Teaching Morals Of Ramayana To Kids

[gnrao]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

it is very easy. I can prepare small questions and answers.
Example. Who was Dasaratha? the king of Ayodhya.
How many wives did he have? three
Who were they? Kowsalya,Kaikeyi,Sumitra
Who was his preceptor? Sage Vasista
what was his only regret? He had no son.

 

[gnrao]

it is one of the Epics. it is better to know more about Ramayana.
In ones life it is a must especially to read Ramayana written in English by Sri.Rajagopalachari.
It is available with Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
Benefit.1. you will learn how to write simple sentences.
2. you will learn the story of Ramayana.
3. If you read Sundarakandam sincerely you can attain your legal want.
4. if a question is asked in any competition , you can win points or cash or gold coin.
5. you can improve your vocabulary in a very easy way.
6.The book is a pocket book,can be carried anywhere and read at ease.
7.Read one para,one page a day.
8.See and realize the result.
9.You will really gain more.
10. Have faith In Ram and in His name repeat as many times as you can.You will really gain alot.

 

[renuka]

Apaurusheya had been interpreted in various ways by many authors.

I remember reading somewhere that the word Purusha denotes God as God is the Purusha Principle and the rest of creation is the Prakirti Principle.

Paurusheya means from the lineage of God(एय्प्रत्ययःतद्धितान्ताः)
Therefore Apaurusheya means NOT from the lineage of God which is obviously MAN!

Another meaning I have read is Purusha can also mean Man and Apaurusheya means not from ONE SINGLE MAN which translates as nothing being authored by just one person and that means Vedas is a combined effort of compilation of various authors.

I feel it is of no use even wondering if Vedas is direct from God or written by man as his understanding grew ..what is more important is the message in the Vedas.

So either we know it or we don't! Isn't that what knowledge is all about?
After all Vedas is from the root word Vid which means to know.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Prasad,

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

This in itself is veda. When will it end or where is its end?

 

[zebra16]

I have also no case that Vaalmeeki copied anything from any Greek books. Simply put, this first hindu epic was inspired by the epic poetry genre of the Greeks, imho.

Dear Sri Sangom,

Although u have given the high lighted portion of your message as your opinion or point of view, I suppose your mind working on rational thinking would not have accepted the assumption without some base.

So please give the underlying reason for assuming that Ramayana was inspired by the epic poetry of genre of the Greeks. and why should it be of greek genre, not of some other genre or culture.

Regards

 

[suraju06]

The point that arose in this thread was that I held the view (Post #62) as under :—
"The OP of this thread and the second post from Smt. Renuka clearly bring out the manner in which the present generation of kids (at least some of them) look at the Ramayana story. Therefore, it may so happen that our future generation/s may not be satisfied with the overriding explanation that Raamaayana is "the story of how God came to earth as an avatar and lived here" and therefore no probing questions should be put about its contents."
Shri suraju06 contested this and the topic changed to whether our vedas (scriptures) are "apaurusheya" (not authored by humans but divine) or not. I hold the view that even our oldest scripture viz., the rigveda is of human origin. In between suraju took the stand that though he believed in the apaurusheyatva, he did not consider that some superior God sitting high above gave it to our people. I presented evidence from our own scriptures to show that really our scriptures themselves say so (God gifting vedas to Brahma, His first creation). The discussion has now stopped because it is not possible to deny the High God gifting vedas, standing within the four walls of our scriptures.

Dear Sangom Sir,

I do not understand why you should record such inexactitudes. Now once again I have to take you back through all that conversation. Well, let me do that briefly so that members here get the correct picture:

You said this in your post #82:

The apaurusheyatva of the vedas is usually insisted (particularly by Vaishnavites) based on their belief that the Supreme Lord created Brahma first and then gifted him with the vedas.

|| yo brahmANam vidadhAti poorvam yovai vedAnsca prahiNoti tasmai || "He, who created Brahma in the past, and who gifted him with the Vedas ...".
Hence it cannot be said that a superior God was not in the picture. Again, BG 15.15 states emphatically —
vedaisca sarvaih aham eva vedyo |
vedAntakrt vedavit eva ca aham ||
("All the Vedas speak about me and I am the ONLY (eva) one who knows all the Vedas.")

And I replied in post #97 as:

This goes only to confirm my position. That God always existed and the vedas also existed similarly. God did not hold vedas within himself as something concealed to be revealed later to someone. Vedas were there and when Brahma came on the scene God just gave the vedas to him. As you have said it was a gift to Brahma. It is not said anywhere in the scriptures that vedas sprang out of by God or anyone else. So the vedas are apaurusheya indeed. So “yo brahmANam……..”and “vedaisca sarvaih……” are perfectly in tune with the apaurusheyatvam of vedas and there is no contradiction whatsoever. Vedas are knowledge and so they speak about the only permanent truth-the God. The superior God was in the picture but only as a facilitator.

You had further said:

It cannot also be argued, standing within the boundaries of scriptures, that "vedas are all knowledge pure unaffected by time." because, we have the ChAndogya Upanishad statement —

||sadeva soma idam-agra aaseet ekameva adviteeyam || ...
= only "sat" existed in the beginning, alone and without a second.
So, saying that Vedas are unaffected by time is tantamount to blasphemy, imho, for any person who stridently champions the cause of the scriptures.

