Life Beyond Death - Part 1

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Namaste. Upanishads...! How logical and grand every one of them !

To appreciate and understand them more precisely, I would like to post

my thoughts over the Katha Upanishad, along with my understanding of

the commentary of Sri Sankara and the sub-commentary of

Balagopalendra. I request the learned members, as usual, to correct

me wherever I blunder.

 

I shall start with the introduction which Sri Shankara gives to the

upanishad. But, without getting into the first and the second boons, I

shall directly go to the third boon. With this preamble let me get

into the task.

 

-------

Om.

 

Salutations to the Teacher of Brahmavidya, i.e., Lord Yama, son of the

Sun God and the Student, i.e., Nachiketas.

 

Sri Shankaras starts the Upanishad with the above salutation.

Salutations to the Guru / Teacher and salutations to the exemplary

student. He says: Now, to facilitate the understanding of the

Upanishad, a small treatise is being started here.

 

First, Sri Shankara explains what the word Upanishad means. It is

required to know the meaning of the word Upanishad. Before exactly

getting into what Sri Shankara is going to say about this, we shall

have a brief understanding of why we require to know the meaning of

this word.

 

There are six major schools of thought in Hinduism.They are Nyaya,

Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa, Uttara Mimansa. Each of the

above is having its own basic texts. The purpose of each of the above

is about the soul or to find out the way for eternal happiness of the

soul, to get freedom from the sufferings of the world.

 

Each has propounded its own ways. We are mainly concerned here about

the Uttara Mimamsa only. Uttara Mimamsa was propounded by the Sage

Vyasa. He collected and grouped the Vedas into four and from them he

extracted the essence of the Vedas. Later, he compiled Sutras

(formulas) which summarizes the essential purport of the Vedas. These

sutras go by the name Vedanta Sutra or Shaariraka Sutra or Brahma

Sutra or Uttara Mimamsa Sutra etc.

 

Vedanta is the essence of the Vedas. It is not the " end " of the

Vedas, though the term 'anta' in the Vedanta means the 'end'. Vedas

do not have any beginning or the end. Hence, 'end' of the Vedas is a

misnomer. It simply means the conclusion of the Vedas; after

attaining this, there is no necessity to speculate the meaning of the

Vedas. Thus the Vedanta means the Goal of the Vedas.

 

Vedanta essentially consists of Upanishads. Though there are many

Upanishads, Sri Shankara written commentaries on 10 Upanisads (Some

include Svetasvatara too). One of them is Katha Upanishad. This

Upanishad falls under the Katha branch of 'Krishna Yajur Veda'. Thus

it derived its name Katha Upanishad.

 

Sri Shankara explains: The terms Upanishad literally means: upa + ni +

sad + kvip.

 

In Sanskrit, the root of any word would be an action. In this word

Upanishad, the root is 'sad'. The root 'sad' when prefixed by 'upa'

and 'ni' and affixed by 'kvip', becomes Upanishad. Then, what is the

meaning of the root 'sad' ? It has three distinct meanings:

 

1) to destroy

2) to understand

3) to fall apart

 

 

Earlier, we have seen that the word 'Upanishad' is Vedanta and it is

the essence of the Vedas. If it being so, how the above three

distinct meanings apply to the word, to make the word represent the

'essence of the Vedas', namely Brahma Vidya?

 

 

1) Upanishad represents Brahma Vidya or the Knowledge of Brahman.

This Knowledge destroys, demolishes, eradicates the primordial

ignorance or avidya. That avidya is the cause of the transactional

reality or the apparent reality of this world. Only those who are

free from the desires of this world, and that of the other world, the

ones who are after liberation, their ignorance is thus demolished.

So, the first meaning of the word 'sad' in the word Upanishad, is

vindicated thus.

 

With regards,

Anupam.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote:

>

> Dear Friends,

>

> Namaste.

 

Uttara Mimamsa was propounded by the Sage

> Vyasa. He collected and grouped the Vedas into four and from them he

extracted the essence of the Vedas.

 

Namaste Anupam ji,

 

While thanking you and sincerely appreciating the task you have taken up, I have

a small question on the topic of 'Bhagavan Veda Vyasa collecting and grouping

the Vedas into four.' A detailed post on this topic is available here:

 

http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-March/045698.html

 

While I would have liked to post it straight away on this List, since there are

a number of Sanskrit quotations, I have desisted from doing so. A response to

the question posed therein is welcome from any of the members.

