Legitimacy of other vedic 'deities' claim to be brahman

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan,

 

While my line of thinking regarding Supremacy of Narayana is same as that of

yours, I have a small clarification/doubt regarding Purusha Suktam.

 

 

It is true that Purusha Suktam appears in Rig,Yajur & Sama vedas. However, I

have noticed a difference between Rigvedic version and Yajurvedic version.(I

have not read sama vedic version, so I don't know about it)

Differences:

1)There are only 16 verses in Rigvedic version whereas in Yajurvedic version,

there are 22 verses or so.

2) The verses that refer to Hree & Lakshmi is absent in Rigvedic version whereas

it is present in Yajurvedic version.

 

I believe, there must be some reasons for this difference. (I have heard in one

of the debate that Rigvedic version is original & old and the additional verses

in Yajurveda was addedd later on.---> Well I don't really believe this).

 

May I request you & others in the group to throw some light on this.

 

Regards

 

Adiyen

Mohan Ramanujadasan

 

 

 

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 Lakshmi Narasimhan wrote :

>Dear Kasturi Rangan,

>Kindly forgive me for pursuing this thread and please feel free to

>correct me if I am wrong. I've heard that Purusha Suktham is in all

>the 3 (rik, yajur and sama) vedas. It talks about the manifestation

>of the Leela Vibhuthi - Material World(starting from 'braahmanosya

>mukham aaseeth') from a being called Virata Purushan('tasmaat viraat

>ajaayatha'). It is stated that the devas performed an yagya called

>sarva aahuthi('tasmaat yagyaath sarvahutha:') upon which the Virata

>Purusha was satisfied and he came before them and initiated the leela

>vibhuti manifestation. It is also stated that the whole universe

>(Leela Vibhuti) thus came into existence from his 'Naval'('Naabhya

>aaseeth anthariksham').

>Now, a) who is this Virata Purushan? b) Why weren't the other deities

>not able to manifest the leela vibhuthi the way this Virata Purushan

>was able to?

>Answer to a) is, this Virata Purushan is the form that we worship,

>that we call as Narayana - (in artha panchakam, this Virata Purushan

>is the Vyuha Vasudevan?!), reasons being: 1) Both these forms have

>been known for the lotus coming out of the naval, and this lotus

>leading to the creation of this universe that we see and live. 2) The

>same purusha sukta continues to say that this Virata Purusha is the

>one who has Hree and Lakshmi as his wives - (hreeshca) Hree and

>(lakshmishca) Laskhmi are (patnyau) wives (te) to you - (reference

>http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-6.html#6). Per innumerous

>references from the same vedas, we infer that Narayana aka Vishnu is

>the one who has Hree and Lakshmi as his wives.

>Answer to b) - I don't know. Some learned one could elaborate on the

>same. Well, I could only infer that this is the best form of the

>brahmam(and hence is an equivalent and prime form of the brahmam as

>revealed to the vedic seers) that "is" capable of the "jagat

>vyaparam" and as per the brahma sutras, jagat vyaparam is unique to

>the paramatma. Hence, it is clear without any doubt that this form,

>Narayana, could be claimed and worshipped as the supreme one, per

>vedas.

>

>There are other statements like 'devAnAm parama:' etc. Why even go to

>that, 'tat tvam asi svetha ketho' could be interpreted to mean that

>svethakethu is the brahmam;). There are innumerous ways to interpret

>these statements. Our acharyas had mastered all the vedas and hence

>they could define the context, usage and hence the appropriate

>interpretation for the same, unlike us, who try to interpret the

>same, line by line and hence quote one or two lines from the vedas to

>support our view.

>

>I haven't heard about any other form being claimed by the Vedas as

>the one that performs jagat vyaparam. Learned scholars, kindly feel

>free to correct me.

>

>My apologies for my ignorance and mistakes. Absolutely, no offense

>intended upon anyone.

>

>Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jaamaataram Munim

>

>Adiyen,

>Ramanuja Dasan

>

> > (b) Legitimacy of other vedic 'deities' claim to be brahman:

> > If we accept the 'entire shruthi' as pramANa, rudra is mentioned

> > as 'devAnAm parama:' supreme God in Taittriya Aranyaka and also

> > termed as pashupathi. Brihaspathi is called brahman!!!!! in

>numerous

> > places in the very first khanda of taittriya samhita. This is no

> > different from another line in nArAyaNopanishad which

>says 'nArAyaNa

> > param brahma'. Do you think we have to turn a blind eye to all

>these

> > with the escape sequence 'all vedanta acharyas didn't doubt

> > NarayaNa's paratvam?'.

