Thread by @jayasartn

This is a thread exposing the attempt by Prof M.M.Ninan portraying Jesus as the Purusha of Purusha Suktha.
jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2012/05/can-je…

Usually the Christian writers have an obsession with history. There are two reasons for this. One is that they don't know their own history. +

They rely on Jewish accounts and the Jews also do not know from where they came or where their promised land exists. This is typically an identity crisis and the crisis of ancestry for Christian Thought. The second reason is that they want to inject their Christian identity+

into the local history wherever they go, because by doing that, it becomes easy for them to brainwash the locals and 'harvest' their souls. Ninan's job comes under the second category.

He claims to trace the 'historical development' of Purusha Suktham and concludes that +

the first 5 verses of Purusha Suktham were the legacy of St Thomas, thereby pushing the history of Hinduism to post- Thomasian period, that is, after the 2nd century AD. He writes that the first 5 verses of Purusha Suktham "have a definite Christian theology which came into +

the Indian sub-continent by the first century AD with the advent of St.Thomas the disciple of Jesus. Thomas' first converts were Jewish and Jewish mysticism known as Kaballa is reflected in the Purusha Suktha...+

"One of the titles of Jesus was "Son of Man" or in Indian terminology Narayana or Purushotama (Great Man)." He claims that Vaishnavism was 2nd century CE development and was interpolated into Purusha Suktham that was influenced by Christian theology. +

His claim that Vaishnavism was a post 2nd century AD development is the most absurd one. There are hard historical or archaeological facts to show that Vishnu and worship of Vishnu was in India much before the mythical St Thomas and not after him as claimed by Ninan. +

To substantiate this let me quote just one incident of a non Indian from outside India who embraced Vishnu Bhakthi. A Greek (Yavana) from Takshashila (Taxila) by name Heliodorus, declared himself as a devotee of Vasudeva and inscribed it in a pillar near Sanchi stupa. +

The importance of this inscription is that it was carved in 110 BCE, nearly 200 years before the mythical Thomas from whom Ninan claims that Vedic Thought, puranas and Ithihasas sprang up. This is hot iron poured into the ears of Ninan-like people. +

Coming to the core idea of Purusha, Purusha suktham is presented in a specific sequence, starting from a macro cosmic creation and Purusha's omnipresence in everything and how this manifestation must be sustained by yajnas as root of Dharma so that Glory is attained. +

Yajna does not mean sacrifice or killing but is a process of transformation of one into another which is done in a spirit of give and take so that equilibrium is maintained in Nature.
But Ninan would have us think that Thomas and his 'religion' were killed / sacrificed and +

Hinduism was built frm that sacrifice!!
Writingon V-8 of Purusha Suktham, Ninan says:-
"We know from history that Brahma, Vishnu and Siva and all the host of the modern Hindu gods were the product of post-Christian period in India, after the ministry of Thomas from AD 52 to 72.+

"The very idea and the term of Isa as Iswara came only after that. Thus this statement is simply the statement of how The Isai religion was destroyed (killed – sacrificed) and how the concepts and ideas of Isai were taken out +

and used in the recreation of a new religion by the domination of Brahmins. This brought in the caste system and a host of new gods and the Vedas and the puranas and the ithihasas. This is described in the next verses. This is the origin of Hinduism.+

It emerged as a new religion by sacrificing the central Purusha of the Christian religion as brought in by St. Thomas. When the person of Christ is removed from Christianity what we get is Hinduism." Only a fool or a mentally deranged person can make this claim. +

Leaving aside numerous proofs for Ishwara in Indian texts from pre-Christ era, I'm just asking him simple question. Does he mean to say the "Isatwam" (ஈசத்துவம்) having the term 'Isa"/"Ishwara"-which is one among the 8 siddhis (ashtamaa-siddhis) is a post- Thomasian development+

If he says yes, does he agree that the Isa or Jesus or whomever he has in mind when he said Isa, was not an accomplished one at all – was not a siddha-like person at all – or in other words, that Isa was only an ordinary mortal who could not claim anything extraordinary?+

If he says no, then he has to agree that the concept of Brahman or Purusha or transcendence to the level of Brahman was in existence much before Thomas & Jesus. The ashtamasiddhis are nothing but extraordinary qualities that are comparable to the qualities of the Supreme Purusha+

I think Mr Ninan had to do a much tougher homework to establish his Isa as an extraordinary being. He also tells us that the Trinity of Hinduism was a post-Thomasian development!If so, does he think that the Tamil sangam poem from Paripaadal -1 came up in post Thomasian period?+

This poem calls Thirumaal (Vishnu) as Siva and Brahma. (lines 43 to 46 ஐந்தலை உயரிய அணங்குடை அருந்திறல் மைந்துடை ஒருவனும் மடங்கலும் நீ... பூவனும், நாற்றமும் நீ). The paripaadal poems are said to be the oldest among Sangam poems.There is yet another poem in Paripaadal +

which gives a similar description of the Purusha of the Purusha Suktha to none other than Thirumaal (Vishnu). Where are our Dravida Chrishthuvarhgal? Would they claim that Paripadal was written post St Thomas? +

Purusha Suktha begins with description of Purusha as having 1000 heads,1000 eyes, 1000 legs. Nianan's Christian friends abroad would say quits if they were asked to project Jesus in a form having so many heads, eyes,legs. But Ninan has no problm in 'fixing' these organs to Jesus+

Can Ninan quote a single line from his book to say that Jesus has atleast 4 hands? He would say that it is idolatry and cult worship which Christianity does not believe in. If he does not believe that, he cannot give an aura of a Purusha to Jesus or Isa.+

Ninan knows that such a Purusha is a cosmic figure, but still wants to say that "It is very probable that Jesus identified himself with the primordial or Cosmic Person in saying "... before Abraham was I am" (John 8:58)."+

The absurdity of this claim is that he thinks Purusha is a man. He calls Jesus as Purusha, the first man. But the Purusha of Purusha Suktha is not a man, not even the first or a second or a third man. This Purusha is One and All. He IS, that is all. In him everything happens.+

Everything grows, everything thrives, flourishes. If you know how this happens, you can get whatever you want from Him– is the import of Purusha Suktha.
Ninan sees no rhyme or reason in comparing Jesus with Isavasya Upanishad passage too.
My rebuttal
jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2012/05/can-je…