 

With warm regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Dear Subbu-ji,

Your question is--- how is it said that vyAsa divided the vedas into four parts,

when the names of each of the vedas is already mentioned in the vedas.

The statement that the vedas were divided into four parts gives the impression

that the content of each of the parts is different. This is, however, not the

case. SAmaveda has 1875 hymns. Out of these, 1800 are bodily lifted from Rig

veda. Each Rig mantra is chanted as a sAma with totally different svaras. Some

Rig mantras have more that one sAma, i.e., it is chanted in more than one way.

Thus sAma veda is not an independent veda. The word sAma refers only to the mode

of chanting a Rig Mantra and not the mantra itself. SAyaNa says in his

introduction to his commentary on sAma veda—sAmashabdasya gAnamAtravAcitvam.

 

Atharva veda also consists mainly of mantras from Rig and Yajurvedas. Thus there

are actually only two separate vedas. Even here there is some repetition. Some

mantras appear in both these vedas.

 

Rig refers to the mantras in verse. Yajus means the mantras used for yajna. Rig

veda mantras are all in verse. Yajurveda mantras are mostly prose. Thus these

two words refer to the nature of the mantras. They are not actually names. Thus

in Purushasukta what is said can be taken to mean that mantras with the

characteristics of Rig, yajus and sAma came into existence. These must have been

there even before the division.

Atharva is not mentioned here.

The statement that vysa divided the vedas does not come in any shruti. It comes

in Srimad Bhagavatam at the beginning, before Narada met vyAsa. So the division

may have taken place before Narada met Sanatkumara in Ch. up. and mentioned

about his knowledge of these vedas by name. Even if we do not assume this, there

is no problem. Narada must have referred to the portions of the veda which bear

the characteristics of Rig, yajus and sAma. The word Atharva also may have some

such meaning, but I do not know.

Finally, we cannot accept the statements in the purANas literally and consider

them to be historical narratives. If they were, there is no reason why there

should be such differences from one purANa to another in narrating the same

incidents. As I had pointed out in an earlier message, in Srimad Bhagavatam Suka

is described as a life-long celibate, while in Devi Bhagavatam he gets married

and begets four children. There are such differences between Vishnupuranam and

Bhagavatam. So the statement that vyAsa divided the vedas may be intended only

as praise and not literally.

 

While on the subject of the vedas I thought I would share a humorous thought

with you all though it does not come within the scope of this List. Nowadays

marriages in which one party is a Tamilian Brahmin and the other a non-Hindu,

usually a westerner, are becoming common. The family of the Tamilian Brahmin

insists on celebrating the marriage strictly according to the vedic rites,

though this is only making a mockery of the vedas.

Recently I attended a marriage where the bride-groom was a Tamil Brahmin and

the bride an Indian Christian. They had a regular vedic marriage, with all

paraphernalia such as Oonjal, etc. I was wondering what they would have said for

the pravaram of the bride. Perhaps it could go like this--- Yesu gotrodbhavAm

Robert mahAshayasya naphtrIm, John mahAshayasya pautrIm, Williams mahAshayasya

putrIm, Julia nAmnIm madIyAm kanyAm---

 

I attended another marriage in which the bride was a Tamil Brahmin and the groom

an American. The American was asked by the priest to repeat the veda mantras. I

must say that he repeated them very clearly and with sincerity, unlike some of

our Brahmin boys who mumble them as if they feel ashamed to pronounce them.

Please excuse me for this straying away from the scope of the List.

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

> Namaste Anupam ji,

>

> While thanking you and sincerely appreciating the task you have taken up, I

have a small question on the topic of 'Bhagavan Veda Vyasa collecting and

grouping the Vedas into four.' A detailed post on this topic is available here:

>

> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-March/045698.html

>

> While I would have liked to post it straight away on this List, since there

are a number of Sanskrit quotations, I have desisted from doing so. A response

to the question posed therein is welcome from any of the members.

