorance and mistakes be pardoned.

 

Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim

 

Adiyen,

Ramanuja Dasan

 

ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote:

> Sri:

> Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

>

> Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan,

>

> adiyEn's praNAm.

>

> The first ten pasurams of Thiruvaymozhi are made to

> explain the visishtadvaita sampradhayam. Where

> devotees were likely to think that He is formless,

> without qualities etc, Azhvar explains in clear

> terms that He is full of divine qualities ("uyarvaRa

> uyarnalam") and has a divine form ("sudar adi").

> He also clarifies critical vedanta phrases such

> as "tat tvam asi" in the fourth pasuram and so on.

>

> However, one does not have to go far to find out who

> Azhvar was talking about. In the second ten pasurams,

> Azhvar says "vaN pugazh nAraNan".

>

> And for those who wonder who this Narayanan is, Azhvar

> explains that in the third ten pasurams - "malar magaL

> virumbum".

>

> While the last pasurams of Thiruvaymozhi may seem to

> be talking about trimUrti sAmpyAptam, one only has to

> read the "onRum dhEvum" pasurams to clarify Azhvar's

> stand, where Azhvar in very strict terms lets everyone

> know who the para deivam is.

>

> And for those who are still confused, he says "avan

> ivan enRu koozhElmin, avanAgum neeL kadal vaNNanE".

>

> adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

>

>

> --- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhan@h...> wrote:

> > As Swami

> > Nammazhwar

> > put in his pasurams, "Uyavara uyar nalam udayavan evan

> > avan", he

> > never mentions the name of this brahmam nor the form of

> > this brahmam

> > in his first ten of his magnum opus - Thiruvaimozhi.

> > ...

> > Even in the last pasuram, he says

> > "avaavaracchoozh, ariyai,

> > ayanai, aranai alatri". That is, he recognizes all the

> > three major

> > manifestation, for he sees only the paramatma in all the

> > three, but,

> > he still keeps the "ari" at the first of the sequel, due

> > to his

> > affection.

>

>

>

> The New with improved product search

>

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear Sriman KK,

 

Humble praNAms to you. You know what,you should keep your

mind a "little" softer than your heart:-) If you wanna keep your

hands and legs in every field,fine and have fun! If not,just think of

the example of hologram. The whole consists of parts. Whole is also a

part but part is not a whole. Part is only a "small" representation

of the whole but it is neither "qualitatively" nor "quantitatively"

equal to the whole. You can think the part as KK,Nappinnai or siva or

brahma and what not. But the whole is Sriman Narayana. If some bunch

of fools in the form of politics(and idiot box/TV) and other things

try to damage our religion,who cares! For how long can they bark(may

be one lifetime)??? TV fellows want to make money so they will add

lot of spice to their programs! You don't go by every Tom,Dick and

Harry's word. All matters is "who" the critic is and passes the

judgement.

 

I want to give you one simple example that supports

nirhEtuka krpa. Even if the jIvAtmA is at the receiving end,unless HE

graces things will not happen. I asked my father to send srI

kUraththAzhvAn's srI stavam,varadarAja stavam and bhattar's rangarAja

stavam along with sri yAmunA's stotra ratna and sri periya vAccAn

piLLai's vyAkhyAnam. My father felt happy that the daughter is asking

all these and packed nicely so that it consumes less space! But my

cousin said there is no space and she could carry only two books. So

finally I didn't get the father and the son's works. I have the

desire to learn those works and I am ready in my opinion(!!!)but yet

didn't happen. HE sets the time for everything. So wait patiently for

that TIME:-)

 

 

> Our children in this generation are exposed to these instead of our

> traditional values. The subtle brainwashing is successful to such

> an extant that, our children feel ashamed to associate themselves

> with hinduism (constant hammering of caste discrimination,

> exploitative brahmins in school text books, movies, tv serials etc.

