Shruti and SmR^iti (was Re: Spiritual senses and post-mukti activity (was Re: Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas...)
H. Krishna Susarla
Agrahya Das wrote:
> One small point here is that the Gita is generally considered shruti as
> it is spoken by the Lord Himself, though it forms part of a larger work
> which is considered smriti. This is true at least in our tradition; the
> Gita is sometimes called Gitopanishad.
Are you sure about this? I thought that a literature is called shruti if it
is passed down in a tradition of oral recitation, much like the other
Upanishads. I was not aware that this was the case for the 'Giitaa. In
fact, I vaguely remember Srila Prabhupada writing somewhere that even the
Vedas in this age are smR^iti, since most people no longer hear them orally
(or something to that effect).
That Lord Krishna spoke the Upanishad would seem to indicate only that it
is apourusheya, since it cannot have any faults as the Lord is above all
defects found in conditioned, human beings. Maybe this is what you meant?
It would be consistent with what I had read in Jiiva Gosvaamii's _Shrii
Tattva Sandarbha_.
On a separate, but not unrelated note, I wonder about the classification of
scriptures as shruti/smR^iti and apourusheya/powrusheya. Is it acceptable
to consider something as apourusheya if it is not shruti, or does being
apourusheya imply that it is shruti?
ys,
-- K
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.18d alpha 1/30/97
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@pobox.com
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Agrahya das
H. Krishna Susarla wrote:
>
> Agrahya Das wrote:
>
> > One small point here is that the Gita is generally considered shruti as
> > it is spoken by the Lord Himself, though it forms part of a larger work
> > which is considered smriti. This is true at least in our tradition; the
> > Gita is sometimes called Gitopanishad.
>
> Are you sure about this? I thought that a literature is called shruti if it
> is passed down in a tradition of oral recitation, much like the other
> Upanishads. I was not aware that this was the case for the 'Giitaa. In
> fact, I vaguely remember Srila Prabhupada writing somewhere that even the
> Vedas in this age are smR^iti, since most people no longer hear them orally
> (or something to that effect).
I'm not familiar with the last statement; where would that be in Srila
Prahupada's books?
I'm not sure from whence the term GItopanishad comes; possible SankarAchArya - I
believe he uses that term in his GItA-mAhAtmya. I do recall Srila Prabhupada
referring to the Gita as Gitopanishad, and I have seen "gItopanishad" used in
other popular contexts as well outside of Srila Prabhupada's books.
As far as shruti as "[apaurusheya] literature passed down by oral recitation," I
don't know where that definition comes from. Perhaps there are different
categorizations, some more precise than others; it is somewhat convenient to
accept as a convention that shruti refers to apaurusheya literatures such as the
four Vedas and the Upanishads. Taking the oral recitation requirement, we would
then have to refer to Vedas and Upanishads with better-preserved recitation
traditions, such as Rg-veda and TaittirIyopanishad, as shruti, and others with
little or no existing recitation tradition, such as Atharva-veda, as non-shruti.
Then we have the (apparently odd) practice of saying that shruti becomes
non-shruti if the recitation tradition is broken.
> That Lord Krishna spoke the Upanishad would seem to indicate only that it
> is apourusheya, since it cannot have any faults as the Lord is above all
> defects found in conditioned, human beings. Maybe this is what you meant?
> It would be consistent with what I had read in Jiiva Gosvaamii's _Shrii
> Tattva Sandarbha_.
It is certainly apaurusheya, but I have understood shruti to mean a specific
body of apaurusheya texts including the Vedas and Upanishads.
> On a separate, but not unrelated note, I wonder about the classification of
> scriptures as shruti/smR^iti and apourusheya/powrusheya. Is it acceptable
> to consider something as apourusheya if it is not shruti, or does being
> apourusheya imply that it is shruti?
Again, I have understood shruti vs. smriti as designations referring to a text
as a whole, regardless of individual parts. The BhAgavatam, for example, is
smriti, though there are numerous segments spoken by Lord Krishna or by one of
His incarnations. And although the BhAgavatam is smriti, we in the GaudIya line
accept it as a spotless authority. Nonetheless, the distinction between shruti
and smriti is an important one as I understand.
-Agrahya das
Agr...@HGSoft.com
> ys,
>
> -- K
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.19 alpha 2/2/97
Michael Tandy
In article <5d3ne8$h...@boursy.news.erols.com>,
susarla...@tumora.swmed.edu says...
>
>Agrahya Das wrote:
>
>> One small point here is that the Gita is generally considered shruti as
>> it is spoken by the Lord Himself, though it forms part of a larger work
>> which is considered smriti. This is true at least in our tradition; the
>> Gita is sometimes called Gitopanishad.
>
Upanisads in the Gita. This too may justify the name "Gitopanisad,"
as well as its categorization as sruti.
>is passed down in a tradition of oral recitation, much like the other
>Upanishads.
that the Gita is sruti. It is considered as "prasthana-trayi" as
well.
I was not aware that this was the case for the 'Giitaa. In
>fact, I vaguely remember Srila Prabhupada writing somewhere that even the
>Vedas in this age are smR^iti, since most people no longer hear them orally
>(or something to that effect).
did you hear this?
Hare Krsna,
-m
Mani Varadarajan
mpt...@jove.acs.unt.edu (Michael Tandy) writes:
> I'm not aware of this definition, and I agree with Agrahya Prabhu,
> that the Gita is sruti. It is considered as "prasthana-trayi" as
> well.
What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
According to Vedanta, Sruti is apaurusheya, not authored
by anyone, including God himself. The very meaning of
``Sruti'' according to mImAmsA (canons of Vedic interpration)
is an ordered collection of sounds that are eternal and
simply revealed kalpa after kalpa by God to the rest
of creation.
The Gita, on the other hand, is undoubtedly an authored
text, in many senses. The traditional author is vyAsa,
who hears Krishna's teaching (or perhaps Sanjaya's retelling
of it) and records it for posterity. We gather from this
that the origins of the Gita are well known, and in no sense
are its words and word-order eternal. Furthermore, the
text of the Gita does not have svara (Vedic intonations),
so are once again not Sruti.
This fact is reinforced by the prasthAna-trayi categorization.
The Sruti-prasthAna are the Upanishads. The smRti-prasthAna
is the Gita. The nyAya-prasthAna is the Brahma-sutra.
Mani
Michael Tandy
In article <5d817b$u...@boursy.news.erols.com>, ma...@be.com says...
>
>mpt...@jove.acs.unt.edu (Michael Tandy) writes:
Actually, it was m...@dhc.net (Michael Tandy).
>
>What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
-m
RAMACHANDRA BUDIHAL
Gita cannot be a sruti as it is authored text
it is not called as "prastanatrayi"
but it is one among the prastanatrayi
prastanatrayi are
1. Gita
2. Brahma sutras
3. Ten principal upanishids
regds
Ramachandra
---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------
Mani Varadarajan
mpt...@jove.acs.unt.edu (Michael Tandy) writes:
> >What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
> Sruti is spoken by Krsna. Smrti is spoken about Krsna.
Are you pulling this definition out of your hat?
By your count, neither the Upanishads nor the Veda
are Sruti. I daresay neither Prabhupada nor Caitanya
would agree with you.
Mani
P.S. By the way, I chanced across a work by Bhaktivinoda
Thakura, the acharya or Prabhupada's acharya. Quite a
remarkable man who had an enlightened approach to
religious texts. According to Sri Bhaktivinoda, Srimad
Bhagavatam was most probably authored within the last
1100 years!
Agrahya das
Mani Varadarajan wrote:
>
> mpt...@jove.acs.unt.edu (Michael Tandy) writes:
> > >What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
> > Sruti is spoken by Krsna. Smrti is spoken about Krsna.
>
> Are you pulling this definition out of your hat?
I also learned this from my guru, but understand that this is a simple
(but sound) definition. As far as I understand, the technical
description you gave of shruti as canonical apaurusheya texts is
correct, but then I'm no scholar.
However, the analogy of Gita as Upanishad comes, I believe, from Sripada
Sankaracharya's Gita-mahatmya, where he names DevakI-putra (Krishna) as
the devatA, Arjuna as the Rshi, etc. As far as I know, it is intended
more as a vehicle for glorification of the Gita than a serious attempt
to classify it as an Upanishad.
Nonetheless, the Gita, as one of the prasthAna-trayI, is given a special
position amongst shAstra. Is this because it is spoken by the
infallible Lord Himself to His devotee Arjuna? I would be hard-pressed
to believe otherwise.
If the _primary_ requirement (apart from technicalities like svara,
Rshi, devatA, etc.) is the un-authoredness of a text, one can argue such
for the Gita. Just as the Lord _appears_ to take birth though in truth
He manifests His eternal spiritual form, it is only externally that the
Gita appears to be an authored text. I have always understood that the
Vedas themselves are emanations from the breathing of NArAyaNa. They
are thus un-authored in the sense that no mortal or demigod created
them. Therefore it is quite correct to assert that the Gita, spoken by
Lord Krishna, who is not different from NArAyaNa, is also apaurusheya,
hence in a very real sense shruti.
But after all is said and done, it's not a pressing issue that I feel a
need to debate. If we accept the Gita as an authority, as one of the
prasthAna-trayI, whether we call it shruti or smriti is academic.
Regards,
Agrahya das
Agr...@HGSoft.com
> By your count, neither the Upanishads nor the Veda
> are Sruti. I daresay neither Prabhupada nor Caitanya
> would agree with you.
>
> Mani
H. Krishna Susarla
> If the _primary_ requirement (apart from technicalities like svara,
> Rshi, devatA, etc.) is the un-authoredness of a text, one can argue such
> for the Gita. Just as the Lord _appears_ to take birth though in truth
> He manifests His eternal spiritual form, it is only externally that the
> Gita appears to be an authored text. I have always understood that the
> Vedas themselves are emanations from the breathing of NArAyaNa. They
> are thus un-authored in the sense that no mortal or demigod created
> them. Therefore it is quite correct to assert that the Gita, spoken by
> Lord Krishna, who is not different from NArAyaNa, is also apaurusheya,
> hence in a very real sense shruti.
This may be somewhat off topic, but very similar arguments are given by
Jiiva Gosvami in his _Shrii Tattva Sandarbha_. Since the purport of
something being apaurusheya is that is free of defects, it is argued that
even those texts that are "authored" by the Lord are still apaurusheya,
since the Lord cannot create something that is flawed. However, Jiiva
Gosvami also points out that the itihaasa and puraana constitute the fifth
veda, and cites numerous shruti and smrti evidences to back this up. In the
fifth veda, some statements have been added to make them easier to
understand. For example, in the Bhagavad-giitaa, statements like "Shrii
Bhagavaan uvaaca" are understood to have been added by Shriila Vedavyaasa
and are not present in the original Veda. However, even these statements
are regarded as apaurusheya since their author is Lord Naaraayana Himself.
Even many of the Upanishads may *seem* like authored texts, but we know
that they are not. For example, the end of the Svetaashvatara Upanishad has
a statement like, "thus this Upanishad was spoken by Svetaashvatara Muni."
I believe the understanding is that the Upanishad is named for the muni who
originally teaches it, but the knowledges comes down to them from the Lord
Himself.
Of course, this still does not address the issue of shruti and smrti. I'm
still a little confused as to how the two are defined. I don't see how
something being a part of the prasthaana trayii makes it shruti; don't some
schools consider the Brahma-sutra to be part of the prasthaana trayii? Is
the Brahma-sutra also shruti? I thought not but I suppose I could be wrong.
I read in Satsvarupa Gosvami's _Readings in Vedic Literature_ the
following:
"The four original Vedas are shruti -- they came down orally (shruti means
"hearing"; smrti means "remembering" [what was originally spoken].)"
This is why I thought that shruti referred only to those texts that are
traditionally passed down orally. Of course, Lord Krishna spoke
Bhagavad-giitaa both to Arjuna and also to the Sun demigod; in the latter
case it was also passed on to Manu, Ikshvaaku, etc. I guess I could see how
it might be classified as shruti in that case. But if the definition of
something being shruti is that it is spoken *by* Krishna, then what about
the Bhaagavatam which is traditionally considered to the be composition of
Vyaasa? Vyaasa is nondifferent from Krishna; is the Bhaagavatam also shruti
then?
ys,
-- K
Jahnu das
On 4 Feb 1997 19:04:11 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
>According to Vedanta, Sruti is apaurusheya, not authored
>by anyone, including God himself.
If it wasn't authored by God originally, who authored it?
> The very meaning of
>``Sruti'' according to mImAmsA (canons of Vedic interpration)
>is an ordered collection of sounds that are eternal and
>simply revealed kalpa after kalpa by God to the rest
>of creation.
But are you saying that God is not the originator of Vedic sound?
<snip>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to be."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
/ Jahnu
www.users.wineasy.se/storm/
www.krsna.com
Jahnu das
On 4 Feb 1997 19:04:11 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
>According to Vedanta, Sruti is apaurusheya, not authored
>by anyone, including God himself.
But it is said all over the Vedas that first there was Narayan, and
from Him everything emanated, including Vedic sound.
Mani Varadarajan
ja...@wineasy.se (Jahnu das) writes:
> On 4 Feb 1997 19:04:11 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>
> >What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
> >According to Vedanta, Sruti is apaurusheya, not authored
> >by anyone, including God himself.
>
>
There is no "original" when it comes to the Vedas.
The are eternal, unauthored, ordered, intoned words.
They are the very breath of the Absolute; the coexist
eternally with It.
>
> But are you saying that God is not the originator of Vedic sound?
>
It is very clearly said in the Vedas and in the writing of
Vaidika preceptors such as Ramanuja and Sankara that
Brahman, the Supreme Divine Absolute, *remembers* the Vedas
periodically and repropagates them at the beginning of
every kalpa, i.e., cycle of creative emanation. God (Brahman)
is not the originator of Vedic sound, since the Vedic sounds
have no origin.
Mani
Mani Varadarajan
ja...@wineasy.se (Jahnu das) writes:
> On 4 Feb 1997 19:04:11 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>
> >What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
> >According to Vedanta, Sruti is apaurusheya, not authored
> >by anyone, including God himself.
>
Please don't just assert this; cite the Sanskrit text
and we shall proceed from there.
It is also said in the Vedas ``asad vai idam agra AsIt;
... tato sad ajAyata'', which means that non-existence
was the first principle, and then existence was born from
that. Does this mean that nothing, not even God was
existent? No. Every Vedic text must be understood in
proper context.
It appears that the reason behind ISKCON's casual
and often ignorant approach to Vedic interpretation is
that they have lost continuity with the traditional,
unbroken line of Vedic exegesis and learning, in the
strict sense. It is not wrong (indeed it is a great thing)
to focus primarily on Srimad Bhagavatam, as ISKCON has done;
unfortunately, this has been at the expense of the Vedas
themselves.
I am curious as to whether anyone within ISKCON learns
the Vedas properly, i.e., along with their accessories
such as proper intonation, Vedic grammar, metre, etc.
H. Krishna Susarla
> >What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
> >According to Vedanta, Sruti is apaurusheya, not authored
> >by anyone, including God himself.
>
Vedas are said to be unauthored and have thus existed for all time.
> > The very meaning of
> >``Sruti'' according to mImAmsA (canons of Vedic interpration)
> >is an ordered collection of sounds that are eternal and
> >simply revealed kalpa after kalpa by God to the rest
> >of creation.
>
> But are you saying that God is not the originator of Vedic sound?
I think he did say that; that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the
originator of Vedic sound is confirmed by the bR^ihad-aranyaka upanishad
statement which states that the Vedas and Puraanas are emanations of the
Lord's breathing. However, this isn't necessarily the same as saying that
the Lord is the author of the Vedas. I think the main objection to
describing the Vedas as texts that were authored by the Lord is that it
implies that there was some time at which they did not exist. Vedas are
eternal and thus are meant for all people at all times and places; they are
not the product of any kind of sectarian thinking.
Jahnu das
On 21 Feb 1997 17:59:30 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>ja...@wineasy.se (Jahnu das) writes:
>> >What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
>> >According to Vedanta, Sruti is apaurusheya, not authored
>> >by anyone, including God himself.
>Please don't just assert this; cite the Sanskrit text
>and we shall proceed from there.
First of all I didn't write the quote that you attribute to me.
Second of all you have provided no Sanskrit quotes that
says that God is not the originator of Vedic sound.
>It is also said in the Vedas ``asad vai idam agra AsIt;
>... tato sad ajAyata'', which means that non-existence
>was the first principle, and then existence was born from
>that.
It is no where stated like that. Only a complete mayavadi would
interpret the text like that. Can you prove to me that you are a
Sanskrit scholar, and that you are greater than, say, Jiva Goswami?
Since I'm not qualified in Sanskrit I'd never accept a translation
from persons like you. I'd go to a proper disciplic succession and
learn from there, and your above interpretation would never be
accepted in the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Vaishnava sampradaya.
> Does this mean that nothing, not even God was
>existent? No. Every Vedic text must be understood in
>proper context.
And we have to learn from you...?
>It appears that the reason behind ISKCON's casual
>and often ignorant approach to Vedic interpretation is
>that they have lost continuity with the traditional,
>unbroken line of Vedic exegesis and learning, in the
>strict sense.
What do you base that assumption on?
> It is not wrong (indeed it is a great thing)
>to focus primarily on Srimad Bhagavatam, as ISKCON has done;
>unfortunately, this has been at the expense of the Vedas
>themselves.
But it is clearly stated by Jiva Goswami as well as in the Bhagavatam,
and other Puranas that Srimad Bhagavatam, is the cream of Vedic
knowledge and that It shall be the guiding light for humans in
Kali-yuga.
>I am curious as to whether anyone within ISKCON learns
>the Vedas properly, i.e., along with their accessories
>such as proper intonation, Vedic grammar, metre, etc.
Some of the devotees are Ph.d's, but this is not necessary to
understand the message of Godhead.
As for the Shrutis, there are no brahmins in this age, who are
qualified to chant them. Show me the brahmana who can light the
sacrificial fire by the Vedic mantras without the aid of matches. Do
you think you can do that?
So therefore you'd better forget about the Shrutis and study the
Bhagavat Purana, in which it doesn't matter how the Sanskrit is
pronounced. It is not even required to even know Sanskrit in order to
understand the Smrti. You just have to connect to a proper disciplic
succession and learn from that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to be."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
/ Jahnu
www.users.wineasy.se/storm/
www.krsna.com
Jahnu das
On 21 Feb 1997 17:53:23 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>There is no "original" when it comes to the Vedas.
Where is this stated? It is stated all over the Vedas that Narayan is
the original. Where is it stated that there is no 'original' when it
comes to the Vedas?
>The are eternal, unauthored, ordered, intoned words.
Where is it stated that they are unauthored? Please provide some
shastric evidence for your claims. Don't just state things out of the
blue. As I said, I can provide you with tons of quotes from the Smrti
and Shruti that Narayan is the origin of everything - of course the
most immediate shloka that falls into mind is 10.8 from the Gita,
where Krishna says, aham sarvasya prabhavo - I am the origin of
everything, spiritual as well as material.
But please substantiate your claim that the Vedas have no origin, and
that Krishna is not the originator of the Vedas. Krishna says that
everything material as well as spiritual comes from Him. How can you
argue against that?
>They are the very breath of the Absolute; the coexist
>eternally with It.
Where is this stated?
>>
>> But are you saying that God is not the originator of Vedic sound?
>>
>
>It is very clearly said in the Vedas and in the writing of
>Vaidika preceptors such as Ramanuja and Sankara that
>Brahman, the Supreme Divine Absolute, *remembers* the Vedas
>periodically and repropagates them at the beginning of
>every kalpa, i.e., cycle of creative emanation.
So you suggest that God forgets? Where is it stated that God forgets?
On the other hand Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that He never
forgets - ajo'pi sann avyayatma bhutanam ishvaro 'pi san.
> God (Brahman)
>is not the originator of Vedic sound, since the Vedic sounds
>have no origin.
Where is this stated? If God is not the origin of Vedic shabda, which
intelligence formulated it, so that it became comprehensible to man?
Are you suggesting that the words of God are beyond and superior to
God, and that He sometimes forgets them? If God forgets something,
then that must mean that there is a power superior to God, which can
cover Him. What power is that?
It is stated in the Svet. Upanishad - na tasya karyam karanam na
vidyate, na tat samas cahbhyadikash ca drishyate - that no one is
equal to or greater than God. So from that it would seem that your
claims are not backed up by the Vedas.
Jahnu das
On 21 Feb 1997 17:59:30 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>ja...@wineasy.se (Jahnu das) writes:
>> >What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
>> >According to Vedanta, Sruti is apaurusheya, not authored
>> >by anyone, including God himself.
>Please don't just assert this; cite the Sanskrit text
>and we shall proceed from there.
First of all I didn't write the quote that you attribute to me.
Second of all you have provided no Sanskrit quotes that
says that God is not the originator of Vedic sound.
>It is also said in the Vedas ``asad vai idam agra AsIt;
>... tato sad ajAyata'', which means that non-existence
>was the first principle, and then existence was born from
>that.
It is no where stated like that. Can you prove to me that you are a
Sanskrit scholar, and that you are greater than, say, Jiva Goswami?
Since I'm not qualified in Sanskrit I'd never accept a translation
from you. I'd go to a proper disciplic succession and learn from
Michael Tandy
In article <5elt2q$5...@boursy.news.erols.com>,
susarla...@tumora.swmed.edu says...
>
>> >What does it mean to be Sruti, if the Gita is Sruti?
>I think he did say that; that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the
>originator of Vedic sound is confirmed by the bR^ihad-aranyaka upanishad
>statement which states that the Vedas and Puraanas are emanations of the
>Lord's breathing. However, this isn't necessarily the same as saying that
>the Lord is the author of the Vedas.
This is another example of an inconceivable oneness and differnce.
Just as the Lord creates the jivas, who are eternally existing, so
He creates the Vedas. The question of creation becomes moot on the
absolute platform.
-m
H. Krishna Susarla
> >I think he did say that; that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the
> >originator of Vedic sound is confirmed by the bR^ihad-aranyaka upanishad
> >statement which states that the Vedas and Puraanas are emanations of the
> >Lord's breathing. However, this isn't necessarily the same as saying
that
> >the Lord is the author of the Vedas.
> This is another example of an inconceivable oneness and differnce.
> Just as the Lord creates the jivas, who are eternally existing, so
> He creates the Vedas. The question of creation becomes moot on the
> absolute platform.
I should also add that it is always wise to qualify statements like the one
above. We say that the Lord is the originator of the Vedas but yet they are
eternal. This is not any different from what Mani was saying earlier about
the Lord revealing them kalpa after kalpa. There was never any time when
they did not exist, yet they are not higher that the Lord Himself. Perhaps
it is more proper to say that the Vedas are nondifferent from the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. Isn't some such thing stated in Srila Prabhupada's
books?
ys,
-- K
Agrahya das
Jahnu das wrote:
>
> On 21 Feb 1997 17:59:30 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>
> >ja...@wineasy.se (Jahnu das) writes:
>
> >It is also said in the Vedas ``asad vai idam agra AsIt;
> >... tato sad ajAyata'', which means that non-existence
> >was the first principle, and then existence was born from
> >that.
