[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Shankara and Vaishnavism, etc (was Re: ..)
Mani Varadarajan wrote:
[...]
> In any event, the import of this anuvAka is that nArAyaNa,
> who is identical with the Purusha of the Purusha sUkta,
> and who is eternally associated with Lakshmi, (hrISca te
> lakshmIS ca patnyau) is the Highest Reality.
>
While I grant that Narayana is Purushottama, I am reticent about
asserting the evidence of the Purusha Suktam in this regard. The reason
is this:
If the Purusha of the Purusha Suktam is Kshirasagara-Sayana because His
patni, Lakshmi is Kshirasagara-tanaya, then who is "Hri"? Certainly not
Bhu or Nila. In the later Puranic and Tantric traditions, Hri (and Kri)
has always been a Bija-akshara for Adi Parasakti, who is most often
identified with Uma, Himagiri-tanaya. Hri, in the Purusha Suktam, cannot
be Sri, because Sri is Lakshmi, who is already mentioned separately.
Thus, Hripati has as much claim to be the Purusha of the Suktam as
Lakshmipati does.
It is quite difficult to impose a strict monotheism on Vedic Suktas. I
believe that such a monotheism that comes close to the Judeo - Christian
- Islamic outlook is quite alien to the letter and spirit of the Vedas.
This does not mean that God is not One. That said, I draw everybody's
attention to the words of Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati: "You do not see
God's lotus feet. Why do you fight about the shape of His face?"
S. Vidyasankar