 

Most of the TV stuffs only corrupts the mind. This is called GIGO

(garbage in garbage out). You can only brainwash someone whose mind

is already imbalanced! That's why association(satsangh)is very

important. I am not well versed as you're. So,pardon me(generously)

for all my shortcomings.

Best regards

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

[Guest guest]

Dear All

 

This rejoiner was expected.

 

It is so pathetic that people have started to identify new

upanishads.. and some say 108 and some say 1008(Thanks to Ramakrishna

mutt).

 

However serious and honest vedanthis wouldnt accept more than say 30

or odd upanishads.. and that includes the the so called 10 principle

upanishads as commented by Adi sankarachAryA.

 

There could have been innumerable upanishads in infinite vedAs. but

the problem is many of them as appearing now are spurious.. and

"latter" day texts.

 

so it is better we take upansihads that were quoted in poRvAchAryAs of

all vedanthic thoughts work as pramAnam..

 

I am not sure about the validity of such upanishdas as mentioned by

Sri Kasturi Rangan.

 

However please note the concept of pilliar having a "thondhi" etc etc

are influence of Buddhist cult in post Adhi sankarA era..

 

Yes indeed kArthikeyA is portrayed as Subramanyan (one who is praised

well) in vedAs.

 

On a etirely different context.. I want to mention here that Taitriya

nArayanavalli aka nArayAna upanishad is taken as a part of taitriya

upanishad by sri vaishnavAs.

 

But also note sankarAcharya has not commented on this part..

 

The dramida pAdam and Telugu pAdam of taitriyam differs with the

latter having many inclusions. clearly showing some influneces of post

sankarA followers during vijayanagar era.

 

yes indeed vinAyaga is reffered in taitriyam. but as supreme being??

and particularly is vinAyaga identified as "thondhi" pilliAr?? all

these are matter of serious discussion.

 

As said earlier it has been proved by all achAryAs beyond doubt that

attains "samnvayam" with the term nArAyana.

 

Let us have our discussion and confine it within well known and widely

accepted pramAnAs(valid sources of knowledge etc etc) and works and

follow only pOrvAchArya thiruvullam(all the three vedAnthic including

Adi shankarA MAdhvA and SrE bAshyakArA)

 

Who knows probably some time down the line rAmakrishnA mutt and other

associates of that mutt could come up with iyanAro upanishad and a

asAnkara bAshyam for it with one of their mutt heads including him in

daily worship... some may also go to an extent saying that adi

sankarAchArya wrote a stotram on "iyanAr" namely iyanAra lahari.

 

However I will anyways consult with any atharvanikas and get back on

this.but give Me sometime.

 

regards

Venkat

 

ramanuja, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k> wrote:

> Hi,

>

> To the question, "Where in vedas does the so called ganapati aka

> pilliAr being praised as supreme??" --

>

> Ganapathy atharvashiras mentions that. The atharvanikas identify that

> as a valid upanishad apart from Narayanopanishad (re-appearing in

> Taittriya aranyakam book X), Nilarudropanishad, part of pippalada

> samhita and others. Note that even the swaram of

> Ganapthyatharvashiras survives (implying a living tradition - unlike,

> say kAThaka yajurveda, where swaram is lost for more 2/3rd of the

> shruthi vakyas).

>

> As for Skanda, he is a later deity and his worship appears in Atharva

> veda parishishTa as skanda yaaga. The atharvaniks regard this as a

> valid yaaga apart from other rites like vishasahi (to Agni-Vishnu)

> etc.

>

> Regards,

> Kasturi Rangan .K

>

> ramanuja, "VenkatarAghavan K.S"

> <ksvenkat@e...> wrote:

> > SrI:

> >

> > Dear all

> >

> > This is really reaching a level of annoyance.

> >

> > Where in vedas does the so called ganapati aka pilliAr being praised

> > as supreme?? please quote.also quote about MurugAn being praised as

> > supreme.

