What is scripture?

[theist]

What qualifies a writing to be called scripture?

[ancient_paztriot]

First and foremost, scripture has to come from authorities. Scripture almost exclusively refers to theistic thought. The ideas of a higher personal reality are best explained by the source Himself. The more confidential, the closer to the source.

 

No man has really succeeded in manufacturing a relgion ( that I've heard of).

 

Secondly, I guess divine writings should come from antiquity.

 

The third point would probably be that the ABSOLUTE TRUTH has ALL the qualities which are emanating from it… which includes personality. It reasons that there is ONE PERSONAL TRUTH which includes all others… and His name happens to be Krsna… This is the verdict of many spiritual authorities. In fact, there's a whole family lineage of them… coming from Krsna Himself.

 

Krsna speaks the Bhagavad-gita. Who else can speak like that? He says, " Everything is resting on Me as pearls on a thread."

 

Who can reasonably argue that point?

[Guest guest]

As far as Vaishnavas are concerned, "scripture" is that which is apaurusheya - not authored by anyone.

 

 

[Govindaram]

is the sripture for this age.

[theist]

The reason I raised this question here is because when I asked myself I found I had no good and solid answer. So I hope more will come to discuss this so that I can listen in.

 

Another related question is what do we consider the writings of those we consider to be self realized. Like Jaiva-dharma by Bhaktivinode for example.

[theist]

 

As far as Vaishnavas are concerned, "scripture" is that which is apaurusheya - not authored by anyone.

 

 

How could a non-person write a scripture? Do you mean a unconditioned soul vs. a liberated soul?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Another related question is what do we consider the writings of those we consider to be self realized. Like Jaiva-dharma by Bhaktivinode for example.

•••scripture.. shastra, the guru is non different by krsna so, when he writes, he writes krsna's words

 

As far as Vaishnavas are concerned, "scripture" is that which is apaurusheya - not authored by anyone.

------

How could a non-person write a scripture? Do you mean a unconditioned soul vs. a liberated soul?

•••this is "positive impersonalism"... or better, from a material (mundane, human) point of view, the scriptures are written by no one, because god, in a sense, does not exist in the material world. It is like to say " not authored by any human".... also your "non -person" defition is nice: if the personal concept is the human one (birth, death, disease), god is a non person, impersonal...

 

god is a person only if we itroduce the concept of spiritual personality.. sat(no birth, no death) cit(no ignorance) ananda (no disease, no pain)

 

((the writer can be god or his representative.. the scriptures are word of god so your NON(material)PERSON concept has the same value))

 

hari bol!!!

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

How could a non-person write a scripture? Do you mean a unconditioned soul vs. a liberated soul?

 

 

 

The question presupposes that all scriptures must be "written."

 

Vedas have never been known to have an author, and all VedAntists know them to be without any author, period. This is the meaning of apaurusheya. Vaishnava VedAntists base their philosophy solely on apaurusheya-sAstras. They only accept those paurusheya-sAstras which do not contradict apaurusheya-sAstras.

 

Vedas are traditionally understood to have always existed. If they were composed at any one time, then this means that before that time, they did not exist. Why do you believe the Vedas were composed at any time? Do you have any evidence to suggest an author, or evidence to suggest a date at which they were created?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Another related question is what do we consider the writings of those we consider to be self realized. Like Jaiva-dharma by Bhaktivinode for example.

 

 

 

Traditionally, writings of self-realized sages are not considered apaurusheya. This is because acceptance as such requires acceptance of the author as self-realized. There are always differences of opinion as to who is self-realized and who is not.

 

Furthermore, the mere fact that a person is self-realized does not guarantee that what he says will be truth. Shiva incarnated as Shankara, and even though self-realized, he spoke mAyAvAda to mislead the people of Kali Yuga. Similarly, Vishnu incarnated as Buddha and also mislead people.

 

Thus, because of the above two points, apaurusheya really only refers to those scriptures without any author.

 

 

this is "positive impersonalism"...

 

 

 

No, it is the logic accepted by all Vaishnava VedAntins. It has nothing to do with impersonalism.

 

 

or better, from a material (mundane, human) point of view, the scriptures are written by no one, because god, in a sense, does not exist in the material world.

 

 

No, this is your own misunderstanding. Vedas are not written by anyone because (1) there is no information within the Vedas or without to suggest an author, and (2) there is no time in history in which Vedas were known to have an author.

 

If you feel Vedas were created at some time by a specific author or authors, please put forward the evidence here.

 

 

 

[theist]

Sounds Buddhist to me. They have a book out now called the book with no author. Although I'm sure someone cashes the royalty checks.

 

I can understand that truth is eternal but so are we. Are we also not composed of knowledge. Isn't scripture in this sense a fabric of our very being?

 

We all accept that genuine scripture is not a product of someone's mental speculation but someone penned or otherwise expressed that truth in a way that we who have forgotten it may again contact it.

[Guest guest]

 

We all accept that genuine scripture is not a product of someone's mental speculation but someone penned or otherwise expressed that truth in a way that we who have forgotten it may again contact it.

 

 

 

apaurusheya agama is revealed by mantra-drstas - seers who see the exact spelling, pronunciation down to the last comma and semicolon. Then the revealed mantras are preserved by oral traditions. Apaurusheya implies faultless because fault is not an inherent quality of sentences. Faults in sentences occur because of a cause and that cause is the faults in author. If there is no author, there can be no faults.

[Guest guest]

shruti is KNOWN to have NO authors. This is NOT the same as saying "No authors are known for shruti".

[Guest guest]

Vedas have never been known to have an author

••this is in human sense... in spiritual sense they are given directly or indirectly by god.. so god is the author... of course you are right that there's not an historical moment of composing, in the sense that they are eternal. Createn, composed, written is an easy way to explain even if not too precise.

(even if, at the same time, we have many historical moments of revelations.. like the "version" of bhagavad gita that krsna, who has already spoken it to vivasvan, gave to arjuna in kuruksetra....... so all the ways are there... eternal emanation and historical writing)

 

Traditionally, writings of self-realized sages are not considered apaurusheya. This is because acceptance as such requires acceptance of the author as self-realized. There are always differences of opinion as to who is self-realized and who is not.

••••correct, let us say that the writings of a realized soul cannot be "absolute" also for his godbrothers( who treat him as a friend) and his spiritual master (that treats him as a disciple),,,, but they are absolute for the disciples and the successors of that sampradaya, So vedas, itihasas, upanishad, aranyaka and so on are absolute for everyone and the writing of the masters are absolute for the successors... both absolute, this was the discussion... thank you to have add this new concept to clarify the matter

 

this is "positive impersonalism"...

------

No, it is the logic accepted by all Vaishnava VedAntins. It has nothing to do with impersonalism.

•••the concept : "vedas are given by no one" is clearly impersonal, the concept "the vedas are given by krsna" is personal... the first assumption is right if we see the matter from a human perspective, the second is right in absolute

 

there is no information within the Vedas or without to suggest an author,

••read the gita... krsna gives the gita many times .. the last one to arjuna.. so krsna is the author

 

there is no time in history in which Vedas were known to have an author

•••god gives vedas,, maybe not as a "biblic like" creation but by emanation or revelation, continuous revelation, but there's ever one who gives the things.. we believe in god, we are not atheist

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Sounds Buddhist to me. They have a book out now called the book with no author.

 

 

No, Buddhists do not have a concept of apaurusheya. The book you are referring to most likely involves some other idea.

 

Apaurusheyatva is accepted by all Vaishnava VedAntins. Indeed, the very idea of proposing an author to the Vedas is so un-Vaishnava - it is more characteristic of neo-VedAntic movements like Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc. Even orthodox mAyAvadis would not accept such an idea.

 

 

We all accept that genuine scripture is not a product of someone's mental speculation but someone penned or otherwise expressed that truth in a way that we who have forgotten it may again contact it.

 

 

Why the desire to propose a creation for the Vedas? Have you any evidence as to "who" and supposedly "when" Vedas were created?

 

The mere fact that something is "forgotten" does not imply that it no longer exists. Vedas may be manifest at some times, or not manifest at some times, but they always exist. No one needs to "compose" them again.

[Guest guest]

 

Vedas have never been known to have an author

••this is in human sense... in spiritual sense they are given directly or indirectly by god.. so god is the author... of course you are right that there's not an historical moment of composing, in the sense that they are eternal. Createn, composed, written is an easy way to explain even if not too precise.

 

 

 

No, you are confusing composition with giving. The Vedas do emanate from the Supreme Brahman (Vishnu). But that is not the same thing as saying that Vishnu composed the Vedas.

 

 

Traditionally, writings of self-realized sages are not considered apaurusheya. This is because acceptance as such requires acceptance of the author as self-realized. There are always differences of opinion as to who is self-realized and who is not.

••••correct, let us say that the writings of a realized soul cannot be "absolute" also for his godbrothers( who treat him as a friend) and his spiritual master (that treats him as a disciple),,,, but they are absolute for the disciples and the successors of that sampradaya, So vedas, itihasas, upanishad, aranyaka and so on are absolute for everyone and the writing of the masters are absolute for the successors... both absolute, this was the discussion... thank you to have add this new concept to clarify the matter

 

 

 

The point is that one cannot use paurusheya vAkyas in any discussion of VedAnta - others will not share your faith that a given author is "self-realized." VedAntists do not have such arguments - rather, they mutually accept a set of sAstra-s (shruti) as authority which have no author.

 

 

•••the concept : "vedas are given by no one" is clearly impersonal, the concept "the vedas are given by krsna" is personal... the first assumption is right if we see the matter from a human perspective, the second is right in absolute

 

 

 

As mentioned previously, you are confusing "composed/written/created" with "given." Nobody denies that from Vishnu the Vedas are given. The issue is who composed the Vedas.

 

There is no author for the Vedas, as the Vedas have always existed. That does not preclude the possibility that Vishnu, who always knows the Vedas, can give that knowledge.

 

Lord Vishnu did not create the Vedas. Nor does He create the jIva-s. These things are eternal, having no beginning in time.

 

 

there is no information within the Vedas or without to suggest an author,

••read the gita... krsna gives the gita many times .. the last one to arjuna.. so krsna is the author

 

 

 

Nowhere in the gItA does Krishna say that He created the Vedas. Also, "giving" is not the same thing as "authoring."

 

 

there is no time in history in which Vedas were known to have an author

•••god gives vedas,, maybe not as a "biblic like" creation but by emanation or revelation, continuous revelation, but

 

 

God Gives Vedas. He does not create them. You seem to have a lot of difficulty separating these two concepts.

 

 

there's ever one who gives the things.. we believe in god, we are not atheist

 

 

AcAryas like RAmAnuja and Madhva are also not atheists. Perhaps you have heard of them? They and their followers have always understood the Vedas to be unauthored. Perhaps you know something they do not?

 

[Guest guest]

 

shruti is KNOWN to have NO authors. This is NOT the same as saying "No authors are known for shruti".

 

 

What I had meant to say was "there was no tradition in the past in which Vedas were thought of as being authored." But in retrospect, I should have said it your way for clarity.

 

Many folk songs have unknown authors, but in the past someone knew that these songs were authored and even knew who the author was. Folk songs are not unauthored - they simply are "author unknown."

 

But Vedas were always thought of as unauthored in the past. Vedas also do not describe any author, although they describe so many other details (rishi, deva, meter). Why do they neglect to describe their author? Because there isn't one.

 

[Guest guest]

you are confusing composition with giving. The Vedas do emanate from the Supreme Brahman (Vishnu). But that is not the same thing as saying that Vishnu composed the Vedas.

