Guest guest Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 praNAms Hare Krishna One of my cybernet friends, expressed his observation on vedas' aparusheyatva. I'd like to get the clarification on this from the learned prabhuji-s of this forum. Here is his observation : // quote // What puzzled me was that the veda also had intimate knowledge of the names,culture,topography etc of a very small place in the universe called bhArata-varsha. This was proof to me that veda was " authored " by Indians! Had it been unauthored and eternal, it will likely not show affinity towards India will it? Why do you think veda has no names like John and Peter? Why do you think it makes no reference to places such as Europe and Africa? Why do you think it talks of ganga and sarasvati and not of Nile or Amazon which are even bigger rivers? The proper nouns in the veda are specific to our culture and it is the proof that it is not eternal and unauthored. Veda as knowledge is eternal but as a text it appears to be a divinely inspired content in accordance with place and time in which it was revealed. If veda were to be revealed in another galaxy in another planet how will they make sense of the names in it? Obviously, if the veda is revealed there, its spiritual content will be the same, but not the textual content. // unquote // Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar PS : I've taken his concurrence to cross post his mail to other forum & I've marked a copy of this mail to him also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Seems to me this person is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. In my understanding the Vedas were given over 5000 years ago and the names Peter and John were probably not existing at the time. They were also given in Sanskrit, a language to speak with God or the Gods so it follows that Indian culture, spirituality, language, religion would use these terms in their evolution and place names in India would be given some of these names given to the sages. ________________________________ Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l; advaitin Cc: Ram Madhavan <m_ansram Tuesday, September 1, 2009 7:14:18 AM Veda-s & its apaurusheyatva praNAms Hare Krishna One of my cybernet friends, expressed his observation on vedas' aparusheyatva. I'd like to get the clarification on this from the learned prabhuji-s of this forum. Here is his observation : // quote // What puzzled me was that the veda also had intimate knowledge of the names,culture, topography etc of a very small place in the universe called bhArata-varsha. This was proof to me that veda was " authored " by Indians! Had it been unauthored and eternal, it will likely not show affinity towards India will it? Why do you think veda has no names like John and Peter? Why do you think it makes no reference to places such as Europe and Africa? Why do you think it talks of ganga and sarasvati and not of Nile or Amazon which are even bigger rivers? The proper nouns in the veda are specific to our culture and it is the proof that it is not eternal and unauthored. Veda as knowledge is eternal but as a text it appears to be a divinely inspired content in accordance with place and time in which it was revealed. If veda were to be revealed in another galaxy in another planet how will they make sense of the names in it? Obviously, if the veda is revealed there, its spiritual content will be the same, but not the textual content. // unquote // Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar PS : I've taken his concurrence to cross post his mail to other forum & I've marked a copy of this mail to him also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Namaste, advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > What puzzled me was that the veda also had intimate knowledge of the > names,culture,topography etc of a very small place in the universe called > bhArata-varsha. This was proof to me that veda was " authored " by Indians! One way to think of it is: naming started *after* veda was revealed. para-vaak (the true meaning of veda) is truly real desha-kaala-atiita and is not different from the brahman of advaitins. Even if the Rishi-s had to use vaikhari (the lowest form of speech) to give a sound form for their experiences, the names they used in veda have been used to name entities in the pavitra-bhaaratha-varsha (India). Not the other way around. On this subject, I could suggest reading some of Shri Kapali Sastry's works, which are truly revealing. Namaste again Ramakrishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Hi Bhaskar-ji, At the risk of upsetting some of the members, I have to say that my preferred (reasonable) interpretation of the adjective 'unauthored' is that the words were 'originated' by self-realized sages and subsequently passed on by word of mouth until such time as written materials became common. These sages, being self-realized, no longer identified themselves as body-minds, as named individuals, so they had no wish whatsoever to have their bodily-assigned names associated with them. They knew that what they were conveying was non-personal, eternal truth that had nothing to do with personality. The sole purpose was to pass on this knowledge so that other minds, believing in separation, might be enlightened. Such absolute truth is beyond authorship and hence is reasonably construed as 'unauthored'. But, obviously, the words chosen are bound to be those current at the time and place in which they were originally spoken. And the method of presentation will be as learned by the speaker from parents and teachers in that then-current society. The mythology of such words being literally passed down by Ishvara, Narayana or whoever is no different from the creation myths propounded in the various Upanishads. It is a ploy to make the ideas readily acceptable to minds more inclined to bhakti than j~nAna; i.e. part of the adhyAropa-apavAda method. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Bhaskar YR Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:14 PM A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta; advaitin Cc: Ram Madhavan Veda-s & its apaurusheyatva << >> What puzzled me was that the veda also had intimate knowledge of the names,culture,topography etc of a very small place in the universe called bhArata-varsha. This was proof to me that veda was " authored " by Indians! Had it been unauthored and eternal, it will likely not show affinity towards India will it? Why do you think veda has no names like John and Peter? << >> .. <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=4 6292/stime=1251803675/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Such absolute truth is beyond authorship and hence is reasonably construed as 'unauthored'. But, obviously, the words chosen are bound to be those current at the time and place in which they were originally spoken. And the method of presentation will be as learned by the speaker from parents and teachers in that then-current society. praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji Hare Krishna That is an interesting observation too I believe. In short, prabhuji, you mean to say the absolute truth which is beyond words & mind can be called as 'unauthored' but for which the available theoretical & theological definitions are 'man-made'. In short, you are saying 'gravitation power' when it is not worded is unauthored but theory that which defines this 'power' has the human being role. If this is true, then we have to say that brahma tattva is unauthored but 'shAstra' which is trying to explain this truth has the human origination. If we accept this logic, then we are forced to accept different texts written in different languages about the 'truth' are also 'shruti'...are we ready to accept ?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Pranams Bhaskar-ji  I would encourage your friend to read through the Sage of Kanchi's writings on the Vedas to gain an understanding from a authentic source.  http://www.amazon.com/Vedas-Sri-Chandrasekharendra-Saraswati/dp/8172764014/ref=s\ r_1_2?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1251902650 & sr=8-2  An excerpt very relevant to your questions can be found here:  http://www.adi-shankara.org/search?q=apaurusheya  Shankara clearly states in his sutrabhashya that the Rishis were the Seers of the mantras and Brahmanas - BSB 1.1.33 " Nor have we the right to measure by our capabilities the capability of the rishis who see the mantras and brâhmana passages (i.e. the Veda).--So it is the very mantras, the actual " script " that constitute these scripture that are apaurusheya not merely the abstract ideas they conveyed. There is tremendous danger in saying that the " truths " conveyed by the Vedas are unauthored but the words that articulate these truths are authored. The Vedas are nothing but articulations and when we say these articulations are unauthored they precisly mean that.  So apaurusheya does not simply mean they they were " anonymously authored " aka passed along with no personal claim to authorship - in fact we often we can identify the authors when we acknowledge the meter (chandas) and the Rishi(e.g Vishwamitra, Vamadeva, etc) prior to chanting the particular mantras where the Seer has been identified by tradition.  It will be useful to note here that the Vedas as apaurusheya applies naturally not only to Vedanta but to the entire scope and breadth of the Vedas including the voluminous karmakanda - so you simply cannot lend it an exlusively advaitic flavor of connecting with the Divine or similar.  The Vedas are coval with creation - the Sve Up 6.18 states this as much when it says yo brahmANam vidadhAti poorvam yovai vedAnsca prahiNoti tasmai - Seeking Liberation, I take refuge in the Lord, the revealer of Self—Knowledge, who in the beginning created Brahma and delivered the Vedas to Him. This clearly implies that the eternally existent Vedas were transmitted to Chaturmukha Brahma - and that the Vedas are coval with Creation itself. The difference between this and what some may postulate as " visions " of divine personas has tremendous implications - Shankara vehemently dismisses these in his sutrabhashya and points out these implications -  " SIddhanta: And it is not possible for someone to perceive (upalabhate) super-sensory (ati-indriya) objects (artha) without the aid of Vedic revelation (shrutim-antarena), because there are no means (nimitta) to do so.  Purvapakshin: It is possible in the case of siddhas like Kapila because they have unobstructed (aprahita) knowledge (jnana). Siddhanta: No, because powers (siddhi) such as super-sensory perception are dependent upon certain practices (anushthana) and such practices are characterized by things that are " to be done " (codana). Nor can we count on some recognized (prasiddha) sage (mahatmya) like Kapila, since even here there will be no foundation, because the teachings of these recognized sages (mahatmya), as well as the founders of the other schools (tirthakara, i.e., the Buddha, Mahavira, etc.), all mutually contradict one another (paraspara-vipratipatti). Besides, even assuming that we can trust in the authority of these siddhas, because they instruct by way of so many different doctrines (bahu-siddhanta), their teachings will all be in conflict (vipratipatti) with one another. And then, as people are multiform (vaishvarupa) in their opinion (mati), (if we accept these teachings) the undesirable consequence (prasanga) will follow that truth (tattva) will be unregulated and without basis (avyapasthana). The Vedic revelation, on the other hand, is an absolutely independent (nirapeksham) and self-constituting authority (svarthe pramanyam). But human dicta (purusha-vacasam) are dependent upon an external basis and mediated (vyavahita) by memory (smrti) and discourse (vaktr). With regards to why Peters and Pauls are not contained in the Vedas, it will perhaps be useful to remember that Sanskrit is the Mother or most ancient of all languages in the world and so words like mother and father and man many not be present there-in but their original derivatives of mata, and pita and manu, etc will certainly be found and so on.  There may have (almost certainly) been a time when the geographical extant of Bharatavarsha may have spread far wider than what is currently the Indian subcontinent - See what Shankara says about the Rajasuya - " A person maintaining that the people of ancient times were no more able to converse with the gods than people are at present, would thereby deny the (incontestable) variety of the world. He might as well maintain that because there is at present no prince ruling over the whole earth, there were no such princes in former times; a position by which the scriptural injunction of the rajasuya-sacrifice would be stultified. "  May I also humbly suggest, that it may perhaps be wise to focus on the end i.e. self-knowledge, by an appropriate approach to the means i.e. the Vedas i.e. shraddha, without getting lost in a littany of doubts - no doubt endless - about the latter??  Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam  --- On Wed, 9/2/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr RE: Veda-s & its apaurusheyatva advaitin Cc: " 'Ram Madhavan' " <m_ansram Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 7:16 AM  Such absolute truth is beyond authorship and hence is reasonably construed as 'unauthored' . But, obviously, the words chosen are bound to be those current at the time and place in which they were originally spoken. And the method of presentation will be as learned by the speaker from parents and teachers in that then-current society. praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji Hare Krishna That is an interesting observation too I believe. In short, prabhuji, you mean to say the absolute truth which is beyond words & mind can be called as 'unauthored' but for which the available theoretical & theological definitions are 'man-made'. In short, you are saying 'gravitation power' when it is not worded is unauthored but theory that which defines this 'power' has the human being role. If this is true, then we have to say that brahma tattva is unauthored but 'shAstra' which is trying to explain this truth has the human origination. If we accept this logic, then we are forced to accept different texts written in different languages about the 'truth' are also 'shruti'...are we ready to accept ?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Recent Activity  4 New MembersVisit Your Group Finance It's Now Personal Guides, news, advice & more. Y! Messenger Want a quick chat? Chat over IM with group members. Weight Management Group on Join the challenge and lose weight. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Dear Bhaskarji, The absolute truth is non-dual and therefore cannot be expressed in words (also there is no one to express it and no one to whom it might be expressed). This is what I meant when I said " Such absolute truth is beyond authorship and hence is reasonably construed as 'unauthored'. " Anyone who has realized this truth and has learned or devised a method for communicating it to others may set this down in any language, and those who understand that language may learn from it. Unquestionably, however, those methods which have been proven time and time again are best communicated verbally by one who is realized and understands them well. It is this proven history and the power of sampradAya that uniquely qualifies shruti. But someone must have authored these words, and someone must have written them down at some point in history. And it could just as well have been someone in another country in another language. It is all relative; all mithyA. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Bhaskar YR Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:17 PM advaitin Cc: 'Ram Madhavan' RE: Veda-s & its apaurusheyatva In short, prabhuji, you mean to say the absolute truth which is beyond words & mind can be called as 'unauthored' but for which the available theoretical & theological definitions are 'man-made'. In short, you are saying 'gravitation power' when it is not worded is unauthored but theory that which defines this 'power' has the human being role. If this is true, then we have to say that brahma tattva is unauthored but 'shAstra' which is trying to explain this truth has the human origination. If we accept this logic, then we are forced to accept different texts written in different languages about the 'truth' are also 'shruti'...are we ready to accept ?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar .. <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=4 6303/stime=1251890214/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848583/nc3=5170420> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Hari Om, Dennis-ji. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > > At the risk of upsetting some of the members, I have to say that my > preferred (reasonable) interpretation of the adjective 'unauthored' is that... I wouldn't say it is upsetting to me, because its plain simple one belief vs. other. I have faith in the Vedic and advaitic saMpradAya, while you may not. Science may well give you preferred (reasonable) interpretation of this world, but you would hardly get upset because you have your own belief system and reasons. > the words were 'originated' by self-realized sages and subsequently passed... First, I'd like to know from other members whether all Rishis in karmakANDa are considered by advaitis as self-realized. I think not! mantradRshTa Rishis were ones to whom the mantra was revealed; the Rishi was pure enough to " see " it and announce it to the world. We pay our respect to that Rishi when chanting the respective mantra. But thats all, the Rishi isn't involved further into the mantra. > on by word of mouth until such time as written materials became common. The current day problem of Vedas being available in multiple svarAs in some places is because it is in written form! So, its purity is maintained even today in Veda pAThashAlAs not by reading it, but by word of mouth from the guru to the shishya as a shruti should be. > These sages, being self-realized, no longer identified themselves as > body-minds, as named individuals, so they had no wish whatsoever to have > their bodily-assigned names associated with them. They knew that what they > were conveying was non-personal, eternal truth that had nothing to do with > personality. The sole purpose was to pass on this knowledge so that other > minds, believing in separation, might be enlightened. Almost the entire karmakANDa is full of personal, non-eternal (swarga prApti, for example), named individual devatAs such as agni, vAyu, indra, etc, and therefore help those who are in separation too. And karma kANDa might at most lead one to j~nAnakANDa but not enlighten. Such absolute truth is > beyond authorship and hence is reasonably construed as 'unauthored'. But, > obviously, the words chosen are bound to be those current at the time and > place in which they were originally spoken. And the method of presentation > will be as learned by the speaker from parents and teachers in that > then-current society. > The names current in the past century did not turn up in chhando-darSana, " seen and uttered " by Brahmarshi Devarata, later identified as a lost set from Rig Veda. This was endorsed by Vashishta Ganapati Muni, one of the caturveda paNDit that has even been, who himself wrote a commentary on it. The language/ presentation of the mantra-s were of Rk style and thats how they were identified as lost work of Rig Veda. They had nothing to do with the speaker Brahmarshi Devarata from parents and teachers (his sole teacher as I understand, was Vashishta Ganapati Muni. > The mythology of such words being literally passed down by Ishvara, Narayana > or whoever is no different from the creation myths propounded in the various > Upanishads. It is a ploy to make the ideas readily acceptable to minds more > inclined to bhakti than j~nAna; i.e. part of the adhyAropa-apavAda method. > Ishvara, Narayana or whoever are still identified as Purusha and apaurusheyatva is a term used to say that Vedas did not originate from Purusha! The same creation myth that bhaktas find in upanishads is used by the j~nAna mArga followers for removing each element from the creation story to reveal its substratum till brahman is realized! So they can't be a ploy to appeal bhaktas. Finally, the flaw in saying that shruti originated from self-realized would also make anything said by " a self-realized " shruti! That is clearly not the case. Else, none of us would ever find a Guru who is self-realized because there won't be any system to announce the person as self-realized. A self-realized as per saMpradAya is one whose anubhava is anUbhuti as per shruti and not the other way around! shrutyArpaNamstu, --Praveen R. Bhat /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [br.Up. 4.5.15] */ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Greetings Dennis-ji, advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Dear Bhaskarji, > > > > The absolute truth is non-dual and therefore cannot be expressed in words If so, how do we know that it is so unless somebody/something tells us? In order for somebody/something to tell us, it has to express in words. Don't you think so? Note that I am not saying truth is not non-dual here, but curious to know how can anyone hold `truth is non-dual' and at the same time think such truth can be conveyed? This really is the question of tension between ontology (non-dual truth) and epistemology (to know that ontology). Brahma-sUtra has explicitly denied your position by saying " OM ikshatyE na ashybdham OM " . Note the double negation `na' and `ashyabdham' used here. sUtrakAra is denying some peoples position that Brahman is ashyabdha (indescribable by words). > (also there is no one to express it and no one to whom it might be > expressed). This is what I meant when I said " Such absolute truth is beyond > authorship and hence is reasonably construed as 'unauthored'. " > Tradition does not mean this way for the notion of `apouruSheyatvam' > > > Anyone who has realized this truth and has learned or devised a method for > communicating it to others may set this down in any language, and those who > understand that language may learn from it. Just above you were saying there is no one to express it and no one to whom it be expressed. Now, you are of the opinion that there are some who are `realized' and other are not so; and those realized can communicate the truth to not so lucky ones? Regards, Srinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Dear Shyam-ji, Of course, I respect your views and each is entitled to decide for him or herself whether or not they accept the literal truth of apauruSheya. But I humbly submit that you cannot make such statements as: “The Vedas are coval with creation - the Sve Up 6.18 states this as much when it says yo brahmANam vidadhAti poorvam yovai vedAnsca prahiNoti tasmai - Seeking Liberation, I take refuge in the Lord, the revealer of Self—Knowledge, who in the beginning created Brahma and delivered the Vedas to Him. This clearly implies that the eternally existent Vedas were transmitted to Chaturmukha Brahma - and that the Vedas are coval with Creation itself.†When you are considering this question, you cannot use statements in the shruti itself to corroborate the contention. This amounts to saying that the shruti are unauthored because they say so. And why should we give more credence to that than to saying that the Ten Commandments are the will of God because the Bible says that God passed them on to Moses via the burning bush etc? Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Hi Srinivasji, The methods of communication of the truth are various but none are direct. Use of stories, metaphor, adhyAropa-apavAda, lakShaNa-s etc. when used skillfully, eventually enable the seeker to make the leap directly to grasp that which is itself indescribable. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of maatarishvan Wednesday, September 02, 2009 5:56 PM advaitin Re: Veda-s & its apaurusheyatva > > The absolute truth is non-dual and therefore cannot be expressed in words If so, how do we know that it is so unless somebody/something tells us? In order for somebody/something to tell us, it has to express in words. Don't you think so? .. <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=4 6309/stime=1251910576/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848584/nc3=5170419> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Dear Praveen-ji, << I wouldn't say it is upsetting to me, because its plain simple one belief vs. other. I have faith in the Vedic and advaitic saMpradAya, while you may not. Science may well give you preferred (reasonable) interpretation of this world, but you would hardly get upset because you have your own belief system and reasons.>> Just to clarify, I do not believe I said anything to imply that science gave me a more reasonable interpretation of the world - indeed nothing could be further from the truth! I am totally convinced of the essential truth of shruti and equally convinced that advaitic sampradAya is the optimum method for conveying this. I would scarcely have written all that I have and devote all my time to trying to pass on this message if this were not the case. But none of this has anything to do with accepting the literal truth of apauruSheya. Best wishes, Dennis .. <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=4 6310/stime=1251910856/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Hari Om, Dennis-ji, On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Dennis Waite<dwaite wrote: > Science may well give you preferred (reasonable) interpretation of this > world, > but you would hardly get upset because you have your own belief system and > reasons.