My Spiritual Quest

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 08 Nov 2010, 17:57

> let's not quibble over these points, and get back to the topic of this thread.

Worth repeating in bold letters!
Let's not quibble over these points, and get back to the topic of this thread.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 08 Nov 2010, 19:25

Rigveda 10.82.7

na taá¹ƒ vidÄtha ya imÄ jajÄnÄyad yuá¹£mÄkamantarambabhÅ«va |
nÄ«hÄreá¹‡a prÄvá¹›tÄ jalpyÄ cÄsutá¹›pa ukthaÅ›ÄsaÅ›caranti ||

You cannot find him, the creator. Something else has come between you. Veiled by clouds of mist (of ignorance and arrogance), the hymn-chanters wander about, stammering nonsense.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 08 Nov 2010, 20:21

R-T and PB,

In case you didn't notice, I just got back to the purpose of the thread in post #249 (oddly enough, the thread seems to have a purpose centered on language and thinking, even if life doesn't)

"Spritiual quests" do not have to conform to your limited idea of what "spirituality" is. So, my advice to you is - read and learn. If you have anything to teach, add it.

I am going to give this a last try again after I return from travels, but if the thread continues to become the "graveyard of common sense and positive pursuits" then I must exit.

SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 08 Nov 2010, 21:16

srkris wrote:Rigveda 10.82.7

na taá¹ƒ vidÄtha ya imÄ jajÄnÄyad yuá¹£mÄkamantarambabhÅ«va |
nÄ«hÄreá¹‡a prÄvá¹›tÄ jalpyÄ cÄsutá¹›pa ukthaÅ›ÄsaÅ›caranti ||

You cannot find him, the creator. Something else has come between you. Veiled by clouds of mist (of ignorance and arrogance), the hymn-chanters wander about, stammering nonsense.

srkris,

10.82.7 cannot be taken out of context.

The deity of the sukta 10.82 is Vishwakarman (the "Universal Maker"). The Rk 10.82.7 can be viewed in a philosophical sense, as done by the commentators Sayana and Mahidhara - to them it appears to reprimand those who want to go to heaven by performing sacrificial acts. That is what I remarked to be an error of action, and also an error of interpretation.

In a cosmological sense, these interpretations do not hold water. The Rgveda is not concerned with reprimanding or praising human beings. To understand that, one needs to put the Rgveda in context.

The immediately preceding sukta (10.81) also has the SAME "deity" (Vishwakarman) and the SAME rishi (Vishwakarman Bhauvana) as 10.82. In your interpretation, which claims that the the rshi is the "author" and the "deity" the object of human worship, this would be patently absurd (the author and the deity being the same) - but never mind, I did not expect you to have realized this.

Anyhow, let us see what the same "rshi" has to say about the same "deity" in 10.81:

10.81.5
yA tE dhAmANi paramANi yAvamA yA madhyamA viSvakarmannutEmA
SikshA sakhibhyO havishi svadhAvah svayam yajasva tanvam vrdhAnah

These highest, lowest, and midmost abodes of yours, O Visvakarman,
Teach thy friends in the sacrifice, and come yourself, exalted one, to our worship.

10.81.6
viSvakarman havishA vAvrdhAnah svayam yajasva prthivImuta dyAm
muhyantvanyE abhitO janAsa ihAsmAkam maghavA sUrirastu

Sacrifice here yourself, exalted by our oblation, O Visvakarman, the Earth and Heaven
Let others live in delusion, be rich and bountiful for us.

10.81.7
vAcaspatim viSvakarmANam UtayE manOjuvam vAjE adyA huvEma
sa nO viSvAni havanAni jOshadviSvaSambhUravasE sAdhukarmA

Let us invoke today, to aid our sacrifice, the lord of speech, Visvakarman, swift of thought.
May he, whose works are excellent, who gives all happiness for our aid, hear all our invocations.

Clearly, even in your own interpretive model ("rishi = author, deity = object of address"), the putative meaning you assigned to 10.82.7 falls apart. Apparently the same composer has composed two back-to-back suktas, the first one being a very standard "let-us-sacrifice-and-call-the-deity-to-show-up-and-favor-us-over-others" sukta, and then another one where he insults the same sacrifice.

Taking a superficial approach of quoting isolated passages out of context will not lead to understanding for us and our readers. I hope we can rise beyond this level.

SR

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 09 Nov 2010, 16:36

SR - you are sounding more and more like one of those fundamentalist TV evangelists...
Try and bring down your ego, and you can understand spirituality better. All the best.

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 09 Nov 2010, 18:06

ashTAvakra uvAca -

muktAbhimAnI muktO hi baddhO baddhAbhimAnyapi |
kiMvadantIha satyEyaM yA matiH sA gatirbhavEt || 1-11 || (ashTAvakgra gItA)

If you think you are free, you are free; if you think you are bound, you are bound;
the adage 'You become what you think' is indeed true.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 09 Nov 2010, 19:57

if you think you are free, you are free; if you think you are bound, you are bound;
the adage 'You become what you think' is indeed true - very true, well said govindan sir.

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 09 Nov 2010, 20:08

I do enjoy reading the posts of SR, which show his intense desire to share his knowledge.

However, though only a few members of this forum participate in this discussion, it is open to all. As such, a few posts would surely hurt the feelings of those who believe in: the words of Bhagavad Gita, Om, and Archavataram. For reference, these are given below:-
--------------
On Bhagavad Gita:-
Post #156
It is another matter that the sage of the Bhagavad gita went overboard and equates Brahman with the vedas ("veda cA'ham") and claims that all that is to be known in the Vedas is Brahman ("vedais ca sarvaih aham eva vedyo").

On idolization or Archavatharam, which is one of the basic concepts of Sri Vaishnavam:-
Post #156
There is of course the danger of misinterpretation of Vedic shabda - resulting for instance in things like tedious and repetitive sacrifices, idolization of gods, or mystic quackery.

On Om:-
Post #159
I also find the Upanishadic and Vedantic insistence on the syllable "aum" as the "highest syllable" misleading.
--------------
And the post on Buddhism could have opted for mild words:-
Post #161
Once we start talking about Buddhist skepticism, it is a bottomless pit of nonsense.
--------------

Here, the foundation - the rasikas forum - is more important than our individual views.

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 11 Nov 2010, 07:02

Sangeet Rasik wrote: R-T and PB,"Spritiual quests" do not have to conform to your limited idea of what "spirituality" is. So, my advice to you is - read and learn. If you have anything to teach, add it.

Thank you! Should we read and learn from Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist and other literature, OR from the interpretations of particular gurus, and the posts in this forum by a few learners?

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 14 Nov 2010, 04:21

What is 'Athirathram' - a vedic ritual

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 14 Nov 2010, 06:58

see
http://sify.com/news/kerala-s-panjal-vi ... cecde.html
and if curious do participate...

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 14 Nov 2010, 07:03

"The Atiratra Agnicayana (ati-rÄtrÃ¡ agnÃ-cayana "the building up of the fireplace performed over-night") or Athirathram":-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnicayana

There is another site dedicated to Athirathram:-
http://www.athirathram.org/home.html

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 15 Nov 2010, 21:24

Question: is bhakti a requirement to achieve spiritual enlightenment?

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 15 Nov 2010, 23:54

rt,
Your question is not that simple to answer 'yes' or no. Depending on one's outlook, it can be 'yes' or 'no' or 'yes' and 'no. I will give my reasons.
For the present, I will leave it with a stanza from Sivananda Lahari by Adi Sankara - the greatest exponent of Advaita.

naratvaM dEvatvaM naga-vana mRgatvaM maSakatA
paSutvaM kITatvaM bhavatu vihagatvAdi jananam |
sadA tvadpAdAbja smaraNa paramAnanda laharI
vihArAsaktaM cEd-hRdayam iha kiM tEna vapushA || 10 ||

Let me be born as man or celestial, as wild beast or mosquito, as animal or worm, as bird or any other creature. What harm can accrue from these embodiments, if in every such birth my heart always feels inclined to disport in the waves of supreme bliss consisting (in)? the constant remembrance of Thy lotus feet?
Translation by Swami Tapasyananda

mankuthimma · Post by **mankuthimma** » 16 Nov 2010, 14:50

ragam-talam wrote:Question: is bhakti a requirement to achieve spiritual enlightenment?

Well I should assume Yes .Especially if one is the kind who is sure of the Ocean , just because he has seen a Brook.

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 16 Nov 2010, 16:43

Spiritual quest refers to the search for one's true self. This quest results in what is commonly called Atma gyanam, or Brahma gyanam, or simply atma satshatkaram. Shraddhavan labhate gyanam - so says Sri Krishna. Shraddha here means intense curiosity and unflinching desire, coupled with unswerving attention to the question, Who am I?, or What is the truth, or What is all this (world).

Bhakthi, as is commonly understood, is only a preliminary step in the direction, and is useful to get rid of unneccessary and stray thoughts.

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 16 Nov 2010, 20:43

rt,
bhakti is of two types - 'gauNa' (with attributes) and 'mukhya' (or 'para') bhakti as defined in Narada Bhakti Sutras. gauNa bhakti is that which is practised with a motive - gItA (7.16) 'Arta (seeker of relief from distress), arthArthi (seeker of enjoyment). Spiritual quest precludes this gauNa bhakti.

The reason why I quoted from Adi Sankara - greatest of advaitins - is that advaita (non-duality) anubhava does not necessarily exclude bhakti which is considered as arising from duality. In fact, bhakti practised by such people belong to the category of 'mukhya' bhakti as defined in ibid Sutras.

'mukhya' bhakti is that which is practised without any motive, with love of God for His own sake as the aim. What tyAgarAja practised was this kind of bhakti. This is similar to gItA's prescription (2.47) 'karma for its own sake' (karmaNEyava adhikArastE).

Those who follow path of knowledge (jnAna yOga), those who practise mukhya bhakti and those who follow path of action (karma yOga), reach the same goal. gItA's words (4.11) - 'mama vartmA anuvartantE' (It is my path that people tread in all ways).

ashThAvakra gItA/saMhita puts spiritual quest in a nutshell -

muktim icchasi cEt tAta, vishayAn vishavat tyaja |
kshamA Arjava dayA tOsha satyaM pIyUshavat bhaja || 1.2 ||

"If you aspire after liberation, my child, shun the objects of the senses as poison and seek forgiveness, sincerety, kindness, contentment and truth like nectar." (Translation by Swami Nityaswarupananda).

These methods (kshamA etc.) are common for all paths - jnAna, bhakti or karma. That being so, whatever path we may follow according to our orientation - (gItA 3.3) (jnAna yOgEna sAnkhyAnAM (path of knowledge for meditative) and karma yOgEna yOginAM (path of action for the active) - it is indeed 'nishThA' (devotion) aka bhakti. 'SraddhA mayO(a)yaM purushO; yO yacchRddhaH sa Eva saH' (17.3) "The man consists of his Sraddha; he verily is what his Sraddha is." Sraddha is bhakti.

gItAcArya makes a final statement (18.66) 'sarva dharmAn parityajya mAmEkam SaraNam vraja' (abandoning all dharmas, take refuge in me). This is SaraNAgati - essence of bhakti. But SaraNagati is easy said than done. Unless one totally sublimates his ego, SaraNAgati is not possible. mukhya bhakti is indeed SaraNAgati.

As we are endowed with intellect, we cannot stop enquiry. We should be convinced about the reasonability of our actions; we cannot blindly believe. Therefore, total surrender (SaraNAgati) can come only after enquiry. Otherwise, there is a dread of fundamentalism in blind faith. True SaraNAgati comes through jnAna. The obverse is also true - 'true jnAna comes through SaraNAgati'.

Path of jnAna without faith in reputed sources may result in waste of effort - remember the physical torture Buddha had to undergo before he attained nivANa. This faith is indeed bhakti.

Now coming to the question 'whether bhakti is necessary for spiritual enlightenment'. When all the three paths converge at the goal, it makes no difference which path we follow. In fact, they complement each other. Whether by choice or not, those who pursue spiritual path, have to be devoted (bhakti yOga), have to abandon results actions (karma yOga), have to enquire (jnAna yOga).

bhakti does not necessarily mean performance of pUja etc - 'bAhya (external) bhakti'. bhakti is also 'dhyAna' etc - 'Antarika (internal) bhakti'. Spiritual enlightenment may not be possible without dhyAna etc. Therefore, those who follow jnAna path, also go through the methods of bhakti.

Love is the motivational force of the Universe. Love is bhakti; bhakti is love. We cannot stop loving - notwithstanding spiritual enlightenment.

ksrimech · Post by **ksrimech** » 16 Nov 2010, 21:17

vgovindan wrote: As we are endowed with intellect, we cannot stop enquiry. We should be convinced about the reasonability of our actions; we cannot blindly believe. Therefore, total surrender (SaraNAgati) can come only after enquiry. Otherwise, there is a dread of fundamentalism in blind faith. True SaraNAgati comes through jnAna. The obverse is aso true - 'true jnAna comes through SaraNAgati'.

Very well written Sri Govindanji. May not be of direct relation to any of what is going on in the discussion here though. But your words remind of svAmi vEdAnta dESikan's nyAsa daSakam SlOkam, which kind of echos what you have stated here:
aham madrakSNa bharaha madarakSaNa phalam thathA |
namama SrIpathErEva ityAtmAnam nikSipEth budhaha ||
Even in viSiSTAdvaita, when we perform total surrender, we request for para bhakti, para gnyana and parama bhakti. (Ref: svAmi rAmAnuja's SaranAgati gadyam)

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 16 Nov 2010, 23:56

As we are endowed with intellect, we cannot stop enquiry

I found myself contemplating various ideas from this thread during V Sumithra's beautiful concert this evening.

Whereas music is often the occasion of release from metal activity of all kinds (and failure to achieve this has spoilt a few concerts for me), this time, it seemed quite appropriate, and, although questions were several and answers few, I enjoyed my contemplation

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 18 Nov 2010, 08:05

If a man finds himself spending much time contemplating spirituality and things of such nature, this is because he is unhappy with his present and past actions, or bored, or not believing himself to be performing meaningful actions. Instead of deluding himself that he needs "spiritual enlightenment", he ought to determine the course of better actions. By performing such actions, he will then find that he is living a long, healthy, and happy life and in fact has no time for spiritual speculations.

I encourage the practise of my composition in Purvikalyani presented earlier, and consideration of the simple advice administered therein. If one is interested in obtaining jnAna (true knowledge), it should be for the purpose of translating it into karma (action) based upon principles of dharma (righteousness). Such jnAna can be obtained through the valid sources of knowledge (pramanas), including "shabda" - testimony (i.e., check what previous folks did and analyze it to determine if it seems the right thing to do, and then do it).

However, in cases where the pramanas, including human testimony, proves incompetent, then one must take recourse to the "other" shabda, i.e. Vedic and Vedantic testimony, since it is always correct. For philosophical interpretations, one can turn to the Vedanta and obtain a deep intellectual understanding of the essential unity of all matter, energy, souls etc in the Universe. Beyond that, only the Vedas exist. Beyond the Vedas there is nothing.

We currently do not understand the Vedas; however, it is best to propagate the Vedic shabda by examining its words and syllables, contemplating them, and articulating them correctly. Doing so, and following the other instructions as mentioned above, will elevate the person to a comparable status as the devas who are entitites that are established in dharma. That is all one needs to do.

Within this framework, feel free to enjoy activities such as music, arts, science etc; pursue acts of personal, social, national development, etc, and so on and so forth.

As for the persons who believe they are becoming spiritual when listening to music, or praying, etc, the reality is that these effects are purely of a physical and psychological nature. The human mind and body find relaxation in certain things. That's all, folks.

SR

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 18 Nov 2010, 11:24

Is life just about praying , praying and telling Lord almighty at the end of the journey that one was just good .
Or Good for something ?

I am still thinking about mankuthimma's words from another thread, and what you say here seemed ver appropriate to read next

If a man finds himself spending much time contemplating spirituality and things of such nature, this is because he is unhappy with his present and past actions, or bored, or not believing himself to be performing meaningful actions. Instead of deluding himself that he needs "spiritual enlightenment", he ought to determine the course of better actions. By performing such actions, he will then find that he is living a long, healthy, and happy life and in fact has no time for spiritual speculations.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 18 Nov 2010, 16:17

A long, healthy and happy life is what "every animal" aspires for, and does actions that will result in the fulfilment thereof. Animals are not spiritual, and they never progress.

Homo sapiens progressed due to its collective dissatisfaction; due to the need to take control firstly of outward things and secondly of oneself, and the need to find things that are not already found. It is still progressing due to that, while the rest of the animal kingdom is happy to lead a long, healthy and happy life doing what they have always been doing.

Human life is a quest to find the "larger meaning" of things i.e paramArtham. The vedas constitute the "lower meaning" even in traditional circles. There is of course something beyond the vedas even in traditional opinion, and even the vedas speculate on spiritual matters, to say nothing of vedanta and allied philosophies.

The goal of spiritual pursuit is paramArtha, not living the animal life which we already have.

The vedas are nothing more than complex liturgical poems of a bygone era, and they are only interesting in a historical and cultural context. They cannot guide us on anything any more than the bible or quran can. Any claims of vedic infallibility is purely rhetorical dogma. The quran has a louder claim to infallibility, not that such a claim makes any more sense.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 18 Nov 2010, 21:01

Animals do not "aspire" to a "long, healthy, and happy" life. They are concerned with survival by instinct - and at most, a blind, "hard-wired" loyalty to human masters.

Let readers not be misled by random comments. The pursuit of dharma is most certainly not a pursuit of something that is already found - it is the pursuit of something that is in the future. In the words of Vedic philosophy, dharma is not bhUta, it is bhavishya. If all human beings have already found happiness and righteousness, there is no need to pursue dharma.

Last time I checked, about 300 million Indians are unlikely to lead a "long, healthy, and happy life" as of today. If one considers the whole world, we are talking about 3 billion such persons. So before any grand (and ultimately useless) quest to attain spiritual enlightment, why not perform actions to lift up these persons?

The larger meaning of life is always found in Righteous Action. Taking this path will invariably open up new avenues to find meaning (both large and small) in life. The discovery of the origins of the Universe, discovery of scientific and technological possibilities, etc is a part of that. Ultimately, all of these boil down to performing right action. That is where the rubber meets the road.

The Rgveda is not a collection of liturgical hymns. It is important to use the right words. They have been *used* as liturgical hymns by Indians in the past in support of "wishful-thinking" sacrifices. They have also been *used* for other things, e.g. to support linguistic speculations, support historical speculations, etc. Ultimately all these misguided efforts are doomed to failure, and they have failed. Whether one calls upon the Vedas in yajnas to obtain wealth, children,etc, or whether one is interested in using the Vedas tp conjure up Indo-Europeans, chariots, metals, cities, tribal battles, or whatever, the results of these are usually zero and inconclusive at best.

Drawing parallels between Vedas and some writings of messianic religions shows a lack of insight into the Indian ethos and worldview. These writings are well known to be the works of a motley crew of characters and are idiosyncratic. The Vedas ar eternal, not humanly authored, impersonal, and have no interest in human customs, cultures, histories, etc. Whatever associations exist between the words of the Vedas and names of objects found on earth, have been created by humans. Trying to understand the Vedas has been an age-old pursuit, and a lot of odd things have happened in that course. The Vedas cannot be reduced to that level just because of that.

The time spent on these discussions could have been better used in examining Vedic words, contemplating their arrangement, articulating them, and practising them. This has many benefits which will become clear only if one acts in this manner, not sitting at a computer and writing spiritual speculations.

SR

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 18 Nov 2010, 21:16

Animals do not "aspire" to a "long, healthy, and happy" - how do we know?

girish_a · Post by **girish_a** » 18 Nov 2010, 22:20

Sangeet Rasik wrote: The Vedas ar eternal, not humanly authored...
SR

SR, this is not something I agree with. When you say (or some other authority says) the vedas are not "humanly authored", what does it mean?

I'd prefer a reply that does not allude to some other religious text that states this; just a layman version that someone like me could understand.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 18 Nov 2010, 23:53

This has been discussed in detail in this thread, including layman statements. Here it is again:

The Vedas are eternal, they belong to the Almighty, and contain the laws of nature and accounts of cosmological phenomena. They have been somehow "received" on Earth and manifested in our age in the form of the words of Vedic Sanskrit. This is the siddhAnta (established view, or status quo) in India from time immemorial. It has been questioned by some over approximately the last 3000 years. However, these objections must then disprove or falsify the eternality of the Vedas, which they have not been able to do.

Our ethical responsibility is to respect the ethical and rational view taken by our forefathers who go all the way back to the "receipt" of the Vedas on earth. If you have discovered a genuine reason for objecting to this view, then it is up to you to do the due diligence. Believe me (or check for yourself), all common objections and doubts have been covered in previous considerations (see below). Without this process, a decision to reject the Vedas is based purely upon lack of intellect, patience, understanding, and lack of ethics/honesty. There are some people who go even further and try to cover up their lack of ethical foundations by trying to make us believe that the eternality of Vedas was held only by "2%" or "less than 1%" of knowledgeable people in the past (i.e., "appeal to the majority" arguments), and trying to pass off Vedic statements as mere mundane matters. These are just excuses to cover up their own inadequacy and inertia, or it is possible that they are genuinely ignorant and cannot rise to another level.

There have not been any "religious texts" in this discussion from my end. I do not understand what you are referring to. The Vedas are not religious texts, and the texts of Indian philosophy are not religious in nature. They represent honest and rigorous intellectual inquiry by some very serious and smart people. If you want to gain detailed knowledge of Indian inquiry and results thereof, then you have to study these texts - there is no other way out.

The term "religious texts" only applies to the Puranas and Smarta traditions (various worship-sects of Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Shaktas etc) which ultimately are followed in temples and form the basis of various "bhakti" movements. I have not used any religious information, and it is not of interest in this matter. I am not "religious" and I have no interest in this area, so I do not understand your reference at all.

All this being said, let me also be clear that the Vedas are not bothered or interested in whether you or I are "believing in them". Unlike the "aggressive salesmanship" of some messianic religions (without which they will quickly wither and die), the Vedas are impersonal and eternal, and they do not need your assistance or mine to exist in the Universe. It is in your own best interests to preserve whatever tenuous connection to the Vedas that we have as humans here on Earth.

Only humans are responsible for our own welfare or destruction through our actions. The Vedas are not directly interested in your welfare or attempting to change your beliefs or impose propaganda on you. They are always there, and assuming we keep our connection with them, they provide information that can correctly guide your actions when the other sources of knowledge (perception, inference, etc) fail. And that is all that I am doing in this thread - providing information.

Is this clear enough?

SR

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 19 Nov 2010, 00:17

Sangeet Rasik wrote: The Vedas ar eternal, not humanly authored...
SR

girish_a wrote:SR, this is not something I agree with. When you say (or some other authority says) the vedas are not "humanly authored", what does it mean?

I'd prefer a reply that does not allude to some other religious text that states this; just a layman version that someone like me could understand.

That is not possible. Any attempt to do so is a statement of faith, like the one that Sangeet Rasik just made.

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 19 Nov 2010, 01:03

girish_a wrote: SR, this is not something I agree with. When you say (or some other authority says) the vedas are not "humanly authored", what does it mean?
I'd prefer a reply that does not allude to some other religious text that states this; just a layman version that someone like me could understand.

girish_a:
We are in the same boat.
This gist may help you!
-----------
Vedas have been somehow "received" on earth. This is the established view. Because it is only a view, despite being questioned for the last 3000 years, it is impossible to prove it.

However, if you reject this view, your decision will be discredited as based purely upon lack of intellect, patience, understanding, and lack of ethics/honesty. You will be branded as genuinely ignorant and that you cannot rise to another level.

Now, is this clear enough?
-----------

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 19 Nov 2010, 01:42

The six valid sources of knowledge admitted by vedic philosophy are:

1) Sense-perception
2) Inference
3) Postulation
4) Comparison
5) Non-apprehension
6) Testimony (of which Vedic testimony is the only one seen to be without defects)

There seems to be a lot of prattle among some here regarding #6 (testimony).

Let us start at a more elementary level. Has anyone proved to you the validity of the other five? If not, how do you live your lives ? Do you doubt everything ? Or only if there is a valid reason to ?

SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 19 Nov 2010, 01:55

Pratyaksham Bala wrote:This is the established view. Because it is only a view, despite being questioned for the last 3000 years, it is impossible to prove it.

It is a view based on rational inference (one of the valid sources of knowledge), and is not arbitrary. I only stated the summary, but there is much thought and literature behind that. In short, as the Vedas are seen to have no author (via a separate set of considerations), they cannot have been manufactured/composed on earth and it is rationally inferred that they must have been received. You are not acquainted with that literature and body of serious thought, and you should have the grace to either stop your uneducated prattle; or take the time to read, think, and understand before you talk. Which one is it going to be ?

I think the problem here is that we have a generation of people who are not equipped to conduct an independent and rational inquiry, nor willing to get into the depth of the matter by taking good advice and references, but rather pride themselves on being "rational" and "modern" by rejecting what is of high quality in Indian inquiry and (ironically) embracing obscurantism, nihilism, and spiritual mumbo-jumbo as a mark of "enlightenment". The problem lies with the education system which has painted Indian thought as "religious" and deluded these kids into thinking they need to be "modern" by rejecting or insulting it.

What a sorry pass we have come to!

SR

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 19 Nov 2010, 03:18

A few quotes from SR:
>> Vedas are not bothered or interested in whether you or I are "believing in them".
>> Our ethical responsibility is to respect the ethical and rational view taken by our forefathers
>> Only humans are responsible for their welfare or destruction through our actions
Finally:
>> The Vedas are eternal, they belong to the Almighty
(can you see the inconsistency in the statements above?)

All I can do is repeat what I said in post #255:
>> SR - you are sounding more and more like one of those fundamentalist TV evangelists...

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 19 Nov 2010, 03:27

Vedas have been somehow "received" on earth. This is the established view. Because it is only a view, despite being questioned for the last 3000 years, it is impossible to prove it.

However, if you reject this view, your decision will be discredited as based purely upon lack of intellect, patience, understanding, and lack of ethics/honesty. You will be branded as genuinely ignorant and that you cannot rise to another level.

Wow! How skillfully the above statements are rephrased and reiterated in #280!

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 19 Nov 2010, 03:28

ragam-talam wrote:All I can do is repeat what I said in post #255:
>> SR - you are sounding more and more like one of those fundamentalist TV evangelists...

Yes, a wonderfully juvenile response from you. And based upon other things you have written in this thread, I can see why that is indeed all you can do.

I been called various things in this thread - "politician", "Vedic propagandist" (that was a genuinely funny one), 'fundamentalist TV evangelist", etc. Such labels only reflect upon these "internet personalities" who make them and where they are going in their lives, and therefore they do not bother me at all.

SR

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 19 Nov 2010, 10:03

Sangeet Rasik, of course you are welcome to your faith, and I do not doubt that it is based on very, very much learning and study, but your attitude to the rest of us is becoming akin to a bible basher (you think they do not learn and study too?). I don't think your fundamentalism has anything whatsoever to do with spiritual development.

Of course, you are also welcome not to be to be bothered at all that you have given this impression, or about those of us that have received it. I expect the feeling is mostly mutual.

Unless you have divine knowledge yourself (I don't say that is impossible), your only claimed justification for what you claim as fact is that someone else has said so. The fact that you multiply "someone else" and then further multiply by thousands of years just makes it a much bigger "somebody else says" --- not a fact.

I do not attack your faith: I attack your attacks, and find a lot wrong with the mental process you describe.

But then, like you, I am not much bothered

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 19 Nov 2010, 11:38

Nick H,

Your posts are not relevant to mine (and probably vice versa). We are on different wavelengths.

There is no "fundamentalism" in my posts. Fundamentalism is not an Indian civilizational trait, but you probably have plenty of experience with that in the West and therefore are quick to attach these inane labels to my scheme of thought. On the other hand, the Indian malaise is in fact a preoccupation with "spirituality" - and I am sure you are getting plenty of that in India.

For the last time : I am *not* interested in "religion", "faith", "fundamentalism" (whatever it means), nor in "spiritual development" (which, in the writings I have seen on this thread, is nothing more than "getting high" on absurd and nihilist beliefs). Please keep these "buzzwords" to yourself, thanks but no thanks. I am only interested in tangible actions and learning based on reliable information, and the approach I take works for me and is fruitful.

The thought and practice of the Vedas is an elevated platform for personal development - but it is not obtained cheaply. You are not obliged to reach for that higher purpose since you want the "feel-good, instant spirituality". That is dime-a-dozen, cheaply available, and has little value.

No point in asking me: "you think they do not learn and study too?". Guess what, the honest answer is: "I don't think so - based on their responses to simple questions I ask".

I have made my last attempt to provide reliable information to some folks here, as I promised. I will not be available to participate much in the near future since I am traveling again for the rest of the year.

Now it's over to the "spiritualism seekers" again. Good luck in finding the Great "Shunya" soon, and India will once again be known as the Land of the Great Zero. Go for it - knock yourselves out !

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 19 Nov 2010, 17:37

Some people are yarning, others are yawning.

For the last time, Vedas are not "fixed" in the universe, they do not belong to any almighty, they did not "somehow get received" 4000 years back on earth in the Vedic language by non-human (or extra terrestrial) rishis. It doesn't make sense to claim that the Vedas are not interested in human welfare, of course they are not interested in anything because they are not sentient, they are just a body of liturgical hymns/prose.

This drivel is totally your own concoction, it was not upheld by the classical mimamsakas or vedantins. Some of the classical mimamsakas may have claimed that the Vedas were eternal (they did), but their understanding of the vedas and eternity is not the same as what you have put forth, so you are essentially misrepresenting them. The classical mimamsakas did not know the theory of evolution, and generally believed that humanity arose from the sacrifice of the cosmic purusha. They generally believed in the concept of time being cyclic, rahter than linear. They were not aware of the Indo-European super-family of languages & cultures the way we know it today.

We know that the Celts (our ancient european cousins) had their "own vedas" in ancient Celtic language that their druids did not deem fit to write down, they were passed down orally from guru to sishya, they had to be initiated into the study of their oral liturgy, they had a sacerdotal caste among others, they claimed descent from primeval man, etc etc. They had their own concepts of cosmic/natural law and order, they could invoke the gods by their hymns etc. These observations have been recorded by Julius Caesar when he invaded Gaul two millenia ago. Our cousins next door, the zoroastrians had most of the same divinities as we do, largely identical in language and content as the vedas, and he called his gathic hymns "manthras", as they are called still by zoroastrians around the world. These mantras were composed by zoroaster, and he was a rishi, the gathas constitute the zoroastrian veda. Other Indo-European religions and cultures (Germans, Greeks, Russians, Romans, Tocharians etc) similarly had their own vedas to speak of, although they all either died out or converted to the abrahamic religions/culture over time.

Just because the Indians have only retained their oral liturgical canon largely intact does not mean that the tradition is unique to us. We not receive receive it from its fixed source somewhere in the universe. It was composed over a period spanning hundreds of years by human rishis who lived in north-western India, largely during the 2nd millenium BCE. The language employed is not uniform, it shows evolution over hundreds of years from its most archaic parts to its most recent parts. It depicts very vividly of Indian life and civilization of its time, and it is terrestrial without a doubt. If you remember I once quoted a hymn on the frogs raising their voice to the rainy season and its funny comparison with the brahmins raising their voices to extol the glory of parjanya at the appointed time, it cannot have alluded to cosmic frogs by any stretch of imagination. Rather than assuming the rishis to be mad in composing hymns on cosmic frogs, we would be mad to imagine that they were extra terrestrial beings.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 19 Nov 2010, 18:39

Sangeet Rasik wrote:For the last time : I am *not* interested in "religion", "faith", "fundamentalism" (whatever it means), nor in "spiritual development"

Sorry... I had not realised that your posts had nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. I should have realised.

By the way, self knowledge has had passing mention here. Might be something for you there

Anyway, notwithstanding the complete lack of sympathy between our methods, which has nothing whatsoever to do with race or culture (you can neither excuse not justify with the tag "Indian"), there have been plenty of interesting ideas in your posts.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 19 Nov 2010, 19:38

I will not be available to participate much in the near future since I am traveling again for the rest of the year.

Dear SR, have a safe trip. Look forward to your comments on this and other topics when you get back.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 20 Nov 2010, 10:33

srkris wrote:For the last time, Vedas are not "fixed" in the universe, they do not belong to any almighty, they did not "somehow get received" 4000 years back on earth in the Vedic language by non-human (or extra terrestrial) rishis. It doesn't make sense to claim that the Vedas are not interested in human welfare, of course they are not interested in anything because they are not sentient, they are just a body of liturgical hymns/prose.

Your mundane - and entirely inadequate - understanding of the Vedas is indeed the only unfortunate part of this thread. Please do not go too long a ways in critiquing things of which you obviously have no knowledge.

To those reading the thread: please do not believe any of these assertions made by srkris and his ilk. The Vedas are far beyond what he thinks from his third-rate understanding of them as mundane poems composed by some group of people in 1500 BCE or thereabouts.

This drivel is totally your own concoction, it was not upheld by the classical mimamsakas or vedantins. Some of the classical mimamsakas may have claimed that the Vedas were eternal (they did), but their understanding of the vedas and eternity is not the same as what you have put forth, so you are essentially misrepresenting them.

Sorry - there are few takers for your "Wikipedia" brand of "knowledge". I see that you have been kicked out of there too (last year?), for trying to edit articles and insert your sophomoric level of knowledge in there.

Here again is a quote from VK's post:

That initial description should be free of bashing any other theories or beliefs while clearly stating what source material one is using for these things.

For the last time: what is your source of information? I have already posted sections from the foundational texts of mimamsa and shown that this principle was well-established and indeed the siddhAnta for all recorded history in India. I have never heard back from you about where your brilliant and knowledgeable statements are coming from.

Request in simple English: please provide even a single original reference from mimamsashastra that shows I am misrepresenting their views. I have studied this subject for years, I have all the main texts available with me, and I want to know where your supposed knowedlge of mimamsa is coming from. I am providing all my sources - where are you pulling these claims out of ? Let us call your bluff again.

Let's make it even more specific: how is Jaimini's (or Shabara's or Kumarila's ) idea of the Vedic eternity different from what I said ? I am not interested in generalities (which you are probably pulling from some internet site). Please give me a specific reference from an original mimamsa text .

I want to understand what you are familiar and not familiar with - that will greatly help me in deciding whether this discussion is meaningful. If you have not read these texts, just say so and the matter can be resolved very quickly.

The classical mimamsakas did not know the theory of evolution, and generally believed that humanity arose from the sacrifice of the cosmic purusha.

The mimamsakas made the same mistake that many others did - they thought the "people" described in the Rgveda referred to human beings. Mimamsa is not biological science, and its specialization is not concerned with the biological theory of evolution. So please don't even attempt to make people believe that mimamsa philosophy and biological science have to coincide. I know from previous discussions that you do not understand science nor philosophy, nor their purposes.

Again, I can ask the same questions as above. What is your scientific background ? Are you just an "internet personality" or a credible scientist ? Or a dabbler ? Or have you studied modern physics or cosmology ? What sources of information do you follow ?

And oh, here is a little piece of factual information for you: the entire modern physical theory of cosmology does not have an iota of relation to the biological theory of evolution. It could (and did) develop entire independently.

They generally believed in the concept of time being cyclic, rahter than linear. They were not aware of the Indo-European super-family of languages & cultures the way we know it today.

The only thing you seem to know is some second-hand knowledge of "Indo-European" linguistic speculations. Sadly, this "equipment" is woefully inadequate to help you understand Indian philosophy and the Vedas beyond them. Many knowledgeable persons have pointed out this fact to those who blindly follow this silly "cottage industry" of Indo-European linguistics. It has no impact whatsoever on human knowledge and progress.

The language employed is not uniform, it shows evolution over hundreds of years from its most archaic parts to its most recent parts. It depicts very vividly of Indian life and civilization of its time, and it is terrestrial without a doubt.

Here we go again - I cannot believe somebody is exactly at the same stage of mental development now as they were 5 years ago. Do you have a difficulty in understanding the difference between origin and subsequent evolution ? Wake up and get real: evolution of languages doesn't give an iota of logical proof about their origin. Evolution of language is not the same as evolution of biological species. Will some real linguist reading this thread dispel the ignorance of this person ?

The Rgveda is not terrestrial. It is the later associations of its words with terrestrial objects that you are deluded about. Where do you get these characterizations of "vivid depictions of Indian life" in the Rgveda ? Did you read this phrase somewhere and like it? The Rgveda has no poetry that dwells on any depictions of any human activity. If you see a flash of that somewhere, just read a few Rks down and there will be some utterly bizarre or impossible statement which then will evaporate your notion of "vivid depictions of mundane Indian life". You can't pick and choose what you want to believe. A consistent approach has to be taken. Please don't try to mislead people with your false and unsubstantiated statements.

If you remember I once quoted a hymn on the frogs raising their voice to the rainy season and its funny comparison with the brahmins raising their voices to extol the glory of parjanya at the appointed time, it cannot have alluded to cosmic frogs by any stretch of imagination. Rather than assuming the rishis to be mad in composing hymns on cosmic frogs, we would be mad to imagine that they were extra terrestrial beings.

A wonderful circular argument! Start with the assumption of "brahmins raising voices in a funny manner like frogs", then say "we would be mad to imagine otherwise", and therefore the proposition is proved.

And I suppose you also think the "cows", "rivers", "waters" etc in the Rgveda are real cows, real rivers, water bodies, etc ?

I am almost tempted to ask where you got your education - but really, I don't want to know. It scares the daylights out of me.

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 20 Nov 2010, 19:51

Start with the assumption of "brahmins raising voices in a funny manner like frogs", then say "we would be mad to imagine otherwise", and therefore the proposition is proved.

What proposition is proved? Try to use simple english if it will help you convey better!

According to your belief, the Rigveda is not concerned with life on earth, so we must come to the absurd conclusion that the frogs were extra terrestrial, and the brahmins and the rainy season described therein must also be similarly alien to earth.

And I suppose you also think the "cows", "rivers", "waters" etc in the Rgveda are real cows, real rivers, water bodies, etc ?

So there are some heavenly cows, rivers etc, all having nothing to do with the earth or terrestrial life? LOL!

The mimamsakas made the same mistake that many others did - they thought the "people" described in the Rgveda referred to human beings.

The classical mimamsakas and modern scholarship are right in taking the vedas literally. You are wrong, not the mimamsakas.

No brahmin would think the rishis were non-human, all of them trace their biological descent from the vedic rishis through their gotra pravara.

Your "reading" is inadequate, come back when you are better informed. And stop shouting, people are getting tired of you.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 20 Nov 2010, 22:41

srkris wrote:According to your belief, the Rigveda is not concerned with life on earth, so we must come to the absurd conclusion that the frogs were extra terrestrial, and the brahmins and the rainy season described therein must also be similarly alien to earth. So there are some heavenly cows, rivers etc, all having nothing to do with the earth or terrestrial life? LOL!

No, that is not what I said. What I said is that the meanings of these words, e.g. "gau", "Apah", "sindhu" etc. are not the mundane meanings we assign them in the post-Vedic age. That is completely different from saying they are "heavenly cows, waters, rivers". It is not an extrapolation of earthly objects to heavenly objects or vice versa.

No need to use too many "LOL" punctuations - the joke here is on you.

If, for example, if there is a conference on "beauty" in modern physics, the subject of discussion is the particle named as "beauty", not an extrapolation of the quality named "beauty" that we see in daily life to the characteristics of that particle (there is nothing particularly "beautiful" about the particle, all we have is a track in an ionization chamber to show its existence).

What is the etymology of the word "pashu" (which we now call "animal") ?

The classical mimamsakas and modern scholarship are right in taking the vedas literally. You are wrong, not the mimamsakas.

Now your evasion tactics begin (it is familiar to me in all our interactions).

Let me make this very clear: I am 100% saying the exact same things as what is given in the mimansa and vedanta texts. This is an exactly falsifiable assertion but I am still waiting on you to divulge your sources of information.

To reiterate from my previous post:

Request in simple English: please provide even a single original reference from mimamsashastra that shows I am misrepresenting their views. I have studied this subject for years, I have all the main texts available with me, and I want to know where your supposed knowedlge of mimamsa is coming from. I am providing all my sources - where are you pulling these claims out of ? Let us call your bluff again.

Let's make it even more specific: how is Jaimini's (or Shabara's or Kumarila's ) idea of the Vedic eternity different from what I said ? I am not interested in generalities (which you are probably pulling from some internet site). Please give me a specific reference from an original mimamsa text .

The only thing that really annoys me here is your attempt to paint my views as "outside mainstream thinking in mimamsa and vedanta", although the stark fact is that you are not familiar with any of these fields except through perusing the internet. That is dishonesty of the highest order, and it is a shame upon you.

No brahmin would think the rishis were non-human, all of them trace their biological descent from the vedic rishis through their gotra pravara.

That is not correct - the brahmans trace their origins to somebody belonging to a school named after some "rishi" mentioned in the Vedas. The gotra-pravara system is essentially related to the schools of the Vedas that formed later. Mentioning these historical facts does not help to "prove" that the "rishis" mentioned in the Vedas were the authors of the Vedas and that they were human. A reading of the Vedas themselves should make it eminently clear that they are not.

I am amused by the type of "logic" that you ultimately fall back upon after your initial "brilliant statements" - an example: "no brahmin would think the rishis were non-human" (essentially, you are referring to yourself).

You are an interesting character indeed, my friend!

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 20 Nov 2010, 23:58

Let me make this very clear: I am 100% saying the exact same things as what is given in the mimansa and vedanta texts. This is an exactly falsifiable assertion but I am still waiting on you to divulge your sources of information.

Empty rhetoric. Purvamimamsa and Vedanta do not agree with each other. Purvamimamsa generally takes a literal stand while vedanta takes an allegorical stand on the samhita. How can you agree 100% with both of them except if you are clueless of both? You even called the mimamsakas and their literal approach wrong!

That is not correct - the brahmans trace their origins to somebody belonging to a school named after some "rishi" mentioned in the Vedas.

Gotra Pravara is (patrilineal) descent, not school. School is sakha. Have you heard a gotrOccAra ever? This is getting more and more foolish.

What I said is that the meanings of these words, e.g. "gau", "Apah", "sindhu" etc. are not the mundane meanings we assign them in the post-Vedic age

You can say anything, but that does not ipso facto make it sensible. You seem to be ignorant that there is a vedanga called nirukta, which seeks to deal with the etymology of vedic words. It gives only the mundane meanings. Maybe you will call the Nirukta wrong, just as you claimed that the mimamsakas were wrong, while simultaneously asserting that you are 100% in agreement with them. Wierdo!

The only thing that really annoys me here is your attempt to paint my views as "outside mainstream thinking in mimamsa and vedanta", although the stark fact is that you are not familiar with any of these fields except through perusing the internet. That is dishonesty of the highest order, and it is a shame upon you.

You yourself made a lot of absurd assertions and finally claimed the mimamsakas were wrong. By doing all that, you distanced yourself from both common sense as well as tradition. I had a very minor part, if at all, in your "exposÃ©", and I am least interested in that anyways.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 21 Nov 2010, 00:41

Our fundamentalist doesn't even bother to answer my post! Not that I thought he would.

All this learned talk, and not even knowing, or understanding the meanin of the word "fundamentalist".

But I'd better stop before I too get personal!

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 21 Nov 2010, 01:27

Notwithstanding the hindrance from intellectually empty and dishonest views, let me present just one example that provides a glimpse into the Vedas and what is in it. This is NOT a substitute for actually reading the Vedic sentences, and examining their words and syllables in detail. Again, all arguments are supported with original references that you can look up.

The word "go/gau" occurs a great number of times in the Vedas. Over the ages, a large number (more than a dozen) of mundane meanings have been assigned to it by humans. For example, here is the entry from a standard Sanskrit dictionary (Monier-Williams) listing the various meanings and texts where these meaning are found:

1 go %{gau4s} (acc. %{gA4m} instr. %{ga4vA} dat. %{ga4ve} , gen. abl. %{go4s} loc. %{ga4vi} ; du. %{gA4vA} [Ved.] , %{gA4vau} ; pl. nom. %{gA4vas} acc. %{gA4s} [rarely %{gA4vas} TBr. iii TUp. MBh. iv , 1506 R. ii] instr. %{go4bhis} dat. abl. %{go4bhyas} , gen. %{ga4vAm} [once at the end of a Pa1da RV. iv , 1 , 19] and [in RV. at the end of Pa1das only cf. Pa1n2. 7-1 , 57] %{go4nAm} loc. %{go4Su}) m. an ox f. a cow , (pl.) cattle , kine , herd of cattle RV. &c. (in comp. before vowels [cf. Pa1n2. 6-1 , 122 ff.] %{gav} , %{gava} , qq. vv. ; cf. also %{gavAm} , %{gavi} , %{gAM} ss.vv. ; %{gavAM@vrata}N. of a Sa1man ; %{gavAM@tIrtha} see %{go@t-} ; %{go4Su-gam} , to set out for a battle [to conquer cows] RV. ii , 25 , 4 ; v , 45 , 9 ; viii , 71 , 5) ; `" anything coming from or belonging to an ox or cow "' , milk (generally pl.) , flesh (only pl. RV. x , 16 , 7 ; `" fat "' Gmn.) , skin , hide , leather , strap of leather , bow-string , sinew (RV. x , 27 , 22 AV. i , 2 , 3) RV. ; = %{go4-SToma} (q.v.) AitBr. iv , 15 S3Br. xiii ( also %{go-Ayu4s}) ; (pl.) `" the herds of the sky "' , the stars RV. i , 154 , 6 and vii , 36 , 1 ; (m. [also f. Un2. Sch.]) rays of light (regarded as the herds of the sky , for which Indra fights with Vr2itra) MBh. i , iii Hariv. 2943 R. &c. ; m. the sign Taurus VarBr2S. xl f. VarBr2. Laghuj. ; the sun (cf. %{-putra}) Nir. ii , 6 and 14 ; the moon L. ; a kind of medicinal plant (%{RSabha}) L. ; a singer , praiser (fr. %{gai}) Naigh. iii , 16 ; `" a goer "' , horse (fr. 1. %{gA}) Sa1y. on RV. i , 121 , 9 and iv , 22 , 8 ; N. of two R2ishis of the SV. (with the patr. A1n3girasa [Ta1n2d2yaBr. xvi] and Ma1yu1ka) ; N. of a man (who with Pushkara is said to be the %{balA7dhyakSa} of the sons and grandsons of Varun2a) MBh. ii , 381 (cf. R. vii , 23 , 28) ; m. or f. (?) the sun's ray called Sushumn2a Nir. ii , 6 ; water BhP. i , 10 , 36 (also f. pl. , xi , 7 , 50) ; an organ of sense BhP. vii , 5 , 30 ; the eye Kuval. 70 ; a billion Ta1n2d2yaBr. xvii , 14 , 2 ; mf. the sky Naigh. i , 4 (perhaps VS. xxiii , 48) ; the thunderbolt Sa1y. on RV. v , 30 , 7 ; the hairs of the body L. ; f. an offering in the shape of a cow (= %{dhenu} q.v.) W. ; a region of the sky L. ; (Naigh. i , 1) the earth (as the milk-cow of kings) Mn. iv , xii MBh. R. &c. ; (hence) the number `" nine "' Jyot. Su1ryas. ; = %{go-vIthI} Sch. on VarBr2S. ix , 1 ff. ; a mother L. (cf. VarBr2S. iii , 68) ; (Naigh. i , 11) speech , Sarasvati1 (goddess of speech) MBh. i , iii , v Ragh. ii , v Ca1n2. ; voice , note (fr. %{gai}) S3is3. iv , 36 ; N. of Gauri1 Gal. ; of the wife [or of a daughter-in-law BhP. ix , 21 , 25] of S3uka (a daughter of the manes called Suka1las) Hariv. 986 MatsyaP. ; N. of a daughter of Kakut-stha and wife of Yaya1ti Hariv. 1601 ; [cf. $ ; Lat. {bos} ; Old Germ. {chuo} ; Mod. Germ. {Kuh} ; Eng. {cow} ; Lett. {gohw} ; cf. also $ , $ ; Goth. {gavi} and Mod. Germ. {Gau}.]

Let us examine some statements in the Rgveda and Yajurveda about "gau":

Shuklayajurveda (Madhyandina rescension), 23.48:

brahma suryasamanjyotirdyauh samudrasama sarah
indrah prthivyaivarshiyan gostu maatraa na vidyate

"Brahma is lustrous like Surya, Dyauh is vast like Samudra, Indra is vaster than the Prthivi, but Gau is beyond measure."

What "gau" is it that is mentioned in the same breath as Brahma, Dyauh ("heaven"), Surya, and Indra, and is beyond measure ? Surely not a cow!

And by the way, 23.48 is an answer to a question posed in the previous yajus (23.47): "kasya maatraa na vidyate?" (what is it that is beyond measure?). Pray, what "cow" is beyond measure, and even beyond the measure of Indra, Dyaus, and Brahma ?

Rgveda 9.2.4 (devata: Soma)

mahantam tvaa mahiranvaapo arshanti sindhavah yad gobhir vaasayishyase

"Great Sindhu-s ("rivers") carrying Apah ("waters") come to you, O great (Soma), when you combine with Gau-s."

What earthly "cows" are they that combine with Soma and give "rivers" containing "waters" ? Also note the close association (occurring time and again in the Vedas) of "waters", "rivers", and "cows".

Rgveda 3.5.1 (devata: Visvedevas):

ushasah purvaa adha yadvyushurmahadvi jajnye aksharam pade goh

"In the first light of the oldest Dawns, in the Abode of Gau, was the Akshara ("indestructible") born."

Pray, what sort of earthly "cow" is it in whose abode (other mundane meanings of "pada" include "foot" or "step") the indestructible was born in the first light of the oldest dawns?

Statements of this nature just on "cows" run into the hundreds in the Vedas.

What does purvamimamsa say about such things, including names of "persons", "authors", and "things" apparently found in the Vedas ? Again, it was well-recognized in mainstream Mimamsa and Vedanta that these words are not referring to real "authors", real "cows" etc. Jaimini makes this clear (and so do all his commentators). The fake claims being floated by some individual here that I am concocting all of this, should be recognized immediately for what they are.

Regarding the "authors" of the Vedas:

Purvamimamsasutra 1.1.30: "aakhyaah pravachanAt"

"The names (of "authors" attached to the Vedic rks, yajus and samans) arise from (those who made) and excellent study of these sections."

Commentaries of all well-known mimamsakas summarized as follows: "The Vedic verses are named after certain persons, not because the verses were composed by them, but because the study of that section of the Vedas was a specialization of a certain person (or group), and on account of this, came to be known after that person."

In some cases, these persons also take on names based on the words actually found in th Vedic verses.

On the meaning of the "objects" such as men, animals, etc in the Vedas:

Purvamimamsasutra 1.1.31: parantu shrutisaamaanyamaatram

"But it is only a similarity of sounds".

Commentaries of all well-known mimamsakas summarized as follows: "As for the mention of men, things, animals, etc in the Vedas, there is nothing to show that the word found in the Vedas was actually the name of such a man, thing, or animal. It is, in fact, nothing more than a chance resemblance of sounds. The words found in the Vedas have since been taken on as names of persons and things. It is used in the Vedas in a totally different sense."

In fact, the whole question of "names of objects" in the Vedas is treated in great detail by Jaimini and all his important commentators in a subsequent section of the first chapter (i.e., section 1.3). The sutras 1.3.30-1.3.35 and their commentaries are all concerned with this specific question:

"Are the words used in the Vedas, and the things denoted by these words, the same as those we use in ordinary parlance?". The answer - you are welcome to look it up - is a resounding NO.

Again: there is absolutely no "religious" content, "faith", "fundamentalism", or any other nonsense of that nature in the discussion that I have presented. It is based on a very serious inquiry into the content of the Vedas.

SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 21 Nov 2010, 01:39

srkris wrote:Empty rhetoric. Purvamimamsa and Vedanta do not agree with each other. Purvamimamsa generally takes a literal stand while vedanta takes an allegorical stand on the samhita. How can you agree 100% with both of them except if you are clueless of both? You even called the mimamsakas and their literal approach wrong!

I am still waiting on you for a single reference, buddy. All I see in your posts are general statements which are not backed up by any sources - in other words, "unsubstantiated".

Asking for a reference is "empty rhetoric" ? Is this how you conduct a substantive discussion with someone? It is a regular pattern that I can see in your posts: ignore the parts of the discussion which require you to come up with some substantial response, and you go off on a discussion of gotras and pravaras. It is totally irrelevant to the question of what is in the Vedas.

Let me even not ask for references now. All I am asking you at this point are the following basic questions:

Have you read the purvamimamsasutras, and the commentaries by later authors? Or for that matter, even the brahmasutras (where the views of Jaimini are also presented and are specifically agreed or disagreed with) ? Which presentations of these texts have you read (publisher, translator, etc)?

Is this "empty rhetoric" too?

I am not making any value judgements here. I just want to know whom I am discussing with, and whether your statements are borne out of genuine ignorance, or lack of understanding of what you read, or whether you are wilfully concealing what you have read. Help me out here and save us all some time.

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 21 Nov 2010, 01:47

SR I can answer you line for line, but I have no need to, your absurdity is already apparent. Just as a small example, let me show how you misinterpret the mimamsasutra. You said:

Regarding the "authors" of the Vedas:

Purvamimamsasutra 1.1.30: "aakhyaah pravachanAt"

"The names (of "authors" attached to the Vedic rks, yajus and samans) arise from (those who made) and excellent study of these sections."

Commentaries of all well-known mimamsakas summarized as follows: "The Vedic verses are named after certain persons, not because the verses were composed by them, but because the study of that section of the Vedas was a specialization of a certain person (or group), and on account of this, came to be known after that person."

In some cases, these persons also take on names based on the words actually found in th Vedic verses.

You were blissfully unaware that Mimamsa sutra 1.1.30 "ÄkhyÄ pravacanÄt" was speaking about the attribution of the Brahmanas to the names of particular scholars - for example "Ashvalayana Brahmana", "ÅšÄá¹…khÄyana Brahmana", "Jaiminiya Brahmana" etc.

The sutra says that although so many scholars may have expounded the Brahmana well, it is associated with the name of one particular scholar on account of their erudition.

You believed that this sutra was talking about the authorship of the mantras in the samhita.

Come on man, stop it. Will you stop it if I call you a genuine scholar?

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 21 Nov 2010, 02:24

srkris wrote:You were blissfully unaware that Mimamsa sutra 1.1.30 "ÄkhyÄ pravacanÄt" was speaking about the attribution of the Brahmanas to the names of particular scholars - for example "Ashvalayana Brahmana", "ÅšÄá¹…khÄyana Brahmana", "Jaiminiya Brahmana" etc.

Can I have a reference that the point of the sutra does not apply to the Samhitas? I want something specific from a reliable text.

I am pretty sure that your information is coming from a Google search where someone might have mentioned the Brahmanas, and so you decided to use that as an argument.

Here is my reference (elementary "Table of Contents" information):

Sutra 1.1.30 is part of the FIRST pada of the mimamsasutra which is concerned with the eternality of the ENTIRE Veda, specifically sutras 1.1.1-1.1.32. Of course, if you actually had read the mimamsasutra from a text, that would be eminently clear. But since you haven't read the text, you didn't know that it is part of that exercise, and therefore think it applies only to the Brahmanas. The old problem of "ignorance of the context" found among wannabes lifting fragmented information from the internet.

We have here a situation wherein a fool - to cover up his lack of familiarity with the actual text - is actually accusing the other person of not being familiar with it, despite the glaringly obvious fact that the text itself is in front of the other person and tells a different story. This is hilarious! How far are you going to take this ?

For whatever it is worth, back to seriousness now: at the very outset, the first pada is obviously applying to the entire Veda. For example, here is Prabhakara's commentary at the outset of the first pada:

"The first sutra provides the reason for the inquiry into dharma. The entire Veda is intended to express some meaning; and on the basis of this fact it has been said (by Jaimini) that the word 'dharma' as contained in that first sutra indicates the whole Veda."

The examples used for 1.1.30 by commentators are from the Upanishads and the Brahmanas, but it is entirely absurd to claim that they do not apply to the Samhita! It is 100% clear that they are referring to the entire Veda. For example, the illustration of the "tree" or a "cow" or an "author" is valid across the whole Vedas. It would be eminently stupid of the mimamsakas to prove that the names of "authors" of the Upanishads and Brahmanas are not real, while exempting the names attached to the Samhitas! Are you really that dense ?

AFTER the first pada, the discussion then shifts to separately considering the different types of statements in the Vedas: 1) Injunctions, 2) Valedictory or deprecatory statements, 3) Mantras, and 4) Names (of sacrifices etc).

Your nonsense is not going to work, my friend. The game is up (well, it was up a long time ago, but I am just proving the obvious again).

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 21 Nov 2010, 02:42

The examples used for 1.1.30 by commentators are from the Upanishads and the Brahmanas, but it is entirely absurd to claim that they do not apply to the Samhita ! It is 100% clear that they are referring to the entire Veda.

I really do not need to point out the self contradiction, do I? You just asked for the rebuttal and gave it yourself!

Sabara in his bhasya on the above sutra names the kathaka brahmana to make the point clear.

The sutrakara refers to the Brahmanas, the commentators refer to the brahmanas (the mantras are not named after the rishis by the way), even modern literature on the subject sensibly takes the sutra to refer to the Brahmanas, and yet you would persist in justifying your (yet another) absurd claim by forcing the sutra to apply to the samhita in defiance of common-sense (and tradition).

After all this you would also claim that you are 100% in agreement with tradition, while holding at the same time that the tradition was wrong. This lunacy has become tiring.

For example, the illustration of a "tree" or a "cow" or an "author" is valid across the whole Vedas. It would be eminently stupid of the mimamsakas to prove that the names of "authors" of the Upanishads and Brahmanas are not real, while exempting the names attached to the Samhitas!

It is only eminently stupid of you to presume that the authors are not real. Neither the sutra nor the commentators, or modern scholarship thinks any of these persons to be unreal. However the mantras are not named after any scholar, while the Brahmanas are, and the sutra explains why Jaiminiya Brahmana, for example is named after Jaimini.

Are you really that dense ?

Am I?

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 21 Nov 2010, 03:04

srkris wrote:The sutrakara refers to the Brahmanas, the commentators give only the names attributed upanishads and brahmanas (the mantras are not named after the rishis by the way), and yet you would justify your (yet another) absurd claim by forcing the sutra to apply to the samhita in defiance of tradition and common-sense.

Ha ha ha!! I am still laughing at this new insight into your mental condition.

Despite my telling you that the Table of Contents of the Mimamsutra make it clear that the sutra 1.1.30 is part of the first pada, which is concerned with the eternality of the whole Vedas (Samhita to Upanishad), you are claiming that the logic of the sutra 1.1.30 does not apply to the Samhitas? The purpose of sutra 1.1.30 (and others in the first pada) is exactly this: To answer objections regarding the eternal and non-authored nature of the Vedas. If the objection is raised that the Suktas have names of rishis associated with them, the exact same reply will be valid. So the Mimamsakas believed the Brahmanas are eternal but not the Samhitas (which apparently have authors)? Hilarious!

Spare me the "tradition and common-sense" bit. There is no defiance of tradition and common-sense on my part here. I have provided clearly the commentaries of the mimamsakas themselves. There is (and was) no mimamsaka on this whole wide world who believes the nonsense you are posting. Again, if there is a reference you have available from a reputable mimamsaka text that clearly says sutra 1.1.30 can apply ONLY to the Brahmanas but not the Samhitas, post it exactly. If not, don't waste readers' time and mine.

I am not posting in order to argue with you specifically. I am posting so that the difference stands out between truth and substantiated statements on one hand, and some "imagined scholarliness" based on a little knowledge or perhaps some remote family relation to the traditions on the other.

I leave the readers to read and laugh. I regret I cannot enjoy the fun anymore since I must wrap up and catch a plane soon (I'll be laughing all the way to the airport). I truly salute you, O genius!

But it also points to a more sobering question - what education system and background do these characters come out of ?

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 21 Nov 2010, 03:09

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

A "troll" is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers by, but rather a provocative posting to a news group intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses. The content of a "troll" posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of the news group or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.

Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they â€” and the troll â€” understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)