Punarjanma is not Vaidika in origin as per Dr Elst

[Shrikant Jamadagni]

Dear all

Please listen from 27:15

I would appreciate feedback from learned scholars on Dr. Elst's argument in support of the above contention.

The Shoulders He Stood on: the Buddha's Teachers | Dr Koenraad Elst | #SangamTalks

The Shoulders He Stood on: the Buddha's Teachers | Dr Koenraad Elst | #S...

regards

Shrikant Jamadagni
Bengaluru

[Shashi Joshi]

Advance apologies for adding to the conversation, while being learner (and not learned) in the field.

The story of Shvetaketu and Gautama going to the court of PravAhaNa in ChhAndogya Chapter 5 Khanda 3 is clear on it.

The question is about - Where do beings go after leaving this world, and how do they come back.

Gautam saying he doesn't know this, would imply that 'beings going to other worlds after death and coming back' would not have been considered before in Gautam's knowledge-system of scholars. Else, where and how would also have been pondered upon and Gautam would have had some answer to give (whether PravAhaNa likes the answer or not).

Another related question/observation.

1. In the entire Rigveda the word 'mokSha' does not appear (text search in GRETL text). It appears in Upanishads a lot. If mokSha is not mentioned, then rebirth may not have been an idea for them. Since mokSha is from the cycle of birth and rebirth. If that cycle is not there, then no mokSha from it would be needed.

2. When did mokSha become the fourth puruShArtha? Were not there only 3 to begin with? (E.g. KAmasUtra only mentions 3 in its opening)

Thanks,

~ Shashikant Joshi

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/124893962.4636019.1654085988323%40mail.yahoo.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

A seminal question in the Kathopnishad is also centred on punarjanma. Nachiketas asks Yama about the status of those who have left their mortal body here: whether they exist or not in the hereafter. The reply is also clear: those who think there is this world alone and not the other will keep coming to me again and again.  

In the Samhita and the Aranyakas too there can be e clear mentions about rebirth. 

Om

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANu%2BFoASBcfvQGvF5JOCKYRvhKCBm_-Yg5Y55WamxG7U17WeXg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Megh Kalyanasundaram]

Namaste, 

I see the following line in the video description ("Sub topics"): "27:15 The idea of rebirth not Vaidik"

When I click on 27:15, I hear Dr Elst say the following: "I think the idea of rebirth is not clearly present in the Vedic Hymns. It becomes present in the Upanishad-s." (~27:15-25; almost verbatim if not wholly so) [Emphasis mine]. Note the words "not CLEARLY present" and "Vedic Hymns."

In my view, I don't think these words of Dr Elst -- "I think the idea of rebirth is not clearly present in the Vedic Hymns. It becomes present in the Upanishad-s." -- means exactly the same as what has been included in the video description -- "The idea of rebirth not Vaidik."

I have neither seen the full video nor do I know if Dr Elst separately agrees with the line "The idea of rebirth not Vaidik." I am not seeking to know what Dr Elst's stand is nor am I speaking on his behalf to defend him.

I do think, however, that there is a difference between what I hear him say between ~27:15 and ~27:25 in the video and what the portion starting at ~27:15 has been titled as.

pp. 2-13 (particularly pp. 10-13) in this recent paper appears, to me at least, to be directly related (with relevant citations from the related literature) to at least one of the points that seem to be underpinning the initiation of this thread.

Best,

Megh

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 5:50 PM 'Shrikant Jamadagni' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

--

[Sivanar]

'AsampradAyavid' need to be 'moorkhata parithyajet'

as rebirth is one of the basic pillars on which SanAtana Dharma

is built. Sringeri Acharya has made this clear many times.

Namaste.

Prof. Sivakumar 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHcQ74nGjZE89j9MMsryj9JcarE5HW7eOPgqs6bA_k3yvw%40mail.gmail.com.

[BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)]

Namaste

 

On  video link < The idea of rebirth not Vaidik"  >

 

My submission on text-tagging of ‘<Re-birth/ Transmigration> as < vaidik- upanishadic- later Buddhist/Gta based….>.

 

The speaker seems to build the arguments in the presentation with some deep hypothesis, which remain unaddressed intentionally and by  conscious concurrent agreements in several presentations. This leads to deep fissures remaining unresolved, coated on surface to appear seamless and smooth.

 

Traditional Classical schools, anchored to ‘Vision (Darshana) model,  hold that the division marker of texts of ‘Veda’s’ as ‘ Mantra- Brahmana/  ‘ Samhita- Brahmana- Aaranyaka-Upanishat’  is a convenience of learning –instructional and utility pedagogy. This is ‘artificial’.

 

Modern (= Western, Oriental, social, popular, political) schools, anchored to ‘ History – Civilization – Time line’ Model ( having several axioms and hypothesis related to Human evolution from Ape ancestry, Stellar - Science based Big-Bang evolution of Time – line’   interpret the ‘Re-Birth-idea- evolution sequencing’ using  ‘challengeable twined  axioms/factors/ hypothesis’, like the following:

 

Vedic  text corpus are ‘composed –crafted –social-language – texts of an ancient civilization.

The ‘text idea, organization and evolution is over a  preferred time-line. 

The preferred time line could be: Kaala  yuga chakra  time scales/ Land- Society based Historic time lines like Gregorian Calendar / Jovian / Maayan / Astronomy based ) .

Human evolution is ‘Ape –Amoeba evolution’ over a time line.

 

The ‘salad-soup –combine (Prime and Derived) ’ of these ‘axioms’ are used to build the division marker of texts of ‘Veda’s’ as ‘segmented consolidation where ancient most (?)  is Rig-Veda ; The tagging of Vedic text as  ‘Brahmana- Aaranyaka-Upanishat’  is a convenience of ‘original preserved texts of Vedic  bards’ for ‘learning –  sacrament - instructional and utility pedagogy.  The entire presentation by traditional schools of a ‘unified organic structure’ of ‘Veda- to- Vedanta’ is progressive in time line.

 

The challenge is not the accuracy of ‘ DATA –Presented as Historical , Technical, Textual’.

The Challenge is on the ‘ANALYTICAL TOOLS and MODELS  to drive a   ‘pride substantiating - conclusion’.

Truth of Vision does not get in to conflict with Pride - Prejudice – Pedagogic Faith- Belief- Cultural Practices issues.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Megh Kalyanasundaram
Sent: 02 June 2022 10:26
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Punarjanma is not Vaidika in origin as per Dr Elst

 

Namaste, 

 

I see the following line in the video description ("Sub topics"): "27:15 The idea of rebirth not Vaidik"

 

 

When I click on 27:15, I hear Dr Elst say the following: "I think the idea of rebirth is not clearly present in the Vedic Hymns. It becomes present in the Upanishad-s." (~27:15-25; almost verbatim if not wholly so) [Emphasis mine]. Note the words "not CLEARLY present" and "Vedic Hymns."

 

In my view, I don't think these words of Dr Elst -- "I think the idea of rebirth is not clearly present in the Vedic Hymns. It becomes present in the Upanishad-s." -- means exactly the same as what has been included in the video description -- "The idea of rebirth not Vaidik."

 

I have neither seen the full video nor do I know if Dr Elst separately agrees with the line "The idea of rebirth not Vaidik." I am not seeking to know what Dr Elst's stand is nor am I speaking on his behalf to defend him.

 

I do think, however, that there is a difference between what I hear him say between ~27:15 and ~27:25 in the video and what the portion starting at ~27:15 has been titled as.

 

pp. 2-13 (particularly pp. 10-13) in this recent paper appears, to me at least, to be directly related (with relevant citations from the related literature) to at least one of the points that seem to be underpinning the initiation of this thread.

 

Best,

Megh

 

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 5:50 PM 'Shrikant Jamadagni' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear all

 

Please listen from 27:15

 

I would appreciate feedback from learned scholars on Dr. Elst's argument in support of the above contention.

 

The Shoulders He Stood on: the Buddha's Teachers | Dr Koenraad Elst | #SangamTalks

 

The Shoulders He Stood on: the Buddha's Teachers | Dr Koenraad Elst | #S...

 

 

regards

 

Shrikant Jamadagni
Bengaluru

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/124893962.4636019.1654085988323%40mail.yahoo.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJypMHcQ74nGjZE89j9MMsryj9JcarE5HW7eOPgqs6bA_k3yvw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jammalamadaka Srinivas]

Namaste,

There is a Mantra in the Taittiriya Brahmana's 2nd Ashtaka's 6th Prasna's 6th Anuvaka (Taittiriya Brahmana - 2-6-6) -

The bhashya of the mantra - 

it is crystal clear. The concept of Punarjanma is Vedic (even if we exclude upanishads from so-called Vedic texts)

Regards,

Srinivas Jammalamadaka

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 5:50 PM 'Shrikant Jamadagni' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

--

[Krishna Kashyap]

To clarify, these opponents are talking about portions of Vedas that are not the Upanishads.