This was quoted by me and replied to in post #97 as:

I am sure you will agree that it is possible to understand the eternity of knowledge about Reality in a scheme of philosophy in which the governing principle of the universe is held to be a supreme consciousness. Omniscience is there at the heart of existence and hence the knowledge of Reality is there from eternity. That is why I said in my earlier (scholarly!!) post that the linguistic embodiment is also to be taken as eternal. Fluctuation in self-expression is a mark of finite intelligence. I repeat vedas constitute eternal knowledge as embodied in an eternal form. All spiritual apprehension is a revelation or communication. The secondary arguments that support this position are:
There is an unbroken continuity of vedic tradition and there is no memory of, or reference to, its author or authors any where

Also please also refer to your post #98 and my reply to it by post #103. After this it has become a free for all with Sankar Sarma, Tks,Prasad and yourself all conversing from different entrenched positions. As far as I understand I have clearly stated my position and has also shown where your position needs fresh inputs. Please perceive.

Cheers.

 

[zebra16]

Dear Sri Sangom,

Much of the material contained in the vedas is just very very ordinary and mundane. But the brahmins very intelligently labeled the vedas as "apaurusheya" and this gave them two benefits. One, when opposition in the form of Buddhism, Jainism, etc., raised their head against the vedic practices, the vedic brahmins could keep their adherents with them because a scripture so sacrosanct could not be thrown away for fear of God's wrath falling upon those who deserted.

You have quoted the "ubiquitous" brahmins and bracketed so many brahmins and probably others belonging to different schools of thought like the vaisheshikas, logicians, poorva meemakas in the category.

Although your POV appears to be rational at first sight, it does not seem to be so if one considers that the poorva meemsakas (PMs) were the principal adversaries of jainas and buddhists.

Yoir statement that the PMs introduced the fear of wrath of God to subdue their adherents to toe the PM line, is self contradictory, given the stated position of the PMs, that there is no "Ishvara".

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom,

I have also no case that Vaalmeeki copied anything from any Greek books. Simply put, this first hindu epic was inspired by the epic poetry genre of the Greeks, imho.

Although u have given the high lighted portion of your message as your opinion or point of view, I suppose your mind working on rational thinking would not have accepted the assumption without some base.

So please give the underlying reason for assuming that Ramayana was inspired by the epic poetry of genre of the Greeks. and why should it be of greek genre, not of some other genre or culture.

Regards

Dear Shri Narayanan,

The grounds on which I hold that Vaalmeeki's Ramayana (VR) might have been inspired by the Greek epivs are as under :-

1. This VR is also called as "aadikaavya" in Sanskrit. Mahabharata, though of significantly larger volume, does not get this credit. And this epithet for VR seems to be accepted by all. (At least I have not come across a criticism.) Hence VR was the first attempt to write in complete poetry form.

Earlier works like braahmanas were more in prose form or a mixture of slokas/mantras interspersed with prose. Those also are equally good works but it is obvious that nobody thought about writing a full work (tome) all in poetry.

2. India did have, even in the opinion of the conservative lobby, some contacts (cultural, trade, etc.,) with other countries/nations and often we hear of all our findings in pure mathematics, astronomy, etc., having been taken away by Persians, Arabs and so on. But Alexander's invasion, his sending representative to the Magadhan court, etc., and the Besnagar Pillar referring to Vaasudeva is evidence to the fact that Heliodorus followed the hindu (Bhaagavata) cult. There is, therefore, room to assume that there must have been sufficient cultural interaction between the greco-bactrians and our aaryaavarta residents. Hence, it is not unlikely that the existence of voluminous poetic works in Greek literature (Iliad and Odyssey specially, as oral traditions which were made into canonical texts during the Hellenistic period, probably.)

Hence my view, please. In the absence of such an input, VR could have been a work very much like the śatapathabrāhmaṇa.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom,

Much of the material contained in the vedas is just very very ordinary and mundane. But the brahmins very intelligently labeled the vedas as "apaurusheya" and this gave them two benefits. One, when opposition in the form of Buddhism, Jainism, etc., raised their head against the vedic practices, the vedic brahmins could keep their adherents with them because a scripture so sacrosanct could not be thrown away for fear of God's wrath falling upon those who deserted.

You have quoted the "ubiquitous" brahmins and bracketed so many brahmins and probably others belonging to different schools of thought like the vaisheshikas, logicians, poorva meemakas in the category.

Dear Shri Narayanan,

Who, in your opinion, created the legend/myth that Vedas were not of human authorship and that these are "apaurusheya"?

Although your POV appears to be rational at first sight, it does not seem to be so if one considers that the poorva meemsakas (PMs) were the principal adversaries of jainas and buddhists.

I am sorry I don't understand the relevance of the statement.

Yoir statement that the PMs introduced the fear of wrath of God to subdue their adherents to toe the PM line, is self contradictory, given the stated position of the PMs, that there is no "Ishvara".

I think this impression is erroneous. Though PM might not have visualized an Ishwara in the same way as Advaita or Visishtadvaita has done, PM had both theistic and atheistic characteristics. Sankara who possibly made the first great step in giving a concrete shape to the Gaudapaada Kaarikaa and the Baadaraayana
's Saareeraka Meemaamsa Sutras had to enter into disputes with the well-known PM authorities like Mandana Misra, Kumarila Bhatta, etc.

