Talk:Purusha Sukta

message: Can anyone enlighten me as to the meaning of the word "cats" used by Griffith in verse 4?
Please try this meaning I collcted from Monier William's online sanscrit dictionary for the word 'cat'-'to hide oneself' or 'to cause to hide'.The sanscrit pronounciation of the word 'cat' is CHAT.Please note I am also not sure about the exact word 'cats' you mentioned here.
"Thence he strode out to every side over what cats not and what cats."
I searched hi & lo on the Internet, but could not find any suitable explanation.  Here are some other verses with the same enigma:
: 1:65:4 "to his sister floods, he cats the woods as a King eats"
: 1:143:5 "sharpened jaws chews up and cats the trees, and conquers"
: 2:35:7 "swells the Gods' nectar and cats noble viands"
: 6:4:5 "Even he who cats his firm hard food"
: 6:14:1 "That mortal cats before the rest, and finds"
: 6:15:1 "from ancient days the Child cats everlasting food"
: 8:91:11 "That which the white-ant cats away"
Could it be that these were typos or derived from an archaic English font that should be "eats"?  I don't have an original 1896 paper edition available to confirm my theory; maybe someone here does.  If correct, then verse 4 might be referring to plants & animals (i.e., things that don't eat, & things that do eat).--Funhistory 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cats?

message: I think the article should have less quotations and more interpretations by scholars or hindu religious figures, as the Nasadiya Sukta article does.. I'm removing the Griffith's translations. leaflord (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less Quotations 

message: Dear editors, kindly abide by the policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY as required by Wikipedia. The quality of the article is currently poor owing to content that do not agree with either/all of the three policies. I am thus moving all of that material here, so people who may wish to restore such content can do so after going through the above three and following the guidelines there.
These material that do not confirm to the above three policies can be found in this version of the article:
Article Introduction:
Why the purusha suktha was assigned to vishnu is yet to be understand. A rarely used version of the Suktam has an additional 6 verses appended to the end, which is termed the Vaishnava-anuvaka since it has been adopted from the Vishnusukta, a composition of the Rigveda Samhita. The verses of the Uttara-narayana and the Vaishnava-anuvaka do not possess any coherence with the original 16 verses of the Rigveda Samhita, the literary and Vedic tradition has tied them together for reasons not yet known.
Purusha sukta/sookta is the only Rigvedic hymn dedicated to the Purusha, and thus, even though appearing in a late book of the Rigveda, the oldest attestation of the Purusha.
As a creation hymn, the Suktam is monotheistic and pregnant with philosophical speculations. In its archaic mythological setting, the Suktam is in striking contrast to the famous creation account of the Rigveda v.10.129-130.
In fact, the concept of Purusha pre-dates the cult-based ascriptions like Vaishnavite Sri Vishnu or the Shaivite Bhava. The Purusha was conceptualised as the primordial existence, transcending all Gods and even the creator. However, subsequently, in the cult-based Vaishnavite interpretation, the Purusha sukta was taken to identify Vishnu as the Supreme Being and to draw parallel to the Vishwa Rupa of the Lord Vishnu.
Content section:
The parallel to Norse Ymir and Greco-Roman Zeus is often considered to reflect the myth's origin in Proto-Indo-European religion.
Context section:
Further, the Suktam is composed in the archaic, old early Vedic Sanskrit language as opposed to Classical Sanskrit, currently used and understood. This language barrier renders the Purusha Suktam extremely difficult to literal interpretation and symbolic clarification.  
--Gandharva95 (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving original research, unsourced materials, and biased claims here. 

message: The following translation of the Purusha Suktam is from http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-2.html:
Verse 6
yatpurushena havishA | devA yajnam atanvata |
vasanto asyAsI-dAjyam | grIshma idhma Saraddhavi: || 6 ||
(yat) That (yajna) rite that (devA:) the gods (atanvata)
performed, (purushena) with the Purusha himself as
(havishA) havis, the fire offering, (vasanta) the Spring
(AsIt) became (Ajyam) its ghee. (grIshma) The summer
became its (idhma) samit-wood firebrand, (Sarad) Autumn
became (havi:) its burn offering.
What sort of yajna is this sRshTi yajna? Nothing exists but Brahma-purusha, who envelops all. Logically, none of the ritual paraphernalia, the materiel, exist. It does not make consistent sense, to me, to look at this as an actual rite of "sacrifice, where the gods sacrificed a giant to create the world", as this has sometimes been decribed. This was in a comparative work that compared the Purusha Suktam to the Norse tale of how the Aesir made the world from the body of Ymir, the frost-giant.
Consider however the traditional view of this as a mAnasa yajna, a meditative sacrifice, of and in the heart, the first gedankeneksperiment, if you will!
The sRshTi yajna was Purusha's alone. He was havirbhokta, he who enjoys/eats the havis -- burnt offerings to the fire. His senses were the devas, the gods, who were the ritvik-priests of this sacrifice. Nothing but himself existed to sacrifice. And so he sacrificed himself (purusheNa havisha) as the offering into the creative fires of his heart. A sacrifice of his self to himself, for what or who existed but he? So the devas bound Brahma as the beast of sacrifice, and made ready for the rite.  
In other words, this hymn is NOT describing an actual sacrifice.  It's describing a meditative sacrifice in the mind of Purusha. Hokie Tech (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT An Actual Sacrifice