Guest guest Posted November 26, 2002 Report Share Posted November 26, 2002 Sridevyai namah! Kalpasutras form the pillar of Srividya Varivasya Vidhana. It is interesting to note some details about these popular Sutras. Rudrayamala Tantra, reputed to be older than Yajurveda, clearly mentions in the Srividya Khanda, eighty-ninth Shloka that it is the same information that Bhagavan Dattatreya passed on to Parashurama. It is well-known that Bhagavan Dattatreya composed the Dattatreya Samhita, with eighteen thousand verses. This great work, unfortunately, is available only in parts now. Parashurama abridged this work, reducing it to six thousand verses. Sumedha, a disciple of Parashurama further condensed the work to the present version of the Kalpasutras. He included the important points that he thought were universally relevant. Rudrayamala says, "Narayana (i.e. Parashurama), out of compassion for those who were unable to practice Mahayaga directly, gave out the method of Bahya Varivasya, which would gradually lead them to the path of Jnana". Also, there are many things about the Sutras frequently debated. For example, the authority for the usage of 'Chaturtari' etc. But, it is to be noted that the sutras themselves ask us to refer to other scriptures for details. Srividya is bahushastramayi vidya like the vedas. Also, the present version of the Sutras is a compilation by Sumedha and he included what he felt was necessary for the evolution of a Sadhaka. The Vamakeshwara Tantra describes the Sutras as 'Guna sahasra', indicating that the actual version of the Sutras consists of six thousand verses. Also, the similarity between Rudrayamala and the available parts of Datta samhita are amazing. So, it would be funny not to accept Rudrayamala as an authority w.r.t Srividya. Also, if one examines the commentary on Sumedha's sutras by Yajnanarayana Dikshita or Amritananda natha (which are much more detailed than Ramehswara's vritti), many more things are revealed. Krishnam vande jagadgurum! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2002 Report Share Posted November 27, 2002 , "harshanand_16" <harshanand_16> wrote: > Sridevyai namah! > > Kalpasutras form the pillar of Srividya Varivasya Vidhana. It > is interesting to note some details about these > > popular Sutras. Rudrayamala Tantra, reputed to be older than > Yajurveda, clearly mentions in the Srividya Khanda, The "claim" it is older than yajur veda is not acceptable because veda-s are apourushheya and not created by humans or deva-s. It is integral to the structure of creation. And it does not matter even if a work is composed by shiva or vishhNu, it is not same as veda-s. Vedic mantra-s may be seen (hence sages are called seers, Tamil paarppAn) by R^ishhi-s are different points in time. That does not mean it was created or composed then. For instance, gravity existed even before Newton* named it such and such, and general theory of relativity explained why it is. One can not say that gravity was invented only few centuries ago. It was always there once the the creation came into being. They say that there will no seers of vedic mantra-s in kali yuga. Just for argument sake, if a R^ishhi X becomes a mantra drashta and sees/discovers a vedic mantra tomorrow. That will not make it any new or old. Once you accept it as a vedic mantra, then it enjoys the same status of other vedic mantra-s. -- * shankara refers to gravity as earth's apaana shakti in one of the upanishhad bhaashhya-s. As apaana tends to pull down. Whatever that is thrown up is hence pulled down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2002 Report Share Posted November 28, 2002 Pranams to everyone! Well my post is totally misunderstood! I am not debating the sanctity of the Vedas. Being a idealist of Samaya principle, i would never imagine doing that. However i am thrilled by the intensity with which our friend has championed the cause of the Vedas. I assure you i mean no offence to Vedas!!! The clain i spoke about was what my guru Sri Chidanandanatha mentioned! I believe it and would not want to debate it. These are my personal views. I would not try to impress or impose these on anyone. Actually, what i was trying to indicate is the equal status of the Rudrayamala tantra with the Sutras and nothing at all! Well! Tantras are by no means inferior to Vedas (again this is my view!) hare krishna , "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii> wrote: > , "harshanand_16" <harshanand_16> wrote: > > Sridevyai namah! > > > > Kalpasutras form the pillar of Srividya Varivasya Vidhana. It > > is interesting to note some details about these > > > > popular Sutras. Rudrayamala Tantra, reputed to be older than > > Yajurveda, clearly mentions in the Srividya Khanda, > > The "claim" it is older than yajur veda is not acceptable because > veda-s are apourushheya and not created by humans or deva-s. It is > integral to the structure of creation. And it does not matter even > if a work is composed by shiva or vishhNu, it is not same as veda- s. > > Vedic mantra-s may be seen (hence sages are called seers, Tamil > paarppAn) by R^ishhi-s are different points in time. That does not > mean it was created or composed then. For