>> > > Just to clarify, I do not believe I said anything to imply that science gave > me a more reasonable interpretation of the world - indeed nothing could be > further from the truth! I do know you did not say anything to imply science gave you any reason, quite the contrary! To clarify, what I said is science reasons are not totally acceptable to you regarding the world, and you follow your beliefs without getting upset. Similarly, I needn't get upset about your reasons regarding shruti since I have my own belief system, is all. .... > none of this has anything to do with accepting the literal truth of > apauruSheya. > The problem is in being selective about shruti and choosing by the limited human vision. All of Shankara bhAshya-s and arguments with purvapakshins are not only acceptable because they are logical. To some minds, purvapakshins arguments sound valid too except that they contradict the shruti, while the Bhagavatpada's words are traced to the shruti. " Because the Vedas say so " is a pramANa in itself, at least to the saMpradAya. Anyway, to each his own. praNAms, --Praveen R. Bhat /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [br.Up. 4.5.15] */ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Hariom, I hope the following conversation will throw some light on individual belief system and reasons. Don't miss even a single word... Too good An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and..... Prof: So you believe in God? Student: Absolutely, sir. Prof: Is God good? Student: Sure. Prof: Is God all-powerful? Student: Yes. Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm? (Student is silent.) Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good? Student: Yes. Prof: Is Satan good? Student: No. Prof: Where does Satan come from? Student: From...God..... Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world? Student: Yes. Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct? Student: Yes. Prof: So who created evil? (Student does not answer.) Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they? Student: Yes, sir. Prof: So, who created them? (Student has no answer.) Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God? Student: No, sir. Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God? Student: No, sir. Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter? Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't. Prof: Yet you still believe in Him? Student: Yes. Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Student: Nothing. I only have my faith. Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has. Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat? Prof: Yes. Student: And is there such a thing as cold? Prof: Yes. Student: No sir. There isn't. (The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.) Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it. (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.) Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness? Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness? Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you? Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man? Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed. Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how? Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey? Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do. Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.) Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.) Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain? (The class breaks out into laughter.) Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir? (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable. ) Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son. Student: That is it sir.... The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive. NB: I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. .. --- On Wed, 9/2/09, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen wrote: Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen Re: Re: Veda-s & its apaurusheyatva advaitin Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 7:06 PM Hari Om, Dennis-ji, On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Dennis Waite<dwaite (AT) advaita (DOT) org.uk> wrote: > Science may well give you preferred (reasonable) interpretation of this > world, > but you would hardly get upset because you have your own belief system and > reasons.>> > > Just to clarify, I do not believe I said anything to imply that science gave > me a more reasonable interpretation of the world - indeed nothing could be > further from the truth! I do know you did not say anything to imply science gave you any reason, quite the contrary! To clarify, what I said is science reasons are not totally acceptable to you regarding the world, and you follow your beliefs without getting upset. Similarly, I needn't get upset about your reasons regarding shruti since I have my own belief system, is all. .... > none of this has anything to do with accepting the literal truth of > apauruSheya. > The problem is in being selective about shruti and choosing by the limited human vision. All of Shankara bhAshya-s and arguments with purvapakshins are not only acceptable because they are logical. To some minds, purvapakshins arguments sound valid too except that they contradict the shruti, while the Bhagavatpada' s words are traced to the shruti. " Because the Vedas say so " is a pramANa in itself, at least to the saMpradAya. Anyway, to each his own. praNAms, --Praveen R. Bhat /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [br.Up. 4.5.15] */ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Dear Praveen-ji, You say: " Because the Vedas say so " is a pramANa in itself, at least to the saMpradAya. " Yes, certainly; they are pramANa for those aspects that are not accessible to pratyakSha or anumAna. Where what is said contradicts reason, however, they should not be taken literally. Shankara points out in BG bhAShya (18.66): " Surely, even a hundred Vedic texts cannot become valid if they assert that fire is cold or non-luminous! " He points out that they " through the generation of successively newer tendencies by eliminating the successively preceding tendencies, are meant for creating the tendency to turn towards the indwelling Self. Even in the world, when it becomes necessary to make a child or a lunatic drink milk etc, it is said that it will help growth of hair etc! " And there are contradictory statements in shruti, as for example with respect to creation, as I mentioned. Gaudapada points out (MK 3.23) that: " That which is supported by shruti and corroborated by reason, is alone true and not the other. " Shankara says that the creation texts " serve other purposes " and reiterates Gaudapada's stance. Best wishes, Dennis <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=4 6318/stime=1251943580/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Hari Om, Dennis-ji, On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Dennis Waite<dwaite wrote: > You say: " Because the Vedas say so " is a pramANa in itself, at least to the > saMpradAya. " Yes, certainly; they are pramANa for those aspects that are not > accessible to pratyakSha or anumAna. Agreed. Even the current topic is beyond the scope of