>

>

>

>

>

>azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Mohan & Shri Lakshmi Narasimhan,

Just a correction - Purusha sUktam appears in shaunakIya atharvaNa

vedam too with minor modifications from Rg reading. It still doesn't

contain uttara anuvAkam appearing in taittriya Aranyakam. It is from

the uttara anuvAkam of taittriya Aranyakam we find that purusha of

Rig Veda being identified with Vishnu/Narayana. Till them Purusha was

supposed to be "primeval" or "cosmic" man. Shathapatha brAhmaNa

features somebody called "purusha nArAyaNa", implying the completed

identification of Rig Vedic purusha with nArAyaNa. Though shri Mohan

doesn't agree with the conclusion that the pUrva anuvAkam, almost

same as Rig vedic reading, is of 'earlier date' and 'uttara anuvAkam'

(new material) is of 'later date', I generally agree with this

observation. This is a separate discussion though.

 

Identity of "Virat Purusha" with "vyUha vAsudeva" is pAncharAtric

interpretation of the rig vedic sUkta {vaguely recall that it is from

brahma samhita. Learned scholars can clarify}. Though this in itself

is not for or against the validity of pAncharAtra, we have to keep in

mind regarding to what is interpretation and what is original.

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

 

ramanuja, "Mohan Ramanujan"

<mohan_ramanujan@r...> wrote:

> Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan,

>

> While my line of thinking regarding Supremacy of Narayana is same

as that of yours, I have a small clarification/doubt regarding

Purusha Suktam.

>

>

> It is true that Purusha Suktam appears in Rig,Yajur & Sama vedas.

However, I have noticed a difference between Rigvedic version and

Yajurvedic version.(I have not read sama vedic version, so I don't

know about it)

> Differences:

> 1)There are only 16 verses in Rigvedic version whereas in

Yajurvedic version, there are 22 verses or so.

> 2) The verses that refer to Hree & Lakshmi is absent in Rigvedic

version whereas it is present in Yajurvedic version.

>

> I believe, there must be some reasons for this difference. (I have

heard in one of the debate that Rigvedic version is original & old

and the additional verses in Yajurveda was addedd later on.---> Well

I don't really believe this).

>

> May I request you & others in the group to throw some light on this.

>

> Regards

>

> Adiyen

> Mohan Ramanujadasan

>

>

>

> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 Lakshmi Narasimhan wrote :

> >Dear Kasturi Rangan,

> >Kindly forgive me for pursuing this thread and please feel free to

> >correct me if I am wrong. I've heard that Purusha Suktham is in all

> >the 3 (rik, yajur and sama) vedas. It talks about the manifestation

> >of the Leela Vibhuthi - Material World(starting from 'braahmanosya

> >mukham aaseeth') from a being called Virata Purushan('tasmaat

viraat

> >ajaayatha'). It is stated that the devas performed an yagya called

> >sarva aahuthi('tasmaat yagyaath sarvahutha:') upon which the Virata

> >Purusha was satisfied and he came before them and initiated the

leela

> >vibhuti manifestation. It is also stated that the whole universe

> >(Leela Vibhuti) thus came into existence from his 'Naval'('Naabhya

> >aaseeth anthariksham').

> >Now, a) who is this Virata Purushan? b) Why weren't the other

deities

> >not able to manifest the leela vibhuthi the way this Virata

Purushan

> >was able to?

> >Answer to a) is, this Virata Purushan is the form that we worship,

> >that we call as Narayana - (in artha panchakam, this Virata

Purushan

> >is the Vyuha Vasudevan?!), reasons being: 1) Both these forms have

> >been known for the lotus coming out of the naval, and this lotus

> >leading to the creation of this universe that we see and live. 2)

The

> >same purusha sukta continues to say that this Virata Purusha is the

> >one who has Hree and Lakshmi as his wives - (hreeshca) Hree and

> >(lakshmishca) Laskhmi are (patnyau) wives (te) to you - (reference

> >http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-6.html#6). Per innumerous

> >references from the same vedas, we infer that Narayana aka Vishnu

is

> >the one who has Hree and Lakshmi as his wives.

> >Answer to b) - I don't know. Some learned one could elaborate on

the

> >same. Well, I could only infer that this is the best form of the

> >brahmam(and hence is an equivalent and prime form of the brahmam as

> >revealed to the vedic seers) that "is" capable of the "jagat

> >vyaparam" and as per the brahma sutras, jagat vyaparam is unique to

> >the paramatma. Hence, it is clear without any doubt that this form,

> >Narayana, could be claimed and worshipped as the supreme one, per

> >vedas.

> >

> >There are other statements like 'devAnAm parama:' etc. Why even go

to

> >that, 'tat tvam asi svetha ketho' could be interpreted to mean that

> >svethakethu is the brahmam;). There are innumerous ways to

interpret

> >these statements. Our acharyas had mastered all the vedas and hence

> >they could define the context, usage and hence the appropriate

> >interpretation for the same, unlike us, who try to interpret the

> >same, line by line and hence quote one or two lines from the vedas

to

> >support our view.

> >

> >I haven't heard about any other form being claimed by the Vedas as

> >the one that performs jagat vyaparam. Learned scholars, kindly feel

> >free to correct me.

> >

> >My apologies for my ignorance and mistakes. Absolutely, no offense

> >intended upon anyone.

> >

> >Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jaamaataram Munim

> >

> >Adiyen,

> >Ramanuja Dasan

> >

> > > (b) Legitimacy of other vedic 'deities' claim to be brahman:

> > > If we accept the 'entire shruthi' as pramANa, rudra is mentioned

> > > as 'devAnAm parama:' supreme God in Taittriya Aranyaka and also

> > > termed as pashupathi. Brihaspathi is called brahman!!!!! in

> >numerous

> > > places in the very first khanda of taittriya samhita. This is no

> > > different from another line in nArAyaNopanishad which

> >says 'nArAyaNa

> > > param brahma'. Do you think we have to turn a blind eye to all

> >these

> > > with the escape sequence 'all vedanta acharyas didn't doubt

> > > NarayaNa's paratvam?'.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

> >

> >

> >Your use of is subject to

 

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan

 

Thanks for the information on Purusha suktam. I was also going through the

translation of Vishnu suktam of Rigveda. I am giving below these two

mantras(verses) and respective meaning.

 

Rigveda (1.22)

__________

idam vişhņur vichakrame tredhā nidadhe padam

samūļham asya pāmsure ||17||

 

Meaning:

Through this Vishnu strode; thrice he

 

placed his foot, and the whole world

 

lay in the dust of his feet.

__________

trīnÙi padā vichakrame vişhņur gopā adābhyaĥ

ato dharmāņi dhārayan ||18||

 

Three steps he made, Vishnu the Guardian

 

undeceivable; from there

 

upholding the eternal Laws.

__________

 

I have taken this translation from "SAKSIVC" website www.vedah.com.

 

 

Well, if we go by this translation, I don't think we will have any doubt

regarding Vishnu paratvam. However, I am not sure if translation by others

differ from this or not.

 

Can you please comment on this.

 

Regards

Adiyen Mohan Ramanujadasan

 

 

 

 

 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 amshuman_k wrote :

>Dear Shri Mohan & Shri Lakshmi Narasimhan,

> Just a correction - Purusha sUktam appears in shaunakIya atharvaNa

>vedam too with minor modifications from Rg reading. It still doesn't

>contain uttara anuvAkam appearing in taittriya Aranyakam. It is from

>the uttara anuvAkam of taittriya Aranyakam we find that purusha of

>Rig Veda being identified with Vishnu/Narayana. Till them Purusha was

>supposed to be "primeval" or "cosmic" man. Shathapatha brAhmaNa

>features somebody called "purusha nArAyaNa", implying the completed

>identification of Rig Vedic purusha with nArAyaNa. Though shri Mohan

>doesn't agree with the conclusion that the pUrva anuvAkam, almost

>same as Rig vedic reading, is of 'earlier date' and 'uttara anuvAkam'

>(new material) is of 'later date', I generally agree with this

>observation. This is a separate discussion though.

>

>Identity of "Virat Purusha" with "vyUha vAsudeva" is pAncharAtric

>interpretation of the rig vedic sUkta {vaguely recall that it is from

>brahma samhita. Learned scholars can clarify}. Though this in itself

>is not for or against the validity of pAncharAtra, we have to keep in

>mind regarding to what is interpretation and what is original.

>

>Regards,

>Kasturi Rangan .K

>

>ramanuja, "Mohan Ramanujan"

><mohan_ramanujan@r...> wrote:

> > Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan,

> >

> > While my line of thinking regarding Supremacy of Narayana is same

>as that of yours, I have a small clarification/doubt regarding

>Purusha Suktam.

