Any write-up by a Christian, that too a converted Christian of Indian origin, on Hindu texts of yore, can at best be ignored as rubbish. This is what I wish to tell readers who are agitated over the absurd interpretation of Purusha Suktham by one Mr Ninan. The link to that article was sent to me on twitter. It is best to ignore such articles. To quote the reaction of Dr Koti Sreekrishna, who has authored a commentary on Purusha Suktha, such articles demonstrate the inferiority complex of the Christians at the monumental stature of Hindu Thought. I have reproduced here the reaction from Dr Koti Sreekrishna.
Dear Professor Ninan,
I happened to glance through your PS booklet as someone sent me the link. I paid more attention to original verses and translation.
In verse 5, you have correctly written " adhi-puruShah" but translated as First man.
Please note "adhipuruSha" is not "aadipuruSha" ; adhi means from within; aadi means first or beginning.
Variations came forth from puruSHa. Thus, from within He assumed multiple
forms. He grew immensely fathoming the entire cosmos (brahmANDa).
Looks like you plagerized my work for verse 7 explanation of 7 and 21, without acknowledging.
You don't give any reference. That is amazing. In doing so, you look like aadipuruSha!
Anyway I have attached my booklet I published in 2006 as e-book.
Other stuff in your book is simply not that good. I am not opposed to that approach as such but yours is no good to be frank. It is of very low quality. I have enjoyed the scholarship of Joseph Campbell (of Power of Myth fame) in comparing Mythologies of Christianity with other Myths. Actually I have a reference section in my book (that itself may look uncommon by your standard!) and quoted him.
But if you need that gobble for your redemption as Christian, fine; even if it reads very funny and exposes your inferiority complex.
Koti Sreekrishna, PhD.
PS: My e-book on Purusha Suktham
Let the Prof. also see the wealth of collection at the e-series of in the above link.
Mr Ninan has harped on the St Thomas myth and said that the first 5 verses of Purusha Suktham were taken from the teachings of Thomas!!. The other ones were later additions, that is, post 2nd century AD development! This is the level of his knowledge of history, while he loses no chance to say that he is analysing the Suktham from a historic perspective. He has left off these verses as post Thomasian and as not original, obviously because he cannot interpret the Suktham from a Christian point of view.
Seeing people him, I feel like cautioning that it is a sin to dabble with texts with one's own interpretation. In a popular Tamil book called Prabhulinga leelai, a king by name Kausikan would swear on 42 sins to make a single pledge, saying that he would get all those 42 sins if he violates the pledge. One among the sins was what a writer would get by writing an interpretation or a meaning not found in the original text. "புலந்தரு நூலின் இல்லாப் பொருளினைக் கூறு வானும்".
It seems there are quite many converts like Ninan willing to test this..