[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
-
To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
-
From: "V. Pai" <vspai@nyx.net>
-
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:16:09 -0700
Ramakrishnan Balasubramaniam wrote:
> Mani Varadarajan wrote:
> > viSvam nArAyaNam devam aksharam paramam prabhum ...
> > sa brahma sa Siva: sendra so'kshara: paramasvarAt
> >
> > [Taittiriya Aranyaka of the Yajur Veda.
> > Check it out in the Ramakrishna Mutt edition
> > of the Mahanarayana Upanishad.]
> Actually I think it says (atleast the one I was taught)
>
> sa brahma sa shivaH sa hariH sendraso.akshararaH paramasvaraaT.h
I think Mani is quoting from the Narayana Suukta of the Taittiriya
(Aaranyaka? Braahmana? Upanishad? I forget) which starts
"sahasra shiirsham devam vishvaakSham vishva-shambhuvam"
The next line is the first one Mani quoted above (except the word "devam"
does not appear, and "prabhum" should be "padam"), and the "sa brahmaa"
line appears as Mani quoted, but quite a bit later in the Suukta.
Of course, I could be totally off-base; maybe Mani can explain?
> I also think the previous line should read
>
> vishvam.h naaraayaNam.h devamaksharam.h paramam.h padam.h (not
> prabhum.h, pardon me if I am wrong, this one I am not absolutely sure).
<BASE HREF="http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?msg@3521@soc%2ereligion%2ehindu%26soc+religion+hindu">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<H1>Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On</H1>
<HR>
<PRE>
<strong>From </strong> Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <<A HREF="mailto:rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu">rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu</A>>
<strong>Organization </strong> none
<strong>Date </strong> Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:34:30 GMT
<strong>Newsgroups </strong> <A HREF="news:soc.religion.hindu"><strong>soc.religion.hindu</strong></A>
<strong>Message-ID </strong> <ghenDyCM1I.2s1@netcom.com>
</PRE>
<HR>
<PRE>
Mani Varadarajan wrote:
> final authority. The final authority must be the eternal Veda
> itself. What does the Veda say?
>
> viSvam nArAyaNam devam aksharam paramam prabhum ...
> sa brahma sa Siva: sendra so'kshara: paramasvarAt
>
> [Taittiriya Aranyaka of the Yajur Veda.
> Check it out in the Ramakrishna Mutt edition
> of the Mahanarayana Upanishad.]
Actually I think it says (atleast the one I was taught)
sa brahma sa shivaH sa hariH sendraso.akshararaH paramasvaraaT.h
I also think the previous line should read
vishvam.h naaraayaNam.h devamaksharam.h paramam.h padam.h (not
prabhum.h, pardon me if I am wrong, this one I am not absolutely sure).
Notice that you missed the hari part. It only tells me that hari is the
same as brahman.h is the same as shiva etc. Perfectly in tune with
smaarta thinking.
> But more importantly, from a procedural point of view,
> the yogic meditation as prescribed by the ancient and traditional
> teachers has to be performed in a particular way to achieve
> desired results. The Vedas and the teachings of the
> traditional acharyas are our guides here. Unequivocally,
> in their authentic commentaries, Sankara, Ramanuja and
> others prescribe meditation on Narayana (or, using His other
> names such as Vasudeva, Krishna, Hari, etc.) as being
> conducive to achieving the highest goal.
This is the classical misunderstanding of the smaarta mentality. Just
because sha.nkara advocates at one place/some places the worship of
saguNa brahman.h as vishhNu it does not mean he devalues the worship of
other deities as saguNa brahman. Why else would he establish sphaTika
li.ngas in his maThas or write the dakshiNaamuurti stotram? Surely you
are not suggesting to me that all his successors in his various maThas
are misrepresenting him by saying that shiva worship is equally valid,
but that you know better? I have a copy of a speech by shrii
sannidhaanam saying that shiva worship is worship of saguNa brahman.h,
if you are interested. sha.nkara was from the kerala region which had
padmanaabha as it's primary deity. That may be one reason why sha.nkara
talks about naaraayaNa more than other deities.
While we are at it note that that the kaivalya upanishhad has quoted
brahman as "umaa sahaayam". Before we jump into the usual interpreting
of "uma" using etymology just remember that I can do the same with
naaraayaNa or hari or whatever. Interestingly enough a variant of the
same "sa brahmaa" etc appears in this upanishhad.h also. The only thing
is that the saguNa brahman.h is repeatedly called "trilochanam"
(three-eyed), "sadaashiva", umaasahaaya, niilakaNTha etc.
Please do not misrepresent sha.nkara's advocacy of naaraayaNa worship as
his acceptance of the vaishhNava "only vishhNu is superior" theology.
There is a huge difference.
Ramakrishnan.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail posts to: ghen@netcom.com : <A HREF="http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/">http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/</A>
</PRE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
