Krishna Vs Indra in the Rigveda (Contd. from Temples, Temples and Temples here)

[kiamzattu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

I will say, in view of the above, that let us not find with our older generations for whatever they believed; those beliefs suited them and they lived their lives peacefully with all those beliefs. But what was good for them may not be suitable for the present day world, and for the present generations. So, let us try and find out what is suitable for us today.

This is what I have been/trying to tell many people. They just wouldn't listen, because as you are probably aware Sangom Sir, our 'Sastras' are not time bound. It is for eternity. Our ancestors were so full of Wisdom that they devised the Sastras for people of all ages and for all times. Duh !

 

[kunjuppu]

This is what I have been/trying to tell many people. They just wouldn't listen, because as you are probably aware Sangom Sir, our 'Sastras' are not time bound. It is for eternity. Our ancestors were so full of Wisdom that they devised the Sastras for people of all ages and for all times. Duh !

kiam,

the way i understand sangom when he says, 'what was good for them may not be suitable for the present day world, and for the present generations. So, let us try and find out what is suitable for us today'

i understood sangom, as saying exactly the opposite - sastras were NOT for all ages and all times.

if that be so, we would be still either burning widows, or marrying them to the husband's brother, or shaving their heads, clothe them in white, feed them leftovers, banish them to the back of the house, treat them as bad omen when seen on the street etc - this to our mother, sister or daughter - i dont know whether i want to admire the 'wisdom of my ancestor' and consider this atrocity as timeless and fit for all ages.

.. and this is only the start of my litany of what would today be criminal acts. duh!

 

[kiamzattu]

Kunjuppu,

I was being sarcastic in my previous post. I'm with Sangom and I'm implying that 'Many others are not subscribing to his/our views'. For 'them' Sastras are not time bound. For me- Well if you had seen threads started by me, you will know (if you want)

 

[hariraghavendran]

With due respects to your grandfather, may I humbly submit that he belonged to a generation of brahmins who had a very different world view from what is common amongst the generality of Brahmins of today. They (the brahmins of old) believed that the vedas were revealed by the Supreme God to some ṛṣis who had supernatural powers to decipher, understand and express in vedic Sanskrit,
whatever was so revealed by the Supreme Power. Naturally, therefore, they were very sure that the vedas say are eternal truths and doubting or questioning the vedas is blasphemy of the worst order.
Today, however, we live in different times, different social set-up and
governmental system; even the notion of castes, untouchability, ritual purity or the notion of மடி as in Tamil are all on their way out and probably illegal also. Hence there will be questioning of many of the pronouncements contained in our scriptures. As an example which comes to my mind immediately, the śatapatha brāhmaṇa says that water comes out of heat; agnerāpaḥ| apbhyaḥ pṛthivī|
pṛthivyā oṣadhayaḥ |oṣadhībhyo:'nnaṃ| annād puruṣa:| thus goes the
Upanishad and the first statement echoes the brāhmaṇa. Now, the brāhmaṇa comes to this major discovery, in its own words because "when the body gets heated, it perspires and produces water. So, all water must be produced by the action of heat." When one finds such highly astounding arguments, one is likely to examine the various other such grandiose claims propounded in the said brāhmaṇa asalso our other scriptures, is it not? Because our ancient people up till your grandfather's times believed that "in satya yuga people were meditating on almighty god and were having the personal visualization of the almighty and were discovering the various forms of almighty on their own", and many did not even know enough of Sanskrit to analyze and question, nor did they have the education in modern science required for such doubting and questioning, hindu scriptures ruled their minds. But such a condition cannot be expected in future, and only propositions in our scriptures and beliefs of the old people which will be able to successfully pass the critical scrutiny of modern science will appeal to the younger generation, IMHO.

Dear Sangom Sir,
So you indirectly claim that vedas are not eternal and they are made by man. Then let us take a look into how historians measure the date of vedas.
The idea that the Vedas are eternal does not fit into the mental outlook of Western indologists. Their claims to impartiality and to conducting research in a scientific manner notwithstanding, they are not prepared to accord an elevated status to the Hindu texts. Many Hindu research scholars have also found themselves unable to
accept the view that the Vedas are eternal.
Modern historians have adopted chiefly two methods to determine the date of the Vedas: the first is based on the astronomical references in the scriptures and the second on the morphology of the language of the same. But have they, using either method, come to any definite conclusion? Each investigator has arrived at a different age. Tilak has assigned the date 6000 B. C to the Vedas. According to some others it is 3000 B. C or 1500 B. C.
There is no difference of opinion among historians about the dates of the scriptures of other religions. They are agreed that the Buddhist Tripitaka was written during the time of Asoka but that the teachings of the Buddha included in it belong to an earlier time. There is similar unanimity of view in that the New Testament is 2000 years old. And all are agreed that the Qur'an was composed 1, 300 years ago. In the case of Vedas alone have historians not arrived at a decisive date.
I mentioned that two methods were adopted in reckoning the age of the Vedas. There are references in these scriptures to the position of certain heavenly bodies. The date of the Vedas, fixed at 6000 B. C. or so, is based on an astronomical conjunction mentioned in them.
But is it right to say that such an astronomical conjuntion would not have occured earlier too? Conjunctions similar to the one on the basis of which the date of 6000 B. C. has been arrived at must have occured not only before the present creation, but even far far earlier. Which of these is to be taken as the one mentioned in the Vedas? The sages had a vision that could penetrate through the eons. So such calculations will not hold in the case of the Vedas which the great sages brought together with their trans-sensual powers of perception. We find thus that the internal astronomicl "evidence" found in the Vedas and made much of by modern researchers does not help in fixing their date.
The second method is linguistic. Here we have to consider not only the language but also the script. Brahmi is tha source of all the scripts in use today in most parts of the country. Devanagari and the Tamil scripts may seem totally unrelated, but the fact is otherwise. A study has been conducted on the changes the Brahmi script has undergone during all these centuries on the basis of the edicts found throughout the land. A chart made from the results of this study shows that the
scripts in use today in different parts of the country, though seemingly unrelated, were evolved from the original Brahmi. An amusing thought occurs to me that the scripts prevelent today are Brahmi letters with moustaches and horns. Something like a moustache affixes itself to the middle of Brahmi letters. The Devanagari (u and u) appear similarly formed. Many letters of the Tamil alpbabet look like Brahmi letters that have sprung horns. From the edicts and inscriptions we can find out with some precision the period taken for each alteration in the script. It is in this manner that the dates of some edicts have been determined.
The Vedas, however, have never been inscribed on stone anywhere. So there is no question of our fixing their date on the basis of any of the scripts. Other aspects of language have to be considered in this context. The morphology of words and the character of their sound keep changing with time. Many Tamil words belonging to the Sangam period have changed thus. It is a phenomenon common to all languages. An erosion takes place in the case of some sounds.
Sometimes their meaning also does not remain the same. Take the Tamil word " veguli": it means a "simpleton", but earlier it meant "anger" or " an angry man ". In the old days the Tamil "manda " did not mean "dead": a Tamil scholar told me that it meant "famous". Such instances are to be met with in Sanskrit also. We do not understand the Vedas the same way as later poetical works in Sanskrit. Compared to other languages such changes are not numerous in our own tongues. Even an Englishman cannot follow one line of Anglo-Saxon English (Old English) which is only 1, 000 years old. In the course of about 3000 years English has changed so much in America as to merit a name of its own, "American English".
The period over which a phoneme changes its character has been calculated. But the time taken for a change in the meaning of a word has not been determined with the same definiteness. Scholars have tried to fix the date of the Vedas by examining the character of the sound of their words. " Every two hundred years the sound of a word undergoes such and such a change, " observes one authority of linguistics. " A Vedic sound, in the form we know it today, is the result of a number of mutations. If it has undergone ten mutations, it means that the Vedas are 2, 000 years old. Or, if thirty, they are 30x 200 = 6, 000 years old, which would mean [according to this logic] that our scripture did not exist before 4000 B. C" We hear such views expressed frequently. One example would be enough to prove how wrong such a basis of calculation is to fix the date of the Vedas.