>
> Sanskrit scholar, and that you are greater than, say, Jiva Goswami?
This is a shameful, groundless, ad hominem response if I ever heard one.
How can anyone prove scholarship to you if you don't demonstrate it
yourself? zamo damas tapaH zaucaM / kSAntir Arjavam eva ca... If I
want to represent my guru I had better learn to try to preach and
conduct myself as he did.
yato vA imAni bhUtAni jAyante is cited by Srila Prabhupada in his
purports, as is this citation. You would only accuse someone of putting
a zUnyavAda reading on this if you took it entirely out of context,
which it appears you did here. My assumption is that Mani, following in
the line of Sri RAmAnuja, is referring to creation as described in zruti
and is not making a case for voidist philosophy.
Perhaps he could have given more context, but then you did not have to
make an assumption of zUnyavAda. I certainly don't agree with Mani on
many things, but I'm sure he neither meant to express voidist or other
philosophy inconsistent with viziSThAdvaita, nor did he mean to offer
flamebait to prove that ISKCON devotees will attack without the proper
weapons (that's a very deep and subtle pun on the Sanskrit word for
weapon).
> Since I'm not qualified in Sanskrit I'd never accept a translation
> from persons like you. I'd go to a proper disciplic succession and
> learn from there, and your above interpretation would never be
> accepted in the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Vaishnava sampradaya.
I don't think there's any excuse for someone not learning Sanskrit,
particularly if one styles oneself as a critic of other Vaishnava
sampradayas. One should certainly learn _some_ if one intends to debate
based on shastra or wants to be critical of the readings others give on
Vedic texts.
>...casual
> >and often ignorant approach to Vedic interpretation is
> >that they have lost continuity with the traditional,
> >unbroken line of Vedic exegesis and learning, in the
> >strict sense.
>
> What do you base that assumption on?
Your responses are not aiding in disproving any such assumption. I try
not to make a habit of applying such sweeping generalizations as you
were replying to, but I believe that if more ISKCON devotees applied
themselves to Srila Prabhupada's instructions to read _all_ his books
regularly such misconceptions (which incidentally don't reflect well on
our founder-AcArya) would not arise.
[snip]
> But it is clearly stated by Jiva Goswami as well as in the Bhagavatam,
> and other Puranas that Srimad Bhagavatam, is the cream of Vedic
> knowledge and that It shall be the guiding light for humans in
> Kali-yuga.
I've already responded to this at length in a previous post (which,
through very poor news performance on the part of my ISP, still hasn't
appeared after 24 hours).
[snip]
> As for the Shrutis, there are no brahmins in this age, who are
> qualified to chant them. Show me the brahmana who can light the
> sacrificial fire by the Vedic mantras without the aid of matches. Do
> you think you can do that?
I can't and neither can you. But Srila Prabhupada wanted us to become
Bhaktivedantas, laughably far from reality though that may seem, and
that our children's children may be pure enough to light fire by mantra.
So where do we start?
> So therefore you'd better forget about the Shrutis and study the
> Bhagavat Purana, in which it doesn't matter how the Sanskrit is
> pronounced. It is not even required to even know Sanskrit in order to
> understand the Smrti. You just have to connect to a proper disciplic
> succession and learn from that.
Whoa! Who in our line ever said forget about zruti? I'll bite my
tongue here and resist the temptation to make a sarcastic remark about
this. It's true that outside of zruti-mantras gross mispronunciation is
of no concern, or even whether one knows Sanskrit, much less proper
accent and breathing. But I often wish devotees would cite Sanskrit so
that it's recognizable and doesn't sound like some other language.
Srila Prabhupada was very pleased to hear the gurukula students reciting
zruti mantras. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had zruti as one of 10
requirements for bhakti-zAstrI in the GauDIya-maTha. Srila Prahupada
dedicates his BGAII to Srila Baladeva VidyAbhUSaNa, citing his
Govinda-bhASya commentary on VedAnta, which itself deals with the
subject matter of zruti. Why does Srila Prabhupada cite various
Upanishads so extensively? Why do Srila Jiva Goswami and Srila Baladeva
VidyAbhUSaNa do the same?
My apologies for this unpleasant, flaming post. I like to debate, but
such things should not be exchanges of words thrown in haste. We should
back our statements up with zAstra. Hopefully I've offered some food
for thought, though. The nIti-zAstra Srila Prabhupada often quoted says
that knowledge should make one humble; the branch laden with fruit bends
down to the ground, whereas the barren branch points straight up to the
sky.
Agrahya das
Agr...@HGSoft.com
http://www.hgsoft.com/~agrahya/
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.19 alpha 2/2/97
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@pobox.com
SRV home page at http://www.pobox.com/~srv
Jahnu das
On 22 Feb 1997 22:56:59 GMT, Agrahya das <Agr...@HGSoft.com> wrote:
>Jahnu das wrote:
>> It is no where stated like that. Only a complete mayavadi would
>> interpret the text like that. Can you prove to me that you are a
>> Sanskrit scholar, and that you are greater than, say, Jiva Goswami?
>
>This is a shameful, groundless, ad hominem response if I ever heard one.
> How can anyone prove scholarship to you if you don't demonstrate it
>yourself?
My point was that his interpretation was not in line with Vaishnavism.
What Vaishnava acharya from any sampradaya, will agree that the first
principle is non-existence?
> zamo damas tapaH zaucaM / kSAntir Arjavam eva ca... If I
>want to represent my guru I had better learn to try to preach and
>conduct myself as he did.
You are right.
>yato vA imAni bhUtAni jAyante is cited by Srila Prabhupada in his
>purports, as is this citation. You would only accuse someone of putting
>a zUnyavAda reading on this if you took it entirely out of context,
>which it appears you did here. My assumption is that Mani, following in
>the line of Sri RAmAnuja, is referring to creation as described in zruti
>and is not making a case for voidist philosophy.
Ok. I stand corrected. But it was not taken entirely out of context.
In one sentence Mani says that the first principle is that of
non-existence, and in the next sentence he says that this doesn't mean
that nothing was existent, not even God.. so what does it mean? If God
was first, then how can you say that the first principle is that of
non-existence? So I'm commenting on one part and not on the other
which is self evident.
>Perhaps he could have given more context, but then you did not have to
>make an assumption of zUnyavAda. I certainly don't agree with Mani on
>many things, but I'm sure he neither meant to express voidist or other
>philosophy inconsistent with viziSThAdvaita, nor did he mean to offer
>flamebait to prove that ISKCON devotees will attack without the proper
>weapons (that's a very deep and subtle pun on the Sanskrit word for
>weapon).
If that's a fact, I don't understand all this talk about Vedic sound
being unauthored even by God. As I see it, this assumption is totally
unfounded, and practically boarders on mayavad philosophy. Instead of
Brahman being beyond God, we now have the Vedic shabda being beyond
God.
>> Since I'm not qualified in Sanskrit I'd never accept a translation
>> from persons like you. I'd go to a proper disciplic succession and
>> learn from there, and your above interpretation would never be
>> accepted in the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Vaishnava sampradaya.
>
>I don't think there's any excuse for someone not learning Sanskrit,
>particularly if one styles oneself as a critic of other Vaishnava
I don't have to learn Sanskrit to criticize someone who interprets ..
tato sad ajAyata''.. tato sad ajAyata'' as meaning that the first
principle was non-existence. Mani is interpreting out of the blue.
Ajayate doesn't mean non-existent. It means unborn.
>sampradayas. One should certainly learn _some_ if one intends to debate
>based on shastra or wants to be critical of the readings others give on
>Vedic texts.
What I have learned from Srila Prabhupada's books is enough for me to
know that apaurusheya doesn't mean unauthored, and that aja doesn't
mean non-existent. Mani is making false statements, and none of the
Sanskrit scholars here even contradicts him.
>>...casual
>> >and often ignorant approach to Vedic interpretation is
>> >that they have lost continuity with the traditional,
>> >unbroken line of Vedic exegesis and learning, in the
>> >strict sense.
>>
>> What do you base that assumption on?
>
>Your responses are not aiding in disproving any such assumption.
It was not meant to. I don't have to disprove it. It's a straw man. We
are followers of Jiva Goswami. Did he have a casual and often ignorant
approach to Vedic interpretation? Have ISKCON lost continuity with the
traditional unbroken line of Vedic exegesis? Where is the evidence of
that? Why should I have to disprove that point even before he has
given a single argument to back up his assertions?
> I try
>not to make a habit of applying such sweeping generalizations as you
>were replying to, but I believe that if more ISKCON devotees applied
>themselves to Srila Prabhupada's instructions to read _all_ his books
>regularly such misconceptions (which incidentally don't reflect well on
>our founder-AcArya) would not arise.
What misconceptions? I don't get it. I think it is because I read
Srila Prabhupada's books that I can't stand hearing statements such
as, ISKCON has lost continuity with the traditional unbroken line of
Vedic exegesis.
>[snip]
>> But it is clearly stated by Jiva Goswami as well as in the Bhagavatam,
>> and other Puranas that Srimad Bhagavatam, is the cream of Vedic
>> knowledge and that It shall be the guiding light for humans in
>> Kali-yuga.
>
>I've already responded to this at length in a previous post (which,
>through very poor news performance on the part of my ISP, still hasn't
>appeared after 24 hours).
Good I'm sure you can do it much more scholarly and to the point, and
with all the proper references, than I can.
>[snip]
>> As for the Shrutis, there are no brahmins in this age, who are
>> qualified to chant them. Show me the brahmana who can light the
>> sacrificial fire by the Vedic mantras without the aid of matches. Do
>> you think you can do that?
>
>I can't and neither can you. But Srila Prabhupada wanted us to become
>Bhaktivedantas, laughably far from reality though that may seem, and
>that our children's children may be pure enough to light fire by mantra.
> So where do we start?
I guess we start by becoming purified from false ego.
>> So therefore you'd better forget about the Shrutis and study the
>> Bhagavat Purana, in which it doesn't matter how the Sanskrit is
>> pronounced. It is not even required to even know Sanskrit in order to
>> understand the Smrti. You just have to connect to a proper disciplic
>> succession and learn from that.
>
>Whoa! Who in our line ever said forget about zruti? I'll bite my
>tongue here and resist the temptation to make a sarcastic remark about
>this.
You are right. We shouldn't forget about the Shrutis. Srila Prabhupada
is after all quoting the Upanishads again and again. What I meant to
say was that we don't have to bother with the Vedas if we study the
Srimad Bhagavatam. The Vedas Are not necessary in this age for
becoming a pure devotee.
> It's true that outside of zruti-mantras gross mispronunciation is
>of no concern, or even whether one knows Sanskrit, much less proper
>accent and breathing. But I often wish devotees would cite Sanskrit so
>that it's recognizable and doesn't sound like some other language.
That's another point.
>Srila Prabhupada was very pleased to hear the gurukula students reciting
>zruti mantras. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had zruti as one of 10
>requirements for bhakti-zAstrI in the GauDIya-maTha. Srila Prahupada
>dedicates his BGAII to Srila Baladeva VidyAbhUSaNa, citing his
>Govinda-bhASya commentary on VedAnta, which itself deals with the
>subject matter of zruti. Why does Srila Prabhupada cite various
>Upanishads so extensively? Why do Srila Jiva Goswami and Srila Baladeva
>VidyAbhUSaNa do the same?
I guess to establish our philosophy as superior.
>My apologies for this unpleasant, flaming post.
No, no. I need this. It is a fact that I am a rude, puffed up
up-start. It is nice for me to get the sauce sometimes. In this way I
can maybe one day become purified from my false ego.
> I like to debate, but
>such things should not be exchanges of words thrown in haste.
You are right. I should learn to think before I speak.
> We should
>back our statements up with zAstra.
That's what I would like Mani to do. Where is it stated that Vedic
sound is unauthored?
> Hopefully I've offered some food
>for thought, though.
You sure have. Thank you for taking the trouble.
> The nIti-zAstra Srila Prabhupada often quoted says
>that knowledge should make one humble; the branch laden with fruit bends
>down to the ground, whereas the barren branch points straight up to the
>sky.
How true. But humble doesn't mean we should just accept any nonsense
philosophy without contradicting it. And what Mani has proposed is
simply nonsense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to be."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
/ Jahnu
www.users.wineasy.se/storm/
www.krsna.com
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.20 alpha 2/23/97
Jahnu das
On 22 Feb 1997 22:56:59 GMT, Agrahya das <Agr...@HGSoft.com> wrote:
>Jahnu das wrote:
>> It is no where stated like that. Only a complete mayavadi would
>> interpret the text like that. Can you prove to me that you are a
>> Sanskrit scholar, and that you are greater than, say, Jiva Goswami?
>
>This is a shameful, groundless, ad hominem response if I ever heard one.
> How can anyone prove scholarship to you if you don't demonstrate it
>yourself?
My point was that his interpretation was not in line with Vaishnavism.
What Vaishnava acharya from any sampradaya, will agree that the first
principle is non-existence?
> zamo damas tapaH zaucaM / kSAntir Arjavam eva ca... If I
>want to represent my guru I had better learn to try to preach and
>conduct myself as he did.
You are right.
>yato vA imAni bhUtAni jAyante is cited by Srila Prabhupada in his
>purports, as is this citation. You would only accuse someone of putting
>a zUnyavAda reading on this if you took it entirely out of context,
>which it appears you did here. My assumption is that Mani, following in
>the line of Sri RAmAnuja, is referring to creation as described in zruti
>and is not making a case for voidist philosophy.
Ok. I stand corrected. But it was not taken entirely out of context.
In one sentence Mani says that the first principle is that of
non-existence, and in the next sentence he says that this doesn't mean
that nothing was existent, not even God.. so what does it mean? If God
was first, then how can you say that the first principle is that of
non-existence? So I'm commenting on one part and not on the other
which is self evident.
>Perhaps he could have given more context, but then you did not have to
>make an assumption of zUnyavAda. I certainly don't agree with Mani on
>many things, but I'm sure he neither meant to express voidist or other
>philosophy inconsistent with viziSThAdvaita, nor did he mean to offer
>flamebait to prove that ISKCON devotees will attack without the proper
>weapons (that's a very deep and subtle pun on the Sanskrit word for
>weapon).
If that's a fact, I don't understand all this talk about Vedic sound
being unauthored even by God. As I see it, this assumption is totally
unfounded, and practically boarders on mayavad philosophy. Instead of
Brahman being beyond God, we now have the Vedic shabda being beyond
God.
>> Since I'm not qualified in Sanskrit I'd never accept a translation
>> from persons like you. I'd go to a proper disciplic succession and
>> learn from there, and your above interpretation would never be
>> accepted in the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Vaishnava sampradaya.
>
>I don't think there's any excuse for someone not learning Sanskrit,
>particularly if one styles oneself as a critic of other Vaishnava
I don't have to learn Sanskrit to criticize someone who interprets ..
tato sad ajAyata''.. tato sad ajAyata'' as meaning that the first
principle was non-existence. Mani is interpreting out of the blue.
Ajayate doesn't mean non-existent. It means unborn.
>sampradayas. One should certainly learn _some_ if one intends to debate
>based on shastra or wants to be critical of the readings others give on
>Vedic texts.
What I have learned from Srila Prabhupada's books is enough for me to
know that apaurusheya doesn't mean unauthored, and that aja doesn't
mean non-existent. Mani is making false statements, and none of the
Sanskrit scholars here even contradicts him.
>>...casual
>> >and often ignorant approach to Vedic interpretation is
>> >that they have lost continuity with the traditional,
>> >unbroken line of Vedic exegesis and learning, in the
>> >strict sense.
>>
>> What do you base that assumption on?
>
>Your responses are not aiding in disproving any such assumption.
It was not meant to. I don't have to disprove it. It's a straw man. We
are followers of Jiva Goswami. Did he have a casual and often ignorant
approach to Vedic interpretation? Have ISKCON lost continuity with the
traditional unbroken line of Vedic exegesis? Where is the evidence of
that? Why should I have to disprove that point even before he has
given a single argument to back up his assertions?
> I try
>not to make a habit of applying such sweeping generalizations as you
>were replying to, but I believe that if more ISKCON devotees applied
>themselves to Srila Prabhupada's instructions to read _all_ his books
>regularly such misconceptions (which incidentally don't reflect well on
>our founder-AcArya) would not arise.
What misconceptions? I don't get it. I think it is because I read
Srila Prabhupada's books that I can't stand hearing statements such
as, ISKCON has lost continuity with the traditional unbroken line of
Vedic exegesis.
>[snip]
>> But it is clearly stated by Jiva Goswami as well as in the Bhagavatam,
>> and other Puranas that Srimad Bhagavatam, is the cream of Vedic
>> knowledge and that It shall be the guiding light for humans in
>> Kali-yuga.
>
>I've already responded to this at length in a previous post (which,
>through very poor news performance on the part of my ISP, still hasn't
>appeared after 24 hours).
Good I'm sure you can do it much more scholarly and to the point, and
with all the proper references, than I can.
>[snip]
>> As for the Shrutis, there are no brahmins in this age, who are
>> qualified to chant them. Show me the brahmana who can light the
>> sacrificial fire by the Vedic mantras without the aid of matches. Do
>> you think you can do that?
>
>I can't and neither can you. But Srila Prabhupada wanted us to become
>Bhaktivedantas, laughably far from reality though that may seem, and
>that our children's children may be pure enough to light fire by mantra.
> So where do we start?
I guess we start by becoming purified from false ego.
>> So therefore you'd better forget about the Shrutis and study the
>> Bhagavat Purana, in which it doesn't matter how the Sanskrit is
>> pronounced. It is not even required to even know Sanskrit in order to
>> understand the Smrti. You just have to connect to a proper disciplic
>> succession and learn from that.
>
>Whoa! Who in our line ever said forget about zruti? I'll bite my
>tongue here and resist the temptation to make a sarcastic remark about
>this.
You are right. We shouldn't forget about the Shrutis. Srila Prabhupada
is after all quoting the Upanishads again and again. What I meant to
say was that we don't have to bother with the Vedas if we study the
Srimad Bhagavatam. The Vedas Are not necessary in this age for
becoming a pure devotee.
> It's true that outside of zruti-mantras gross mispronunciation is
>of no concern, or even whether one knows Sanskrit, much less proper
>accent and breathing. But I often wish devotees would cite Sanskrit so
>that it's recognizable and doesn't sound like some other language.
That's another point.
>Srila Prabhupada was very pleased to hear the gurukula students reciting
>zruti mantras. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had zruti as one of 10
>requirements for bhakti-zAstrI in the GauDIya-maTha. Srila Prahupada
>dedicates his BGAII to Srila Baladeva VidyAbhUSaNa, citing his
>Govinda-bhASya commentary on VedAnta, which itself deals with the
>subject matter of zruti. Why does Srila Prabhupada cite various
>Upanishads so extensively? Why do Srila Jiva Goswami and Srila Baladeva
>VidyAbhUSaNa do the same?
I guess to establish our philosophy as superior.
>My apologies for this unpleasant, flaming post.
No, no. I need this. It is a fact that I am a rude, puffed up
up-start. It is nice for me to get the sauce sometimes. In this way I
can maybe one day become purified from my false ego.
> I like to debate, but
>such things should not be exchanges of words thrown in haste.
You are right. I should learn to think before I speak.
> We should
>back our statements up with zAstra.
That's what I would like Mani to do. Where is it stated that Vedic
sound is unauthored?
> Hopefully I've offered some food
>for thought, though.
You sure have. Thank you for taking the trouble.
> The nIti-zAstra Srila Prabhupada often quoted says
>that knowledge should make one humble; the branch laden with fruit bends
>down to the ground, whereas the barren branch points straight up to the
>sky.
How true. But humble doesn't mean we should just accept any nonsense
philosophy without contradicting it. And what Mani has proposed is
simply nonsense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to be."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
/ Jahnu
www.users.wineasy.se/storm/
www.krsna.com
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.20 alpha 2/23/97
Agrahya das
Jahnu das wrote:
>
> On 22 Feb 1997 22:56:59 GMT, Agrahya das <Agr...@HGSoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Jahnu das wrote:
> My point was that his interpretation was not in line with Vaishnavism.
> What Vaishnava acharya from any sampradaya, will agree that the first
> principle is non-existence?
You're focusing on the English. If you looked at the Sanskrit it would
be obvious this is not the intention. Why do you think Srila
Prabhupada always quoted the Sanskrit source? zabda-brahman is not
properly represented in a language like English, only approximately. If
you want to debate interpretations, and especially if you want to jump
down someone's throat for what you perceive to be their wrong
interpretation, learn Sanskrit, learn the actual philosophical positions
of that person's school, then count to 10.
> >>...casual
> >> >and often ignorant approach to Vedic interpretation is
> >> >that they have lost continuity with the traditional,
> >> >unbroken line of Vedic exegesis and learning, in the
> >> >strict sense.
> >>
> >> What do you base that assumption on?
> >
> >Your responses are not aiding in disproving any such assumption.
>
> It was not meant to. I don't have to disprove it. It's a straw man. We
> are followers of Jiva Goswami. Did he have a casual and often ignorant
> approach to Vedic interpretation? Have ISKCON lost continuity with the
> traditional unbroken line of Vedic exegesis? Where is the evidence of
> that? Why should I have to disprove that point even before he has
> given a single argument to back up his assertions?
You're confusing accusations of ISKCON, which you represent far more
than I ever did, with accusations against Srila Jiva Goswami. People
only know of ISKCON from examples like yours. If you think you're
setting a really great example and will convince people that you are not
taking a casual and ignorant approach to zruti, I don't have anything
further to say.
> What misconceptions? I don't get it. I think it is because I read
> Srila Prabhupada's books that I can't stand hearing statements such
> as, ISKCON has lost continuity with the traditional unbroken line of
> Vedic exegesis.
You're using Vedic in a very imprecise way. Who do you know who daily
recites any portion of zruti other than Izopanishad? I rest my case.
The traditional line of Vedic exegesis referred to means (among
other things) public recitation of the Vedas with proper accent. That's
one of the things brahmanas are supposed to do.
[snip]
> How true. But humble doesn't mean we should just accept any nonsense
> philosophy without contradicting it. And what Mani has proposed is
> simply nonsense.
And that is simply your uninformed, personal opinion. Blandly asserting
that something is so does not so make it.
I don't have anything else to say on this.
Agrahya das
Agr...@HGSoft.com
http://www.hgsoft.com/~agrahya/
Agrahya das
Mani Varadarajan wrote:
>
> It is also said in the Vedas ``asad vai idam agra AsIt;
> ... tato sad ajAyata'', which means that non-existence
> was the first principle, and then existence was born from
> existent? No. Every Vedic text must be understood in
> proper context.
