Lord Narayanan – Vedanta and other scriptures

Updated on June 6, 2021 in Holy Books
11 on May 19, 2021

Namaskaram.

adiyen discussed about ParaBramham and Lord Narayanan in other thread. Swamy responded that “There are many verses in Vedanta which mention Narayana as ParaBrahmam”.

adiyen understand that ParaBramham and Lord Narayanan are used synonymously in the scriptures. adiyen glanced SriBhashyam, wherein they are mentioned reciprocally. SriBhashyam gives logical details and discussion to prove several aspects including ParaBrahmam. I did not check in Vedanta / Upanishads. Is there any similar logical discussion, as in SriBhashyam, mentioned  in Vedanta / Upanishads / or other scriptures to conclude Lord Narayana as ParaBramham. I would like to know the details considered to mention Lord Narayana as ParaBramham in the Vedanta or other scriptures. Preferably, if it is indicated with reference, it will be helpful for adiyen to understand in a better manner.

adiyen

Srivaishnava dasan

 
  • Liked by
  • Govindan Narayanan
Reply

Vedartha sangraha of Swamy Ramanuja lists the verses that confirm Sriman Narayana as Parabrahmam

on May 20, 2021

Sri. Velukkudi Krishnan swamy,

Namaskaram. Thank you very much for the detail.

adiyen went through the book “Vedartha sangraha of Swamy Ramanuja” by SriRangam Sadagopa Muthu Srinivasan in Tamil, about a month back. I did not find this information, probably adiyen could have missed the relevant points. I will go through again, recheck and come back.

adiyen

SriVaishnava dasan

on May 23, 2021

Namaskaram swamy,

adiyen understood “Uttara anuvakam” (to Purusha suktam) is not part of Prathama anuvakam of Purusha suktam.

What is the reason for it’s addition?.

Who is the author?.

When it was added?.

adiyen

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on May 27, 2021

Namaskaram.

  1. Who is the Seer Narayanan referred in Rik veda (while mentioning Purusha suktam). Is he Lord Narayanan?.
  2. If not, which is the earliest scripture where the name Lord Narayanan is mentioned?.
  3. Brahmam is stated to be with form and without form. Brahmam is not mentioned anywhere with any consorts. Why predominantly Brahmam mentioned to be with form as Lord Narayanan and with consorts?.

adiyen

Srivaishnava dasan

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on June 2, 2021

Namaskaram swamy.

adiyen referred to a couple of other authors’ work also on vedartha_sangraha of Swamy Ramanuja. They do list the verses that confirm Lord Narayana as Parabrahmam.

Purusha suktam (16 verses), which is part of Rik veda mentions most of the attributes of Brahmam without mentioning Lord Narayanan. This was not referred in that work. I do not know whether Ramanujar felt, it is not appropriate for the proof. What is the reason?. Nevertheless, he quoted “Hrīśca te Lakṣmīśca patnyau” as one of the proof for Lord Narayanan to be Brahmam. adiyen understand this verse is an anuvAkam or annexure to Purusha suktam  and not the main of Purusha suktam.

adiyen’s understanding is that Brahmam is not mentioned anywhere with any consorts. Then, can one consider the point “consorts of Lord Narayanan” to prove Lord Narayanan to be Brahmam?.

adiyen

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
1 on June 3, 2021

Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Srimathe Sri Varaha Mahadesikaya Namaha
Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy Thiruvadigaley Sharanam
Sri:

Dasanudasan

on June 3, 2021

Namaskaram. 

Why only signature from the Bhagavatha who discussed and expressed knowledge in the thread Brahmam, Jiva and Jadam?.

adiyen

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
1 on June 6, 2021

Swamy,
Namaskaram.
Hari Vamsam 147 deals with this topic.
Adiyen Ramanujadaasan.

on June 6, 2021

Swamy,

I listened to the audio few days back and again after your post.

It does not discuss about the point of my interest in this thread.

adiyen

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on June 6, 2021

Swamy,
In that talk: Suryan, Indran, Rudran, Brahma – their origin is traceable as given in Shastra. However, for Lord Vishnu, no where in Shastra, it (origin) is mentioned – indirect inference, in support of the fact that Lord Vishnu is the Brahmam/Parabrahmam.
Adiyen Ramanujadaasan.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
Loading more replies