Bhakti List Archives

Re: Answers to Sri Mani + Agni and Vishnu in Rig vEdas.

From the Bhakti List Archives

jayasartn • Fri Nov 01 2002 - 09:31:52 PST 


SRIMATHE  RAMANUJAYA  NAMAHA.

At the outset let me confess that I possess no qualification to 
write, leave alone, comment on this topic. I have not known the 
passages quoted by so many on this topic, nor even strayed into 
related commentaries by scholars. Yet, as has always happened, I am 
tempted to poke my nose, thanks to 'avaa' and 'aasthai' (convenient 
excuse -‚º)

What I gather from the many posts on this topic is there are open-
ended questions like 
„« why Ramanuja didn't rely on Rig Veda / quote from the same in his 
commentaries
„« where does the different gods as mentioned in Rig vedas stand in 
relation to each other, particularly the status of Vishnu in the 
scheme of things.

(My humble opinion on these questions are given here. I request the 
bhagavathas to excuse me/ pardon me for the probable out-stretches I 
will be making in my characteristic non-conformist way.)

( As usual, I am responding to this topic very late, thanks to the  
many gods and demi-gods  surrounding us in our small, sleepy town -
like the striking telephone employees who like legendary gods are  
not be seen by mortal eyes, even after the strike call is withdrawn, 
the ever-busy electricity employees, whose dharshan is so scarce 
that  we must have done tonnes of punyam, and above all the sudden-
springing into action of the Rain god, always siding with the just 
mentioned demi-gods, in giving them handy excuses for their akarma in 
karma.)

If we analyse the verses in their 'face value', we will be only 
drawing  erroneous conclusions. For example if we  compartmentalize 
the various gods as superior or inferior to the other at the face 
value of the outer meaning, we will be only negating the famous Rig 
vedic statement, 'ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti' (1.164.46)
If Truth is Almighty, the different names by which it is known can 
not contradict each other in essence. 

Even though some gods are stated to be superior or so, there must be 
some meta physical implication attached. For example a controversy is 
still smouldering in scholarly circles in the Indian print media, 
that the numerous references to 'samudra' in vedas must have meta-
physical relevance only, as the people then would not have seen any 
ocean as they were far removed from the ocean and were land-locked.

It will make better sense to buy the meta-physics theory in general, 
for the Vedas, particularly the Rig veda (RV)  is supposed to the 
most complex one. A major part of it are prayers seeking some 
fortunes. Different deities are invoked that include even inanimate 
objects like grinding stones, qualities like faith and emotions like 
anger. 

One feature of such prayers is that they draw their potency from 
sound vibrations and not from the meaning. The one example I can 
quote is the research done in Agni Hotra by German scientists. After 
making sure that  the ingredients used in the homa, the time factor 
etc., do play a part in bringing out the effects, they found that 
these in the absence of manthras could not produce optimum results. 
They zeroed in on just a two-liner  manthra as giving the actual 
results.

The ones dedicated to Surya and Prajapathi in the morning Homa and 
Agni and Prajapathi in the evening Homa were tested in various ways. 
Liners with same meaning from as many as 17 ancient languages and the 
languages that bear close resemblance to Sanskrit were tried. 
Manthras with the same meaning but different words in sanskrit also  
were tried. Even a mix up of Surya with Agni in the evening Homa was 
tested . That is, the morning manthra was tested in the evening Homa. 
But the results were not satisfactory. Only the original Sanskrit 
words (manthras)  produced the desired results, making them conclude 
that  vibrations mattered. The chanting of the manthra should also  
be done in a particular pitch and not very loudly or in murmurs. The 
meaning seemed to matter the least.

So the one conclusion we may draw is that the hymns are vibration 
oriented -the meaning mainly meta-physical or highly complex but 
certainly not absurd or irrelevant. If we infer so, ( that is, it is 
difficult to support some of the passages for their meaning etc) we 
will be contradicting the  famous vachan that we find 
Mukhtikopanishad.
In this upanishad, Sri Rama is quoted to have told Hanuman, the 
number of shakas in the four vedas, the importance of ten upanishads 
and the benefits of chanting these even once. ('sakru-shravaNa 
mAthrENa sarvAghaugha - nikruthnam.')