> >

> >

> > It is true that Purusha Suktam appears in Rig,Yajur & Sama vedas.

>However, I have noticed a difference between Rigvedic version and

>Yajurvedic version.(I have not read sama vedic version, so I don't

>know about it)

> > Differences:

> > 1)There are only 16 verses in Rigvedic version whereas in

>Yajurvedic version, there are 22 verses or so.

> > 2) The verses that refer to Hree & Lakshmi is absent in Rigvedic

>version whereas it is present in Yajurvedic version.

> >

> > I believe, there must be some reasons for this difference. (I have

>heard in one of the debate that Rigvedic version is original & old

>and the additional verses in Yajurveda was addedd later on.---> Well

>I don't really believe this).

> >

> > May I request you & others in the group to throw some light on this.

> >

> > Regards

> >

> > Adiyen

> > Mohan Ramanujadasan

> >

> >

> >

> > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 Lakshmi Narasimhan wrote :

> > >Dear Kasturi Rangan,

> > >Kindly forgive me for pursuing this thread and please feel free to

> > >correct me if I am wrong. I've heard that Purusha Suktham is in all

> > >the 3 (rik, yajur and sama) vedas. It talks about the manifestation

> > >of the Leela Vibhuthi - Material World(starting from 'braahmanosya

> > >mukham aaseeth') from a being called Virata Purushan('tasmaat

>viraat

> > >ajaayatha'). It is stated that the devas performed an yagya called

> > >sarva aahuthi('tasmaat yagyaath sarvahutha:') upon which the Virata

> > >Purusha was satisfied and he came before them and initiated the

>leela

> > >vibhuti manifestation. It is also stated that the whole universe

> > >(Leela Vibhuti) thus came into existence from his 'Naval'('Naabhya

> > >aaseeth anthariksham').

> > >Now, a) who is this Virata Purushan? b) Why weren't the other

>deities

> > >not able to manifest the leela vibhuthi the way this Virata

>Purushan

> > >was able to?

> > >Answer to a) is, this Virata Purushan is the form that we worship,

> > >that we call as Narayana - (in artha panchakam, this Virata

>Purushan

> > >is the Vyuha Vasudevan?!), reasons being: 1) Both these forms have

> > >been known for the lotus coming out of the naval, and this lotus

> > >leading to the creation of this universe that we see and live. 2)

>The

> > >same purusha sukta continues to say that this Virata Purusha is the

> > >one who has Hree and Lakshmi as his wives - (hreeshca) Hree and

> > >(lakshmishca) Laskhmi are (patnyau) wives (te) to you - (reference

> > >http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-6.html#6). Per innumerous

> > >references from the same vedas, we infer that Narayana aka Vishnu

>is

> > >the one who has Hree and Lakshmi as his wives.

> > >Answer to b) - I don't know. Some learned one could elaborate on

>the

> > >same. Well, I could only infer that this is the best form of the

> > >brahmam(and hence is an equivalent and prime form of the brahmam as

> > >revealed to the vedic seers) that "is" capable of the "jagat

> > >vyaparam" and as per the brahma sutras, jagat vyaparam is unique to

> > >the paramatma. Hence, it is clear without any doubt that this form,

> > >Narayana, could be claimed and worshipped as the supreme one, per

> > >vedas.

> > >

> > >There are other statements like 'devAnAm parama:' etc. Why even go

>to

> > >that, 'tat tvam asi svetha ketho' could be interpreted to mean that

> > >svethakethu is the brahmam;). There are innumerous ways to

>interpret

> > >these statements. Our acharyas had mastered all the vedas and hence

> > >they could define the context, usage and hence the appropriate

> > >interpretation for the same, unlike us, who try to interpret the

> > >same, line by line and hence quote one or two lines from the vedas

>to

> > >support our view.

> > >

> > >I haven't heard about any other form being claimed by the Vedas as

> > >the one that performs jagat vyaparam. Learned scholars, kindly feel

> > >free to correct me.

> > >

> > >My apologies for my ignorance and mistakes. Absolutely, no offense

> > >intended upon anyone.