We have so many utensils at home. We use some of them more often than others. The bell-metal in which cook rice morning and evening has to be washed twice a day. So it wears faster. Supposse we have another vessel, quite a big one, an "anda" for instance. It is kept in the store room and not used except perhaps during a wedding or some other festive occasion. Since it is washed only at infrequent intervals it does not wear as fast as the bell-metal vessel which we perhaps bought as recently as last year. The anda must have come as part of
grandmother's dowry and must be very old. Even so, it does not show any sign of wear. Are we to infer that the bell-metal pot was bought before the anda? The dinner-plate and the rose water sprinkler came together as your daughter-in -law's dowry. In ten years, the plate has gone out of shape but the sprinkler retains its glitter and polish.
The same is the case with the sounds of words of everyday speech on one hand and the Vedic words on the other, the difference between them being similar to that between the two types of vessels mentioned above. Words in common daily use undergo erosion in many ways. Though the Vedas are chanted everyday special care is taken to preserve the original sound of their words. I shall tell you
later about the Vedangas, Siksa and Vyakarana and about how a system was devised by our forefathers to preserve the sound of each Vedic syllable from undergoing any mutation. The Vedic sounds are not subject ot erosion like the utensils in daily use or the words in common speech. They are like the anda which, though old, is well preserved.
Modern indologists have also put forward the view that the Rgveda is the oldest of the Vedas, that the Yajurveda, the Samaveda and the Atharvaveda came later ( in that order). They also believe that in each recension or sakha of a particular Veda, the Samhita is the oldest part, the Brahmana and Aranyaka being of later origin. They try to fix the date of these different texts on the basis of the differences in their language. Also they have carried out research into how certain words used in the Vedas are seen in a different form in the Ramayana, the
Mahabharata and the works of poets like Kalidasa.
The linguistic research conducted by these indologists will not yield true results because they ignore the basic differences that I have pointed out between the sound of the Vedas and that of other works. The slight changes perceived today in certain Vedic sounds, despite all the care taken to preserve them in the original form, could not have come about in 200 years but over some thousands of years.
If you realise that the "wear and tear" we speak of cannot apply to the Vedas but may be to other works or to spoken languages, you will agree that to fix the date of the Vedas, as modern indologists have tried to do, is not right.Hindi is only some centuries old. However, since it is spoken in a large area and contains Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian words, it has changed in a comparatively short period. Tamil, though spoken in a smaller region, has not changed so much. Even so you will not understand Kamban's Ramayana to the same extent as you will the songs of Tayumanavar. As for Jnanasambandhar's Tevaram itself you will
not understand it as easily as Kamban's Ramayana. And then there is the Thirumurugarrupadai which is more difficult than the Tevaram. So Tamil has also not remained the same all these centuries. Though Sanskrit was known all over India it was not a spoken language like Hindi or Tamil. It was a literary language and has not changed even to the extent Tamil has. As for the Vedas, they have been preserved with greater care than the poetical works and it is rarely that you see changes in them. So, according to linguistic experts, if it takes 1000 years for certain changes to occur in other languages, it should take 100, 000 years for the same in the Vedas.
Once again I reiterate that the age of vedas cannot be ascertained as it has been preserved in the oral form before it was divided by veda vyasa and it was written down recently.Let us take another example , there are secret mantras and tantras which has not been published in any books , but I know that. Suppose think that I decide to write
a book on that mantras and the book was published in the 21st century and the book was kept a secret until some guy in 30th century goes on to find the book and carbon dates the book he will find out that the book was written in 21 st century , does that mean that the particular mantra was created in 21st century. Clearly its no because that mantras have been practiced by many people before it was written down.
Then coming to ur quote " agnerāpaḥ| apbhyaḥ pṛthivī| pṛthivyā oṣadhayaḥ |oṣadhībhyo:'nnaṃ| annād puruṣa:| thus goes the Upanishad and the first statement echoes the brāhmaṇa. Now, the brāhmaṇa comes to this major discovery, in its own words because "when the body gets heated, it perspires and produces water. So, all water must be produced by the action of heat."
Since you are quoting that such a claim was made in the brahmana so may be some parts of vedas may be fallacious.
Personally I have not read shathapatha Brahmana and I am more into tantra and I would not comment based on a single line without knowing on which basis it is said. Even if u have correctly quoted then also there are so many quotes in vedas which describes itself as apourusheya and eternal.
If you just take the quote u have made earlier to prove the veda is not apourusheya and ignore the latter , it is like taking what is usefull to you and ignoring the rest. And moreover ur quote does not give any references that vedas are not apurusheya and are not eternal.
Moreover I want to point out another thing, each verse/word of Vedas have atleast 3 levels of meanings as stated in Skanda Purana
1. Agryadidevataparatvena
2. tadantargatavishnuparatvena
3. adhyatmaparatvena
trayoarthaha sarvavedeshu dasharthah sarvabharate
vishnon sahasranamapi nirantarasatarthakam
