Guest guest Posted August 28, 1999 Report Share Posted August 28, 1999 rajcaval.kkh (Raja R Cavale) wrote: >would not consider any other system other than its own. I get along by >saying that I am a Buddhist and my religion is non-Divine. When discussing >discretely among the educated people here, if I mention to them that Vedas >are Impersonal and there were no prophets involved, they reply that the >Vedas are subject to the interpretation of the person who is propagating >it. Then it is more subject to human manipulation. Whereas their own >Scripture is the word of God and it has been well preserved in its original >form up to date in their books. I think that your young Christian will >bring this argument if he choses to reply to your letter. I do not know how >to get over this problem If I may restate what you have said, the (possible) objection is as follows: Because the Vedas don't have authors, there is no meaning that can be attached to them at all, since meanings are given to sentences by their authors, and an unauthored sentence cannot have a firmly-rooted purport. This is not a new argument, and not (thanks to the light of the stalwarts in the tradition) a particularly difficult one to overcome either. (i) If it be held that the Vedas don't have meaning because of their lack of any personal contact at all, then we reply that the Vedas are not stated to be unauthored in that respect (`na hi vede vayaM purushhAbhiprAyapravesha eva nAstIti vadAmaH'); the R^ishhi-s do attach purports to them, even if they are not created sentences. (ii) If it be held that the meanings of the Vedas cannot be known firmly even by the R^ishhi-s simply because there is no original author whose views would be the final arbiter, then we say that the objection rests on an absurd misunderstanding of linguistics and psychology. It is accepted that we can understand sentences correctly even where the author is not available to us; in fact, if the objection were granted, we would have `anavasthA' or regressus ad infinitum, since to clarify the purport of one sentence, we would need to ask the author to form another, and another for that one, and so on. Regards, Shrisha Rao >Rajaram Cavale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 1999 Report Share Posted August 28, 1999 Dear Dr Hebbar, I fully agree with Mr Naps Rao and I tell you my experience regarding the presentation of Knowledge of Vedas as 'Apaurusheya' (Impersonal) to the people of other systems. As you know I am living in an alien society which is very restrictive than the one you are all living in and this society would not consider any other system other than its own. I get along by saying that I am a Buddhist and my religion is non-Divine. When discussing discretely among the educated people here, if I mention to them that Vedas are Impersonal and there were no prophets involved, they reply that the Vedas are subject to the interpretation of the person who is propagating it. Then it is more subject to human manipulation. Whereas their own Scripture is the word of God and it has been well preserved in its original form up to date in their books. I think that your young Christian will bring this argument if he choses to reply to your letter. I do not know how to get over this problem Yours sincerely, Rajaram Cavale. ______ Don't forget to SPOT the DOT in my email address. There is a spot in my email address before kkh - as below. rajcaval.kkh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 1999 Report Share Posted August 29, 1999 Dear friends, Raja R Cavale wrote: > I fully agree with Mr Naps Rao and I tell you my experience regarding the > presentation of Knowledge of Vedas as 'Apaurusheya' (Impersonal) to the > people of other systems. > When discussing > discretely among the educated people here, if I mention to them that Vedas > are Impersonal and there were no prophets involved, they reply that the > Vedas are subject to the interpretation of the person who is propagating > it. Then it is more subject to human manipulation. Whereas their own > Scripture is the word of God and it has been well preserved in its original > form up to date in their books. I think that your young Christian will > bring this argument if he choses to reply to your letter. I do not know how > to get over this problem A peculiar problem!. Shrisha has already answered it in a specific way. I would like to add some : Any composition divine, human or having no composer like the Vedas must always have the problem of interpretation except to the person who composed it for the first time. As we all know, what passes for the Paurusheya texts like the Bible, Quran etc. are generally today's understanding of what was composed yesterday. Just by claiming that some thing authored by some prophet is the word of God, does not solve this problem - we are still to decide which prophet (God) to accept. As we know, all the religions originating in the " middle east " have links with jews and their understanding of the world and many common features. The differences have been generally impressed by the prophets who started the specific religions ike Christianity. In the case of the Vedas believed to be compositions which are eternal and with no author, the problem is solved by : 1. Having a language which is eternal and coexistent with them along with all the pertinent ancilliaries like Grammar, Niruktha (list of assigned meanings etc). 