[Advaita-l] Narayana - Word

[kalyan chakravarthy]

>It is your assumption that I want to discuss Indology
>here. Your reply to the earlier question had advanced
>or supported the idea that Narayana and Vishnu refer
>to different beings or that such an idea existed at
>one point of time. Upon my pointing out that such an
>idea has no place in sAmpradAya, which sees Narayana
>no differently from Vishnu, you come up with this
>incongruent advice as a reply?

>Actually, you were not even true to whatever
>contemporary academe holds on the chronology of Vedas.
>They hold that Yajurveda is a work later than Rg
>(which is why they have to assume that X maNDala is a
>latter addition; as if there was one set of accepted
>redactions!). So, your point that Narayana started his
>career as a foremost god is wrong. There are couple
>more, but an instance is sufficient.

Rubbish. Have you read the Rig Veda or the Satapata brahmana? Unlike Vishnu 
who was no important God in the Rg Veda samhita, Purusha(Narayana) have 
started their careers as supreme gods. No where is Purusha identified with 
Vishnu in the Rg Veda samhita.

You dont even know why the 10th mandala is treated as the later mandalas. 
There is evidece from linguistics. Linguists who have studied the evolution 
of language in depth have told this. All in all it is similar to a crime 
scene investigation where you proceed based on the rules

It is not as if the Rg veda is unauthored. Mandalas 2 to 7 which are 
considered to be  the oldest are called family mandalas as they are composed 
by families of rishis. So much for the nonsense that you talk.

_________________________________________________________________
Himalayan holiday! Waiting to be won. 
http://server1.msn.co.in/sp03/summerfun/index.asp Find out more.