The passage starting with, 'Rig vEdati vibhakEna  vEda shatvAra 
eerita:"  highlights  (in Rama's words) the greatness of Maandukya 
upanishad  as just enough for mokham. " mAndUkya mEka-mEvAlam 
mumukshUNAm vimukthayE".
 Rama, though extols the vedas, nevertheless places on record the 
greatness of MandUkya upanishad. Shall we then say that he according 
to Him, other upanishads and Vedas are untenable  / less important? 
We can not, for if we say so, we will be undermining His other 
assertion that  shravaNa mAthrENa  one can destroy 'sarva- ghaugham'. 
By saying this, He has placed all these equally on the same pedestal. 
Remember, RamO dwir na abhi bhAshatE. Therefore Rama must be right 
both ways - when he gives credit to all of them and when He 
specifically gives credit to one among them. 
This, I am drawing to answer why Ramanuja did not rely on Vedas. (RV 
in this context). The omission of RV does not warrant an 
interpretation that Ramanuja must have felt parts / whole of it 
untenable.  Ramanuja  certainly could not have harboured any 
apprehension towards it. But that he greatly by-passed them might be 
explained as follows.

If we take a holistic approach, we find that the Hindu thought from 
Rig vEdas to the more recent BharaNyaasam is a progressive 
simplification of philosophical as well as  meta-physical views. The 
vEdas were the most complex and the upanishads came as a 
simplification of the vedas.The Aranyaaks followed suit and further 
simplification for mass consumption occurred in the form of 
Ithihaasas.

This simplification can be noticed in the concept of moksham (taking 
moksham as an example- concept. Another important one to have 
undergone progressive simplification is the concept of Sri) (Sri 
Sadapgopan Iyengar of 'Mr Mahalakshmi' to kindly take note). The aham 
annam and aham annadam which explained one kind of route to moksham 
in the upanishad  was replaced by bhakti in BG period and prapatti by 
Ramanuja. Some future acharya may even bring out  a much simpler 
route depending on the needs / demands  of the time.

 What we must take note of in this progressive simplification is that 
the authors have relied on the next  immediate complex ( the 
preceding one) form of thought.  To give an example, Mumukshuppadi 
(MP) draws the conclusion from arulicheyal and not from upanishads or 
vedas. If someone were to use MP as the preceding pramana to further 
simplify the concept of moksham, he would probably say that it 
is 'osmosis' of the Paramathma permeating the Jivathma, with the 
individuality of the jivathma not being lost and equality with the 
Paramathma established. 
For this is the simplest way of interpreting the MP's final 
conclusion - "muththanaar mukunthanaar pugundu nammuL mEvinaar'. 

Taking this logic to why Ramanuja omitted RV, we can say that his 
task was to ascertain and explain the vEdantic thought for which he 
would have to naturally rely on upanishads. If he were to comment on 
upanishads, perhaps a recourse to RV and other vedas would have 
become necessary.

I also wonder whether we are right in disclosing that Ramanuja did 
not quote RV at all. For we can find references to RV in his bhashyam 
to Vedanta sutras of Badarayana.


An interesting reference to Agni, the  God can be found in the above 
said Bhashyam.
In substantiating that Jyothis is Brahman (25 th aphorism of the 1st 
chapter of Vedanta sutras), Ramanuja says that Jyothis is the Highest 
person in the form of  Agni, the digestive heat  for the purpose of 
attaining the fruition of the desired results. He quotes the 
BG15.14, " Becoming the Vaisvanara, I dwell in the bodies of all 
living things."
The foot note here says that the reference in vaisvanara is to Agni, 
in accordance with the scriptural passage, "this fire within man and 
by which food is digested  - that is vaisvanara." (Bri Up-5.9.1)

Here again we can note the progressive simplification from Agni in 
vEdAs, to vaisvanara in upanishad, to Lord claiming Himself as the 
Vaisvanara / Agni in all beings in the BG. Therefore whatever is said 
of Agni in RV is actually about the Supreme  Being. 

The different deities of RV may thus have concealed information. 
Depending on the context and the results desired,  the names of 
deities including the name Vishnu might have been used.

In fact Vedanta sutras equate Brahman  with jyothis, AkAshA, 
gAyathri, PrAnA and IndrA. Our immediate question is how indrA can be 
called the Brahman.
But look at what Ramanuja has got to say about this which he has 
given as a nutshell in the concluding part of his commentary.

" Wherever particular individual selves from the four-faced Brahma 
downwards and   particular non-intelligent things from the prakruthi 
downwards are found mentioned in association with the peculiarly 
characteristic attributes of the Supreme Self, - or wherever the 
words denoting them (i.e., those intelligent individual selves and 
those non-intelligent things) are seen to be grammatically equated 
with the words denoting the Supreme Self; - in all such cases, what 
is intended to be taught  is the continued meditation of the Brahman 
as forming the inner Self of those particular intelligent  and non-
intelligent entities. Consequently, it is an established conclusion 
that   he who is denoted by the word Indra and Prana here (i.e., in 
the context under reference) is the supreme self Himself, who is a 
different entity from individual selves."


Jayasree Sarnathan




--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/