Namaskaram swamy,

Thanks for your suggestion.

adiyen

Swamy,

My query is with Rik Veda.

adiyen

கம்பன்தாசன் swamy,

I have referred two translations, one in Tamil by Jambunathan and one in English by Griffith. These two are the results from Google search. Initially I referred Tamil and went for English to cross check. I also checked with few of the sites / blogs / wiki. My search is in general platform to have unbiased opinion. Even this took more than a week of continuous work.

adiyen

I started with open Google search with Rik Veda Tamil pdf and also English pdf. The two referenced above repeatedly came as the results. Hence, I went ahead. I cross referenced with hymn numbers. Whatever it gave as the results, I have taken. But there were only a few results. I restricted to Rik Veda only and not gone into other texts. I also checked up with other sites / blogs only for Rik Veda. It was an open search.

adiyen

Swamy,

Thanks for your response. I will go through the video mentioned by you. However, kindly check up my initial post. Rik Veda indeed mentions about worship and creation (10.90). Purusha mentioned is a classical example. That is the reason, why I would like to stick to Rik Veda which is anadi.

I think my query on Purusha is clear. What I meant was Purusha is not worshipped nowadays and Lord Narayanan is worshipped, though Purusha is stated to be the creator. If you haven’t read 10.90, kindly go through it. The details of creation mentioned in Rik Veda 10.90 has similarity to the creation in Vaishnavite texts. In such a case, Purusha is to be worshipped.

adiyen

Jayaram swamy,

Thank you for sharing that the authors are one Jambunathan and one Griffith. But we do not know if their translation was based on any authentic teacher in ஓர்-ஆண்-வழி. Such translations could be like “சுக்குமி ளகுதி ப்பிலி”. it is better not to confuse ourselves with such sources. It is better to remain ignorant than gather ill-informed knowledge.

Vedas are kalpa-vrsham; they give whatever one wants. If an interpreter or learner wants to be cheated, vedas will unfold accordingly in their heart….. and they will remain cheated for a few more births atleast.

Only if we approach the vedas as per the prescribed process and method, the complete truth will be accessible to the learner.

The essence of all knowledge conveyed through the Vedas is how to engage in pure devotion towards God. If we practise the simple devotional steps given to us systematically, pure devotion will gradually blossom in us. I have full confidence in this because I have heard this from my acharyar

Since you are familar with கவிஞர் கண்ணதாசன்’s songs, please let me quote a line from his song (“கோகுலத்தில் பசுகள் எல்லாம்…”) which conveys this message : “அட! படிப்பில்லாத ஆட்கள் கூட பாதத்திலே போய் விழுந்தால், வேததுக்கே பொருள் விழங்குது, ராமா ஹரி…. ராமா ஹரி ஹரே கிரிஷ்ணா-ஹரி. 

அடியேன் தாசன்

மன்னிக்கவும்! “விளங்குது” என்று இருக்க வேண்டும்; “விழங்குது” என்று அல்ல.

கம்பன்தாசன் swamy,

I understand your concern.

Translating vedas is not an easy task, whoever may be the author. It requires a real interest. However, to dispel that uncertainty only I have cross checked with a few sites for each hymn. There should be a way out if one want to get the details. I believe in trying to know the things, Yes, but a correct detail and I have attempted in that line.

Thank you for quoting the song. But we should have our efforts also. If we attempt only He will give the results.

Let me see how this thread progresses.

adiyen

100% correct. We must put in our effort to understand God and spiritual life. That is the purpose of human form of life; otherwise we are as good as an animal or inanimate object.

But the effort must be in the direction indicated by God as shown by our acharyas. Accordingly, our effort must in identifying an authentic guru, submitting to him, rendering service to him, and humbly seeking knowledge from him. Such an acharya can guage us and guide us and give us knowledge exactly the way we can assimiate. A mother gives all the nutrients a child needs in the form the child can take – her milk. Likewise the acharya can take the ‘nutrients’ from the vedas and deliver it to the student in the exact form that is suitable for the student. If the infant prefers to avoid mother’s milk and search other sources to fetch food for nutrition, the child will suffer indigestion and other complications such that he may not be able to drink even mother’s milk for the next few days.; similarly if I try to prefer to fetch my own knowledge from other sources (instead of following the direction shown by God to seek knowledge) then I will undergo similar suffering that may prevent me from taking even a proper acharya’s guidance for the next few life times. 