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

We should be well aware of the proliferation of texts calling

themselves "upanishads" unattached to any vedas. However, I quoted

from Atharva veda parishiShTa, which identifies 28 atharva

upanishads. I hasten to add that from the context there is no

evidence that the "Ganapathy" is elephant-faced or having a big belly

etc. etc.

 

(Does the lack of mention of Narayana as sesha-saayi or Garudadvaja

or one who took Rama or Nrusimha or Krishna avatars in Vedas forbid

us to worship the Vedic Vishnu/Narayana in that form? Why should the

atharvanics be forbidden to use the elephant symbol to worship

Ganapathy?)

 

We cannot claim that the upanishads mentioned by Atharva veda

parishishTas are spurious because our "Acharyas" haven't commented

upon them.

 

To my limited knowledge the atharvashiras has a legitimate claim on

being part of shruthi than "Lakshmi-NarayaNa hridayam" supposed to be

in Atharva-rahasyam. Lakshmi-Narayana hridayam is a tantric work.

 

 

Regards...

 

ramanuja, "VenkatarAghavan K.S"

<ksvenkat@e...> wrote:

> Dear All

>

> This rejoiner was expected.

>

> It is so pathetic that people have started to identify new

> upanishads.. and some say 108 and some say 1008(Thanks to

Ramakrishna

> mutt).

>

> However serious and honest vedanthis wouldnt accept more than say 30

> or odd upanishads.. and that includes the the so called 10 principle

> upanishads as commented by Adi sankarachAryA.

>

> There could have been innumerable upanishads in infinite vedAs. but

> the problem is many of them as appearing now are spurious.. and

> "latter" day texts.

>

> so it is better we take upansihads that were quoted in poRvAchAryAs

of

> all vedanthic thoughts work as pramAnam..

>

> I am not sure about the validity of such upanishdas as mentioned by

> Sri Kasturi Rangan.

>

> However please note the concept of pilliar having a "thondhi" etc

etc

> are influence of Buddhist cult in post Adhi sankarA era..

>

> Yes indeed kArthikeyA is portrayed as Subramanyan (one who is

praised

> well) in vedAs.

>

> On a etirely different context.. I want to mention here that

Taitriya

> nArayanavalli aka nArayAna upanishad is taken as a part of taitriya

> upanishad by sri vaishnavAs.

>

> But also note sankarAcharya has not commented on this part..

>

> The dramida pAdam and Telugu pAdam of taitriyam differs with the

> latter having many inclusions. clearly showing some influneces of

post

> sankarA followers during vijayanagar era.

>

> yes indeed vinAyaga is reffered in taitriyam. but as supreme being??

> and particularly is vinAyaga identified as "thondhi" pilliAr?? all

> these are matter of serious discussion.

>

> As said earlier it has been proved by all achAryAs beyond doubt that

> attains "samnvayam" with the term nArAyana.

>

> Let us have our discussion and confine it within well known and

widely

> accepted pramAnAs(valid sources of knowledge etc etc) and works and

> follow only pOrvAchArya thiruvullam(all the three vedAnthic

including

> Adi shankarA MAdhvA and SrE bAshyakArA)

>

> Who knows probably some time down the line rAmakrishnA mutt and

other

> associates of that mutt could come up with iyanAro upanishad and a

> asAnkara bAshyam for it with one of their mutt heads including him

in

> daily worship... some may also go to an extent saying that adi

> sankarAchArya wrote a stotram on "iyanAr" namely iyanAra lahari.

>

> However I will anyways consult with any atharvanikas and get back on

> this.but give Me sometime.

