Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana

[Guest guest]

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.

 

I completely agree with Sri.Srinivasa chary in that the number of hymns

addressed to any deity cannot be the criterion to judge the supremacy.

 

I had attended a "Veda-Workshop" some time back organised by "SAKSIVC" - Sri

Arobindo and Kapalishastry institute of Vedic Culture at Bangalore. One

Prof.R.L.Kashyap gave a very good discourse on Veda. I was impressed by the

analogy he gave regarding supremacy of Vishnu. He said "We spend many years to

have basic education (16 years) before we really get into an advanced education

like Masters degree. Now in Master's degree we may spend only some 2 years or

so. Can we say that Basic education/degree is greater in value than Masters?"

 

What I understood from the above discussion is that to understand the "Narayana

Paratvam" we need to go step by step while deciphering the Vedas & not get

biased by number of hymns addressed to a particular deity.

 

More over, if we see the small set of Vishnu suktam addressed to Vishnu in

Rigveda, it uses a terminology "Paramam Padam" meaning "Supreme Place". To my

knowledge this terminology is not used anywhere in the whole of Vedic

literature, very clearly indicating Vishnu's supremacy.

 

 

Adiyen

Mohan Ramanujadasan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 srinivasa chary 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

>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

>

>

>

>

>azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>