If I can not see what an elephant is life, the proper procedure is to find a person who has seen the elephant and seek knowledge about the elephant from him. If I want to know about Vedas, I must followed the prescribed procedure and learn from a person who has leanrt vedas and lives by it.

On the otherhand, if I choose to enquire a blindman about the elephant, and to confirm if I cross check with a bunch of other blindmen who have independently analysed the elephant and come to their own conclusion about the elephant, my own understanding about the elephant is going to be far more erroneous. Error amplifies multifold with each step.

Let us put our efforts in the right direction, as instructed by God and as practised and prescribed by acharyas.

adiyen dasan.

PS: Kannadasan’s படிப்பில்லாதா ஆள் put the effort in the right direction – in expressing his utter inability at the lotus feet of God and surrendering at His lotus feet. Perumal, out of His own will, gifted the படிப்பில்லாத ஆள் with full understanding of the Vedas. 

Please hear Bhagavad Gita upanyasam on chapter 8, verse 28; chapter 11 verse 53&54. Based on what is taught in the upanyasam, please study these verses from an authentic commentary.

adiyen dasan.

Let me add one more point, please:

While it is correct to say “But we should have our efforts also”, it is not correct to say “If we attempt only He will give the results.”. He can give independent of any other reasons. If He decides to give, then He can give Himself not only to the illiterate potter and even to the potter’s inanimate pot.

adiyen dasan.

Thank you for your response. 

adiyen

Sri vaishnava dasan

adiyen.

enpanifan swamy,

I am giving the link with hymns and meaning. You can check up for the meaning of the hymn with your authenticated source, if it is available and let me know also.

https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/invoc/in_pura.html 

Both are non different.From enpanifan

I have already mentioned that both appeared to be similar. But, my point is that one has to follow the name whichever was quoted first. This has been the practice. In this case, Rik veda being anadi, it is Purusha.

adiyen

Sri vaishnava dasan

Yes Enpanifan Swami, actually eventhough there is no mention of name Krsna in Rg Veda. His name is mentioned in Atharva Veda.

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha,

Namaskaram ElayaAlwar Swamy.

Thank you for taking your time and efforts for the reply.

My interest is only to check on First Creator in Rik veda, though it talks about worshipping of other gods. At a few places, these gods are mentioned as Supreme and creator, but details similar to 10.90 is not mentioned anywhere against these gods (with my limited reading). This may be the reason for confusion amongst Matha Thalaivargal, as you have indicated (I may be wrong also).

You have mentioned Chit (BhaddAthma) as Purusha. Hence, I searched for the five classification of Purushas, but could not get any detail. I got Purusha as stated in purusha suktam as the results. In Rik veda 10.90, it is clearly mentioned as purusha only and hence I feel it can not be BhaddAthma. I do not know wherefrom this classification is got. I consider the Purusha mentioned is the Creator.

It also talks about Uttama Purusha, but very less.From ElayaAlwar

Rik veda clearly talks about the creation and Creator, even though it is less (Uttama Purusha as per your mentioning), which can be easily recognised by the reader. I accept the details on First creation and the Creator (may be Uttama Purusha as per you) given in 10.90. One interesting point I have observed in 10.90 is the mentioning of One fourth are mortal beings and three fourth are the Immortal Being. This appears to be similar to Leela vibhuti and Nithya vibhuti. In the present context, I am not considering yaagam / yagjyam which is done for any particular Phalam.  Just because Rik veda talks less on Creator, would it be correct to say that Rik veda talks only about karma kanda?. If Purusha (or even Uttama Purusha) is the Creator, then why that name is not followed. It is a general convention that the name appeared first will be followed. In this case, Rik veda being anadi and first amongst the vedas, it is Purusha which should have been followed for the name of the Creator. I understood from the commentaries on Rik veda that Narayanan is mentioned as a Rishi.

When I went through Rik veda, I could recognise between the First creation and subsequent  creation. This was mentioned in my initial post (but of course with a sounding of point for clear confirmation).  

It is told that the Vedas are from the Creator. I feel that in case if the details are structured in an orderly way e.g., in the order starting from details on Creator, creation, other gods, devathas, yagas, rituals,  etc., there would not have been any ambiguity on the Supreme and the people who believes in vedas would have followed a single sampradayam.

