Yajvan,
I see this (quite) differently...
Me too...
The wise knew of how the Supreme expressed itself in nature, hence the relevance.
The concept of a Supreme, Almighty, One True God, Everything Else Is Heathenry, One Supreme, is not definitively expressed in the Rica-s.
They also chose to use terms that people would understand.
That's odd, because the BrAhmaNa-s express that the Shri Gods love the mysterious: an expression on how the Rica-s are not understandable to the average mind - that the Rica-s are not even for those that can't understand it. They are full of terms that are as complex as complexity can get. Even the ones that are used for "people that would understand" have tons of variations in meaning.
How does a seer (ṛṣi ) express the infinite truth (ṛtam) in words ?
Rta-m is the order of things, the logic of all that is. Satya-m, on the other hand, is this "infinite truth" - that which are the proofs of that Rta-m, that logic and order of things.
"Inviolable are the holy laws of Varuna." - R.V.1.24.10
Using the paradigm you have set forth...Shri Varuna is the Supreme, Almighty, One True God.
If we look to the chāndogya upaniṣad 1.4.2...
Rationally speaking, I would never use Jnana-Kanda to explain Karma-Kanda.
And just a finer point that I consider is the puruṣasūktam from the ṛg ved (10.90); a very intriguing hymn.
om sahasra̍śīrṣā puru̍ṣaḥ sahasrākśaḥ sahasra̍pāt
sa bhūmi̍ṁ viśvato̍ vṛtvā atya̍tiṣṭaddaśāṅgulam ||
What is called out in the śloka is sahasra = 1,000 . This says puruṣa has 1,000 heads, a 1,000 eyes and 1,000 feet. Now does He really have this?
It is another way the seer (ṛṣi nārāyaṇa) of this great hymn tells us puruṣa is everywhere and even beyond that . He says that by saying beyond the span of 10 (daśā) fingers (aṅgula). When people say 'beyond' is also can mean transcend.
This is how the seers took the subject matter of their actual experiences and put it into terms that would ~hopefully~ help the
muṇḍaka (the shaven ones) or saṁyāsin or even the adhikārin� get a hint of Reality (vastu-vṛtta-anusāreṇa).
The power of the Sukta-s are the power that we give to them each, individually.
As per the Law of Shruti and as per the ordinances of Apaurusheya, the Purusha Sukta is not greater than any other Sukta. Yet, this Sukta gets put on a pedestal continuously and quite often vigorously. This very Law requires one to acknowledge the other Sukta-s as equally important and of equally divine nature.
The Purusha Sukta is not superior to Sukta-s dedicated to scores of Gods.
While a hierarchy of Gods is scripturally valid, depending on which scripture and theological schools of thought one utilizes...a hierarchy of Sukta-s is unthinkable.
Either way...how do Hindu monotheists come to terms with the following?
“Dear friends, glorify nothing else, so no sorrow troubles you. Praise only mighty Shri Indra.” (R.V.8.1.1)
“O’ Gods [<-- this includes "Purusha"], not one of you is small, none of you is a feeble child: All of you are verily great!” (R.V.8.30.1)
I always get stuttered responses, nothing ever that is cohesive nor reasonably logical.
Bookmarks