"In Uttara-Mīmāṃsā or Vedānta (4.4.5-7), Bāḍarāyaṇa cites Jaimini as saying (ब्राह्मेण जैमिनिरूपन्यासादिभ्यः) "(The mukta Puruṣa is united with the Brahman) as if it were like the Brahman, because descriptions (in Śruti etc) prove so". In Vedānta (1.2.28), Bāḍarāyaṇa cites Jaimini as saying that "There is no contradiction in taking Vaishvānara as the supreme Brahman".
In 1.2.31, Jaimini is again quoted by Bāḍarāyana as saying that the nirguna (attribute-less) Brahman can manifest itself as having a form.
In 4.3.12, Bādarāyana again cites Jaimini as saying that the mukta Purusha attains Brahman.
In Pūrva Mīmāṃsā too, Jaimini emphasises the importance of faith in and attachment to the Omnipotent Supreme Being Whom Jaimini calls "The Omnipotent Pradhaana" (The Main):
Pūrva Mīmāṃsā 6.3.1: "sarvaśaktau pravṛttiḥ syāt tathābhūtopadeśāt" (सर्वशक्तौ प्रवृत्तिः स्यात् तथाभूतोपदेशात्). The term upadeśa here means instructions of the śāstras as taught. We should tend towards the omnipotent supreme being. In the context of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā 6.3.1 shown above, next two sutras becomes significant, in which this Omnipotent Being is termed as "pradhāna", and keeping away from Him is said to be a "doṣa", hence all beings are asked to get related ("abhisambandhāt" in tadakarmaṇi ca doṣas tasmāt tato viśeṣaḥ syāt pradhānenābhisambandhāt; Jaimini 6, 3.3) to the "Omnipotent Main Being" (api vāpy ekadeśe syāt pradhāne hy arthanirvṛttir guṇamātram itarat tadarthatvāt; Jaimini 6, 3.2). Karma-Mīmāṃsā supports the Vedas, and Rgveda says that one Truth is variously named by the sages. It is irrelevant whether we call Him as Pradhāna or Brahman or Vaishvānara or Shiva or God." (Mim)

 

[sarang]

1. Vedas are apauresheya and were given to Brahma in the beginning or whenever he lost them. All the principal acharyas (sankara, ramanuja, madhva) have accepted this. Of course, many old and new acharyas from buddha onwards to modern indologists do not accept this and try to wean believers; they have not been successful so far.
2. Traditionally vedas were learnt by all varnas though only the brahmins reserved the right to teach and officiate in yagnas. Even mlechchas (english) have learnt from the brahmins and translated the words without understanding the spirit. Now all can read, learn the material available in the internet in translation to understand or wet their appetite. Badmouthing will not achieve anything as they will fall by the wayside as in the past.
3. Vedas is still taught in hundreds of patasalas in the traditional way; by God's grace this tradition will continue to flourish.
4. Rama is believed to be an avatar of Vishnu; lakhs of Ram temples all over India bear witness to the divinity of Rama and the expanding faith in his avatar. Visit any Ram temple for enlightenment.
5. Ramayana has hundreds of slokas on dharma, behaviour and right action. These must be taught to kids; seemingly controversial situations and actions are for the jnanis to discuss and explore. Perhaps what Srisri ravishankar said to zakir naik may be relevant.
6. Ramayana is a treasure house of knowledge and wisdom; kids pick up the basics from TV; the parents, teachers and elders must supplement by exposure to original slokas and right translations.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir,

I do not understand why you should record such inexactitudes. Now once again I have to take you back through all that conversation. Well, let me do that briefly so that members here get the correct picture:

Dear Shri raju,

As you said earlier, I don't want to batter the batter again and again. Now that you have spelt our your side, let the readers decide.

This was quoted by me and replied to in post #97 as:

I am sure you will agree that it is possible to understand the eternity of knowledge about Reality in a scheme of philosophy in which the governing principle of the universe is held to be a supreme consciousness. Omniscience is there at the heart of existence and hence the knowledge of Reality is there from eternity. That is why I said in my earlier (scholarly!!) post that the linguistic embodiment is also to be taken as eternal. Fluctuation in self-expression is a mark of finite intelligence. I repeat vedas constitute eternal knowledge as embodied in an eternal form. All spiritual apprehension is a revelation or communication. The secondary arguments that support this position are: There is an unbroken continuity of vedic tradition and there is no memory of, or reference to, its author or authors any where

"to know" requires a knower as well as what is it that is known. Simply saying "Rama knows" without any context, will be confusing, imo; but if it is said "Rama knows music", "Rama knows palmistry", etc., then it will make sense. Here, we have "a supreme consciousness" which is the governing principle of the universe. You then say "Omniscience is there at the heart of existence and hence the knowledge of Reality is there from eternity." Now omniscience means "infinite knowledge" and hence it will require a knower and what that knowledge is about. Even if it is taken that all possible types of knowledge is taken as the answer to the second point, we have to specify the knower. This had not been done and by that time tks had already come in with his arguments. So, I let this slip out.

Now that you have brought this again, let me quote from Matsya Purana, the following :

विष्णोर्मत्स्यावतारे सकल वसुमतीमण्डलं व्यश्नुवाना-
स्तस्यास्योदीरितानां ध्वनिरपहरतादश्रियं वः श्रुतीनाम् ॥ १

viṣṇormatsyāvatāre sakala vasumatīmaṇḍalaṃ vyaśnuvānā-
stasyāsyodīritānāṃ dhvanirapaharatādaśriyaṃ vaḥ śrutīnām || 1

(This says dhvani: apaharatād aśriyaṃ vaḥ śrutīnām, or, the śrutīs (vedas - please note the plural; so this event happened after there was more than one veda signifying the eternal single knowledge) from which the sound (dhvani had been stolen (apaharatād), as a result of which they had become aśriyaṃ or unholy. The story is that vishnu in the form of fish avataara, retrieved the vedas from the nether world where hiranyaaksha, the daanava had hid them. Strangely however the above first sloka is not borne out in the body of the Matsya Purana wherein the reference is given to Koorma avataara for the retrieval of the stolen vedas. Stranger is the fact that, to the best of my ability, I don't find any mention of this in Koorma Purana which deals with lifting of the Manthara mountain when it sank during the churning of the ocean of milk!