Vedas have at least three meanings, Mahabharata has atleast ten meanings and Vishnu Sashranama has at least 100 meanings for each word.
I can clearly make out that ur translation is just a superficial translation of the verse in shathapatha brahmana devoid of inner meanings( no offense here)
Let us take an ex of rigveda ur translation, translation of a foreigner and the translation of an acharya.
First ur quote:
agnim eeLe purOhitam yajnasya dEvam ritvijam
hOtAram ratnadhAtamam
I praise agni the dEvata in fire, who, in his Ahavaneeya form, resides in it (the fire) and bestows our desires, is generous, brings the (other) dEvas to the yagas (sacrifices), and as ritvik is adorned by jewels.
Then a foreigner's(Griffith in 1896) quote:
I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice,
The hotar, lavishest of wealth.
Then quote by sayana and Wilson:
I glorify Agni, the high priest of the sacrifice, the divine, the ministrant, who presents the oblation (to the gods), and is the possessor of great wealth. [Agni = purohita, the priest who superintends family rites; or, he is one of the sacred fires in which oblations are first (pura) offered (hita); deva: a god, the bright, shining, radiant; fr. div, to shine; or, one who abides in the sky or heaven (dyusha_na); or, liberal, donor (in the sense of giving); r.tvij = a ministering priest, he is also the hota_ (Aitareya Bra_hman.a 3.14), the priest who presents the oblation or who invokes or summons the deities to the ceremony; fr. hu, to sacrifice; or, fr. hve, to call; ratnadha_tama: lit. holder of jewels; ratna = wealth in general; figurately, reward of religious rites].
Then let us look at the quote of an acharya:
Agni shabdo ayamagra evābhipoojyatām
Agryatvam-agra-netrtvamattim-añgāganetrtām.
Aha tam staumy-ashesasya purvameva hitam prabhum.
Rtvin-niyāmakatvena yajñānam-rtvijam sadā.
Dyotanañd-vijayāt-kāntyā stutyā vyavahrter-api.
Gatyā ratyā-ca devākhyam hotr-samastham visesatah.
Agni-samasthena rupena yato agnir-hotr-devatā.
Indiriyāgnisu cārthānām yaddhotā hotr-nāmakah.
Ratidhārakottamatvātsa ratnadhātama iritah.
Agni Meaning 1)Agre evea abhipujyatvatvat agnih – The one who is worshipped first Sri Hari and Agni.
Agni Meaning 2)agre bhava uttamma – Agni also means superior, Sri Hari is superior to everyone, hence called Agni. Agni is superior to those he controls, but Sri Hari is superior to everyone.
Agni Meaning 3)agrya netrtva or pratham pravartakatva – First activator; Bhagwan Vishnu created the sentient and non-sentient creations and was the first activator. Similarly Agni is also the first activator in sentient and non-sentient under the direction of the super controller.
Agni Meaning 4)Attrtva – being the destroyer – Sri Hari destroyes the entire brahmanda at the end of the maha pralaya hence he is called Agni. Fire God Agni who is partaker of ghee (atta) in the sacrifice can also be called Attrtva and hence Agni
Agni Meaning 5)Anga neta and sharira pravartaka – Sri Hari activates all bodies hence he is called Agni, Agni by his presence also activates bodies hence he too is Agni
Agni Meaning 6)Aga-neta – Aga is that which cannot move on it’s own. Sri Hari is sarva tantra svatantra; he is completely independent. Hence this whole brahmanda “Aga” is completely dependent on Sri Hari hence Sri Hari is called Agni
Note: Fire God Agni has some of attributes but in a limited manner. Sri Hari has all these attributes infinitely; and infinite number of attributes. Hence all the mantras have Sri Hari as their mukhya artha.
The remaining words purohitam, yajñasya, devaṃ, ṛtvījam, hotāraṃ and ratnadhātamam all praise Sri Hari’s glory in the main.
Sri Hari is called purohitam as he is the “hita”-conductive to the world since time immemorial.
Sri Hari is called as deva (Effulgence,victory,shine,praiseworthiness,knowledge and bliss)
yagnasya rtvijam – Though Sri Hari is present in all the rtvik’s or brahmins performing sacrifice; it is in hotā that he is present in Agni form. It is this form that is especially praised by Agni Sukta.
So yagnasya rtvijam – mentions that Sri Hari is present in all the hotas and also in the specific form in Agni Sukta.
You argument holds no good if u go through a translation of an acharya
also ur krishna vs Indra collapses in very first verse of rigveda.Take a look at more rigveda verses where vishnu' superiority is clearly mentioned.
The divine Vishnu, the best of the doers of good deeds, who came to the pious instituter of rite (Indra), to assist (at its celebration), knowing (the desires of the worshiper), and present at the three connected period (of worship), shows favor to the Arya, and admits the author of the ceremony to a share of the sacrifice. (Rigveda 1:156:5)
"Agnir vai devānām avamo Vishnu paramas, tadantarena sarvā anyā devatā" declares that Agni is the lowest god and Vishnu is the greatest God.
In the Brahmanas, the supremacy of Lord Vishnu is clearly announced. Here He is repeatedly addressed as "Yajnapati" or the one whom all the sacrifices are meant to please. Even if the sacrifices are offered to the demigods, Lord Vishnu is the one who accepts the sacrifice and allots the respective fruits to the performer.There is mention of one such incident where a demonic person performs a sacrifice by abducting the rishis (Sanskrit name for sages who constantly meditate by chanting God's name) forcefully. The sacrifice was meant to bring about the destruction of Indra. But the rishis,who used to worship Indra as a demigod were intelligent enough to alter a single pronunciation of the ved-mantra. The purpose of the entire sacrifice was reversed. When the fruit of the sacrifice was given, when the demon was on the verge of dying, he clearly calls out to lord Vishnu,whom he addresses as Supreme Godhead and "the father of all living entities including himself".

