I feel compelled to point out the flagrant inaccuracies in the
Vijay Sadananda Pai writes:
> Vaisnavas accept smrti as well; so do Smartas, who follow Sankara.
> But I'll quote some sruti for you
> Rg Veda: om tad visnoh paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah
> "All the demigods are constantly looking to the supreme feet
> of Lord Vishnu"
> Atharva Veda: From Narayana comes Brahma, from Narayana comes
> Rudra, from Narayana comes Indra, the cosmic manifestation,
> Narayana Upanishad: The son of Devaki is the same Narayana
Only the quote from the Rg Veda can be considered as Sruti.
The Narayana Upanishad is not an authoritative Upanishad, not
only from a philological standpoint, but also because neither
Sankara nor Ramanuja referred to it in the course of their
philosophical works. Consequently, it cannot have been a text
that was accepted by theologians as being sruti.
I would urge you to pinpoint the source of the Atharva Veda
text as well. If you do your research, I am certain that you
will find that it is only tangentially related to the Veda,
perhaps as a late 'khila' (appendix). It certainly is not
part of the Atharva Veda samhita.
Even your usage of the Rg Vedic text is incorrect. All acharyas
(except perhaps some modern ones not trained in the shastra) are
agreed that 'paramam padam' means 'highest *place* of Vishnu',
*not* his 'supreme feet'. In addition, 'surayah' refers to
those 'jnaanis' who have attained moksha, *not* the 'demigods';
for if the devatas themselves are constantly with Vishnu, why
are they still considered as being in samsaara?
Please, do some research before posting half-baked scholarship
on the net.