Teaching Morals Of Ramayana To Kids

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Vedas are apauruṣeya ("not of human agency") is an integral part of teaching in our scriptures.
How can we understand this point without requiring one to submit to a belief system?
This is a sequel to post #70 at the request of Sri Prasad in post #80.

In post #74, Sri Sangom says "I do not believe in any "divine revelation" in the sense that a superior God sitting high above chooses a fit person and tells him/her the solution" I do not agree with that vision as well .

Also our Vedic vision of Isvara is anything but that. The above view of the Lord comes to Hindu mind due to the influence of biblical religions over centuries of conversion. My point is not to put down anyone’s belief system but to recognize that it is but a belief system and hence outside of reason (and therefore not worth debating about).

I feel that many in the world think that the purpose of following a religious tradition is to ensure spot in heaven/paradise (per biblical religion) or Vaikunta/Siva Lokam (Hindus). They can then spend eternity in the company of God. This kind of thinking falls under the pursuit of Artha and Kama. Almost all religious traditions including those in India cater to this pursuit.

In my view this kind of 'Vaikunta/Siva lokam' promotion by religious practices corrupts our thinking faculty and makes us assign magical powers to Isvara who is thought to break the Order we see in this universe expressed in terms of laws of physics, chemistry, biology, human interaction, etc. In fact the order we see itself is but manifestation of Isvara already.
Ved(anta) as a topic can only make sense when one can overcome the desire for an eternal heaven through understanding and reasoning.

Before addressing why Vedas are not of human agency it is important that one knows answers to two questions with clarity:

1. What is this topic about? If anyone says it is another philosophy then there is lot more infrastructures needed to understand the topic, in my view. I cannot provide satisfactory responses to questions that come from not knowing this
2. What is the only problem does the Upanishads address?

I will not be addressing the above items in this post.


Veda is not a book or a set of Mantras but is a means of attaining knowledge.

Let us first note that all knowledge actually is not of human agency.

We may credit Newton for showing the world why an apple falls from a tree or why earth goes around the Sun. But the physical order manifested in terms of law of Gravitation has no human authorship. Human beings can discover the laws but they are not 'authors' of those laws. We can think of Newton, Ramanjan, Einstein as modern era Rishis in this context.

We ourselves are actually product of a set of (biological and other) laws.
More correctly we are product of a sub-set of laws of universe and will never be able to create a new law that pervades the universe. However we are endowed with a means of knowledge to study these laws and leverage their existence with our effort. We can clone a sheep, grow organs or send a probe to Mars. But we do so by use of existing laws that have always existed .

Vedas do not teach the above set of laws which fall under a particular (specialized) domain of knowledge. We call that Science. Even our ability and experience to assert our 'free will' is also part of this order. Reaction to disorder is also part of this order.

Vedas do teach what may be called universal knowledge and everyone is subjected to this order.(and therefore applicable to whites and blacks, Hindus and non-Hindus, living and non-living things ). Living things are what we call Jivas.
In fact, we may mistakenly think what we take to be our body is housing one Jiva. This is incorrect. Every bacteria, living cell, neurons, virus and therefore billions of entities are all jivas in this body !

What Vedas address are knowledge areas that cannot be discerned by available means of knowledge to human beings.
For example someone can say there is heaven or hell, and that after death one can go there. Such information is outside human ability to verify or understand other than just believe in such an assertion. But this topic area is clearly outside what we can understand with our ability to collect information using our organs, tools and analytical means.

Vedas do address such topics as knowledge areas but the teachings do meet stringent tests.
They cannot contradict what is already known by available means of knowledge (so any assertion about eternal heaven is unreasonable for example), they cannot over specify what is already known, they have to be useful here and now (and not after death) etc. I have not specified all the tests they meet in order to be an independent means of knowledge but have provided only a few items.

In the manifestation – (I don’t like the word creation which is only from a standpoint)- we see that for every problem a solution approach is provided. Millions of living things in earth alone live due to this order.

Human beings who are endowed with unique ability to be self-aware have unique problems. The solution is provided in terms of universal knowledge in the Upanishads. A verse may describe that ‘Brahma’ was gifted the Vedas but anyone that takes descriptions literally cannot understand the topic in my view. All that is meant is that the manifestation includes this knowledge called Veda which is unavailable by other means of knowledge for human beings.

Vedas like all knowledge do not have authorship of human beings. In addition this topic area cannot be discerned by any of the available means of knowledge of human beings. Hence they are apauruṣeya.

I know I have not expressed all these thoughts very well since there is a lot of background I am taking for granted. I will answer any legitimate and non-mocking questions

 

[suraju06]

Dear Tks,

I know I have not expressed all these thoughts very well since there is a lot of background I am taking for granted. I will [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]answer[/COLOR] any legitimate and non-mocking questions

You have expressed well the ideas which you wanted to, given the limitations of space and time. Thank you.

Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

This gives the impression that Vedas are superior, co-eval or as important as the Superior God who is considered the absolute truth. The question then comes why the vedas talk mostly about agni, Indra, rudra, etc., devas, soma the divine herb, asvamedha or horse sacrifice and similar other sacrifices as also black magic (in Atharva Veda - like some specific yaaga for killing one's enemies), and many such mundane topics. It also talks about wars (the daasaraajna) and specific love affairs (urvasi and purooravas). Are we to take that these few mundane topics/events are of eternal significance? If so, why?

I think we are at two ends of a spectrum. I am a believer who accepts vedas and God. You an atheist who is convinced that vedas, god etc are all nonse se. So we may never be able to meet. Yet I am spending considerable amount of time here, just as you do, only for three reasons:1)to explore the truth 2) to look for validations 3) to inform those who are interested.

The existence of vedas was a given fact just as the existence of God. There is no competition for superiority between the two entities. Vedas speak about God. This is the maximum that can be said of this matter. It does not mean vedas are equal to or superior/inferior to God. There is no scope for such a labored interpretation unless the interest is in a protracted points-scoring expedition. Vedas are knowledge. If you ask why knowledge includes agni, Indra, black magic, amorous love affairs, wars etc., you will agree that I do not have to find an answer for that. Knowledge will be all inclusive and what you take after filtering depends on your capacity to absorb as well as your needs.

My second doubt is whether the Superior God gifted to brahma one set of the Vedas or many; we are told that there were very many Shaakhas of each veda (at least rig, yajus and saama) many of which have become extinct now. If so, does this not show that Vedas are like any other created things and they are mortal in a sense? Will it not be possible that the existing few Shaakhas of different Vedas will also perish like the rest, as time passes? So, where does the eternal nature of vedas go?

It is mentioned only that God gave brahma the vedas/knowledge. Only this much we know. If you have reasons to believe that it was a truncated version you may offer the proof for that. Before the seers intuited the vedas there was a similar need for rediscovery and we have the vedas even today. So vedas are indeed eternal.

Knowledge always is "about" something; it just cannot be unrelated. Even multiplication tables are about numbers which can be imagined by the mind in very many ways and put to use accordingly. Here, the universe is governed by a principle of supreme consciousness. This alone is not sufficient to make it the Reality which may be something other than this supreme consciousness, unless this is proved to be impossible.
Secondly, the line of argument seems to be circular; the Vedas constitute eternal knowledge, therefore knowledge is eternal.

I am not talking here about the subject-object knowledge. I am sure you know the meaning of supreme consciousness which vedantic schools speak about. If mind is the subject, the numbers are objects then multiplication etc are mental processes. You very well know that in supreme consciousness we deal with a paradigm difference in concept. There is a flaw in the way you have formulated your position when you say "Vedas constitute eternal knowledge, therefore knowledge is eternal". The actual fact is vedas are eternal knowledge.

who are the Rishis, the "mantra drashTaas" of each hymn? Are they not the ones who 'gave' the mantras? If not how, and what for are they figuring in the Rigveda, say?

Intuiting and interpreting are different from authoring. The Rishis intuited.

Time is up. Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

I should know better than to jump in, but I am going to.
I believe there is a super power known as brahman. I am loosing faith in Vedas as a everlasting document. There are too many holes that you could drive a Mack truck through it. I believe that Vedas are a dated document. But there are some good philosophy Hidden in them. If we can synthesis our philosophy from these pages, we should be satisfied. In this respect You and Mr. Sangom can both be right.

Like Mr. TKS said:

Veda is not a book or a set of Mantras but is a means of attaining knowledge.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

I believe in GOD. I have absolute faith in the Power and Efficacy of Mantras. Mantra is GOD. In the Vedas only Samhitas contain Mantras. I have learnt Vedic Chanting so that I can recite the Vedic mantras properly. The Upanishads portion of the Vedas interest me because they show the way to GOD however you may define him/her.

I believe that the ritualistic portions of the Vedas have no relevance now. I agree with prasad that many portions of Vedas are dated.

Unfortunately the Brahmins have spent ages discussing about the Vedas being not of human origin. Very little attention has been paid to propagation of Vedic Chanting which is dying out. Fortunately some universities in India have established Vedic Science departments and are teaching the Vedas. I have attended such a course. But they do not teach Vedic Chanting. They can not because the Brahmins do not want the non_brahmins to chant the Vedas.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

The brahmins are justly famous for their ability to interpret the scriptures. They do it to justify their conclusions.

