shrI Sangom's Rgveda exposition: doubts and discussions

[saarangam]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Saidevo, what I find ironical is the religious zeal of the people of faith to somehow equate their vision, which I think is mere delusion, to science. I feel this comes form an inferiority complex that drives them to desperately seek the same validity as science. No scientist would ever try to compare his/her theory to religious dogma, but the religiously minded never miss an opportunity to claim scientific validity.

Well written Sri Nara. I too share this POV.

 

[pviyer]

If I am one now, then what you say is correct, but I am not. Yes, SVs do take aupaurusheya as axiomatic truth. Their entire doctrine depends on this. Parasara Bhattar, the acharya who came right after Bhagavat Ramanuja, skip one, has written a beautiful poem describing an imagined exchange between a Jiva and Namperumal -- utsavar of Sri Rangam -- wherein the Jiva challenges Namperumal that he is independent of him. In his counter argument, Namperumal tries to establish himself as god by pointing to the independent authority of the Vedas. But all this is religious doctrine/dogma.

Again sir, this is just religious dogma. My point was not that the religious people do not think of Vedas as apauresheya, they do. My point is, such claims cannot be accepted as not irrational.

Thank you for clarifying on the Sri Vaishnava position, I hold high regards for its teachers.

Please correct me if I am wrong, your argument sounds like the following to me -- the plausibility of apaurushaness can only be experienced and cannot be expressed. If I have understood you correctly, then that ends the discussion right there.

Sir, if there was no need for any debate, then Adi Shankara would not have been part one. Each person needs to be engaged as per his mind growth.

I was trying to clarify that what is literal is not necessarily literal and what is interpolated interpretation is not necessarily one. Mark the words not necessarily.

If you are a small kid 3-4 years or new to learning maths, no matter how hard you press across , in most cases you are unlikely to understand most concepts of algebra in one single sitting. That is the mental capacity at that time.

Pardon me sir, but if we really feel that our mental capacity needs no adjustment to understand higher truths, I see no proof to justify the same.
However the realization of higher truths is neither impossible nor is it sudden. There is a definite gradual progress. It can be expressed and that is what our vedas(including its angas and upanishads) are doing but how do you expect to understand and accept a concept so high fi.

You say some word with an intended meaning, I cannot understand you, if you speak a meaning that is not in general usage. I will need to understand the subject to start appreciating the true import of your words.

It is not about killing an argument but one must appreciate that there is nothing logical at all in vedas , not in purushasooktam if you take literal meanings. You have to go beyond it and then see if there is a basis for it.

Infact there is a view that purushasooktam the most well know vedic soothra is the prototype for all Yagnas. Whatever, but bits and pieces of pursuhasooktam become clear when one is able to attain in success in one or more yagnas.

Now suppose you take a meaning for a verse which seems to be a twisted meaning rather than a literal meaning. Mark the word seems to be.How will you know it is right or wrong? Let us say that Gayatri as indicated by some is actually a prayer to SuryaNarayana and not to just surya? How do you prove?

Somebody says it and you will say this is twisting to suit his emotional purposes and dogma. The only way is to approach a devotee of narayana, who has gone deep into narayana worship can experience his powers. You ask him , can you answer this. He says let me observe today. He worships gayatri and tells you his take on it. There is an another alternative it involves lot more hardwork. You yourself set Narayana in your mind and worship gayatri with intensity and you know. You can then express things which become pretty clear to you.

In the vedic society if you came from a family which believed in the vedas you were initiated and then a disciplined life in gurukulam was meant to awaken you to the secret of mantras. The duration is many years may be 5 or 8 or 12 or more. There are some who catch fire easily and there are some who take years to ignite. The idea was that the seed for progress is firmly planted before you leave. Today that is rarely the case.

Sir the deeper meanings are partly expressed already for example by paramacharya or aurobindo and others. They dont seem logical and my point is they will not seem logical unless, you concede the fact that spiritual experience counts for something.

pviyer sir, I cannot accept any argument that appeals to religious dogma as valid. Therefore, it is very unlikely that you can convince me. You, on the other hand, are convinced of supernatural "truths". I can't disabuse you of this, you have to do it yourself. I hope I have given something to think over.

Even the mere statement that there is nothing to experience in spirituality is modern western dogma. This very dogma is illogical to many who have been doing prayer regularly in this forum. We have all studied science sir, and we are able to pass the examinations sir, and in certain exams where you independantly need to apply your own logic rather than copy the logic from books, that also we have passed sir. Some people with spiritual experiences have been former professors who have had a phd degree in physics.Some of us pretty well understand the scientific language and we are willing to learn from science. It is we who are not as dogmatic as the people who go by just and only just mundane methods of observation.

If I understand the position of Sri Nara right, then it is that something that cannot be inferred by using reading from scientific instruments or by using data available in previous experiments accepted and validated by other scientists then it should not be accepted as right? It is a dependancy on an authority which is not necessarily competent in all matters. I say that because Sri Nara has already assumed that there can only be such means of observation and no other! He has further assumed that the reading for instruments and sense organs is always univerally valid. There is also inadequate proof for this.

I am unable to follow your explanation as to why the wise of other cultures never tapped into these vibration and extracted the ever present vedic truths in their own language.

Sir point to me one culture (apart from the rishi culture), then or now, where all the following principles have been followed
1. Intense discipline since the age of 8 which includes proper times for waking up, brahmacharya, abstinence from intoxicants atleast during brahmacharya and there was no coffee or tea then,taking regular bath,moderation in food, observing strict hygeine and regular prayers to god or to nature whichever way you want to see it
2. In higher stages intense meditation and focus.

India sir still remains the land of Yoga whether you like it or not.

Sir, Buddhism no doubt advocates meditation
I thereby bow my head to these great sadhakas. But how about all the discipline standards and unceasing worship of god?
So leave alone present day saints sir, nobody in present times, have been able to perform comparable acts of discipline or meditation. Neither do we find this intensity in any culture. We do hear of some christian , buddhist and hindu monks who perform the best they can do to adopt rishi culture. after some years of perseverance they continue to be not only motivated but speak of personal experiences that has continued to motivate them. Their experiences neither sound logical to you nor are they likely to be appreciated by you.

But renowned scholars like Paul Brunton are not fools, to leave literary careers to go into the path of self inspection unless they felt that there was a gigantic world for discovery.

However the real matter is , that wisdom continues to be experienced by people of different countries to different degrees. They are not revelations of vedas but they certainly are a wisdom which in many ways concur with vedas and these could have been just inspirations or independent confirmations.

Finally why is that in India alone we have such a long oral tradition and why in India alone meditation based religious systems, with meditations as their important objective , have been born.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara and others.

A more rational and believable explanation is, what the Vedic rishees wrote are just their musings.

Let us see if some of what the scientists have written about their findings are anything beyond musings of the scientific mind.

• The single, ubiquitous force/energy that is behind all the world of science is electricity. What do the scientists still teach the school kids about it? That it is a flow of electrons triggered by a difference in the electric potential between two nodes that are connected by a wire.

‣ Did the early scientists actually watch the electrons wrench themselves off their native atomic orbits, queue up and race along the wire at the speed of light? Or was it just the musing of a scientific mind that still propagates this theoretical model among the school kids because they can't understand beyond it?

‣ Is there any guarantee that the current, advanced theory of electricity is final or is it just another advanced level musing aided by bahIr-karaNa--external physical instruments?

• Take the case of gravitational energy. When Newton was hit on the head by an apple (as the legend goes), he discovered the force of gravity. Later, it was termed as gravitional energy that comprises two forces, centripetal and centrifugal.

‣ Now, Science muses about the wave-particle theory as its current model of energy propagation. What sort of particle is involved in the propagation of gravitational energy?

• In the modern physics of quantum mechanics and string theory, the scientific musings involve gigantic particle accelerators with their experimental ducts spread over miles underground.

‣ In an apparent mocking of these particle accelerators, scientists occasionally come across an UFO sighting and muse how they could navigate with such felicity and speed, apparently propelled by light energy.

Thus, the point is,

• while the mind-machine musings of Science are fickle and undergo changes at the drop of a hat, and these changed musings are presumed to advance the cause of science,

• the musings of our Vedic RShis aided by man's antaH-karaNa, have discovered and anchored on the changeless, Absolute Truth, which has been repeatedly verified by Hindu yogic minds over millennia.

• All the differences and changes envisaged by the various streams of spirituality are only in the How-to of approaching the Absolute Truth and not in the What of the Truth itself.

 

[sangom]

So for people who believe in literal translations of vedas one does not need to translate the thousand verses of vedas. I made a statement to this effect which Sri sangom took offense. My point is that literal translations make gayatri itself incompatible with science.

Shri Iyer,

My response is only in respect of the above observation in your reply to Shri Nara.

If my understanding is correct, you said that literal translations of the vedas will tantamount to "false teaching". Permit me to say that many people "imagine" that the vedas have some hidden meaning and this idea is reinforced in the minds of people when our religious heads, mystics like Aurobindo etc., vouch that. But can you supply me with a book by Aurobindo in which he gives "mystic meanings" to each and every mantra of the, say, Krishna Yajurveda (Taittireeya Samhitaa), or the Atharvana Veda (any samhitaa)? I will be very thankful.

IMO, there are a few sooktas in RV which are highly philosophical or mystical, for example, the asyavaameeya sookta or the naasadeeya sookta. Of course, in respect of such isolated instances there can be hidden, mystic and other interpretations. Shri Saidevo and I had some exchanges in regard to the vrishaakapi sookta and he cited some "mystic" interpretations, apart from reasons for marital discord being impotency of the male, etc. You may like to see and judge for yourself. What I am saying is that even in respect of rigveda, such "hidden meanings" will satisfy no one. I seriously doubt whether brahmans were not encouraged to take up the analytical study of vedas but compelled only to parrot the "oral tradition" as you extol it, is because it has nothing to do with the primordial waves of supreme intelligence etc., but the very earthy necessity of the vedic priesthood, who made performing yajnas, killing animals by the score, imbibing the so-called spurious soma (because they lost knowledge of original soma long ago), etc., their lifetime occupation; if people started becoming sufficiently intelligent some fellow is bound to question the facades they had built — of vedas being of superhuman origin, inerrant, full of mystical meaning, etc. Whereas Christianity had to openly forbid its laity from interpreting the bible, our ancients achieved the objective in a shrewd way, IMO. That fear about all the grandiose greatness, which had artificially been built up for the vedas, crumbling down, is the reason for all the opposition to "literal translations" of vedas etc., according to me.

If the braahmana- and aaranyaka- texts are also considered part of the very same supreme vedas, I can show you how the "dakshina" to be given to the priest/s at each step of a yajna are clearly indicated therein. (I wonder how the Supreme consciousness which gave the vedas, was so much bothered about dakshinas!) Again, in the Krishna Yajurveda (Taittireeya) there are a few verses of rank obscenity as part of aswamedha, and I will be glad to be advised what are the Adhidaivika or AdhyAtmika meanings for these, rather for the entire Aswamedha.

 

[pviyer]

Shri Iyer,

My response is only in respect of the above observation in your reply to Shri Nara.

If my understanding is correct, you said that literal translations of the vedas will tantamount to "false teaching". Permit me to say that many people "imagine" that the vedas have some hidden meaning and this idea is reinforced in the minds of people when our religious heads, mystics like Aurobindo etc., vouch that. But can you supply me with a book by Aurobindo in which he gives "mystic meanings" to each and every mantra of the, say, Krishna Yajurveda (Taittireeya Samhitaa), or the Atharvana Veda (any samhitaa)? I will be very thankful.

Thank you for your reply. I perfectly agree that the popular translations indeed indicate a non scientific face of the vedas. Many of my close relations are likely to concur with your opinion than mine.

"If my understanding is correct, you said that literal translations of the vedas will tantamount to "false teaching". We do not know the real thought of a mantra. Your guess is as good as mine. We have vedas and we have some kinds of meanings passed on for a few thousand years. The indologists consulted some people in the tradition and built dictionaries for translation. It is not a false teaching if you believe no spiritual insight is needed to read the meaning. It is a false teaching if you believe a spiritual insight is necessary. We have two choices , this is what I meant and your view is correct to the assumption you have made. My view appears to be correct based on the assumption I have made.

But can you supply me with a book by Aurobindo in which he gives "mystic meanings" to each and every mantra of the, say, Krishna Yajurveda (Taittireeya Samhitaa), or the Atharvana Veda (any samhitaa)? I will be very thankful.

Sir I most certainly think that he has not provided translation to every verse for whatever reason I cannot speculate. I also most certainly think that none of his translations of any verse must be taken at face value even if we fully believe in his views. Because there is a gap between a thinker and a receiver of a thought. What I only meant is that we need to represent these thoughts where ever available. If we know for sure that something is wrong, there is no need. But we must ourselves do a self introspection on the reasons for being so sure. But having said this above, I sincerely will look out for works of aurobindo and if I find anything matching any part of your specifications, I will remember and reach out to you. I am not being sarcastic here.

What I am saying is that even in respect of rigveda, such "hidden meanings" will satisfy no one. I seriously doubt whether brahmans were not encouraged to take up the analytical study of vedas but compelled only to parrot the "oral tradition" as you extol it, is because it has nothing to do with the primordial waves of supreme intelligence etc., but the very earthy necessity of the vedic priesthood, who made performing yajnas, killing animals by the score, imbibing the so-called spurious soma (because they lost knowledge of original soma long ago), etc., their lifetime occupation

Your statement is true in different degrees depending on to whom it is applied and to which time it is applied.
Infact even traditionalists have a split here. There are people who want to go believe in literal words of every verse in vedas. There are others who preserve the attitude taught by Krishna that the wise focus on the real meaning of vedas not thrusting their life on the literal meanings of vedas. The question then comes , what is the real teaching of vedas? To some it is the vedanta and there are some who want to redo the job by digging every verse in vedas.
There are thus different types of thinkers. This may have been a trend started some centuries ago or a few thousand years ago, I dont know.

crumbling down, is the reason for all the opposition to "literal translations" of vedas etc., according to me.

this may be the feeling of many not all. I have no fears to that effect sir, because my job is easy, I can focus entirely on meditation in the buddhistic style. But the reason there is an opposition to "literal translations" is that some people think that literal translations may not be literal at all, and may lead them nowhere. It is not without its reasoning , though this cannot be proven to any audience of scientists. That reasoning is that our understanding of the meaning of something is restricted to the evolution of our own mind. This is why even traditionalists look up when aurobindo says something, but if some person from JNU says something, there is a strong resistance among some traditionalists. It is the belief in the spiritual capacity of individual( whether there is such a person in the first place is a different matter) that provokes acceptance of a view.

I perfect agree with your arguments that many verses are senseless right from the very beginning. Our practices, our shraddham little things like anganyasam, karanyasam what does all this have to correspond with evidences and modern scientific knowledge?
You have chosen the path of putting up an expose on them, but there will be people who will be able to find some errors in that translation, if it is indeed true that vedas have a spiritual basis. However this statement is not a criticism of your efforts or for that matter Saidevo's efforts.

Again, in the Krishna Yajurveda (Taittireeya) there are a few verses of rank obscenity as part of aswamedha

Sir I have myself read in some purana where somebody makes fun of this ritual so such a perception existed even among a few vedic followers. I dont know adhyatma meaning of this ritual but I can definately let you know when I find one. And as I said earlier irrational statements(in relation to modern science) appear right from the beginning of vedas although some might appear to be lofty. But I cant unlike you jump to a conclusion that vedas are irrational when for myself there seem to be sufficient experiences that it is a lofty subject matter. My first question would be , am I sufficiently rational? Thats where I have already diverged from your approach

 

[sangom]

"While the other systems of Indian thought are mainly speculative, in the sense that they deal with the universe as a whole, the nyāya and the vaiśeṣika represent the analytic type of philosophy, and uphold common sense and science, instead of dismissing them as "moonbeams from the larger lunacy". What is distinctive of these schools, is the application of a method, which their adherents regard as that of science, to material which has hitherto been treated in quite a different way. Applying the methods of logical enquiry and criticism, they endeavour to show that these do not warrant the conclusions which the Buddhist thinkers derived from them, and that logic does not compel us to disperse the unity and pattern of life into its fleeting moments. They are interested mainly in averting the sceptical consequences of the Buddhist phenomenalism, which merged external reality in the ideas of the mind. They seek to restore the traditional substances, the soul within and nature without, but not on the basis of mere authority."
. . .

"The sāṃkhya system represents a notable departure in thought from what may be called the formalistic habit of mind. By its emphasis on the principle of continuity, it marks, in some degree, the abandonment of the tendency to view the universe as tied up in neat parcels. Its rejection of the rigid categories of nyāya - vaiśeṣika as inadequate instruments for describing the complex and fluid universe, makes it a real advance on the theory of atomistic pluralism. It undermines the foundations of supernatural religion by substituting evolution for creation. The world is not the act of a creator God, who summoned up by a single fiatof his will a world entirely different from himself, but is the product of the interaction between the infinite number of spirits and the ever-active prakṝti, or the potentiality of nature-what Plato calls "the receptacle and nurse of all generation.
. . .

The sāṃkhya assumes the reality of puruṣa and prakṝti from the fact of knowledge with its distinction between the subject and the object. No explanation of experience is possible if we do not assume the reality of a knowing self and an object known. The sāṃkhya endeavours to give an intelligible account of all experience, why we have it and how we acquire it. Richard Garbe, who has made a special study of this school, says ; "In Kapila's doctrine, for the first time in the history of the world, the complete independence and freedom of the human mind, its full confidence in its own powers, were exhibited." It is "the most significant system of philosophy that India has produced." Even those who regard this estimate as exaggerated will concede that the sāṃkhya is a notable attempt in the realm of pure philosophy."
. . .

"Insistence on suffering, the subordination of Vedic sacrifices and denunciation of ascetic extravagances, indifference to theism and the belief in the constant becoming of the world (pariṇāmanityatva) are common to Buddhism and sāṃkhya. These casual coincidences are not enough to ratify the theory of mutual borrowing, especially in view of the marked differences between the two."

Given above are excerpts from a book. I am not giving the name of the book or its author, because I feel this may help us in giving our free and frank opinions on the different points contained in these excerpts.

It will be seen from the above excerpts that our ancient rishis, at least some of them, did not subscribe to the idea expressed by Shri Saidevo, viz., "the musings of our Vedic RShis aided by man's antaH-karaNa, have anchored on the changeless, Absolute Truth, which has been repeatedly verified by the yogic minds over millennia.", but instead followed the rational, scientific method. Of course this is my view; I would like to get different povs.

 

[sangom]

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/script...xposition-doubts-discussions-3.html#post75552

Thank you for your reply. I perfectly agree that the popular translations indeed indicate a non scientific face of the vedas. Many of my close relations are likely to concur with your opinion than mine.

Dear Shri Iyer,

While you are very much within your rights to believe whatever you want, about the vedas, is it not a general trend, if not rule, to take into account the general opinion on any matter, before one forms one's own considered view about it? In that respect will it not be correct to find out why even your close relations, who I believe must have "some" knowledge of the vedas, hold that it has a non-scientific face?

We do not know the real thought of a mantra. Your guess is as good as mine. We have vedas and we have some kinds of meanings passed on for a few thousand years. The indologists consulted some people in the tradition and built dictionaries for translation. It is not a false teaching if you believe no spiritual insight is needed to read the meaning. It is a false teaching if you believe a spiritual insight is necessary. We have two choices , this is what I meant and your view is correct to the assumption you have made. My view appears to be correct based on the assumption I have made.

Language is supposed to be the medium of communication between ordinary human beings. I am aware that extra-sensory communication powers are presumed for our ṛṣis by people who believe that those ṛṣis enjoyed superhuman powers and abilities, which you also possibly concur with. If that were true, those vedic ṛṣis need not have taken the trouble to depend on this unreliable communication by word of mouth; instead they could have simply communicated all the mantras with their esoteric, or, real meaning, to their disciples and passed on among the lineage; this would have been the best course for brahmans who jealously guarded the vedas as their exclusive province. Why did they not do so, please think.

To me, therefore, it is clear evidence that the vedic ṛks, yajuses or sāmans were told to others by way of a spoken language because their composers (who are called ṛṣis), just like we, the ordinary mortals, had no other way of communicating their thoughts and ideas to others. In addition, I would like to mention that yāska, the author of nirukta himself refers to one kautsa who, it appears, held the view that the vedas did not contain anything of value. The name kautsa appears both as a learned and revered person, as also in the above context. May be these were two different persons belonging to kutsa gotra, or, may be the learned kautsa himself became convinced at a later date about the uselessness of the vedas. Anyway, people had lost any trace of the "spiritual insight needed to read the meaning of the vedas" even as early (perhaps earlier, because yāska himself who lived before pāṇini - 4th, century B.C., refers to kautsa as a past person). If you still sincerely believe that the real hidden meaning would be perceived after more than 2500 years by some one, then it is just a belief, without the least possibility of realization, I feel.

Sir I most certainly think that he has not provided translation to every verse for whatever reason I cannot speculate. I also most certainly think that none of his translations of any verse must be taken at face value even if we fully believe in his views. Because there is a gap between a thinker and a receiver of a thought. What I only meant is that we need to represent these thoughts where ever available. If we know for sure that something is wrong, there is no need. But we must ourselves do a self introspection on the reasons for being so sure. But having said this above, I sincerely will look out for works of aurobindo and if I find anything matching any part of your specifications, I will remember and reach out to you. I am not being sarcastic here.

FYI wherever, hidden, philosophical ideas could be apprehended in vedic verses, much has been written about, both by indigenous scholars of old (who used sanskrit), modern indigenous scholars who wrote in indian languages as well as in English, besides the foreign authors. I may say that even in a book condemning vedas, published by the Indian rationalists association (?) I found appreciation for just the nāsadīya sūkta of ṛgveda! What I want to submit for your kind info, is that after ever so many great minds having sifted through the four vedas during all these centuries, nothing new can reasonably be expected to come in future; believing so would be a great disservice to those old scholars and their ability, IMO.

The truth is that many brahmans have been brainwashed to believe that (i) the ṛṣis possessed superhuman abilities, (ii) the vedas are eternal, unauthored and inerrant, (iii) the real import of the vedas cannot be experienced except through cultivating the same level of superhuman or extra-sensory abilities as those of the ṛṣis of yore , and so, all ordinary human (read, literal) translations are bound to be inexact or even grossly wrong and misleading, etc., etc. But the beauty is most such believers may not know anything of vedas or sanskrit, except some suktas which they would have learned by rote. Such a system works admirably well in perpetuating the myth.

Your statement is true in different degrees depending on to whom it is applied and to which time it is applied.
Infact even traditionalists have a split here. There are people who want to go believe in literal words of every verse in vedas. There are others who preserve the attitude taught by Krishna that the wise focus on the real meaning of vedas not thrusting their life on the literal meanings of vedas. The question then comes , what is the real teaching of vedas? To some it is the vedanta and there are some who want to redo the job by digging every verse in vedas.
There are thus different types of thinkers. This may have been a trend started some centuries ago or a few thousand years ago, I dont know.

"To some it is the vedanta" is a very significant observation. But I would request you to ponder for some time on why our ancients, who were quite adept at language and its proper use, preferred the term vedānta meaning "end of the vedas" to a more appropriate vedasāraḥ, vedārthasaṃgraha, or something similar, to denote this? True, the name vedānta is justified on the basis that bādarāyaṇa’s uttara mīmāmsa gives the gist of all the upaniṣadic speculations, upaniṣads forming the last part of the vedas. But is there not a grain of truth in the belief that uttara mīmāmsa put paid to pūrva mīmāmsa, codified by jaimini, but existing from the earliest vedic times? In that respect, once pūrva mīmāmsa, with its emphasis only on duty(dharma) enjoined by the vedas and the rewards obtained for diligent performance thereof, was consigned to the attic (so to say), did not the major part of the vedas become superfluous? So, you see, while our ancients quietly made most of the vedas otiose and embarked upon the highly speculative vedānta philosophies, encouraging the bhakti cult along with it, they paid lip service to vedas so that their philosophies do not get branded as heretical like buddhism, jainism, etc. I feel this was the method adopted in the case of nyāya, vaiśeṣika and sāmkhya also.

this may be the feeling of many not all. I have no fears to that effect sir, because my job is easy, I can focus entirely on meditation in the buddhistic style. But the reason there is an opposition to "literal translations" is that some people think that literal translations may not be literal at all, and may lead them nowhere. It is not without its reasoning , though this cannot be proven to any audience of scientists. That reasoning is that our understanding of the meaning of something is restricted to the evolution of our own mind. This is why even traditionalists look up when aurobindo says something, but if some person from JNU says something, there is a strong resistance among some traditionalists. It is the belief in the spiritual capacity of individual( whether there is such a person in the first place is a different matter) that provokes acceptance of a view.

First of all, I was referring to the historic past or even earlier to that, not about you, or contemporary people. I feel the brahmans, who were the repositories for vedas and vedic knowledge, were deliberately kept ignorant of the details of the vedas so that the facades built up did not collapse.

When you talk about "evolution of mind", it is distinct from evolution of intellect, I presume. The moment one holds that the real meaning of vedas must be known through the mind and not the intellect, it takes the discussion into a very different plane. For example, it will then be justifiable to hold the view that only such minds as can be hypnotised to believe all that is said about the mystic aspects of vedas, will be able to agree with such interpretations. It becomes a purely subjective matter, as subjective as one's favourite food item, colour of dress, etc. Don't you feel so?

I would request you to delve into the meaning of "dhiyo yo naḥ pracodayāt" in this context. The word धी means pious ; wishing to understand, thought, idea, notion, intention; understanding, wisdom, intellect, intelligence, intellectual power, mind ; knowledge, etc. It does not pray for impelling the mental ability.

I perfect agree with your arguments that many verses are senseless right from the very beginning. Our practices, our shraddham little things like anganyasam, karanyasam what does all this have to correspond with evidences and modern scientific knowledge?
You have chosen the path of putting up an expose on them, but there will be people who will be able to find some errors in that translation, if it is indeed true that vedas have a spiritual basis. However this statement is not a criticism of your efforts or for that matter Saidevo's efforts.

Iyer, you seem to talk on generalities whereas the posts by Shri saidevo and myself are still available for you to go through and for your considered views about what/who was saying correct or wrong. It will help both of us, the forum readers and all, if you kindly give your comments after reading those posts.

Sir I have myself read in some purana where somebody makes fun of this ritual so such a perception existed even among a few vedic followers. I dont know adhyatma meaning of this ritual but I can definately let you know when I find one. And as I said earlier irrational statements(in relation to modern science) appear right from the beginning of vedas although some might appear to be lofty. But I cant unlike you jump to a conclusion that vedas are irrational when for myself there seem to be sufficient experiences that it is a lofty subject matter. My first question would be , am I sufficiently rational? Thats where I have already diverged from your approach

For me, and in this discussion, for you too, Iyer, I believe the issue is not whether the vedas contain "irrational statements (in relation to modern science)", but whether the contents of the vedas give the unmistakable impression of the work of some superhuman agency throughout so as to justify the belief among some brahmans about their "apauruṣeyatva", inerrancy, mystic meanings of all verses, etc. Hence I do not think it is necessary to be rationally evolved but to be ready to use one's capacity to cogitate impartially, which is all that is required.

 

[Nara]

... When Newton was hit on the head by an apple (as the legend goes), he discovered the force of gravity.

• while the mind-machine musings of Science are fickle and undergo changes at the drop of a hat, and these changed musings are presumed to advance the cause of science,

Dear Saidevo, In science we have three levels of knowledge, (i) well settled ones, these are the laws like laws of motion, thermodynamics, etc., these do not change, (ii) knowledge that is being developed, theories are proposed based on observations, at this level the knowledge undergoes revision as new discoveries are made, and (iii) unknown at this point in time.

There is no changing at-the-drop-of-the-hat for (i). Not to change based on new evidence for (ii) would be irrational, only people of faith can do that, and science does not have the arrogance to simply makes things up about (iii) like the religious people do.

Newton is respected as the greatest scientist humanity has produced. He is held in no less a kind of respect vaideekas have for Veda Vyasa. But, not even Newton is considered sacrosanct, the way Veda Vyasa is for Vaideekas. At level (ii) of scientific knowledge, Newton has been proved wrong and it was not considered blasphemy. Nobody can say Veda Vyasa was wrong about this or that and remain Brahminical Hindu.

• the musings of our Vedic RShis aided by man's antaH-karaNa, have discovered and anchored on the changeless, Absolute Truth, which has been repeatedly verified by Hindu yogic minds over millennia.

What is that absolute truth? How do you know that is the absolute truth? How do you verify these truths? How can you tell who has this Hindu Yogic mind capable of doing this verification of Absolute Truth? If somebody claims he/she is one such Yogi do we just have to take his word for it? Otherwise, what are the criteria? Even if he was demonstrably a yogi, how can we tall that he telling the truth, in other words what is the process for verifying the authenticity of his claims? There are so many questions for which the only answer is faith. This claim to have access to the Absolute Truth is built on the quicksand of faith.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

What is that absolute truth? How do you know that is the absolute truth? How do you verify these truths? How can you tell who has this Hindu Yogic mind capable of doing this verification of Absolute Truth? If somebody claims he/she is one such Yogi do we just have to take his word for it? Otherwise, what are the criteria? Even if he was demonstrably a yogi, how can we tall that he telling the truth, in other words what is the process for verifying the authenticity of his claims? There are so many questions for which the only answer is faith. This claim to have access to the Absolute Truth is built on the quicksand of faith.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

This obsession with "Absolute Truth" is a subsidiary one to advaita or uttara meemamsa, I believe. It is an easy synonym for Parabrahmam which is only "The Absolute". Since by Sankara's very definition of it, Parabrahmam is devoid of any quality, it cannot, theoretically have the quality of being truth at all. Even I am not sure whether a statement like "Parabrahmam is" can be considered correct because the predicate "is" presupposes a subject and the possibility of a further qualifier, like "Rama is eating."

Hence the most correct statement that can be made is perhaps just the name "Parabrahmam". In the mahavakyas we have clear evidence of duality like "tat tvam asi", "aham brahma asmi", etc. and one can put forward the argument that by meditating on such lines the aspirant will only widen the distance between Parabrahmam and himself.

As to yogic hindu minds (YHM) verifying the "Absolute Truth" it is an impossibility, but perhaps we may say that whatever the YHM feels is the Absolute truth is the absolute truth as far as that YHM is concerned—like Columbus finding the "red" indians . Of course, none of the claims will be verifiable or provable indirectly, like a current passing through water generates oxygen and hydrogen in the anode and cathode and hence we deduce many things on that basis. And this is demonstrable in ad infinitum experiments or even industrially, unlike most religious claims.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri pviyer, if you think it is alright let us dispense with "sir" or "shri" when you address me, we are all brothers and sisters, let us feel free to be less formal. I will respect your preference on this matter.

Thank you for clarifying on the Sri Vaishnava position, I hold high regards for its teachers.

You are welcome pviyer, I also have a lot of respect for early SV acharyas and azhvars, they were social revolutionaries in many respects. However, I find the present-day SV acharyas to be quite petty, sectarian, and overly castiest.

Sir, if there was no need for any debate, then Adi Shankara would not have been part one. Each person needs to be engaged as per his mind growth.

Yes of course, I love to debate and if you are willing to waste some of your time on me, I am willing to engage and learn a thing or two from you. But we have an epistemic problem. I am not sure about this, Shri Sangom may clarify, but I think when Adi Sankara debated Buddists, he did not use Vedas as pramana. In other words, to have a meaningful dialog, we need to first agree on a common epistemology. When you and brother Saidevo say there is something called the "Absolute Truth" or "higher truth" and it can only be experienced by Yogis whose characteristics are undefined, is it not unreasonable for you to expect me to agree with it?

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

.. It can be expressed and that is what our vedas(including its angas and upanishads) are doing but how do you expect to understand and accept a concept so high fi.

I can't accept Vedas as a pramana. In narrow discussions of certain topics, like for instance tenability of Advaita, then, for the purpose of showing Advaita is non-Vedic, I can accept Vedas as pramana, but not otherwise.

Here is another example:

.... Let us say that Gayatri as indicated by some is actually a prayer to SuryaNarayana and not to just surya? How do you prove?

Somebody says it and you will say this is twisting to suit his emotional purposes and dogma. The only way is to approach a devotee of narayana, who has gone deep into narayana worship can experience his powers.

There are many problems with this approach. First and foremost, to see whether Gayatri mantra has any special powers or not, we have to subject it to some kind of observable tests. However, the faithful often argue that the present-day instruments are incapable of observing these effects. If that is so, then, how can fantastic claims about these mantras be made? If nobody can objectively measure, then we are left with personal testimony only. Claims that rely only on personal testimony will be acceptable only among the faithful.

In the vedic society if you came from a family which believed in the vedas you were initiated and then a disciplined life in gurukulam was meant to awaken you to the secret of mantras. The duration is many years may be 5 or 8 or 12 or more. There are some who catch fire easily and there are some who take years to ignite. The idea was that the seed for progress is firmly planted before you leave. Today that is rarely the case.

pviyer, what actually happened in Vedic gurukulam is anybody's guess. This is not a point on which we can debate. If you have faith in it, then that is it, logic and rationality does not enter the picture. If they do, then you cannot make such statements.

Sir the deeper meanings are partly expressed already for example by paramacharya or aurobindo and others. They dont seem logical and my point is they will not seem logical unless, you concede the fact that spiritual experience counts for something.

I think the so called "spirituality" is all plain and simple delusion. It is all brain cells and neurons playing tricks. It is like a "magician" cutting a lady in half and then put the two halves back together with not a drop of blood shed. Everything seems very real, and yet we know it is only a trick, nobody believes he/she really cut the lady into two. Wouldn't you say it is delusional to believe the "magician" really cut the lady in two halves?

Even the mere statement that there is nothing to experience in spirituality is modern western dogma.

Come pviyer, do you really think it is the west that came up with rejection of anything spiritual? Rejection of "spirituality" is as Indian as your faith in the supernatural. It is believed that none other than the acharya of the Indra of the Brahminical Vedas who is supposed to have been the founder of Lokayata matam. My own view is one of a skeptic, I am ready to believe anything, but first, prove it to me, or prove it to someone who has a track record of accepting as truth only that which can be verified -- i.e. scientific community. If not, at best I can only be an agnostic.

If I understand the position of Sri Nara right, then it is that something that cannot be inferred by using reading from scientific instruments or by using data available in previous experiments accepted and validated by other scientists then it should not be accepted as right? It is a dependancy on an authority which is not necessarily competent in all matters. I say that because Sri Nara has already assumed that there can only be such means of observation and no other! He has further assumed that the reading for instruments and sense organs is always univerally valid. There is also inadequate proof for this.

There is a subtle point you have missed, I am not saying there is nothing beyond what can be measured by present-day instruments. My position is, that which cannot be measured, the best position to take is that of an agnostic, not that of the faithful.

India sir still remains the land of Yoga whether you like it or not.

so be it, but don't you think it is fast becoming the land of McDonalds?

However the real matter is , that wisdom continues to be experienced by people of different countries to different degrees. They are not revelations of vedas but they certainly are a wisdom which in many ways concur with vedas and these could have been just inspirations or independent confirmations.

Why then the wisdom of different cultures differ so dramatically? The wisdom that was revealed to Mosas required his people to take no other god before Yahweh and to not covet neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey -- that would amount to cardinal sin deserving of eternal banishment in hell (for Christians). The Vedas on the other hand urge you to worship and offer havis to Indra and Agni so that one may ascend to heaven. Given such basic contradictions, your statement that there is concurrence is untenable.

Finally why is that in India alone we have such a long oral tradition and why in India alone meditation based religious systems, with meditations as their important objective , have been born.

One reason perhaps is they successfully managed to live of the labor of others so that these mendicants had enough free time to try these sorts of things? May be, may be not, I don't know. Whatever may be the reason, to get to meditate does not mean one has the passkey to Absolute Truth.

pviyer, please do not think I am mocking you, I respect your right to hold the views you hold. What I am objecting to is only the claim that they are rational. Also, I am not saying being rational is end-all of everything. IMO, I would rather be irrational than a heartless &^%$. To me, the foremost human quality is love and compassion. I will respect and love an irrational but compassionate person any day than a rational bully.

best regards ....

 

[Nara]

...Hence the most correct statement that can be made is perhaps just the name "Parabrahmam". In the mahavakyas we have clear evidence of duality like "tat tvam asi", "aham brahma asmi", etc. and one can put forward the argument that by meditating on such lines the aspirant will only widen the distance between Parabrahmam and himself.

Dear Shri Sangom, IMO, even the name "Parabrhmam" will negate the classical Advaitam, for it is predicated upon a language and a meaning associated with the sound, which in turn is predicated upon an entity to whom those sound vibrations make sense.

The so called Mahavakyams make sense only if there is duality, they cannot have any meaning if classical Advaitam is true. tat and tvam means there are two entities, aham and brhmma means there are two entities. But, only those who are born outside Advaitic tradition will agreet, and they would do so for their own parochial reasons and will fight us if we point out their own logical fallacies.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

I am not sure about this, Shri Sangom may clarify, but I think when Adi Sankara debated Buddists, he did not use Vedas as pramana.

Dear Shri Nara,

The Hindu side does not give details of the debates which Adi Sankara might have had with the Buddhists. May be some references are there in the buddhist lore. I am not familiar with those. Even if we strenuously trace those, there is a possibility that those are all "coloured".

But in all those "bhaashyas" - excluding a few which scholars conclude are spurious and foisted on Sankara - he has cited the upanishads very much more than the other parts of the vedic corpus. Samhitas are least cited.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom, IMO, even the name "Parabrhmam" will negate the classical Advaitam, for it is predicated upon a language and a meaning associated with the sound, which in turn is predicated upon an entity to whom those sound vibrations make sense.

The so called Mahavakyams make sense only if there is duality, they cannot have any meaning if classical Advaitam is true. tat and tvam means there are two entities, aham and brhmma means there are two entities. But, only those who are born outside Advaitic tradition will agreet, and they would do so for their own parochial reasons and will fight us if we point out their own logical fallacies.

Cheers!

I am supposed to be an "advaitin" according to family tradition, owing discipleship to the Sringeri peetham

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

You have a knack of sending people who try to question Science with their elementary knowledge, into a wild goose chase. Maybe I have caught/shot a goose or two with my elementary observations below, I don't know:

• You say that the Laws of Theremodynamics are final knowledge, which are unchangeable. Let us take the zeroth law: If system A and system B are in thermal equilibrium with system C, then system A is in thermal equilibrium with system B.

Thermal equilibrium is achieved when two systems reach the same temperature and cease to exchange energy through heat. Suppose I remove a bottle of water from the fridge and keep it on a table, due to exchange of heat energy between the cold water and the normal atmosphere outside, the water reaches the same temperature as that of the room atmosphere.

My elementary observation is this:

‣ Since everything in this universe--biological and material--at their core levels are always in a flux at their energy levels, and such energy being transform as heat in motion, where is the question of the same energy level remaining at two points in space, if at all for perhaps a nanosecond or less, which time cannot be measured accurately?

‣ Thus two systems remaining in thermal equilibrium and imparting that equilibrium to a third, is at best a logical probability expressed mathematically, than a practical reality, which is always changing.

• The first law states: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

This appears more philosophical and spiritual than scientific. It represents the physical substratum of SaguNa Brahman, the Absolute Manifest Truth. This law in effect states that biological and material forms of energy-particle combination in the universe arise out of the substratum of absolute physical energy, suffer entropy in course of time and then dissolve back into the substratum. This is the physical equivalent of the spiritual law of karma!

• If the entropy concept of the second law indicates the karmic process of dissolution, the absolute zero of the third law is the physical equivalent of NirguNa Brahman, which still has the potential, the kinetic energy at the ground state level called the quantum mechanical zero-point energy, using which it has spring back into manifest living energy forms.

*****

At level (ii) of scientific knowledge, Newton has been proved wrong and it was not considered blasphemy. Nobody can say Veda Vyasa was wrong about this or that and remain Brahminical Hindu.

This statement appears naive to me, because you missed an important point. Newton was proved wrong by scientists who walked the talk. VyAsa has not been proved wrong in the concept of Absolute Truth of his Brahma sUtras by the yogic minds who walked the talk.

Just as I freely seek to criticise eminent scientists with my elementary questions and observations without having the willingness to walk the talk, you and some others here who seek to criticise VyAsa do the same thing.

The 'talk' of the Hindu concept of Absolute Truth is there in the Brahma-sUtra and the UpaniShads in theory, and the 'walk' in Patanjali's yoga-sUtras in practice, to mention two scriptures.

 

[sangom]

Now suppose you take a meaning for a verse which seems to be a twisted meaning rather than a literal meaning. Mark the word seems to be.How will you know it is right or wrong? Let us say that Gayatri as indicated by some is actually a prayer to SuryaNarayana and not to just surya? How do you prove?

Somebody says it and you will say this is twisting to suit his emotional purposes and dogma. The only way is to approach a devotee of narayana, who has gone deep into narayana worship can experience his powers. You ask him , can you answer this. He says let me observe today. He worships gayatri and tells you his take on it. There is an another alternative it involves lot more hardwork. You yourself set Narayana in your mind and worship gayatri with intensity and you know. You can then express things which become pretty clear to you.

Dear Shri Iyer,

I am sure that by the word ''gāyatrī" you refer to the sāvitri mantra which is recited in sandhyāvandanaṃ. If this is right, the very name gāyatrī is a misnomer; it is a mantra praying to the deity "savitṛ". I give below the meanings of both savitṛ and sāvitri, for ready reference :-


savitṛ - a (f. trī) Producer, giver, savitrī kāmānāṃ yadi jagati jāgarti bhavatī gaṃgā lahari -23 ; The sun, yeṣāṃ kuleṣu savitā ca gururvayaṃ ca uttararāmacarita -1 ; An epithet of indra, siva

sāvitri according to sāyaṇa- the sun before rising is called sāvitri, and after rising till its setting sūrya ; eleven whole hymns of the RV. and parts of others [e.g. i, 35 ; ii, 38; iii, 62, 10-12 &c.] are devoted to the praise of sāvitri ; he has golden hands, arms, hair &c. ; he is also reckoned among the ādityas [q. v.], and is even worshipped as ' lord of all creatures,' supporting the world and delivering his votaries from sin ; the celebrated verse, RV. iii, 62, 10, called gāyatrī and sāvitri [qq.vv.] is addressed to him), RV. &c. &c. ; the orb of the sun (in its ordinary form) or its god (his wife is pṛśni).

You will find that in the whole of the rigveda there is no deity called narayana or suryanarayana. (The rishi who is credited with the authorship of purusha sukta is narayana, but then he was only a rishi, not god.) So, how is it that we can freely take suryanarayana to be the deity invoked in the popular gāyatrī?

Now if one is to believe that a person who is a devotee of narayana says the deity invoked by this mantra is narayana and no other, one may have to believe, with equal conviction, when a Siva, Kali or Narasimha devotee says that the deity in gāyatrī is Siva, Kali, Narasimha, etc. This will lead us to the position that gāyatrī (and in a similar manner, any other mantra) will appear in the way one wishes that mantra to appear. For example, if one is a great upasaka of ganapati, gāyatrī to him will bring out ganapati and no other deity. This sort of a situation will logically - and even for those who do not go by logic but by devotion and belief only - a situation where any mantra can be said to be on any god. That means the mantras per se are meaningless, without any definite content but some sounds which help the devotee to merely feel that his ishTadevata appears before him when he recites those sounds repeatedly. May be that is the reason for people from Kautsa's time itself saying that the vedas are meaningless and serve no useful purpose.

As opposed to your above view is the vedic tradition that even a small mistake in the pronunciation of veda mantras (with meanings properly understood, of course) will produce harmful results. Contemporary orthodoxy will also feel offended if, for example one goes to a vaishnava temple and start chanting a stotra on Siva loudly, or vice versa. So, how do you justify your own take on gāyatrī with these orthodox beliefs? Do you feel that the orthodoxy is wrong?

 

[zebra16]

Dear Shri Nara,


"Samhitas are least cited."

I was under the impression that Isavasya upaniSad forms a part of samhita portion of Sukla yajurveda. Am I wrong?

Regards,

narayan

 

[pviyer]

"While the other systems of Indian thought are mainly speculative, in the sense that they deal with the universe as a whole, the nyāya and the vaiśeṣika represent the analytic type of philosophy, and uphold common sense and science, instead of dismissing them as "moonbeams from the larger lunacy". What is distinctive of these schools, is the application of a method, which their adherents regard as that of science, to material which has hitherto been treated in quite a different way. Applying the methods of logical enquiry and criticism, they endeavour to show that these do not warrant the conclusions which the Buddhist thinkers derived from them, and that logic does not compel us to disperse the unity and pattern of life into its fleeting moments. They are interested mainly in averting the sceptical consequences of the Buddhist phenomenalism, which merged external reality in the ideas of the mind. They seek to restore the traditional substances, the soul within and nature without, but not on the basis of mere authority."
. . .

"The sāṃkhya system represents a notable departure in thought from what may be called the formalistic habit of mind. By its emphasis on the principle of continuity, it marks, in some degree, the abandonment of the tendency to view the universe as tied up in neat parcels. Its rejection of the rigid categories of nyāya - vaiśeṣika as inadequate instruments for describing the complex and fluid universe, makes it a real advance on the theory of atomistic pluralism. It undermines the foundations of supernatural religion by substituting evolution for creation. The world is not the act of a creator God, who summoned up by a single fiatof his will a world entirely different from himself, but is the product of the interaction between the infinite number of spirits and the ever-active prakṝti, or the potentiality of nature-what Plato calls "the receptacle and nurse of all generation.
. . .

The sāṃkhya assumes the reality of puruṣa and prakṝti from the fact of knowledge with its distinction between the subject and the object. No explanation of experience is possible if we do not assume the reality of a knowing self and an object known. The sāṃkhya endeavours to give an intelligible account of all experience, why we have it and how we acquire it. Richard Garbe, who has made a special study of this school, says ; "In Kapila's doctrine, for the first time in the history of the world, the complete independence and freedom of the human mind, its full confidence in its own powers, were exhibited." It is "the most significant system of philosophy that India has produced." Even those who regard this estimate as exaggerated will concede that the sāṃkhya is a notable attempt in the realm of pure philosophy."
. . .

"Insistence on suffering, the subordination of Vedic sacrifices and denunciation of ascetic extravagances, indifference to theism and the belief in the constant becoming of the world (pariṇāmanityatva) are common to Buddhism and sāṃkhya. These casual coincidences are not enough to ratify the theory of mutual borrowing, especially in view of the marked differences between the two."

Given above are excerpts from a book. I am not giving the name of the book or its author, because I feel this may help us in giving our free and frank opinions on the different points contained in these excerpts.

It will be seen from the above excerpts that our ancient rishis, at least some of them, did not subscribe to the idea expressed by Shri Saidevo, viz., "the musings of our Vedic RShis aided by man's antaH-karaNa, have anchored on the changeless, Absolute Truth, which has been repeatedly verified by the yogic minds over millennia.", but instead followed the rational, scientific method. Of course this is my view; I would like to get different povs.

In the time that has elapsed since my last log on there seem to be a huge number of replies to my opinion. At this point I thought I will continue discussion on a profound topic brought to light by Sri Sangom. Please pardon me if it takes time to address all your replies and Nara's , I have however read all your views and replies.

The position of philosophical systems(Samkhya, Vaisesika etc) in the orthodox systems is actually unclear. Largely because of a claim by the followers of these systems, that these are actually orthodox schools. But Sri Adi Shankaracharya himself has attacked these philosophies as unorthodox.

Whether orthodox or not, a mere reading of these philosophical systems indicates that these are very rational philosophical systems based on observation and inference with little scope for usage of revelations. The authors are high thinkers beyond any trace of doubt.

Sri sangom is very much right in saying that great thinkers who were possibly rishis themselves used rational methods of thought.

Let me try to put forward the position of Shankara on these philosophical systems. I found this book "The Philosophy of Sankar's advaita Vedanta " by S.K.Chattopadhyaya very much echoing my own views in certain matters, not all though. It also expresses some of my other views already put forward in this thread.
I am quoting below from this book relevant sections.

In his commmentary on B.S 1.1.2, that in respect of transcendental grounds of things, sankara has already argued that no inferential argument can ever succeed in determining the specific nature of the cause in a transcendental context where such causal ground is not the object of sensuous knowledge

This is a view I have been echoing here. To give a real world example, a person will only know that much of another person, as he can know using people, information and records that are accessible to him.

It is specifically for this reason that Shankara argues that Vedanta as atranscendal philosophy falls back upon the evidences furnished by sruti texts,conceived as revealed knowledge,embodying the non sensuous intuitions which are impersonal in origin ,and thereafter , ellaborates and defends the sruti version of the case by logical arguments pro and contra

I will not present ellaborate details on why Shankara does not consider samkha, vaisesika etc in line with Sruti since there are people here who have already sufficient questions on whether the so call sruiti is really a sruti(revealed knowledge). But to sum things up Sankara points out that not only the terminology but also concepts in samkhya, vaisesika run against the fundamentals of srutis. He points out that neither the words nor the meaning associated with words can be traced to srutis. There is another interesting point being made by Shankara that these systems though try to argue that the ultimate truth can be captured using inference, lean back on the sruti for validation. Some people hear may tend to interpret this as a symptom of making themselves acceptable to popular authorities.

Shankara then explores the logical flaws of these systems. These refutations are peculiar to the system of logic of propounded by these philosophies.
To give an example

He has argued that the external and internal series of the distinguished that is the physical objects and their corresponding mental status cannot be supposed to have a commonality of nature such as pleasure,pain and dullness, or even a common matrix. Pleasure etc are feelings, they are internal and subjective.Sound taste etc on the other hand not feelings. They are objective and pertain to external objects. These later are the occasioning causes the subjective feelings which again differ in their specific nature on account of different mental predispositions of individuals. Had pleasure , pain etc been components of external objects, all percepients would have been effected in the same way as they hear the same sound, see the same color and so on. So it cannot be said that the distinguished - subjective and objective entities, do have a commonality of nature or that their primary material cause have the same essences

Nothing that is unconscious is ever found capable , independantly or unaided, of giving rise to anything to meet the very distinctive requirement of a person, the enjoyer. It is unconceivable then that the alleged inconscious pradhana has of itself without being guided and controlled, and therefore without being regulated by a conscious principle,produced this wonderful world order ,distinguised into the order of enjoyers, having diverse formations of bodies and organs suiting their deserts and also into the external realm of objects,having diverse composition, and requisite for being enjoyed in some settled ways. Samkhya it is commonly known insists on our acceptance of the express order of pluralities as an order distinguished into enjoyers and the enjoyed. The cosmic evolution according to it, although automatic and quasi mechanical,subserves the purpose of plural purusas for its release. These purusas under the samkhya stipulation are mere centres of experience,but being absolutely inactive can be conceived as the guiding or regulating principle, of pradhana which is supposed to evolve into plural forms out of itself having the potency for it..

The emergence and differentiation of world plurality, in the subjective and objective forms, considered as effects, cannot be explained by the mere supposition of an unconscious principle of self differentiating and self integrating material cause

As can be seen here Sankara is pin pointing at the gaps in the knowledge of samkhya vadis that they do not have a proposition of how they would replace the role of a conscious player with an unconscious player.

In case of Vaisesikha , the system is quite incompatible with modern science itself. However Shankara again points to the inadequency and flaws in these systems. In one example he attacks the inadequency of the concept of indivisibility of atoms.

I think Sri Sangom himself would agree that these philosophical systems though rational represented an early point in rational thought. So he may tend to postulate that the modern science is an advancement over the defects of such earlier system. That is a separate discussion. But I think somewhere he made a point that these rational thinking was suppressed and not allowed to develop in India and become a full fledged modern science. But there is an indication here that the advocates of these systems failed to develop over their inadequencies and thereby could not put up a sufficient defense to their rational methodologies using rationality itself. It was an indication of those times, and not necessarily an indication of the present or of the future.

 

[sangom]

I was under the impression that Isavasya upaniSad forms a part of samhita portion of Sukla yajurveda. Am I wrong?

Regards,

narayan

Yes you are right, and I think Isavasya is the only such case. But in normal day-to day usage the word Samhita is loosely used to indicate the corpus of other vedas which do not contain the upanishad portion. Isavasya is also called Vajasaneyi; what I meant was the vajasaneyi samhita (other than Isopanishad) as such has not been sighted, and other samhitas have been sighted least.

BTW, talking of Isopanishad, the following remarks of Aurobindo may be interesting :—

"Three times God laughed at Shankara, first when he returned to burn the corpse of his mother, again, when he commented on the Isha Upanishad, and the third time when he stormed about India preaching inaction."

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

First and foremost, to see whether Gayatri mantra has any special powers or not, we have to subject it to some kind of observable tests. However, the faithful often argue that the present-day instruments are incapable of observing these effects. If that is so, then, how can fantastic claims about these mantras be made? If nobody can objectively measure, then we are left with personal testimony only. Claims that rely only on personal testimony will be acceptable only among the faithful.

Although the gAyatrI is THE mantra for the brAhmaNas, it is not that only they talk about its spiritual efficacy. Check what the renowned Theosophist CW Leadbeater said in pages 528-535 about it in this book:

The Masters And The Path
Theosophy : The Masters and the Path by C.W. Leadbeater : AnandGholap.net

 

[BALASUBRAMANIANIYER]

Good to read. This will help me to learn and create eagerness to go for further details. Thanks for the awareness. Keep it up. Reards, Nathan

 

[sangom]

Give me some hours before I complete this post on what Shankara has to say on the philosophical systems and why he considers them as false.

Shri Iyer,

Please take your time. Meanwhile whatever i have read about advaita says that Sankara disapproved Samkhya and Yoga, both with equal force, as means for realization of Brahman and, thus, to obtain moksha; he did not brand these two darsanas as unorthodox. For that matter Sankara, in his Brahmasutra bhashya does not say bhakti is a means for knowledge which alone according to him can lead one to self-realization and thence to liberation.

But today, we have most tabras, if not hindus of every hue, swearing by yoga as a sure means of liberation, with kundalini, chakras, sahasraaram etc., etc. Sankara said, in a nut shell, that performance of one's ordained karmas according to sruti will condition a person for gaining jnaana through "nididhyaasana" (profound and repeated meditation) but Sankara did not recommend Patanjali's ashTaanga yoga. What advaitins have done is a great disservice to the Acarya, IMO.

Kindly let us know whether this Bhattacharya is the person who claims that sankara came to him as an apparition one night and pointed out some portion of his bhashya which removed a nagging doubt in his (Bhattacharya's) mind about advaita.

 

[sangom]

Shri Narayan,

This is in continuation of my post #43 above.

According to the data furnished by Vidyavachaspati V. Panoli in his book "Adi Sankara's vision of Reality", the number of citations by Sankara in his important bhaashyams is as under:—

Isavasya Upanishad - 33
Brihadaaranyakopanishad - 976
Chaandogyopanishad - 709

All other Samhitas - 36

Grand total of all citations - 2697

Thus even if we reckon Isopanishad as samhita, the reliance which sankara places on samhitas is very little.

 

[zebra16]

Shri Narayan,

This is in continuation of my post #43 above.



"Thus even if we reckon Isopanishad as samhita, the reliance which sankara places on samhitas is very little."

Namaste Sri Sangom,

My message was to get my doubt clarified regarding Isavasya UpaniSad being a portion of samihita. I have nothing to contest against your observation that upaniSads are overwhelmingly cited by Sankara in brahma-sutra bhashyas.

As regards your message no. 46 of today regarding the present day practice of Bhakti as a means of mukti, I would like to know whether the present day's practices in Bhakthi (like sahasranamam chanting etc) passes the test of Narada bhakti sutras or in that aspect also we are far away from following our scriptures.

Regards,

narayan

 

[pviyer]

Shri Iyer,

Please take your time. Meanwhile whatever i have read about advaita says that Sankara disapproved Samkhya and Yoga, both with equal force, as means for realization of Brahman and, thus, to obtain moksha; he did not brand these two darsanas as unorthodox. For that matter Sankara, in his Brahmasutra bhashya does not say bhakti is a menas for knowledge which alone according to him can lead one to self-realization and thence to liberation.

But today, we have most tabras, if not hindus of every hue, swearing by yoga as a sure means of liberation, with kundalini, chakras, sahasraaram etc., etc. Sankara said, in a nut shell, that performance of one's ordained karmas according to sruti will condition a person for gaining jnaana through "nididhyaasana" (profound and repeated meditation) but Sankara did not recommend Patanjali's ashTaanga yoga. What advaitins have done is a great disservice to the Acarya, IMO.

Kindly let us know whether this Bhattacharya is the person who claims that sankara came to him as an apparition one night and pointed out some portion of his bhashya which removed a nagging doubt in his (Bhattacharya's) mind about advaita.

I have made my post on the systems in discussion.
Sir I am not sure what you mean by Bhattacharya here.
But I referred to the fact that it was considered unorthodox in the sense it did not depend on sruti.
If you feel the Shankara no where claimed that samkhya did not depend on sruti, then please provide me sufficient information to sort this out. If it is not based on sruti then within that context it may be considered as unorthodox. But that is besides the point. My classification of unorthodox was in that sense , please feel free to replace with another new term in this context .

I am aware of sankara's refutation of such mundane philosophies. But all this is in the context of realization of Brahman. I am sure nobody is learning ashtanga yoga these days to merge with the Brahman.

 

[sangom]

Namaste Sri Sangom,

My message was to get my doubt clarified regarding Isavasya UpaniSad being a portion of samihita. I have nothing to contest against your observation that upaniSads are overwhelmingly cited by Sankara in brahma-sutra bhashyas.

As regards your message no. 46 of today regarding the present day practice of Bhakti as a means of mukti, I would like to know whether the present day's practices in Bhakthi (like sahasranamam chanting etc) passes the test of Narada bhakti sutras or in that aspect also we are far away from following our scriptures.

Regards,

narayan

Shri Narayan,

When we are talking about Sankara and his advaitic philosophy, and the methods prescribed by him, etc., asking whether Vishnusahasranaama japa and other "bhakti" practices of today are in line with what Narada Bhakti Sutras (NBS) lay down, looks to me somewhat strange; is this another fresh, unrelated doubt of yours, or is it your opinion that it is enough to follow NBS, Sankara and his advices can be forgotten?

As you very well know NBS is a very late concoction (assigned to 11th. or 12th. century A.D.), IMHO, by someone who wanted to give some pseudo-scriptural authority for the bhakti cult which was then becoming the rage of the people. There is no evidence to show that Narada actually wrote it; nor is it sure that its author sported the name (or, at least nickname) of Narada. NBS cites the Sandilya Bhakti Sutras (SBS) which is more philosophical, reportedly. NBS states, I read from secondary sources, that whatever one feels as bhakti, is bhakti (swayam pramaaNa). So, anything and everything will pass muster as pure undiluted bhakti per NBS .