Origin of vedas

[Guest guest]

Namaste, It is said Vedas are not humanly authorized - they are said

to be divinely revealed. Is this stated in the Vedas itself or Smriti

or Puranas ? Just wondering on what basis it is said they are divine.

 

regards,

Om Namah Sivaya

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> Namaste, It is said Vedas are not humanly authorized - they are

said

> to be divinely revealed. Is this stated in the Vedas itself or

Smriti

> or Puranas ? Just wondering on what basis it is said they are

divine.

>

>

 

Well, this point about the Vedas is one of the distinguishing

features of Hinduism. And it is difficult to believe it by a modern

mind.

 

First, the source of the `apaurushheya' idea. `apaurushheya'

means `not caused by any effort which requires human or divine

power'. It was not authored by anybody; it was not written by any

one; it was not composed by any mind; it did not originate from any

source; it is `anAdi'. All these are only statements which

everyone would have heard from anybody who chooses to speak for

Hinduism. And certainly the Puranas are full of similar statements.

 

Brihadaranyakopanishad II – 4 – 10 says …*asya mahato bhUtasya

nishvasitametat …* This was the exhaled breath of the Great Lord.

The Vedas are the breath of the Lord. They are as old as He. He did

not create them. There was no time when the Lord did not exist. So

also of the Vedas.

 

[it is difficult to believe; is'nt it? Please read the `shraddhA'

portion of the Mahaswamigal's discourses on advaita sAdhanA] - VK

 

 

The Vedas existed even before BrahmA the Creator. *tene brahma

hRdAya Adi kavaye ..* says the Bhagavatam in its very first shloka.

BrahmA (*Adi kavaye) had it (*brahma* , the Vedas) as a flash from

the God Absolute.

 

BrahmA himself did the creation with the help of the Vedas, say the

Puranas.

 

In Gita XV – 15 the Lord says "vedAntakRt-vedavid-eva cAhaM" meaning

I am indeed the author of Vedanta and I am the knower of the

Vedas. Note that he does not say, "I am the author of the Vedas"

which would have been the translation if he had said *veda-kRt*. He

only says *vedAnta-kRt*.

 

In Rig Veda each of the mantras has a Rishi ascribed to it as

*mantra-drashhTA*. Such a Rishi is only the `seer' of the mantra.

In other words he discovered it, just as Newton `discovered' the

already existing gravity.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

 

>

> In Rig Veda each of the mantras has a Rishi ascribed to it as

> *mantra-drashhTA*. Such a Rishi is only the `seer' of the mantra.

> In other words he discovered it, just as Newton `discovered' the

> already existing gravity.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

>

Namaste,All,

 

Yes if one is going to give some validity to this illusion, whilst one

is in it as Sankara says, then there must also be illusory components,

minds. Ramana says that Heirarchies, are as real as oneself. If you

believe in Devas then for you there are Devas.

 

Brahma is a Deva or an aspect.

The Vedas are not words, ultimately, but sounds, vibrations, and they

relate to the Universal Mind just as maths and music do. So they pre-

exist all manifestation below the Universal Mind...........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

> Brihadaranyakopanishad II – 4 – 10 says …*asya mahato bhUtasya

> nishvasitametat …* This was the exhaled breath of the Great Lord.

> The Vedas are the breath of the Lord. They are as old as He. He did

> not create them. There was no time when the Lord did not exist. So

> also of the Vedas.

 

 

The upanishad also applies this to purANa, itihAsa, sUtras, vidya,

anuvyakhyanas, vyakhyanas etc. It calls these things as the breath of

brahman too. However nobody considers the purANa and others as

unauthored. They are not even considered eternal AFAIK. Therefore I

dont think that the upanishad supports veda-apaurusheyatva here.

 

 

> In Gita XV – 15 the Lord says "vedAntakRt-vedavid-eva cAhaM" meaning

> I am indeed the author of Vedanta and I am the knower of the

> Vedas. Note that he does not say, "I am the author of the Vedas"

> which would have been the translation if he had said *veda-kRt*. He

> only says *vedAnta-kRt*.

 

 

vedAnta also includes jnAna-kANDa of the vedas. More specifically,

most portions of the upanishads come under vedAnta. Does the above

statement of Krishna mean that Ishwara is the author of some portion

of shruti?

 

It is also interesting to note that nyAya-vaiSeshika considers Ishwara

to be the author of the vedas.