>

> With warm regards,

> subbu

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sir,

 

Thank you for the interest in the topic. I am still not able to figure out as

to what indeed did Veda Vyasa do in this context. The several examples I have

cited from the Veda are quite clear in their purport about four distinct

shAkha-s/branches already available. I had left out one reference: In the

Mundakopanishat it is said that under aparA vidyA the Rg, Yajus, sAma and

atharva veda-s get included. For this mantra 1.1.5, Shankara writes:

 

// Rgvedo yajurvedaH saamavedo atharvaveda ityete catvaaro vedaaH...//

 

[Rgveda, yajurveda, saamaveda, atharvaveda - these four veda-s...]

 

Surely this and all the other references cited by me do not give one an

impression that there was one 'veda raashi', a heap of undivided mantra-s

'before Veda VyAsa did the dividing'. Especially when we consider the

'svAdhyAyo adhyetavyaH' where the vedic injunction/instruction/vidhi for one to

engage in the adhyayanam of 'one's own branch of the veda', it is clear that

there were already the branches specified for each (eligible) person in the

society. This too does not give us an impression that there was one veda

raashi/mantra raashi before which needed to be 'classified/segragated' and given

to people of the kali yuga.

 

I would also like to know if there is any mention in the Acharya's bhashyam

about Veda VyAsa's 'dividing' the Veda-s into four.

 

Is there the specific reference in the Bhagavatam for this?

 

If we say that the division must have taken place before Narada met Sanatkumara

in the Chandogya Upanishad, then we will be accepting that the Chandogya

Upanishad is a creation in time, after some event, and the other Upanishads

which talk of four veda-s are 'before' in time, before this event. It is such

issues that pushed me to raise this question and get a proper understanding of

the issue.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Dear Subbu-ji,

> Your question is--- how is it said that vyAsa divided the vedas into four

parts, when the names of each of the vedas is already mentioned in the vedas.

> The statement that the vedas were divided into four parts gives the impression

that the content of each of the parts is different. This is, however, not the

case. SAmaveda has 1875 hymns. Out of these, 1800 are bodily lifted from Rig

veda. Each Rig mantra is chanted as a sAma with totally different svaras. Some

Rig mantras have more that one sAma, i.e., it is chanted in more than one way.

Thus sAma veda is not an independent veda. The word sAma refers only to the mode

of chanting a Rig Mantra and not the mantra itself. SAyaNa says in his

introduction to his commentary on sAma veda�sAmashabdasya gAnamAtravAcitvam.

 

> Atharva veda also consists mainly of mantras from Rig and Yajurvedas. Thus

there are actually only two separate vedas. Even here there is some repetition.

Some mantras appear in both these vedas.

>

> Rig refers to the mantras in verse. Yajus means the mantras used for yajna.

Rig veda mantras are all in verse. Yajurveda mantras are mostly prose. Thus

these two words refer to the nature of the mantras. They are not actually names.

Thus in Purushasukta what is said can be taken to mean that mantras with the

characteristics of Rig, yajus and sAma came into existence. These must have been

there even before the division.

> Atharva is not mentioned here.

> The statement that vysa divided the vedas does not come in any shruti. It

comes in Srimad Bhagavatam at the beginning, before Narada met vyAsa. So the

division may have taken place before Narada met Sanatkumara in Ch. up. and

mentioned about his knowledge of these vedas by name. Even if we do not assume

this, there is no problem. Narada must have referred to the portions of the veda

which bear the characteristics of Rig, yajus and sAma. The word Atharva also may

have some such meaning, but I do not know.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Subbuji,

It is stated in Srimad Bhagavatam, Skandha 1, chapter 4, that vyAsa divided the

veda into four and taught them to his sishyas—Rigveda to Paila, sAma to Jaimini,

yajurveda to VaishampAyana and Atharva to sumantu.

I do not know of any mention of this by the Acharya.

The matter contained in the vedas is anAdi, but the vedas were heard or

discovered by different Rishis who lived in time. Visvamitra is said have

discovered gayatri mantra, but the mantra itself was already there. Similarly

Narada's meeting with Sanatkumara must have been within time, but the

instruction contained was beginningless. All the Rishis who are credited with

having " seen " the mantras, like BharadvAja, Madhucchandas, Vamadeva, etc., must

have lived only in time and so the upanishads must have been given out by them

within time. The defect mentioned by you will not therefore arise if it is

said that Narada must have met Sanatkumara after the division, if there was any.

 

As you say, there is nothing to show that the vedas were one previously. But if

it was not so, why should they speak about dividing it? Instead of taking the

statement literally we may perhaps go by its purport (tAtparya) which seems to

be that vyAsa entrusted his four disciples with the task of disseminating the

four vedas.