Is rebirth mentioned in the Vedas (other than the Upanishads, which they assume to be of later origin)?

this is the question.

we need clear statements from the sources to explain. 

a simple answer is that re-birth is hidden in several statements. I don't recollect those statements. Once I had researched this. I have to check my notes somewhere.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te0dFWgiJ4Sz6Oxi8Xi78u2P8dTpdCB5RQkAq6WFVpEfTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

sorry I did not see some messages when I wrote my email.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I think I shared this article by Prof. Joanna Jurewicz:

https://www.academia.edu/8179799/Rebirth_eschatology_in_the_Rgveda_In_search_for_roots_of_transmigration

Rebirth eschatology in the Rgveda. In search for roots of transmigration

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMm3MTOEdNZd1RTdf0yCB9gmq_%3DEEQhGL%3DrTsagw0BHptg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Senior Director, IndicA

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, Maharashtra

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

BoS Rashtram School of Public Leadership

Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

[Shrikant Jamadagni]

Thanks to all who have responded.

It seems to me that Dr Elst has been a little hasty in drawing his conclusions. 

If it is Chandogya 5.3 that he is alluding to, then clearly the question asked of Shvetaketu, grandson of Aruna is about the "Where" and "How" of punarjanma and not "If". The questioner is inquiring about detailed process which is clear from his long response. 

here is the beginning of the dialogue with English xlation by Swami Svaahaananda from Ramakrishna Math:

"Do you know where created beings go above from here?" "No, revered sir", 

"Do you know how they return again?", "No, revered sir",

"Do you know the place of parting of the two paths - the path of the gods and the path of the fathers?", "No, revered sir". 5.3.2

"Do you know why the other world is not filled up?", "No revered sir",

etc....

वेत्थ यदितोऽधि प्रजाः प्रयन्तीति न भगव इति वेत्थ
यथा पुनरावर्तन्त३ इति न भगव इति वेत्थ
पथोर्देवयानस्य पितृयाणस्य च व्यावर्तना३ इति
न भगव इति ॥ ५.३.२॥

वेत्थ यथासौ लोको न सम्पूर्यत३ इति न भगव इति
वेत्थ यथा पञ्चम्यामाहुतावापः पुरुषवचसो
भवन्तीति नैव भगव इति ॥ ५.३.३ ॥

Shrikant Jamadagni
Bengaluru

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZ96x1%3DBe9FhhdpZ3Mi%2BBjok3To3fYR4osk8U3VVR5Veg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

पुनर्जन्म ---

There is a serious problem with many so called scholars -- they are not qualified - did not learn वेदाङ्गानि and दर्शनानि । Do not understand the original text and

depend upon translations which are not faithful .

Simply state -' it is not there in Vedas' -- When and where did they study 1,130 branches of Veda ? (hardly 12 or 13 branches of all Vedas are available .

( ऋग्वेदः - 21 शाखाः , सामवेदः - 1000 , यजुर्वेदः - 100 , अथर्ववेदः - 9 )  -- महाभाष्यम्  , पस्पशाह्निकम् etc. .

Panini could discern all वेदशाखाः  through योगिप्रत्यक्षम् ।

Another point -- how can you treat वेदाङ्गानि separately from वॆद ?  They are part and parcel of वेद ।

If one does not accept पुनर्जन्म  then he has to account for the differences  among people in terms of  various aspects like beauty , health , wealth , intelligence etc.

ज्योतिषम् , गरुडपुराणम् etc  clearly state पूर्वजन्मकर्म is the cause of one's  vicissitudes -- fortunes and misfortunes .

If anybody does not agree to कर्मसिद्धांत , then let him postulate a cause for the same .

कृष्णयजुर्वेदः - आरण्यकम् - अरुणप्रपाठकः , 31,32  --

ते’शरीराः प्रपद्यन्ते । यथापुण्यस्य कर्मणः । अपाण्यपादकेशासः । तत्र ते’योनिजा जनाः । मृत्वा पुनर्मृत्युमापद्यन्ते । अद्यमानाः स्वकर्मभिः । आशातिकाः क्रिमय इव ।

There is one thing called प्रतिभा -- neither humans nor animals nor birds etc can ignore प्रतिभा - it is the very cause of their behavior - and this प्रतिभा is attained from

पूर्वजन्म -- this aspect  is explained by भर्तृहरि in वाक्यकाण्ड of वाक्यपदीयम् (146-150) --

साक्षाच्छब्देन जनितां भावनानुगमेन वा ।

इतिकर्तव्यतायां तां न कश्चिदतिवर्तते ॥ 146

साक्षात् = प्रत्यक्षम् अस्मिन् जन्मनि ; शन्देन = वृद्धव्यवहारेण ; भावनानुगमेन वा = पूर्वजन्मभावनया वा ; ताम् = तां प्रतिभाम् ; इतिकर्तव्यतायम् = व्यवहारे ।

प्रमाणत्वेन तां लोकः सर्वः समनुपश्यति ।

समारंभाःप्रतायन्ते तिरश्चामपि तद्वशात् ॥ 147

तिरश्चाम् = पशुपक्ष्यादीनाम् ।

यथा द्रव्यविशेषाणां परिपाकैरयत्नजाः ।
मदादिशक्तयो दृष्टाः प्रतिभास्तद्वतां तथा ॥ 148

Without any separate effort certain things like  jaggery , rice etc (wine) get मदशक्ति  due to fermentation - प्रतिभा is also a natural capacity  for all प्राणिs .

स्वरवृत्तिं विकुरुते मधौ पुंस्कोकिलस्य यः ?

जन्त्वादयः कुलायादिकरणे केन शिक्षिताः ? 149

Who caused the change of स्वर to पञ्चम during वसन्त  for a male cuckoo ? Who trained a spider in constructing  its web ?

आहारप्रीत्यपद्वेषप्लवनादिक्रियासु  कः ।

जात्यन्वयप्रसिद्धासु प्रयोक्ता मृगपक्षिणाम् ? 150

Rat is food for a cat - a dog loves  his master - hostility between a tiger and a cow - some creatures floating in water -- all these things do happen without a कर्ता ।

They do happen naturally due to प्रतिभा , attained from पूर्वजन्म ।

Before drawing a conclusion just think -- why all the people are not alike ? Or why you are like that ?

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit (Retd)

299 Doyen , Serilingampally, Hyderabad 500 019
Ph:09866110741

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/170722470.4664520.1654184085012%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Lokesh Sharma]

नमः सर्वेभ्यः

> If one does not accept पुनर्जन्म  then he has to account for the differences  among people in terms of  various aspects like beauty , health , wealth , intelligence etc.

Why should one account for differences? Let's just say its all random. That seems a good enough reason to me.

> Before drawing a conclusion just think -- why all the people are not alike ? Or why you are like that ?

Just as all waves of an ocean are not alike, in the same manner not all people are alike. Simple as that.

[Sreedhar Chintalapaty]

Requesting indulgence from the true vidvAns, I'd like to make a couple of comments despite my distinct lack of shAstric knowledge. 

"Random" does not mean "without a cause". It only means that no one has a theory that predicts the outcome of any particular trial. Notice that it is possible to still predict outcomes in the aggregate, even if not a particular trial. For instance, we can say that the probability of a coin flip resulting in HEADS is 0.5, but we cannot predict whether any particular flip of the coin will result in HEADS.  

So when we call an event "random", what we are really saying is that we don't know all the variables involved in causing it. 

Empirically, we see people with vastly different levels of pratibhā; some are born geniuses while others cannot learn no matter how much they try. Mozart, for example, was supposed to have started composing music at the ripe old age of three while as a strapping young man of fifty, I still have difficulty identifying shadjama. 

It's one thing to not be interested in knowing why that is so; it's quite another to argue that one's disinterest in knowing about it disproves another's hypothesis about why it occurs in the first place. 

At the very least, karma and punarjanma attempt to explain this phenomenon in the aggregate, even if it may not necessarily be able to predict/explain particular cases. "Let's assume it's random" does not refute or invalidate these theories. In fact, the use of words such as adr̥ṣṭa and alaukika seems to imply that these theories themselves say that the outcomes are random i.e., unpredictable at the individual level.

As statistician George Box once said, "all models are wrong, but some are useful".  It occurs to me that with concepts such as karma and punarjanma, the right question is not whether they are true but how they should be utilized.

svasti,

Sreedhar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/cee1ad18-1bd1-4789-846c-058efcddfeb2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Vishal Agarwal]

Swami Hariharananda Aranya gives a useful analogy. A weather forecast is reasonably accurate in predicting whether it will rain in Delhi tomorrow or not. But it cannot predict exactly how many mm of rain will fall over a particular house. The flaw is not with the model, which is correct overall. But things are way more complex and no amount of weather modelling can forecast such minute details with such a high resolution. But for the Omniscient One, this is not impossible. And so, Ishvara is the Karma-Phala-Pradaataa.

The view of Shri Lokesh Sharma that it is all random is like the Koranic view that Allah gives to us what he pleases, makes us do what he pleases. I wasn't aware that there is an Advaitic theodicy like Abrahamic ones.

Vishal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKTEmQAMN6ktEx0sGmjybMsOTX2fP7OPWpD9Jzm8XEoV_kXjsA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lokesh Sharma]

नमस्सर्वेभ्यः

> The view of Shri Lokesh Sharma that it is all random is like the Koranic view that Allah gives to us what he pleases, makes us do what he pleases. I wasn't aware that there is an Advaitic theodicy like Abrahamic ones.

I sense some bitterness here. Anyway, I would answer. You are correct except that there's no "us" in the worldview of Advaita. The whole point of Vedanta is to prove to us that there's no existance of individual Jiva. Brahman has been misunderstood as the world like snake in a rope. The idea that there's an actual individual Jiva is the root cause of our sufferings. 

"There is a world full of Jivas and they take birth based on their karma" - this worldview is not absolute and is taken up only to be given up in the end in the favor of सर्वमिदं ब्रह्मखलु. You may ask - how do you then explain the multiplicity in the world. I say - तदैक्षत बहु स्याम् इति. Brahman is all powerful, He is free to do whatever He wills. It's not wise to ask why fire burn. It's just the way it is. Brahman is not merely a spectator in the world or some energy (while "we" are the real actors using that energy) like many believe, He is both the उपादान as well as निमित्त कारण of the world. Or there's no world at all, its only Brahman in action like an ocean plays within itself by rising and falling of waves.

प्रकृते: क्रियमाणानि गुणै: कर्माणि सर्वश: ।

अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते ।।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Lokesh Sharma,

You use the word Vedanta. Vedanta is the name given to a section of Vedic sources, a Dars'ana and a s'aastra  based on those sources. 

If you want to speak for Vedanta, or within the precincts of Vedanta,

please quote  from the sources of Vedanta 

              that state that there is no punarjanma. 

-----------------------

If you want to say, scriptures (sources of Vedanta?) are of no use, then what is the source of your claim and explain to us what makes your source that of  Vedanta and how your claims fall within Vedanta. 

-----------------------

If you want to say you don't mind whether it falls under Vedanta or not, you want to state or argue for the facts or truth (as per your understanding or knowledge) , please make that clear.

----------------------

Claiming to be speaking (for) Vedanta and speaking against its sources or methods is a self contradiction. 

               

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/b83e4326-b61f-4ac5-ba3f-b1849e6acb1an%40googlegroups.com.

[Vichitra Thandava]

I think Vishal is pointing to something else, if I may speculate here. 

At the core of Vedanta is the fundamental question as to whether the universe is a duality as observed or a singular consciousness.  Three great scholars made different interpretations in support of different parts of this spectrum based on their commentaries on the source document, the Brahmâ Sutra, in itself a commentary on the Vedas by Veda Vyasa himself.  The difference in opinion is perhaps mainly because the present observed state is incomparably different from the theoritical beginning or end state for the universe or for its seemingly discrete parts. 

At the core of this fundamental question is why is the One bothering with all this universe business at all in the first place.  Arguably, there can be no better answer than "for its entertainment as it feels alone and lonely".  

If that is indeed the case, at least randomness is also likely programmed by One.  Variously, we call it Grace for those seeking it or luck or otherwise, but in effect it may just be "I am bored with this TV channel Vishal 😉 program, or just feel sleepy, so I switch off the TV" or variations thereof. 

Also, we should keep in mind that experiential scripture put in writing for the first time was likely the result of the unraveling of the upa-nishad rishi-led gurukul system over time, with some  seeing the need for the preservation of knowledge for posterity or geographic distance by putting it in writing.  Errors and biases must have naturally crept it, especially if those putting pen to medium originally were not fully experienced themselves or were merely scribes for those who were.  Later rewrites were perhaps even more disconnected from actual, repeatable experience? Which is why it is impossible to verify what is written in scripture except through the original means of deriving the knowledge purported in them - through yoga and meditation in the same manner the Vedic rishis are likely to have gathered them. Only what can be verified as repeatable experience by many mutually exclusive practioners can be trusted in the scripture.  Fortunately, we still can. 

Vijaender 

PS Allah or Yahweh inspired writing are just gross distortions of the Duality perspective of Madhavacharya on the Brahmâ Sutra. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/b83e4326-b61f-4ac5-ba3f-b1849e6acb1an%40googlegroups.com.

[Lokesh Sharma]

नमस्सर्वेभ्यः

As asked by Nagaraj Paturi ji, here's a beautiful quote from श्री गौडपाद कारिका whose interpretation of वेदान्त I follow - 

Verse 3.48

Sanskrit text, IAST transliteration and English translation

न कश्चिज्जायते जीवः संभवोऽस्य न विद्यते ।
एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचिन्न जायते ॥ ४८ ॥

48. No Jīva is ever born. There does not exist any cause which can produce it. This is the highest Truth that nothing is ever born.

Shankara Bhashya (commentary)

All these ideas regarding the discipline of the mind, evolution resembling the creation of forms from iron and clay, as well as the ideas regarding devotional exercises, are given as means to the realisation of the nature of the Ultimate Reality. They have, in themselves, no meaning whatsoever. The truth regarding the Ultimate Reality is that no Jīva is ever born. The Jīva whom one knows as the agent and the enjoyer is not born in any way whatsoever. Therefore, no cause can ever exist which may produce the Ātman which is, by nature, unborn and non-dual. In other words, no Jīva can ever be born, as the cause which may produce it does not exist. Of all the (relative) truths described above as means (for the realisation of the Ultimate Reality), this alone is the Supreme Truth that nothing whatsoever is ever born in or of that Brahman which is of the nature of the Ultimate Reality.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks , Lokesh ji for bringing a reference from a text for discussion. 

Now, coming back to the topic of the thread, Dr Koenraad Elst's position brought for discussion here, is a historical position. 

Its premise is that Veda mantras are historically older than Upanishads. The position taken by Dr Elst is that punarjanma is not found in the older texts, viz., Veda mantras. It is found in the later texts viz., Upanishads. 

There are others who argue that punarjanma is there in Veda mantras. I posted the link to the  article by Prof. Joanna Jurewicz:

https://www.academia.edu/8179799/Rebirth_eschatology_in_the_Rgveda_In_search_for_roots_of_transmigration

Rebirth eschatology in the Rgveda. In search for roots of transmigration

as an example for this position of punarjanma is there in Veda mantras from a historical perspective. 

----------------------------------------

Among the historian scholars who argue that punarjanma began to appear from Upanishads onwards, some argue that that is an influence from Buddhism. These scholars take a position within the two historical positions : 1. Not all Upanishads are post Buddhist, 2. All Upanishads are post Buddhist, the second one. That is the basis of their argument that punarjanma in Upanishads is post Buddhist. 

-------------

You are participating in this thread which started with a historical position. 

You should make it clear to your reader whether your argument is a historical one or not. 

You seem to be not making any historical argument of the above mentioned type. 

It is better if you clarify to your readers regarding this. 

-------------------

Coming to the text that you quoted, the author of the kaarikas composed the kaarikas as an explanation to an Upanishad, viz., Mandukyopanishad. 

Shankara whose bhaashya you quoted wrote bhaashyas to other Upanishads too. 

As is well known, there is punarjanma in the Upanishads. 

------------------------

Now, there is this problem, the same author is taking two positions: 1. there is no janma at all, this can be interpreted to mean, as a corollary, there is no punarjanma in the quoted text

2. there is punarjanma in his other upanishadbashyas, Brahmasutrabhashya , Gitabhashya etc., 

There are two options for understanding this :

1. the author has self contradictions

2. there is a more nuanced way understanding the author through which we can understand that what appears to be self contradiction is not a self contradiction.

If you want to take the second position, then you have to make it clear and show how you want to resolve this problem of self contradiction, through which nuanced understanding. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/c060fa87-9e5f-4d81-bcca-3f682cdf7c00n%40googlegroups.com.

[Vichitra Thandava]

Yeah but perception clouds reality.  Shankara himself was forced to declare in the end that most, of not nearly all, won't get to reality without Grace to remove the veil.   Hence you have his Bhaja Govindam composition. 

Shankara even went to extraordinary lengths to explain that it is no use if you get to the edge of the ocean and seek to dissolve yourself back into it.... Unless the ocean agrees to take you in.  That's Grace and no matter how much karmic back spin is brought to explain that with logic (like with Gajendra Moksham or Ajamila), it can be perceived as at least somewhat unexplainably random at the end of all possible vedantic analytics. 

Your writing is, precisely I am afraid, why no scriptural writing should be trusted without experiential verification by mutually independent persons. 

In the movie Matrix, this three way dynamic is explored beautifully between Neo, the Oracle (like a guru or a putative experiential scripture writer who in the movie is explained as told Neo what he needed to hear) and the Architect (who tells Neo several Neos had been programmed prior by [him]). It is all circular logic in steroids. 

Vijaender 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/c060fa87-9e5f-4d81-bcca-3f682cdf7c00n%40googlegroups.com.

[Vichitra Thandava]

There is no contradiction Nagaraj ji, especially as you referenced the Mandukya Upanishad.

It the One who created a seperate identity as an idea first, as a Jiva to say. The seperate identity then went on to create its own and so on...each set of creation assumes time if not space, and is therefore a reincarnation or punarjanma.   

Now, if the Jiva, by its given nature, manages to shed all the creations it has undertaken over time as reincarnations, and go back to the primordial state as pure Jiva with just an identity... Then you are still left with One who created that identity to destroy it....this part must be random originally because there is nothing to distinguish the Jiva from the One except the identity at this level. 

Punarjanma cannot be seperated from the creation of an individual identity as a Jiva... In fact that creation of the seperate identity itself is a reincarnation. The only question here is that creation of an identity that is now say, Nagarajji, must have been random as there is nothing at all to distinguish it from the One save for that identity.  Destruction of the Jiva must also be random therefore, but here we would prefer to call it the ultimate form of Grace. 

To the extent that the Veda itself talks about creation and its nature and its resolution as in the Purushasuktam, it is in fact, therefore, talking about Punarjanma. 

Circular logic, as with Vedanta, always has some randomness inherent.  Those who know modeling circular calculations in spreadsheets know this.  The result is one of iterations with the false appearance of definitiveness coming solely from decimal rounding. 

I would speculate this subtle randomness is an essential and core feature of Brahman the One and it's consciousness... Without it there wouldn't have arisen a need for the illusory creation including of repeated incarnations.  

Consider that fact that we always have random thoughts in the back of our minds.  Some are chains while others are discrete.  But most die out with time. Yet each thought in itself, random as it may be, is a form of Punarjanma. 

Vijaender 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eaVpEJ%3DpQ8kU6K9nP0j%2B_m3eUYCMS4nqp7vsk31bECBxw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vichitra Thandava]

FYI from Koenraad Elst 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Koenraad Elst <koenra...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Punarjanma is not Vaidika in origin as per Dr Elst

To: Vichitra Thandava <vichitra...@gmail.com>, INDICA <indica...@googlegroups.com>

This might interest some. I regularly receive hostile comments on "my" position (in fact that of most Indologists) that the belief in reincarnation is not from the Vedas. Typical in all these reactions without exception is that they beat around the bush a lot but fail to give the one thing that could disprove my point, viz. Veda quotations that explicitly affirm reincarnation. 

In the Chandogya Up, reincarnation is explicitly introduced as a novelty. A real affirmation of this belief is found in the sayings of the Buddha, where most references to past events are accompanied by his saying what he himself was in that age: reincarnation as a fact of life. Look at that and contrast with the glaring absence of similar affirmations in the Veda. That this belief essentially stemmed from the non-Vedic culture of Magadha, is entirely plausible.

KE

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022, 19:58 Vichitra Thandava, <vichitra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Fyi

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Punarjanma is not Vaidika in origin as per Dr Elst

To: <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKj2ELQaJnkEFaRKUkMgkQvm%3DXmYuaJFZSmWT-3_5bF_k0GWQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lokesh Sharma]

हरि ओम् नागराज जी

My position is that पुनर्जन्म is not present in core doctrine of both वेद and उपनिषद्.

पुनर्जन्म is only told by श्रुति as a temporary remedy for those who are unable to cognize the truth as it exists.

Quotes from अपरोक्षानुभूति to prove the above position -

तत्त्वज्ञानोदयादूर्ध्वं प्रारब्धं नैव विद्यते ।

देहादीनामसत्यत्वात् यथा स्वप्नः प्रबोधतः ॥ ९१॥

कर्म जन्मान्तरीयं यत्प्रारब्धमिति कीर्तितम् । 

तत्तु जन्मान्तराभावात्पुंसो नैवास्ति कर्हिचित् ॥ ९२॥ 

देहस्यापि प्रपञ्चत्वात्प्रारब्धावस्थितिः कुतः ।

अज्ञानिजनबोधार्थं प्रारब्धं वक्ति वै श्रुतिः ॥ ९७॥

[Nagaraj Paturi]

"पुनर्जन्म is only told by श्रुति as a temporary remedy for those who are unable to cognize the truth as it exists."

---- This is what I called your resolution of the (apparent) self-contradiction. 

This sentence of yours  has an implication :

" पुनर्जन्म is  told by श्रुति "

There is your other sentence. 

My position is that पुनर्जन्म is not present in core doctrine of both वेद and उपनिषद्.

Connecting these two, we get a position that 

पुनर्जन्म is  told by श्रुति not as a core doctrine but as a temporary remedy for those who are unable to cognize the truth as it exists. 

This does not belong to the historical method of debate with which the thread started. 

This, 'as a temporary remedy' is your  ahistorical  explanation for an apparent self contradiction in a school of Vedanta called Advaita to which you subscribe. 

As such, it is fair enough to quote from an Advaitic text called अपरोक्षानुभूति. 

That is all my simple point. 

Those who debate the point historically may find your explanation useful for their discussion. 

You may not be or need not be interested in their historical debate. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/65a3b5c8-f6bd-4269-894c-392b1a321b8dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Coming back to the olriginal historical debate and Prof Joanna Jurewicz whose article I mentioned,

she announced the publication of her new book just today on Indology list as follows:

Dear All, 

I am happy to announce that my last book "Invisible Fire. Memory, Tradition and the Self  in Early Hindu Philosophy" (2021) is available at Amazon:

Invisible Fire Memory Tradition and the Self in Early Hindu Philosophy: Joanna Jurewicz: 9788380173118: Amazon.com: Books 

With regards, 

Joanna Jurewicz

---

Prof. dr hab. Joanna Jurewicz

Katedra Azji Południowej /Chair of South Asia Studies

Wydział Orientalistyczny / Faculty of Oriental Studies

Uniwersytet Warszawski /University of Warsaw  

ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28

00-927 Warszawa , Poland

Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages

College of Human Sciences

UNISA

Pretoria, RSA

Member of Academia Europaea  

https://uw.academia.edu/JoannaJurewicz

[Vishal Agarwal]

Even Advaita Acharyas do not declare that the diversity in this creation is a random process. There is no bitterness involved in pointing out that your view is similar to non Hindu viewpoints in their implication; not to Hindu viewpoints.

Advaita elevates everything to Brahman; but I see some Advaitins reducing everything to non Brahman.

Anyway, like I said my compilation was not going to privilege your take on the Paaramaarthika Advaita Vedanta viewpoint because in that case I would not right anything at all.

Vishal

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/b83e4326-b61f-4ac5-ba3f-b1849e6acb1an%40googlegroups.com

.

[Vichitra Thandava]

Vishal 

The circle is never a perfect circle.  As Pi is not a finitely limited number. 

Circular logic is only approximately circular even after a zllion iterations. 

The earth's orbit is neither a perfect circle nor is the earth perfectly stable in its orbit.  It has a wobble that makes life possible in this planet. 

Sata Vayu blows away all memory of prior lives coincident with exit from the mother's womb.  The One doesn't want you to be burdened with the memory of prior lives, for sure, as it can impact being entertained through you. 

Even the universe after the final pralaya doesn't cease to exist, according to the Bhagavatam.  It contracts into some sort of a shell and therefore creation amd destruction is not a perfectly cyclical process.  There is some left over, that creates diversity and a small amount of randomness which is what perhaps makes the universe tick.   And therefore some say there exists the signature of 84 prior universes which should not exist with perfect reincarnation or perfect advaita. 

It doesn't take away anything from the fact of reincarnation.  But it is what makes it interesting. 

Vijaender 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1887325712.4170116.1655310046893%40mail.yahoo.com.