> > >

> > >Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jaamaataram Munim

> > >

> > >Adiyen,

> > >Ramanuja Dasan

> > >

> > > > (b) Legitimacy of other vedic 'deities' claim to be brahman:

> > > > If we accept the 'entire shruthi' as pramANa, rudra is mentioned

> > > > as 'devAnAm parama:' supreme God in Taittriya Aranyaka and also

> > > > termed as pashupathi. Brihaspathi is called brahman!!!!! in

> > >numerous

> > > > places in the very first khanda of taittriya samhita. This is no

> > > > different from another line in nArAyaNopanishad which

> > >says 'nArAyaNa

> > > > param brahma'. Do you think we have to turn a blind eye to all

> > >these

> > > > with the escape sequence 'all vedanta acharyas didn't doubt

> > > > NarayaNa's paratvam?'.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

> > >

> > >

> > >Your use of is subject to

>

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~-->

>Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.

>No Late Fees & Free Shipping.

>Try Netflix for FREE!

>http://us.click./vhSowB/XP.FAA/3jkFAA/.itolB/TM

>---~->

>

>azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Mohan,

The translations are more or less correct (except 1.22, which I'll

cross verify with Griffith's translation. Of course, you can

altogether ignore Griffith, if you aren't interested in anything

written by 'indologists').

 

In the mean time, please go through Rig suktas addressed to VaruNa.

Couldn't we claim the 'paratvam of VaruNa' from those sUktas too? (I

have to dig up exact references, but the sUktas shouldn't be hard to

find in Rig translations).

 

Regards,

Kasturi

 

ramanuja, "Mohan Ramanujan"

<mohan_ramanujan@r...> wrote:

> Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan

>

> Thanks for the information on Purusha suktam. I was also going

through the translation of Vishnu suktam of Rigveda. I am giving

below these two mantras(verses) and respective meaning.

>

> Rigveda (1.22)

> __________

> idam vişhņur vichakrame tredhā nidadhe padam

> samūļham asya pāmsure ||17||

>

> Meaning:

> Through this Vishnu strode; thrice he

>

> placed his foot, and the whole world

>

> lay in the dust of his feet.

> __________

> trīnÙi padā vichakrame vişhņur gopā

adābhyaĥ

> ato dharmāņi dhārayan ||18||

>

> Three steps he made, Vishnu the Guardian

>

> undeceivable; from there

>

> upholding the eternal Laws.

> __________

>

> I have taken this translation from "SAKSIVC" website www.vedah.com.

>

>

> Well, if we go by this translation, I don't think we will have any

doubt regarding Vishnu paratvam. However, I am not sure if

translation by others differ from this or not.

>

> Can you please comment on this.

>

> Regards

> Adiyen Mohan Ramanujadasan

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan,

 

Sure, I will try to find out the translations of Varuna's suktas in Rigveda.

 

Meanwhile, is it possible for any one to get the references/quotes and

justifications (with regard to Narayana Paratvam) given by Sri Yamunacharya, Sri

Ramanujacharya and any other Sri vaishnava Gurus? If we can get that, I think

we will be able to visualize the subject in a better way. Because, I feel

currently we are selecting bits & pieces from Veda with whatever knowledge we

have and trying to present it to justify the case which I feel may not be the

approach used by our Gurus. What we should do is to get to know the approach

our poorvacharyas used and apply it.

 

 

 

Regards

Mohan.R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 amshuman_k wrote :

>Dear Sri Mohan,

> The translations are more or less correct (except 1.22, which I'll

>cross verify with Griffith's translation. Of course, you can

>altogether ignore Griffith, if you aren't interested in anything

>written by 'indologists').

>

>In the mean time, please go through Rig suktas addressed to VaruNa.

>Couldn't we claim the 'paratvam of VaruNa' from those sUktas too? (I

>have to dig up exact references, but the sUktas shouldn't be hard to

>find in Rig translations).

>

>Regards,

>Kasturi

>

>ramanuja, "Mohan Ramanujan"

><mohan_ramanujan@r...> wrote:

> > Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan

> >

> > Thanks for the information on Purusha suktam. I was also going

>through the translation of Vishnu suktam of Rigveda. I am giving

>below these two mantras(verses) and respective meaning.

> >

> > Rigveda (1.22)

> > __________

> > idam vişhņur vichakrame tredhā nidadhe padam

> > samūļham asya pāmsure ||17||

> >

> > Meaning:

> > Through this Vishnu strode; thrice he

> >

> > placed his foot, and the whole world

> >

> > lay in the dust of his feet.

> > __________

> > trīnÙi padā vichakrame vişhņur gopā

>adābhyaĥ

> > ato dharmāņi dhārayan ||18||

> >

> > Three steps he made, Vishnu the Guardian

> >

> > undeceivable; from there

> >

> > upholding the eternal Laws.