 

[hariraghavendran]

""Statements like "But in kali yuga as the power and concentration of the people have decreased people are given the info of all forms of almighty , its like a readymade food.
You just have to meditate on a certain form ( which is dhyana shloka given before every mantra japa) to discover him." etc., can at best be beliefs only, because we have no proof till now about the yuga cycles, whether meditating on a form of deity as per the dhyānaśloka will make him reveal his form to us, etc.""
What can I say when one does not give due consideration and practice as per the scriptures say but just throw them away as superstitious believes just bcoz they do not satisfy their intellectual believes.
tanothi vipulaanarthaan tatvamantra samanvithan
traanam cha kuruthe yesmaath tantra mithyabhidheeyate
The shasthra which spreads the right knowledge and the knowledge of mantras and which takes the sadhaka to siddhi and which protects him in turbulent times , that shasthra is known as tantra shasthra.
In vishnu samhitha there is another exciting para on tantra shasthra,
sarveerthaa yena tanyanthe traayanthe cha bhayaajjanaaha
eti tantrasya tantratvam tantrajnaa parichakshase
A shashtra which fulfills every desires of a person and a shastra which protects the sadhaka from all evils is tantra shaasthra.
The uniqueness of tantra shasthra lies in that the effect of it can be seen immediately unlike vedanthas and puranas which we cannot determine if it is true or false(I mean its out of our hand) . But tantra shasthra specifies the results of a practice and blesses the sadhaka with the desired results.
But the people of India who should be proud of having a science like tantra shasthra is treating that as a superstitious practice and have almost forgotten it completely.
Read the lines of westerner Sir John Woodroff who dedicated his life to the practice of tantra shastra on Indians who call tantra a superstitious practice.
"They ( the english educated people) were, and some of them still are, the Manasputras of the English. For them what was the English and Western was the mode."
"Some of them care nothing about their Shastra . Others do not understand it."
"The Indian who has lost his Indian soul must regain it if he would retain that independence in his thought and in the ordering of his life which is the mark of a man that is of one who seeks Swarajya siddhi."
"Again the cause of this ignorance is the fact that the tantra shastra is a sadhana shastra.The greater part of which only becomes intelligible only by sadhana."
"A large number of these writers who talk in this strain have never had a tantra in their hands and such Orientalists as have read some portions of these scriptures have not generally understood them. Otherwise they would not have found them to be so "meaningless". They may be bad or they may be good but they have a meaning.Men are not such fools to believe what is meaningless"
The above lines are worth a read who ignore our scriptures and practices as superstitions and they throw it away without giving them due consideration.