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> I would also like to know if there is any mention in the Acharya's bhashyam

about Veda VyAsa's 'dividing' the Veda-s into four.

>

> Is there the specific reference in the Bhagavatam for this?

>

> If we say that the division must have taken place before Narada met

Sanatkumara in the Chandogya Upanishad, then we will be accepting that the

Chandogya Upanishad is a creation in time, after some event, and the other

Upanishads which talk of four veda-s are 'before' in time, before this event.

It is such issues that pushed me to raise this question and get a proper

understanding of the issue.

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Here are other references for Veda Vyasa having compiled the 4 Vedas: Mahabharata: 1.57.74-75, 1.1.52, 1.54.3-5Agni Purana: in chapter 150Kurma Purana: 1.4Vayu Purana: 2.15.74-75

On 23 March 2010 21:42, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Subbuji,

It is stated in Srimad Bhagavatam, Skandha 1, chapter 4, that vyAsa divided the veda into four and taught them to his sishyas—Rigveda to Paila, sAma to Jaimini, yajurveda to VaishampAyana and Atharva to sumantu.

I do not know of any mention of this by the Acharya.

The matter contained in the vedas is anAdi, but the vedas were heard or discovered by different Rishis who lived in time. Visvamitra is said have discovered gayatri mantra, but the mantra itself was already there. Similarly Narada's meeting with Sanatkumara must have been within time, but the instruction contained was beginningless. All the Rishis who are credited with having " seen " the mantras, like BharadvAja, Madhucchandas, Vamadeva, etc., must have lived only in time and so the upanishads must have been given out by them within time. The defect mentioned by you will not therefore arise if it is said that Narada must have met Sanatkumara after the division, if there was any.

 

As you say, there is nothing to show that the vedas were one previously. But if it was not so, why should they speak about dividing it? Instead of taking the statement literally we may perhaps go by its purport (tAtparya) which seems to be that vyAsa entrusted his four disciples with the task of disseminating the four vedas.

 

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> I would also like to know if there is any mention in the Acharya's bhashyam about Veda VyAsa's 'dividing' the Veda-s into four.

>

> Is there the specific reference in the Bhagavatam for this?

>

> If we say that the division must have taken place before Narada met Sanatkumara in the Chandogya Upanishad, then we will be accepting that the Chandogya Upanishad is a creation in time, after some event, and the other Upanishads which talk of four veda-s are 'before' in time, before this event. It is such issues that pushed me to raise this question and get a proper understanding of the issue.

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

 

 

 

 

 

-- Kathirasan

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Kathirasan K <brahmasatyam wrote:

>

> Namaste

>

> Here are other references for Veda Vyasa having compiled the 4 Vedas:

>

> Mahabharata: 1.57.74-75, 1.1.52, 1.54.3-5

> Agni Purana: in chapter 150

> Kurma Purana: 1.4

> Vayu Purana: 2.15.74-75

>

> On 23 March 2010 21:42, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> >

 

 

Namaste,

 

Kanchi Mahasvamigal's book, Hidu Dharma (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1995),

has reference to this:

 

[The whole chapter makes fascinating reading.]

 

http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap38.htm

 

 

" ....The sage who was to carry out Bhagvan Krsna's resolve was not then called

Veda Vyasa. His name too was Krsna and, since he was born on an island, he had

the appellation " Dvaipayana " ( Islander). Badarayana is another name of his.

Krsna Dvaipayana knew all the 1,180 sakhas( recensions) of the Vedas revealed to

the world by various sages. They were mingled together in one great stream.

Being remarkably gifted, our ancestors could memorise all of them. For the

benefit of weaker people like us, Vyasa divided them into four Vedas and

subdivided each into sakhas. It was like damming a river and taking the water

through various canals. Vyasa accomplished the task of dividing the Vedas easily

because he was a great yogin with vision and because he had the power gained

from austerities....... "

 

In the book, The Vedas, (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1988), Swamigal

also mentions that Atharva Veda has a different Gayatri mantra than the other

three (Rik, Sama, Yajus), and requires a separate Upanayanam and Brahmopadesh

for its study.

 

In Gita, 9:17, the mention of " ...RRik-sAma-yajureva cha " has been explained

by Madhusudan Saraswati in his commentary as the word 'cha'

implies inclusion of Atharva Veda also. (Shankara Bhashya has no comment on

this).

 

Again, in Gita 9:20, the word used is " traividyA " and mentions the three

Vedas only. Even in Chandogya Upanishad, 7:1:1-4, Shankara Bhashya refers to

three Veda-s, but quotes Mundaka Upanishad (Atharva Veda).

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " sunderh " <sunderh wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Kanchi Mahasvamigal's book, Hidu Dharma (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1995),

has reference to this:

>

>

> " ....The sage who was to carry out Bhagvan Krsna's resolve was not then called

Veda Vyasa. His name too was Krsna and, since he was born on an island, he had

the appellation " Dvaipayana " ( Islander). Badarayana is another name of his.

Krsna Dvaipayana knew all the 1,180 sakhas( recensions) of the Vedas revealed to

the world by various sages. They were mingled together in one great stream.

 

 

Namaste.

 

My thanks to Sastri ji, Kathirasan ji and Sunder ji for the references. My

quest is centered on the above point made by the Kanchi Acharya. At what time

were the vedic recensions 'mingled together in one great stream'? If it is in

'pralaya' it is quite understandable. In the Mandukya Upanishad it is said that

in the daily 'pralaya', sleep, the variety of knowledge-s of an individual

remain as 'ghana prajna', an undifferentiated 'mass'. When the waking occurs,

the differentiation is manifested. In similar way if it is said that in the

mahaa pralaya the vedic recensions were in one mingled stream it is fine. But

when the next cycle of sriShTi commences, all that comes out in distinct form.

So says the PuruSha sUkta that I have quoted already. It also says 'dhAtA yathA

pUrvam akalpayat' - The Creator brings forth as it was in the earlier cycle.

 

It is this way alone it happens in each creation, in each Yuga. It is said in

the Sutra Bhashyam, ref. is not known right now, that: apAntaratamo nAma muniH

kali-dvApara-sandhau vyAsatvena sambabhUva - a sage named 'apAntaratamas'

incarnated in the confluence of Kali and dvApara yuga-s with the name / position

of 'vyAsa'. If this VyAsa is being referred by the Kanchi AchArya, then we

would like to know when the vedic recensions 'became' mingled together. I have

to say 'became' because going by the PuruSha sUktam, every time creation takes

place, as it would have at the beginning of the Kali Yuga too, the specific Rg,

Yajus and sAma recensions would have come out. There is no mention in any Veda

about a special thing happening in each Kali Yuga. Here is where I get stuck.

Nor does the Veda anywhere say that a VyAsa is required to 'divide' or classify

the 'mingled' vedas. I would like to know if the various purANic references

anywhere give any light on this question.

 

Or is it wrong on my part to connect the purANic reference to the vedic

classification by VyAsa to the Vedic mention of the Four Vedas? I should perhaps

leave the purANa to themselves and the Veda/Upanishads to themselves.

 

I am sorry if my insistence appears irritable. Maybe I am missing something that

others see easily.

 

Best regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

>

>

> advaitin , " sunderh " <sunderh@> wrote:

> > >

> It is this way alone it happens in each creation, in each Yuga. It is said in

the Sutra Bhashyam, ref. is not known right now, that: apAntaratamo nAma muniH

kali-dvApara-sandhau vyAsatvena sambabhUva - a sage named 'apAntaratamas'

incarnated in the confluence of Kali and dvApara yuga-s with the name / position

of 'vyAsa'. If this VyAsa is being referred by the Kanchi AchArya, then we

would like to know when the vedic recensions 'became' mingled together.

 

Namaste,

 

The reference is Brahmasutra Bhashya 3:3:32:

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_3/bs_3-3-19.html

 

Yavadadhikaramavasthitiradhikarikanam III.3.32 (391)

 

Of those who have a mission to fulfil (there is corporeal) existence, so long as

the mission is not fulfilled.

 

Yavadadhikaram: so long as the mission is not fulfilled; Avasthitih: (there is

corporeal) existence; Adhikarikanam: of those who have a mission in life to

fulfil. (Yavad: as long as; Adhikaram: mission, purpose to be fulfilled.)

 

A plausible objection to Sutra 31 is refuted.