>

> regards

> Venkat

>

> ramanuja, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k>

wrote:

> > Hi,

> >

> > To the question, "Where in vedas does the so called ganapati aka

> > pilliAr being praised as supreme??" --

> >

> > Ganapathy atharvashiras mentions that. The atharvanikas identify

that

> > as a valid upanishad apart from Narayanopanishad (re-appearing in

> > Taittriya aranyakam book X), Nilarudropanishad, part of pippalada

> > samhita and others. Note that even the swaram of

> > Ganapthyatharvashiras survives (implying a living tradition -

unlike,

> > say kAThaka yajurveda, where swaram is lost for more 2/3rd of the

> > shruthi vakyas).

> >

> > As for Skanda, he is a later deity and his worship appears in

Atharva

> > veda parishishTa as skanda yaaga. The atharvaniks regard this as

a

> > valid yaaga apart from other rites like vishasahi (to Agni-

Vishnu)

> > etc.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Kasturi Rangan .K

> >

> > ramanuja, "VenkatarAghavan K.S"

> > <ksvenkat@e...> wrote:

> > > SrI:

> > >

> > > Dear all

> > >

> > > This is really reaching a level of annoyance.

> > >

> > > Where in vedas does the so called ganapati aka pilliAr being

praised

> > > as supreme?? please quote.also quote about MurugAn being

praised as

> > > supreme.

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

A note on Vinayaka:

 

The Atharva veda parishishTa mentions Vinayakas (plural) and

specifies a rite to appease them. They are viewed as "trouble-makers"

and prayed not to cause harm. The original form of worship

included "wine and meat". Currently the rite involves use

of "modakam - kozhukattai" and appam.

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

[Guest guest]

Dear nappinnai_nc,

 

Thanks for your response. I'll sort out the reasons why we shouldn't

remain "passive". I know we have to do something :-), but don't know

what exactly we should do. For starters, we can try to follow our sva-

dharma to the extent possible. Here are observations and I leave them

with no interpretation or drawn conclusions:

 

When proselytizing religion gets power or become a majority

demographically:

(a) Roman emperor Constantine converted - bans all pagan form of

worship. The pre-Constantine form of worship was erased from the face

of earth.

(b) People of "different" religion become governors of South Vietnam

(during US operations) - They ban buddhist festivals. Buddhist monks

respond by self-immolating.

© Conversions is near complete in North-East India. Lot of

secessionist movements have been on the rise. Hindu festivals like

Sarasvati puja, Durga puja are banned by NLFT, Tripuran terrorist

group. A nagaland based terrorist group's motto is "Nagaland for

christ".

(d) Thousands of "missionary" organizations are very active in India

and have developed strategy with budget estimates to convert Indian

subcontinent. Money is being poured into them from western countries.

(e) In India people from 'majority' religion cannot form religious

institues (Ramakrishna mission claimed that they were not Hindus but

supreme court threw out that claim).

 

Regards,

Kasturi

 

ramanuja, "vaidhehi_nc" <nappinnai_nc>

wrote:

> Sri:

> Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

> Dear Sriman KK,

>

> Humble praNAms to you. You know what,you should keep your

> mind a "little" softer than your heart:-) If you wanna keep your

> hands and legs in every field,fine and have fun! If not,just think

of

> the example of hologram. The whole consists of parts. Whole is also

a

> part but part is not a whole. Part is only a "small" representation

> of the whole but it is neither "qualitatively" nor "quantitatively"

> equal to the whole. You can think the part as KK,Nappinnai or siva

or

> brahma and what not. But the whole is Sriman Narayana. If some

bunch

> of fools in the form of politics(and idiot box/TV) and other things

> try to damage our religion,who cares! For how long can they bark

(may

> be one lifetime)??? TV fellows want to make money so they will add

> lot of spice to their programs! You don't go by every Tom,Dick and

> Harry's word. All matters is "who" the critic is and passes the

> judgement.

>

> I want to give you one simple example that supports

> nirhEtuka krpa. Even if the jIvAtmA is at the receiving end,unless

HE

> graces things will not happen. I asked my father to send srI

> kUraththAzhvAn's srI stavam,varadarAja stavam and bhattar's

rangarAja

> stavam along with sri yAmunA's stotra ratna and sri periya vAccAn

> piLLai's vyAkhyAnam. My father felt happy that the daughter is

asking

> all these and packed nicely so that it consumes less space! But my

> cousin said there is no space and she could carry only two books.