•••i accept the correction, i was meaning precisely emanation, but being not so fluet in english i was not finding the precise words (it is demonstrated by"of course you are right that there's not an historical moment of composing"... so i also was attempting to explain an emanation and not a creation in historical sense)

 

The point is that one cannot use paurusheya vAkyas in any discussion of VedAnta

••my main use of the scriptures is to humbly attempt to give some spiritual relief to the people... i am not interested in academic debates.. if saying "prabhupada is absolute, please read him.." i help some one for me is right, correct, vaishnava, sattvik and vedic

 

others will not share your faith that a given author is "self-realized.

•••it is right , but you have not to suppose that i say things out of context... if i am speaking with people not taking my spiritual master as absolute i do not use his assertion to hear someone offending him: "he's not absolute.. we don't care.."

 

Spirituality is practical

 

 

Nobody denies that from Vishnu the Vedas are given. The issue is who composed the Vedas.

••it is a question of terminology, we are in a specialistic forum, the totality of us does not believe in a "birth" of the jiva nor of the vedas... we are taught that eternity has to be in both directions... after and before.. so we know in what sense this "who composed", "who written", "who has created" is used.... So thanks for the clarification but this terminology is used also by acharyas when it is practical.

Vishnu does not compose the vedas in the sense that vedas start to exist ... he emanates them, they are eternal like him, they exist within him

 

They and their followers have always understood the Vedas to be unauthored. Perhaps you know something they do not?

••hare krishna, happy new year 2004!

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Is Ramayana considered a scripture?

[theist]

So are we to accept that God lacks the ability to be an author?

 

This interpretation sounds like impersonalism to me. Like saying God is formless.

 

I am also interested in how the Ramayana is to be accepted.

[Guest guest]

Ramayan, mahabharat i.e. itihas, purans, smriti are auxiliary scripture. They have an author - for example Veda Vyasa. They are used in a supportive role as writings of persons who have understood the purport of the whole apaurusheya shruti - the primary scripture. However anything opposed to shruti is to be immediately rejected.

[Guest guest]

Composition if God is also NOT apaurusheya - autherless - it means just that - not even God has authored shruti.

 

Existence of autherless work does not imply God lacks the ability to be author. Even if God composes something, it is still authored - authored by God. Though God is faultless, there is no guarantee that God intends to give faultless knowledge in some of his authored work therefore there has to be an independent benchmark to measure each authored work to accept it under the fold of being scripture (supportive), then there is the problem of proving the author to be God and also we have to presuppose the existence of God and if scriprure is the place form when we can know God and his authorship, then this becomes a circular logic.

 

Therefore primary scripture is apaurusheya agama

[Guest guest]

pramANera madhye Sruti pramANa——pradhAna

Sruti ye mukhyArtha kahe, sei se pramANa

 

Amongst the sources of knowledge, Sruti is the foremost. Whatever is the direct meaning of Sriti, that is to be considered as evidence.

 

[yasodanandana]

ramayana is scripture...

 

we are more practical than our friend.... krsna is the source of all scriptures.... the ones who are emanated and the ones who are "created" directly by him or by his representatives like prabhupada, valmiki, bhaktisiddhanta, our guru maharaja etc,

 

so what comes by krsna is scripture and "apaurusheya" because it has no material creation

.

.

so, on one side there's the discussion rules of the vedic/hindu historical and scholars... and we have surely to know it for preaching purpose... on the other side there's the practical and urgent need to go back to godhead.. and for this purpose the words of god given by god or by god through the acharya are the same

 

do you agree prabhu?

[Guest guest]

"so what comes by krsna is scripture and "apaurusheya" because it has no material creation"

 

Apaurusheya has a very specific meaning. Now people have every right to put their faith wherever they like and it may very well work for them, but if one needs to start from the first principles, then the above blanket-ism will not work.

[yasodanandana]

you have perfectly understood... from an ethimologic, specialistic, academical, tecnical point of view you are perfectly right...

 

but

 

for advancing in spiritual consciousness guru, shastra, sadhu are equally necessary and they work conjointly

 

if vedas are absolute and my guru is a rascal the result of my reading of vedas is almost zero even if them are apaurusheya