 

" The Purvapakshin says Rishi Apantaratamas, a teacher of the Vedas was by the

order of Vishnu, born on this earth as Vyasa or Krishna Dvaipayana. Similarly

Vasishtha, the son of Brahma's mind having parted from former body in

consequence of the curse of Nimi, was on the order of Brahma, again procreated

by Mitra and Varuna. Bhrigu and other sons of Brahma's mind were again born at

the sacrifice of Varuna. Sanatkumara also, who likewise was a son of Brahma's

mind, was in consequence of a boon being granted to Rudra, born again as Skanda.

Daksha, Narada and other Rishis were born again. It is stated that some assumed

a new body after the old body had perished, some assumed through their

supernatural powers various new bodies while the old body remained intact all

the while " ...................... "

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Subbuji,

Namaste.

 

 

> While thanking you and sincerely appreciating the task you have taken up, I

> have a small question on the topic of 'Bhagavan Veda Vyasa collecting and

> grouping the Vedas into four.' A detailed post on this topic is available

> here:

>

> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-March/045698.html

>

> While I would have liked to post it straight away on this List, since there

> are a number of Sanskrit quotations, I have desisted from doing so. A

> response to the question posed therein is welcome from any of the members.

 

 

Though, 'Bhagavan Sri Vedavyasa has grouped and divided the Vedas into

four' is the general opinion of the scholars, it is still the opinion.

Even it is proved otherwise, the Vedas in general and the Upanishads

in particular will not loose its credibility. Because, they are

svatapramaaNa (They are by-itself Valid). They do not stand on the

authority of anyone. Swami Vivekananda says in some place, " Not even

Sri Krishna is the authority of the Vedas, but the Vedas are the

authority of Sri Krishna also. " That is true.

 

So, I would prefer to continue with Upanishad proper.

 

With regards,

Anupam.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

**********

 

'Bhagavan Veda Vyasa collecting and grouping the Vedas into four.'

 

**********

 

This was a mind-boggling issue even to Shri Vashista Ganapati Muni. Shri

Ganapati Muni has written a wonderful thesis work on " Bharata Charitra Pariksha "

that details out the date of Mahabharata, its authorship etc. While dealing

with it, there are 2 separate chapters called 1) Vyasa Kala Vicharah 2)

Vaishampayana Kala Vicharah.

 

Shri Ganapati Muni in Vyasa Kala Vicharah writes:

 

rgyajuH sAmAtharvaNAM vEdAnAmavibhaktAnAM vibhAkridvEdavyAsaH kriShNadvaipAyana

iti mahAbhAratE purANEShu cha kathyatE //

 

mantrAtmaka vEdAnAm iti eka pakShah; sa brAhmaNAnAm ityaparaH; AdyE pakShE

sarvavEdamantraprAdurbhAvAdatantarO vyAsasya kAlaH; dvitIyE pakShE

tatO(a)phyarvAchInaH //

 

So, even Ganapati Muni broke his head with respect to Vyasa Kala Nirnayah as

well as number of Vyasas. Who the Vyasa was, whether a single personality or a

group of scholars? What did Vyasa do, whether classified the veda bhaga

pertaining to Mantra Bhaga, Brahmana Bhaga or Upanishad Bhaga.

 

When time permits, i would produce the entire manuscripts of Shri Ganapati Muni

regarding his research work.

 

regs,

sriram

 

advaitin , anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Subbuji,

> Namaste.

>

>

> > While thanking you and sincerely appreciating the task you have taken up, I

> > have a small question on the topic of 'Bhagavan Veda Vyasa collecting and

> > grouping the Vedas into four.' A detailed post on this topic is available

> > here:

> >

> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-March/045698.html

> >

> > While I would have liked to post it straight away on this List, since there

> > are a number of Sanskrit quotations, I have desisted from doing so. A

> > response to the question posed therein is welcome from any of the members.

>

>

> Though, 'Bhagavan Sri Vedavyasa has grouped and divided the Vedas into

> four' is the general opinion of the scholars, it is still the opinion.

> Even it is proved otherwise, the Vedas in general and the Upanishads

> in particular will not loose its credibility. Because, they are

> svatapramaaNa (They are by-itself Valid). They do not stand on the

> authority of anyone. Swami Vivekananda says in some place, " Not even

> Sri Krishna is the authority of the Vedas, but the Vedas are the

> authority of Sri Krishna also. " That is true.

>

> So, I would prefer to continue with Upanishad proper.

>

> With regards,

> Anupam.

>