> > __________

> >

> > I have taken this translation from "SAKSIVC" website www.vedah.com.

> >

> >

> > Well, if we go by this translation, I don't think we will have any

>doubt regarding Vishnu paratvam. However, I am not sure if

>translation by others differ from this or not.

> >

> > Can you please comment on this.

> >

> > Regards

> > Adiyen Mohan Ramanujadasan

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Mohan,

Have you read Shri Sudarshana Suri's works? Do you know whether

decent translations exist? (May be we will come back to square one -

our pUrvAcharyas consider itihAsAs & purANas as authority, something

which I disagree with (having crooked vision :-)).

 

Regards,

Kasturi

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Mohan and Shri Kasturi Rangan,

 

Azhwars pasurams are numerous to establish paratvam of Sriman Narayana

especially of Tirumazhisai piran's tiruchanda viruttam and Nammazhwar's

tiruvaimozhi. However, since they become part of Sri Vaishnava

sampradhayam, it may not be convincing for other since azhwars sang pasurams

only after knowing HIS paratvam. However, Periyazhwar, without any

ambiguity, established HIS paratvam in king pandiyan's courthall using vedas

"vendiya vedangaL Odhi viraindhu kizhi aruthAn". Shri Velukkudi Swamin had

rendered a 2 hour treatise mentioning which of the veda vAkhyams mentions

nArAyana paratvam and also how other devatAs are subservient to nArAyanA.

This CD is available in US with www.radioramanuja.org

 

namO nArAyanA

 

G.Sundarrajan

Aneka Kimia Raya Group

7-8th Floor, Jalan Panjang No.5

Kebon Jeruk, Jakarta, Indonesia

Tel : 62-21-5311588

Fax : 62-21-5311388

Mobile : 62-811193742

 

-

"Mohan Ramanujan" <mohan_ramanujan

<ramanuja>

Wednesday, November 05, 2003 03:42 PM

Re: [ramanuja] Re: Legitimacy of other vedic 'deities' claim to be

brahman

 

 

Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan,

 

Sure, I will try to find out the translations of Varuna's suktas in Rigveda.

 

Meanwhile, is it possible for any one to get the references/quotes and

justifications (with regard to Narayana Paratvam) given by Sri Yamunacharya,

Sri Ramanujacharya and any other Sri vaishnava Gurus? If we can get that, I

think we will be able to visualize the subject in a better way. Because, I

feel currently we are selecting bits & pieces from Veda with whatever

knowledge we have and trying to present it to justify the case which I feel

may not be the approach used by our Gurus. What we should do is to get to

know the approach our poorvacharyas used and apply it.

 

 

 

Regards

Mohan.R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 amshuman_k wrote :

>Dear Sri Mohan,

> The translations are more or less correct (except 1.22, which I'll

>cross verify with Griffith's translation. Of course, you can

>altogether ignore Griffith, if you aren't interested in anything

>written by 'indologists').

>

>In the mean time, please go through Rig suktas addressed to VaruNa.

>Couldn't we claim the 'paratvam of VaruNa' from those sUktas too? (I

>have to dig up exact references, but the sUktas shouldn't be hard to

>find in Rig translations).

>

>Regards,

>Kasturi

>

>ramanuja, "Mohan Ramanujan"

><mohan_ramanujan@r...> wrote:

> > Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan

> >

> > Thanks for the information on Purusha suktam. I was also going

>through the translation of Vishnu suktam of Rigveda. I am giving

>below these two mantras(verses) and respective meaning.

> >

> > Rigveda (1.22)

> > __________

> > idam vişhņur vichakrame tredhā nidadhe padam

> > samūļham asya pāmsure ||17||

> >

> > Meaning:

> > Through this Vishnu strode; thrice he

> >

> > placed his foot, and the whole world

> >

> > lay in the dust of his feet.

> > __________

> > trīnÙi padā vichakrame vişhņur gopā

>adābhyaĥ

> > ato dharmāņi dhārayan ||18||

> >

> > Three steps he made, Vishnu the Guardian

> >

> > undeceivable; from there

> >

> > upholding the eternal Laws.

> > __________

> >

> > I have taken this translation from "SAKSIVC" website www.vedah.com.

> >

> >

> > Well, if we go by this translation, I don't think we will have any

>doubt regarding Vishnu paratvam. However, I am not sure if

>translation by others differ from this or not.

> >

> > Can you please comment on this.

> >

> > Regards

> > Adiyen Mohan Ramanujadasan

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

 

 

Your use of is subject to