A standing example

When Krishna claims that he is GOD in Bhagavd Gita, we interpret it as Krishna is GOD. And he is the Krishna mentioned in Maha Bharata and the Bhagavatham.

But When Vak Ambirini in Vak Suktha claims to be GOD we say

Devi sukta is a popular hymn from the Rig Veda 10.8.125. It contains 8 riks. The
Mantra Drashta of the Devi Suktam is Vaak the daughter of Rishi Ambhrina. And
hence, it is also called "Ambhrina Sukta" or "Vak Sukta". This great mantra
"Devi Suktam" sprang forth from the deep chasms of the her (the Rishika Vaak)
heart which is Atma-Stuti when she was in communion with her Chit / I-ness /
Aham Sphurana in the her Hridaya Guha Rupa Dahara Akasa.

Vak Suktham is older than Bhagavad gita.

By the same standard Bhagavad Gita could also be by a Rishi called Krishna. In fact there is a Rishi called Krishna mentioned in the Upanishads. A lot of research has been done to find out the author of Bhagavad Gita. And many believe that it is an interpolation into the Maha Bharata.

What I am saying is this:

When we want Krishna to be GOD we quote Bhgavad Gita. It is not some Rishi writing the Bhagavad Gita.

But when it comes to Vak Suktham we do not want to accept Vak Ambirini as GOD. So the above explanation.

That is why I said we always interpret it the way we believe or want and submit excellent interpretations/justifications for that.

 

[sangom]

Shri tks,

This has reference to your post #101. You write therein, among other things, as under :—

Veda is not a book or a set of Mantras but is a means of attaining knowledge.
...
Let us first note that all knowledge actually is not of human agency.
...
Vedas do not teach the above set of laws which fall under a particular (specialized) domain of knowledge. We call that Science. Even our ability and experience to assert our 'free will' is also part of this order. Reaction to disorder is also part of this order.

Vedas do teach what may be called universal knowledge and everyone is subjected to this order.(and therefore applicable to whites and blacks, Hindus and non-Hindus, living and non-living things ). Living things are what we call Jivas.

Further, you also state —

Before addressing why Vedas are not of human agency it is important that one knows answers to two questions with clarity:

1. What is this topic about? If anyone says it is another philosophy then there is lot more infrastructures needed to understand the topic, in my view. I cannot provide satisfactory responses to questions that come from not knowing this
2. What is the only problem does the Upanishads address?

I will not be addressing the above items in this post.

The first point above appears to mean that people who do not have all the "infrastructure" (whatever that means!) cannot even understand this topic, i.e., the apaurusheyatva of the vedas. But what those much needed infrastructure is, is itself not gievn. It is said that unless someone with the necessary infrastructure comes you cannot provide satisfactory responses.

To an ordinary human mind like mine, this looks like an impossible set of conditions. I am reminded of a real-life situation of an elderly relative of mine (a native of Trichur in Kerala) who is no more. He belonged to the older generation and every day after serving the meals, his wife used to patiently wait for some words of appreciation from her husband. No such approbation ever used to escape the mouth of the man. The wife will then meekly enquire, like புளிசேரி நன்னா இருக்கா? கூட்டு நன்னா இருக்கா? பாயசம் நன்னா இருக்கா? etc. To all such questions (not only by his wife,daughetrs or even hosts) his stock answer throughout life was விசாரிச்ச போலெ ஆகலை (not as expected by me!). he never once could say what exactly he wanted in any particular dish.
In the very same way, you require a lot more infrastructures in a person to whom alone you will be able to provide "satisfactory" responses, but you are not revealing those infrastructure requirements, funny!

For the sake of all members and other readers, I give below the English translations of hymns or Yajuses 16 to 19 of the Black Yajurveda, Taittiriya, and its translation by A.B. Keith. (I will try to upload the original as an image if upload works). With my limited knowledge of Sanskrit I find that the English translation is satisfactory. I request those who know (tks, suraiu06, etc.) and those who are ignorant, to go through and give a feedback as to whether they consider this as "universal knowledge" taught by veda. (I shall furnish extracts from Rigveda also in my next post. Neither tks, nor suraju06 have replied to my point

why the vedas talk mostly about agni, Indra, rudra, etc., devas, soma the divine herb, asvamedha or horse sacrifice and similar other sacrifices as also black magic (in Atharva Veda - like some specific yaaga for killing one's enemies), and many such mundane topics. It also talks about wars (the daasaraajna) and specific love affairs (urvasi and purooravas). Are we to take that these few mundane topics/events are of eternal significance? If so, why?

Yajurveda, Taittiriya:


L 8. 16. a Thou ' art Mitra, thou art Yaruna.
b. May I be united with the All-gods.

c. Thou art the navel of kingly power, thou art the womb of kingly power.
d. Sit thou on the smooth, sit thou on the pleasant seat.
e. May she hurt thee not ; may she hurt me noi

f. Varuna, of sure vows, hath set him down
In the waters, with keen insight, for lordship.

g. O Brahman ! Thou, O king, art the Brahman priest, thou art Savitr of true instigation. O Brahman ! Thou, O king, art the Brahman priest, thou art Indra of true force [1]. O Brahman ! Thou, O king, art the
Brahman priest; thou art Indra, the kindly. O Brahman ! Thou, O king,
art the Brahman priest ; thou art Varuna, of true rule.

h. Thou art the bolt of Indra, slaying foes ; with this subject to me.

i. This king hath surmounted the quarters.

k. O thou of good fame ! O thou of prosperity ! O thou of true rule I

l. To the grandson of the waters ((apāṃnapāt)) hail ! To the grandson of strength ((ūrjonapāt)) hail ! To Agni, lord of the house, hail !

i. 8. 17. He offers to Agni on eight potsherds ; the sacrificial fee is gold.
(He offers) to Sarasvati an oblation; the sacrificial fee is a calf.
To Savitr (he offers) on twelve potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a speckled (ox).
To Pusan (he offers) an oblation ; the sacrificial fee is a dark (ox).
To Brhaspati (he offers) an oblation ; the sacrificial fee is a white-backed (ox).
To Indra (he offers) on eleven potsherds ; the sacrificial fee is a bull.
To Varuna (he offers) on ten potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a great castrated (ox).
To Soma (he offers) an oblation; the sacrificial fee is a brown (ox).
To Tvastr (he offers) on eight potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a white (ox)
To Visnu (he offers) on three potsherds ; the sacrificial fee is a dwarf (ox).

i. 8. 18. On the same day they consecrate, on the same day they buy the Soma. He presents a lotus wreath. He buys the Soma with calves. There is a drink for ten.^ A hundred Brahmans drink. The Stotra is the Saptadasa. The two ornaments he gives to the Adhvaryu, the garland to the Udgatr, the round ornament to the Hotr, a horse to the Prastotr and Pratihartr, twelve heifers to the Brahman, a cow to the
Maitravaruna, a bull to the Brahmanacchansin, garments to the Nestr and Potr, a wagon drawn by one ox laden with barley to the Achavaka,
a draught ox to the Agnidh. The Hotr is a Bhargava ; the Saman of the
Brahman is the Srayantiya ; the Agnistoma Saman is the Varavantiya.
He takes water of the Sarasvati.

i. 8. 19. To Agni he offers on eight potsherds ; the sacrificial fee is gold.
To Indra (he offers) on eleven potsherds ; the sacrificial fee is a bull.
To the All-gods - visvedevas - (he offers) an oblation ; the sacrificial fee is a tawny heifer.
To Mitra and Varuna (he offers) clotted curds ; the sacrificial fee is a cow.
To Brhaspati (he offers) an oblation ; the sacrificial fee is a white-backed (ox).
To the Adityas he sacrifices a sheep in young, to the Maruts a dappled heifer. To the Asvins and Pusan he offers a cake on twelve potsherds ;
to Sarasvati of true speech an oblation; to Savitr of true instigation a cake on twelve potsherds ; the sacrificial fee is a dry skin bag and a bow
with three arrows.

NOTE: sacrificial fee means Dakshinaa to the priest.

 

[sangom]

YV original is attached herewith please.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Sangom,

I used to ask people why the Vedas have not been translated in its entirety by any Indian author even after so many years after independence. And why we were still using the old translation of British and German Indologists. I was told that the Brahmins did not want it to be translated and that it should not be translated. Once when I pressed this point I was told "whatever is worth translating has been translated".

Then when I went though the translation of Krishna Yajur Veda, I understood the reason. The reasons are what you have stated in your post.

I only wish you did not have to post that.

Even in the Institute when my professor began the classes on Vedas, some people rose with the objection that "The Vedas are Apauruṣeya." the professor said
"your belief is noted. Let us continue our discussions."

I have a couple of tomes of Krishna Yajur Veda with English translation.

 

[sangom]

Sangom,

I used to ask people why the Vedas have not been translated in its entirety by any Indian author even after so many years after independence. And why we were still using the old translation of British and German Indologists. I was told that the Brahmins did not want it to be translated and that it should not be translated. Once when I pressed this point I was told "whatever is worth translating has been translated".

Then when I went though the translation of Krishna Yajur Veda, I understood the reason. The reasons are what you have stated in your post.

I only wish you did not have to post that.

Even in the Institute when my professor began the classes on Vedas, some people rose with the objection that "The Vedas are Apauruṣeya." the professor said
"your belief is noted. Let us continue our discussions."

I have a couple of tomes of Krishna Yajur Veda with English translation.

Dear Shri Sharmah,

What I say here may not be pleasing to many, but I think this pov also deserves to be noted.

The Rigveda possibly originated in the remote antiquity and it was originally the mumbo jumbo-like medium which was used by the priestly families to recite while doing the several rites which a priest of those primitive societies had to do. Animal sacrifices was a sine qua non of many of their rites. As you may know, the apree sooktas give some idea (not complete) about the different Rishi lineages which used the different sections within the codified Rigveda. Much of the material contained in the vedas is just very very ordinary and mundane. But the brahmins very intelligently labeled the vedas as "apaurusheya" and this gave them two benefits. One, when opposition in the form of Buddhism, Jainism, etc., raised their head against the vedic practices, the vedic brahmins could keep their adherents with them because a scripture so sacrosanct could not be thrown away for fear of God's wrath falling upon those who deserted. Later on, when Upanishads raised their mild resistance, once again, it could be ensured that these Upanishads did not pose an open challenge.

But the curious fact is that even in the 21st. century we have well-educated and otherwise very rational people who seem to believe in every word that our scriptures say and they are so passionate about defending their faith. That is the power of religion; it is the ultimate opiate, imo!!

 

[tbs]

hi
when i was studying graduate course...is called SHASTRI DEGREE IN ADVAITA VEDANTA SPECIALISATION.... we had a great

great debate over APARUSHEYA OR PAURESHAYA of the vedas.... we have a lots of discussions according to nyaya sastra....

NYAYA SASTRA IS LOGICAL SCIENCE.... we debated a lot...quoting from charvaka/buddhism/jainism.....sanakya/yoga/

nyaya /vaishishika/mimamsa and of course vedanta...........above all ....all six aasthika systems agreed APARAUSHEYA

OF VEDAS...ONLY CHARVAKA/BUDDHISM/JAINISM DISAGREED....but after many years of research....still some ppl

cannot comprehend APAURESHAYATAM...its hot topic too...i dont want much debate on it...becoz i already did

many years abt this topic....im a beleiver and strong belief in vedas and god...im not neither atheist nor agonist....

so i belief in my system strongly...above than any arguement...

 

[prasad1]

I think Vedas are not Brahma. So they are part of Jagat and so the vedas are mithya.
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/10743-pleasure-happiness-bliss-5.html#post171247

Sri Sankaracharya sums up the entire message of Vedanta in three
crisp aphorism like sentences. They are :




Brahma Satyam, Jagat Mithya, and Jivo Brahmaiva naparah.

asato maa sadh gamayaa, tamaso maa jyotir gamayaa

 

[tks]

Dear Shri Sharmah,

What I say here may not be pleasing to many, but I think this pov also deserves to be noted.

The Rigveda possibly originated in the remote antiquity and it was originally the mumbo jumbo-like medium which was used by the priestly families to recite while doing the several rites which a priest of those primitive societies had to do. Animal sacrifices was a sine qua non of many of their rites. As you may know, the apree sooktas give some idea (not complete) about the different Rishi lineages which used the different sections within the codified Rigveda. Much of the material contained in the vedas is just very very ordinary and mundane. But the brahmins very intelligently labeled the vedas as "apaurusheya" and this gave them two benefits. One, when opposition in the form of Buddhism, Jainism, etc., raised their head against the vedic practices, the vedic brahmins could keep their adherents with them because a scripture so sacrosanct could not be thrown away for fear of God's wrath falling upon those who deserted. Later on, when Upanishads raised their mild resistance, once again, it could be ensured that these Upanishads did not pose an open challenge.

But the curious fact is that even in the 21st. century we have well-educated and otherwise very rational people who seem to believe in every word that our scriptures say and they are so passionate about defending their faith. That is the power of religion; it is the ultimate opiate, imo!!

Sri Sangom

I consider your post #107 kind of mischievous J and I enjoyed reading your post.
I liked the story and feel bad for the poor woman but not sure its relevance here.
-----------------------
Let me provide some references before I proceed.
For the benefit of readers old books from 1900s are freely available online – thanks to Google they have scanned many such books and made them available online. There are also other web sites that make these pdf available readily. A.B Keith’s book referenced in post #107 is available here

http://www.sanskritweb.net/yajurveda/keith.pdf
-----------------
Since you took time to copy pages of book of A.B. Keith to raise a question – perhaps a legitimate question – I actually did some research and tried to provide an answer. Though I studied Sanskrit for many years through high school I do not remember all that much now. I am also not familiar with many of the passages of Vedas including all the ritualistic areas. I have no interest in ritual aspects which I understand is meant for those with different ambitions.

After some effort I realized there are reasonable explanations for your question. But then as I was about to post I saw your post #110. That changed my perspective about what I was going to post.

I am not here to defend any scriptures or care to align others with my view points. So I am neither pleased nor not pleased with your post #110. But it reminded me about some other lesson I have learnt at such forums. I thought I will share that instead and close my participation in this part of the thread which is a distraction from the original OP anyway.

What I have come to understand is that our posts reveal who we are as a person much more than the ideas we write about.

Though you and others may have consciously or unconsciously formed opinions about me based on what I write here let me provide some further light on the subject.

Writing and reading forum topics like this one is for most part a “Quadrant 4” activity to use Steven Covey’s term for me. Activity we engage can be categorized into 4 compartments based on their importance and urgency. The time wasters are Quadrant 4 because they are neither important (to our life goals) nor urgent. However they tend to be pleasant. It is like going to a movie often or watching a TV serial every day without fail.

I do not have any confusion about whatever little I know in terms of our scriptures and therefore I am not searching for any truth here. I do share what I have understood when the context is one of scholarship as sensed by me especially on significant and sophisticated topics.

By the way this forum is great and I am not putting this down with my above statements about Quadrant 4 since I have come across a few great references in this forum now and then. I have come to like the members here.
Whenever I have time to spend (for Quadrant 4) I will continue to come here.

But I do not engage in debates with people who I feel are locked in a belief system or debate with someone who like to make things up or those who have apparently narrow mind or those that have another agenda for whatever reason. The reason is that the Quadrant 4 activity then becomes a non-pleasant activity.

If someone wants to engages with me in a scholarly discussion on a serious topic area and if I feel I have something to contribute I will jump in but do expect that they have the basics right (“fundas” as we used to call in my IIT days). The questions I had posed in #101 are in that spirit.

In order to discuss meaningful topics such as Upanishads, or even teach ‘morals’ from Ramayana (OP of this thread) I think a requirement is a thinking and rational person behind the posts (as opposed to one locked in an agenda or a belief system) with a sincere desire to understand the truth.

Post #110 in my view is like the story of the Vedaalam climbing the proverbial Murungai Maram – and the topic finally shifting to some Brahmin bashing. (மீண்டும் முருங்கை மரம் ஏறும் வேதாளம்)


Therefore I want to say ‘over and out’ on this thread and wish you a very Happy New year!
Regards

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

What I say here may not be pleasing to many, but I think this pov also deserves to be noted.
The Rigveda possibly originated in the remote antiquity and it was originally the mumbo jumbo-like medium which was used by the priestly families to recite while doing the several rites which a priest of those primitive societies had to do. Animal sacrifices was a sine qua non of many of their rites. As you may know, the apree sooktas give some idea (not complete) about the different Rishi lineages which used the different sections within the codified Rigveda. Much of the material contained in the vedas is just very very ordinary and mundane. But the brahmins very intelligently labeled the vedas as "apaurusheya" and this gave them two benefits. One, when opposition in the form of Buddhism, Jainism, etc., raised their head against the vedic practices, the vedic brahmins could keep their adherents with them because a scripture so sacrosanct could not be thrown away for fear of God's wrath falling upon those who deserted. Later on, when Upanishads raised their mild resistance, once again, it could be ensured that these Upanishads did not pose an open challenge.
But the curious fact is that even in the 21st. century we have well-educated and otherwise very rational people who seem to believe in every word that our scriptures say and they are so passionate about defending their faith. That is the power of religion; it is the ultimate opiate, imo!!

How presumptive one can get. Your presumptions here are:

1. Rigveda is mumbo jumbo like.
2. It was used by the priestly families(not priests alone-the family has to be brought in because You are convinced about the culpability and so the entire family has to be condemned so that later on you can extend it to the caste).
3. Priests existed even in the primitive societies at their formative stages.
4. Animal sacrifice by those primitive societies is an indication of not their primitiveness but their backwardness (seen wearing the glasses of today.)
5. Addressing the needs of the society, nay it's yearning for health and prosperity is ordinary and mundane not worth a place in vedas.
6. Now brahmins have to be brought into the picture. They only said that the vedas are apaurusheya. And they did it for some benefits for them.
7. The micro minority brahmins could keep the large majority of a community in bonds of religion by holding the threat of divine wrath. (Even though people had the opportunity to witness budhdhism and jainism getting adopted by many people and no divine wrath befalling them, eventhough people witnessed great emperors and their dynasties ruling large countries despite such a divine wrath if at all it was there.)
8. Upanishads came to challenge the Poorva kanda of vedas-this is the gem among your speculations.
9. The well-educated and rational people can not believe in what all is said in vedas. If they believe and come to defend it they are all under the influence of opiate called religion.

Dear Sangom sir, now please reflect and try to understand who is under the influence of the opiate called "irreligion". Luckily you have said it is your pov. Yes, you can say something and get away with it after saying that it is your pov. Okay please keep your pov in tact. I have respect for you for other reasons and not for this pov.

Cheers.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir,

How presumptive one can get.
2. It was used by the priestly families(not priests alone-the family has to be brought in because You are convinced about the culpability and so the entire family has to be condemned so that later on you can extend it to the caste).

6. Now brahmins have to be brought into the picture. They only said that the vedas are apaurusheya. And they did it for some benefits for them.
7. The micro minority brahmins could keep the large majority of a community in bonds of religion by holding the threat of divine wrath. (Even though people had the opportunity to witness budhdhism and jainism getting adopted by many people and no divine wrath befalling them, eventhough people witnessed great emperors and their dynasties ruling large countries despite such a divine wrath if at all it was there.)

Same here, How presumptive one can get.!!

Post # 107 remains unanswered; so are comments or rebuttals, if any, on Shri Sankara_Sharmah's post #106. One eminent person has temporarily forsaken tbf, saying it is quadrant4 (I am reminded of Viswamitra and Menaka, and Ravi Varma's famous painting!) and the disciple takes the cue "topic finally shifting to some Brahmin bashing" and is expanding on it. Whoever said "a jaundiced person sees everything as yellowish" (காமாலைக் கண்களுக்கு உலகமெல்லாம் மஞ்சள்!) might not have this sort of jaundice in mind, possibly

 

[suraju06]

Same here, How presumptive one can get.!!

Post # 107 remains unanswered; so are comments or rebuttals, if any, on Shri Sankara_Sharmah's post #106. One eminent person has temporarily forsaken tbf, saying it is quadrant4 (I am reminded of Viswamitra and Menaka, and Ravi Varma's famous painting!) and the disciple takes the cue "topic finally shifting to some Brahmin bashing" and is expanding on it. Whoever said "a jaundiced person sees everything as yellowish" (காமாலைக் கண்களுக்கு உலகமெல்லாம் மஞ்சள்!) might not have this sort of jaundice in mind, possibly

Dear Sangom Sir,

(1)You do not know me.
(2)All substantive points have been answered this includes your post#107.
(3)It is my right to choose not to batter the batter.
(4)I do not write on cue. Nor do I depend on inspiration from others to write what I write here.
(5)I ignore the other taunts after taking note of.

Cheers.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir,


(2)All substantive points have been answered this includes your post#107.
(3)It is my right to choose not to batter the batter.

Cheers.

Dear Shri Raju,

Point # 2 above - Post # 107 was addressed to Shri tks and he has evaded answering the substantive point viz., what are the "lot more infrastructures" which he was referring to in his earlier post?

Point # 3 - Yes, by all means, pl.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Shoe company A is a competitor to Shoe company B. But a movement that calls for abolition of all footwear is an enemy of both. To understand this distinction is important. You have some members holding Vedas as pure knowledge while some other members considering them pure bunkum. These parallel (or anti-parallel) lines are never going to meet. That is why discussions such as these come to an abrupt stop.

PS: I used the word "enemy" to differentiate from competition. I did not imply that the members involved are enemies. Arguments from both sides were enjoyable to read but I was expecting that it will end up like this...

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Shoe company A is a competitor to Shoe company B. But a movement that calls for abolition of all footwear is an enemy of both. To understand this distinction is important. You have some members holding Vedas as pure knowledge while some other members considering them pure bunkum. These parallel (or anti-parallel) lines are never going to meet. That is why discussions such as these come to an abrupt stop.

PS: I used the word "enemy" to differentiate from competition. I did not imply that the members involved are enemies. Arguments from both sides were enjoyable to read but I was expecting that it will end up like this...

May be you have not read through the posts. There are no two sides here. No one is saying the Vedas are pure bunkum.

Please go through the posts before posting such comments.

For some people all discussions are always Us Versus Them.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

May be you have not read through the posts. There are no two sides here. No one is saying the Vedas are pure bunkum.

Please go through the posts before posting such comments.

For some people all discussions are always Us Versus Them.

I did go through the posts. That was my understanding. Perhaps, you can persuade the members arguing to summarize their main points and the general public like me can get a better understanding.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Your understanding is totally wrong. The argument is about whether Vedas are APARUSHEYA OR PAURESHAYA.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

My post #105

I believe in GOD. I have absolute faith in the Power and Efficacy of Mantras. Mantra is GOD. In the Vedas only Samhitas contain Mantras. I have learnt Vedic Chanting so that I can recite the Vedic mantras properly. The Upanishads portion of the Vedas interest me because they show the way to GOD however you may define him/her.


I believe that the ritualistic portions of the Vedas have no relevance now. I agree with prasad that many portions of Vedas are dated.


Unfortunately the Brahmins have spent ages discussing about the Vedas being not of human origin. Very little attention has been paid to propagation of Vedic Chanting which is dying out. Fortunately some universities in India have established Vedic Science departments and are teaching the Vedas. I have attended such a course. But they do not teach Vedic Chanting. They can not because the Brahmins do not want the non_brahmins to chant the Vedas.

My post #106

The brahmins are justly famous for their ability to interpret the scriptures. They do it to justify their conclusions.


A standing example


When Krishna claims that he is GOD in Bhagavd Gita, we interpret it as Krishna is GOD. And he is the Krishna mentioned in Maha Bharata and the Bhagavatham.


But When Vak Ambirini in Vak Suktha claims to be GOD we say


Devi sukta is a popular hymn from the Rig Veda 10.8.125. It contains 8 riks. The
Mantra Drashta of the Devi Suktam is Vaak the daughter of Rishi Ambhrina. And
hence, it is also called "Ambhrina Sukta" or "Vak Sukta". This great mantra
"Devi Suktam" sprang forth from the deep chasms of the her (the Rishika Vaak)
heart which is Atma-Stuti when she was in communion with her Chit / I-ness /
Aham Sphurana in the her Hridaya Guha Rupa Dahara Akasa.


Vak Suktham is older than Bhagavad gita.


By the same standard Bhagavad Gita could also be by a Rishi called Krishna. In fact there is a Rishi called Krishna mentioned in the Upanishads. A lot of research has been done to find out the author of Bhagavad Gita. And many believe that it is an interpolation into the Maha Bharata.


What I am saying is this:


When we want Krishna to be GOD we quote Bhgavad Gita. It is not some Rishi writing the Bhagavad Gita.


But when it comes to Vak Suktham we do not want to accept Vak Ambirini as GOD. So the above explanation.


That is why I said we always interpret it the way we believe or want and submit excellent interpretations/justifications for that.

BTW have you learnt Vedic chanting? I have. Have you done Vedic chanting in Public. i have. I have spent a lot of time and effort to learn about Vedas and Vedic chanting.

Be caredful when you use such terms as "some other members considering them pure bunkum"

 

[RAMSUTHAR]

Very nice and continue posting more on our religion.

 

[sangom]

I did go through the posts. That was my understanding. Perhaps, you can persuade the members arguing to summarize their main points and the general public like me can get a better understanding.

Dear Shri KB sir,

There was no enmity, there is none and there will be no enmity in future also, hopefully. Your notion of enmity getting expression in your post # is perhaps due to the magic effect of your handle Kaalabhairaavan, an ugra deity!

The point that arose in this thread was that I held the view (Post #62) as under :—

"The OP of this thread and the second post from Smt. Renuka clearly bring out the manner in which the present generation of kids (at least some of them) look at the Ramayana story. Therefore, it may so happen that our future generation/s may not be satisfied with the overriding explanation that Raamaayana is "the story of how God came to earth as an avatar and lived here" and therefore no probing questions should be put about its contents."

Shri suraju06 contested this and the topic changed to whether our vedas (scriptures) are "apaurusheya" (not authored by humans but divine) or not. I hold the view that even our oldest scripture viz., the rigveda is of human origin. In between suraju took the stand that though he believed in the apaurusheyatva, he did not consider that some superior God sitting high above gave it to our people. I presented evidence from our own scriptures to show that really our scriptures themselves say so (God gifting vedas to Brahma, His first creation). The discussion has now stopped because it is not possible to deny the High God gifting vedas, standing within the four walls of our scriptures.

 

[prasad1]

If it has a beginning, then there is an end.
Only Brahman defies this definition, as it is assumed to be beginning-less. This is by definition.