2. In a way, God is the propagator of the Vedas, as He recites them in His Hayagriva form at the beginning of each Kalpa for the benefit of the gods in the same manner as they have existed since eternity. As there is a definite break in their continuity during Universal Dissolution, this becomes essential and incidentaly also has the certificate of the Supreme Being embossed on what is propagated as authentic. 3. The Vedas when they are " seen " by the Rshis by their superior and enhanced cognitve powers are essentially the same as those which were in wide spread use before and even this fact is also visualised by the Divine Rshis. 4. There is also the Supreme test of consistency on what is " seen " in that the Brahma Suthras composed by God Himself in his incarnation as Veda Vyasa shows how they all have Yeka Vakyathaa - a single purport. There are, of course other objections to the Apaurusheya concepts of the Vedas which have been answered very effectively - but, I feel that the above arguments advanced against their validity on account of their very Apaurusheyathva are not really worth while. Just my two pies worth! NAPSRao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 1999 Report Share Posted August 29, 1999 Dear Sri Cavalre, Let me add to Srisha's Reply: The Vedas Are certainly 'apourusheya' and this has been substantiated in the VTN and other works. As regards the other systems claiming that their scriptures were told by their GOD/s ,we can tell them that the Vedas were told to us also by our GOD, Lord Narayana himself to Chaturmuka Brahma ,and also the Lord in the form of Vedavyasa enunciated the Vedas by dividing it into its four sections. However,it is my opinion that we don't unnecessaily bother about what these others comment. With Regards, BKR RAO Sri Krishna says in the BG: 'Iti guhyatamam shAstramidamuktam mayAnagha YetadbuddhvAbuddhimAnsyat krutakruiyasch BhArata' --- Raja R Cavale <rajcaval.kkh wrote: > rajcaval.kkh (Raja R Cavale) > > Dear Dr Hebbar, > > I fully agree with Mr Naps Rao and I tell you my > experience regarding the > presentation of Knowledge of Vedas as 'Apaurusheya' > (Impersonal) to the > people of other systems. As you know I am living in > an alien society which > is very restrictive than the one you are all living > in and this society > would not consider any other system other than its > own. I get along by > saying that I am a Buddhist and my religion is > non-Divine. When discussing > discretely among the educated people here, if I > mention to them that Vedas > are Impersonal and there were no prophets involved, > they reply that the > Vedas are subject to the interpretation of the > person who is propagating > it. Then it is more subject to human manipulation. > Whereas their own > Scripture is the word of God and it has been well > preserved in its original > form up to date in their books. I think that your > young Christian will > bring this argument if he choses to reply to your > letter. I do not know how > to get over this problem > > Yours sincerely, > > Rajaram Cavale. > > ______ > Don't forget to SPOT the DOT in my email address. > There is a spot in my email address before kkh - as > below. > rajcaval.kkh. > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor > ---------------------------- > > ONElist: home to the world's liveliest email > communities. > > ------ > nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| > taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| > tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH > punaH | > karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA > || > > " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the > actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the > worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. > That devotion and the fruits of the actions that > come to me are due to His recurring grace " > If one always practices to do actions with a > dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases > Vishnu. > --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in > GitA tAtparya > > Bid and sell for free at http://auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 1999 Report Share Posted August 31, 1999 Dear Dr. Cavale: Even within Hinduism there are 3 major doctrinal theories vis-a-vis the Vedas. 1. The Vedas are authored by God (paurusheya), non-eternal (anitya) and extrinsically valid (parataHprAmANya). This view is d to by the NyAya-VaisheShika system. 2. The Vedas are authorless (apaurusheya), non-eternal (anitya) and intrinsically valid (svataHprAmANya). This view is d to by the SAnkhya-Yoga system. 3. The Vedas are authorless (apaurusheya), ETERNAL (nitya) and intrinsically valid (svataHprAmANya). This view is d to by ALL schools of the MImAmsA and VedAnta systems. As regards, the Bible, one might ask our Christian " friends " as to which VERSION of the Bible is God's Word, i.e. the 66 books of the Protestant Bible OR the 73 books of the Roman Catholic Bible? As far as we know, Truth usually has only ONE version. Even within the Protestant Bible, we can ask them as to whose interpretation is correct---the Lutheran, the Presbytarian or the Episcopilian? I deal with these issues extensively in my classes on " Doctrine & Debate in World Religions " . I shall offer seminars on these to our people so that they just need not stand there when their religion is being insulted but show the Christians (at least the thinking ones) that it is not all wonderful on their side either! regards, Hari-vAyu smaraNa B.N.Hebbar 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.