So, we find that even at the time of Matsyaavataara, more than one śruti.

Now we come to the very famous puruṣa sūktaṃ. It says —

तस्माद्यज्ञात्सर्वहुतः ऋच: सामानि जज्ञिरे ।
छन्दांसि जज्ञिरे तस्माद्यजुस्तस्मादजायत ॥

tasmādyajñātsarvahutaḥ ṛca: sāmāni jajñire |
chandāṃsi jajñire tasmādyajustasmādajāyata ||

I hope there will be no brahmin worth his salt who does not know the meaning of puruṣa sūktaṃ. This ṛk says that the three vedas ṛk, saaman and yajus were born (jajñire) from 'that yajña', the puruṣa sacrifice. Hence, on the authority of the puruṣa sūkta, we can safely conclude that there was no single veda (eternal knowledge) but three different vedas, the ṛk, saaman and yajus and all the three were "born" as a result of the said sacrifice; so these vedas did not exist before that.

Who all did this sacrifice? तॆन देवा अयजन्त साध्या ऋषयश्चये (tena devā ayajanta sādhyā ṛṣayaścaye). The devās, sādhyās and the ṛṣis. Hence, it may not be fallacious to say that the ṛṣis were the producers/manufacturers/authors/composers of the three vedas.

Again, the famous ṛk —

इमं मे गंगे यमुने सरस्वति सुतुद्रिस्तोमँ सचतापरुष्णिया ।
असिक्निया मरुद्वृढे वितस्तयार्जिकिये शृणुह्या सुशोमया ॥ १० - ७५-०५

imaṃ me gaṃge yamune sarasvati sutudristomam̐ sacatāparuṣṇiyā |
asikniyā marudvṛḍhe vitastayārjikiye śṛṇuhyā suśomayā || 10 - 75-05

This lists all the main North-Indian rivers (excluding the Brahmaputra) but does not include any of the south-indian rivers. Are we to believe that the eternal knowledge which existed side by side with the Parabrahman (the governing principle of the universe) did not even know beyond the small area of North India so that at least all the major rivers of India could be listed out?

Now the question is how can we say that the vedas represent eternal knowledge and are apaurusheya? I leave it to you to decide.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Prasad,



This in itself is veda. When will it end or where is its end?

Raju sir,
The explanation of infinity is in Mathematics books. That does not make mathematics books devine. All I am saying that we rediscover may it be veda or science the eternal knowledge. The re-discoverers are not devine.

If the saptarishis gave us Vedas, they were great leaders, but they were not Brahma.

Hinduism Founder : Saptarshis are the Founders of Hinduism | 19,000 Years of World History

Founder of Hinduism is an institution of sages called Saptarshis. Just as we have Pope for Christianity today, Hinduism, from the beginning, had an institution of seven sages who were the patriarchs of the Vedic religion.


They very strictly guarded the Vedic body of knowledge, and the copy of the Vedas available to them was considered to be the final copy. They were considered as God’s manifestation on earth, and their word was the final authority in religious matters.


Any changes to the Vedas were needed to be approved by this elite group of sages. If the reasons were justified, they approved the changes and incorporated them into the Vedas. Otherwise, they rejected it and kept the Vedas intact without any contamination. From what appears, they were extremely strict about changes to the Vedas. Even to this day of Hinduism, a word in Veda is normally considered as the final authority to the literal T. And this faith in Vedas was built upon a tradition where the Vedas were very strictly and jealously guarded from any changes whatsoever, unless the change really justified it. Some super human justification was required to have them changed. Any changes, to the extent possible, were always added as appendages rather than their being incorporated into the Vedas. So we have Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads as appendages to the Vedas. As more and more philosophy developed, all of them got incorporated into this body as appendages.

 

[prasad1]

The discussion has been purely academic.
Raju sir and others are saying its white light, Sangom sir and others are saying it is made up of 7 colors.

Raju sir and others are saying vedas are God given and can not be questioned.
Sangom sir and others are saying that the knowledge itself may be eternal, but vedas are man researched knowledge, and so can be questioned as to the veracity of their findings.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Dear Shri KB sir,

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

Dear Sangomji,

I could not fathom the reason behind this sudden obsession of some members with moniker names. My observation had nothing do with it. Our village deity is Sri Kaala bairavan and that alone is the reason behind my handle name.

I had already clarified that I did not see members arguing on this issue as enemies but only meant that the views expressed are so divergent (In this, I differ from Prasad's observation in post #135) which, IMO, caused the sudden withdrawal of TKS.

While I appreciate the summary that you provided, I am not the only one to make the observation reg the central position taken by you and others vis-a-vis Vedas.
Raju already alluded to this in his post #103

I think we are at two ends of a spectrum. I am a believer who accepts vedas and God. You an atheist who is convinced that vedas, god etc are all nonsense. So we may never be able to meet.

for which there is no rebuttal from you. He also referred you calling Vedas "mumbo-jumbo" in his post #114 for which you did not take exception. This combined with your post #110 in which you attribute motives and vested interests to the authors of vedas led me to write that post #118.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Whenever some one questions the contents of the Vedas a lot of people come out and say that he is anti-Veda. Not because the concerned members are
anti-Veda, but because they are against their interpretation of the Veda.