P.S : All the sampradayams of sanadhana dharma accept vedas. Still, they are following different God and treat them as their Supreme. In order to know the missing link why it is so, despite calling Rik veda as karma kandam, I have attempted to go through Rik veda, and see whether there is any mention of Creator, if at all and what it is called as. I have mentioned about this in some other thread earlier also, why even though vedas are accepted, different sampradayams are existing. This is the reason why I want to stick mainly to Rik veda.

adiyen

Srivaishnava dasan

Srimate Raamanujaye namaha,

Swamy i dont think whole of Rik veda is considered karma kaanda..it might consist of both karma and brahma kaanda..

Secondly why should the name of the creator or using the generic name purusha affect us? and why should everybody be in the same path..diversity is non separable from nature..people have different levels of karma , interests and affinities..and hence various branches of vedas need to fulfill them..some parts are written in an ambiguous or a generic way so as to help convince everybody that all of them are infact in the vedic pathway…

Perhaps that is why vedas are called marai in tamil..

There is no problem for a sincere follower of vedas, it will eventually take all the sincere followers to the same destination, some may take longer some shorter..

Problems arise only when there are comparisons and supremacy debates..otherwise diversity is not an issue.

When one practices what is said in vedas then the hidden details will be revealed internally by the mercy of acharaya and “purusha ” as in who is this purusha referring to.
So lets try that route.

Adiyen
Thirukachidaasanudasan

Namaskaaram Swami,

Let me share what I have understood. Yes swami, what you have stated is true. Everyone cannot be in the same path as you say. That would be artificial. But at a time a person can only follow one path.

By the way, taking the authority of Rk veda alone would not be sufficient. You would find that the name Krsna is mentioned in Atharva Veda ( that’s what I have learnt).

Sri Krsna says in Bhagavad Gita that “vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah”. So Sri Krsna says that the purpose of the Vedas is to understand Him. I am pretty sure you know this. So let’s all try to understand Him.

True..swamy. agreed
Adiyen

Adiyen 🙏

enpanifan swamy,

it might consist of both karma and brahma kaanda..From enpanifan

I welcome your affirmative statement.

After studying and analysing, I understand that people of different sampradayams take reference of various hymns from Rik veda and further reference of other vedas & puranas of their sampradayams and say their deity is Supreme. There can be only one Supreme. After referring to a common scripture and coming out with multiple Supreme Being is acceptable?. That is reason why I have been concentrating only on Rik veda. I am quoting one example to indicate how 10.90 is interpreted by other sampradayam.

Satyam Sivam Advaitam: Purusha Suktam – A Hymn to Lord Rudra, ( Also presented with my commentary) (hara-hara-mahadev.blogspot.com)

Here Purusha Suktam is called a hymn to Lord Rudra. But here it is silent on one of the important detail ” three fourth are the Immortal Being”, which I believe pertains to Nithya Vibhuthi.

Even within one sampradayam there are several faiths. It is not the question of reaching destination earlier or later. The seeker should know the correct destination. The unique details of the One Supreme Being should be known to all, including the layman. Why should one go round about and spend lot of time to know. I feel, as I mentioned in my previous post, Rik veda could have been structured in a way to give clear idea in this regard.

some parts are written in an ambiguousFrom enpanifan

Why should there be ambiguity in a sacred text like Rik veda, supposed to be the FIRST one, and accepted by many.

I know that this discussion may not lead to any concrete conclusion.

adiyen

Srivaishnava dasan

Swami appreciate your concern and understandable.
But we cannot see the whole picture and needs of various living entities..but Supreme Lord can see all perspectives and that is why He has created vedas..or rather eternally exists as His breathing ..so we cannot say it could have been better..reality has to be accepted..
This question is in the same angle as in tour previous thread..why should there be a Brahmam etc?..
Certain.things are facts and cannot be changed…but the reason why it is so may be revealed to us if we deserve and if He desires to.
Adiyen
Thirukachidaasanudasan

enpanifa swamy,

Noted.

adiyen

Srimate Ramanujaye Namaha,

Swami just came.across this info..
In the second last para of purusha suktam there is a line..

“hrīścha tē lakṣmīścha patnyau”..does it help to clear the ambiguity?

Adiyen
Thirukachidaasanudasan

I think this is not in Rik veda 10.90. 

adiyen