pratyaksha or anumana and so must necessarily fall under shabda pramANa. Where what is said contradicts reason, > however, they should not be taken literally. I completely disagree here, because there are many things such as svargaloka itself that contradicts reason, doesn't it? Shankara points out in BG > bhAShya (18.66): " Surely, even a hundred Vedic texts cannot become valid if > they assert that fire is cold or non-luminous! " Yes He does, but does shruti say that? Another way of saying it is that shruti can say no wrong, hence that pramANa value for shruti. I'd be surprised if you can come up with an example wherein shruti contradicts pratyaksha or anumAna pramANa-s. > > And there are contradictory statements in shruti, as for example with > respect to creation, ... I do hope that you meant *seemingly* contradictory. Else, this is where shAstrokta learning of Veda/ Vedanta makes all the difference in resolving seeming contradictions. PS: I made a mistake while replying the first mail in this chain to both advaita-l & advaitin lists, because I saw both advaita-l and advaitin labels for the chain due to initial crossposting by someone. I hope you don't mind your mail going there as part of my reply. Also, since I already made an error, I will partially correct it by not misrepresenting you by forwarding your original mail there. Apologies for the same. gurorarpaNamastu, --Praveen R. Bhat /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [br.Up. 4.5.15] */ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Dear Praveen-ji, Just a couple of points on what you say. You say: " I'd be surprised if you can come up with an example wherein shruti contradicts pratyaksha or anumAna pramANa-s. " Choose any of the presentations on creation (including, and especially ajAtivAda). And you comment: > And there are contradictory statements in shruti, as for example with > respect to creation, ... " I do hope that you meant *seemingly* contradictory. Else, this is where shAstrokta learning of Veda/ Vedanta makes all the difference in resolving seeming contradictions. " Since the final teaching of advaita is ajAtivAda, is not *any* teaching of a creation contradictory? Best wishes, Dennis _,_._,___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Thanks to Sri Indian Rediff for sending the following comment on the story posted by Sri Kaushik Mehta. Whilst the story was, indeed, very clever and enjoyable, readers may wish to read the (equally enjoyable) remarks on this 'Urban Myth' at the Snopes address. Dennis ******* This dialogue is also featured in Snopes (the Urban Legend verifier) http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp where the dialog is supposed to have taken place between Einstein and his professor. I have also seen Einstein being replaced by A P J Abdul Kalam (fomer President of India). One small objection to the dialogue that was presented here: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:03 PM, kaushik mehta<kaushik601 wrote: > Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? > (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the > argument is going.) > I would like to point users to the following link. This provides us with proof of evolution within our own lifetimes. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session4/elaborate_b_pop1 ..html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Hari Om, Dennis-ji, I'd assume that you chose to ignore the other parts of my mail, which already answer both of these questions in advance. There's a common answer: seeming contradictions are resolved by sampradAya's shAstrokta learning. Fortunately, I'm blessed to see a common consistent ground even in those creation stories. I suppose where you take literal meanings and where I take them are different, eg, shruti is apaurusheya is literal to me, because it doesn't even seemingly contradictory with anything else in shruti. OTOH, creation stories are not literal, because there are seeming contradictions. The Vedic tradition is clear on these that whenever there are these seeming contradictions within shruti itself, it is resolved with a common ground, hence the Brahma Sutra which itself starts with samanvaya! I won't bother you further on this chain. Lets agree to disagree. Thanks. PS: A parting note, please: when the final teaching is applied to everything under the lens, everything is contradictory. Why apply it to creation stories alone? Entire science, you and I exchanging emails, etc, all are equally contradictory with ajAtivAda! brahmArpaNamastu, --Praveen R. Bhat /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [br.Up. 4.5.15] */ On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > > > You say: " I'd be surprised if you can come up with an example wherein shruti > > contradicts pratyaksha or anumAna pramANa-s. " > > Choose any of the presentations on creation (including, and especially > ajAtivAda). > > And you comment: > > > And there are contradictory statements in shruti, as for example with > > respect to creation, ... > > " I do hope that you meant *seemingly* contradictory. Else, this is where > shAstrokta learning of Veda/ Vedanta makes all the difference in resolving > seeming contradictions. " > > Since the final teaching of advaita is ajAtivAda, is not *any* teaching of a > creation contradictory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Pranams Ram Madhavan! I hope you have found the answers to your questions by the multitudinous replies. So, here is one more: (1) That the Vedas unauthored is matter of faith. It is impossible to accept them as such without this. Unless you are self-realized. (2) That they use names specific to a region is not surprising. It is impossible to convey knowledge without this. Rather, with this line of reasoning, you might even have asked why they talked of the sun, moon, sky, earth or such objects understood only by humans? Why do they even talk of hands & mouths at all? Is this a presumption that there have to be human-like creatures in the entire universe? Or other universes - something the Vedas also allude to? Not necessarily. Nor does this seem to discount non-authorship. Only that they are so because humans could understand them so. It is our limitation as humans, not that of the Vedas. (3) Why should the names be " Indian " only? If mythology is to be believed, in the Sat Yuga, there were only people with such names. There was no India (in fact, I was most surprised when you mentioned bharat-varsha. Please educate me if this word is used in the Vedas!). It is only in this Yuga the Vedas could be revealed to the rishis. The Johns & the Peters are a devolutionary product. :-) (4) That they are eternal is explained by Vedantic belief that all Yugas stretch endlessly in the past and as to the future. There never was a time in which there was no Yuga & never will there be one in the future. As also, the eternal creator Iswara & Veda are one (as explained in a link provided by Shyam: http://www.adi-shankara.org/search?q=apaurusheya). Thanks for this simple question with many complex answers! Unfortunately, most simple questions are of that nature. :-) Best wishes, Mahesh --- On Tue, 1/9/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr Veda-s & its apaurusheyatva " A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta " <advaita-l, advaitin Cc: " Ram Madhavan " <m_ansram Tuesday, 1 September, 2009, 4:44 PM praNAms Hare Krishna One of my cybernet friends, expressed his observation on vedas' aparusheyatva. I'd like to get the clarification on this from the learned prabhuji-s of this forum. Here is his observation : // quote // What puzzled me was that the veda also had intimate knowledge of the names,culture, topography etc of a very small place in the universe called bhArata-varsha. This was proof to me that veda was " authored " by Indians! Had it been unauthored and eternal, it will likely not show affinity towards India will it? Why do you think veda has no names like John and Peter? Why do you think it makes no reference to places such as Europe and Africa? Why do you think it talks of ganga and sarasvati and not of Nile or Amazon which are even bigger rivers? The proper nouns in the veda are specific to our culture and it is the proof that it is not eternal and unauthored. Veda as knowledge is eternal but as a text it appears to be a divinely inspired content in accordance with place and time in which it was revealed. If veda were to be revealed in another galaxy in another planet how will they make sense of the names in it? Obviously, if the veda is revealed there, its spiritual content will be the same, but not the textual content. // unquote // Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar PS : I've taken his concurrence to cross post his mail to other forum & I've marked a copy of this mail to him also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 advaitin , Mahesh Ursekar <maheshursekar wrote: > > Thanks for this simple question with many complex answers! Unfortunately, most simple questions are of that nature. :-) Namaste, The complexity is resolved for oneself when one has acquired the 'sAdhanA-chatuShTaya' and be qualified for the study of Brahmasutra and Bhashya, from a 'brahmaniShTha-shrotriya' teacher, and contemplate of Sutra 1:1:3-4 ( " shAstrayonitvAt " , " tattu samanvayAt " ). There is no other way! Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Dear Praveen-ji, > > > > Just a couple of points on what you say. > > > > You say: " I'd be surprised if you can come up with an example wherein shruti > contradicts pratyaksha or anumAna pramANa-s. " > > > All knowledge is anumana pramana including our sense data.That was what all seers tried to explain. SANKHYA PHILOSOPHY explains that the language is the base of intellectual games we play with ourselves. It is responsible for the division of SEER – SEEN which is an egocentric ideology. This virtual reality is the cause and its effect of illusion SANKARA Acharya said that group of symbols is a word and expression of these words is creation. However, mature logical ideology may be still it is partial and different from the real. Negation of all psychological impressions is to be wise thanks sekhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Dear Dennis-ji Thank you for your note. What I have offered is not my opinion but merely what my understanding is of the traditional opinion - which after all is the only opinion that (I am sure you will agree) matters. You bring up an important point - is this not a circular argument? My answer is no. I think it will be useful to consider here that the example you have given of a theologic view of scriptural authority is exactly similar to the nyaya view of the validity of the Vedas. According to the Nyaya, that there is a Lord who is a Omniscient Omnipotent Creator is obvious, is easy to infer. His line of argument runs very parallel to the design theory - we see intelligence all around us and hence we have to infer that there is a All-knowing God who is the Creator. In Shankara's sutrabhashya the arguments put forth by him are actually very convincing in this regard . There is a Omnipotent God - this is a given. He has composed the VedAs. Hence the VedAs are valid. What the Vedas say is the Truth? Why? Because it the word of God. This is what is a typically circular argument about scripture. The validity of the scripture rests on the the inferred belief in a Almighty Lord. The Advaita Vedanta position is different. Here the Vedas or Shruti i.e. scripture is held both sacrosanct and coeval with Creation and hence like Creation has no discernible beginning. Is there a God? This is not a matter of inference, or logically sound reasoning, but a matter of interpretation of the Shruti - does the Shruti affirm - explicityl or implicity - the presence of God? In fact the Mimamsakas who view the Shruti in exactly the same way i.e. apaurusheya come to the conlusion that there is no Ishwara per se that is a bestower of the fruits of our actions! So Vedanta does not take recourse to a concept of God to say that the scriptures are infallible (because it is the word of God). The Ishwara or God only passes along the eternal Vedas at the beginning of each creation to the Creator of the next cycle - and this also we know only from the VedAs themselves. So everything gets traced back to the Vedas. There is no circularity here. That excactly is what svatah-pramanyam means - that those words do not need any extraenous proof/ or authority to endorse their validity nor is such a proof even possible. Forget about all the karmakanda rituals which you may dismiss as being only culturally relevant or mythical etc - even if you you take " tat tvam asi " - what is the basis of accepting this? it is only the words of the Vedas. So someone else, outside of the Vedic faith, may argue in this also being " circular " : How do you know you are Brahman? Because the Vedas say so. And what makes you think that the Vedas are the exclusive means for such knowledge, and not any other? Because the Vedas say so. There is no getting around the fact that ultimately it rests on faith or shraddha. The terms like apaurusheya are technical terms handed down by tradition and hence any views on what they connote may be best also be traced down to the tradition of Shankara rather allow ourselves the liberty of more liberal interpretations of the same. With regards to your contention that the Shruti has self-contradictory passages - let me refer you to a section of the Brahmasutra bhashyas where Shankara addresses this in as many words - " In the Shruti we meet in different places with different statements concerning Creation. Some of those passages declare that space originated; some do not. Some record the origination of air; others do not. Other passages again make analogous statements concerning the individual soul and the vital airs.