But who is really interested in the Vedas?

See this thread about Vedic Chanting.

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/religion/4562-vedic-chanting-perfectly-formulated-oral-tradition.html

Total views in 2 years four months: 2130

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/religion/3956-y-chromosomes-gothra-dr-s-balakrishna.html

Total views 7176

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/religion/2953-importance-lord-indra.html

Total Views 9629

Religion

So people are more interested in their Gothras and the God Indira than Vedic Chanting.

Then see this

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/religion/4685-restoration-ancient-dilapidated-temples-need-funds.html

Total Views 1554

The fact is that very few members of this forum are really interested in the Vedas or Veda pathasalas or restoration of old temples.

The name of Vedas are brandied about only for establishing some ones's orthodoxy or for claiming superiority as a Brahmin.

PITY.

About Ramayana. The only Ramayana the children seem to know now is from the Ramanand Sagar's Ramayana TV serial. That contain one too many inaccuracies. Then B.R. Chopra's Mahabharata. People buy these DVDs and show them to the children. TV serials go around distorting Puranas. Puranas have become a source for TV serials rather than Stories which taught the Hindus values.

PITY.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangomji,

I could not fathom the reason behind this sudden obsession of some members with moniker names. My observation had nothing do with it. Our village deity is Sri Kaala bairavan and that alone is the reason behind my handle name.

Dear Shri KB,

There is no obsession with handle name AFAI am concerned. But when you said in your post "Shoe company A is a competitor to Shoe company B. But a movement that calls for abolition of all footwear is an enemy of both. To understand this distinction is important. You have some members holding Vedas as pure knowledge while some other members considering them pure bunkum. These parallel (or anti-parallel) lines are never going to meet. That is why discussions such as these come to an abrupt stop.", there was a sure indication of enmity. Though you wrote a caveat, "PS: I used the word "enemy" to differentiate from competition. I did not imply that the members involved are enemies. Arguments from both sides were enjoyable to read but I was expecting that it will end up like this..." the suggestion that there was enmity, was unmistakeable, imo.

I had already clarified that I did not see members arguing on this issue as enemies but only meant that the views expressed are so divergent (In this, I differ from Prasad's observation in post #135) which, IMO, caused the sudden withdrawal of TKS.

I feel tks is used to only telling his views but becomes intolerant once his views are not accepted or are opposed. For example, he often says that only through a proper guru one can understand his viewpoints on various issues, which, incidentally, he is convinced are the only faultless views. I think when he saw the extracts from Yajurveda giving a few of the procedures within a vedic sacrifice which meticulously lists the "dakshinaa" to be paid for the oblations to each of the deities, he withdrew completely. Further, he could not satisfactorily spell out what were the "lot of infrastructures" which he considered necessary for his satisfactorily proving the apaurusheyatva of the vedas. These, I feel, must have caused him to withdraw.

While I appreciate the summary that you provided, I am not the only one to make the observation reg the central position taken by you and others vis-a-vis Vedas.
Raju already alluded to this in his post #103 for which there is no rebuttal from you. He also referred you calling Vedas "mumbo-jumbo" in his post #114 for which you did not take exception. This combined with your post #110 in which you attribute motives and vested interests to the authors of vedas led me to write that post #118.

I thank you because this post of yours serves as a moderator to a large extent. As regards post # 103, I do not know which are the salient points in raju's post for which you feel there was no satisfactory answer/rebuttal from my side. If you will kindly take the trouble of listing these points in a post, I will give my comments please. As regards post # 114, why do you feel I should have taken exception? I had posted in reply to Shri Shankara_Sharmah, and raju, as is his wont, caught hold of that post in order that he may possibly whip up "the BB" phobia among those who are on the look out for it. So, I kept quiet.
Since you are bringing up this point again, look at the following :

6. हा बु हा बु हा बु . . .

हा बु हा बु हा बु भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं ।
हा बु हा बु हा बु ब्रह्म जज्ञानं प्रथमं पुरस्तात् ।
वि सीमतस्सुरुचॊ वेन आ वात् ।
स बुध्निया उपमा अस्य वा यि स्थाः।
सतस् च योनिं असतस् च वा यि वः ।
हा बु हा बु हा भु भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं ।
हा बु हा बु हा वु वा।
ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमन् ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमन् ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमान् ।


hā bu hā bu hā bu bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ |
hā bu hā bu hā bu brahma jajñānaṃ prathamaṃ purastāt |
vi sīmatassuruco vena ā vāt |
sa budhniyā upamā asya vā yi sthāḥ|
satas ca yoniṃ asatas ca vā yi vaḥ |
hā bu hā bu hā bhu bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ |
hā bu hā bu hā vu vā|
brahmā devānāṃ bhāti parame vyoman brahmā devānāṃ bhāti parame vyoman brahmā devānāṃ bhāti parame vyomān |

This is part of veda. I leave it to the well-informed readers to figure out which part of veda it is and what does it mean. Also attached is another extract; it is very impossible to transliterate it into English. But you will be able to identify it more easily.

I have not attributed motive or vested interests to the authors of vedas in post # 110, to the best of my belief.

 

[sangom]

Whenever some one questions the contents of the Vedas a lot of people come out and say that he is anti-Veda. Not because the concerned members are
anti-Veda, but because they are against their interpretation of the Veda.

But who is really interested in the Vedas?

See this thread about Vedic Chanting.

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/religion/4562-vedic-chanting-perfectly-formulated-oral-tradition.html

Total views in 2 years four months: 2130

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/religion/3956-y-chromosomes-gothra-dr-s-balakrishna.html

Total views 7176

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/religion/2953-importance-lord-indra.html

Total Views 9629

Religion

So people are more interested in their Gothras and the God Indira than Vedic Chanting.

Then see this

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/religion/4685-restoration-ancient-dilapidated-temples-need-funds.html

Total Views 1554

The fact is that very few members of this forum are really interested in the Vedas or Veda pathasalas or restoration of old temples.

The name of Vedas are brandied about only for establishing some ones's orthodoxy or for claiming superiority as a Brahmin.

PITY.

About Ramayana. The only Ramayana the children seem to know now is from the Ramanand Sagar's Ramayana TV serial. That contain one too many inaccuracies. Then B.R. Chopra's Mahabharata. People buy these DVDs and show them to the children. TV serials go around distorting Puranas. Puranas have become a source for TV serials rather than Stories which taught the Hindus values.

PITY.

Dear Shri Sharmah ji,

Once again, I cannot but agree 100% with your views. Unfortunately the tabra community has distanced itself far far away from the study of the vedas and are, today, nothing but clerks envisaged by Macaulay's proposals, though they may claim very high positions and equally high remuneration etc. But once they enter this forum, they tend to oppose any observation, other than pure eulogy, about veda even though such observations are also made by tabras only and they have spend some time trying to learn and know at least their veda shaakhaa. That is the tragedy. As some one said elsewhere, they try to measure the entire world, sitting deep inside their own self-created wells. And when this inconvenient truth is pointed out some of these people will turn abusive, sort of, call names and try to belittle in every possible way, those who dissent.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

As regards post # 114, why do you feel I should have taken exception?
....
Since you are bringing up this point again, look at the following :

Dear Sangom,

I am not questioning why you did not take exception when Raju hinted that you consider vedas as non-sense or mumbo-jumbo. I am merely making an observation that you did not take exception and therefore you are in agreement with the said observation. As hinted elsewhere in the forum, this argument is becoming like the "Rube Goldberg machine".

To simplify things, let me ask: Is this observation made about you wrong? Do you consider Vedas to be anything other than non-sense or mumbo-jumbo?

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom,

I am not questioning why you did not take exception when Raju hinted that you consider vedas as non-sense or mumbo-jumbo. I am merely making an observation that you did not take exception and therefore you are in agreement with the said observation. As hinted elsewhere in the forum, this argument is becoming like the "Rube Goldberg machine".

To simplify things, let me ask: Is this observation made about you wrong? Do you consider Vedas to be anything other than non-sense or mumbo-jumbo?

I have answered your doubt in more detail in my post # 138 above. Kindly see. I hold on to the view expressed in my post #110 which was not what you say now. Kindly note the difference.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Shri KB,

There is no obsession with handle name AFAI am concerned. But when you said in your post "Shoe company A is a competitor to Shoe company B. But a movement that calls for abolition of all footwear is an enemy of both. To understand this distinction is important. You have some members holding Vedas as pure knowledge while some other members considering them pure bunkum. These parallel (or anti-parallel) lines are never going to meet. That is why discussions such as these come to an abrupt stop.", there was a sure indication of enmity. Though you wrote a caveat, "PS: I used the word "enemy" to differentiate from competition. I did not imply that the members involved are enemies. Arguments from both sides were enjoyable to read but I was expecting that it will end up like this..." the suggestion that there was enmity, was unmistakeable, imo.
I feel tks is used to only telling his views but becomes intolerant once his views are not accepted or are opposed. For example, he often says that only through a proper guru one can understand his viewpoints on various issues, which, incidentally, he is convinced are the only faultless views. I think when he saw the extracts from Yajurveda giving a few of the procedures within a vedic sacrifice which meticulously lists the "dakshinaa" to be paid for the oblations to each of the deities, he withdrew completely. Further, he could not satisfactorily spell out what were the "lot of infrastructures" which he considered necessary for his satisfactorily proving the apaurusheyatva of the vedas. These, I feel, must have caused him to withdraw.
I thank you because this post of yours serves as a moderator to a large extent. As regards post # 103, I do not know which are the salient points in raju's post for which you feel there was no satisfactory answer/rebuttal from my side. If you will kindly take the trouble of listing these points in a post, I will give my comments please. As regards post # 114, why do you feel I should have taken exception? I had posted in reply to Shri Shankara_Sharmah, and raju, as is his wont, caught hold of that post in order that he may possibly whip up "the BB" phobia among those who are on the look out for it. So, I kept quiet.
Since you are bringing up this point again, look at the following :

6. हा बु हा बु हा बु . . .

हा बु हा बु हा बु भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं ।
हा बु हा बु हा बु ब्रह्म जज्ञानं प्रथमं पुरस्तात् ।
वि सीमतस्सुरुचॊ वेन आ वात् ।
स बुध्निया उपमा अस्य वा यि स्थाः।
सतस् च योनिं असतस् च वा यि वः ।
हा बु हा बु हा भु भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं भा भं भं भं भं भं ।
हा बु हा बु हा वु वा।
ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमन् ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमन् ब्रह्मा देवानां भाति परमे व्योमान् ।


hā bu hā bu hā bu bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ |
hā bu hā bu hā bu brahma jajñānaṃ prathamaṃ purastāt |
vi sīmatassuruco vena ā vāt |
sa budhniyā upamā asya vā yi sthāḥ|
satas ca yoniṃ asatas ca vā yi vaḥ |
hā bu hā bu hā bhu bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhā bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ bhaṃ |
hā bu hā bu hā vu vā|
brahmā devānāṃ bhāti parame vyoman brahmā devānāṃ bhāti parame vyoman brahmā devānāṃ bhāti parame vyomān |

This is part of veda. I leave it to the well-informed readers to figure out which part of veda it is and what does it mean. Also attached is another extract; it is very impossible to transliterate it into English. But you will be able to identify it more easily.

