Dear Bhagavatas,
Thank you for your replies. Let me try to address certain things and
I mean no offence to our acharyas and esteemed members.
1. Vedic texts & Sriram's post:
Sriram beautifully summarized the central issue albeit with a minor
mistake - that the vedas talk about a "nameless or formless" supreme
being. Not necessarily and not always. That is a tangential issue
which we can ignore. The central point is, from vedic texts, we
cannot objectively examine the contents and conclude
that "Vishnu/Narayana is the supreme". We need to append Vaishnava
tantras, azhwar poems and other sectarian puranas to make that claim.
As Sriram pointed out, if that is not the case, every Vedic scholar
from Sayana to Bhatta bhaskara to Kapardi swami to Mahidhara would
have reached the same conclusion. This is ignoring western
indologists (accused of a hidden agenda?!).
2. Scientists/Azhwar analogy:
This is a weak analogy. Einstein's theory of relativity or
photoelectricity may be 'complex' for 'lay persons', not intutively
making sense or even worse contrary to common sense. However, the
physicists are unanimous on what the theory is about, what it
explains, and what are its limitations (if any). We cannot make an
analogy of theory of relativity & Vedic texts and scientists &
azhwars. Vedic scholars haven't come to a unanimous conclusion
that 'Narayana is supreme'.
3. Validity of itihasas & puranas:
If we allow puranas as a supplementary source of pramANa, shaivas &
shaktas would point out their respective sectarian puranas as
pramANa. If we dubiously proclaim that Vaishnava purANas are sattvic
and hence only they are to be counted as pramANa, we are in trouble
again. Naradiya purana, a sattvic purana, at the very beginning
asserts, "He who is Hari is same as Hara, Shiva. There is no
difference between them". (At least shaiva puranas are consistent in
that they proclaim Shiva as second to none and supreme :-) to Brahma,
Vishnu, Indra and other devas). There are other references to Hari-
Hara identity in 'sattvic' purANas which I didn't bother to catalogue.
To re-iterate, 'Narayana is supreme' is a matter of subjective
opinion, which is not necessarily wrong. However the claim
that 'Narayana is supreme and this is attested in the Vedas' can be
objectively evaluated by examining vedic text themselves.
4. Observation of Indo-Iranian texts - Avesta:
This is a side issue. The Avestan language is very similar to vedic
sanskrit and the gathas could be translated from avestan persian to
sanskrit and vice versa with few simple phonetic rules. Besides, a
lot of vedic deities reappear in Avesta *including vishnu*. ( we have
to keep in mind though, that daevas are the bad guys and ahuras are
the good guys).
ahura mazda - asura medhira=varuNa)
mithra - mitra
rashNu - viShNu
verethraghna - vR^itrahan=indra
sraosha - sharva=rudra
vAyu/vAta- vAyu/vata
ardvi sura anAhitA- sarasvati
baga - bhaga (as in baghdad!)
It is interesting to note how the Indo-Iranian religion evolved (in a
different direction) compared to vedic religion. Varuna is the
supreme God and Rashnu is a minor deity, and is the judge of souls
seeking entrance into heaven. In Zoroastrian religion the souls of
the dead must cross the Cinvat Bridge which links heaven and earth.
That is where Rashnu guards and makes the soul wait three days, while
he reviews the records in the book of life where good and bad deeds
have been recorded.
An indirect evidence that 'supremacy of Vishnu' is a later 'purANic
evolution' and unattested by Vedic canon (or else, among Indo-
Iranians, Rashnu would have been supreme - not Varuna).
Regards,
Kasturi Rangan .K
{Moderator's note:
The "subjectivity" of the assertion that "VishNu is the Supreme Being" is srI.
Anshuman's opinion only. That is not an authoritative opinion taught by our
AchAryAs -
adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan}
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |