 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Mani Varadarajan wrote:
> > This etymological approach is not only relatively straightforward,
> > it brings out the universality and timelessness of the Vedic wisdom.
> > "Narayana" is considered the Absolute not because of a jealous
> > promotion of one's favorite deity, but because the word "Narayana"
> > means "that in whom all beings rest", implying the universal
> > causality of the Absolute, distinguishing it from all other lesser
> > constructions. "Siva" is also descriptive of the Divine Being,
> > not because it refers directly to the three-eyed one known to
> > us through the Puranas, but because the word "Siva" is indicative
> > of purity and auspiciousness.
The etymological approach is certainly straightforward, namely
anything = vishhNu (vaishnavites)
anything = shiva (shaivites)
Of course you are very fond of characterizing shiva as being a "purANic"
concept. If all names apply to one supreme being, how come that being
suddenly has a UrdvapuNDra on his head and is lying on a snake, which is
also a purANic concept? If vaishhnavites can suddenly introduce
pA.ncharAtra concepts to suit their tastes, so can shaivites. Shaivites
can similarly point to the nIlakaNTha, umAsahAya etc also. This is what
I was referring to in my original post.
So it is merely a leap of faith after all! After giving clever
etymological interpretations one has to perform a leap of faith to be a
vaishhNavite (or shaivite), unless you take recourse to Agama-s. That is
why both shaivites and vaishhNavites pay lot of importance to the
Agama-s calling it the ultimate secret and what not, whereas the
smArtha-s couldn't care less either way (I am not saying the Agama-s are
useless).
Ramakrishnan.
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|