--Similarly we observe that other scriptural texts contradict one another concerning order of succession and the like.--Now, as we ourselves have inferred the worthlessness of other philosophical doctrines from their mutual contradictions, a suspicion might arise that our doctrine is equally worthless, owing to its intrinsic contradictions. Hence a new discussion is begun in order to clear from all doubt the sense of all those Vedânta-texts which refer to creation, and thus to remove the suspicion alluded to. " And if you read through this section you will not find any place Shankara taking recourse to a paramarthika standpoint of saying " well ultimately since there is no Creation to begin with we need not pay attention to these apparent contradictions " - and instead goes on to systematically interpret these statements in a cogent and cohesive manner. In fact it is worth noting that the Shruti itself does not explicitly affirm ajativada but it is Gaudapada and Shankara who show that this is what is derived from a impartial interpretation of the Shruti. This is why the sampradaya becomes sacrosanct - because without it one would simply get lost in the maze of seemingly contradictory viewpoints that the Shruti offers. And I have already pointed out to you the Sage of Kanchi's stated position on this issue as well as relevant portions from Shankara's sutrabhashya to show what the sampradaya's stance is. More information can be obtained from the Hindu Dharma book authored by His Holiness the Sage of Kanchi. Without unswerving faith in the absolute infallibility of the Shruti no self-knowledge is possible. This is both Shankara's and Bhagwan Krishna's consistent and considered stance - shraddhavan labhate jnanam. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- On Thu, 9/3/09, rgoteti <rgoteti wrote: advaitin@ s.com, " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Dear Praveen-ji, > > > > Just a couple of points on what you say. Recent Activity 2 New Members 1 New FilesVisit Your Group Give Back for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Hari Om, Shyam-ji, On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Shyam<shyam_md wrote: .... > In fact it is worth noting that the Shruti itself does not explicitly affirm > ajativada but it is Gaudapada and Shankara who show that this is what is > derived from a impartial interpretation of the Shruti. .... > This is why the sampradaya becomes sacrosanct - because without it one would > simply get lost in the maze of seemingly contradictory viewpoints that the > Shruti offers. Thanks for a wonderful explanation, I really enjoyed reading it. I've tried to express the same in lesser words, obviously failing in technical details, but your mail did make those points very well. I'm happy to see that faith in sampradAya remains important to many of us though keeping in mind just the end, some of us end up choosing just that at the cost of the path that leads to that very end -- nay -- even guarantees it! om tat sat, --Praveen R. Bhat /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [br.Up. 4.5.15] */ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Dear Shyam-ji, You seem to be refuting points that I do not believe I have made. In fact, I agree with most of what you say (and do not think I have ever said otherwise). It is only the apauruSheya aspect that I was querying. And all that I stated on this subject was my preferred, non-literal interpretation. Since you now seem to be opening up the discussion into other areas, I am bound to say that I do not follow one of your main assertions. (In case your logic rests upon the 'argument from design' for the existence of god, I believe this argument has been adequately refuted by western philosophy [at least].) Firstly, you accept the circularity of the argument: " There is a Omnipotent God - this is a given. He has composed the VedAs. Hence the VedAs are valid. What the Vedas say is the Truth? Why? Because it the word of God. This is what is a typically circular argument about scripture. The validity of the scripture rests on the the inferred belief in a Almighty Lord. " But you then go on to say: " The Advaita Vedanta position is different. Here the Vedas or Shruti i.e. scripture is held both sacrosanct and coeval with Creation and hence like Creation has no discernible beginning. " From where does this belief come? You say: " The Ishwara or God only passes along the eternal Vedas at the beginning of each creation to the Creator of the next cycle - and this also we know only from the VedAs themselves. " How does this position differ from that which you have just agreed is circular? I do agree entirely that one's belief in shAstra begins with faith. But this is usually belief in the guru, who 'translates' and unfolds shAstra according to sampradAya as you have pointed out. This, then, is faith in someone who has proven themselves to be reliable and trustworthy. Initially it is faith, then later it is directly realized knowledge (hopefully!). Incidentally, you say that: " any views on what they connote may be best also be traced down to the tradition of Shankara rather allow ourselves the liberty of more liberal interpretations of the same. " I am fairly certain that the views I expressed about the more reasonable understanding of the word apauruSheya have also been expressed by Swami Dayananda or Swami Paramarthananda, although I cannot quote where this occurred. This would, I assume, be acceptable as being 'in the tradition'? In the end, of course, it really does not matter what you take as an interim understanding, does it? If that adhyAropa brings you to direct intuition of the truth, it has served its purpose; it all has to be dropped in the end as having no more reality than the dream. This includes, of course, not only the authorship of the Vedas (or not) but the Vedas themselves. We really should not become hung up on the vyAvahArika. (And I am addressing myself as much as anyone else in this regard!) Best wishes, Dennis 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.