Chandogya Up

[Guest guest]

http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Jan/msg00017.html

: regarding the following verse from Chandogya

upanishad

"itihasa-puranah pancamah vedanam vedah"

 

I came across a refutation in the above link that this

verse doesn't mean "itihasa purana is the fifth veda",

in a discussion involving some ISKCON members as well.

 

The link says " The exact words do not mean that the

Itihasa-Purana is the fifth Veda. The words

"itihasa-purana pancamah vedanam vedah" are

interpreted by *ALL* acharyas (including the

Vaishnava teachers) as two different things,

itihasa-puranah pancamah (itihasa-purana as the

fifth), and vedanam vedah (the Veda of the Vedas i.e.

grammar). All acharyas, including the Vaishnava ones,

are also agreed in saying that the Purana referred to

here is in the singular, and does not mean the whole

body of Puranas known in their times. If you want to

connect the words pancamah and vedanam vedah

to mean the 5th veda, that is not supported by any

Indian traditional commentary. Of course, you could

claim it is all crystal clear to you, and

you don't need any commentaries!"

 

 

Well, I personally endorse itihasa-puranas more than

the shruti, so really it doesn't matter to me. But,

then I see many websites related to ISKCON claiming

that this verse supports the greatness of Itihasa

purana. What is the exact translation? If the above

claim by vidyasankar is correct, then shouldn't this

verse be stopped being quoted as support for puranas.

There are of course other verses to support the

greatness of itihasa-puranah in the shruti, but the

real fact is that the faith in these should come out

of tradition and implicitly, and not because there are

verses to support them in shruti.

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your life partner online

Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony

[Guest guest]

This is a very old discussion you are quoting. I was involved in it,

along with Vijay Sadananda Pai. I don't remember if we responded to

this point, but I will make some comments here.

 

> The link says " The exact words do not mean that the

> Itihasa-Purana is the fifth Veda. The words

> "itihasa-purana pancamah vedanam vedah" are

> interpreted by *ALL* acharyas (including the

> Vaishnava teachers)

 

Keep in mind that the person saying this is an Advaitin. He may or

may not be right, but I'm not sure how he would know that "all

acharyas" interpret it the way he does.

 

as two different things,

> itihasa-puranah pancamah (itihasa-purana as the

> fifth), and vedanam vedah (the Veda of the Vedas i.e.

> grammar).

 

Note that this still does not change the essential meaning - that the

Itihaasa and the Puraanas are the fifth. Fifth what? They are clearly

the fifth Veda. Read the entire mantra. Naarada is saying that he

studied the Rig as the first, Yajur as second, etc. So Itihaasas and

Puraanas are the fifth of that number, or in other words, Vedas.

 

All acharyas, including the Vaishnava ones,

> are also agreed in saying that the Purana referred to

> here is in the singular, and does not mean the whole

> body of Puranas known in their times.

 

Puraana is in the singular, but that does not mean that it does not

refer to entire body of Puraanas known today. Formerly all the

Puraanas were part of the primeval Yajur Veda. This was divided into

the four Vedas, and what was left of that was divided into the

Puraanas.

 

itihaasa-puraaNaanaa.m vaktaara.m samyag eva hi |

maa.m chaiva pratijagraaha bhagavaan iishvaraH prabhuH ||

eka aasiid yajur-vedas ta.m chaturdhaa vyakalpayat |

caaturhotram abhuut tasmi.ms tena yaj~nam akalpayat ||

aadhvaryava.m yajurbhis tu R^igbhir hotra.m tathaiva cha |

audgaatra.m saamabhish chaiva brahmatva.m chaapy atharvabhiH ||

aakhyaanaish chaapy upaakhyaanair gaathaabhir dvija-sattamaaH |

puraaNa-sa.mhitaash chakre puraaNaartha-vishaaradaH ||

yach chiShTa.m tu yajur-veda iti shaastraartha-nirNayaH | Vay P 60.16-

18, 21-22 |

 

Shriila Vyaasadeva, the almighty Supreme Lord, accepted me [suuta

Gosvaamii] as the qualified speaker of the Itihaasas and Puraanas. In

the beginning there was only one Veda, the Yajur Veda, which Shriila

Vyaasa divided into four parts. These gave rise to the four

activities called chaatur-hotra, by means of which Shriila Vyaasa

arranged for the performance of sacrifice. The adhvaryu priests carry

out their responsibilities with yajur-mantras, the hotaa priests with

R^ig-mantras, the udgaataa priests with saama-mantras, and the

brahmaa priests with atharva-mantras. O best of the twice-born,

thereafter Shriila Vyaasa, who best knows the meaning of the

Puraanas, compiled them and the Itihaasas by combining various

aakhyaanas, upaakhyaanas, and gaathaas. Whatever remained after

Vyaasa divided the Vedas into four parts was also Yajur Veda. This is

the conclusion of the scriptures (vaayu puraaNa 60.16-18, 21-22).

 

So, there is an entity that can be referred to as Puraaana (singular)

that nevertheless refers to all the Puraanas.

 

If you want to

> connect the words pancamah and vedanam vedah

> to mean the 5th veda, that is not supported by any

> Indian traditional commentary. Of course, you could

> claim it is all crystal clear to you, and

> you don't need any commentaries!"

 

vedaanam vedaH simply means "Veda of the Vedas." There is nothing

about this that obviously indicates "grammar." On the other hand,

vedaH is in the same case as panchamaH and so it is perfectly

reasonable that they can agree.

 

> Well, I personally endorse itihasa-puranas more than

> the shruti, so really it doesn't matter to me. But,

> then I see many websites related to ISKCON claiming

> that this verse supports the greatness of Itihasa

> purana. What is the exact translation? If the above

> claim by vidyasankar is correct, then shouldn't this

> verse be stopped being quoted as support for puranas.

> There are of course other verses to support the

> greatness of itihasa-puranah in the shruti, but the

> real fact is that the faith in these should come out

> of tradition and implicitly, and not because there are

> verses to support them in shruti.

 

I don't know what other aachaaryas say, but Vidyasankar's presumption

that his interpretation is obvious (i.e. vedAnam vedaH meaning

grammar and vedaH having nothing to do with panchamaH) is illogical.

What does panchamaH describe, then? Even if you say it describes

itihaasa-puraaNaH, then the question is, fifth of what? Look at

context, sir. It is the Vedas being described, and the Puraana and

Itihaasa are the fifth of their number. And yes, the Puraana-Itihaasa

was then subdivided into the Mahaabhaarata and the 18 major Puraanas.

 

Our interpretation is straightforward. Note that I am not criticizing

any other interpretation - only defending ours against Vidyasankar's

criticisms.