nAsadIya sUktam

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImathE rAmAnujAya nama:

Dear SrI VaishNavas,

 

The 10th maNDalam of Rig vEdam has number of sUktams and

the 129th sUktam is famously known as nAsadIya sUktam

named after its words which are in its start. Many people

have written their commentaries on this sUktam. The

sUktam superficially apprears to be very abstract and

talks about jagath-SrushTi. Of-course, there is no rule that

only the upanishad-bhAgam should talk about jagath-SrushTi.

There are few modern commentators who have even gone to extent

of telling that this nAsadIya sUktam (misinterpreting its first rik)

refutes the Sath-vidhyA prakaraNam in chAndOgya upanishad.

Few (misinterpreting its this sUktam's last rik) have even said that the

VEda itself is not sure about jagath-kAraNam. Few have said that

nAsadIya sUktam refutes purusha sUktam and other portion of

Sruti which talks about jagath-kAraNam. When we vaidikas

come across such vyAksyAnams, we wonder on such vyAkyAna karthas

- have they at least heard about the name mImAmsA SAstra?

It is also equally regrettable to note that many such useless

translations and such " so-called " vyAkyAnams are quoted even by SrI

VaishNavas who have no knowledge obtained through regular pUrvAchArya granta

kAlakhsEpams/adyayanam. Veda vyAsa bhagavAn himself called

those who misinterpret the Vedas as alpa-Srutis. Without consulting

the smruti-itihAsa-purANams and Sath-sampradAyam, VEda cannot

be interpreted. If interpreted according to one's one ideas, then

the Sruti is said to tremble. Mere language-knowledge is not

sufficient for interpreting the Sruti. I saw in the

recent archives that even English translations of Veda-bhAhya and

kudrushti " modern-rishis " :-) are quoted by some to explain Veda vAkyams.

SrI VaishNavas can only regret on seeing such things. Also it has

to be noted that misinterpretation of Veda-vEdAnta and other

valid SAstras is not new.

 

Thanks & Regards

naidhruva mAdabhUshi S. HARI rAmAnuja dAsan (mshari)