Guest guest Posted November 30, 2002 Report Share Posted November 30, 2002 Hariom, An extremely pertinent question and Ravi is absolutely right. Shankaracharya, while no doubt a great sage, was never a vedic sage. Prapanchasara remains a tantric work, whatever might be the efforts of peple to link it up with the vedas. Going a step further, Bhaskara Raya Makhin's Varivasya Rahasya, which is an authoritative text, attributes the srividya mantra to have come from Chatvaari vaak parimita padaani, of Rig veda. However, the corresponding Sayana Bhashya or Madhva Bhashya, does not even hint at Srividya, let alone speak of it. While, Tantra is accepted amongst people. It is better left as a work on its own, than linking up vedic mantras. One more concept of vaidika maarga is that the vedas are anaadhi. Therefore, arguments about Rig vedic period and how yajur veda was a later text etc., is really baseless. The fundamentals of sanatana dhaarma lies upon the fact that the vedas are neither created nor destroyed, but ever present truth. GP --- "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii wrote: > , "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 > > > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. 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.