So

> finally I didn't get the father and the son's works. I have the

> desire to learn those works and I am ready in my opinion(!!!)but

yet

> didn't happen. HE sets the time for everything. So wait patiently

for

> that TIME:-)

>

>

> > Our children in this generation are exposed to these instead of

our

> > traditional values. The subtle brainwashing is successful to such

> > an extant that, our children feel ashamed to associate themselves

> > with hinduism (constant hammering of caste discrimination,

> > exploitative brahmins in school text books, movies, tv serials

etc.

>

> Most of the TV stuffs only corrupts the mind. This is called GIGO

> (garbage in garbage out). You can only brainwash someone whose mind

> is already imbalanced! That's why association(satsangh)is very

> important. I am not well versed as you're. So,pardon me(generously)

> for all my shortcomings.

> Best regards

>

> AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

> NC Nappinnai

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear Kasturi,

 

I perfectly understand your good intentions. We,with little

knowledge,can not uplift our sampradAyam. If you want to help a

person who is drowning,you should know swimming first. Otherwise it

is of no use. Similarly what we can do is to back up & follow great

AcAryAs like Sri Chinna Jeeyar etc who are torchbearers for our

sampradAyam. We are all at different levels(surely not at knowledge

level) to help our sampradAyam and we can do our best. I didn't say

that you should remain passive. There was an implied meaning in my

statement. No matter how much effort you put,you will not realize

certain things at "your" convenient time. Remember that Einstein had

all the physical ideas ready to put forth his GTR but he didn't have

the "right" mathematical tool(Ricci tensor)to represent that physics.

He had to wait 8 yrs for that to happen.

 

Although we don't document things,we(our religion) have been

surviving for yugas and yugas. Do you think some small kiddish

government/kingdom is going to wipe us out? Other religions

have "insecurity problems" and we don't have any and that's why we

can face any blow. I agree that money has got the "buying" power and

you can buy almost 95% of the world's population with money. The

remaining 5% are truly knowledgeable and some God oriented people who

can not be bought. If the situation,as you say, is that worse then

probably kaliyuga is reaching its end and who knows we all might see

teh Lord in person. Even otherwise,if teh Govt.(or some terrorist

groups) is atrocious,can you go and fight them singlehandedly? You

can if you are equipped with AK47 and other powerful weapons but you

need to pay a price for it. Simple Newton's third law is valid there

too. You need the help of others to change anything in the society.

These are all some fundamental questions that we need to answer

ourselves. How do we want to make an impact on society and at what

level? Basically we need to have a clear direction where we are

heading towards in life. I'm sure we all have a meaningful purpose to

fulfil in life. Once this is clear,we can think about power of unity

and work towards the welfare of the society(keeping in mind "respect

all religions;worship your own"). AGain,this calrity of thought

process is supplied by Him only.

 

BTW,solution is not separate from but a part of the problem.

Unfortunately,our mind is tuned to the thinking that solution is

something different and exists separately of the problem. Finally,

the bottom line is the mind which is the culprit. I have a friend(we

live in the same place in US)from Nagaland. He is a bengali vaishnava

who used to eat everything(except human beings) that moved. He had

gone to such an extent that he hated himself thoroughly. Now he

doesn't eat onion,garlic,eggs and some underground vegetables and he

doesn't worship anya devatas. When he told me this I couldn't

believe. He says it's all His grace that changed him. My friend's

goal in life is to help vaishnava community. He told me that he knew

he was doing wrong but he couldn't help giving up! No wonder ANdAL

describes the Lord as "mAyan".

Regards

 

AzhvAr emeprumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

 

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the

way its animals are treated - Gandhi