I have not attributed motive or vested interests to the authors of vedas in post # 110, to the best of my belief.

Dear Sangom Sir,

This is getting me nowhere. I thought this would be a meaningful discussion. But it was not to be. I would just add these few lines and rest my case. Thank you very much because you made me go through several chapters of Vedartha Sangraha once again. I had read it long back. This was an opportunity to again go through it. It was quite useful.

What is wrong with taking/offering dakshina per se? When did dakshina become a dirty word?

Either you should tell us what this haa vu haa vu, bham bham etc. mean or you should tell us that they all mean non-sense. Then we can go to a vedic scholar to understand whether it is indeed non-sense. Your quoting these words reminds me about what a fanatic from another religion was asking me. He asked me when he heard ஸ்ருதி ஸ்ம்ருதிகளில் இவ்வாறு சொல்லப்பட்டு இருக்கிறது. He asked what is a sruthi is. He wanted to know what a musical instrument has to do with religious practices. எனக்கு அதைக்கேட்டு எங்கே போய் முட்டிக்கொள்வதென்று தெரியவில்லை. All of us are not so well informed and so we would like to know what you have in your mind.

You have said "and raju, as is his wont, caught hold of that post in order that he may possibly whip up "the BB" phobia among those who are on the look out for it. So, I kept quiet". This is unfair. If you think about it you will yourself understand how difficult it has become for you to write about religion without bringing in the word brahmin. Even while the discussion about vedas' apaurusheyatva was developing on interesting line, you brought in priestly families (a veiled reference to brahmins). I am at a loss to understand why we can not discuss a topic without bothering about the caste for a while. I wanted to nip right at the formative stage any diversion of the topic to caste issues and that is why I sharply pointed out the potential for mischief. I am interested in a conversation only as long as there is no brahmin, priest bashing indulged in. So we are getting nowhere and so I rest my case here. You may presume that I have nothing to argue and so I have withdrawn from this conversation. Let us meet some other time on some other issue in a different thread.

Cheers.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

And when this inconvenient truth is pointed out some of these people will turn abusive, sort of, call names and try to belittle in every possible way, those who dissent.

Is there a chance that this assessment applies to thyself?

For example, from your post#110

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

Is this not a reference to members arguing here? Are you not trying to belittle them?

Ironically, the post that you 100% agreed upon is another crass example of being abusive, calling names and belittling the members of this forum in every possible way.

From post #137

The name of Vedas are brandied about only for establishing some ones's orthodoxy or for claiming superiority as a Brahmin.

PITY.

For good measure, the word "PITY" is included. What arrogance!

He who lives in a glass house shall not throw stones.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

your post #139 to SSarma for reference:

Once again, I cannot but agree 100% with your views. Unfortunately the tabra community has distanced itself far far away from the study of the vedas and are, today, nothing but clerks envisaged by Macaulay's proposals, though they may claim very high positions and equally high remuneration etc. But once they enter this forum, they tend to oppose any observation, other than pure eulogy, about veda even though such observations are also made by tabras only and they have spend some time trying to learn and know at least their veda shaakhaa. That is the tragedy. As some one said elsewhere, they try to measure the entire world, sitting deep inside their own self-created wells. And when this inconvenient truth is pointed out some of these people will turn abusive, sort of, call names and try to belittle in every possible way, those who dissent.

This is one way of looking at things. Now let me state the other view:

The times are such that young people are unable to devote much time for learning vedas even if they have the desire. In the 25-35,40 age group people work hard to make a living, to meet challenges in their work life, family etc., try to create adequate wealth for enjoyment etc., Throughout this phase of life, they know that there is a treasure in scriptures and that it is all about God. They find time after they reach 50 to devote to know the religion and its scriptures. Even here they get the knowledge through secondary sources -translations by westerners. A few only try to go deep into it to know thoroughly. But when they come across presentations, writings etc which trash scriptures, religious faith, heritage, cultural practices etc., the reaction is to oppose it and then look for truth. Those who attack may be from any hue-we have a rainbow of baiters. When the attack comes from Tabras, it comes with the extra sting because they have studied it but have not understood anything and yet have turned eloquent about criticism of scriptures for their own reasons. In my case these attacks have made me go further deep into our scriptures to really know what they speak. I even joined a regular course to understand other religions like, Saivam(not the advaitam of Shankaracharya brand), Jainism, Budhdhism and Christianity(I would have loved to understand Islam but the facility was not available). My efforts have given me a clear view of how great is our religion when compared to all other major religions in the world. When I said this earlier once some one (known for his scholarly presentations) said I was not thinking out of box. I had to tell him that I have seen all that is outside the box and also what is inside the box. I have found what treasure is inside the box is far far better and incomparable to whatever is outside the box. A frog in the well might have come into the well after living outside the well for long is a point that these revolutionary tabras forget and accuse people like me of frog in the well limitations. I have studied my veda and that includes chanting (this is for SSarma) though I do not consider chanting as something very great. For me it is just a method to memorise lest I forget (I am just a human being with the frailties of such a being).