While I believe there are many differences of understanding between the
various sampradayas, I do not know of any Gaudiya arguments against
accepting shruti texts as apaurusheya, nor against the concept that
apaurusheya refers to the un-authoredness of shruti. I learned that
shruti is eternal, and certainly in that sense is un-authored as much as
Krishna Himself is un-born.
>From what shruti source comes the concept that the Vedas emanate from
the breathing of Narayana I don't know; but as you've pointed out this
does not in any case constitute a proof that they are "created" at this
point in the sense that the universes are created and dissolved with
each breath of Mahavishnu.
However, I learned a primary meaning for "apaurusheya" different from
"unauthored". I learned it as "not from a purusha (person)", with the
interpretation being "not coming from a [mundane] man or demigod". This
does make semantic sense, and one can certainly argue this as well as
one can argue apaurusheyatva as un-authoredness.
Origin in this case does not imply a temporal relationship; depending on
one's sampradaya, one may say Krishna (or Narayana) is the source of
other avatAras and expansions, although the Lord is eternally One
without a second (ekam evAdvitIyaM brahma).
So apaurusheya in this context underscores the infallibility of shruti
texts, over all others, because no "purusha" with defects created shruti
texts.
> It appears that the reason behind ISKCON's casual
> and often ignorant approach to Vedic interpretation is
> that they have lost continuity with the traditional,
> unbroken line of Vedic exegesis and learning, in the
> strict sense.
I would agree, but this loss of continuity is not intentional. At what
point the elements of shruti-paramparA disappeared from the Gaudiya line
I can't say, but there certainly was a period of hiatus after Sri
Baladeva Vidyabhushana. As I understand he had written commentaries on
10 major Upanishads, but of those only the commentary on
IzAvAsyopanishad is still to be found.
On the other hand, I would not be too critical. If someone is drowning,
the first order of business is to get them to shore or at least on some
kind of bottom footing; after that one can worry about correcting their
dog paddle. Srila Prabhupada wanted _all_ his disciples and followers
to read his books regularly and with a purpose. While I don't claim to
be a scholar, I believe that what I've learned exclusively from his
books leaves me somewhat shy of totally ignorant. Not everyone has
applied themselves to the same extent I have, sadly.
> It is not wrong (indeed it is a great thing)
> to focus primarily on Srimad Bhagavatam, as ISKCON has done;
> unfortunately, this has been at the expense of the Vedas
> themselves.
I don't think Srila Prabhupada ever considered the Vedas as something to
be neglected or passed over, but the high position of the Bhagavatam in
the Gaudiya line is due to its exclusive emphasis on the confidential
topic of unalloyed bhakti. I recall back in 1976 he was making plans to
finish the translation of Srimad Bhagavatam (he never got past the 14th
chapter of Canto 10) then translate Upanishads and Shruti texts such as
Rgveda. He certainly wanted us to learn these things, but the emphasis
in our line has always been on developing unalloyed bhakti rather than
on proper ritual. He wanted to see varNAzrama-dharma established
ultimately, yet never even got to start on this. ISKCON was intended to
train a brahminical class.
> I am curious as to whether anyone within ISKCON learns
> the Vedas properly, i.e., along with their accessories
> such as proper intonation, Vedic grammar, metre, etc.
Not that I know of. I've been asking for 21 years. My time for such
things is limited now, and my association with ISKCON is far more casual
than when I lived in temples and Azramas, but I would like to find
someone who can teach me such things. I'm sure there are Vaishnavas of
the RAmAnuja or MAdhva line who are willing to teach such things to
someone like myself. Probably I will need to go live in India for some
time to do this.
Regards,
Agrahya das
Agr...@HGSoft.com
http://www.hgsoft.com/~agrahya/
> Mani
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.21 alpha 2/25/97
Michael Tandy
In article <5f0i24$k...@agni.hgsoft.com>, Agr...@hgsoft.com says...
>
>I would agree, but this loss of continuity is not intentional.
There is a musical parallel that few may be aware of. At the time of
Narottamadasa Thakura, a new school of kirtana was begun, which
was based on the classical Dhrupad style. Dhrupad was the most
respected form of singing in Braj at that time. Narottama Thakura's
kirtana was called Padavali. With time, it branched into various
regional dialects after it was introduced into Bengal, where it
was influenced by various folk elements. Narahari Thakura,
Visvanatha Thakura, and others tried to reestablish it's sastriya
character, but to little avail. Now padavali kirtana has almost no
resemblance whatsoever to sastriya-sangita, and furthermore, what is
now sung in all over the world has very little resemblance to
padavali kirtana. That is the nature of this world and the time
factor. But the important thing to recognize is that the holy name
of Lord Krishna is being worshipped all over the world, exactly as
it was predicted by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and people are
adopting pure devotional service all over the world, voluntarily
giving up all manner of sinful activities. I think that that is the
purport of Vedic scholarship. This may not happen as we expect or
desire, but it happens by the inconceivable plan of the Lord
instead, which we should recognize.
.
>> It is not wrong (indeed it is a great thing)
>> to focus primarily on Srimad Bhagavatam, as ISKCON has done;
>> unfortunately, this has been at the expense of the Vedas
>> themselves.
>
>I don't think Srila Prabhupada ever considered the Vedas as something to
>be neglected or passed over, but the high position of the Bhagavatam in
>the Gaudiya line is due to its exclusive emphasis on the confidential
>topic of unalloyed bhakti.
However, it is clear from the statements in his books that in
the kaliyuga hardly anyone will qualify for studying the Vedas,
which does require high material (and spiritual) qualifications.
He certainly wanted us to learn these things, but the emphasis
>in our line has always been on developing unalloyed bhakti rather than
>on proper ritual. He wanted to see varNAzrama-dharma established
>ultimately, yet never even got to start on this.
And in my opinion, neither have we.
ISKCON was intended to
>train a brahminical class.
When is that going to happen without study of the Vedas?
>
>> I am curious as to whether anyone within ISKCON learns
>> the Vedas properly, i.e., along with their accessories
>> such as proper intonation, Vedic grammar, metre, etc.
>
>Not that I know of. I've been asking for 21 years.
In fact, it's hard to find anyone anywhere who does this.
My time for such
>things is limited now, and my association with ISKCON is far more casual
>than when I lived in temples and Azramas, but I would like to find
>someone who can teach me such things. I'm sure there are Vaishnavas of
>the RAmAnuja or MAdhva line who are willing to teach such things to
>someone like myself.
But they won't teach acintya-bhedabheda-tattva.
Mani Varadarajan
mpt...@jove.acs.unt.edu (Michael Tandy) writes:
> >> I am curious as to whether anyone within ISKCON learns
> >> the Vedas properly, i.e., along with their accessories
> >> such as proper intonation, Vedic grammar, metre, etc.
> >
> >Not that I know of. I've been asking for 21 years.
>
> In fact, it's hard to find anyone anywhere who does this.
There are many, many Vedic scholars in India who do study
and teach the Vedas in the traditional and proper manner.
Admittedly their numbers are dwindling. But go to Mysore,
Poona, Sringeri, Kanchipuram, or Benares, to name a few
places and you will see that it is easy to find ``someone
somewhere'' who is a true Vaidika.
Mani
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.22 alpha 2/26/97
Jahnu das
On 24 Feb 1997 12:25:07 GMT, Agrahya das <Agr...@hgsoft.com> wrote:
>You're focusing on the English.
Of course. I'm focusing on the way Mani is rendering the Sanskrit into
English. His interpretation of the Sanskrit is not in any way backed
up in the Vedas. Where is it stated that 'apaurusheya' means
'unauthored by anyone including God?'
> If you looked at the Sanskrit it would
>be obvious this is not the intention.
This doesn't make any sense. Who speaks Sanskrit in this conference?
Last I checked everyone was speaking English. How can I relate to
anything but the way in which the Sanskrit is rendered into English?
> Why do you think Srila
>Prabhupada always quoted the Sanskrit source?
To back up his assertions. But he didn't interpret the Sanskrit
according to his own whims. He followed the tradition of the
Vaishnavas. In which Vaishnava tradition do they say that
'apaurusheya' means 'unauthored by anyone including God?'
> zabda-brahman is not
>properly represented in a language like English, only approximately. If
>you want to debate interpretations, and especially if you want to jump
>down someone's throat for what you perceive to be their wrong
>interpretation, learn Sanskrit, learn the actual philosophical positions
>of that person's school, then count to 10.
I think I know the philosophical school of Ramanuja Acharya well
enough to know that it doesn't support the idea that 'apaurusheya'
means 'unauthored by anyone including God.'
Are you saying that I have to know perfect Sanskrit in order to detect
if someone is presenting a wrong philosophical conclusion?
>> It was not meant to. I don't have to disprove it. It's a straw man. We
>> are followers of Jiva Goswami. Did he have a casual and often ignorant
>> approach to Vedic interpretation? Have ISKCON lost continuity with the
>> traditional unbroken line of Vedic exegesis? Where is the evidence of
>> that? Why should I have to disprove that point even before he has
>> given a single argument to back up his assertions?
>
>You're confusing accusations of ISKCON, which you represent far more
>than I ever did, with accusations against Srila Jiva Goswami. People
>only know of ISKCON from examples like yours.
Hopefully not. Fortunately I'm not the only representative of ISKCON.
I think than an intelligent person will not judge an entire
organization by one person's activities. That wouldn't make any sense.
> If you think you're
>setting a really great example and will convince people that you are not
>taking a casual and ignorant approach to zruti, I don't have anything
>further to say.
You know, I think it is a real casual and ignorant approach to Shruti,
to suggest that 'apaurusheya' means 'unauthored by anyone including
God.' I perceive it as a subtle kind of atheism to suggest that
something is above God or equal to Him.
>> What misconceptions? I don't get it. I think it is because I read
>> Srila Prabhupada's books that I can't stand hearing statements such
>> as, ISKCON has lost continuity with the traditional unbroken line of
>> Vedic exegesis.
>
>You're using Vedic in a very imprecise way. Who do you know who daily
>recites any portion of zruti other than Izopanishad? I rest my case.
>The traditional line of Vedic exegesis referred to means (among
>other things) public recitation of the Vedas with proper accent. That's
>one of the things brahmanas are supposed to do.
Even in Kali-yuga? Who in Kali-yuga knows how to recite the Sanskrit
properly? The dharma for this age is the recitation of the
Maha-mantra. How can you be a brahmana if you don't follow the yuga-
dharma?
>[snip]
>> How true. But humble doesn't mean we should just accept any nonsense
>> philosophy without contradicting it. And what Mani has proposed is
>> simply nonsense.
>
>And that is simply your uninformed, personal opinion. Blandly asserting
>that something is so does not so make it.
How is it not nonsense then, to offer one's uninformed, personal
opinion, that 'apaurusheya' means 'unauthored by anyone including
God?' Where is that stated in the Vedic literature that that is what
it means?
>I don't have anything else to say on this.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.22 alpha 2/26/97
Agrahya das
Jahnu das wrote:
>
> On 24 Feb 1997 12:25:07 GMT, Agrahya das <Agr...@hgsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >You're focusing on the English.
>
> Of course. I'm focusing on the way Mani is rendering the Sanskrit into
> English. His interpretation of the Sanskrit is not in any way backed
> up in the Vedas. Where is it stated that 'apaurusheya' means
> 'unauthored by anyone including God?'
To repeat something I said in another post in this thread: why would it
be hard to accept that Krishna is "not created by anyone, even Krishna
Himself?" How can you say this interpretation is not backed up in the
Vedas? The problem is you're assuming 1. that zruti is authored and 2.
that the concept of zruti being eternal and not-created or not-authored
somehow is atheistic or voidist.
And again, if you want a reply citing supporting references for this
concept, which I find not at all difficult to handle nor atheistic nor
contradictory of teachings I have received from Srila Prabhupada's
books, I strongly suggest you _don't_ start with insults and poorly
informed assumptions.
You are speaking of events beyond the scope of time and sense perception
as if you have fully understood them and possess the absolute final
word, and those who differ must be ignorant or wicked. To insist that
zruti is "authored" is like insisting that because (according to the
Bhagavatam) all aMzas and kalAs are Krishna's, there was a _time_ when
the Lord expanded Himself. You cannot support such a conclusion,
neither can you support the authoredness of zruti.
> > If you looked at the Sanskrit it would
> >be obvious this is not the intention.
>
> This doesn't make any sense. Who speaks Sanskrit in this conference?
Quite a few people, last time I noticed, if they don't speak it at
least understand it. I myself have sometimes been guilty of assuming
that the meaning and context of a terse citation or phrase is perfectly
clear. Punchline: if you need to understand something, ask first before
firing away.
> Last I checked everyone was speaking English. How can I relate to
> anything but the way in which the Sanskrit is rendered into English?
How can you criticize the rendering of Sanskrit into English if you
don't know Sanskrit? It's not impossible to learn, it just requires
some time and effort.
> > If
> >you want to debate interpretations, and especially if you want to jump
> >down someone's throat for what you perceive to be their wrong
> >interpretation, learn Sanskrit, learn the actual philosophical positions
> >of that person's school, then count to 10.
>
> I think I know the philosophical school of Ramanuja Acharya well
> enough
Wish I could say the same. I haven't even read his commentaries on
Vedanta. I know little bits and pieces. But you, apparently, have read
Sri Ramanuja's commentaries in some translation, as well as perhaps
Vedanta Deshika's, to make this statement. I must admit, though, that
you leave me unconvinced this is the case.
> > People
> >only know of ISKCON from examples like yours.
>
> Hopefully not. Fortunately I'm not the only representative of ISKCON.
> I think than an intelligent person will not judge an entire
> organization by one person's activities. That wouldn't make any sense.
Actually, it's not entirely nonsensical. In our philosophy we sometimes
give the example of analyzing one drop of ocean water to understand the
entire body of water. It's wishful thinking to believe that people will
_not_ judge an entire organization by one person's activities,
especially if that person is outspoken and authoritarian.
> You know, I think it is a real casual and ignorant approach to Shruti,
> to suggest that 'apaurusheya' means 'unauthored by anyone including
> God.' I perceive it as a subtle kind of atheism to suggest that
> something is above God or equal to Him.
Lord Narayana is not created by anyone including Krishna. Radha or
Laxmi is not created by anyone including Krishna or Narayana. Are these
also atheistic statements?
This is a pointless debate and I do not believe I am accomplishing
anything useful by it. Find a translation of Sri Ramanuja's commentary
with Vedanta Deshika's gloss, read it front to back, then read
Chaudhury's translation of Sri Baladeva's Govinda-bhASya, then you can
come back and find me your willing student. Until then, I don't have
anything else to say.
> >The traditional line of Vedic exegesis referred to means (among
> >other things) public recitation of the Vedas with proper accent. That's
> >one of the things brahmanas are supposed to do.
>
> Even in Kali-yuga? Who in Kali-yuga knows how to recite the Sanskrit
> properly? The dharma for this age is the recitation of the
> Maha-mantra. How can you be a brahmana if you don't follow the yuga-
> dharma?
Everything in this age lacks purity. Even the varNas are mixed
(varNa-sankara). Here you are postulating that the yuga-dharma of
chanting the maha-mantra is alone sufficient. This is true in one
sense, but is not what my guru taught. He also taught PancharAtrikI
vidhi, and also wanted to create a brahminical class. Before Srila
Prabhupada's vision can be realized, there must be brahmanas who _can_
recite the Vedas - from memory - and _can_ properly chant the zruti
mantras. I did not suggest this level of purity would not be achieved
without studious application of chanting the maha-mantra. In fact,
Srila Prabhupada suggested in conversations that it may take two
generations before this can be achieved.
I don't think you understand what recitation of the Vedas is and why
it's important in brahminical culture, otherwise you wouldn't confuse it
with japa of the Hare Krishna maha-mantra. It is not a substitute for
the latter but _is_ an important part of brahminical culture.
> >> what Mani has proposed is
> >> simply nonsense.
> >
> >And that is simply your uninformed, personal opinion.
>
> How is it not nonsense then, to offer one's uninformed, personal
> opinion, that 'apaurusheya' means 'unauthored by anyone including
> God?' Where is that stated in the Vedic literature that that is what
> it means?
Several replies to this already. See above. Know the Vedic literature
better along with corrolaries such as nyAya and Sanskrit grammar before
passing snap judgements on what constitutes nonsense. Otherwise you may
be left standing with your foot in your mouth as someone points out that
you've thus judged a great stalwart Vaishnava of some other line like
Ramanujacharya.
It's good to know the philosophy, but this doesn't necessarily make you
equipped to enter debates on Vedanta. You might thus make it a habit to
think carefully before hurling accusations, and make sure you understand
the statement you're replying to.
> >I don't have anything else to say on this.
Finally, you've quoted something I agree with.
Agrahya das
Agr...@HGSoft.com
http://www.hgsoft.com/~agrahya/
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.22 alpha 2/26/97
Jahnun das
On 27 Feb 1997 11:36:23 GMT, Agrahya das <Agr...@hgsoft.com> wrote:
>Jahnu das wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Feb 1997 12:25:07 GMT, Agrahya das <Agr...@hgsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >You're focusing on the English.
>>
>> Of course. I'm focusing on the way Mani is rendering the Sanskrit into
>> English. His interpretation of the Sanskrit is not in any way backed
>> up in the Vedas. Where is it stated that 'apaurusheya' means
>> 'unauthored by anyone including God?'
>
>To repeat something I said in another post in this thread: why would it
>be hard to accept that Krishna is "not created by anyone, even Krishna
>Himself?" How can you say this interpretation is not backed up in the
>Vedas?
I agree with this, I just fail to see how this is the same as saying
that the Vedas are unauthored. It is stated everywhere that Krishna is
the first cause of everything else.
> The problem is you're assuming 1. that zruti is authored and
How can I assume anything else? Do you want to say that God's words
are not authored by Him? Do you want to say that the Vedas don't have
a source? Even if His words coexists eternally with Him, how are they
not authored by Him? Isn't it that words emanate from a person? What
is the reason for saying that the Vedas are unauthored, if they
emanate from God?
|2.
>that the concept of zruti being eternal and not-created or not-authored
>somehow is atheistic or voidist.
'I may be very picking into the nitty gritty here, but to me there is
a distinction between, 'eternal and not created' and 'unauthored by
anyone including God.' To say that the Vedas are unauthored by anyone
including God is in MHO a subtle form of atheism.
>And again, if you want a reply citing supporting references for this
>concept, which I find not at all difficult to handle nor atheistic nor
>contradictory of teachings I have received from Srila Prabhupada's
>books, I strongly suggest you _don't_ start with insults and poorly
>informed assumptions.
I don't regard this as a poorly informed assumption. I have argued for
my case. On the other hand where is it stated that the Vedas are
unauthored?
How does it make sense to say that God's words are unauthored even if
they are eternal? Who authored them if not God? Aren't they spoken by
God for the sake of the conditioned living entity? What use do they
have in Vaikuntha for the Vedas?
>You are speaking of events beyond the scope of time and sense perception
>as if you have fully understood them and possess the absolute final
>word, and those who differ must be ignorant or wicked.
Come on. I'm just arguing for my case.
You speak as if I'm ignorant for not accepting that the Vedas are
unauthored. Where in Srila Prabhupada's books does it say that
the Vedas are unauthored?
>To insist that
>zruti is "authored" is like insisting that because (according to the
>Bhagavatam) all aMzas and kalAs are Krishna's, there was a _time_ when
>the Lord expanded Himself.
I fail to see the similarity. It is everywhere stated that God is the
origin of everyhthing else.
> You cannot support such a conclusion,
>neither can you support the authoredness of zruti.
To me unauthored sounds like that the Vedas are equal to or greater
than God. It is clearly stated - na tat samas ca bhyadikash ca
drishyate - no one is equal to or greater than God. I have never read
Srila Prabhupada describe 'apaurusheya' as unauthored?
>> > If you looked at the Sanskrit it would
>> >be obvious this is not the intention.
>>
>> This doesn't make any sense. Who speaks Sanskrit in this conference?
>
>Quite a few people, last time I noticed, if they don't speak it at
>least understand it.
So where is it stated that the term 'unauthored' is equivalent to
'eternal' or 'not coming from a material source?'
> I myself have sometimes been guilty of assuming
>that the meaning and context of a terse citation or phrase is perfectly
>clear. Punchline: if you need to understand something, ask first before
>firing away.
I did ask. I asked, on what authority do you interpret apaurusheya to
mean unauthored? Do you maintain that the Vedas have no source?
>> I think I know the philosophical school of Ramanuja Acharya well
>> enough
>
>Wish I could say the same. I haven't even read his commentaries on
>Vedanta. I know little bits and pieces. But you, apparently, have read
>Sri Ramanuja's commentaries in some translation, as well as perhaps
>Vedanta Deshika's, to make this statement. I must admit, though, that
>you leave me unconvinced this is the case.
You know, maybe I'm completely off in this case. Maybe I have
misunderstood the whole thing. When you say unauthored, I take it to
mean without any source. If you maintain that the Vedas have no
source, you also haven't convinced me of that.
>> > People
>> >only know of ISKCON from examples like yours.
>>
>> Hopefully not. Fortunately I'm not the only representative of ISKCON.
>> I think than an intelligent person will not judge an entire
>> organization by one person's activities. That wouldn't make any sense.
>
>Actually, it's not entirely nonsensical. In our philosophy we sometimes
>give the example of analyzing one drop of ocean water to understand the
>entire body of water. It's wishful thinking to believe that people will
>_not_ judge an entire organization by one person's activities,
>especially if that person is outspoken and authoritarian.
Of course you are right. But sometimes you may pick a drop from a
muddy part of the ocean, and thus think that the whole ocean is muddy.
Surely you wouldn't judge the whole of ISKCON by my example. There are
so many wonderful devotees within ISKCON who represents ISKCON much
more purely than me, like yourself for instance. It is obvious that
you are much more well behaved and level headed than me, but I just
have a strong feeling about this term, 'unauthored.' To me it sounds
like a belittlement of God.
>> You know, I think it is a real casual and ignorant approach to Shruti,
>> to suggest that 'apaurusheya' means 'unauthored by anyone including
>> God.' I perceive it as a subtle kind of atheism to suggest that
>> something is above God or equal to Him.
>
>Lord Narayana is not created by anyone including Krishna.
No, but we do say that Krishna is the original source.
> Radha or
>Laxmi is not created by anyone including Krishna or Narayana. Are these
>also atheistic statements?
No of course not. But doesn't it sound atheistic to say that the
source of Laxmi is not Krishna?
>This is a pointless debate and I do not believe I am accomplishing
>anything useful by it. Find a translation of Sri Ramanuja's commentary
>with Vedanta Deshika's gloss, read it front to back, then read
>Chaudhury's translation of Sri Baladeva's Govinda-bhASya, then you can
>come back and find me your willing student. Until then, I don't have
>anything else to say.
Ok. I have to admit I don't know any Sanskrit. I just know what I have
read in Srila Prabhupada's books. I can't remember I have seen him
translate apaurusheya as unauthored. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs,
and seeing a problem where there is non. But to me 'unauthored' sounds
like 'no source.' Also I fail to see how 'no source,' is identical
with 'no material source,' hence my confusion.
>> >The traditional line of Vedic exegesis referred to means (among
>> >other things) public recitation of the Vedas with proper accent. That's
>> >one of the things brahmanas are supposed to do.
>>
>> Even in Kali-yuga? Who in Kali-yuga knows how to recite the Sanskrit
>> properly? The dharma for this age is the recitation of the
>> Maha-mantra. How can you be a brahmana if you don't follow the yuga-
>> dharma?
>
>Everything in this age lacks purity. Even the varNas are mixed
>(varNa-sankara). Here you are postulating that the yuga-dharma of
>chanting the maha-mantra is alone sufficient. This is true in one
>sense, but is not what my guru taught. He also taught PancharAtrikI
>vidhi, and also wanted to create a brahminical class.
I would of course never dare to propose that I know Srila Prabhupada's
desire better than you, you are after all his disciple and I his grand
disciple, but I do think that I could dig up in the Veda-base a place
where Srila Prabhupada states that chanting the Hare Krishna mantra is
sufficient to go back to Godhead. Unfortunately I don't have access to
the Folio on the computer I'm writing on now.
> Before Srila
>Prabhupada's vision can be realized, there must be brahmanas who _can_
>recite the Vedas - from memory - and _can_ properly chant the zruti
>mantras. I did not suggest this level of purity would not be achieved
>without studious application of chanting the maha-mantra. In fact,
>Srila Prabhupada suggested in conversations that it may take two
>generations before this can be achieved.
>
>I don't think you understand what recitation of the Vedas is and why
>it's important in brahminical culture, otherwise you wouldn't confuse it
>with japa of the Hare Krishna maha-mantra. It is not a substitute for
>the latter but _is_ an important part of brahminical culture.
I don't dispute that.
>> How is it not nonsense then, to offer one's uninformed, personal
>> opinion, that 'apaurusheya' means 'unauthored by anyone including
>> God?' Where is that stated in the Vedic literature that that is what
>> it means?
>
>Several replies to this already. See above. Know the Vedic literature
>better along with corrolaries such as nyAya and Sanskrit grammar before
>passing snap judgements on what constitutes nonsense. Otherwise you may
>be left standing with your foot in your mouth as someone points out that
>you've thus judged a great stalwart Vaishnava of some other line like
>Ramanujacharya.
That's true. But so far no one has given any evidence that
'unauthored' as I take to mean 'without a source' is how apaurusheya
should be understood.
>It's good to know the philosophy, but this doesn't necessarily make you
>equipped to enter debates on Vedanta.
How true.
> You might thus make it a habit to
>think carefully before hurling accusations, and make sure you understand
>the statement you're replying to.
Ok.
>> >I don't have anything else to say on this.
>
>Finally, you've quoted something I agree with.
I'm going away for two weeks so I won't be here to irritate you all
for that time.
Agrahya das
Jahnun das wrote:
>
> >To repeat something I said in another post in this thread: why would it
> >be hard to accept that Krishna is "not created by anyone, even Krishna
> >Himself?" How can you say this interpretation is not backed up in the
> >Vedas?
>
> I agree with this, I just fail to see how this is the same as saying
> that the Vedas are unauthored. It is stated everywhere that Krishna is
> the first cause of everything else.
I know of one reference to sarva-kAraNa-kAraNam, "cause of all causes,"
but we get into very deep water when we try to translate cause or origin
into temporal acts such as creation and authorship.
> > The problem is you're assuming 1. that zruti is authored and
>
> How can I assume anything else? Do you want to say that God's words
> are not authored by Him? Do you want to say that the Vedas don't have
> a source? Even if His words coexists eternally with Him, how are they
> not authored by Him? Isn't it that words emanate from a person? What
> is the reason for saying that the Vedas are unauthored, if they
> emanate from God?
These things need to be discussed in light of the appropriate references
from (in this case) zruti. I'm not sure where the reference to zruti or
zabda-brahma as the breathing of Narayana comes - perhaps I'm recalling
some of Srila Jiva Goswami's vyAkaraNa writings. But if this is indeed
the case, there is certainly no need for a concept of authorship, any
more than Krishna has to "create" His effulgence.
But I'm in way, way over my head here and don't have the time or the
resources to properly research these questions. I don't feel any need
to bash others for asserting that zruti is un-authored. Why not just
overlook the doctrines of other sampradayas and study the Bhagavatam,
Gita, BRS, and CC?
> |2.
> >that the concept of zruti being eternal and not-created or not-authored
> >somehow is atheistic or voidist.
>
> 'I may be very picking into the nitty gritty here, but to me there is
> a distinction between, 'eternal and not created' and 'unauthored by
> anyone including God.' To say that the Vedas are unauthored by anyone
> including God is in MHO a subtle form of atheism.
Define authorship. Is it not an act of creation that takes place within
a known time frame? If we are to take the eternality of zruti quite
literally, it can have no authorship just as the living entities, if we
are to accept their eternality, were not "created."
> How does it make sense to say that God's words are unauthored even if
> they are eternal? Who authored them if not God? Aren't they spoken by
> God for the sake of the conditioned living entity? What use do they
> have in Vaikuntha for the Vedas?
I'm not qualified to answer these questions. You need to find shastric
references and look for existing interpretations of those references by
predecessor acharyas.
> You speak as if I'm ignorant for not accepting that the Vedas are
> unauthored. Where in Srila Prabhupada's books does it say that
> the Vedas are unauthored?
There are many things in other Vaishnava traditions that you won't find
in Srila Prabhupada's books. Please don't come here assuming that any
idea you find which is not therein represented is bogus and must be
smashed. I have been trying to make the point that "unauthored" is 1.
_very_ much a part of the traditional understanding of zruti in other
sampradayas, and 2. "unauthored" is by no means a far-fetched
understanding of zruti even using canonical Gaudiya interpretations.
> >To insist that
> >zruti is "authored" is like insisting that because (according to the
> >Bhagavatam) all aMzas and kalAs are Krishna's, there was a _time_ when
> >the Lord expanded Himself.
>
> I fail to see the similarity. It is everywhere stated that God is the
> origin of everyhthing else.
We're not discussing origin, we're discussing the act of creation or
authorship.
> To me unauthored sounds like that the Vedas are equal to or greater
> than God. It is clearly stated - na tat samas ca bhyadikash ca
> drishyate - no one is equal to or greater than God.
To fully discuss the relationship between Krishna and the Vedas or
zabda-brahma is far beyond the scope of this discussion, and I am not
willing to enter into it at this point. Are you that convinced you have
it nailed down? Why does Krishna describe Himself as veda-vit, "knower
of the Veda"? Why does He claim authorship of Vedanta but not of the
Vedas?
No one is equal to or greater than Krishna. This is the meaning of
asamaurdhva (asama + a-urdhva). But in what ways is He present? He is
called YaGYeszvara or the Lord of sacrifice, and is also called YaGYa.
Is His name greater than Him? Is His form? His pastimes? or are
these meaningless questions, and we should engage in His undivided
devotional service?
Can you prove that Narayana or Krishna and zabda-brahma or the Vedas are
in fact two separate and distinct entities? Right off the top of my
head, I cannot think of any such statement.
> I have never read
> Srila Prabhupada describe 'apaurusheya' as unauthored?
>
> So where is it stated that the term 'unauthored' is equivalent to
> 'eternal' or 'not coming from a material source?'
Ask this question of someone in a line which subscribes to apaurusheya
meaning "unauthored." The quality of response will likely be determined
by how you ask, however.
> I did ask. I asked, on what authority do you interpret apaurusheya to
> mean unauthored? Do you maintain that the Vedas have no source?
No one here said the Vedas have no source. The statement was "not
authored." I'm not trying to represent Mani - he can do that himself
better than I could - but let's get the facts straight.
> You know, maybe I'm completely off in this case. Maybe I have
> misunderstood the whole thing. When you say unauthored, I take it to
> mean without any source. If you maintain that the Vedas have no
> source, you also haven't convinced me of that.
Where did I or anyone else say the Vedas have no source? See below.
You're mixing apples and oranges here. Having a source does not imply
"created," which is a temporal concept. Time is a factor which exists
only within the mahat-tattva (cf. Bhag. Canto 3 na ca kAla-vikramaH)
> >Lord Narayana is not created by anyone including Krishna.
>
> No, but we do say that Krishna is the original source.
>
> > Radha or
> >Laxmi is not created by anyone including Krishna or Narayana. Are these
> >also atheistic statements?
>
> No of course not. But doesn't it sound atheistic to say that the
> source of Laxmi is not Krishna?
"Is the source of" does _not_ equate to "created" or "authored."
Krishna creates the mundane universes, again and again, but where is the
reference to creating the Vedas, the living entities, or expansions and
incarnations?
If someone has Sat-sandarbha it would be good to get Srila Jiva
Goswami's opinion on this, perhaps in discussions of vedAnAM pancamaH.
> >> Even in Kali-yuga? Who in Kali-yuga knows how to recite the Sanskrit
> >> properly? The dharma for this age is the recitation of the
> >> Maha-mantra. How can you be a brahmana if you don't follow the yuga-
> >> dharma?
> >
> >Everything in this age lacks purity. Even the varNas are mixed
> >(varNa-sankara). Here you are postulating that the yuga-dharma of
> >chanting the maha-mantra is alone sufficient. This is true in one
> >sense, but is not what my guru taught. He also taught PancharAtrikI
> >vidhi, and also wanted to create a brahminical class.
>
> I would of course never dare to propose that I know Srila Prabhupada's
> desire better than you, you are after all his disciple and I his grand
> disciple,
Propose away, but be prepared to back your assertions up with zAstra.
The concept of "position" (i.e. I am this therefore I must know better
than you) is in my opinion a concoction, and you should never let that
dissuade you from differing with someone. If you perceive that person
to be an elder, disagree respectfully, but don't compromise.
Differences are settled, at least in what little I know of brahminical
culture, by shastric debate.
> but I do think that I could dig up in the Veda-base a place
> where Srila Prabhupada states that chanting the Hare Krishna mantra is
> sufficient to go back to Godhead.
Sure you can, but re-read what I said: "This is true in one sense, but
is not what my guru taught." Which disciples did Srila Prabhupada tell
to simply engage in nama-kirtana alone? Who, when and where? He did no
such thing, but gave us _primarily_ bhAgavata-vidhi _along with_
pancharAtrikI-vidhi. Furthermore, bhAgavata-vidhi itself consists of
more than just chanting the mahA-mantra. Furthermore, refer to
Srimad-Bhagavatam for a shastric reference: yaGYaiH sankIrtana-prAyaiH -
prAyaiH means "primarily," not to the exclusion of everything else as
you seem to assert here.
If you look at works like Hari-bhakti-vilAsa, I believe you'll find
quite a few references to zruti-mantras such as PuruSa-sUktam, which
must be recited with proper accent and pronunciation, especially in the
worship of zAlagrAma-zilA.
My guru wanted to see brahminical culture and varNAzrama-dharma
established. I am working on these very big goals. Recitation of the
Vedas is an _essential_ _crucial_ part of brahminical culture.
> That's true. But so far no one has given any evidence that
> 'unauthored' as I take to mean 'without a source' is how apaurusheya
> should be understood.
My understanding is that the meaning is taken as "not from a [mundane]
person" in our line. In other lines, such as the MAdhva or TattvavAda
tradition, elaborate proofs are constructed based on the un-authoredness
of zruti. While I don't fully understand or subscribe to that line of
reasoning, your thesis that 'un-authored' is an atheistic interpretation
is completely unacceptable to me, and is possibly a transgression.
Agrahya das
Agr...@HGSoft.com
http://www.hgsoft.com/~agrahya/
Gary Stevason
H. Krishna Susarla (susarla...@tumora.swmed.edu) wrote:
{...]
: > But are you saying that God is not the originator of Vedic sound?
: I think he did say that; that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the
: originator of Vedic sound is confirmed by the bR^ihad-aranyaka upanishad
: statement which states that the Vedas and Puraanas are emanations of the
: Lord's breathing.
[...]
Gentlemen, it occurred to me that you may all be right. Just as Krsna's
toe was not created/authored by Him, perhaps the sound of the Vedas is the
sound of His Being (warning: pure speculation - no Vedic support known to
me to quote).
I speculated that it was perhaps the sound of His heartbeat, but as I read
here, the Upanishads might suggest His breathing. Perhaps not too unlike
His toes being emanations of His lotus feet?
In the material world we can, of course, see the correlation between the
sound a person makes and the nature of their consciousness. Certainly the
sound of Sri Krsna's heartbeat and breathing would indeed be the purest of
pure sound - a boon for anyone to experience.
So, in this way the Vedas would be 'unauthored', yet not impossibly
required to be beyond Krsna.
However you do it, dear Lord, thank you for extending your gentleness to
us in the form of Vedic sound.
Gary
--
THE RADMAN . . . . Gary Stevason ..... http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." - God, Bhagavad-gita
Jahnu das
On 24 Feb 1997 12:25:07 GMT, Agrahya das <Agr...@hgsoft.com> wrote:
>You're focusing on the English.
Of course. I'm focusing on the way Mani is rendering the Sanskrit into
English. His interpretation of the Sanskrit is not in any way backed
up in the Vedas. Where is it stated that 'apaurusheya' means
'unauthored by anyone including God?'
> If you looked at the Sanskrit it would
>be obvious this is not the intention.
This doesn't make any sense. Who speaks Sanskrit in this conference?
Last I checked everyone was speaking English. How can I relate to
anything but the way in which the Sanskrit is rendered into English?
> Why do you think Srila
>Prabhupada always quoted the Sanskrit source?
To back up his assertions. But he didn't interpret the Sanskrit
according to his own whims. He followed the tradition of the
Vaishnavas. In which Vaishnava tradition do they say that
'apaurusheya' means 'unauthored by anyone including God?'
> zabda-brahman is not
>properly represented in a language like English, only approximately. If
>you want to debate interpretations, and especially if you want to jump
>down someone's throat for what you perceive to be their wrong
>interpretation, learn Sanskrit, learn the actual philosophical positions
>of that person's school, then count to 10.
I think I know the philosophical school of Ramanuja Acharya well
enough to know that it doesn't support the idea that 'apaurusheya'
means 'unauthored by anyone including God.'
Are you saying that I have to know perfect Sanskrit in order to detect
if someone is presenting a wrong philosophical conclusion?
>> It was not meant to. I don't have to disprove it. It's a straw man. We
>> are followers of Jiva Goswami. Did he have a casual and often ignorant
>> approach to Vedic interpretation? Have ISKCON lost continuity with the
>> traditional unbroken line of Vedic exegesis? Where is the evidence of
>> that? Why should I have to disprove that point even before he has
>> given a single argument to back up his assertions?
>
>You're confusing accusations of ISKCON, which you represent far more
>than I ever did, with accusations against Srila Jiva Goswami. People
>only know of ISKCON from examples like yours.
Hopefully not. Fortunately I'm not the only representative of ISKCON.
I think than an intelligent person will not judge an entire
organization by one person's activities. That wouldn't make any sense.
> If you think you're
>setting a really great example and will convince people that you are not
>taking a casual and ignorant approach to zruti, I don't have anything
>further to say.
You know, I think it is a real casual and ignorant approach to Shruti,
to suggest that 'apaurusheya' means 'unauthored by anyone including
God.' I perceive it as a subtle kind of atheism to suggest that
something is above God or equal to Him.
>> What misconceptions? I don't get it. I think it is because I read
>> Srila Prabhupada's books that I can't stand hearing statements such
>> as, ISKCON has lost continuity with the traditional unbroken line of
>> Vedic exegesis.
>
>You're using Vedic in a very imprecise way. Who do you know who daily
>recites any portion of zruti other than Izopanishad? I rest my case.
>The traditional line of Vedic exegesis referred to means (among
>other things) public recitation of the Vedas with proper accent. That's
>one of the things brahmanas are supposed to do.
Even in Kali-yuga? Who in Kali-yuga knows how to recite the Sanskrit
properly? The dharma for this age is the recitation of the
Maha-mantra. How can you be a brahmana if you don't follow the yuga-
dharma?
>[snip]
>> How true. But humble doesn't mean we should just accept any nonsense
>> philosophy without contradicting it. And what Mani has proposed is
>> simply nonsense.
>
>And that is simply your uninformed, personal opinion. Blandly asserting
>that something is so does not so make it.
How is it not nonsense then, to offer one's uninformed, personal
opinion, that 'apaurusheya' means 'unauthored by anyone including
God?' Where is that stated in the Vedic literature that that is what
it means?
>I don't have anything else to say on this.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.23 alpha 3/10/97
H. Krishna Susarla
> It is stated in the mImAmsA SAstras, as well as by Vedantins
> such as Ramanuja, Madhva, and Sankara.
>
> If the Vedas were not unauthored, even by God, they cannot be
> an authority for informing us about God. If it were otherwise
> there would be a logical circularity.
Now this does seem like a peculiar argument. If I understand you correctly,
you are saying essentially that God cannot be considered an authority for
informing us about Himself. You seem to be implying that one must seek out
a "higher" authority in order to find about God.
Of course, I have sometimes heard it said that while God is the original
seed-giving Father, the Vedas are sometimes compared to a mother. If one
does not know one's Father, one must inquire from one's mother to find out
about Him. But even according to this analogy, the testimony of God Himself
is not discounted.
Shrii VedaVyaasa's Vedanta-sutra is certainly a work that is authored by
God, yet it is considered such an important authority that no one can claim
to belong to a school of Vedanta unless he and his followers have their own
commentary on it.
> The Pancaratra Samhitas and the Gita are considered authored
> by God; yet they are not considered Veda. The Veda is clearly
> distinguished from these SAstras because they are not authored
> by anyone, and hence are the ultimate authority in telling us
> about the Absolute.
While you may be right about the Pancharatras (I'm not sure since I don't
know what their origin is) the 'Gita is not in the same class. The fact
that it was not merely authored 5,000 years ago on the battlefield of
Kurukshetra for Arjuna's benefit is established by the Lord Himself: imaM
vivasvate yogaM proktavaan aham avyayam / vivasvaan manave praaha manur
ikshhvaakave 'braviit // (BG 4.1). Srila Prabhupada quotes the
Mahaabhaarata (Shaanti-parva 348.51-52) to demonstrate that this was in the
Tretaa-yuga.
There are statements in the shruti which indicate that the Mahaabhaarata
and Puraanas are the fifth veda. Naarada Muni says, "naama vaa R^ig vedo
yajur-vedaH saama-veda aatharvaNash chaturtha itihaasa-puraaNaH pa~nchamo
vedaanaaM vedaH" (CU 7.1.4) The fact that this is not merely a courtesy
designation is established by the BR^ihad-aaranyaka Upanishad (2.4.10)
which states that the Puraanas and Itihaasas have the same origin as the
Vedas, namely in Lord Naaraayana's breathing. This contradicts the idea
that the Puraanas and Itihaasas were merely composed at the beginning of
the Kali Yuga.
Srila Jiva Gosvami quotes the Vaayu Puraana (60.16-18, 21-22) in which Suta
Gosvami explains why the itihaasas and puraanas are considered the fifth
veda:
itihaasa-puraaNaanaaM vaktaaraM samyag eva hi
maaM chaiva pratijagraaha bhagavaan iishvaraH prabhuH
eka aasiid yajur-vedas taM chaturdhaa vyakalpayat
chaaturhotram abhuut tasmiMs tena yaj~nam akalpayat
aadhvaryavaM yajurbhis tu R^igbhir hotraM tathaiva cha
audgaatraM saambhish chaiva brahmatvaM chaapy atharvabhiH
aakhyaanaish chaapy upaakhyaanair gaathaabhir dvija-sattamaaH
puraaNa-saMhitaash chakre puraaNaartha-vishaaradaH
yach chhishhTaM tu yajur-veda iti shaastraartha-nirNayaH
"Srila Vyaasadeva, the almighty Supreme Lord, accepted me [Suta Gosvami] as
the qualified speaker of the Itihaasas and Puraanas. In the beginning there
was only one Veda, the Yajur Veda, which Srila Vyaasa divided into four
parts. These gave rise to the four activities called chaatur-hotra, by
means of which Srila Vyaasa arranged for the performance of sacrifice."
"The adhvaryu priests carry out their responsibilities with yajur-mantras,
the hotaa priests with R^ig-mantras, the udgaataa priests with
saama-mantras, and the brahmaa priests with atharva-mantras."
"O best of the twice-born, thereafter Srila Vyaasa, who best knows the
meaning of the Puraanas, compiled them and the Ithaasas by combining
various aakhyaanas, upaakhyaanas, and gaathaas. Whatever remained after
Vyaasa divided the Vedas into four parts was also Yajur Veda. This is the
conclusion of the scriptures."
Jiva Gosvami explains that "yach chishhTaM tu yajur-veda iti
shaastraartha-nirNayaH" refers to to the original, unabridged Puraana which
is left over after Shrii Vyaasa divided the Veda into four parts. It is
from this left over section which became the 18 Puraanas and the
Mahaabhaarata. Therefore the Puraanas and Mahaabhaarata (which includes
Bhagavad-Gita) are from the original Yajur Veda.
Then again, he quotes the Tattiriiya AaraNyaka (2.9) yad
braahmaNaaniitiihaasa-puraaNaani which establishes that the itihaasas and
puraanas are also used in the formal study of the Vedas and are thus also
Veda.
So the Bhagavad-Gita cannot be said to be paurusheya in any sense of the
word. Both shruti and smriti indicate that it is no more paurusheya than
the other Vedas are.
regards,
-- K
Mani Varadarajan
ja...@wineasy.se (Jahnu das) writes:
> I'm focusing on the way Mani is rendering the Sanskrit into
> English. His interpretation of the Sanskrit is not in any way backed
> up in the Vedas. Where is it stated that 'apaurusheya' means
> 'unauthored by anyone including God?'
It is stated in the mImAmsA SAstras, as well as by Vedantins
such as Ramanuja, Madhva, and Sankara.
If the Vedas were not unauthored, even by God, they cannot be
an authority for informing us about God. If it were otherwise
there would be a logical circularity.
The Pancaratra Samhitas and the Gita are considered authored
by God; yet they are not considered Veda. The Veda is clearly
distinguished from these SAstras because they are not authored
by anyone, and hence are the ultimate authority in telling us
about the Absolute.
> I think I know the philosophical school of Ramanuja Acharya well
> enough to know that it doesn't support the idea that 'apaurusheya'
> means 'unauthored by anyone including God.'
You are wrong. I have been told by Visishtadvaita scholars and have
read in several places that apaurusheyatva includes unauthoredness
by God.
Mani
Agrahya das
H. Krishna Susarla wrote:
>
> > It is stated in the mImAmsA SAstras, as well as by Vedantins
> > such as Ramanuja, Madhva, and Sankara.
