The main thread

[Guest guest]

Dear bhAgavatas:

 

<Disclaimer: I request people who are uninterested in skt. vyAkaraNa

to skip to "main thread" below.>

 

Dear vishNu & others:

I offered you an apology in my latest post (#3631). In a previous

post, I also mentioned that you may have the final word. I'll try to

keep up that and not write more on skt. syntaxes. I'll try to clarify

few things.

 

1. I am not a sanskrit scholar; nor do I claim to be one.

2. I have not followed strict transliteration of sanskrit words in

roman scripts - sometimes I've written vishnu, sometimes vishNu,

sometimes deva, sometimes dEva, veda/vEda etc. etc. Yes, I made a

mistake in writing trishTubh as trishtub.

3. I don't dogmatically assert that I am right. When you gave a

contrary spelling "trishtup", with a veiled insult "someone who

doesn't know basic sanskrit aksharAs is writing on vEdas etc.", I

took it a little personal - I admit that.

 

However - I do some basic homework. I do not immediately fire back. I

checked my original text. It does say "trishTubh". Ok, maybe my text

is wrong... Where else I've seen this word?... Aitareya Aranyakam,

chandogya brahmanam, gautama dharma sutra.... I have originals and

translations by European sanskritists... I refer all of them and they

consistently say "trishTubh" and my confidence grows.

 

Maybe the Europeans are stupid. So, who can I ask? My own sanskrit

master is very old and not computer savvy. Who else can I ask? I know

a vedic and sanskrit scholar, so let me ask him.... I mail him. Wait,

wait... I know a sanskrit professor working in Hindu University...

I'll ask him too. Meanwhile, let me check other original sources...

 

When all of them unanimously say the same thing, I am pretty

convinced about the correct usage. (re-read #1). Basically, I've

provided references like (1) chanda sUtra (2) sarvAnukramaNika (3)

Monier-Williams (4) Translations by Mueller, Buhler, Eggeling etc.

(5) Explanations from 2 sanskrit scholars. I believe, that is how one

carries out a discussion - provide references, that one can

independently go and check (especially when someone had already

adimitted his inadequate or lapsed training in the field). You

haven't yet given a single instance, (except your dogmatic assertion)

which I can go, study and verify independently.

 

Moreover, I am not a favorite student or a personal friend of them

and they are trying to do me a favor by saying I am correct. We've

had debates and discussions previously and they have corrected me in

numerous cases. Had they shown that I am wrong, with references from

primary sources, I would have tendered an unconditional apology. Not

simply an apology for offending a co-vaishNava.

 

I can even give the e-mail address of the professor and you may carry

out the discussion with him, if you wish. (Please try to be polite.

He is a humble soul and his knowledge is inversely proportional to

his ego). As for me, this topic is closed, unless you cite primary

references that can be cross-verified.

 

The main thread

---------------

<Disclaimer: I threw out all the conventions of sanskrit

transliteration. All typos, corrections of transliteration etc. will

be ignored.>

The main topic was about legends form shatapatha brahmana, affiliated

with shukla yajurveda. We have had similar discussions before, that

never seemed to end.

 

Here is the problem definition:

"Is it possible to demonstrate that vishNu and only vishNu is supreme

from vEdic texts alone and not taking a recourse to purANas?"

 

Here are some thoughts on constraints:

Which ones should we accept as valid vEdic texts? Can we accept

gopala tapini upanishad, mahopanishad, nrsimha tapiniya etc. but

reject nilarudra upanishad, atharvashiras and shvetashvatara

upanishads? If so, how so? (Not answers like - because the latter

glorify shiva and the former glorify vishNu and we already know that

vishNu is supreme - that would be circular).

 

I will try to provide my humble suggestions on why the following

arguments are incorrect (and more, as we go along).

 

(1) whenever you read a mantra addressed to agni, read it as a one

addressed to vishnu, as vishNu is antaryami of everybody...

(antaryami logic)

(2) argument against frequency of occurance: you spend 12 years in

high school but only 4 years in college. Similarly, you study a lot

of mantras addressed to various devatas but only a few mantras on

vishNu. College education is more complex and "higher" than high

school education. Similarly, mantras addressed to "vishNu"

are "higher" than other dEvatas.

(maybe more as we go along)

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan