• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Atharva Veda Samhita

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great. Atharvana Veda is Mantra Sastra connected with rites, medicine, magic, invocation of spirits etc. Its practitioners often wear red clothes and there are special ceremonies being held at night time, to invoke the deities, I understand. Can everyone read this?
 
Great. Atharvana Veda is Mantra Sastra connected with rites, medicine, magic, invocation of spirits etc. Its practitioners often wear red clothes and there are special ceremonies being held at night time, to invoke the deities, I understand. Can everyone read this?
Shri Kahanam,

Atharva Veda (AV) was not included in the earlier scriptures and the expression "trayee vedAH" meaning the three vedas, appears in some places. Hence AV is a later addition to the class of vedas. But the night time practices, red clothes, etc., seem to be a mix-up of Tantric practices and AV.

It is useful to read AV to understand that our ancients scriptures were nothing esoteric but purely the works of humans with a lot of superstitious beliefs as well. Rigveda is much better than the rest though it also betrays its very human authorship.
 
Rigveda is much better than the rest though it also betrays its very human authorship.

Dear Shri Sanghom,
Are not Vedas heard as Srutis? You believe that there is human authorship of Vedas and if so, is it God's Will that it should be so?
 
Rigveda is much better than the rest though it also betrays its very human authorship.

Dear Shri Sanghom,
Are not Vedas heard as Srutis? You believe that there is human authorship of Vedas and if so, is it God's Will that it should be so?
Dear Shri Kahanam,

I am not convinced by the belief that vedas are "apourusheya"; (not-human works, literally). Hence I also do not feel the oft-heard belief that the vedas are eternal, vibrations in the ether; circulating the universe without beginning or end, and rishis, due to their special powers/capacity could decipher, overhear, or receive the audio (just like a radio receiver) and transmit it for the welfare of the world, nay, the universe itself in the form of the audible sound which is vedas.

The subject matters, the very many appeals made to various (rigvedic) deities etc., convince me that these are poetical inspirations of a set of people who composed these verses (riks, as they are known as). Now it might be asked "wherefrom did the inspiration come, was it not of divine origin?";. My answer is 'may be', but it is the same sort of inspiration which made Valmiki compose the AdikAvya, Rabindra Nath Tagore the Gitanjali, Narayana guru the AtmopadESa Satakam, and several other secular poets who wrote magnificent poetry throughout the world in the very many different languages. In short it is the normal poetic ability of some human beings.

I am just giving below one extreme example of how secular or mundane (or obscene?) a rik can be; this does not mean the entire rigveda is of the same nature, but just to show that rigveda is a compilation of poems by many authors:

na sESE yasyarambatEntarAskRuthyAkapRut
sEdeeSeyasyarOmaSanniShEduShO vijRumbhatE
viSvasmAdindra uttaraH RV, X-86-16

न सॆशॆ यस्यरम्बतॆन्तरास्कृथ्याकपृत्
सॆदीशेयस्यरॊमशन्निषॆदुषॊ विजृम्भतॆ
विश्वस्मादिन्द्र उत्तरः १० -८६-१६


ந ஸேசே யஸ்யரம்பதேந்தராஸக்ருத்யாகப்ருத்
சேதீசேயஸ்யரோமசனந்நிஷேதுஷோ விஜ்ரும்பதே
விச்வஸ்மாதிந்த்ர உத்தர: ரிக்வேதம், ௧0-௮௬-௧௬

Approximate Meaning:

(This rik is from what is called vrishAkapi sUktam; to which some scholars trace back Valmiki's idea of monkeys assisting Rama, and the deification of Hanuman as a god.)

O Indra ! One whose penis hangs down between his thighs, does not have the ability to copulate. The one whose penis is capable of opening the hairy vagina, he alone is good for intercourse.
My Indra is better than the entire world.

sAyaNa in his commentary has tried to polish the above straightforward word-for-word meaning as best as he could, but not able to avoid everything and arriving at a somewhat different meaning, as under:

O Indra ! One whose satisfaction of desire (pleasure) depends only on the centre of the thighs of women, is not fit for performing actions like yaga and tapas. One, whose pleasure increases constantly by ruminating on the hairy vagina, also is unfit to perform yagas and tapas. My Indra is not like these; he is fit for performing yagas and tapas; he is above the entire world.

There are a few more similar instances in the rigveda which makes me conclude that these are very ordinary expressions of very ordinary mortals, nothing esoteric about them. They are very much like as our secular poetry also contains some very sublime poems to some rank obscene contents.

Just to finish this post in a lighter vein, I give below the meaning of a small poem of Chemmanam Chacko, a contemporary Malayalam poet, which also looks inspired when one reads it in Malayalam:

"The teacher came to the class
and asked the students to open their books at lesson two.
it was about Sita parinayam.
He asked them to read the lesson aloud and went out,
to smoke a beedi.

The inspector of Schools entered just at that point
Looking at the lesson, he asked one student,
"Who broke Siva's bow?"
The student replied, with a terrified look,
"Not me Sir, I did not do it."

Just then the teacher came back to the class.
He told the Inspector, "Sir, he is a very good student,
he won't do any such mischief, I am sure."
The headmaster came hearing the conversation.
He asserted, "as the headmaster of this school,
I can certify that this student will never do any such wrong thing,
he won't destroy another's property." !!
 
Last edited:
namaste everyone.

Some details on the Rig Veda verses 10.86.16,17 which can be found easily by searching the Internet:

• Ralph T.H. Griffith, has discreetly omitted his translation of the above verses. H.H.Wilson has discreetly given this translation:

10.086.16 The man who is impotent begets not progeny, but he who is endowed with vigour; Indra is above all (the world).

10.086.17 [Indra speaks]: He who is endowed with vigour begets not progeny, but he who is impotent; Indra is above all (the world).

Perhaps their Victorian sense of morality was behind their discretion.

• Prof.R.L.Kashyap, in his translation published by SAKSI, has not translated the two verses. He comments on the overall sUkta as follows:

This sUkta of 23 mantras can be understood in two ways. It involves three beings, Indra, IndrANI, VRShAkapi. This sUkta comes after the sUkta 85 involving marriage. Why is not a marriage blissful in practice? Why is there difference of opinion between husband and wife? This sUkta gives some interesting answers for this question.

In the first interpretation, VRShAkapi can be viewed as an associate of Indra and also as one close to him. IndrANI the spouse of Indra does not like him and calls him an animal. VRShAkapi does not give any insulting replies. Indira tells IndrANI that she is beautiful and has everything, why does she complain?

In the second interpretation, this interlude occurs at some point in the cosmic evolution before the appearance of the human mind. At that stage, there was only the inanimate matter, plant and animal kingdom. IndrANI is the queen of this realm. This realm has a natural beauty of its own. Even today, many persons who call themselves as the lovers of nature are sad to see the ravages done to this beautiful place by human beings with their activities based on mind. Today one hears of the destruction of the pristine reserves of nature like the tropical forests as 'mindless destruction'.

VRShAkapi is the power of vital mind, i.e., the mind associated with the dynamical activities of prANa or vital energy. IndrANI, the goddess of nature feels that the vital mind (VRShAkapi) despises her as one without protection (verse 9). She regards VRShAkapi as destructive and has no kind words to it.

Indra, the lord of the divine mind, is unable to pacify the nature. He mentions the importance of VRShAkapi. VRShAkapi is respectful of nature. What is the way for the resolution of conflict? The answer is hinted in the refrain 'Indra is supreme in this unverse', which appears in all the 23 mantras. Every happening has its own reason for its appearance, even though the individual parties may not like it. Here is the proverbial phrase, 'pain or suffering is the hammer of gods to beat the dead resistance in the mortal heart'. Only when we surrender to the wisdom of Supreme being, we can appreciate the necessity of all the happenings. Till this wisdom dawns on most of us, the squabbles between different parties continue. Veda states elsewhere that when the power of the fourth world (vijnAna or svar or supermind) descends into earth and its inhabitants, then there will be increased cooperation in all aspects and the works will be endowed with discernment (dakSha). Then nature becomes DAkShAyaNI.

This interpretation is also directly supported by MahAbhArata (shAnti parvaH, 342-89) where VRShAkapi is rendered as the avatAr of ViShNu, with the boar, varAha. It may be recalled that the boar recovers the earth from the ocean where it is submerged. Only then did all the forms of life and human beings appear. kapi is rendered as that which placed the earth in its snout (kakShi, ka). In the famous litany of 1000 names of ViShNu, VRShAkapi is an epithet for ViShNu. [Note also ViShNu is regarded as a friend of Indra in several mantras of Rg Veda.]

• The book, 'The growth of literature', vol.2, by H.Munro Chadwick, Nora Kershaw Chadwick, has this to say on the mantras:

Some of these poems are probably to be taken as representing the lighter side of Vedic poetry. The same may be true of another poem, X.86, which consists of a dialogue between Indra, his wife, and a third person called VRShAkapi ('Male Ape'). This lady is very angry with VRShAkapi, who seems to have damaged some of her belongings, and Indra is trying to make peace between them. Each stanza has a refrain expressing Indra's supremacy. The poem is now interpreted as a dispute over the misdoings of a tame monkey, but intended as a satire upon some contemporary prince, who is described as Indra.

• The book, 'The ancient history of India, Vedic period: a new interpretation' by K. C. Singhal, Roshan Gupta, says:

There is a picture of an Indus valley seal in which a person is shown standing behind a curtain with his penis erect. This idea is found in the RgVeda too. Indra is telling his wife IndrANI that that person alone is the master or capable of the sexual act whose penis remains erect and does not droop

• 'The Rig Veda: an anthology : one hundred and eight hymns, selected' by Wendy Doniger says:

The complex VRShAkapi hymn, involves two couples, seems to end in union (10.86).

• From 'chapter X on Wit and Linguistic Ambiguity' in 'Abhinavagupta's Conception of Humor' a thesis by Sunthar:

A really hilarious example from the Rig Vedic ritualism of this formula, most relevant to the present context for it concerns the peculiar solidarity between an antithetical pair in whom some have seen the prototype of the king-vidUShaka relationship, is the bragging contest (vivAch!) between Indra and VRShAkapi ad. RV X.86.16-17 where the "impotence" of the latter is opposed to the virility of the former in exactly symmetrical verses (each ending with the constant refrain reasserting Indra’s supremacy).This opposition is reflected in the contrast between the curious combination of 'chastity' (absence of desire: strîshu vishuddhah, BP) and 'lewdness' (undifferentiated desire: ashlIla-bhAShaNa) in the vidUShaka, on the one hand, and the organized structured sexuality of the nAyaka, on the other hand, that finds its puruShArtha-orientated expression in the scheming love-intrigues in which he is selflessly assisted by the vidUShaka.

Thus, there are different views about the surface and inner meanings of the verses: yathA dRShTi thathA darshanam.

**********

sangom said:
The subject matters, the very many appeals made to various (rigvedic) deities etc., convince me that these are poetical inspirations of a set of people who composed these verses (riks, as they are known as). Now it might be asked "wherefrom did the inspiration come, was it not of divine origin?";. My answer is 'may be', but it is the same sort of inspiration which made Valmiki compose the AdikAvya, Rabindra Nath Tagore the Gitanjali, Narayana guru the AtmopadESa Satakam, and several other secular poets who wrote magnificent poetry throughout the world in the very many different languages. In short it is the normal poetic ability of some human beings.

The difference between these two types of 'inspirations' is that the Veda mantras, unlike the other compositions, teem with vibrations that connect to the divine forces and bring prosperity to the place and people where they are chanted, specially in the Veda yajnas performed, as seen throughout India even today.

Since the Vedas are said to contain all sorts of knowledge, IMHO, it would be incorrect to judge their overall character as secular or poetic, from a few verses that do not appear to be, prima facie, in the spirit of shruti.

when we say that even one wrong “swara” in reciting the veda is an unpardonable sin, is it not necessary or appropriate that we attach equal importance to the stotras and mantras also? My attempt to correct is only because of this eagerness.

I am not convinced by the belief that vedas are "apourusheya"; (not-human works, literally). Hence I also do not feel the oft-heard belief that the vedas are eternal, vibrations in the ether; circulating the universe without beginning or end, and rishis, due to their special powers/capacity could decipher, overhear, or receive the audio (just like a radio receiver) and transmit it for the welfare of the world, nay, the universe itself in the form of the audible sound which is vedas.

I find a contradiction of opinion in the above two quotes from shrI Sangom, unless he excludes himself from the "we" in the first quote: "when we say that..."

Atharva Veda (AV) was not included in the earlier scriptures and the expression "trayee vedAH" meaning the three vedas, appears in some places. Hence AV is a later addition to the class of vedas. But the night time practices, red clothes, etc., seem to be a mix-up of Tantric practices and AV.

A rik in 'puruSha sUktam' says:

तस्माद्यज्ञात्सर्वहुतः ऋचःसामानिजाज्ञिरे ।
छन्दांसि जाज्ञिरे तस्माद्यजुस्तस्मादजायत ॥ १०.०९०.०९ ॥

tasmAdyaj~jAtsarvahutaH RuchaHsAmAnijAj~jire |
ChandAMsi jAj~jire tasmAdyajustasmAdajAyata || 10.090.09 ||

The plain meaning of which is that Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Chandas or Atharva Vedas have proceeded from that Purusha who is Yajna and Sarvahuta.

Although the term Chandas is generally taken to mean the several metres such as the gAyatrI, etc., it also means "a sacred hymn (of AV; as distinguished from those of RV, SV and YajurV"--according to Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary.

For details of how the term stands for the Atharva Veda, please refer to the book 'The Purusha Sukta: translated & explained' by B.V.Kamesvara Aiyar (1898 publication).

Ref:
The ancient history of India, Vedic period: a new interpretation
by K. C. Singhal, Roshan Gupta
The ancient history of India, Vedic ... - Google Books

The growth of literature, Volume 2 b
y H. Munro Chadwick, Nora Kershaw Chadwick
The growth of literature - Google Books

The Rig Veda: an anthology : one hundred and eight hymns, selected ... By Wendy Doniger
The Rig Veda: an anthology : one ... - Google Books

'Abhinavagupta's Conception of Humor' a thesis by Sunthar
chapter X on Wit and Linguistic Ambiguity
Abhinavagupta's Conceptionof Humor - chapter 10

'The Purusha Sukta: translated & explained' by B.V.Kamesvara Aiyar (1898 publication)
http://ia311316.us.archive.org/3/items/purushasukta00unkngoog/purushasukta00unkngoog.pdf

**********
 
...

Originally Posted by sangom View Post

when we say that even one wrong “swara” in reciting the veda is an unpardonable sin, is it not necessary or appropriate that we attach equal importance to the stotras and mantras also? My attempt to correct is only because of this eagerness.
Originally Posted by sangom View Post
I am not convinced by the belief that vedas are "apourusheya"; (not-human works, literally). Hence I also do not feel the oft-heard belief that the vedas are eternal, vibrations in the ether; circulating the universe without beginning or end, and rishis, due to their special powers/capacity could decipher, overhear, or receive the audio (just like a radio receiver) and transmit it for the welfare of the world, nay, the universe itself in the form of the audible sound which is vedas.
I find a contradiction of opinion in the above two quotes from shrI Sangom, unless he excludes himself from the "we" in the first quote: "when we say that..."


Shri Saidevo,


I am pleasantly surprised to see that you, who claim to have very little knowledge of sanskrit, have been enthused to defend the "aporusheyatva" of the vedas by depending on various interpretations found in the web. Welcome.


You seem to be under the impression that if someone does not believe the "apourusheyatva"
(supra-human origin) of the vedas, he has no right to insist on the veda being pronounced perfectly, without any mistake; and, consequently, such a person should not also insist on slokas/mantras etc., being posted with errors of all types. I do not know whether this is the general perception of people at large, and brahmins in particular. If the members here feel* so I will hereafter refrain from making any comments about any errors in the posting of mantras/slokas/ verses from the vedas, etc.

My personal view is that a tendency to be as perfect as possible in everything is a good thing. In day-to-day matters it may not be possible, but when we give mantras/slokas/ vedas etc., here, in
the web, or anywhere else for that matter it is a minimum requirement to be as completely correct as we can. Mostly I find some error-ridden web page is copied and furnished and thus, there is a very large circulation for all sorts of errors. That makes me sad, because, though I do not think vedas are of divine origin, etc., they should be transmitted correctly to show what we were talking about, clearly.

*I await the views of members in this regard.


I find that the various quotes given by you do not do justice to the verses (riks) 1 to 23 as a whole. If there was a way to euphemize the verses or the riks in question, sAyaNa would definitely have done so, I feel. It is exactly why he also could not go farther away from the words and their meanings as per nirukta. The foreign authors refrained from commenting on these because of the victorian morality, most probably, as you have rightly said. But I doubt whether they would have provided any new pov different from sAyaNa's.


Out of the different interpretations furnished by you none seems to consider the entire episode and
justify their assumptions. Just to give examples, RV. X. 86.7 in which VrishAkapi wishes happy sexual life to indrANee. As per Kashyap's interpretation, this will mean that VRShAkapi - the power of vital mind, i.e., the mind associated with the dynamical activities of prANa or vital energy takes some steps for IndrANI, the goddess of nature to have the full benefit from Indra, the lord of the divine mind. This has not been explained by Kashyap. Secondly, the riks do not show that Indra ia "unable" to satisfy indrANee.

Rather Indra seems to be so fond of vrishAkapi, who is stated to be invited by those making the
soma, in preference to Indra. If, as Kashyap tries to paint this dialogue as something which relates to the period before the evolution of the human mind (that means before humans were created) and here was only the inanimate matter, plant and animal kingdom, does it mean that this talk about thighs, hairy vagina, etc., relate to the apes/monkeys, since vrishAkapi is mentioned?

Since you are sure that "the Veda mantras, ... teem with vibrations that connect to the divine forces
and bring prosperity to the place and people where they are chanted, specially in the Veda yajnas performed," do these references also come under such divine vibrations? Kindly go through
Kashyap's book and let us know what he has to say on these points.

In X-86, 8, indra chides ibdrANee as to why she is angry with vrishAkapi whom he likes (tvam na
vr^shAkapim kim kimabhi ameeshi?). How does Kashyap explain this?

Hence I feel Kashyap tries to deliberately mislead people because he does not want to admit that the
rigvEda contains such profane matters also. It should be evident to anyone since, SAKSHI, and therefore Kasyap must belong to the Aurobindo's line which tries to find all sorts of esoteric significance for the riks whereas those who were near to the rigvedic composers did not find
anything of such import and began the system of animal sacrifices.

Shri Saidevo, since you have taken interest to defend the esotericism of vedas, kindly also look
into the Yajurveda (Vajasaneyi Samhita 22-25. Taittireeya Samhita 7. 1-5) especially the ritual concerning the queen and the sacrificed horse in the night of the sacrifice, and post the "polished"
esoteric interpretations, if any, since I have not so far come across any such thing so far, may be because I am not eager not to accept the straightforward meaning.

Manusmriti refers to vedas as "trayam brahma sanAtanam" -three eternal vedas. Shri Kameswara
Iyer also gives the meaning of the word chandas as "metre" only but by a very convoluted and weak argument to somehow make it appear that the sacrifice referred to in purusha sukta is subsequent to the origin of the vedas which are eternal, says trayee vidyA includes all the four vedas; the conclusion can be either that the rigvedic rishis counted wrongly, or, only three sources of inspired knowledge were recognised, not four.

BTW, this rik "tasmAd yajnAd sarvahutaH | R^cassAmAni jajnire..." is interesting. The veda itself declares that the three vedas originated from the sacrifice of the purusha and was not there before that. Shri Iyer makes a belaboured effort to cover up this gaping hole (I must admit his intelligence since he recognises this obvious lacuna.) and the opinion of many scholars that originally there were only three vedas (were they fools?) and still does a very belaboured but unconvincing cover-up job. (I would have reproduced the entire portion here but for the fact that "copy" does not work in my pdf file.)
 
namaste shrI Sangom.

01. It is not my intention--nor do I need--to 'defend' the 'apauruSheyatvam' of the Vedas, since like millions of Hindus, I do believe it to be so, being convinced by the assertion in the Vedas themselves and by the upadeshas--teachings, of Hindu AchAryas. If you are interested, check post no.17 of this thread (but I am not interested in any arguments about it):
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/script...lytical-essays-shruti-vedas-upanishads-2.html

02. Since I am a believer in the divine inspiration of the Vedas, I don't need to prove anything about it. If you are a critic of this concept, again, you don't need to prove anything, because, there can never be a meeting point between these two sides, which, like the two sides of a coin, will never see each other. Nor do the sides have any need to see each other, since they both together make up the duality of creation.

03. Similarly, the "rank obscene contents" in the Vedas, such as in the example you have given, do not belittle the apauruSheyatvam of the Vedas for me, so asking me if the vibrations of these verses also constitute divine connection is nothing but vitaNDAvAdam--captious/frivolous argument, on your part.

04. By such vitaNDAvAdam, one might object to Shankara's description of AmbAL's breasts in the stotra 'Saundarya Lahari' and say that Shankara is a pervert. One might say that the vigrahas in our temples are nude, so Hindu worship amounts to worshipping the nude. One might say that the "rank obscene contents" in the Hindu ItihAsa-purANas make them nothing more than Sarojadevi stories. This is Kali-yugam, so, as the ShankarAchAryas of KAnchi and Shringeri have said, the asuric forces have entered the minds of humans, so brahmins not only abandoning the Vedas but also resorting to criticizing them--or any other criticism-oriented activity for that matter--can no longer be a surprise, or a cause for concern for those who are believers.

05. I appreciate your eye for perfection and have no qualms about your resorting to correcting errors in the posting of mantras, shlokas, stotras, etc.
 
Last edited:
02. Since I am a believer in the divine inspiration of the Vedas, I don't need to prove anything about it. If you are a critic of this concept, again, you don't need to prove anything, because, there can never be a meeting point between these two sides, which, like the two sides of a coin, will never see each other. Nor do the sides have any need to see each other, since they both together make up the duality of creation.

Folks, Saidevo is a believer in what he wants to believe, he sees no reason to justify his belief. Fair enough. But he makes some statements that are untenable, and I would like to discuss one particularly outlandish one, not to convince him or win him over -- he has already clearly stated the futility of such efforts -- but to appeal to other readers who may be brave enough to venture outside the conventional wisdom.

This analogy -- two sides of the same coin -- perpetuates a false equivalency between superstition and rationality, between delusion and reality, between self-deception and honest inquiry. These are not two equally valid positions to espouse as implied in the two-sides-of-the-same-coin analogy. These are not dualities that must coexist.

Reject the coin analogy for it makes no logical sense. The two sides of the coin may have no need to see each other, but you do. You must examine with your rational mind and choose the sublime and reject the gross. Being the opposite is not the same as having the same validity. Irrationality is not equally valid as rationality in as much as brute force cannot have the same moral equivalency as compassion. These two are not value neutral. One tries to appeal to your intellect and the other to your gullibility.

Cheers!
 
namaste everyone.

Folks, Saidevo is a believer in what he wants to believe, he sees no reason to justify his belief. Fair enough. But he makes some statements that are untenable, and I would like to discuss one particularly outlandish one, not to convince him or win him over -- he has already clearly stated the futility of such efforts -- but to appeal to other readers who may be brave enough to venture outside the conventional wisdom.

My reply to this assertion from Nara is:

• I don't believe in just what I want to believe, which is why I see no reason to justify my belief. I believe in what the Vedic RShis believed, what the three great AchAryas Shankara, RAmAnuja and MAdhva and all their followers believed, namely, the authority, infallibility and apauruSheyatvam of the Vedas. If that belief makes people like me gullible/superstitious/invalid in the eyes of persons like Nara, be it so--we cannot care less about it.

• Conventional wisdom, despite its different approaches, provides a holistic view, whereas the supposed intellectual wisdom of rationality in its various approaches provides only discordant views about the world and the ultimate. So, IMO, one can 'venture outside the conventional wisdom' at his/her own peril, within the short span of life.

This analogy -- two sides of the same coin -- perpetuates a false equivalency between superstition and rationality, between delusion and reality, between self-deception and honest inquiry. These are not two equally valid positions to espouse as implied in the two-sides-of-the-same-coin analogy. These are not dualities that must coexist.

Nara is mistaken if he thinks that the 'coin' I referred to is an external reality to which we all cling to, on one side or the other.

The coin is inside everyone, so each one of us have our own views about the relative validity of the two sides, and stick to one side or the other, based on our personal convictions.

• But for some people, their personal convictions oscillate between the spiritual and the physical, so, they are unable to decide, since both sides appeal to them, as their sense of rationality makes them climb over to the edge of the coin and peep at the other side.

• Sitting on the thin edge, they try to validate the spiritual side of the coin, and are sometimes confused by what they see, which is why they are unable to decide whether they are rationalists or atheists or agnostics.

‣ They cannot accept God and the individual soul as conceived in our texts, yet they cannot give up AzhvArs' pAsurams that teem with adorations to God and speak of the longing of their individual souls to merge with the supersoul.

‣ They think and assert that memes are responsible for the existence of culture and civilization and its beliefs, and that the transmission is made perpetual by the genes in the family tree, yet they cannot convincingly explain how the experience, knowledge and beliefs get transmitted between a guru and his disciples, sometimes just by a glance from the guru.

• Whatever they would not understand and cannot explain is superstitious and invalid knowledge to them. Such people, who have a leg on the mud of the shore and another in the river, when they seek to reform the world, end up with the coin inside them spinning laterally, the head chasing the tail, unable to catch the evanescent fly, which causes the itch on the tail.

I would rather keep my head and tail in their places and worship the Feet in the satsangha that speaks of its glories. If anyone can win over me, it could only be my Self. And I have no need or itch to win over other people, because as Nara said sometime back in another post to the effect that everyone should prick his/her own bubble.
 
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

From the Moderator's perspective, I welcome your corrections; I am sure Sri Saidevo welcomes it as well.

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

Your stand on 'rationality' is well taken. What you call as 'Superstition' is 'Faith' to a whole lot of folks here and unlike a rationalist, is a deeply held value. While I think that to argue that 'rationality' is clearly superior, from the view point of an avowed atheist like yourself may be valid, to treat the sentiments of a whole lot of folks here the way you have treated above is quite harsh. I see a more and more edge to your arguments, while I remember in the past you have even tempered some of my valid moderation on language.

If you demur with my observation, you may discard this friendly post.

Regards,
KRS
 
namaste shrI Sangom.

01. It is not my intention--nor do I need--to 'defend' the 'apauruSheyatvam' of the Vedas, since like millions of Hindus, I do believe it to be so, being convinced by the assertion in the Vedas themselves and by the upadeshas--teachings, of Hindu AchAryas. If you are interested, check post no.17 of this thread (but I am not interested in any arguments about it):
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/script...lytical-essays-shruti-vedas-upanishads-2.html

02. Since I am a believer in the divine inspiration of the Vedas, I don't need to prove anything about it. If you are a critic of this concept, again, you don't need to prove anything, because, there can never be a meeting point between these two sides, which, like the two sides of a coin, will never see each other. Nor do the sides have any need to see each other, since they both together make up the duality of creation.

03. Similarly, the "rank obscene contents" in the Vedas, such as in the example you have given, do not belittle the apauruSheyatvam of the Vedas for me, so asking me if the vibrations of these verses also constitute divine connection is nothing but vitaNDAvAdam--captious/frivolous argument, on your part.

04. By such vitaNDAvAdam, one might object to Shankara's description of AmbAL's breasts in the stotra 'Saundarya Lahari' and say that Shankara is a pervert. One might say that the vigrahas in our temples are nude, so Hindu worship amounts to worshipping the nude. One might say that the "rank obscene contents" in the Hindu ItihAsa-purANas make them nothing more than Sarojadevi stories. This is Kali-yugam, so, as the ShankarAchAryas of KAnchi and Shringeri have said, the asuric forces have entered the minds of humans, so brahmins not only abandoning the Vedas but also resorting to criticizing them--or any other criticism-oriented activity for that matter--can no longer be a surprise, or a cause for concern for those who are believers.

05. I appreciate your eye for perfection and have no qualms about your resorting to correcting errors in the posting of mantras, shlokas, stotras, etc.

Shri Saideo,

First I refer to the link given in your above post. My comments on one of the items RV. 1. 2 01 is given below just to show that you are taking the help of Arya Samajists to denounce western scholarship of our scriptures. At least it appears to me so. If you believe that any stick is good to beat your opponent (in argument) well, I cannot say anything.

sAyaNa interprets the rik as under:

वायॊ इति । आ । याहि । दर्शत । इमॆ । सोमाः । अरम् ऽ कृताः । तॆषाम् । पाहि । श्रुधि । हवम् ।

हे दर्शत दर्शनीय वायो कर्मण्येतस्मिन्नायाहि । आगच्छ ।त्वदर्थमिमे सोमा अरंकृताः ।अभिषवादि संस्कारोऽलंकारः । तॆषाम् । तान्सोमान् । यद्वा तॆषामेकदॆशमित्यध्याहारः । पाहि । स्वकीयम् भागम् पिबेत्यर्थः । तत्पानार्थम् हवमस्मदीयमाह्वानं श्रुधि । शृणु ।

Here the word "abhishava" means pressing out the Soma juice.

अत्र यास्कः । वायवायाहि दर्शनीयेमे सोमा अरंकृता अलंकृतास्तेषाम् पिब शृणु नॊ ह्वानम् । नि. १०.२.

Afterwards the individual words are analysed. Of this I give what appears immediately relevant to the argument narrated by you.
पाहीत्यत्र पिबादॆशाभावश्चांदसः = "pAhi" means, in Sruti, a request to drink.
Hence sAyaNa and yAska agreed with the foreigner's interpretation of the rik and not what gurudatt vidyarthi argued.

(I find you are reproducing your posts in Must-Read Analytical Essays on the shruti--Vedas and Upanishads [Archive] - Hindu Dharma Forums or reproducing the posts made here in that forum.)

I have no objection to this. But just for info., will you please let us know whether you are a follower of Arya Samaj? Shri Gurudatta Vidyarthi was a chief spokesperson for Arya Samaj which held many reformist views on hindu religion. One of their tenets was that the "sraaddha" rite was unscientific, illegitimate and hence to be abolished. In a debate on this issue with the orthodox intellectuals represented by Pandit Ganesh Datta Sastri, the Arya Samaj was represented by Guru Datta and another, in May 1895. Probably you are aware of this also. It will, therefore, be of interest to me to know your views on Sraaddha.

Mine is not "vitandavaadam" though it is common for people to label arguments which are not to their liking but do not have cogent rebuttals, as vitandaavaadam. My doubt was that if these vedas were of supra-human or divine origin and, going by your reproducing Kashyap's thesis that the said conversation between indra, indrANi and vr^shAkapi occurred before the human mind was evolved, did those divine originators foresee human anatomy, sexual reproduction, etc. I personally do not feel convinced that anyone other than a simple human source would have compiled these verses.

(There is another sUkta containing the lament of a person addicted to gambling. Perhaps Kashyap, Arya Samaj, etc., might have invented their own methods for sidetracking the obvious meaning and importing esoteric ones, for that sUkta also.) Anyway "belief" does not need a rational argument to support it. So, you are free to stick to the apourusheyatva of Sruti.

In fact scholars opine that Soundarya Lahari is not sankara's work; some say that the first 49 verses, constituting "Ananda Lahari" could be assigned to sankara but not the rest in any case. I think i covered this point in the thread "Advaita-its fallacies".

You are free to make innuendos and categorise me as asura but according to the Sruti, the future of Kaliyuga will be ours then, will it not? And if there is democracy which is tyranny of the majority? :)
 
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

From the Moderator's perspective, I welcome your corrections; I am sure Sri Saidevo welcomes it as well.

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

Your stand on 'rationality' is well taken. What you call as 'Superstition' is 'Faith' to a whole lot of folks here and unlike a rationalist, is a deeply held value. While I think that to argue that 'rationality' is clearly superior, from the view point of an avowed atheist like yourself may be valid, to treat the sentiments of a whole lot of folks here the way you have treated above is quite harsh. I see a more and more edge to your arguments, while I remember in the past you have even tempered some of my valid moderation on language.

If you demur with my observation, you may discard this friendly post.

Regards,
KRS
Shri KRS ji,

I do not think that Shri Nara's statements in post #9 above are sharp. To me the averments of Shri Saidevo in the next post seem to be sharper, particularly his comment:

"‣ They cannot accept God and the individual soul as conceived in our texts, yet they cannot give up AzhvArs' pAsurams that teem with adorations to God and speak of the longing of their individual souls to merge with the supersoul."

It is personal insinuation because Shri Nara has been an open book, he has admitted that he was, at one time, a devout and staunch Sri Vaishnava but not any more, and it was at the specific request of Shri Silverfox, the moderator, that Nara wrote about Nammazhvar. We find many atheists who can present our scriptures and interpret these much better than some of our gurus even, but theirs will not have any limitations on account of beliefs which are sacrosanct.

I would request you, as the Super moderator of this forum, to consider these points also before making a judgement about the discussion going on here.
 
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

I know Professor Nara Ji, from the time he joined the Forum. I know he is very capable of defending himself and I also know that he knows our scriptures better than many of us here.

My comments are not to pull him up. They are made in a friendly way, and he knows what I mean (I hope). As I have said, he knows what I am talking about, based on our past experience on these type of exchanges, of course, I was the recipient of his advice, which I appreciated.

There is nothing to add from the Moderator's perspective.

Regards,
KRS
 
namaste shrI Sangom.

As I mentioned in a recent post of mine, I am a fiercely independent man (who has high regards for every AchArya, but is not closely associated with any). No, I am not a follower of Arya Samaj. In my opinion, their founder shrI Dayananda Sarasvati totally neglected the purifying power of bhakti in criticising the purANas and rituals like the shrAddha. Yes, I perform the shrAddha and amAvAsya tarpaNa to my ancestors regularly, although I don't observe many other nityakarmas prescribed for brahmins, for the simple reason 'that which did not bend in five cannot be bent now when I am on the wrong side of fifties'.

It is my belief that not only the Vedas are apauruSheya--impressed by the divine, but most of their mantras have a spiritual interpretation, which is why I appreciate the efforts of people like Gurudatta, Aurobindo, Kapali Sastry and R.L.Kashyap. My belief is mainly guided by the upanyAsa of KAnchi ParamachArya collected by shrI RA GaNapati in volume 5 of his compilation 'Deivatthin Kural' and hosted online at: Hindu Dharma: The Vedas : kamakoti.org. Every religion believes their root scriptures to be apauruSheya. When some scholars try to find Advaita in the Bible, why should our Vedas be only human compilations?

I came across your post on Saundarya Lahari but did not read it, as I am not completely familiar with SL.

As for your observation, "You are free to make innuendos and categorise me as asura...", please note that I only referred to brahmins giving up and criticising the Vedas when it is their responsibility to get deep into their study, specially when some doubt about the divine authority of their mantras arises. In fact, it was you who referred to me as a 'a teacher with poor quality of teaching' and 'a carpenter trying to make gold ornaments' in your posts in another thread, but I don't mind it, since I respect your scholarship.
 
... Every religion believes their root scriptures to be apauruSheya. When some scholars try to find Advaita in the Bible, why should our Vedas be only human compilations?
No Saidevo, this is not true. Vedas being apaursheya is a fundamental distinction between Vaideeka matham and other religions. Bible/Koran are paurusheya, authored by their god and conveyed to humanity through divine inspiration. This gives rise to circular argument for the authenticity of their god and their text -- Bible/Koran is authentic because it is god's words, god is god because Bible/Koran says so.

The notion that Vedas are apaursehya, not even authored by God, circumvents this circular logic. Vedas serve as independent confirmation for who that all powerful Iswara is, we don't have to rely on self-serving words of Iswara himself.

But, as Shri Sangom has so eloquently pointed out in post after post, the actual words of the Vedas betray human authorship. Due to the antiquity of the Vedas, even the early rishees may not have known who authored the verses, and considered them as un-authored. Some early logician, realizing the logical conundrum of God inspired texts, may have ceased on this un-authoredness of Vedas and may have posited ever present apaureshaness for the Vedas, and this convenient notion may have taken root.

Cheers!
 
....My comments are not to pull him up. They are made in a friendly way, and he knows what I mean (I hope).
No problem Shri KRS, I accept your comments as friendly advice. BTW, I am sure you will not hesitate to pull me up if I give you cause and that is fine too.

That said, I reread my post, and to be honest, I did not see anything harsh on a personal level. Saidevo himself declared that he has some beliefs and he is not interested in discussing them. When I wrote whatever his beliefs may be, I did not mean anything more than what he himself was saying, i.e. his beliefs is his business, not that his beliefs are worthy of ridicule.

The two sides of coin analogy is also very troublesome to me, it posits an equivalency that simply is not valid.

Cheers!
 
Dear Sir Saidevo

Please excuse my question.

I am a student from Vancouver, Canada doing research about nepali poetries.

On my work I find one expression which I can not find the actual meaning.

On the poetry said

When I went to see her , Thinking of sleeping with her , the little girl proved to be bent in five bendings(?).


On the post of ' Atharva Veda Samhita'
You write that

'that which did not bend in five cannot be bent now when I am on the wrong side of fifties'.

Is this description from some religious quotation?

If you find any ideas please share with me.

And again Please excuse my question, Sir.


Your Regards.

Asuka Kubo. Vancouver.

------------------------------------
 
namaste Ms.ohohogirl.

My statement in post no.15, 'that which did not bend in five cannot be bent now when I am on the wrong side of fifties' is based on a simple Tamizh proverb which states:

aindil vaLaiyAdadu aimbadil vaLaiyumA?
Can something that did not bend in five, would bend in fifty?

The 'five' and 'fifty' in the proverb and my statement refer to the age of the person. In other words, the proverb means that what one cannot submit himself/herself to learn early in the age of five, can he ever hope to submit and learn in the age of fifty? A corresponding English proverb is 'Catch them young and teach them right'.

Thus, the 'bend' above has nothing to do with the 'five bendings' of the Nepalese song you quoted. However, when I check the Google book link, some thoughts arise:

• The young girl in question is one of the many engaged in paddy transplantation work in the field.

• The girls involved in this work squat on their feet bending their limbs: the five bendings might refer to those at the ankle, knee, hip, neck/head and the arms.

• 'The little girl has a welformed body' because of her toils in the paddy field. That her face is 'exceedingly beautiful' might indicate her innocence.

• The man who courts the girl is described to be young, but the girls seems much younger, and this might probably indicate the practice of early/child marriages in the community.

However, I doubt if the western practices of love-making as described in the translation, actually correspond to those of the Nepalese. IMO, the West is always bent on imposing their cultural idiosyncrasies in their ventures at translation, or in efforts of fiction and film-making, of the Eastern and aboriginal cultures researched.
 
namaste Ms.ohohogirl.

My statement in post no.15, 'that which did not bend in five cannot be bent now when I am on the wrong side of fifties' is based on a simple Tamizh proverb which states:

aindil vaLaiyAdadu aimbadil vaLaiyumA?
Can something that did not bend in five, would bend in fifty?

The 'five' and 'fifty' in the proverb and my statement refer to the age of the person. In other words, the proverb means that what one cannot submit himself/herself to learn early in the age of five, can he ever hope to submit and learn in the age of fifty? A corresponding English proverb is 'Catch them young and teach them right'.

Thus, the 'bend' above has nothing to do with the 'five bendings' of the Nepalese song you quoted. However, when I check the Google book link, some thoughts arise:

• The young girl in question is one of the many engaged in paddy transplantation work in the field.

• The girls involved in this work squat on their feet bending their limbs: the five bendings might refer to those at the ankle, knee, hip, neck/head and the arms.

• 'The little girl has a welformed body' because of her toils in the paddy field. That her face is 'exceedingly beautiful' might indicate her innocence.

• The man who courts the girl is described to be young, but the girls seems much younger, and this might probably indicate the practice of early/child marriages in the community.

However, I doubt if the western practices of love-making as described in the translation, actually correspond to those of the Nepalese. IMO, the West is always bent on imposing their cultural idiosyncrasies in their ventures at translation, or in efforts of fiction and film-making, of the Eastern and aboriginal cultures researched.

Namaste. Sir.

I appreciate your quick reply and for your time and knowledges.

There was two ideas on my mind about the poetry. one is regarding of body and gesture.

And another is regarding of age. In the poetry the girl has not married, means she does not have to listen him as the married women do.

So if there were any connection between the quote and the poetry, my idea was that she will listen to him after the marriage.

As you said that there is western point of view. I will gain the original poetry in the original language, and keep continue of the further research.

My appreciation for your time and idea is from my heart.


Asuka Kubo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top