> >
> > If the Vedas were not unauthored, even by God, they cannot be
> > an authority for informing us about God. If it were otherwise
> > there would be a logical circularity.
>
> Now this does seem like a peculiar argument. If I understand you correctly,
> you are saying essentially that God cannot be considered an authority for
> informing us about Himself. You seem to be implying that one must seek out
> a "higher" authority in order to find about God.
Jaya Sri Krishna.
This promises to be an interesting discussion. I would like to make a
humble request that if anyone feels inspired to reply that they change
the subject of the message to something more appropriate than "Re:
Agrahya is done flaming." It will still be shown with the proper thread
if you reply using a news reader.
The status of the Puranas and Itihasas is certainly a major point of
difference between various sampradayas. This is also tightly related to
the definition of apaurusheya as "unauthored" vs. "not from a [mundane]
person." I find this type of discussion interesting not because I feel
incapable of maintaining allegiance to my own acaryas but because
discussion and debate is good for sharpening understanding, both of my
own school and those of others.
While I am not familiar with mImAMsa (other than uttara or Vedanta) I am
sure there are canonical definitions and arguments for these things.
Just as a matter of detail, however, it was Ramachandra Budhihal who
made the statement Jahnu has been flagellating Mani for, that
"apaurusheya means not created by anyone, even God Himself." That
probably doesn't make any difference as it's nonetheless consonant with
the definition of apaurusheya as I've understood it's accepted in the
Ramanuja school. In other words, I don't believe anyone is pulling
these statements out of a hat, and in fact I'm sure authorities in the
Ramanuja line can be cited to back these things up. As I've mentioned
before in replying to Jahnu, however, impolite and uninformed responses
are hardly likely to generate replies which require looking up
references.
Agrahya das
Agr...@HGSoft.com
http://www.hgsoft.com/~agrahya/
> regards,
Vivek Sadananda Pai
Haribol,
In article <5h7gcs$r...@agni.hgsoft.com>, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
[...]
>If the Vedas were not unauthored, even by God, they cannot be
>an authority for informing us about God. If it were otherwise
>there would be a logical circularity.
Forgive my intrusion here, but I'd like to ask a question about the
two statements above. Perhaps I've missed something because of the
multiple negatives, but it seems to me that you are contending that if
the Vedas were authored by God, they could not be an authority. If
this is indeed what you are claiming, then I find this strange. After
all, in the mundane world, barring deceptiveness or mistakes, such
first-hand knowledge would be considered the prime authority on many
subjects.
When we want to know what an author was thinking, we ask him. If we
want to know the meaning of a painting, we ask the painter. Therefore,
if God did author the Vedas, I would not find that a reason to
disqualify them as an authority about God - it wouldn't be circular
logic, but instead, it would be information straight from the source.
ys,
Vivek
Mani Varadarajan
vi...@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) writes:
> In article <5h7gcs$r...@agni.hgsoft.com>, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >If the Vedas were not unauthored, even by God, they cannot be
> >an authority for informing us about God. If it were otherwise
> >there would be a logical circularity.
>
> Forgive my intrusion here, but I'd like to ask a question about the
> two statements above. Perhaps I've missed something because of the
> multiple negatives, but it seems to me that you are contending that if
> the Vedas were authored by God, they could not be an authority.
A very good question. What I meant is that if the Vedas were
indeed authored by God, they would fail to be THE absolute and
timeless authority for informing us about God.
All other texts, including the Gita, the Puranas, and the works
of our acharyas, are authored texts. They are accepted as
authorities because they are support and illuminate the truths
embodied in the Vedas. In other words, their validity
rests on their consonance with the Vedas.
As I mentioned in another post, the Vedas inhere in God's
essence, and as such are beyond authorship. If the Vedas
were indeed authored at some point in time, how could they
be the absolute and eternal basis for knowledge of God?
Naturally other texts can teach us about the Supreme.
But the truth of these is ultimately also based on the
Vedas.
Mani
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.24 alpha 3/27/97
Jahnu das
On 25 Mar 1997 03:22:04 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>ja...@wineasy.se (Jahnu das) writes:
>> I'm focusing on the way Mani is rendering the Sanskrit into
>> English. His interpretation of the Sanskrit is not in any way backed
>> up in the Vedas. Where is it stated that 'apaurusheya' means
>> 'unauthored by anyone including God?'
>
>It is stated in the mImAmsA SAstras, as well as by Vedantins
>such as Ramanuja, Madhva, and Sankara.
Well, I wouldn't want to take your word for it, so as long as you have
not cited any specific references I'll just conclude that you are
speculating and don't know what you are talking about.
>If the Vedas were not unauthored, even by God, they cannot be
>an authority for informing us about God.
Really? How did you arrive at such a brilliant piece of logic? Can't
God be the authority on informing us about Himself?
> If it were otherwise
>there would be a logical circularity.
So what? Do you now want to postulate that God is bound by your
conception of logic? How atheistic do you want to sound?
>The Pancaratra Samhitas and the Gita are considered authored
>by God; yet they are not considered Veda.
By whom are they not considered Veda? Rupa Goswami clearly states:
sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratra-viddhim vina
aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate
"Devotional service to the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic
literatures like the Upanishads, Puranas, Narada-Pancaratra, etc., is
simply an unnecessary disturbance in society."
> The Veda is clearly
>distinguished from these SAstras because they are not authored
>by anyone,
You still have cited no evidence to back up that ridiculous assumption
of yours.
>and hence are the ultimate authority in telling us
>about the Absolute.
So not even the Absolute, Sri Krishna Himself, is a higher authority
than the Vedas??
>> I think I know the philosophical school of Ramanuja Acharya well
>> enough to know that it doesn't support the idea that 'apaurusheya'
>> means 'unauthored by anyone including God.'
>
>You are wrong. I have been told by Visishtadvaita scholars and have
>read in several places that apaurusheyatva includes unauthoredness
>by God.
You keep postulating that, but so far you have cited no references
from the scriptures to back up your claim.
/Jahnu das
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.24 alpha 3/27/97
H. Krishna Susarla
> From: Jahnu das <ja...@wineasy.se>
> On 25 Mar 1997 03:22:04 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
> >The Pancaratra Samhitas and the Gita are considered authored
> >by God; yet they are not considered Veda.
>
> By whom are they not considered Veda? Rupa Goswami clearly states:
>
> sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratra-viddhim vina
> aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate
>
> "Devotional service to the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic
> literatures like the Upanishads, Puranas, Narada-Pancaratra, etc., is
> simply an unnecessary disturbance in society."
But that isn't saying that the Pancharatras are part of the Veda. I don't
know for sure. Do you know of any sources which explicitly state that the
Pancharatras are part of the Veda? The 'Gita is clearly Veda, as it is part
of the Mahaabhaarata which is the fifth veda. I don't know about the
Pancharatras.
> > The Veda is clearly
> >distinguished from these SAstras because they are not authored
> >by anyone,
>
> You still have cited no evidence to back up that ridiculous assumption
> of yours.
I thought I already backed up that "ridiculous assumption." Jiiva Gosvaami
states that the Vedas are anaadhi-siddha.
By the way, can we please keep the flaming to a minimum here? I really like
this newsgroup and would hate to see it degenerate into a
soc.religion.hindu.
ys,
-- K
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.25 alpha 3/27/97
Michael Tandy
In article <5hefjg$d...@agni.hgsoft.com>, ja...@wineasy.se says...
>>The Pancaratra Samhitas and the Gita are considered authored
>>by God; yet they are not considered Veda.
>
>By whom are they not considered Veda? Rupa Goswami clearly states:
>sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratra-viddhim vina
> aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate
This seems to be a non-sequitur. If you object to the statement
that pancaratragamas and Bhagavad-gita aren't Vedas, then please
cite an authority which explicitly says that they are. So far,
you haven't done that. It doesn't look very good.
Hare Krsna,
-m
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.25 alpha 3/27/97
Vivek Sadananda Pai
Haribol,
In article <5hefjl$d...@agni.hgsoft.com>, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>A very good question. What I meant is that if the Vedas were
>indeed authored by God, they would fail to be THE absolute and
>timeless authority for informing us about God.
I'm not sure I can agree with that statement. They could clearly be
the absolute authority for informing us about God, and I hope that
part of the statement is agreeable to both of us. Then, the only other
question is one of timelessness.
>As I mentioned in another post, the Vedas inhere in God's
>essence, and as such are beyond authorship. If the Vedas
>were indeed authored at some point in time, how could they
>be the absolute and eternal basis for knowledge of God?
I'm not sure what other sampradayas think of the concept of "eternal
consorts" - for the time being, I'm going to assume that we (all)
accept this concept in some form or another. However, a look at Vedic
literature will tell of their appearance, etc., etc. Does this imply
that at some point, they were not eternal consorts? Likewise, if the
soul is eternal, indestructible, etc., etc., does this imply that God
is not the cause of all other causes? Does the soul's being eternal
and indestructable imply that it's independent of God?
I believe that whatever reasoning is used to reconcile the above
questions applies equally well to the Vedas and their status. Then
again, I'm not proposing I have the answer, so take all the above
with a grain of salt.
ys,
Vivek
Mani Varadarajan
> >A very good question. What I meant is that if the Vedas were
> >indeed authored by God, they would fail to be THE absolute and
> >timeless authority for informing us about God.
>
> the absolute authority for informing us about God [...]
Let me point out the circularity. According to Vedanta [*],
the only authority for the existence of God is the Veda.
The only authority on God's nature is also the Veda. In other
words, we cannot even determine if God exists without the Veda.
[*] Brahma Sutra 1.1.3, "SAstrayonitvAt"
If, however, you further argue that acceptance of the Veda
is contingent on God's authorship of it, then the circularity
becomes apparent. In other words, we accept God's existence
because of the Veda; we accept the authority of the Veda because
it is authored by God. This is a circular argument.
The loop has to be broken somewhere, and unbroken Vedic tradition
stipulates that the unauthored eternality of the Veda is this
point of departure. Fortunately, it also makes sense!
> Then, the only other
> question is one of timelessness.
> ... A look at Vedic
> literature will tell of [the appearance of eternal consorts], etc.,
> etc. Does this imply
> that at some point, they were not eternal consorts?
I do not follow this argument. We both assume that the Vedas
are eternal. How does the timeless Vedic description
of eternal consorts or the self constitute a logical fallacy?
> Likewise, if the
> soul is eternal, indestructible, etc., etc., does this imply that God
> is not the cause of all other causes? Does the soul's being eternal
> and indestructable imply that it's independent of God?
The answer of Vedanta to this question is that the individual
self is eternal because of God's eternal will ("nityecchA").
[Those who have a hard time understanding this concept should
read St. Augustine!] As I have explained elsewhere, God's
causality of the individual self does not include His creation
of the individual self in time. This however does not vitiate
against the absolute dependence of the self on God.
The distinction between the eternality of the Vedas and the
eternality of the self is that while the former inhere in
God's essence, the latter inhere in God's will.
Mani
Jahnu das
On 28 Mar 1997 10:39:17 GMT, "H. Krishna Susarla"
<susarla...@tumora.swmed.edu> wrote:
>> From: Jahnu das <ja...@wineasy.se>
>> On 25 Mar 1997 03:22:04 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>> >The Pancaratra Samhitas and the Gita are considered authored
>> >by God; yet they are not considered Veda.
>>
>> By whom are they not considered Veda? Rupa Goswami clearly states:
>>
>> sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratra-viddhim vina
>> aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate
>>
>> "Devotional service to the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic
>> literatures like the Upanishads, Puranas, Narada-Pancaratra, etc., is
>> simply an unnecessary disturbance in society."
>
>But that isn't saying that the Pancharatras are part of the Veda. I don't
>know for sure. Do you know of any sources which explicitly state that the
>Pancharatras are part of the Veda?
Does it matter. Since when was Shruti our only valid pramana?
> The 'Gita is clearly Veda, as it is part
>of the Mahaabhaarata which is the fifth veda. I don't know about the
>Pancharatras.
>
>> > The Veda is clearly
>> >distinguished from these SAstras because they are not authored
>> >by anyone,
>>
>> You still have cited no evidence to back up that ridiculous assumption
>> of yours.
>
>I thought I already backed up that "ridiculous assumption." Jiiva Gosvaami
>states that the Vedas are anaadhi-siddha.
>
>By the way, can we please keep the flaming to a minimum here? I really like
>this newsgroup and would hate to see it degenerate into a
>soc.religion.hindu.
I don't consider it flaming to call the idea that the Vedas don't come
from God 'a ridiculous assumption.'
The devotees get on my case here because I won't agree to this idea,
yet they have cited no authority, no sastra, no logic or reason; in
fact they have cited no evidence what so ever, they have simply
asserted so. Is it then 'flaming' to call it ridiculous? Get serious,
prabhu.
/Jahhnu
www.users.wineasy.se/storm/
www.krsna.com
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
"Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to be."
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
Jahnu das
On 27 Mar 1997 18:51:33 GMT, Mani Varadarajan <ma...@be.com> wrote:
>vi...@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) writes:
>> Forgive my intrusion here, but I'd like to ask a question about the
>> two statements above. Perhaps I've missed something because of the
>> multiple negatives, but it seems to me that you are contending that if
>> the Vedas were authored by God, they could not be an authority.
>
>
>A very good question. What I meant is that if the Vedas were
>indeed authored by God, they would fail to be THE absolute and
>timeless authority for informing us about God.
Hare Krishna!
Why not?
>All other texts, including the Gita, the Puranas, and the works
>of our acharyas, are authored texts. They are accepted as
>authorities because they are support and illuminate the truths
>embodied in the Vedas. In other words, their validity
>rests on their consonance with the Vedas.
>
>As I mentioned in another post, the Vedas inhere in God's
>essence, and as such are beyond authorship. If the Vedas
>were indeed authored at some point in time, how could they
>be the absolute and eternal basis for knowledge of God?
Because they were authored by God or His representatives.
-Jahnu das
>Naturally other texts can teach us about the Supreme.
>But the truth of these is ultimately also based on the
>Vedas.
>
>Mani
>
>
> ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
> This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.24 alpha 3/27/97
Mani Varadarajan
ja...@wineasy.se (Jahnu das) writes:
>
> I don't consider it flaming to call the idea that the Vedas don't come
> from God 'a ridiculous assumption.'
>
Please try to understand the issue before you
get too angry. The Vedas are completely dependent
on God for their existence and for their meaning.
However, the word order and meaning of the Vedas
are not pre-determined by God; they cannot be, because
they rest inherently in His essence. Can God determine
(or change) His own essence? If He could, what would
it imply about God's immutability and eternality?
The Vedas do come from God, in that they are propagated
and sustained by Him, because they are dependent upon
His existence. However, they are not determined, authored,
or created by Him. It does not make sense for them to be.
Mani
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
H. Krishna Susarla
>> It does not make sense for them to be.
>
>Not to you maybe. To me it makes perfect sense.
>
>It is said; acintyah khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet.
>
>"One shoud not try to understand that which is inconceivable by
>ordinary mundane logic."
In that case, why are you using mundane logic to assume that the Vedas must
be authored texts simply because all other books also have authors??? You
just defeated yourself.
>
>=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=
=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7
>"Never was there a time when I did not exist,
>nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
>shall any of us cease to be."
>=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=
=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7=A7
I find it ironic that you quote this verse, which proves that God did not
create the jivas, yet you still do not accept that God did not create the
Vedas, who are also living entities themselves.
Jahnu das
Hare Krishna!
>(H. Krishna Susarla) wrote:
>
>>> It does not make sense for them to be.
>>
>>Not to you maybe. To me it makes perfect sense.
>>
>>It is said; acintyah khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet.
>>
>>"One shoud not try to understand that which is inconceivable by
>>ordinary mundane logic."
>
>In that case, why are you using mundane logic to assume that the Vedas must
>be authored texts simply because all other books also have authors??? You
>just defeated yourself.
I don't assume the Vedas to have an author because other books also
have an author. I assume the Vedas to have an author because it is
stated in the Vedas that nothing can exist independently of the
Supreme. Krishna says, aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam
pravartate. Krishna says that everything emanates from Him and has
it's origin in Him.
When you claim that the Vedas are not authored by God it sounds to me
like you are saying that something can exist independently of God. If
you think that something can exist independently of Krishna or is
beyond Him, please explain why you think so.
If you don't think so, why do hold the opinion that the Vedas do not
come from God or is not authored by Him?
>I find it ironic that you quote this verse, which proves that God did not
>create the jivas,
How does the verse I quoted prove that Krishna didn't create the
jivas? I'm not saying that He did, I just wonder how you arrived at
that conclusion from the verse quoted.
>yet you still do not accept that God did not create the
>Vedas, who are also living entities themselves.
I do of course accept that the Vedas are eternal and therefore not
created. Does that mean that they are not authored by God? Does that
mean that they exist independent of God, or are above Him?
Are the Vedas not the words of the Supreme? How then can you say that
they are not authored by Him? Is God not the author of His own words?
>From Srimad Bhagavatam 6.1.40
vedo narayanah saksat svayambhur iti susruma.
"The Vedas are directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana,
and are self-born."
>From Srila Prabhupada's purport:
Dharma is not actually manufactured by Narayana. As stated in the
Vedas, asya mahato bhutasya nisvasitam etad yad rg-vedah iti: the
injunctions of dharma emanate from the breathing of Narayana, the
supreme living entity. Narayana exists eternally and breathes
eternally, and therefore dharma, the injunctions of Narayana, also
exist eternally. Srila Madhvacarya, the original acarya for those who
belong to the Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya, says:
vedanam prathamo vakta harir eva yato vibhu,
ato visnv-atmaka veda ity ahur veda-vadinah.
The transcendental words of the Vedas emanated from the mouth of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore the Vedic principles should
be understood to be Vaishnava principles because VISNU IS THE ORIGIN
OF THE VEDAS.
Regards
/Jahhnu
www.shamantaka.org/index.html
www.krsna.com
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
"Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to be."
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
Jahnu das
On 14 Apr 1997 20:15:17 GMT, Krishna Susarla
<susarla...@tumora.swmed.edu> wrote:
>Jahnu wrote:
>
>I don't assume the Vedas to have an author because other books also
>have an author. I assume the Vedas to have an author because it is
>stated in the Vedas that nothing can exist independently of the
>Supreme. Krishna says, aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam
>pravartate. Krishna says that everything emanates from Him and has
>it's origin in Him.
>
>My comments:
>
>It does not follow to assume that because nothing exists independently of
>the Lord and that everything has the Lord as its source, that therefore the
>Lord created everything. The Lord did not create the jivas, and the Lord
>did not create the Vedas. But both are emanations from Him.
rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
ucchistajjajnire sarve divi deva divisritah
"The Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Atharvaveda, along with the Puranas, and all
the demigods residing in the heavenly planets appeared from the
Supreme Lord."
(Atharvaveda 11.7.24)
How much more clear do you want it?
>Although perhaps trite, I think my mundane baseball analogy illustrates the
>difference between coming from something and being created by something.
>Perhaps some of the more learned Vedantists can offer better explanations;
>I admit that I am only trying to explain on the basis of my understanding.
Well, I can tell you this, that none of our acaryas has interpreted
the word apaurusheya to mean unauthored. You find this word no where
in Srila Prabhupada's books, nor do you find this word used by any of
our acaryas, neither Madhvacarya, nor Rupa Goswami, nor Jiva Goswami
uses this word to explain apaurusheya. So you are certainly right when
you say that your idea of the Vedas being unauthored, is based
entirely on your own understanding.
The proper spiritual process is not to explain things according to
one's own understanding. We take it from guru, sadhu, and sastra.
All of our acaryas, the sadhus, and our guru, Srila Prabhupada, plus
the sastras say that everything comes from God - janma jasya jatah -
and none of them ever implore the term 'unauthored' to explain the
eternal original nature of the Vedas.
So why do you and others persist with this term? What's the point?
Do you think I don't know that the Vedas are eternal? Everything is
eternal. This material world is also eternal. Does that mean it was
not designed and originated in Krishna, the all powerful Personality
of Godhead?
Do the jivas not come from Krishna, even though they are eternal?
You may say that the jiva is not created, but do we not originate in
Krishna? We are His eternal parts and parcels. You cannot claim to
know the true nature of our origin. Krishna states In Bg.that no one
knows His origin. Neither the demigods nor the great sages, including
Narada Muni, know the origin of Krishna. This is clearly stated.
So if the jivas don't know Krishna's origin, Who is of course His own
origin, how do you think we will know our own origin? It's not
possible. Therefore we have to take it from our authorities.
Therefore, just as we cannot know our own origin, we cannot know the
origin of the Vedas. For that we have to consult our authorities, who
is Srila Prabhupada and the acaryas of our disciplic succession, and
none of them have ever used the term, unauthored, about the Vedas.
Why, then, should we?
>Jahnu wrote:
>
>When you claim that the Vedas are not authored by God it sounds to me
>like you are saying that something can exist independently of God. If
>you think that something can exist independently of Krishna or is
>beyond Him, please explain why you think so.
>
>My comments:
>
>No one is claiming that anything exists independently of the Lord. Please
>understand this before you begin criticizing.
Then explain why the Vedas are not authored by God. Using the argument
that something which is not created cannot be authored by God doesn't
hold, since you really don't know the nature of the origin of all.
Then you say that there is something which God cannot do. Do you want
to join Sri Manis club? He also claims that. He claims that according
to logic God cannot change the essence of His nature. But that is of
course another point of discussion.
>Jahnu wrote:
>
>If you don't think so, why do hold the opinion that the Vedas do not
>come from God or is not authored by Him?
>
>My comments:
>
>I hold, on the basis of numerous statements in the Upanishads and the
>'Gita, that the Vedas do emanate from the Lord. I do not agree that they
>are authored by the Lord.
_You_ do not agree?? This question will not be resolved based on
either your agreement or mine, nor Agrahya prabhu's. We have to confer
with guru, sadhu, and sastra, and they don't call the Vedas
unauthored. It's not that we should just cook up new words to explain
our philosophy, so that we can become great munis and differ with our
predecessors.
>I belive I have explained the difference between
>the two already.
You have only asserted your own opinion.
>Jahnu wrote:
>
>>I find it ironic that you quote this verse, which proves that God did not
>>create the jivas,
>How does the verse I quoted prove that Krishna didn't create the
>jivas? I'm not saying that He did, I just wonder how you arrived at
>that conclusion from the verse quoted.
>
>My comments:
>
>The verse in question, which is 2.12 of Bhagavad-Gita, states pretty
>clearly that the living entities as well as the Lord Himself are eternal.
>Supporting evidence is found in the Katha Upanishad which states nityo
>nityaanaam chetanas chetanaanaam...
I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the
acintya kalu ye bhava verse.
>If something is eternal, then it always existed at all times.
Sure. Then it could have been authored by Krishna at all times, right?
>To create something implies that there was some point before which that
>thing did not exist.
Not if it is an eternal creation.
>Jahnu wrote:
>
>Are the Vedas not the words of the Supreme? How then can you say that
>they are not authored by Him? Is God not the author of His own words?
>
>My comments: Please quote the pramaana which states Vedas are the words of
>the Supreme. I'm not necessarily saying there is no such statement, but I
>want to see it first before commenting on it.
Just now coming. Research is going on.
>Jahnu wrote:
>
>>From Srimad Bhagavatam 6.1.40
>
>vedo narayanah saksat svayambhur iti susruma.
>
>"The Vedas are directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana,
>and are self-born."
>
>My comments: If Vedas are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then there is
>no question of them being authored.
Why not?
Is Krishna not the Supreme Who has multifarious unconceivable
energies? parasya shaktir vividhaiva-shruyate sva bhaviki jnana bala
kriya ca.
>Jahnu wrote:
>
>>From Srila Prabhupada's purport:
>
>Dharma is not actually manufactured by Narayana. As stated in the
>Vedas, asya mahato bhutasya nisvasitam etad yad rg-vedah iti: the
>injunctions of dharma emanate from the breathing of Narayana, the
>supreme living entity. Narayana exists eternally and breathes
>eternally, and therefore dharma, the injunctions of Narayana, also
>exist eternally. Srila Madhvacarya, the original acarya for those who
>belong to the Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya, says:
>
>vedanam prathamo vakta harir eva yato vibhu,
>ato visnv-atmaka veda ity ahur veda-vadinah.
>
>The transcendental words of the Vedas emanated from the mouth of the
>Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore the Vedic principles should
>be understood to be Vaishnava principles because VISNU IS THE ORIGIN
>OF THE VEDAS.
>
>My comments: However, please note that this is not the same as saying that
>the Lord is the author of the Vedas.
What's the difference, please? And note how Srila Prabhupada never
even mentions the word unauthored in his books.
>This argument necessarily involves
>semantics, but it's pretty clear that any conventional understanding of the
>word "author" cannot apply to the Lord in His position with respect to the
>Vedas.
I never claimed it should be a conventional understanding of the word.
How can it be if Krishna is involved?
I claimed we should consult our authorities if we want to know the
origin of the Vedas. And none of them uses the word, unauthored, to
explain the origin of the Vedas. Rather it is everywhere explained
both in the sruti and smriti that the Vedas, as everything else in
existence, has its origin in Krishna.
Regards
Jahnu das
Mani Varadarajan
ja...@wineasy.se (Jahnu das) writes:
> Then you say that there is something which God cannot do. Do you want
> to join Sri Manis club? He also claims that. He claims that according
> to logic God cannot change the essence of His nature.
Dear Jahnu Dasa,
Do you understand the import of my point? God's essential
nature (svarUpa) according to the Vedas is satya, jnAna,
ananta, Ananda, amala -- God is true, is conscious, is
infinite, blissful, and pure. These are known as the
svarUpa-nirUpaka-dharmas, the qualities which bring out
God's essence. The being that has these attributes is God.
What would it mean for God to change His essence? Could
He change His essential nature so that He is no longer
true? No longer infinite, nor conscious? The answer is that
the question itself is illegitimate, so it is unanswerable.
It is like asking someone, ``Have you stopped beating your
wife?'' when he never beat his wife at all.
In any case, the Vedas are our final arbiter. If God's
essence is defined by these attributes in the Vedas, we
cannot set ourselves up as a higher authority and claim
that a being is God if He does not have one of these
attributes.
In the same way, if the Vedas inhere in His essence
(vedo nArAyaNas sAkshAt), the question of its authorship
by God cannot even legitimately arise. As H.K. Susarla
has convincingly pointed out, emanation from God is
semantically not the same thing as authorship by God.
Mani
Jahnu das
Then you say that there is something which God cannot do. Do you want
to join Sri Manis club? He also claims that. He claims that according
Why not?
Regards
Jahnu das
/Jahhnu
www.shamantaka.org/index.html
www.krsna.com
Krishna Susarla
Before I continue with this thread, I just want to point out the obvious
flaw of logic that Jahnu has utterly confounded the two distinct issues of
creation and emanation. As long as he continues to maintain such a
misconception, it doesn't seem there will be any resolution of this issue.
Jahnu writes:
rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
ucchistajjajnire sarve divi deva divisritah
"The Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Atharvaveda, along with the Puranas, and all
the demigods residing in the heavenly planets appeared from the
Supreme Lord."
(Atharvaveda 11.7.24)
How much more clear do you want it?
My comments:
Again, this does nothing to prove your point. The mere fact that they
*appeared* from the Supreme Lord is not tantamount to *authorship* by the
Supreme Lord. Can you cite a verse stating explicitly that the Lord
*created* or *authored* the Vedas? You cannot, because no such verse
exists.
The Lord authored the Vedanta-sutra. He did not author the Vedas. Vedas are
eternal, but Vedanta-sutra is not. One could correctly use "authored" to
describe the latter, but certainly not the former.
In Anuchhedas 13 & 14 of Sri Tattva Sandarbha, Srila Jiva Gosvami goes out
of his way to prove that the Puranas are not merely original compositions
of Vyaasa, but are part of the eternal Veda. Why would he go out of his way
to prove that Vyaasa did not write them if the Vedas were authored by the
Lord?
Jahnu writes:
Well, I can tell you this, that none of our acaryas has interpreted
the word apaurusheya to mean unauthored. You find this word no where
in Srila Prabhupada's books, nor do you find this word used by any of
our acaryas, neither Madhvacarya, nor Rupa Goswami, nor Jiva Goswami
uses this word to explain apaurusheya.
My comments:
You are totally wrong. Madhvacharya and his followers differ from us
regarding the definition of apaurusheya. I'm sure any number of Dvaita list
contributors would be happy to expound on this point. In our sampradaya,
apaurusheya is simply defined as "not authored by anyone subject to the
defects of conditioned life." But this is not tantamount to saying that the
Vedas are authored texts. It just means that if something were authored by
the Lord, it would still be considered by us as apaurusheya -- the real
purport of which is that such a work would still be free of flaws.
You are going to run into problems when trying to speak on behalf of Madhva
or Ramanuja. The mere fact that we consider such acharyas bona fide does
not indicate that we will agree with them on all points of philosophy.
Unless you are schooled in their respective philosophies, I would therefore
avoid trying to represent them if I were you.
Jahnu writes:
So you are certainly right when
you say that your idea of the Vedas being unauthored, is based
entirely on your own understanding.
My comments:
The total lack of shaastric support for the idea that the Lord authored the
Vedas is my basis for stating this. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Jahnu writes:
The proper spiritual process is not to explain things according to
one's own understanding. We take it from guru, sadhu, and sastra.
All of our acaryas, the sadhus, and our guru, Srila Prabhupada, plus
the sastras say that everything comes from God - janma jasya jatah -
and none of them ever implore the term 'unauthored' to explain the
eternal original nature of the Vedas.
My comments:
Where do our acharyas say that everything is *created* by God? Where do
they say that the Lord authored the Vedas? If you are so into shaastra,
then show me the pramaana that explicitly states that the Lord sat down one
day and wrote the Vedas.
Jahnu writes:
So why do you and others persist with this term? What's the point?
Do you think I don't know that the Vedas are eternal? Everything is
eternal. This material world is also eternal. Does that mean it was
not designed and originated in Krishna, the all powerful Personality
of Godhead?
My comments:
Material world is not eternal. The material *energy* is eternal. Where is
it stated that the material world is eternal?
naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate sataH |
ubhayor api dR^ishhTo 'ntas tv anayos tattva-darshibhiH || BG 2.16 ||
Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the non-
existent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal
[the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying
the nature of both.
Clearly, two categories of things, one eternal and one not, are described
in Bhagavad-Gita.
Furthermore:
maam upetya punar janma duHkhaalayam ashaashvatam.h |
naapnuvanti mahaatmaanaH saMsiddhiM paramaaM gataaH || BG 8.15 ||
maam - Me; upetya - achieving; punaH -again; janma - birth;
duHkha-aalayam - place of miseries; ashaashvatam.h - temporary; na -
never; aapnuvanti - attain; mahaa-aatmaanaH - the great souls;
saMsiddhim - perfection; paramaam - ultimate; gataaH - having
achieved.
After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogiis in devotion, never
return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because
they have attained the highest perfection.
Where did you get the idea that material world is eternal?
Jahnu writes:
Do the jivas not come from Krishna, even though they are eternal?
You may say that the jiva is not created, but do we not originate in
Krishna? We are His eternal parts and parcels. You cannot claim to
know the true nature of our origin. Krishna states In Bg.that no one
knows His origin. Neither the demigods nor the great sages, including
Narada Muni, know the origin of Krishna. This is clearly stated.
So if the jivas don't know Krishna's origin, Who is of course His own
origin, how do you think we will know our own origin? It's not
possible. Therefore we have to take it from our authorities.
My comments:
Fine, so cite the authority which states that the Vedas are written by God.
I don't know of any card catalog listing that says, "Rig Veda, by Veda
Vyaasa." Maybe I missed something.
Jahnu writes:
Therefore, just as we cannot know our own origin, we cannot know the
origin of the Vedas. For that we have to consult our authorities, who
is Srila Prabhupada and the acaryas of our disciplic succession, and
none of them have ever used the term, unauthored, about the Vedas.
Why, then, should we?
My comments:
First of all, it is a mistake to think that because Srila Prabhupada did
not say it, that other Vaishnavas are at fault for using the term. Other
acharyas do say that the Vedas are unauthored. Srila Prabhupada never
claimed to speak on behalf of all sampradayas every time he proceeded to
teach something. Don't make the mistake in thinking that Vaishnavism =
ISKCON. Just because ISKCON devotees hold to a particular principle or
belief, that is no guarantee that other Vaishnavas will agree.
Secondly, Srila Prabhupada only said that the Vedas have no human author.
Nowhere did he say that they are authored by God. On the other hand, other
acharyas do specifically deny that they are authored by God. So there is no
harm in describing them as such.
Jahnu writes:
Then explain why the Vedas are not authored by God. Using the argument
that something which is not created cannot be authored by God doesn't
hold, since you really don't know the nature of the origin of all.
My comments:
The above makes absolutely no sense.
If I don't know the nature of the origin of the Vedas, and consequently
cannot say that they are unauthored, then how can you say that they are
authored by God if you do not know the nature of the origin of the Vedas
either?
To solve this, we have to give the shaastric pramaana. So where is it
stated that the Lord created or is author of the Vedas? Where?
To author something implies to create. To create something implies that it
did not exist before. This is simple logic.
Jahnu writes:
Then you say that there is something which God cannot do. Do you want
to join Sri Manis club? He also claims that. He claims that according
to logic God cannot change the essence of His nature. But that is of
course another point of discussion.
My comments:
Mani happens to be right on the money:
avyaktaM vyaktim aapannaM manyante maam abuddhayaH |
paraM bhaavam ajaananto mamaavyayam anuttamam.h || BG 7.24 ||
Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before
and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowl-
edge, they do not know my higher nature, which is imperishable and
supreme.
The Lord is always the Supreme Personality of Godhead who is purely
spiritual: ishvaraH paramaH kR^iShNaH sach-chid-aananda vigraha/ Can the
Lord ever NOT be sach-chid-aananda? Not according to the above verse, which
criticizes the idea that the Lord can be impersonal and then take on
personality. The Lord's nature is always to be the Supreme Person, endowed
with spiritual name, form, qualities, etc. Does the Lord ever change this
nature? The answer is no. Is He limited because He cannot change His
nature? The question is clearly absurd. By definition, the Lord is ALWAYS
sach-chid-aananda, superior to matter, ignorance, the modes of material
nature, etc.
To put it another way, if the Lord is always superior to matter, is He
limited because He never comes under illusion?
Jahnu writes:
>I hold, on the basis of numerous statements in the Upanishads and the
>'Gita, that the Vedas do emanate from the Lord. I do not agree that they
>are authored by the Lord.
_You_ do not agree?? This question will not be resolved based on
either your agreement or mine, nor Agrahya prabhu's. We have to confer
with guru, sadhu, and sastra, and they don't call the Vedas
My comments:
So where is it stated that the Vedas are authored by God? Provide the
pramaana.
Jahnu writes:
unauthored. It's not that we should just cook up new words to explain
our philosophy, so that we can become great munis and differ with our
predecessors.
My comments:
And yet, you just cooked up this idea that the Vedas are authored texts
without a single reference to either guru or shaastra.
Jahnu writes:
You have only asserted your own opinion.
My comments:
I'll take my opinions over your mental speculation any day. Everything I
have said so far is perfectly consistent with the previous acharyas and
shaastra. And they have the added benefit of making a certain degree of
sense as compared to to what you write below:
Jahnu writes:
>If something is eternal, then it always existed at all times.
Sure. Then it could have been authored by Krishna at all times, right?
My comments:
What does it mean to say that the Vedas are "authored by Krishna at all
times?" This is just mental speculation; you have no proof. If the Vedas
are eternal, then there is no reason to author them again.
In Anuccheda 15.2, Srila Jiva Gosvami states, "The reason the Puraanas are
occasionally described as impermanent is that they are sometimes manifest
and sometimes not." Here, he is trying to show that the Puranas are Vedas,
in spite of the fact that they are not eternal like the Vedas. It is
clearly implied that there is no necessity of "authoring the Vedas" over
and over again, unlike the Puraanas, which have to be periodically
remanifest for the benefit of the conditioned souls.
Jahnu writes:
>To create something implies that there was some point before which that
>thing did not exist.
Not if it is an eternal creation.
My comments:
An "eternal creation" is by definition an oxymoron.
Jahnu writes:
>My comments: If Vedas are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then there
is
>no question of them being authored.
Why not?
My comments: Because the Lord is eternal and unborn.
muuDho 'yaM naabhijaanaati loko maam ajam avyayam.h || BG 7.25 ||
Jahnu writes:
Is Krishna not the Supreme Who has multifarious unconceivable
energies? parasya shaktir vividhaiva-shruyate sva bhaviki jnana bala
kriya ca.
My comments:
The mere fact that He has multifarious inconceivable potencies is not
justification for saying that He does things which are clearly not in His
nature.
Jahnu writes:
>My comments: However, please note that this is not the same as saying that
>the Lord is the author of the Vedas.
What's the difference, please? And note how Srila Prabhupada never
even mentions the word unauthored in his books.
My comments:
I have already discussed the difference in depth. It should be obvious by
now.
Please note that Srila Prabhupada never uses the word "authored" to
describe the Vedas in his books.
Jahnu writes:
I claimed we should consult our authorities if we want to know the
origin of the Vedas. And none of them uses the word, unauthored, to
explain the origin of the Vedas. Rather it is everywhere explained
My comments:
None of them use the word "authored" either.
-- K
manish
ja...@wineasy.se (Jahnu das) writes:
...
> Well, I can tell you this, that none of our acaryas has interpreted
> the word apaurusheya to mean unauthored. You find this word no where
> in Srila Prabhupada's books, nor do you find this word used by any of
> our acaryas, neither Madhvacarya, nor Rupa Goswami, nor Jiva Goswami
pray do not continue to make a fool of yourself. In Srimad Anand Tiirtha's
school, Vedas are indeed accepted as unauthored by anyone, including God.
It is naiyAyikas (nyAya school) that holds God to be the creator/author
of Vedas and it is explicitly refuted within tattvavaad.
Here is the rather terse proof regarding apaurusheyatva given by Srimad
Acharya himself:
"apaurusheyatvaM cha svata eva siddham.h" (1)
The non-authoredness [of Shruti] is known of itself, only.
"veda-karturaprasiddhheH" (2)
Because no creator is known to have existed for the Vedas.
"aprasiddha kartustatkalpane cha kalpanaa-gauravam.h" (3)
If such unknown creators are imagined, that leads to kalpanaa-gowrava,
et cetera.
"akalpane cha apaurushheyatvaM siddhameva" (4)
If such are not imagined, non-authoredness [of Shruti] is proved.
"na cha laukika-vaakya-vat.h sakart.rkatvam.h" (5)
[It is] not [to be said that the Vedas are] created, just like worldly
sentences.
"tasyAkart.rkattva-prasiddhyabhaavaat.h" (6)
Because there is no repute for non-createdness in their case.
There has been long discussion on apaurusheyatva itself on the Dvaita list
which can be accessed from the archives, please see:
http://www.eskimo.com/~dvaita/list/list_00/
http://www.eskimo.com/~dvaita/list/list_01/
buried in there, you will also find the tattvavaad position against the claim
that God is the creator/author of Vedas.
It is quite clear that Jahnu dasa knows nothing about tattvavaad and is basing
his arguments about Srimad Anand Tiirtha's position upon word of mouth and/or
ISKCON/Gaudia literature and later we know is almost always wrong in this
regard.
sincerely,
Manish Tandon
PS. addr in header altered to prevent spam.
Krishna Susarla
> It is quite clear that Jahnu dasa knows nothing about tattvavaad and is
basing
> his arguments about Srimad Anand Tiirtha's position upon word of mouth
and/or
> ISKCON/Gaudia literature and later we know is almost always wrong in this
> regard.
Well, if Manish didn't find some way of getting an attack off against
ISKCON, I guess it would be rather unlike him.
In any case, as stated numerous times in this thread, it is nowhere stated
in the Gaudiya literature that the Vedas are authored by God. Quite the
contrary is stated, so this attempt at trying to attack ISKCON and Gaudiya
Vaishnavism on the basis of Jahnu's misconceptions is rather disappointing.
One would hope that a Vaishnava is at least free of the rather mundane
propensity of generalizing a man's faults to those of the tradition which
he may (however poorly) represent. But then I suppose it's always easier to
go for cheap attacks rather than standing up and debating based on the
available evidence.
As for the the latter statement, "we know is almost always wrong in this
regard," I can't help but get off a light chuckle. Those who are fans of
this newsgroup will no doubt recall a time when Manish asserted that the
rasa-lila description of the Lord in the Bhagavata Purana was false, only
to be proven wrong by his own Maadhva comrades. I guess the lesson here to
learn is that one should retain a certain degree of humility when
challenging, lest one get the figurative rug pulled out from underneath
one's feet.
-- K
manish
ja...@wineasy.se (Jahnu das) continues to babble:
> On 18 Apr 1997 00:37:43 GMT, mta...@nospam.stratus.com (manish)
> wrote:
>
>> pray do not continue to make a fool of yourself.
>
> All I'm doing is to present the position of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
NO, you are including Srimad Anand Tiirtha in your list to support your view
and that is the ONLY thing I replied to.
> Am I being a fool for that, O arrogant one?
You are not just a fool but also very weak in reading comprehension.
It was for some reason that I underlined "Madhvacarya" in your message
that I replied to and here you are babbling about what the Gaudia position
is. Did I say anything about Gaudia position?
What is all this nonsense about arrogance when you cannot even read simple
english?
Repeat, I have _NO_ interest in what the Gaudia position is on the origin or
otherwise of Vedas. I have _ONLY_ sought to correct your incorrect assertion
about Srimad Anand Tiirtha.
Here is again your original statement in question,
You find this word no where in Srila Prabhupada's books, nor do you
find this word used by any of our acaryas, neither Madhvacarya, nor
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rupa Goswami, nor Jiva Goswami uses this word to explain apaurusheya.
read my response carefully before jumping all over calling me arrogant.
>> In Srimad Anand Tiirtha's
>> school, Vedas are indeed accepted as unauthored by anyone, including God.
>
> In the Gaudiya Vaishnava school the Vedas are indeed accepted to be
> authored by God.
You can debate to your heart's content with your Gaudia Vaishnava friends
about what apowrusheya means and why. I have absolutely NO interest in that.
Just don't misrepresent Srimad Andand Tiirtha.
fyki, I know quite well what the Gaudia position about this and a whole lot
of other things is and yes you do not have to agree with the tattvavaad
position. I have absolutely NO interest in having you take to tattvavaad.
You made a completly incorrect assertion about Srimad Ananda Tiirtha' position
on apowrusheya in the first place and that is _ALL_ I replied to AND care
about.
Now don't mix the position of Gaudia's to cover your lies.
>> and is basing
>> his arguments about Srimad Anand Tiirtha's position upon word of mouth and/or
>> ISKCON/Gaudia literature and later we know is almost always wrong in this
>> regard.
>
> You assert, quite unreasonably, that ISKCON/Gaudiya literature is
> almost always wrong in this regard. Would you mind revealing how you
> arrived at this questionable assumption?
That is because I have read both Gaudia literature AND tattvavaad literature
and found the Gaudia one to be making incorrect statement like "Madhvacharya
said this and that..." which are wrong.
Just like your own stetement here where you boldly said "... neither Madhvacarya,
..." which is exactly opposite to what the Acharya said and I even quoted his
own statement to prove that.
Can it get any simpler than that?
What is really funny is that you proceeded to refute that statements of Srimad
Anand Tiirtha here, whom you incorrectly cited as supporting your own view in the
begining, instead of recognising you error.
Did I say anywhere that I was interested in defending Srimad Anand Tiirtha'
position here?
Did I say anywhere I am interested in arguing with you about the validity of
your and/or the Gaudia view in this regard?
Did I say anywhere that I want to establish wha the correct meaning of
aporusheya is?
> If you only argue it is so because they differ with your point of view
> or the tattvavada position, it would be circular reasoning, wouldn't
> it? I thought you didn't like circular reasoning.
It is quite clear that you don't even know what circular reasoning means!
Before jumping to circular reasoning, read my original statement again.
My position = tattvavaad position, and yes indeed it is different than Gaudia
position, therefore my point about Gaudia literature being incorrect about
tattvavaad position does not involve circular reasoning at all. Got it?
Manish
Krishna Susarla
Jahnu writes:
On 18 Apr 1997 00:37:43 GMT, mta...@nospam.stratus.com (manish)
wrote:
>pray do not continue to make a fool of yourself.
I think it takes a little more than your assertion to make me a fool.
All I'm doing is to present the position of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
Am I being a fool for that, O arrogant one?
My comments:
You're right; Manish is arrogant. But you are also wrong in saying that you
are presenting the Gaudiya Vaishnava position.
Jahnu writes:
> In Srimad Anand Tiirtha's
>school, Vedas are indeed accepted as unauthored by anyone, including God.
In the Gaudiya Vaishnava school the Vedas are indeed accepted to be
authored by God.
My comments:
They are NOT. Show me which acharya in our sampradaya has made this
statement.
-- K
Jahnu das
On 18 Apr 1997 00:37:43 GMT, mta...@nospam.stratus.com (manish)
wrote:
>pray do not continue to make a fool of yourself.
I think it takes a little more than your assertion to make me a fool.
All I'm doing is to present the position of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
Am I being a fool for that, O arrogant one?
> In Srimad Anand Tiirtha's
>school, Vedas are indeed accepted as unauthored by anyone, including God.
In the Gaudiya Vaishnava school the Vedas are indeed accepted to be
authored by God.
>It is naiyAyikas (nyAya school) that holds God to be the creator/author
>of Vedas and it is explicitly refuted within tattvavaad.
Really? How is it refuted?
>Here is the rather terse proof regarding apaurusheyatva given by Srimad
>Acharya himself:
>
> "apaurusheyatvaM cha svata eva siddham.h" (1)
> The non-authoredness [of Shruti] is known of itself, only.
You translate apaurusheya to mean non-authoredness. According to the
Sanskrit dictionary I have consulted, and according to Jiva Goswami in
his Tattva sandabha, apaurusheya means non-human.
Besides the non-authoredness of the Vedas is clearly not corroborated
by Sri Krishna Himself Who states in the Bhagavad Gita, aham sarvasya
prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate.
> "veda-karturaprasiddhheH" (2)
> Because no creator is known to have existed for the Vedas.
bijam nanavataranam sarva-karana-karanam
vedavedyam veda-bijam veda-karana-karanam
Here Krsna is called 'The cause of the cause of the Vedas'
In the Narada-pancaratra, Sri-Krsna-stotra, (4.3.55), there is another
sloka which is even more explicit:
ananta-mantra-kotisah sabda-brahmaika-pavakah
adi-vidvan veda-kartta vedatma sruti-sargarah
Here Krsna is directly called 'The Author of the Vedas'.
> "aprasiddha kartustatkalpane cha kalpanaa-gauravam.h" (3)
> If such unknown creators are imagined, that leads to kalpanaa-gowrava,
> et cetera.
In the Gandharva-krta-stotra of the Narada-pancaratra, (1.12.75),
there is the following passage:
bijam nanavataranam sarva-karana-karanam
vedavedyam veda-bijam veda-karana-karanam
Here Krsna is called 'The cause of the cause of the Vedas'
> "akalpane cha apaurushheyatvaM siddhameva" (4)
> If such are not imagined, non-authoredness [of Shruti] is proved.
It seems it is only your school of thought who takes apaurusheya to
mean unauthored.
> "na cha laukika-vaakya-vat.h sakart.rkatvam.h" (5)
> [It is] not [to be said that the Vedas are] created, just like worldly
> sentences.
>
> "tasyAkart.rkattva-prasiddhyabhaavaat.h" (6)
> Because there is no repute for non-createdness in their case.
>
>There has been long discussion on apaurusheyatva itself on the Dvaita list
>which can be accessed from the archives, please see:
>
> http://www.eskimo.com/~dvaita/list/list_00/
> http://www.eskimo.com/~dvaita/list/list_01/
>
>buried in there, you will also find the tattvavaad position against the claim
>that God is the creator/author of Vedas.
Why should I agree with the tattvavad position? I belong to the
Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
>It is quite clear that Jahnu dasa knows nothing about tattvavaad
Well, it is quite clear you know nothing about the Acintyabhedabheda
tattva propounded by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
> and is basing
>his arguments about Srimad Anand Tiirtha's position upon word of mouth and/or
>ISKCON/Gaudia literature and later we know is almost always wrong in this
>regard.
You assert, quite unreasonably, that ISKCON/Gaudiya literature is
almost always wrong in this regard. Would you mind revealing how you
arrived at this questionable assumption?
If you only argue it is so because they differ with your point of view
or the tattvavada position, it would be circular reasoning, wouldn't
it? I thought you didn't like circular reasoning.
Regards
/Jahhnu
www.shamantaka.org/index.html
www.krsna.com
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
"Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to be."
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.27 alpha 4/27/97
Jahnu das
On 18 Apr 1997 02:05:40 GMT, Krishna Susarla
<susarla...@tumora.swmed.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>In any case, as stated numerous times in this thread, it is nowhere stated
>in the Gaudiya literature that the Vedas are authored by God.
It is stated in the Narada Pancaratra, veda kartta vedatma veda
sargarah. I think that should make it quite clear.
> Quite the
>contrary is stated, so this attempt at trying to attack ISKCON and Gaudiya
>Vaishnavism on the basis of Jahnu's misconceptions is rather disappointing.
>One would hope that a Vaishnava is at least free of the rather mundane
>propensity of generalizing a man's faults to those of the tradition which
>he may (however poorly) represent.
I don't know who you represent besides your mind, but I represent
ISKCON. I have consultet with several of my authorities and they have
confirmed that everything has its origin in Krishna. So the
philosophical conclusion, that God is the author of the Vedas, is not
a misrepresentation. Of course, I know that I lack somewhat in good
manners, but that doesn't seem to be a disqualification in this forum,
where it seems to be ok. to speak all kinds of nonsense and garbage as
long as it is done in a polite tone.
I'll rather have the truth delivered to me in a harsh manner, than
I'll have all kinds of sentimental garbage spoken to me in a polite
manner.
> But then I suppose it's always easier to
>go for cheap attacks rather than standing up and debating based on the
>available evidence.
Right on.
>As for the the latter statement, "we know is almost always wrong in this
>regard," I can't help but get off a light chuckle. Those who are fans of
>this newsgroup will no doubt recall a time when Manish asserted that the
>rasa-lila description of the Lord in the Bhagavata Purana was false, only
>to be proven wrong by his own Maadhva comrades. I guess the lesson here to
>learn is that one should retain a certain degree of humility when
>challenging, lest one get the figurative rug pulled out from underneath
>one's feet.
Right on.
I fully agree.
/Jahhnu
www.shamantaka.org/index.html
www.krsna.com
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
"Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to be."
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.29c alpha 4/28/97
Jahnu das
On 16 Apr 1997 20:40:14 GMT, Krishna Susarla
<susarla...@tumora.swmed.edu> wrote:
>Before I continue with this thread, I just want to point out the obvious
>flaw of logic that Jahnu has utterly confounded the two distinct issues of
>creation and emanation.
What makes you think I'm confounding the two issues?
>As long as he continues to maintain such a
>misconception, it doesn't seem there will be any resolution of this issue.
What makes you think I suffer from this misconception?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
>ucchistajjajnire sarve divi deva divisritah
>
>"The Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Atharvaveda, along with the Puranas, and all
>the demigods residing in the heavenly planets appeared from the
>Supreme Lord."
>(Atharvaveda 11.7.24)
>
>How much more clear do you want it?
>
>My comments:
>
>Again, this does nothing to prove your point. The mere fact that they
>*appeared* from the Supreme Lord is not tantamount to *authorship* by the
>Supreme Lord. Can you cite a verse stating explicitly that the Lord
>*created* or *authored* the Vedas? You cannot, because no such verse
>exists.
How about this from the Narada-pancaratra, Sri-Krsna-stotra,
(4.3.55):
ananta-mantra-kotisah sabda-brahmaika-pavakah
adi-vidvan veda-kartta vedatma sruti-sargarah
Here Krsna is directly called 'The Author of the Vedas'.
>The Lord authored the Vedanta-sutra. He did not author the Vedas. Vedas are
>eternal, but Vedanta-sutra is not. One could correctly use "authored" to
>describe the latter, but certainly not the former.
You are simply asserting your case. You have cited no evidence to
support your conclusions. Even though the Vedas are eternal they can
still be authored by Krishna, as he is the eternal cause of all
causes. That Krishna is the author of the Vedas is clearly explained
by Jiva Goswami in Tattva Sandarbha.
>In Anuchhedas 13 & 14 of Sri Tattva Sandarbha, Srila Jiva Gosvami goes out
>of his way to prove that the Puranas are not merely original compositions
>of Vyaasa, but are part of the eternal Veda. Why would he go out of his way
>to prove that Vyaasa did not write them if the Vedas were authored by the
>Lord?
Why not? What's your point? Maybe Jiva Goswami wants to point out that
Krishna and not Vyasa is the real author of the Vedas.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>Well, I can tell you this, that none of our acaryas has interpreted
>the word apaurusheya to mean unauthored. You find this word no where
>in Srila Prabhupada's books, nor do you find this word used by any of
>our acaryas, neither Madhvacarya, nor Rupa Goswami, nor Jiva Goswami
>uses this word to explain apaurusheya.
>
>My comments:
>
>You are totally wrong. Madhvacharya and his followers differ from us
>regarding the definition of apaurusheya. I'm sure any number of Dvaita list
>contributors would be happy to expound on this point. In our sampradaya,
>apaurusheya is simply defined as "not authored by anyone subject to the
>defects of conditioned life." But this is not tantamount to saying that the
>Vedas are authored texts. It just means that if something were authored by
>the Lord, it would still be considered by us as apaurusheya -- the real
>purport of which is that such a work would still be free of flaws.
The point being still that in our sampradaya you don't find this
notion that the Vedas are unauthored even by God, which was the point
I was trying to make. I'm well aware that we, following in the
footsteps of Srila Prabhupada and Jiva Goswami define the word
apaurusheya as 'from a non-human origin.' None of our acaryas
has defined apaurusheya as unauthored. Why should you?
>You are going to run into problems when trying to speak on behalf of Madhva
>or Ramanuja.
I'm not. Why would I? I belong to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, and I follow
their philosophical conclusions.
>The mere fact that we consider such acharyas bona fide does
>not indicate that we will agree with them on all points of philosophy.
That's exactly my point. That's why I'm so emphatic on the point of
the Vedas being authored by God, since this is the conclusion of our
acaryas.
>Unless you are schooled in their respective philosophies, I would therefore
>avoid trying to represent them if I were you.
I'm not trying to represent them. I'm trying to represent the
philosophy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. That's why I repeatedly state
that the Vedas are authored by God, because according to Srila
Prabhupada, Jiva Goswami and the Bhagavad Gita, everything is coming
from God. I think you'd have to agree that everything includes the
Vedas.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>So you are certainly right when
>you say that your idea of the Vedas being unauthored, is based
>entirely on your own understanding.
>
>My comments:
>
>The total lack of shaastric support for the idea that the Lord authored the
>Vedas is my basis for stating this. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I repeatedly did that. In fact you seem to be totally unaware of the
philosophical conclusions of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>The proper spiritual process is not to explain things according to
>one's own understanding. We take it from guru, sadhu, and sastra.
>All of our acaryas, the sadhus, and our guru, Srila Prabhupada, plus
>the sastras say that everything comes from God - janma jasya jatah -
>and none of them ever implore the term 'unauthored' to explain the
>eternal original nature of the Vedas.
>
>My comments:
>
>Where do our acharyas say that everything is *created* by God?
Srila Prabhupada says that everything has its origin in Vishnu. I
already posted this statement from Srila Prabhupada. I don't know if
the post made it to the conference since it seems that none of my
texts are being posted in the conference.
> Where do
>they say that the Lord authored the Vedas?
How about this from the Narada-pancaratra, Sri-Krsna-stotra,
(4.3.55):
ananta-mantra-kotisah sabda-brahmaika-pavakah
adi-vidvan veda-kartta vedatma sruti-sargarah
Here Krsna is directly called 'The Author of the Vedas'.
> If you are so into shaastra,
>then show me the pramaana that explicitly states that the Lord sat down one
>day and wrote the Vedas.
Who says He did it like that? Do you mean to say that Krishna, Who
possesses inconceivable powers, should have to confine Himself to your
defective sense of logic?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>So why do you and others persist with this term? What's the point?
>Do you think I don't know that the Vedas are eternal? Everything is
>eternal. This material world is also eternal. Does that mean it was
>not designed and originated in Krishna, the all powerful Personality
>of Godhead?
>
>My comments:
>
>Material world is not eternal. The material *energy* is eternal. Where is
>it stated that the material world is eternal?
You know, I'm getting a little weary by your word jugglery. I'm
beginning to suspect that you are not at all interested in learning
about the philosphical conclusions of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, but are
rather simply interested in battering me with your false ego.
Now why would you think that I think the material world is eternal? Do
you think that I don't know that the material world is eternally
undergoing the process of creation, maintainance, and destruction?
>naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate sataH |
>ubhayor api dR^ishhTo 'ntas tv anayos tattva-darshibhiH || BG 2.16 ||
>
>Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the non-
>existent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal
>[the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying
>the nature of both.
>
>Clearly, two categories of things, one eternal and one not, are described
>in Bhagavad-Gita.
So? What's that got to do with the point in discussion?
>Furthermore:
>
>maam upetya punar janma duHkhaalayam ashaashvatam.h |
>naapnuvanti mahaatmaanaH saMsiddhiM paramaaM gataaH || BG 8.15 ||
>
>maam - Me; upetya - achieving; punaH -again; janma - birth;
>duHkha-aalayam - place of miseries; ashaashvatam.h - temporary; na -
>never; aapnuvanti - attain; mahaa-aatmaanaH - the great souls;
>saMsiddhim - perfection; paramaam - ultimate; gataaH - having
>achieved.
>
>After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogiis in devotion, never
>return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because
>they have attained the highest perfection.
>
>Where did you get the idea that material world is eternal?
You know, I'm beginning to think that you are intentionally being
obnoxious.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>Do the jivas not come from Krishna, even though they are eternal?
>You may say that the jiva is not created, but do we not originate in
>Krishna? We are His eternal parts and parcels. You cannot claim to
>know the true nature of our origin. Krishna states In Bg.that no one
>knows His origin. Neither the demigods nor the great sages, including
>Narada Muni, know the origin of Krishna. This is clearly stated.
>
>So if the jivas don't know Krishna's origin, Who is of course His own
>origin, how do you think we will know our own origin? It's not
>possible. Therefore we have to take it from our authorities.
>
>My comments:
>
>Fine, so cite the authority which states that the Vedas are written by God.
I did. You want it again? Here it is.
ananta-mantra-kotisah sabda-brahmaika-pavakah
adi-vidvan veda-kartta vedatma sruti-sargarah
Note the words: veda-kartta vedatma sruti sargarah.
>I don't know of any card catalog listing that says, "Rig Veda, by Veda
>Vyaasa." Maybe I missed something.
I think you missed the whole philosophy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>Therefore, just as we cannot know our own origin, we cannot know the
>origin of the Vedas. For that we have to consult our authorities, who
>is Srila Prabhupada and the acaryas of our disciplic succession, and
>none of them have ever used the term, unauthored, about the Vedas.
>Why, then, should we?
>
>My comments:
>
>First of all, it is a mistake to think that because Srila Prabhupada did
>not say it, that other Vaishnavas are at fault for using the term. Other
>acharyas do say that the Vedas are unauthored.
But not from our sampradaya.
> Srila Prabhupada never
>claimed to speak on behalf of all sampradayas every time he proceeded to
>teach something.
Who ever said he claimed that?
> Don't make the mistake in thinking that Vaishnavism =
>ISKCON.
I'm not speaking about Vaishnavism in general, I'm speaking about
Vaishnavism according to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I don't think there
is anyone but ISKCON who properly represents the Gaudiya Vaishnava
philosophy in this day and age.
>Just because ISKCON devotees hold to a particular principle or
>belief, that is no guarantee that other Vaishnavas will agree.
Who ever claimed that? Obviously not all other Vaishnavas will agreee
to the doctrines of ISKCON. That doesn't mean ISKCON is wrong, though.
>Secondly, Srila Prabhupada only said that the Vedas have no human author.
>Nowhere did he say that they are authored by God.
He said that everything has its origin in God.
> On the other hand, other
>acharyas do specifically deny that they are authored by God.
No acarya in the line of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas deny that the Vedas
are authored by God.
> So there is no
>harm in describing them as such.
Why would you describe them as such? Why not describe them as being
authored by God?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>Then explain why the Vedas are not authored by God. Using the argument
>that something which is not created cannot be authored by God doesn't
>hold, since you really don't know the nature of the origin of all.
>
>My comments:
>
>The above makes absolutely no sense.
Maybe not to you. To me it makes a lot of sense. The point is that
since we cannot know the origin of the Vedas we have to take it from
the authorities. And all our acaryas, beginning with Krishna Himself
Who states that He is the source of everything, explain that Krishna
is the origin of all. Unlike you I'm not so puffed up that I think I
can understand the origin of the Vedas on the basis of my own limited
conceptions.
>If I don't know the nature of the origin of the Vedas, and consequently
>cannot say that they are unauthored, then how can you say that they are
>authored by God if you do not know the nature of the origin of the Vedas
>either?
>To solve this, we have to give the shaastric pramaana. So where is it
>stated that the Lord created or is author of the Vedas? Where?
aham sarvasya prabhavo..
and.. veda kartta vedatma sruti sargarah.
>To author something implies to create. To create something implies that it
>did not exist before. This is simple logic.
Logic according to you maybe. I wouldn't cite you as an authority on
logic. Neither would I demand that Krishna conform to my conception of
logic when He creates, maintains and destroys things.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>Then you say that there is something which God cannot do. Do you want
>to join Sri Manis club? He also claims that. He claims that according
>to logic God cannot change the essence of His nature. But that is of
>course another point of discussion.
>
>My comments:
>
>Mani happens to be right on the money:
And this you know because of..?
>avyaktaM vyaktim aapannaM manyante maam abuddhayaH |
>paraM bhaavam ajaananto mamaavyayam anuttamam.h || BG 7.24 ||
>
>Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the
>Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before
>and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowl-
>edge, they do not know my higher nature, which is imperishable and
>supreme.
>
>The Lord is always the Supreme Personality of Godhead who is purely
>spiritual: ishvaraH paramaH kR^iShNaH sach-chid-aananda vigraha/ Can the
>Lord ever NOT be sach-chid-aananda?
That's exactly what I told Mani. Still Krishna can change his essence,
because His spirtual energy is ever expanding.
> Not according to the above verse, which
>criticizes the idea that the Lord can be impersonal and then take on
>personality. The Lord's nature is always to be the Supreme Person, endowed
>with spiritual name, form, qualities, etc. Does the Lord ever change this
>nature? The answer is no.
What do you know?
>Is He limited because He cannot change His
>nature? The question is clearly absurd. By definition, the Lord is ALWAYS
>sach-chid-aananda, superior to matter, ignorance, the modes of material
>nature, etc.
That's what I told Mani when he asked me if God could create a stone
heavier than He could lift.
>To put it another way, if the Lord is always superior to matter, is He
>limited because He never comes under illusion?
Did I ever say that He was?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>>I hold, on the basis of numerous statements in the Upanishads and the
>>'Gita, that the Vedas do emanate from the Lord. I do not agree that they
>>are authored by the Lord.
>
>_You_ do not agree?? This question will not be resolved based on
>either your agreement or mine, nor Agrahya prabhu's. We have to confer
>with guru, sadhu, and sastra, and they don't call the Vedas
>
>My comments:
>
>So where is it stated that the Vedas are authored by God? Provide the
>pramaana.
ananta-mantra-kotisah sabda-brahmaika-pavakah
adi-vidvan veda-kartta vedatma sruti-sargarah
Note the words, veda-kartta and sruti sargarah. Do you know what sarga
means in Sanskrit? It means 'creation.'
>Jahnu writes:
>
>unauthored. It's not that we should just cook up new words to explain
>our philosophy, so that we can become great munis and differ with our
>predecessors.
>
>My comments:
>
>And yet, you just cooked up this idea that the Vedas are authored texts
>without a single reference to either guru or shaastra.
Did I? I think I have provided ample quotes to support the idea that
everything comes from God. You on the other hand have provided no
evidence to support your idea that there is something that does not
come from God.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>You have only asserted your own opinion.
>
>My comments:
>
>I'll take my opinions over your mental speculation any day.
Sure. A fool always thinks of himself as very learned and intelligent.
>Everything I
>have said so far is perfectly consistent with the previous acharyas and
>shaastra.
Really? Whom amongst our acaryas - the Gaudiya Vaishnavas - accept the
Vedas to be unauthored even by God? Which sastra are you speaking
about? Where is it stated that there is something which does not have
its origin in God?
> And they have the added benefit of making a certain degree of
>sense as compared to to what you write below:
>
>Jahnu writes:
>
>>If something is eternal, then it always existed at all times.
>
>Sure. Then it could have been authored by Krishna at all times, right?
>
>My comments:
>
>What does it mean to say that the Vedas are "authored by Krishna at all
>times?" This is just mental speculation; you have no proof. If the Vedas
>are eternal, then there is no reason to author them again.
As if you could conceive of eternal..
>In Anuccheda 15.2, Srila Jiva Gosvami states, "The reason the Puraanas are
>occasionally described as impermanent is that they are sometimes manifest
>and sometimes not." Here, he is trying to show that the Puranas are Vedas,
>in spite of the fact that they are not eternal like the Vedas. It is
>clearly implied that there is no necessity of "authoring the Vedas" over
>and over again, unlike the Puraanas, which have to be periodically
>remanifest for the benefit of the conditioned souls.
So now you, all of a sudden, has become the authority on what is the
clear purpose of Jiva Goswami. I suggest you read my compilation
'Origin of the Vedas.'
>Jahnu writes:
>
>>To create something implies that there was some point before which that
>>thing did not exist.
>
>Not if it is an eternal creation.
>
>My comments:
>
>An "eternal creation" is by definition an oxymoron.
And so? Even the conception of 'eternality' is an oxymoron according
to some.
>My comments: Because the Lord is eternal and unborn.
And because the Lord is eternal and unborn He cannot be the author of
the Vedas?? What's the logic behind that assumption?
>Jahnu writes:
>
> Is Krishna not the Supreme Who has multifarious unconceivable
>energies? parasya shaktir vividhaiva-shruyate sva bhaviki jnana bala
>kriya ca.
>
>My comments:
>
>The mere fact that He has multifarious inconceivable potencies is not
>justification for saying that He does things which are clearly not in His
>nature.
Are you saying that there is something which is not in Krishna's
nature? And how do you even know what is _clearly_ and what is not
in Krishna's nature. Have you all of a sudden become such a pure
devotee that you have direct access to the mind of Krishna?
Don't you think you should become initiated for starters before you
run off blabbering your mouth about what is in Krishna's nature and
what is not?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>>My comments: However, please note that this is not the same as saying that
>>the Lord is the author of the Vedas.
>
>What's the difference, please? And note how Srila Prabhupada never
>even mentions the word unauthored in his books.
>
>My comments:
>
>I have already discussed the difference in depth. It should be obvious by
>now.
You know, nothing of what you have suggested is obvious to me. Neither
have you discussed anything in dept or provided any authority for your
statements. You have simply been asserting your case on the basis of
some socalled logic.
>Please note that Srila Prabhupada never uses the word "authored" to
>describe the Vedas in his books.
No, he used the word origin. Please tell me how being the origin of
the Vedas is not the same as being the author of the Vedas. Do you
think you could do that?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>I claimed we should consult our authorities if we want to know the
>origin of the Vedas. And none of them uses the word, unauthored, to
>explain the origin of the Vedas. Rather it is everywhere explained
>
>My comments:
>
>None of them use the word "authored" either.
Well 'kartta veda' means 'author of the Vedas,' so it would seem that
you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Regards
Jahnu das
/Jahhnu
www.shamantaka.org/index.html
www.krsna.com
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
"Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to be."
