Statements in our shastras

[Bhadraiah Mallampalli]

>Malolan Cadambi wrote:
>
>>Here is one interesting incident which you might want to read about:
>>http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/sep96/0086.html
>
>the Shrivaishnava viewpoint as explained by Mani makes sense from their
>point of view because they hold God to be the supreme authority.  So >his
>wishes trump the shastras.  From a Smarta point of view the Vedas >being
>apaurusheya are authoritative in themselves (as are the shastras >based
>upon them.) and no man or God has the power to alter the dharma >based upon
>them.

Kindly note that the meaning of the word purusha has changed over time.
Nowadays the word purusha is meant to be an ordinary human being. But
originally the word meant 'one who resides in the heart'. Purusha was used
as synonymous with other higher deities like Virat, Hiranyagarbha etc.

I had some questions : As Purusha mentioned in purusha suktam could reveal
vedas, how can the Vedas be apaurusheyas? Even if purusha was meant to be
only ordinary being, still this human being has the component of the cosmic
purusha (without which he/she wouldn't be living) who can in turn reveal
vedas.

Shri HH Chinna Jeeyar swamiji, answered that Vedas were not authored by any
one including Narayana also.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jetusa/message/1107

Therefore we can not conclude that Srivaishnavas consider Narayana as
superior to Vedas. When there is slightest duality, any formal expression of
that duality is veda (ritual portions), and any formal description of
attempts to get rid of that duality is also Veda (upanishats).

Best regards
Bhadraiah

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail