Vedic culture?

[Guest guest]

>I think if everyone was adopting vedic culture and it was working for

>everyone, I wouldn't have brought this up. I only brought this up because

>this is not happening, not because I think western culture is better. Of

>course, I would like to add that perhaps everything we think is vedic, is

>not. It may be a neo vedic something or other that we just think is vedic.

 

What is "vedic"? Is everything and everyone we find in India today "vedic"?

Doesn't "vedic" become, many times, a metaphor, a wish, a status symbol, a

weapon to shut down heretics, and so forth?

 

In an etymologic sense, "vedic" is whatever is related to (spiritual)

knowledge, not affected by time or space -- in a fully real sense, not mere

wishful thinking. Thus a *culture* would not be "vedic" etymologically,

since by definition a culture is affected by time and space and by the

people living it.

In another, language-and-literature, sense "vedic" is everything and

everyone related to the four Vedas and the Upanisads. Everything else --

including the writers, practitioners, readership of, ideas in the MBh, the

Bhag., the works of the Gosvamis, etc. -- is not "vedic" but "post-vedic".

In other words, "vedic" = sruti, "post-vedic" = smrti.

 

Several Sanskrit scholars have written about this funny thing: Indians love

to claim that everything Indian is "vedic" but they actually do not know

much about (what to speak of practicing) the four Vedas. Of course there is

a reason for that (not perceived by the scholars): the four Vedas are meant

for other yugas. There is, however, continuity from one yuga to the next,

but there is also a lot of change in the people and their psychology and

biology, the natural conditions, etc. from one yuga to the next --

bhedabheda, unity in diversity.

 

Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee who appeared in this world at a certain

point in time and space. Consequently, he was born and raised in a body, a

family, and a culture: the Vaisnava and Hindu culture of Bengal and India.

Being Krsna's representative, Prabhupada's life and teachings are a

manifestation of (etymologically) "vedic" spiritual knowledge and eternal

spiritual reality.

But that's not all. Prabhupada is not disembodied. He grew up to be a

Bengali and Indian, Vaisnava and Hindu gentleman.

(In another forum, as I recall, Hridayananda Maharaja once stated that one

may distinguish between Prabhupada's "spiritual teachings" and his

"cultural recollections".)

 

Here are a couple of examples that come to mind of Prabhupada's following

his particular culture (whose exponents are traditionally taught to label

themselves as "vedic" because they are "post-vedic" or "neo-vedic").

 

The "sruti-vedic" (of the Rg Veda) world-view, life-style, gods and humans

are all fairly fluid. Thus the four varnas -- as discrete, mutually

exclusive, precisely defined categories -- are mentioned in the RV as

coming out of the body of Visnu/Narayana. In the body, of course, the

head/mouth, arms, abdomen/thighs, feet are distinct parts. Nevertheless, in

the RV the (godly or human) incumbents of those precisely defined varnas

keep moving from one varna to the other, keep playing different roles, keep

changing their modes of operation.

In contrast to this "sruti-vedic" fluid situation, in the "post-vedic"

smrti Indian culture the varnas are castes (whether hereditary or not) in

the sense that one individual is supposed to belong in one and only one

varna. And, as I said, people in India, including Prabhupada, are used to

label this rigid, schematic varna system as "vedic" (because it is

"post-vedic").

In short, "sruti-vedic" culture would appear more fluid whereas

"post-vedic" smrti culture would appear more rigid.

 

In the "sruti-vedic" texts there are (at least) two heavens: antariksa (the

sky we see from the earth) and a higher sky/heaven. God on one of them have

their counterparts on the other: thus Surya and Savitar, Soma Pavamana and

Candramas, etc. In the smrti "post-vedic" texts, including the Bhag, these

two skies/heavens have been collapsed into one. Thus Prabhupada described

the moon as Soma Pavamana's planet (in the higher sky, Soma Pav. being the

husband of the naksatras, the constellations in the Milky Way) but pointed

at Candra, our moon in the sky we see. In other words, he collapsed both

skies into the lower one and called this "vedic" because it is in the Bhag.

i.e. it's "post-vedic".

In short, "sruti-vedic" culture would appear more multi-dimensional, more

multi-layered whereas "post-vedic" smrti culture would appear more flat.

 

Those are some ideas (working hypotheses).

your servant,

Kunti-Devi dasi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/28/99 5:10:38 PM Central Standard Time,

Kunti.HDG (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

<< But that's not all. Prabhupada is not disembodied. He grew up to be a

Bengali and Indian, Vaisnava and Hindu gentleman.

(In another forum, as I recall, Hridayananda Maharaja once stated that one

may distinguish between Prabhupada's "spiritual teachings" and his

"cultural recollections".)

>>

HDG says "may." I think it is important to distinguish the two. If not, we

can misunderstand some of what Prabhupada was teaching.

 

Ys, Mahatma dasa