No inconvenient truth has ever been brought out by any tambra which could make me feel inconvenient. Dissent, in such a forum, has to be a reasoned decent presentation of ideas. When dissent takes the form of pointing out only what looks like inconsistencies, empty logic or plain stupidity without recognising even for once whatever great is also presented in scriptures, the motives become suspect. People like me do not mince words while pointing this out.

I can write more about this view. But it has become lengthy already. Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

It is funny that Mr. Gopal Rao the originator of this post disappeared.

Can we stop taking every discussion so personal. The points raised are all valid. Let us keep the discussion to the topic and not take it so personal.

 

[sangom]

What is wrong with taking/offering dakshina per se? When did dakshina become a dirty word?

Dear Shri raju,

You will observe that I have not said that offering/taking dakshinaa is bad or that dakshinaa is a dirty word. You are trying to add some pungency into the discussion and these statements are, imo, not fair.

For your kind introspection I give below extracts from some of your posts in this thread below:

Dear Sangom,

It is not the case of Hindus that Vedas were revelation by a superior God sitting high above. It is certainly the case that vedas are all knowledge pure unaffected by time. They are apaurusheya in that they were not created by anyone for knowledge just exists and it is not created.
Cheers.

I start from where he left. What I understand from an unbiased reading of the swetaswataropanshad and other upanishads as well as Srimad Bhagavatham(SB) is that vedas existed even before Chaturmukha Brahma created the universe. In SB there is even a reference to the period when he lost the vedas given to him by God and went about searching for them(though I am using the plural with ‘s’ after veda and ‘them’ etc, I believe the four divisions are for convenience only.

Post #82 by Sangom Sir for reference:


This goes only to confirm my position. That God always existed and the vedas also existed similarly. God did not hold vedas within himself as something concealed to be revealed later to someone. Vedas were there and when Brahma came on the scene God just gave the vedas to him. As you have said it was a gift to Brahma. It is not said anywhere in the scriptures that vedas sprang out of by God or anyone else. So the vedas are apaurusheya indeed.

Purusha Sookta says the there were three distinct vedas rik, saama and yajus and these three sprang out of the Purusha sacrifice performed by the devas and Rishis (Saadhyaas are also rishis as per our native commentator.)

...Vedas are knowledge. If you ask why knowledge includes agni, Indra, black magic, amorous love affairs, wars etc., you will agree that I do not have to find an answer for that. Knowledge will be all inclusive and what you take after filtering depends on your capacity to absorb as well as your needs.

Now, you as well as the Aam Readers may think how relevant a scheme or table of dakshinaas is in a scheme of all-inclusive knowledge which stops short of listing even the names of all major rivers in India (even North India, for that matter).

Either you should tell us what this haa vu haa vu, bham bham etc. mean or you should tell us that they all mean non-sense. Then we can go to a vedic scholar to understand whether it is indeed non-sense. Your quoting these words reminds me about what a fanatic from another religion was asking me. He asked me when he heard ஸ்ருதி ஸ்ம்ருதிகளில் இவ்வாறு சொல்லப்பட்டு இருக்கிறது. He asked what is a sruthi is. He wanted to know what a musical instrument has to do with religious practices. எனக்கு அதைக்கேட்டு எங்கே போய் முட்டிக்கொள்வதென்று தெரியவில்லை. All of us are not so well informed and so we would like to know what you have in your mind.

I said the Rigveda possibly originated in the remote antiquity and it was originally the mumbo jumbo-like medium which was used by the priestly families to recite while doing the several rites which a priest of those primitive societies had to do. This was challenged and even a motive was imputed for my using the words "families". So, I have replied. It is now for you to prove that these words haa vu, bham bham, etc., denote something of relevance in a scheme of all-inclusive knowledge coming down from eternity, so that each one of us can filter and take what we are capable of absorbing. Sorry, it cannot be the other way.

You have said "and raju, as is his wont, caught hold of that post in order that he may possibly whip up "the BB" phobia among those who are on the look out for it. So, I kept quiet". This is unfair. If you think about it you will yourself understand how difficult it has become for you to write about religion without bringing in the word brahmin. Even while the discussion about vedas' apaurusheyatva was developing on interesting line, you brought in priestly families (a veiled reference to brahmins). I am at a loss to understand why we can not discuss a topic without bothering about the caste for a while. I wanted to nip right at the formative stage any diversion of the topic to caste issues and that is why I sharply pointed out the potential for mischief. I am interested in a conversation only as long as there is no brahmin, priest bashing indulged in. So we are getting nowhere and so I rest my case here. You may presume that I have nothing to argue and so I have withdrawn from this conversation. Let us meet some other time on some other issue in a different thread.

Cheers.

I think we had a discipline in this forum that a post addressed to some member by his handle, should not be answered by some one else. I always ask for excuse if I breach this. You seem to take over every post which is convenient for you to reply, impute motives and try all the methods to make the discussion incendiary so that ultimately your defeat gets unnoticed. Perhaps this is also a part of the all inclusive vedic knowledge which makes the sacrificers to set fire to the yaagashaala at the end of the yaagas!

And my statement seems to have come true with some members with their known antipathy towards certain views taking part in this discussion, of late.

 

[sankara_sharmah]

Usage of the term PITY

We say something is a pity if it's something to be sad about. Quaint usage. I use it that sense. SAD is the usual term.

That was my final post in this thread. Now this clarification will be the final one.