nArAyaNa in the veda-s

[Sudas Paijavana]

Pranam-s,

The following is a verse both Smaranam and I cherish and praise:

tā́ vāṃ vā́stūni uśmasi gámadhyai
yátra gā́vo bhū́riśr̥ṅgā ayā́saḥ
átrā́ha tád urugāyásya vŕ̥ṣṇaḥ
paramám padám áva bhāti bhū́ri (R.V.1.154.6)

We pray (to Shri Vishnu) that you may both [both = sacrificer and the sacrificer's wife] go to those regions where the
many-pointed and wide-spreading rays (of light expand); for here the supreme
station of the many-hymned [= who is much invoked], the showerer (of benefits), shines (with) great (splendour).

[smaranam]

I am very sorry. I took that not from Rg Veda original, but from a purport to Chaitanya CharitrAmrut that someone gave a link to here today itself.

I wonder how they got that as KRshNa?

I shall delete the post

Moral of the story (for the second time): Never take quotes from secondary sources.

_/\_

[smaranam]

It is from here:

http://vedabase.com/en/cc/madhya/23/116

Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha confirms the existence of Goloka Vṛndāvana-dhāma by quoting the Ṛg-saṁhitā (Ṛg Veda 1.154.6):

tā vāṁ vāstūny uśmasi gamadhyai
 yatra gāvo bhūri-śṛṅgā ayāsaḥ
atrāha tad urugāyasya kṛṣṇaḥ
 paramaṁ padam avabhāti bhūri

“We wish to go to Your [Rādhā’s and Kṛṣṇa’s] beautiful houses, about which cows with large, excellent horns are wandering. Yet distinctly shining on this earth is that supreme abode of Yours that showers joy on all, O Urugāya [Kṛṣṇa, who is much praised].”

[smaranam]

The only thing I can say about that translation is that KRshNa is a VrushNi
(belonging to the VrushNi clan).

[Sudas Paijavana]

It is from here:

http://vedabase.com/en/cc/madhya/23/116

Pranam-s,

It seems that the verse was altered on purpose by Nīlakaṇṭha, and in the process, it was unfortunately destroyed and it's truth eradicated.

I am deeply saddened by the carelessness that was conducted by altering a RigVedic verse by diluting one of its phonemes.

When the sound of even just one phoneme is altered, the verse becomes defunct, and in the process it contaminates the hymn the verse in question in which it is found.

For example, let us take a look at the Gayatri Verse from 3.62.10:

tat savitur vareNiyam bhargo devasya dhImahi dhiyo yo naH pracodayAt

Let us change "bhargo" to "mArgo". What happens when we change the phoneme in the verse above? It becomes defunct and is in the process voided.

Please take a look at the following to acknowledge that the word is vRshNaH, instead of kRshNah:

http://www.sanskritweb.net/rigveda/rv01-137.pdf {<--- scroll down to hymn 154, second part of line 6)

[Sudas Paijavana]

The only thing I can say about that translation is that KRshNa is a VrushNi
(belonging to the VrushNi clan).

Pranam-s,

And, I understand that. But, the word in question is vRshNah. In the sentence of 1.154.6, vRshNah is an adjective, not a noun, therefore, the word cannot apply to the VrishNis (the Yadu tribe of Shri Krishna). Furthermore, vRshNah's root is vRshan, not vRshaN nor vRshNa. It's a reddish color. It applies to the solar rays of the sun; and in this verse, Shri Vishnu is being lauded with qualities of an Aditya as well as that of Shri Agni.

[smaranam]

Pranam-s,

It seems that the verse was altered on purpose by Nīlakaṇṭha, and in the process, it was unfortunately destroyed and it's truth eradicated.

praNAm

I understand completely, and that is very sad.

However, two things
1. Wherever you see gAvo, go (cows), bhuri - shRunga (horns) in the vedas, the GauDiya VaishNavs are going to say this is about Goloka Gokul VRndAvana - see how differently the same sanskrit can be translated.

2. Even if this NilakanTha (I don't even know who he is) had left it as vRshNah, can that point to vrushNi? Because KRshNa was a VrushNi on earth.

_/\_

[smaranam]

Pranam-s,

And, I understand that. But, the word in question is vRshNah. In the sentence of 1.154.6, vRshNah is an adjective, not a noun, therefore, the word cannot apply to the VrishNis (the Yadu tribe of Shri Krishna). Furthermore, vRshNah's root is vRshan, not vRshaN nor vRshNa. It's a reddish color. It applies to the solar rays of the sun; and in this verse, Shri Vishnu is being lauded with qualities of an Aditya as well as that of Shri Agni.

praNAm Sudasji

Thanks for all this education.
I see you had already answered my question:

2. Even if this NilakanTha (I don't even know who he is) had left it as vRshNah, can that point to vrushNi? Because KRshNa was a VrushNi on earth.

You are one of the few pursuers of and very knowledgable in the Vedas - especially Rg saMhItA, that we have on HDF.

om namo nArAyaNAya ~

[Sri Vaishnava]

However, ChhAndogya Upanishad Part One, Chapter 17, verse 6 says:


(KRshNa set a good example for humans to follow by taking diksha, going to Rshis for instruction, respecting and honourng His elders, Gurus, Rshis, following ettiquette (like washing Sudama brAhman's feet), supporting yajn~a-BrAhmaNs, and loving all.)

srI ranga rAmAnuja muni, using grammar, derives that sentence another way as follows:

"The rishi Ghora Angirasa practiced this Purusha Yajna with the dedication as "This is sub-servient to Krishna, the Son of Devaki". That Ghora Angirasa had not thirst, as he came upon BrahmavidyA through this. At the last moment of his life, he said to Brahman, "you are eternal, you are full of auspicious qualities, you are the subtle truth enlivening this universe".

The acharyan explains "KrishnAya" as "KrishnaseshabhUta" - for the sake of Krishna (the rishi is a sesha).

One must note that even in mantrAs, the "Aya" shabda denotes "for the sake of-", or service performed for the deity.

ityuktvA means anusandhAna.

In my opinion, this is the best interpretation. No other sampradAya has interpreted it this way. But to each his own.

[philosoraptor]

srI ranga rAmAnuja muni, using grammar, derives that sentence another way as follows:

"The rishi Ghora Angirasa practiced this Purusha Yajna with the dedication as "This is sub-servient to Krishna, the Son of Devaki". That Ghora Angirasa had not thirst, as he came upon BrahmavidyA through this. At the last moment of his life, he said to Brahman, "you are eternal, you are full of auspicious qualities, you are the subtle truth enlivening this universe".

The acharyan explains "KrishnAya" as "KrishnaseshabhUta" - for the sake of Krishna (the rishi is a sesha).

One must note that even in mantrAs, the "Aya" shabda denotes "for the sake of-", or service performed for the deity.

ityuktvA means anusandhAna.

In my opinion, this is the best interpretation. No other sampradAya has interpreted it this way. But to each his own.

I could be mistaken, but I believe madhvAchArya interprets this reference as being to that of a sage who happens to be named kRiShNa, and who also happens to have a mother named devakI.

I liked shrI ranga rAmAnuja's interpretation better, personally. :-)