instance, gravity existed > even before Newton* named it such and such, and general theory of > relativity explained why it is. One can not say that gravity was > invented only few centuries ago. It was always there once the the > creation came into being. > > They say that there will no seers of vedic mantra-s in kali yuga. > Just for argument sake, if a R^ishhi X becomes a mantra drashta and > sees/discovers a vedic mantra tomorrow. That will not make it any new > or old. Once you accept it as a vedic mantra, then it enjoys the same > status of other vedic mantra-s. > > > -- > * shankara refers to gravity as earth's apaana shakti in one of the > upanishhad bhaashhya-s. As apaana tends to pull down. Whatever that > is thrown up is hence pulled down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2002 Report Share Posted November 28, 2002 Even though we consider that the tantras are works of personified deities like shiva or vishnu, one has to carefully note that they represent Parabrahman here and not a tutelary or a deity of limited scope. Shankarachraya's Prapanchasara is called a Tantra and also granted the status of the Vedas because here Shankara was a Vedic seer to the vedas. So, how could the tantras be inferior to Vedas at all? harsha , "harshanand_16" <harshanand_16> wrote: > Pranams to everyone! > > Well my post is totally misunderstood! I am not debating the sanctity > of the Vedas. Being a idealist of Samaya principle, i would never > imagine doing that. However i am thrilled by the intensity with which > our friend has championed the cause of the Vedas. I assure you i mean > no offence to Vedas!!! The clain i spoke about was what my guru Sri > Chidanandanatha mentioned! I believe it and would not want to debate > it. These are my personal views. I would not try to impress or impose > these on anyone. Actually, what i was trying to indicate is the equal > status of the Rudrayamala tantra with the Sutras and nothing at all! > Well! Tantras are by no means inferior to Vedas (again this is my > view!) > > hare krishna > > > > , "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii> > wrote: > > , "harshanand_16" <harshanand_16> wrote: > > > Sridevyai namah! > > > > > > Kalpasutras form the pillar of Srividya Varivasya Vidhana. It > > > is interesting to note some details about these > > > > > > popular Sutras. Rudrayamala Tantra, reputed to be older than > > > Yajurveda, clearly mentions in the Srividya Khanda, > > > > The "claim" it is older than yajur veda is not acceptable because > > veda-s are apourushheya and not created by humans or deva-s. It is > > integral to the structure of creation. And it does not matter even > > if a work is composed by shiva or vishhNu, it is not same as veda- > s. > > > > Vedic mantra-s may be seen (hence sages are called seers, Tamil > > paarppAn) by R^ishhi-s are different points in time. That does not > > mean it was created or composed then. For instance, gravity > existed > > even before Newton* named it such and such, and general theory of > > relativity explained why it is. One can not say that gravity was > > invented only few centuries ago. It was always there once the the > > creation came into being. > > > > They say that there will no seers of vedic mantra-s in kali yuga. > > Just for argument sake, if a R^ishhi X becomes a mantra drashta and > > sees/discovers a vedic mantra tomorrow. That will not make it any > new > > or old. Once you accept it as a vedic mantra, then it enjoys the > same > > status of other vedic mantra-s. > > > > > > -- > > * shankara refers to gravity as earth's apaana shakti in one of the > > upanishhad bhaashhya-s. As apaana tends to pull down. Whatever that > > is thrown up is hence pulled down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2002 Report Share Posted November 28, 2002 , "harshanand_16" <harshanand_16> wrote: > Even though we consider that the tantras are works of personified > deities like shiva or vishnu, one has to carefully note that they > represent Parabrahman here and not a tutelary or a deity of limited > scope. Shankarachraya's Prapanchasara is called a Tantra and also > granted the status of the Vedas because here Shankara was a Vedic > seer to the vedas. So, how could the tantras be inferior to Vedas at > all? > namaste harsha: 1) A text is inferior or superior should not be determined based on the time of its creation. I did not say tantra-s are inferior to veda-s. My eyes and nose have different functions, I would not compare them. 2) All I did was, object the claim that the text is older than yajur veda. I presented the relevant arguments in my previous e- mail. It does not matter who makes the claim -- as long as you accept veda-s are apourushheya that claim is not correct. If you do not accept, then it is a different ball game. 3) Assigning "vedic" status to a non-vedic text is matter of opinion and there is nothing factual about it. Different traditions assign vedic status to some of the works of importance to them. 4) AFAIK, there is no vedic mantra to which Acharya shankara is R^ishhi. If I am wrong, please point me to relevant vedic mantra-s. Thanks. Ravi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.