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.29c alpha 4/28/97
Agrahya das
For newcomers to this forum, I'd like to clarify a little bit of recent history
that you can ascertain for yourselves from the SRV archive
http://www.pobox.com/~srv/arc/
but I thought I'd reiterate, as some recent posts have made very gross
misrepresentations of statements made by Hari Krishna Susarla, other Vaishnavas,
and myself.
In commenting on a statement by a Sri Vaishnava that the Vedas are unauthored
by anyone, even by Krishna Himself, Sri Jahnu Das originally made the statement
that "that is an atheistic mayavad statement." Despite the fact that the
original attackee gave a definition of apaurusheya as "not from a person" and I
did the same, explaining that we take this as "not from a [mundane] person", much
time was spent arguing that "apaurusheya does not mean un-authored."
Some of us were quick to point out that in fact, Sripad Madhvacarya based quite a
bit of philosophy on the un-authored nature of zruti. This is stated quite
clearly in terse sUtras by Srimad Acarya, and expanded in commentaries of Sri
Jayatirtha and Sri Vadiraja Tirtha.
Now it appears that Sri Jahnu Das wants to make this an issue of what the
_Gaudiya_ siddhanta is, and those of us who have pointed out that there _ARE_
Vaishnavas who see zruti as unauthored are great villains. Jahnu claims that he
was only, from day one, speaking about _Gaudiya_ siddhanta. Nonetheless, I
submit that to brand Sripad Madhvacarya's philosophy as Jahnu has done is nothing
short of offensive.
Furthermore, it has been pointed out that there is no specific refutation in
Gaudiya siddhanta for the un-authoredness of zruti. HKS made some excellent
points quoting Srila Jiva Goswami which I believe Jahnu never replied to. While
we do not consider un-authoredness an essential point, I am not aware of a
refutation either. It is somewhat akin to asserting, "Krishna is the source of
everything, therefore Krishna created Himself." Sri Jahnu Das has asserted that
this is, in fact, the proper understanding of sarva-kAraNa-kAraNam: that Krishna
is self-created.
I have no interest in continuing this debate here, as I feel that few if any of
my statements have been answered directly, and it is possible that under no
circumstances will Sri Jahnu Das admit that perhaps, he was wrong in indirectly
calling Sripad Madhvacarya an atheist. Nor will he admit that perhaps, his grasp
of Gaudiya siddhanta is not as extensive as he claims.
Again, I am not interested in debating this further, but in reiterating some of
the salient points for newcomers.
Regards,
Agrahya das
Agr...@HGSoft.com
http://www.hgsoft.com/~agrahya/
P.S. The recent spate of posts appearing on the mailing list is done. Thanks for
your patience.
Krishna Susarla
Jahnu dasa writes:
causes. That Krishna is the author of the Vedas is clearly explained
by Jiva Goswami in Tattva Sandarbha.
My comments:
Really? Well I have Tattva Sandarbha right here with me. Please show me
where Jiva Gosvami *clearly* explains that Krishna is the "author" of the
Vedas.
-- K
Jahnu das
On 16 Apr 1997 20:40:14 GMT, Krishna Susarla
<susarla...@tumora.swmed.edu> wrote:
>Before I continue with this thread, I just want to point out the obvious
>flaw of logic that Jahnu has utterly confounded the two distinct issues of
>creation and emanation.
What makes you think I'm confounding the two issues?
>As long as he continues to maintain such a
>misconception, it doesn't seem there will be any resolution of this issue.
What makes you think I suffer from this misconception?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
>ucchistajjajnire sarve divi deva divisritah
>
>"The Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Atharvaveda, along with the Puranas, and all
>the demigods residing in the heavenly planets appeared from the
>Supreme Lord."
>(Atharvaveda 11.7.24)
>
>How much more clear do you want it?
>
>My comments:
>
>Again, this does nothing to prove your point. The mere fact that they
>*appeared* from the Supreme Lord is not tantamount to *authorship* by the
>Supreme Lord. Can you cite a verse stating explicitly that the Lord
>*created* or *authored* the Vedas? You cannot, because no such verse
>exists.
How about this from the Narada-pancaratra, Sri-Krsna-stotra,
(4.3.55):
ananta-mantra-kotisah sabda-brahmaika-pavakah
adi-vidvan veda-kartta vedatma sruti-sargarah
Here Krsna is directly called 'The Author of the Vedas'.
>The Lord authored the Vedanta-sutra. He did not author the Vedas. Vedas are
>eternal, but Vedanta-sutra is not. One could correctly use "authored" to
>describe the latter, but certainly not the former.
You are simply asserting your case. You have cited no evidence to
support your conclusions. Even though the Vedas are eternal they can
still be authored by Krishna, as he is the eternal cause of all
causes. That Krishna is the author of the Vedas is clearly explained
by Jiva Goswami in Tattva Sandarbha.
>In Anuchhedas 13 & 14 of Sri Tattva Sandarbha, Srila Jiva Gosvami goes out
>of his way to prove that the Puranas are not merely original compositions
>of Vyaasa, but are part of the eternal Veda. Why would he go out of his way
>to prove that Vyaasa did not write them if the Vedas were authored by the
>Lord?
Why not? What's your point? Maybe Jiva Goswami wants to point out that
Krishna and not Vyasa is the real author of the Vedas.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>Well, I can tell you this, that none of our acaryas has interpreted
>the word apaurusheya to mean unauthored. You find this word no where
>in Srila Prabhupada's books, nor do you find this word used by any of
>our acaryas, neither Madhvacarya, nor Rupa Goswami, nor Jiva Goswami
>uses this word to explain apaurusheya.
>
>My comments:
>
>You are totally wrong. Madhvacharya and his followers differ from us
>regarding the definition of apaurusheya. I'm sure any number of Dvaita list
>contributors would be happy to expound on this point. In our sampradaya,
>apaurusheya is simply defined as "not authored by anyone subject to the
>defects of conditioned life." But this is not tantamount to saying that the
>Vedas are authored texts. It just means that if something were authored by
>the Lord, it would still be considered by us as apaurusheya -- the real
>purport of which is that such a work would still be free of flaws.
The point being still that in our sampradaya you don't find this
notion that the Vedas are unauthored even by God, which was the point
I was trying to make. I'm well aware that we, following in the
footsteps of Srila Prabhupada and Jiva Goswami define the word
apaurusheya as 'from a non-human origin.' None of our acaryas
has defined apaurusheya as unauthored. Why should you?
>You are going to run into problems when trying to speak on behalf of Madhva
>or Ramanuja.
I'm not. Why would I? I belong to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, and I follow
their philosophical conclusions.
>The mere fact that we consider such acharyas bona fide does
>not indicate that we will agree with them on all points of philosophy.
That's exactly my point. That's why I'm so emphatic on the point of
the Vedas being authored by God, since this is the conclusion of our
acaryas.
>Unless you are schooled in their respective philosophies, I would therefore
>avoid trying to represent them if I were you.
I'm not trying to represent them. I'm trying to represent the
philosophy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. That's why I repeatedly state
that the Vedas are authored by God, because according to Srila
Prabhupada, Jiva Goswami and the Bhagavad Gita, everything is coming
from God. I think you'd have to agree that everything includes the
Vedas.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>So you are certainly right when
>you say that your idea of the Vedas being unauthored, is based
>entirely on your own understanding.
>
>My comments:
>
>The total lack of shaastric support for the idea that the Lord authored the
>Vedas is my basis for stating this. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I repeatedly did that. In fact you seem to be totally unaware of the
philosophical conclusions of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>The proper spiritual process is not to explain things according to
>one's own understanding. We take it from guru, sadhu, and sastra.
>All of our acaryas, the sadhus, and our guru, Srila Prabhupada, plus
>the sastras say that everything comes from God - janma jasya jatah -
>and none of them ever implore the term 'unauthored' to explain the
>eternal original nature of the Vedas.
>
>My comments:
>
>Where do our acharyas say that everything is *created* by God?
Srila Prabhupada says that everything has its origin in Vishnu. I
already posted this statement from Srila Prabhupada. I don't know if
the post made it to the conference since it seems that none of my
texts are being posted in the conference.
> Where do
>they say that the Lord authored the Vedas?
How about this from the Narada-pancaratra, Sri-Krsna-stotra,
(4.3.55):
ananta-mantra-kotisah sabda-brahmaika-pavakah
adi-vidvan veda-kartta vedatma sruti-sargarah
Here Krsna is directly called 'The Author of the Vedas'.
> If you are so into shaastra,
>then show me the pramaana that explicitly states that the Lord sat down one
>day and wrote the Vedas.
Who says He did it like that? Do you mean to say that Krishna, Who
possesses inconceivable powers, should have to confine Himself to your
defective sense of logic?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>So why do you and others persist with this term? What's the point?
>Do you think I don't know that the Vedas are eternal? Everything is
>eternal. This material world is also eternal. Does that mean it was
>not designed and originated in Krishna, the all powerful Personality
>of Godhead?
>
>My comments:
>
>Material world is not eternal. The material *energy* is eternal. Where is
>it stated that the material world is eternal?
You know, I'm getting a little weary by your word jugglery. I'm
beginning to suspect that you are not at all interested in learning
about the philosphical conclusions of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, but are
rather simply interested in battering me with your false ego.
Now why would you think that I think the material world is eternal? Do
you think that I don't know that the material world is eternally
undergoing the process of creation, maintainance, and destruction?
>naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate sataH |
>ubhayor api dR^ishhTo 'ntas tv anayos tattva-darshibhiH || BG 2.16 ||
>
>Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the non-
>existent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal
>[the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying
>the nature of both.
>
>Clearly, two categories of things, one eternal and one not, are described
>in Bhagavad-Gita.
So? What's that got to do with the point in discussion?
>Furthermore:
>
>maam upetya punar janma duHkhaalayam ashaashvatam.h |
>naapnuvanti mahaatmaanaH saMsiddhiM paramaaM gataaH || BG 8.15 ||
>
>maam - Me; upetya - achieving; punaH -again; janma - birth;
>duHkha-aalayam - place of miseries; ashaashvatam.h - temporary; na -
>never; aapnuvanti - attain; mahaa-aatmaanaH - the great souls;
>saMsiddhim - perfection; paramaam - ultimate; gataaH - having
>achieved.
>
>After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogiis in devotion, never
>return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because
>they have attained the highest perfection.
>
>Where did you get the idea that material world is eternal?
You know, I'm beginning to think that you are intentionally being
obnoxious.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>Do the jivas not come from Krishna, even though they are eternal?
>You may say that the jiva is not created, but do we not originate in
>Krishna? We are His eternal parts and parcels. You cannot claim to
>know the true nature of our origin. Krishna states In Bg.that no one
>knows His origin. Neither the demigods nor the great sages, including
>Narada Muni, know the origin of Krishna. This is clearly stated.
>
>So if the jivas don't know Krishna's origin, Who is of course His own
>origin, how do you think we will know our own origin? It's not
>possible. Therefore we have to take it from our authorities.
>
>My comments:
>
>Fine, so cite the authority which states that the Vedas are written by God.
I did. You want it again? Here it is.
ananta-mantra-kotisah sabda-brahmaika-pavakah
adi-vidvan veda-kartta vedatma sruti-sargarah
Note the words: veda-kartta vedatma sruti sargarah.
>I don't know of any card catalog listing that says, "Rig Veda, by Veda
>Vyaasa." Maybe I missed something.
I think you missed the whole philosophy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>Therefore, just as we cannot know our own origin, we cannot know the
>origin of the Vedas. For that we have to consult our authorities, who
>is Srila Prabhupada and the acaryas of our disciplic succession, and
>none of them have ever used the term, unauthored, about the Vedas.
>Why, then, should we?
>
>My comments:
>
>First of all, it is a mistake to think that because Srila Prabhupada did
>not say it, that other Vaishnavas are at fault for using the term. Other
>acharyas do say that the Vedas are unauthored.
But not from our sampradaya.
> Srila Prabhupada never
>claimed to speak on behalf of all sampradayas every time he proceeded to
>teach something.
Who ever said he claimed that?
> Don't make the mistake in thinking that Vaishnavism =
>ISKCON.
I'm not speaking about Vaishnavism in general, I'm speaking about
Vaishnavism according to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I don't think there
is anyone but ISKCON who properly represents the Gaudiya Vaishnava
philosophy in this day and age.
>Just because ISKCON devotees hold to a particular principle or
>belief, that is no guarantee that other Vaishnavas will agree.
Who ever claimed that? Obviously not all other Vaishnavas will agreee
to the doctrines of ISKCON. That doesn't mean ISKCON is wrong, though.
>Secondly, Srila Prabhupada only said that the Vedas have no human author.
>Nowhere did he say that they are authored by God.
He said that everything has its origin in God.
> On the other hand, other
>acharyas do specifically deny that they are authored by God.
No acarya in the line of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas deny that the Vedas
are authored by God.
> So there is no
>harm in describing them as such.
Why would you describe them as such? Why not describe them as being
authored by God?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>Then explain why the Vedas are not authored by God. Using the argument
>that something which is not created cannot be authored by God doesn't
>hold, since you really don't know the nature of the origin of all.
>
>My comments:
>
>The above makes absolutely no sense.
Maybe not to you. To me it makes a lot of sense. The point is that
since we cannot know the origin of the Vedas we have to take it from
the authorities. And all our acaryas, beginning with Krishna Himself
Who states that He is the source of everything, explain that Krishna
is the origin of all. Unlike you I'm not so puffed up that I think I
can understand the origin of the Vedas on the basis of my own limited
conceptions.
>If I don't know the nature of the origin of the Vedas, and consequently
>cannot say that they are unauthored, then how can you say that they are
>authored by God if you do not know the nature of the origin of the Vedas
>either?
>To solve this, we have to give the shaastric pramaana. So where is it
>stated that the Lord created or is author of the Vedas? Where?
aham sarvasya prabhavo..
and.. veda kartta vedatma sruti sargarah.
>To author something implies to create. To create something implies that it
>did not exist before. This is simple logic.
Logic according to you maybe. I wouldn't cite you as an authority on
logic. Neither would I demand that Krishna conform to my conception of
logic when He creates, maintains and destroys things.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>Then you say that there is something which God cannot do. Do you want
>to join Sri Manis club? He also claims that. He claims that according
>to logic God cannot change the essence of His nature. But that is of
>course another point of discussion.
>
>My comments:
>
>Mani happens to be right on the money:
And this you know because of..?
>avyaktaM vyaktim aapannaM manyante maam abuddhayaH |
>paraM bhaavam ajaananto mamaavyayam anuttamam.h || BG 7.24 ||
>
>Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the
>Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before
>and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowl-
>edge, they do not know my higher nature, which is imperishable and
>supreme.
>
>The Lord is always the Supreme Personality of Godhead who is purely
>spiritual: ishvaraH paramaH kR^iShNaH sach-chid-aananda vigraha/ Can the
>Lord ever NOT be sach-chid-aananda?
That's exactly what I told Mani. Still Krishna can change his essence,
because His spirtual energy is ever expanding.
> Not according to the above verse, which
>criticizes the idea that the Lord can be impersonal and then take on
>personality. The Lord's nature is always to be the Supreme Person, endowed
>with spiritual name, form, qualities, etc. Does the Lord ever change this
>nature? The answer is no.
What do you know?
>Is He limited because He cannot change His
>nature? The question is clearly absurd. By definition, the Lord is ALWAYS
>sach-chid-aananda, superior to matter, ignorance, the modes of material
>nature, etc.
That's what I told Mani when he asked me if God could create a stone
heavier than He could lift.
>To put it another way, if the Lord is always superior to matter, is He
>limited because He never comes under illusion?
Did I ever say that He was?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>>I hold, on the basis of numerous statements in the Upanishads and the
>>'Gita, that the Vedas do emanate from the Lord. I do not agree that they
>>are authored by the Lord.
>
>_You_ do not agree?? This question will not be resolved based on
>either your agreement or mine, nor Agrahya prabhu's. We have to confer
>with guru, sadhu, and sastra, and they don't call the Vedas
>
>My comments:
>
>So where is it stated that the Vedas are authored by God? Provide the
>pramaana.
ananta-mantra-kotisah sabda-brahmaika-pavakah
adi-vidvan veda-kartta vedatma sruti-sargarah
Note the words, veda-kartta and sruti sargarah. Do you know what sarga
means in Sanskrit? It means 'creation.'
>Jahnu writes:
>
>unauthored. It's not that we should just cook up new words to explain
>our philosophy, so that we can become great munis and differ with our
>predecessors.
>
>My comments:
>
>And yet, you just cooked up this idea that the Vedas are authored texts
>without a single reference to either guru or shaastra.
Did I? I think I have provided ample quotes to support the idea that
everything comes from God. You on the other hand have provided no
evidence to support your idea that there is something that does not
come from God.
>Jahnu writes:
>
>You have only asserted your own opinion.
>
>My comments:
>
>I'll take my opinions over your mental speculation any day.
Sure. A fool always thinks of himself as very learned and intelligent.
>Everything I
>have said so far is perfectly consistent with the previous acharyas and
>shaastra.
Really? Whom amongst our acaryas - the Gaudiya Vaishnavas - accept the
Vedas to be unauthored even by God? Which sastra are you speaking
about? Where is it stated that there is something which does not have
its origin in God?
> And they have the added benefit of making a certain degree of
>sense as compared to to what you write below:
>
>Jahnu writes:
>
>>If something is eternal, then it always existed at all times.
>
>Sure. Then it could have been authored by Krishna at all times, right?
>
>My comments:
>
>What does it mean to say that the Vedas are "authored by Krishna at all
>times?" This is just mental speculation; you have no proof. If the Vedas
>are eternal, then there is no reason to author them again.
As if you could conceive of eternal..
>In Anuccheda 15.2, Srila Jiva Gosvami states, "The reason the Puraanas are
>occasionally described as impermanent is that they are sometimes manifest
>and sometimes not." Here, he is trying to show that the Puranas are Vedas,
>in spite of the fact that they are not eternal like the Vedas. It is
>clearly implied that there is no necessity of "authoring the Vedas" over
>and over again, unlike the Puraanas, which have to be periodically
>remanifest for the benefit of the conditioned souls.
So now you, all of a sudden, has become the authority on what is the
clear purpose of Jiva Goswami. I suggest you read my compilation
'Origin of the Vedas.'
>Jahnu writes:
>
>>To create something implies that there was some point before which that
>>thing did not exist.
>
>Not if it is an eternal creation.
>
>My comments:
>
>An "eternal creation" is by definition an oxymoron.
And so? Even the conception of 'eternality' is an oxymoron according
to some.
>My comments: Because the Lord is eternal and unborn.
And because the Lord is eternal and unborn He cannot be the author of
the Vedas?? What's the logic behind that assumption?
>Jahnu writes:
>
> Is Krishna not the Supreme Who has multifarious unconceivable
>energies? parasya shaktir vividhaiva-shruyate sva bhaviki jnana bala
>kriya ca.
>
>My comments:
>
>The mere fact that He has multifarious inconceivable potencies is not
>justification for saying that He does things which are clearly not in His
>nature.
Are you saying that there is something which is not in Krishna's
nature? And how do you even know what is _clearly_ and what is not
in Krishna's nature. Have you all of a sudden become such a pure
devotee that you have direct access to the mind of Krishna?
Don't you think you should become initiated for starters before you
run off blabbering your mouth about what is in Krishna's nature and
what is not?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>>My comments: However, please note that this is not the same as saying that
>>the Lord is the author of the Vedas.
>
>What's the difference, please? And note how Srila Prabhupada never
>even mentions the word unauthored in his books.
>
>My comments:
>
>I have already discussed the difference in depth. It should be obvious by
>now.
You know, nothing of what you have suggested is obvious to me. Neither
have you discussed anything in dept or provided any authority for your
statements. You have simply been asserting your case on the basis of
some socalled logic.
>Please note that Srila Prabhupada never uses the word "authored" to
>describe the Vedas in his books.
No, he used the word origin. Please tell me how being the origin of
the Vedas is not the same as being the author of the Vedas. Do you
think you could do that?
>Jahnu writes:
>
>I claimed we should consult our authorities if we want to know the
>origin of the Vedas. And none of them uses the word, unauthored, to
>explain the origin of the Vedas. Rather it is everywhere explained
>
>My comments:
>
>None of them use the word "authored" either.
Well 'kartta veda' means 'author of the Vedas,' so it would seem that
you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Regards
Jahnu das
/Jahhnu
www.shamantaka.org/index.html
www.krsna.com
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
"Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to be."
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
(Krishna to Arjuna before the battle)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.29c alpha 4/28/97
Jahnu dasa
At 23:57 1997-04-28 -0400, you wrote:
>Jahnu dasa writes:
>
>causes. That Krishna is the author of the Vedas is clearly explained
>by Jiva Goswami in Tattva Sandarbha.
>
>
>My comments:
>
>Really? Well I have Tattva Sandarbha right here with me. Please show me
>where Jiva Gosvami *clearly* explains that Krishna is the "author" of the
>Vedas.
I can understand why you have conveniently refrained from responding to the
rest of my post.
Here is a transcription from a seminar by Satyanarayan on Tattva sandarbha
that I attended in Vrindavan some years ago. He says that the comments
and conclusions he offers are from Jiva Goswami's own commentary on Tattva
Sandarbha.
"And we want to know about transcendence, so the only possibility is to use
the process of Vedic knowledge. So therefore he says that these utterances
have no earthly origin. They are not laukika, they are not material. They
are transcendental. And in India all the theistic philosophers they accept
this: that the Vedas are not written by any human being, they are coming
from the Supreme Lord. Anadi nidhano nityavabhutshrishtha svayambhuva adau
vedamayi divya yatah sarva pravrtteyah. So these are considered as
anadi-nidhana, means 'beginningless and unending'. And in the Upanishads
they are called as the breath of the Lord.
The breath of the Lord means that just as naturally the breath is coming
from our nostrils, like that the Vedas come. Otherwise the reason...
question can be raised that if the Lord has made them, and He is a purusha,
because as we say, He is parama-purusha, so why we say that these Vedas are
a-paurusheya, not created by any purusha? So of course we can say 'not
created by any material purusha', but actually they are also not created by
the Lord, they are eternally existing. And just as even when a man sleeps,
he breathes, but he never takes the credit that 'I breath', (chuckles) or
'I am the doer of this breathing system', so in that way the Lord breathes
out the Vedas and we don't say they are created. So that is the sense of
saying.
Otherwise don't think they are just flying out of his nose, something like
that (laughs). It's something like figurative explanation. (an answer:) The
sense is that, ...but then we cannot say that He did not create, ultimately
He is the source of everything. He is the source of everything, but some
things are eternally existing. So this, sometimes it takes a little...
trouble, or it's a problem to understand this thing. That how is it that
something is eternal and still it has a source? Because eternal things
cannot have a source. Otherwise they'll become non-eternal. So we... we can
adjust it... (chuckling)-"
Regards
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV Automoderator v2.0.30b alpha 4/29/97