 

[hariraghavendran]

""It is rather more possible that people at one time imagined GOD according to their fancies and imaginations and worshipped these different deities. After the introduction of advaita philosophy all these various deities were stated to be forms of the Brahman (which is the only reality and hence the Supreme Godhead
according to advaita) — and this is what is possibly hagiographed as ṣaṇmatasthāpanam by Sankara — and from then onwards the "Almighty taking up the form in which he is worshipped" became the fashionable notion IMO.""


In the Ved, there is only one God but has so many names according to His qualities. For example His name is OM which means the God is the savior of all. His name is Soorya (Sun) ie, Sun has light but Sun takes light from God because God has the supreme and Divine light of His own. His name is Chandramaa (Moon). Moon gives peace, calm, cold and charming light so the name of God is also Chandrama (Moon) because God gives peace, calm etc., to those who worship him. Shiv means Kalyaan ie, happiness, welfare, good fortune and benediction etc, ie, He who does welfare to human beings, he is Shiv and He is only one Almighty God said above. Vishnu means He who is everywhere and He is only one Almighty God. We all do not worship all the 33 gods or goddesses as briefed above.
Rig Ved Mantra 1.164.46 says," Ekam Sadaroop Viprah Bahudhaa Vadanti" ie, Ekam Sattwam means truth is one ie, God is one but Viprah = Rishi, Muni who are learned of Ved; Bahudhaa Vadanti = utter so many names of God mentioned in Ved like Agnim Yamam Matrishwanam Aahuhu = the names of God are Agni, Yam, Maatrishwa and Aahuhu means "says".
And moreover the vedas which are present now is just 6% of what was present in krita yuga.
""Because our ancient people up till your grandfather's times believed that "in satya yuga people were meditating on almighty god and were having the personal visualization of the almighty and were discovering the various forms of almighty on their own", and many did not even know enough of Sanskrit to analyze and question, nor did they have the education in modern science required for such doubting and questioning, hindu scriptures ruled their minds. But such a condition cannot be expected in future, and only propositions in our scriptures and beliefs of the old people which will be able to successfully pass the critical scrutiny of modern science will appeal to the younger generation, IMHO.""
Do you really think Indra vs Krishna debate never existed in ancient times, saivaites and vaishnavas have held numerous debates on this and the vaishnava acharyas have proven the superiority of vishnu over Indra.And coming to ur claim that people in the past did not know enough of sanskrit to analyze like us then I believe in contradiction . Our forefathers had more knowledge of sanskrit than us.
Frankly speaking there is no substantial proof (all are in the form of may be it may have happened like this or that) to say that vedas are not apourusheya and I have seen many people getting siddhis by the practice of the mantras , guess what I have experienced myself and had success in tantra.
And moreover I am not a person to believe hypocritically in vedas ( I was an athiest myself a long back) its just that experience in tantra and the effects made me to believe in it.

 

[hariraghavendran]

Dear Sangom Sir,
I am not going to argue with anyone from now on and in internet I do not think discussing about absolute truth is of any worth only a practice under a competent guru will make one realize the truth and when one realizes the truth he will come to know the goodartha of vedic verses.
The real problem actually is my hands are in pain after posting these posts and still its not even a iota in defending vedas. Our ancestors have debated all these atheism (charvaka), physics( sankhya) etc and have come victorious.
Lastly I believe everyone is free to believe whatever they want and I am blissfully immersed in mantra japa and tantra.
All mistakes in this post are mine and anything which is correct is due to the grace of Shri Guru and the almighty Lord .

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir,
I am not going to argue with anyone from now on and in internet I do not think discussing about absolute truth is of any worth only a practice under a competent guru will make one realize the truth and when one realizes the truth he will come to know the goodartha of vedic verses.
The real problem actually is my hands are in pain after posting these posts and still its not even a iota in defending vedas. Our ancestors have debated all these atheism (charvaka), physics( sankhya) etc and have come victorious.
Lastly I believe everyone is free to believe whatever they want and I am blissfully immersed in mantra japa and tantra.
All mistakes in this post are mine and anything which is correct is due to the grace of Shri Guru and the almighty Lord .

Shri Hariraghavendran,

It is entirely up to you to "defend" vedas in whatever way you like but, as I wrote in my earlier post, the world changes and the rate of change has probably been very fast in the last 7 or 8 decades since WWII. People's minds, their orientation, life style and ever so many aspects have changed irreversibly during this period as well.

Any astronomical phenomenon is cyclic to some extent and in my opinion the very fact that our ṛṣis who are credited with full and inerrant knowledge of all time - past, present and future - failed to foresee the changes alluded to above and uttered all those apauruṣeya vedas for eternity, itself shows that they lacked foresight. True that the vedic verses must have been in circulation before they were compiled into the four known vedas, as of today. But simply because you do not admit the linguistic estimates of the age of the vedas on the basis of your simile of வெங்கலப்பானை and அண்டா, and postulate that the astronomical observations referred to in the vedas can be of those which occurred even before the present creation is too fantastic and unacceptable even perhaps according to the cycle of Kalpas in our Puranas !

You, in your cultic faith of Gurus, vedas, scriptures, will find it impossible to move even a nanomillimeter from believing all and everything the scriptures are deemed to proclaim as coming through the mouths of your learned Acharya, whom you have quoted extensively. But to a modern intellect, the Acharya will easily be seen as trying to postulate that Sri Hari is the Supreme-most lord (no prizes therefore for guessing who this Acharya is and the source of these) when the vedas themselves do not proclaim so. This Acharya says, with whatever cultic authority he must have had, among his gullible followers, that "Look here, I say now Sri Hari is our highest God and you should believe this; if anyone doubts this, he will be cast into boiling oil for eternity after his death, in the next world, and so on."

Today nobody will be so absolutely gullible to believe such things. Hence, if any interpretation as to pass the test of public acceptance, approval and trust, it has to conform to rational and logical rules. Now I will ask one simple question: where is it said in the vedas that Sri Hari is The one who is worshipped first, is superior to everyone, created the sentient and non-sentient creations and was the first activator, destroyes the entire brahmanda at the end of the maha pralaya, activates all bodies, and so on and so forth? To me this looks very much like the youngsters today forming fanclubs for their favourite cinema stars, cricket players, etc., and nothing more. It is true that our forefathers believed in all these as most sacrosanct items of life, but perhaps your grandchildren of today will question these as they grow up. And the more conservative and hidebound you continue, their sense of rebellion will also become more powerful. (I do not know your age, however; if you are yourself a youth, you may find this non-conformist, questioning tendency in your children themselves.)

I also have difficulty in typing with two fingers. But kindly go through Black Yajurveda, the chapters pertaining to Rajasuya especially and the veda itself says in each paragraph, the ritual to be done, the particular priest (out of the 16 or so specified) who is authorized to perform it and immediately the dakṣiṇā (fee) he is entitled to in cash and kind; if my memory is right the cash part is stated as niṣka, a coinage of known historical times unless some great Acharya has said somewhere that it refers to something which existed even before the present creation

The greatest good fortune of the Acharyas and Gurus has been the utter lack of knowledge of our scriptures among their followers, including even the highest caste, and even when the Brahmin followers do recite the vedas and mantras by rote, they are blissfully unaware of their meanings except what the Acharya tells them what those mantras mean; your agniṃ īḷe is a typical example.

You have cited the example of secret mantras to be written by you and to be uncovered thousand years from now, and all that. But will anyone be able to say that these mantras also were in (secret) circulation even prior to this creation, or at least right from the beginning of this caturyuga? I doubt because this will prove that while somethings pass on from creation to creation, the rest get destroyed in the mahā praḷaya or caturyuga-end; so somethings are above even Sri Hari's power as destroyer!

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dr.P.V.Varthak a Scholar has written a number of Books in Marathi & English.
Persons interested to know the date of Ramayana & MahaBharata may open the website"www.drpvvartak.com" and order for the books
they need.
Shri.Yamaka! Attention Please.

 

[balavas]

Dear Shri Sangomji
Subject: The old Hindu Grantha on Astronomy- 'Surya Siddhantha'
Ref: My note on the 14th August and your subsequent query on this book
As for your request for the URL for the Surya Siddhantha Book you may get this as an ebook form from Google books and you may try this web site: http//books.google.com


In the preamble to this book Google has this to say::
This digital book was preserved long enough for generations on the library before it was scanned by Google. It has survived long enough for the copyrights to expire and is now in the public domain. Public domain books belong to the public. These books are our gateways to the past representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge.Google wants these books to be used for personal use only.


There are other sites which deal with ancient books , Out of these Project Gutenberg, archives.com which is connected with the American Universities, University of Adelaide library etc. are worth mentioning. The Saraswathi Mahal library also might contain valuable resources on this subject.
yours sincerely
balavas