You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Oct 2003

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00018 Oct 2003

 
Oct 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear devotees,

I am under the assumption that for us Vedas are the supreme 
authority (ignoring NDP for the moment). Puranas are also considered 
authorities as long as they don't contradict shruti vakyas. The same 
goes for Dharma sutras and smrities. Pancharatra agamas is also 
added to the list (at this point we diverge from smarthas ?!).

Also, for us the vedas are a package deal. We vehemently oppose 
mimamsakas in this - their claim that shruti vakyas that seem to 
describe brahman/atman are not necessary to perform flawless yagnyas 
and hence they are superfluous. All the parts - mantras, brAhmaNam, 
Aranyakam & upanishads are considered equally valid according to us.

We also add to our claim that our Shriman Narayana, the Veda purusha 
is declared as the supreme one in the Vedas.

I am having trouble with all these claims. Let me elaborate. For 
reference, please also take a look at my previous post, which is 
taken from fourteenth adhyaya of shathapatha brahmana belonging to 
shukla yajurveda.

I am seeing They say curiosity killed the cat. It sure is true, as 
my curiosity - a quest to know the contents of the Vedas that 
started an avalanche effect. In my ideal world, the vedas would 
declare the prabhAvam of shriman Narayana, the infinite compassion 
of thayar, the power of Sudarshana, strength of Garuda, exploits of 
Anantha, Vishnu paramatma's dashavatara and what not.

Reality looks very different. Sure, there are bits and pieces of 
shruti vakyas that proclaim superiority of Vishnu (NarayaNa: param 
Brahma", "devanam parama:") etc. Vishnu being the excellent of Gods 
is said in shathapatha brahmaNa - only to find him beheaded in the 
following verses.

The Naryana suktam which categorically states the superiority of 
Narayana is stated by our own commentators like Sayanacharya as 
khilani - i.e. addenda & supplement. It wasn't originally part of 
Taittriya AmnAyam. That shouldn't discourage us though - It is an 
atharvanic material after all. Actually even the brhigu valli in 
Taittriya Aranyakam is atharvanic material, recycled in Taittriya 
Aranyakam. 

The problem is, in Atharvanic materials, Vishnu isn't all that 
prominent. Let us forget that for a moment. In the same Taittriya 
Aranyakam, a few chapters earlier, Rudra Pashupati is lauded in 
superlative terms. In Brahmagavi hymns, Indra states, "I am he who 
is worshipped as Brahman. I am the atman".

So, there are few other devas claiming superiority and identity with 
Brahman - the supreme one in the upanishads. 

The argument that there are a whole lot of Vedic shakhas that has 
disappeared and probably Vishnu/nArAyaNa's superiority would have 
been mentioned there is simply wishful thinking. Whatever shakhas 
are available to us were only available to our acharyas and from 
these only they have quoted while commenting of vedanta sutras.

To claim Vishnu's superiority, we have to go beyond the Vedas and 
use vaishnava AgamAs and vaishnava purANAs. Likewise, there is 
nothing to stop the shaivites to use Shaiva AgamAs and Shaiva 
purANas and claim superiority of Shiva. At least I am aware of some 
shaivite traditions that ignore vedas altogether and consider the 
authority of shaiva agamas only.

In this scenario, how can we - with a straight face - claim 
that "Vedas - the entire package" is our authority, or, "VedAs 
declare NaryaNa's superiority"?

Regards,
Kasturi Rangan .K




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list