[Guest guest]

On 21/07/06, mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote:

>

> Namaste, It is said Vedas are not humanly authorized - they are said

> to be divinely revealed. Is this stated in the Vedas itself or Smriti

> or Puranas ? Just wondering on what basis it is said they are divine.

>

> regards,

> Om Namah Sivaya

>

 

To my knowledge, the vEda-s themselves dont say anything on this

matter. If we look at the issue from a historical-critical point of

view, one can discern that the vEda-s were already very old by the

time the philosophical schools developed, so people were always trying

to answer questions regarding their origin, purpose, etc, and came up

with different views.

 

Anyway, it was generally accepted that the Veda-s were "apauruSheya",

which can be translated as "not of human origin", though the word

"puruSha" does not necessarily mean "human" only. However, different

darSana-s interpret this quite differently.

 

The nyAya-vaiSeShika schools consider the vEda-s to be authored by God.

 

The sAMkhya-yOga schools consider them to be the records of the

experiences of great yOgI-s of the past. The theistic yOga school,

represented by patanjali's yOga sUtra-s, considers ISvara to be its

first guru though this does not necessarily mean that ISvara wrote the

vEda-s.

 

However it was the pUrva-mImAMsa school that really developed the

concept of apauruSheyatva, as its primary objective was to interpret

the vEda-s. In the mImAMsa scheme, apauruSheya means "unauthored", not

authored even by God. In fact, mImAMsa rejects the idea of a creator

God. Instead, the vEda-s are regarded as being woven into the fabric

of the universe, and discovered periodically by the R^iShi-s.

 

advaita-vEdAnta broadly accepts the mImAMsa position on the vEda-s.

However, the idea that ISvara or saguNa brahman is a guru is also

acceptable to the advaitins. In any case, ISvara and the vEda-s,

however exalted they may be, are also an element of vyavahArika satya

only.

 

The concept of apauruSheyatva may also be interpreted as a call to

focus on the message of the vEda-s, instead of speculating on the

qualities of the R^iShi-s whose names are associated with the various

mantra-s.

 

Another way of looking at it is to compare the vEdic mantra-s to

physical laws. Just as Newton's laws of motion were only discovered by

Newton, so also the vEdic mantra-s are like laws that were discovered

by R^iShi-s whose names are associated with them.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy"

<rkmurthy wrote:

>>

> To my knowledge, the vEda-s themselves dont say anything on this

> matter. If we look at the issue from a historical-critical point of

> view, one can discern that the vEda-s were already very old by the

> time the philosophical schools developed, so people were always

trying

> to answer questions regarding their origin, purpose, etc, and came

up

> with different views.

>

> Anyway, it was generally accepted that the Veda-s

were "apauruSheya",

> which can be translated as "not of human origin", though the word

> "puruSha" does not necessarily mean "human" only. However,

different

> darSana-s interpret this quite differently.

 

 

Namaste,

 

It would be beneficial to learn what Sri Chandrashekara Bharati

Swamiji has said in the Commentary to the second verse of the

Vivekachudamani. Herein, commenting on the word 'vaidika-dharma-

mArga-paratA' occurring in the verse, He says:

 

Dharma is what is known only from the Vedas. Veda is the sole

pramana in determining what is Dharma, for it(dharma) is atIndriya,

supersensuos. AnumAna too does not help in this as anumaana depends

upon pratyaksha. For the same reason, even shabda other than the

Veda cannot be a pramana, for loukika shabda can operate only in the

field of pratyaksha, etc. Even the smritis, being of human

conception, being open to human failings like delusion, error, etc.,

when a doubt about their veracity arises due to the faults of their

authors, a pramana that is absolutely free from any defects has to

be prescribed as even non-vedic shabda is incapable of teaching

about dharma. Further, how did even the authors of the Smritis

perceive the supersensous dharma? If it is said 'it is due to a

capability born of yoga', how was that capability acquired by them?

If it is replied: by practicing Dharma, then the question is: How

was that Dharma known to them? That is why, by the mantra: 'Yo

BrahmANam vidadhAti pUrvam...', the Sruti teaches that even the

first-created Hiranyagarbha's dharmajnaanam is due to the veda

blessed by Isvara to him. What to talk about the others!! Therefore

it has been rightly said (in the verse of the Vivekachudamani) -

vaidika...etc.

(unquote)

 

Further, the historian view is not acceptable to Vedanta. We have

proof in the Gita III chapter that 'coeval to the creation of

humans, the vedic means to their welfare was also given to them'.

So, the question of higher seeking giving birth to the vedanta is

incorrect. We see this from the introduction of Shankara to the

Gita bhashya. Again, in Vedanta, as said in the Gita, Urdhvam

gacchanti... that manushyas, humans, are those with a mixture of

punya and paapa. For punya aacharanam they should have known what

is right. This knowledge comes from the Veda-based dharma. For

people to go to heaven, dharma should have been practiced

consciously. This is also taught by the veda only. So one cannot,

in the Vedantic scheme, conceive of a time when people were there

but veda was not there.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Brihadaranyakopanishad II ? 4 ? 10 says ?*asya mahato bhUtasya

nishvasitametat ?* This was the exhaled breath of the Great Lord.

The Vedas are the breath of the Lord. They are as old as He. He did

not create them. There was no time when the Lord did not exist. So

also of the Vedas.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I have a small doubt here...in bruhadAraNyaka we have list of R^shis who

have realised the ultimate (brahma jnAni-s in R^shi paraMpara)...whether

shruti predicted future brahma jnAni's & mentioned those names or this

upanishad *written* after these R^shis realisation?? Considering the

traditional belief that vEda-s are apaurushEya, we have to say it is

former. But if that is the case, how can shruti excluded the names of

shankara bhagavadpAda, ramaNa etc. etc. who we consider with utmost faith

as brahma jnAni-s?? just a curious academic question..nothing to disturb

our firm conviction in shruti-s apaurushEyatva...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!!

bhaskar

 

PS : I am posing this question to Advaita-L also, just to get the opnions

of scholars there...

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

 

praNAm.

 

 

> I have a small doubt here...in bruhadAraNyaka we have list of

R^shis who

> have realised the ultimate (brahma jnAni-s in R^shi

paraMpara)...whether

> shruti predicted future brahma jnAni's & mentioned those names or

this

> upanishad *written* after these R^shis realisation?? Considering

the

> traditional belief that vEda-s are apaurushEya, we have to say it

is

> former. But if that is the case, how can shruti excluded the

names of

> shankara bhagavadpAda, ramaNa etc. etc. who we consider with

utmost faith

> as brahma jnAni-s?? just a curious academic question..nothing to

disturb

> our firm conviction in shruti-s apaurushEyatva...

>

 

A bit similar objection was anticipated by aachArya Shankara from a

pUrva paxin; if devatAs and the world is said to be created, it is

impossible to have an eternal Veda refers to these deities. He deals

with under sUtra: 1.3.28 "shabdetichennAtaH

prabhavAtpratyakshAnumAnAbhyAm.h" and the next sUtra: "ata eva cha

nityatvaM ".

 

All schools holds that various names of dEvatas and R^shis are names

of their post (desgination) only. It is just like constitution of

the country mentioning names of posts such as "Prime-

minister" , "President", "Vice-President" , members of legislatives

branch etc etc. The actual persons holding such posts are different

for different cycles. So also, every dEvatA and R^shi tatva is a

post and each jIva holding such position are different in each kalpa

of creation.

 

Regarding your other question, why names of Shankara and RamaNa are

not mentioned, I would not comment as that is out of scope in this

list.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

Srinivas Kotekal

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> Brihadaranyakopanishad II ? 4 ? 10 says ?*asya mahato bhUtasya

> nishvasitametat ?* This was the exhaled breath of the Great Lord.

> The Vedas are the breath of the Lord. They are as old as He. He did

> not create them. There was no time when the Lord did not exist. So

> also of the Vedas.

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> I have a small doubt here...in bruhadAraNyaka we have list of R^shis who

> have realised the ultimate (brahma jnAni-s in R^shi paraMpara)...whether

> shruti predicted future brahma jnAni's & mentioned those names or this

> upanishad *written* after these R^shis realisation?? Considering the

> traditional belief that vEda-s are apaurushEya, we have to say it is

> former. But if that is the case, how can shruti excluded the names of

> shankara bhagavadpAda, ramaNa etc. etc. who we consider with utmost

faith

> as brahma jnAni-s?? just a curious academic question..nothing to

disturb

> our firm conviction in shruti-s apaurushEyatva...

 

Namaste,

 

Do we have enough faith to say that these names may be there in

the 85% of the Vedas that have been lost to us? [There is a reference

to 1180 Upanishads, several Veda Shakha-s extinct, etc.) Also -

anantaa vai vedaaH |

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder