Complete collection of vedic chants (one samhita)

manikand28 · Post by **manikand28** » 27 Jul 2009, 00:31

http://www.uppathil.net/Pages/vedams.htm

These are from http://www.vedchant.com/, popularised by IISH. (indian Institute of Scientific Heritage). I have downloaded all and burned into DVDs. They are very soothing to listen and please propagate. I listen along with reading RL Kashyap's books on vedas.

subramanianpp · Post by **subramanianpp** » 08 Sep 2009, 13:58

Thanks for giving the site address It is really a treasure trove for those who are interested in the subject

Subramanianpp

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 08 Sep 2009, 19:52

Unfortunately, the recording is not up-to-the-mark, it is amateurish.

sankarcs · Post by **sankarcs** » 09 Sep 2009, 07:02

Well said Mr Srkri. Will you please provide us all the four vedas{complete chanting} with the best recording quality ?

People like me believe the claims that were believed and passed through hundreds of generations rather than that of an individual with little-experience.

I consulted with number of "prohits" who, immediately, asked a copy of the chantings. Such negative remarks may stop further uploads/information of such invaluable collections.
=sankarcs

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 09 Sep 2009, 23:34

sankarcs wrote:Well said Mr Srkri. Will you please provide us all the four vedas{complete chanting} with the best recording quality ?

I didnt say I have them! I just wished for better quality.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 10 Sep 2009, 22:18

srkris wrote:Moreover, it does not need to be propogated with fuuny claims such as "Vedic Mantras are from the beginning of Time prior to Big Bang !!! Sounds as vibrations have come down unchanged from origin of creation" which is what IISH is claiming.

I am extremely troubled to see such statements, especially coming from Indians. Maybe the site authors are not the most effective communicators in English, but this claim is not "funny" and is fully valid. I think the people who have doubts about the timelessness of the Rgveda and the Vedic language should study the details of Purvamimamsa before jumping to conclusions. The ancient Indians were not a bunch of crazy obscurantists. Neither is Vedic a development from some "grunts-and-growls" of prehistoric cavemen, nor the result of some "proto-Indo-European" balderdash. There is not an iota of proof for any of these wild claims. The Veda is self-defining and self-existing. The imperfect tools of inquiry cannot be used to fully get at the true "origin" of the Vedas. They are no use in this matter.

Ultimately, what is the use of studying the Rgveda and Vedic Sanskrit if one does not believe in its infallibility and apaurusheya nature ? Without acceptance of these truths (or axioms if you prefer), their study is reduced to a mere "intellectual ****" that has no real value.

"Logical/rational" approaches touted by modern-day quacks, upon closer examination, reveal quite laughable levels of "scientific" quality. Contrast with the thoroughness, honesty, and overall excellence of the Indian philosophers - both the Mimamsa ritualists and the Vedanta spiritualists.

Thanks.

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 11 Sep 2009, 00:27

I think the people who have doubts about the timelessness of the Rgveda and the Vedic language should study the details of Purvamimamsa before jumping to conclusions. The ancient Indians were not a bunch of crazy obscurantists.

It may not be wise to assume that people who claim the vedas are unauthored dont know anything they are talking about. I don't have any doubts, I am sure that the vedic literature is not eternal.

In fact it is only those that claim the vedic literature is eternal that are dogmatic and unknowledgeable.

The Veda that is eternal is not a reference to the vedic literature but to veda (knowledge). Knowledge (veda) is not created (by either human or divine agency). Knowledge has existed as long as matter existed. This uncreated veda (knowledge) is what is eternal, not the vedic literature.

I am not responsible for people misunderstanding the purva mimamsa doctrine by jumping up and down claiming the vedic verses are unauthored. That argument is a joke, it is a misunderstanding, it is illogical and it is not what purvamimamsa is about. Purvamimamsa's object is to expound the nature of Dharma, not to prove the infallibility of the vedic literature.

Neither is Vedic a development from some "grunts-and-growls" of prehistoric cavemen, nor the result of some "proto-Indo-European" balderdash.

It is clear those who speak such do not know anything of Proto Indo European, nor would they care to learn, because they admire their own knowledge so much that they refuse to acknowledge that there is more knowledge outside their mind than there is inside.

There is not an iota of proof for any of these wild claims. The Veda is self-defining and self-existing. The imperfect tools of inquiry cannot be used to fully get at the true "origin" of the Vedas. They are no use in this matter.

There is no use talking to a know-all, is there?

Ultimately, what is the use of studying the Rgveda and Vedic Sanskrit if one does not believe in its infallibility and apaurusheya nature ? Without acceptance of these truths (or axioms if you prefer), their study is reduced to a mere "intellectual ****" that has no real value.

Nonsense (though produced by divine inspirations) is devoid of value. Knowledge produced by intellectual (even non divine) work adds immense value. Else we should all go and lead a vedic life (stop using electricity first). To talk divine gibberish about unauthored nature of vedas and decrying all modern study (while still benifitting from modern knowledge i.e nava veda) is hypocrisy.

"Logical/rational" approaches touted by modern-day quacks, upon closer examination, reveal quite laughable levels of "scientific" quality. Contrast with the thoroughness, honesty, and overall excellence of the Indian Vedanta philosophers - both the ritualists and the spiritualists.

Who is talking about modern-day quacks? I was talking of modern intellectual research. There is a lot of quackery in the Vedas themselves. If you have ever tried to understand them you would not sound so naive as you do.

The great Adi Shankara has referred to vedic animal sacrifices. Why don't you do those sacrifices today or praise them sky high? Why don't you call Adi Shankara a quack? Why don't you fight tooth and nail against those who claim that God composed the vedas? Why this blind tirade against something you don't have firsthand knowledge about? Why dont you read the purvamimamsa sutras yourself before resorting to this verbal diarrhea?

One does not need superhuman intelligence to know that all conditioned things are non-eternal. The eternal veda is not a reference to the vedic corpus.

I would have to warn people against using foul language like "intellectual masturbation", it is not in the least indicative of decency, much less the level of decency that befits a person who claims to represent vedic hoariness..

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 11 Sep 2009, 03:02

Srkris,

First of all, I don't want to be confrontational or engage in a long debate about this (for reasons given below).

srkris wrote:The Veda that is eternal is not a reference to the vedic literature but to veda (knowledge). Knowledge (veda) is not created (by either human or divine agency). Knowledge has existed as long as matter existed. This uncreated veda (knowledge) is what is eternal, not the vedic literature. I am not responsible for people misunderstanding the purva mimamsa doctrine by jumping up and down claiming the vedic verses are unauthored. That argument is a joke, it is a misunderstanding, it is illogical and it is not what purvamimamsa is about. Purvamimamsa's object is to expound the nature of Dharma, not to prove the infallibility of the vedic literature.

You are making this up entirely. There is no doubt at all that a fundamental tenet of purvamimamsa is that the the vedic mantra is *literally* eternal and self-defining and self-existing. Alteration of the Vedic syllables is entirely due to human error, since smriti (remembering) is a part of knowledge that is not self-valid. The fact that you do not know this, but are pretending to be knowledgeable on this subject, exposes the futile nature of any debate on this.

You don't seem to understand that the question of Vedic eternity, the Vedic language, and the fake "proto-Indo-European" construct are all interlinked. When I made a statement 3 years ago that "it is not clear whether the first human rishis were manufactured along with the Vedas or whether they were indoctrinated somehow", I was throwing you a line to see if you understand. Instead you sent me a one-line reply with a smiley. But if you have read about and contemplated the place of Vedic "shabda" in the purvamimamsa and the question of transmission of knowledge, I'd have expected something more substantial from you.

You are inventing your own ideas of purvamimamsa possibly gleaned from secondary or tertiary sources (or perhaps your own imagination of what you want it to be). Yes, I have read the purvamimamsasutras and the bhashyas associated with them. If you did, you have completely misunderstood them or entirely deny their existence since they don't say what you claim. I wanted to call this out, since I have noticed you are continually spreading the same misleading information. Vedic verses are authored, according to purvamimamsa ?? Purvamimamsa does not attempt to prove the infallibility of vedic literature ?? What on earth are you talking about ? This is a joke.

There is no use talking to a know-all, is there?

I think I should be asking that. You are the one claiming to have a "logical" command of linguistic development of Vedic and other languages. I am not making any such claims. I readily admit my scientific and intellectual knowledge has limits.

Nonsense (though produced by divine inspirations) is devoid of value. Knowledge produced by intellectual (even non divine) work adds immense value. Else we should all go and lead a vedic life (stop using electricity first). To talk divine gibberish about unauthored nature of vedas and decrying all modern study (while still benifitting from modern knowledge i.e nava veda) is hypocrisy.

We have had this argument before. I don't know why you cannot see the difference between scientific knowledge (vijnana) and philosophical knowledge. Why does it anger you so much that one can benefit from and pursue vijnana without any illusions as to its limits of applicability towards questions that involve the study of *non-reproducible* phenomena ? Stop using electricity ? What on earth does that have to do with this subject ? I don't think you are conversant with the basic premises of Indian philosophy regarding valid means of knowledge. You claim you have read the purvamimamsa texts, and yet you are telling me that scientific knowledge and belief in the literal eternity of the Vedic syllables don't go together, and doing both at the same time is hypocrisy ??

Who is talking about modern-day quacks? I was talking of modern intellectual research. There is a lot of quackery in the Vedas themselves. If you have ever tried to understand them you would not sound so naive as you do. The great Adi Shankara has referred to vedic animal sacrifices. Why don't you do those sacrifices today or praise them sky high? Why don't you call Adi Shankara a quack? Why don't you fight tooth and nail against those who claim that God composed the vedas? Why this blind tirade against something you don't have firsthand knowledge about? Why dont you read the purvamimamsa sutras yourself before resorting to this verbal diarrhea?

See above. Also, the polemical "why don't you question this or that?" response you provide is a typical result of the fact that "a little knowledge is dangerous". Regarding first-hand knowledge, I suspect that you are the one who lacks this knowledge but are attempting to force your newly-formed views on others through Wikipedia and other sources. I never said that I am a "die-hard" follower of Adi Shankara. And why do you assume I do not have "first-hand knowledge" about this ? Because I am not spending my time posting misleading information about the Vedas ? As regards sounding naive, I must say you come across as the "newly christened" follower with a zeal to separate "quackery" and "non-quackery" based upon your brand-new understanding and great faith in "modern intellectual knowledge". I appreciate your zeal - and I'll leave the tooth-and-nail fights to you (I've done my share when I was newly-christened too

). But when you continue spreading these views on the internet under the guise of "modern intellectualism", it becomes harder to remain silent. A lot of people read this fine forum, and I don't think they deserve this mindless bias towards views that have no sound rationale.

One does not need superhuman intelligence to know that all conditioned things are non-eternal. The eternal veda is not a reference to the vedic corpus.

Now that I know where you stand in your knowledge (no doubt "first-hand") of this subject, I don't think a debate on this subject will have any value whatsoever.

SR

sankarcs · Post by **sankarcs** » 11 Sep 2009, 06:58

Mr Srkris

I am not a English well-versed man. Like others I too have positive and negative opinions of any subject. Before passing on opinion with the reasons in public at large , I used to think myself many times whether the message will bring good to public at large.
Ex.: Good lyrics of songs of MGR /Pattukottai etc. {postive comments}
Politicians how then cheat the public at large {negative comments}

But the negative comments which may NOT yield good to public at large, I used to discuss with only with few people individually.
Our action should yield, if at all, only good to the society not merely for ego-satisfaction.
In the above case, your comments will prevent postings of rare collections by the people like Mr Manikand28. Probably you may be aware of the fact that human beings are selfish. Being such a case nobody {except very rare people} will post such rate collections.

I request our forum members
a. kindly continue with their postings
b. to avoid any remarks that may prevent further postings.

Mr Srkris kindly pardon me of any my words hurts your feelings. If you are in India I wish to contact you over phone.

=sankarcs

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 11 Sep 2009, 10:47

Manikand28,

manikand28 wrote:http://www.uppathil.net/Pages/vedams.htm

These are from http://www.vedchant.com/, popularised by IISH. (indian Institute of Scientific Heritage). I have downloaded all and burned into DVDs. They are very soothing to listen and please propagate. I listen along with reading RL Kashyap's books on vedas.

Thanks very much for these links. I have spent several hours today listening to the Rgvedic recitation of a number of suktas from your links. These are of very good quality, especially the fidelity in maintaining the pitch consistency. The chronometric fidelity is also very good. The recording quality could be better, but there is no difficulty in recognizing the words if one is already familiar with the material. They will surely help me improve my recitation of several important suktas. I have been using another recitation for reference - which was also good - but this one is preferable.

Best Wishes,
SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 11 Sep 2009, 10:59

Written in a very simple, even naive, style - but contains words of truth and wisdom:

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap9.htm

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 11 Sep 2009, 14:30

Sangeet Rasik,

That you did not show a minimum level of decency (by using foul language unprovoked) is itself indicative of what effect your (supposed) erudition has had on your character.

Such people that behave thus do not deserve a reply, much less when the discussion is on the high philosophy of the Veda.

You are not interested in logic because that is not your strong point. What cannot be made sense of logically is nonsense, and your tirade is just that. Next time you want to talk with me, show a level of decency that humans are expected of, even if you want to talk nonsense.

You are not entitled to use expletives on this forum, please keep that in mind, even when you want to pretend that your nonsense is vedically sanctioned.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 11 Sep 2009, 15:10

Sankarcs,

I am sorry, it was my mistake to bring in an unrelated topic into this discussion. I have removed my comments from my previous posts that seemed to have offended your sensibilities.

What I initially wanted to say is that "the unauthored nature of the vedas" is not a universal truth, that argument was made only by a few schools of mimamsa. Obviously that argument is illogical and untrue. The vedic tradition retains the names of the rishis who authored each verse of the vedas, and this fact could not be explained away except by claiming that they "heard" them from some non-human sources. The vedas themselves do not claim that they are eternal or unauthored, hence that argument which goes against vedic testimony is itself inadmissible according to vedic authority, to say nothing of its inadmissibility in logic.

The purvamimamsa darshana itself is an interpretation of the vedas, it laid down the rules for correct ways of interpreting the verses, because by the time purvamimamsa originated, the vedic mantras were already subject to diverse interpretations. Partly this was because the language of the vedas became archaic to even the sanskrit speakers (much like how modern English speakers don't understand Geoffrey Chaucer today, much less anything of anglo-saxon). Think of Sanskrit as English, Vedic as Chaucerian English, and Proto-Indo-European as Anglo-Saxon, and you will probably get what i am trying to say. No language that is spoken and understood by humans is extra-terrestrial, and this applies to Vedic as it applies to any other language. No literature (including the vedas) can be unauthored (except non-existing literature).

Thank you for reporting my post to the moderators, your efforts to keep the forum a good place is appreciated.

I already have this collection for more than a year, and i have compared it with other vedic chants, which is why i compared its recording quality with the others.

No, I'm not in India.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 11 Sep 2009, 18:13

May I simply say in the language of Rg Veda:
saM-samid yuvase vRSannagne vishvAnyarya A
iLas padesamidhyase sa no vasUnyA bhara
saM gachadhvaM saM vadadhvaM saM vo manAMsi jAnatAm
devA bhAgaM yathA pUrve saMjAnAnA upAsate
samAno mantraH samitiH samAnI samAnaM manaH saha cittameSAm
samAnaM mantramabhi maNtraye vaH samAnena vohaviSA juhomi
samAnI va AkUtiH samAnA hRdayAni vaH
samAnamastu vomano yathA vaH susahAsati (RV 10.191)

For you debaters there is no need for a translation.
But do stop ad hominems

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 11 Sep 2009, 18:33

srkris,

srkris wrote:What I initially wanted to say is that "the unauthored nature of the vedas" is not a universal truth, that argument was made only by a few schools of mimamsa.

Please stop. Why dig yourself into a deeper hole and still claim to be logically oriented ? You are again making things up. The unauthored nature of the Vedas is accepted by vedanta in addition to mimamsa. They are allies in this matter. I posted above the views of an Advaitin on this subject.

Among the karmakandis, Kumarila's exposition of this subject is the most detailed, but earlier authors Jaimini and Shabara expound the same principle. Prabhakara deviates somewhat but is not considered as influential. Among the jnanakandis, there is essential agreement with this overall view. Shankara accepts the mimamsa theory of apaurusheyatva of Vedas and the mimamsa theory of language, i.e. Vedic Sanskrit being eternal. There is a precise argument as to why Vedic as the language of dharma is different from all others. The disagreement between mimamsa and vedanta is not regarding the infallibility of Vedic mantra, but in accusing each other of incorrect interpretation (i.e. human error) regarding its "instructions" on what to do in life.

These two schools were together responsible for firm re-establishment of Hinduism, and the defeat of atheists and quacks who were touting "logic" as the new foundation of Indian philosophy. The other 4 darshanas - nyaya-vaisheshika and samkhya-yoga - do question the unauthored nature of the Vedic mantra. But they are not strongly focused on metaphysics. As philosophical systems, the latter 4 darshanas have no significant following today.

Obviously that argument is illogical and untrue. The vedic tradition retains the names of the rishis who authored each verse of the vedas, and this fact could not be explained away except by claiming that they "heard" them from some non-human sources. The vedas themselves do not claim that they are eternal or unauthored, hence that argument which goes against vedic testimony is itself inadmissible according to vedic authority, to say nothing of its inadmissibility in logic.

Hello - by this point you have jettisoned any pretense of objectivity. You talk as if you know exactly what the Vedic rishis did/did not do, having been there at the time. The names of the rishis in the verses are not the "authors" of these verses. None of the clans descending from these so-called "authors" claim to have "authorship" of any of the Rgvedic mantras. If they "heard" it, they said so honestly and objectively. And they mounted a sincere effort to preserve what they "heard" with a high degree of precision. What exactly is your problem with that ? Are you telling me that you can come along anytime later and actually *decide* what the rishis did, ignoring their own tradition ? According to your argument then, Indra, Agni, etc are all just made-up gods representing natural forces, and the superstitious Vedic folks made up these hymns to praise the natural forces they were in awe of ? And later, some of these guys figured that if they made a big formality out of these hymns and made people believe in performing yajnas, they could make a good living off of these yajnas ?

The premise of your arguments faithfully tows that of the colonial European indologist, i.e., the Indian philosophers are fundamentally untrustworthy and fraudulent. As a matter of fact, Indian philosophy is vibrant and there has been plenty of internal debate about these matters from the time of recorded history available to us. Indian philosophers were willing to convert to another point of view if they felt they had been successfully refuted. At this point, you know who is left standing.

You can't be a serious student of Indian philosophy by sitting on the fence and just making some "logical" comments based upon some ideas of "modernity" that are in circulation. Modern "analysts" are free to interpret whatever they feel like, but this is sort of like crows nibbling at the leftovers long after the meal is over and the eaters have left the scene.

No language that is spoken and understood by humans is extra-terrestrial, and this applies to Vedic as it applies to any other language. No literature (including the vedas) can be unauthored (except non-existing literature).

The tenet of non-authorship of the Vedas does not necessarily mean the language was "delivered extra-terrestrially". The very idea of revelation involves transmission of ideas, and does not preclude transmission of language to encode those ideas. It is not bound by classical rules of space and time, obviously. There is absolutely no logical route to proving any of your claims. All you are doing is to extrapolate what you see in your daily life to explain everything. That is not the aim of metaphysical inquiry.

Finally, I have not used any expletives. Why make this pretense of prudishness ? If accusing me of "indecency" is the only crutch left for your arguments, then please don't bother.

SR

girish_a · Post by **girish_a** » 11 Sep 2009, 19:18

I find the idea of "apaurusheya" somewhat similar to the belief in Islam that the Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) by God himself.

And look how fanatic PBUH's followers have become because of that belief. The Quran came from God, so there can be no other truth. Kill all the unbelievers.

The rabidity which has infested that religion can be traced to that one belief, IMHO.

Simply put, such beliefs are not only unscientific, but also dangerous.

It could be that when these ideas were first propounded, they were merely symbolic, but centuries of unquestioning obedience to religious authorities have turned these ideas into hardened beliefs and this has wrought hell upon the earth.

Even if symbolic, such ideas are still dangerous.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 11 Sep 2009, 21:01

Finally, I have not used any expletives.

Did you or did you not use the term "intellectual masturbation"? I had to edit that out and put **** there. Maybe denying that you used bad language is in keeping with your general dishonesty of attributing scientific validity to your loose claims and beliefs.

You are again making things up. The unauthored nature of the Vedas is accepted by vedanta in addition to mimamsa. They are allies in this matter.

Mimamsa includes both purva and uttara mimamsa, which obviously you are not aware of. And I said the illogicality of the veda being literally unauthored is believed in only a few schools of mimamsa. You named those schools. The argument is still invalid.

The names of the rishis in the verses are not the "authors" of these verses. If they "heard" it, they said so honestly and objectively.

The rishis did not say they received it as a revelation. The authors themselves did not claim that the verses are unauthored (that claim would be considered stupid even in their own time). They could not have imagined that later people would be so foolish as to question their authorship of the verses when the names of the composers are handed down as carefully as the verses themselves.

Please do not pretend that your tradition of pseudo science is representative of the vedic rishis, when you are clearly misrepresenting them by attributing your beliefs to them.

The premise of your arguments faithfully tows that of the colonial European indologist, i.e., the Indian philosophers are fundamentally untrustworthy and fraudulent. As a matter of fact, Indian philosophy is vibrant and there has been plenty of internal debate about these matters from the time of recorded history available to us. Indian philosophers were willing to convert to another point of view if they felt they had been successfully refuted. At this point, you know who is left standing.

Spare me the rabid remarks. Neither do I love those you hate nor do I hate those you love. I merely accept what is right from whatever source I hear it.

I dont know that the ancient Indian philosophers had any arguments about the veda with any non-indian philosophers. So i cant say who was "left standing".

Only the ignorant fanatics stand, the wise soon withdraw once they realize they are facing personified stupidity, and I propose to withdraw from this argument with you, and that will obviously give you the satisfaction of triumph.

The very idea of revelation involves transmission of ideas, and does not preclude transmission of language to encode those ideas. It is not bound by classical rules of space and time, obviously.

Neither is it bound by the rules of science or logic. It is bound only by nonsense.

A transmission of the vedas requires it to be transmitted from one to another. If there is no transferor, there is no transfer. Obviously you will not believe in this either, because according to you, it doesnt have to be logical or make sense. Nonsense is therefore very acceptable to you, and in your language, you call it science.

All you are doing is to extrapolate what you see in your daily life to explain everything. That is not the aim of metaphysical inquiry.

Pardon me the lecture, professor. Let's not make bigger fools of ourselves by claiming that the veda that talks in the past tense about various things and people is from before time and unauthored.

Since the Vedas have existed from before time, and they are eternally valid, we have been homo-sapiens mentioned in the veda from before time, thus you obviously dont believe in continental drift (since India and its rivers and mountains and people is mentioned in the vedas), neither do you believe in evolution (since everything mentioned in the vedas seem to have existed from time immemorial too). And you call your beliefs scientific and logical.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 11 Sep 2009, 22:15

Girish,

girish_a wrote:I find the idea of "apaurusheya" somewhat similar to the belief in Islam that the Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) by God himself.

Actually, it could not be farther off. Please check with any Islamic or Christian theologian. The concept of revelation in Islam and Christianity is that before Year X, the word of god was not known to man. In Year X, so-and-so was born and in Year X+a few, this person spoke the word of God so that all "previous" statements are incorrect.

That is not the Vedic revelation.

And look how fanatic PBUH's followers have become because of that belief. The Quran came from God, so there can be no other truth. Kill all the unbelievers.

My friend, Hindu philosophy has held the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas from time immemorial - specifically the schools of purvamimamsa and uttaramimamsa (called Vedanta). How many rabid fanatics have emerged from these schools and how many non-believers have they killed? Please give me a list.

Simply put, such beliefs are not only unscientific, but also dangerous.

It could be that when these ideas were first propounded, they were merely symbolic, but centuries of unquestioning obedience to religious authorities have turned these ideas into hardened beliefs and this has wrought hell upon the earth.

Even if symbolic, such ideas are still dangerous.

Ignorance of one's own heritage is dangerous, as are random speculations. Please refrain.

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 11 Sep 2009, 22:35

girish_a wrote:It could be that when these ideas were first propounded, they were merely symbolic, but centuries of unquestioning obedience to religious authorities have turned these ideas into hardened beliefs and this has wrought hell upon the earth.

That is very true Girish. The very term "Veda" was not used in reference to the verses during the vedic period. The name was applied to the canon only towards the end of the vedic period when other literatures were composed.

Veda is derived from the root 'vid' (to know) and it represents codified knowledge that the verses contained. Knowledge may be called eternal. But if someone were to interpret the term 'veda' literally and claim that the vedic literature is eternal, my sympathies are with them.

The origin of Vedanta was to put an end to such faulty interpretations and actions based on those faulty interpretations that were playing a havoc in society in the name of religion.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 11 Sep 2009, 22:39

Srkis,

srkris wrote:Did you or did you not use the term "intellectual masturbation"? I had to edit that out and put **** there. Maybe denying that you used bad language is in keeping with your general dishonesty of attributing scientific validity to your loose claims and beliefs.

I have to say your responses are unbalanced at this point. This term is not an expletive. I didn't ask you to edit it, did I ?

Mimamsa includes both purva and uttara mimamsa, which obviously you are not aware of. And I said the illogicality of the veda being literally unauthored is believed in only a few schools of mimamsa. You named those schools. The argument is still invalid.

So now your "argument" moves to claiming I don't know that uttaramimamsa = Vedanta ? Absurd. I know it very well. Currently, the term "mimamsa" is taken to mean the school of purvamimamsa, and Vedanta the uttaramimamsa. There is no confusion in my mind.

The rishis did not say they received it as a revelation. The authors themselves did not claim that the verses are unauthored (that claim would be considered stupid even in their own time). They could not have imagined that later people would be so foolish as to question their authorship of the verses when the names of the composers are handed down as carefully as the verses themselves.

These are again your own inventions that are not supported by any Vedic source or school of Indian philosophy. Look at your own statements and see how absurd they sound. To argue with someone who is clearly not going to change their mind is a waste of time.

I dont know that the ancient Indian philosophers had any arguments about the veda with any non-indian philosophers. So i cant say who was "left standing".

What ?

I said "Indian philosophers were willing to convert to another point of view if they were refuted". Thus the other 4 darshanas have lost their followers. At this point Vedanta and Mimamsa are left standing. They have an understanding, though not complete conciliation, with each other. I think your responses are unbalanced at this point.

Only the ignorant fanatics stand, the wise soon withdraw once they realize they are facing personified stupidity, and I propose to withdraw from this argument with you, and that will obviously give you the satisfaction of triumph.

I am not interested in winning an argument with you. I called attention to your spreading misleading information and making unwarranted judgements. This discussion is here for all to read.

Neither is it bound by the rules of science or logic. It is bound only by nonsense.

Your naive belief that science and logic proceed only by "rules" and have no "axioms" is amusing.

A transmission of the vedas requires it to be transmitted from one to another. If there is no transferor, there is no transfer. Obviously you will not believe in this either, because according to you, it doesnt have to be logical or make sense. Nonsense is therefore very acceptable to you, and in your language, you call it science.

What ?

How do you explain the physicist's theory of the Big Bang ? What is the agent of this occurrence ? Do you know ? Does anyone know ?

Pardon me the lecture, professor. Let's not make bigger fools of ourselves by claiming that the veda that talks in the past tense about various things and people is from before time and unauthored.

There is only one person making a fool of themselves here, and it's not me.

Since the Vedas have existed from before time, and they are eternally valid, we have been homo-sapiens mentioned in the veda from before time, thus you obviously dont believe in continental drift (since India and its rivers and mountains and people is mentioned in the vedas), neither do you believe in evolution (since everything mentioned in the vedas seem to have existed from time immemorial too). And you call your beliefs scientific and logical.

Obviously, you have not read nor understood anything about Indian philosophy. The Vedic mantra is not a compendium of readymade knowledge of science and technology. You also don't understand the basic difference between the eternality of the Vedic mantra and the words that it manifested in the particular age. Did you read my previous post alluding the mimamsa theory of language ? Please go look it up sometime. Note, I am not saying that I believe wholesale the purvamimamsa theory.

You are just reduced to making random statements now - asking me if I believe in evolution and continental drift. This is a useless argument with someone that is not qualified to argue. See you later.

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 11 Sep 2009, 23:11

Sangeet Rasik wrote:[I have to say your responses are unbalanced at this point. This term is not an expletive. I didn't ask you to edit it, did I ?

It might not sound profane to you if you are accustomed to such language and regularly use such words in your daily talk.

Sangeet Rasik wrote:These are again your own inventions that are not supported by any Vedic source or school of Indian philosophy. Look at your own statements and see how absurd they sound. To argue with someone who is clearly not going to change their mind is a waste of time.

Your answer above is meaningless in the light of my comment that the vedic rishis did not declare their verses to be unauthored, nor do the vedas themselves contain any allusion to their unauthored origin.

Sangeet Rasik wrote:How do you explain the physicist's theory of the Big Bang ? What is the agent of this occurrence ? Do you know ? Does anyone know ?

Why do I have to validate the big bang theory? It is people like you who claim that the vedas are from before the big bang.

I think such claims are modern trash, the byproduct of an imperfect understanding of both modern science and the vedas.

Sangeet Rasik wrote:
srkris wrote:Pardon me the lecture, professor. Let's not make bigger fools of ourselves by claiming that the veda that talks in the past tense about various things and people is from before time and unauthored.
There is only one person making a fool of themselves here, and it's not me.

Perhaps I am giving you too much respect and you are continually reminding me that you are incapable of any meaningful answers other than making ad-hominem abuses?

Sangeet Rasik wrote:You are just reduced to making random statements now - asking me if I believe in evolution and continental drift. This is a useless argument with someone that is not qualified to argue. See you later.

No of course you wouldnt believe continental drift or evolution, since the geography of the Vedas existed from before time as well, and the people mentioned in the vedas are from before time as well.

And you dont even seem to understand how that relates to the issue you've been talking about.

Sangeet Rasik wrote:Note, I am not saying that I believe wholesale the purvamimamsa theory.

I already understood that. You pick only the illogical claims (like apaurusheyatva) to believe in, while you obviously dont believe what is worth believing.

Those that are worth believing in is the actual veda (knowledge) that is not contrary to science and logic. Funny claims of unauthored literature do not go very well with modern science and they are therefore representative of ignorance (avidya) rather than of knowledge (veda).

Although you dont believe purvamimamsa wholesale, you will prevent others from exercising the same choice to believe in what is logical to them. That is typical of a hypocrite.

Sangeet Rasik wrote:To argue with someone who is clearly not going to change their mind is a waste of time.

So you would rather change my mind so I accept your illogical dogma and forsake reason?

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 12 Sep 2009, 01:01

What is more amusing is your attempt to pass off illogical notions of unauthored literature as science.

When did I ever say that Indian philosophy is "scientific" ? Are you just out to slander me in any possible manner ? I think you are just striking out blindly when you have been called out on what you are doing.

Did I say that metaphysics is science ? Science, logic, and metaphysics are different. But they overlap in certain ways pertaining to their methods and regarding the sources of knowledge that they admit. *But metaphysical truth cannot be found by science or logic assuming they operate by the axioms that they currently operate under*. Please get this into your mind. Otherwise it will lead to various delusions as you get older. I am not saying one is better than the other. They just are not evaluated on a common ground.

Sangeet Rasik wrote:I do not have to support the big bang theory to call your arguments illogical. Modern science is amenable to updates, your dogma isn't. Hence it is not scientific. It is not rational. It is not logical. It is mere nonsense.

You don't get it, do you ? I am not asking you to support the Big Bang. I asked you a simple question: is the Big Bang theory self-valid and self-defining ? Does "science" depend on certain axioms regarding the valid sources of knowledge ? What about "logic" ?

Those that are worth believing in is the actual veda (knowledge) that is not contrary to science and logic. Funny claims of unauthored literature do not go very well with modern science and they are therefore representative of ignorance (avidya) rather than of knowledge (veda).

This is becoming more and more like a joke. Metaphysics and science are supposed to "go very well together" now, eh ? I think you probably have no scientific background, nor have you spent any time seriously studying Indian philosophy. That is why you confuse the two and make absurd comments such as "Purvamimansa doctrine is nonsense since it is not science or logic". These statements do not make any sense at all.

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 12 Sep 2009, 01:46

You said "The Veda is self-defining and self-existing."

I haven't heard of a self forming and self-existing literature without any author. Is it a metaphysical assertion to claim that a literature can self exist without an author?

Leave alone people who claimed that before 2000 years, what happened to modern science and our brains?

Why are you now talking about some obscure comparisons between science and metaphysics?

You said Vedic is not "the result of some proto-Indo-European balderdash". That one statement was sufficient to gauge your level.

You also asked a laughable question --- "Ultimately, what is the use of studying the Rgveda and Vedic Sanskrit if one does not believe in its infallibility and apaurusheya nature?" Do you follow whatever the vedas set forth? Do you lead the same life that the vedic people lived? What use is your belief in its infallibility if you are not living the life of a person who follows the vedas completely? Whom are you trying to convince this hypocrisy of?

Do you have the intellectual honesty to address the questions I posed rather than rant about irrelevant metaphysics?

1. Why did the rishis not declare that they "heard" the verses from non-human sources in a strange language that they did not know before?

2. Why do the Vedas not declare that they are of a non-human origin (since they are self-defining according to you)?

3. How can you pass on a literature orally to other humans in a language that no one (not even the rishis) previously understood?

4. What language were the rishis speaking before they received the vedas?

5. How can a literature that is eternal/unauthored talk in past tense about rivers and people and animals of a particular country that came into being at a particular time and age?

6. Why is that although you dont believe purvamimamsa wholesale, you will prevent others from exercising the same choice to believe in what is logical to them?

7. Why do you ridicule modern science and compare it with ancient Indian works when you clearly claim now that these two cannot be compared?

8. Why dont you have the courtesy to apologise for your profanities?

Finally I have nothing against you. I dont even know you, why should I try to slander you? My main ire against you is that you pick some wild claims (no doubt found in some post vedic works) and argue tooth and nail that they are superior to modern researches. You may have lost hope in critical (modern/western) modes of research, just say that and keep quiet.

Logic is no one's baby, if our forefathers used bad logic to make ridiculous claims, we dont have to carry that baggage forward just to remain true to tradition. Doing so will make us focus our energies on stupidity leaving the more important and intelligent aspects of the traditions uncared for. The person who first made that claim literally that the vedas are unauthored was not true to his tradition. When trash comes from an able and knowledgeable person, it is still trash.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 12 Sep 2009, 04:56

You didn't answer my question. You make all sorts of claims about being "scientific" and then brush off my questions on science-metaphysics comparisons as "obscure". What else are we discussing ? If you don't understand the distinctions, you will spend your life asking questions that make no sense and are wrongly directed.

I am going to make one last attempt. I will be brief as possible.

srkris wrote:I haven't heard of a self forming and self-existing literature without any author. Dont you feel stupid to claim that? Is it a metaphysical assertion to claim that a literature can self exist without an author?

The objective of metaphysics is not to reaffirm things you have already heard or experienced in your three-dimensional world. I don't feel any more stupid than to claim the Big Bang or string theory. If you have any background in science you can read up on these theories and realize that there are no proofs of any of them. for example, how can a singularity lead to differentiation ? Haven't you
heard of the notion of "self-assembly" in nature ?

You also asked a laughable question --- "Ultimately, what is the use of studying the Rgveda and Vedic Sanskrit if one does not believe in its infallibility and apaurusheya nature?" Do you follow whatever the vedas set forth? Do you lead the same life that the vedic people lived? What use is your belief in its infallibility if you are not living the life of a person who follows the vedas completely? Whom are you trying to convince this hypocrisy of?

Believing in the Vedic eternity does not require one to live in the Stone Age. Again, the same confusion between the progress of science/civilization and metaphysical concepts which remain eternal. Let me remind you: I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm not spreading misleading information on the internet like you. I replied to draw attention to your activities in this regard, so that people do not just think we all agree with these strange views that you hold.

Do you have the intellectual honesty to address the questions I posed rather than rant about irrelevant metaphysics?

. I like your approach. When you want to ignore the central issue (which here is *metaphysics*) you say I am ranting about "irrelevant" metaphysics. How do you claim it is irrelevant without studying it ? What sort of intellectual honesty do you have ?

But here goes anyway:

1. Why did the rishis not declare that they "heard" the verses from non-human sources in a strange language that they did not know before?

Maybe because they did not in fact "hear" it in a strange language from some non-human entity with their ears cocked, as you seem to want to know. I asked this question several years ago when discussing with you. Looks like you have forgotten about it (but of course). The point is, just because you do not know how they "heard" it, is absolutely no grounds to reject it as being "nonsense". Unfortunately, you cannot apply science to phenomena that you are unable to reproduce. But science is not truth, it is an eternal search for truth. Metaphysics is a statement of truth that must be *logically consistent* (not "scientifically consistent"). Science is not perfect, so asking metaphysics to be consistent with science is like asking the chariot to come before the horse.

2. Why do the Vedas not declare that they are of a non-human origin (since they are self-defining according to you)?

How does being "Self-defining" entail an obligation to declare non-human origin ? In that case, they should also be forced to declare non-monkey, non-alien,etc, and other infinite disclaimers. The Vedas are Brahman. What declarations are you going to ask Brahman for ?

3. How can you pass on a literature orally to other humans in a language that no one (not even the rishis) previously understood?

Who is "you" ? If you don't understand the agent of transmission, how are you in a position to question the act of transmission ? How do you know the "passing on" was "oral"? The thing you need to understand is that there are no "armchair" answers - you cannot get at this truth without being "immersed" in it. This was a motivation for my question: "What is the use of studying the vedas if you don't accept it's infallibility in the first place" ? Yas tan na veda kim rcaah karishyati ? Did you just mechanically read the words with the motive of impressing yourself with your own erudition (the form of self-gratification I alluded to earlier) and engaging in some linguistic debates with like-minded folks? That is fine, I have nothing against it. I am not preventing you from doing so.

4. What language were the rishis speaking before they received the vedas?

This question does not make sense. Let me try and put this in simple terms - the receipt of the Vedas marks the "beginning" - *not only in the sense of receiving information but also in the sense of "receiving" space, time, and all other constructs that define existence. You are still in the mode of thinking that the Vedas only represent information in the everyday sense. How ignorant can you be, and yet claim you have read the vedas and Indian philosophy ?

In a similar manner, have you asked Nobel-prize winning physicists the question - "What was the universe doing before the Big Bang?" After all, the rishis apparently should be made of the same matter-energy as the universe, so this is a fair question. If you ask a physicist that, he will quickly disappear. Are you going to badger him with questions and call him a quack too ?

5. How can a literature that is eternal/unauthored talk in past tense about rivers and people and animals of a particular country that came into being at a particular time and age?

Why would there be an a priori expectation that it should *not* talk about people and animals ? Your entire view is based upon a very narrow and untenable (indeed "irrational") definition of what the "receipt" of the Vedas *should* entail. You claimed you read the purvamimamsa sutras, so you should be knowing very well that the content of the mantras has been divided by them into different types of statements. It is an accepted fact that people even disagree regarding whether the vedas are talking about "real" people or "real" animals. Some fools even fight about whether the vedas mention horses or asses. Again, you are stuck in a circular argument. You have already assumed that you know the larger meaning of the words, and then you question the validity of the Vedas since your narrow system of knowledge fails to interpret the words correctly.

6. Why is that although you dont believe purvamimamsa wholesale, you will prevent others from exercising the same choice to believe in what is logical to them?

Whom am I preventing ? You are scot-free to believe whatever you want to. I already said in a previous post that I wanted to draw attention to your obscurantism and amateur comments made in the guise of "scientific reason and logic" which will mislead a lot of people. The entire discussion is here to allow people to make up their own mind.

7. Why do you ridicule modern science and compare it with ancient Indian works when you clearly claim now that these two cannot be compared?

What modern science have I ridiculed, exactly ? I am a practising scientist and I have greatest interest and enthusiasm in the search for truth that it represents. The comparison I made was to get you to think about the limits of science, and the role of belief in those scientific theories with specific reference to cosmology.

8. Why dont you have the courtesy to apologise for your profanities?

I uttered no profanities, so why should I make apologies ? I don't understand why you keep goading me to do so. It looks like none of your recent posts will hold water unless you prop them up with this accusation. In fact, I found your response to the previous poster to be an act of extreme rudeness, profanity, and uncultured excess. I appreciate your service in the music sphere, but cannot agree with your increasingly wild and exaggerated claims on the vedas and science and logic.

Finally I have nothing against you. I dont even know you, why should I try to slander you? My main ire against you is that you pick some wild claims (no doubt found in some post vedic works) and argue tooth and nail that they are superior to modern researches. You may have lost hope in critical (modern/western) modes of research, just say that and keep quiet.

This is funny. I am not the "tooth-and-nail arguer" here. I am just happy to supply you the proverbial "rope to hang yourself with".

BTW your slander and misrepresentation continues. I have never said that Indian philosophy is "superior" to "modern researches" (whatever that means to you). I have not lost hope in any "modes of (good scientific) research". The difference is that I understand to a decent extent the scope of philosophy, science, art, logic. You are confused about them.

SR

sankarcs · Post by **sankarcs** » 12 Sep 2009, 07:58

Dear Mr Sangeet Rasik / Mr srkris

Let me appreciate your efforts [both] in clarifying the points. Lot of time and efforts were spent
by you in this matter. Efforts of both of you in placing your knowledge in this forum is a treasure
for members like me.

However, I wish and appeal to your goodselves to kindly put forth your views
as originating one from your end instead of replying/contradicting the views of another.

Every one of us is having freedom to express their opinion .
Everyone is having their own opinion.
We all know well that Upanishads starts with 'Question' and teaching is
continued through question & answer pattern.
If that pattern of discussion is made in this forum it will be very helplful for members
like me who has a {very very} little knowledge . In fact members like me should wait
for the postings of Mr Sangeet Rasik and Mr srkris . It is my wish.

Hence I appeal to your goodselves to kindly post your opinions/facts etc. without
contradicting others opinion. Let the members have the choice to accept or not.

Some accept and follow as it is what was taught to them, like two + two = four because
it was accepted by earlier generations . Most of the people accept their father and mother as it
is taught and are not trying prove it through laboratory . Such a trial will spoil the relationship
between parents and children.

= sankarcs

sankarcs · Post by **sankarcs** » 12 Sep 2009, 08:02

Dear Mr srkris

Thank you very much for your reply.

I am very much impressed on your reply.

If you come across any rare collections, kindly contribute them to this forum
which will be much helpful for people like me to bring awareness among younger
generations.

=sankarcs

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 12 Sep 2009, 18:39

The objective of metaphysics is not to reaffirm things you have already heard or experienced in your three-dimensional world. I don't feel any more stupid than to claim the Big Bang or string theory. If you have any background in science you can read up on these theories and realize that there are no proofs of any of them. for example, how can a singularity lead to differentiation ? Haven't you
heard of the notion of "self-assembly" in nature ?

Your answer above was irrelevant to the question - how can a literature self-form and self-exist, was the question.

Believing in the Vedic eternity does not require one to live in the Stone Age.

Why are you equating the vedic period and way of life to the stone age? What is your belief in infallibility of vedas of any consequence if you are not going to live by them?

When you want to ignore the central issue (which here is *metaphysics*) you say I am ranting about "irrelevant" metaphysics. How do you claim it is irrelevant without studying it ?

The central issue is not the nonsense (which you call metaphysics). I said it is a joke to claim that the vedas are unauthored or from before the big bang. You are trying to bring the irrelevant issue of metaphysics into the discussion by going into purvamimamsa.

Who said your mumbo jumbo is "metaphysics"? Just because you don't know something, don't call it metaphysics. Nonsense is nonsense, not metaphysics.

The point is, just because you do not know how they "heard" it, is absolutely no grounds to reject it as being "nonsense".

It's entirely your cooked up story, so if you can explain it, please do. Don't expect me to pretend to be aware of all the nonsense that people can come up with.

I am not sure how the Vedic Rishis themselves would have viewed your story that they came at the beginning of existence and received the vedas from elsewhere. The Nasadiya suktam would then make no sense since it was received by the rishis at the beginning of existence, what was the suktam speaking about existence and non-existence in the past tense at the beginning of existence itself?

What were the verses speaking about India and its people and animals and geography at the beginning of existence?

This theory sounds very much like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Congratulations, you abrahamized (or should I say mosesized) the vedas.

How does being "Self-defining" entail an obligation to declare non-human origin ? In that case, they should also be forced to declare non-monkey, non-alien,etc, and other infinite disclaimers. The Vedas are Brahman. What declarations are you going to ask Brahman for?

You are at liberty to continue to explain how a literature can form itself without an author.

The only species that I have known to be able of authoring literature is homo-sapiens, and if a particular literature is unauthored, it goes without saying that it is non-human in origin.

The vedas are not Brahman. Brahman is incapable of being identified positively. The vedas are literature covering the twin topics of Dharma and Brahma.

Who is "you"? If you don't understand the agent of transmission, how are you in a position to question the act of transmission ? How do you know the "passing on" was "oral"? The thing you need to understand is that there are no "armchair" answers

If you cant understand how a transmission of literature in a human natural language can happen without a source, whom are you trying to correct when you are yourself not aware?

you cannot get at this truth without being "immersed" in it. This was a motivation for my question: "What is the use of studying the vedas if you don't accept it's infallibility in the first place" ? Yas tan na veda kim rcaah karishyati ?

What is the use of believing in the infallibility vedas if you are not going to live a vedic life?

If the vedas are infallible, we should be sacrificing goats and horses on fire atlars? What?

This question does not make sense. Let me try and put this in simple terms - the receipt of the Vedas marks the "beginning" - *not only in the sense of receiving information but also in the sense of "receiving" space, time, and all other constructs that define existence.

Oh, so the rishis came together with space, and time and the vedas. It was the beginning of existence itself. Wow, I'm impressed.

So they didnt recieve the Vedas, they originated with the Vedas. How much more stupid is this going to get? Let us see.

You are still in the mode of thinking that the Vedas only represent information in the everyday sense. How ignorant can you be, and yet claim you have read the vedas and Indian philosophy ?

Do not attempt to read my mind. I give more respect to the rishis than you do. I do not attribute stupidity and nonsense to them, while you do and call it metaphysics.

In a similar manner, have you asked Nobel-prize winning physicists the question - "What was the universe doing before the Big Bang?" After all, the rishis apparently should be made of the same matter-energy as the universe, so this is a fair question. If you ask a physicist that, he will quickly disappear. Are you going to badger him with questions and call him a quack too ?

The first use of the word "quack" in this thread was used by you to refer to modern linguists who spend their lifetime studying languages and the science of linguistics.

Why would there be an a priori expectation that it should *not* talk about people and animals ?

It is because we are faced with the claim that they are from before the big bang. It is because we have a scientist defending it. It is because in his words we have a literature which supposedly defined itself at the beginning of existence, no less.

Hence one is forced to have an a priori expectation of the existence of cattle and horses and people at the beginning of existence (or earlier, since the vedas talk about them in the past tense)..

You are doing great with these stories.

I already said in a previous post that I wanted to draw attention to your obscurantism and amateur comments made in the guise of "scientific reason and logic" which will mislead a lot of people. The entire discussion is here to allow people to make up their own mind.

It would be prudent then to stop calling proto-Indo-European research as balderash. It would be sensible to stop claiming that the vedic Rishis received time and space along with the vedas at the beginning of existence.

What modern science have I ridiculed, exactly ? I am a practising scientist and I have greatest interest and enthusiasm in the search for truth that it represents. The comparison I made was to get you to think about the limits of science, and the role of belief in those scientific theories with specific reference to cosmology.

So linguistics is not a modern science? You also called proto-Indo-European research balderash.

In fact, I found your response to the previous poster to be an act of extreme rudeness, profanity, and uncultured excess.

Wow, you utter profanities and when you are asked to apologise, you divert the same blame on the one that accuses you of it?

Has this tactic worked for you earlier?

BTW your slander and misrepresentation continues. I have never said that Indian philosophy is "superior" to "modern researches" (whatever that means to you)

There we go again with the denials. Didn't you say

"Neither is Vedic a development from some "grunts-and-growls" of prehistoric cavemen, nor the result of some "proto-Indo-European" balderdash"

and

"Logical/rational" approaches touted by modern-day quacks, upon closer examination, reveal quite laughable levels of scientific quality. Contrast with the thoroughness, honesty, and overall excellence of the Indian philosophers - both the Mimamsa ritualists and the Vedanta spiritualists."

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 12 Sep 2009, 19:58

Both of you are talking at (or across) each other than discussing the issues. This debate will degenerate into polemics if you do not address the issues.
The questions raised by srkris are quite thought provokiing:

1. Why did the rishis not declare that they "heard" the verses from non-human sources in a strange language that they did not know before?

2. Why do the Vedas not declare that they are of a non-human origin (since they are self-defining according to you)?

3. How can you pass on a literature orally to other humans in a language that no one (not even the rishis) previously understood?

4. What language were the rishis speaking before they received the vedas?

5. How can a literature that is eternal/unauthored talk in past tense about rivers and people and animals of a particular country that came into being at a particular time and age?

These have baffled Indologists for a long time.

If SR can address them specifically it will be quite valuable for us listeners.

Thanks

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 12 Sep 2009, 20:15

Blind belief and expecting others to understand is a hard sell.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 12 Sep 2009, 22:16

I do not understand most of what I read here as I belong with the plebians. Yet, I would like to know something about the subject and think that following (with difficulty) this thread might help me.

VK Raman,
What I see in bold letters is dogmatic belief here than blind faith. Then again, what do I know?!!

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 13 Sep 2009, 00:50

1) My belief is not "blind". Belief in metaphysics is a valid and important human aspect, and not subject to "scientific" standards. The most productive path comes from balancing the two, not from confusing one with the other.

2) The only "blind belief" in this thread is a blind faith in the applicability of science and logic without understanding their limits. Most of the nonsense in this thread is from people who likely have no scientific background and have obtained information on Indian philosophy from unreliable sources.

3) I am not selling anything to anyone. I pointed out that nonsense is being spread in a misleading guise of rationality. That's all. The wise do not need this to be pointed out, and it will not make any difference to a dogmatic fool. If there is a middle group of people who have the curiosity but not necessarily the familiarity with this matter, and who want to make an intelligent choice, I hope this thread may give food for thought.

4) I am not an "Indologist" and if they are baffled, it does not bother me.

5) Speculative linguistics is not a science - the hypotheses are non-testable. Waste of time and money with nothing to be gained. Analysis of real languages has scientific aspects. I have said this time and again. If it does not sink in, it is not my fault.

6) I practice science in my professional life and it pervades my outlook on matters that come under its purview. Similarly, non-scientific aspects are equally important to me and equally valid. This approach has proved productive. I have tried it and it works for me. I am not here to have armchair arguments.

7) The more I think about this subject, I tend to believe that the worst dogma is that which comes in the disguise of "science" and "logic". I don't claim metaphysics as science, nor do I judge them on a common ground.

8) Modern Indians have a tendency to buy concepts from the West without understanding them fully. Macaulay's dream is coming true - just a century or so later than expected.

SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 13 Sep 2009, 00:57

cmlover wrote:These have baffled Indologists for a long time.

If SR can address them specifically it will be quite valuable for us listeners.

Thanks

I have addressed these questions already in brief but specific terms. I am confronted with a viewpoint that is essentially based on skepticism without a knowledge of its limits. I may come back to these issues later in a separate context. Thanks.

SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 13 Sep 2009, 01:41

Srkris,

I read your entire post. There is not a single philosophical, scientific, or logical concept that you have introduced in replying to my questions. I can't keep replying to this garbage (sorry to say, but that is what it is).

My answer (again) to your one and only intelligible point: a "literature" can appear to self-form and self-exist (at least in our perception as it stands today) in the same way as the Universe appears self-created (at least according to the tools that scientists have today).

#1. A small number of scientists are always trying to go further to understand this apparent "self-creation" without rejecting the principle itself. The vast majority of scientists are more interested in the Universe at it exists and in harnessing it for practical human benefit. Healthy internal debate is part of these two groups. And there are a few religious quacks who are questioning the validity of science itself by attacking the uncertainties encountered due to the "self-creation" idea. The latter group win nothing - neither do they promote fundamental understanding, nor is any practical benefit gained other than a type of "self-gratification".

#2. Similarly, a small number of Indian metaphysicists are always trying to go further to understand the "self-existence" of the vedas without rejecting the principle itself. The vast majority of Indian philosophers and yogis are more interested in harnessing it to practically lead a better life through spiritual understanding. Healthy internal debate is part of these two groups. And there are pseudo-scientist quacks who are questioning the veda itself by attacking the uncertainties encountered due to the "self-creation" idea. The latter group win nothing - neither do they provide enlightenment, nor do they provide any practical benefit other than a type of "self-gratification".

The quacks who question science usually identify as "philosophers" who really have no understanding of that subject. The quacks who question metaphysics usually identify as "scientists" who really have no understanding of that subject.

The fact that current civilization is more materially focused means that the scientists who provide these material benefits are more shielded from attacks by quacks. The traditional Indian system of learning has not emphasized this as much, so it is more susceptible to quacks who feel they can write whatever nonsense they want without being as accountable. The fact that current civilization is less spiritually focused means that metaphysicists are less shielded from attacks by quacks.

SR

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 13 Sep 2009, 02:19

Point taken, Sangeet Rasik. kollan paTTaRaiyil Ikkenna vElai? (you do not know tamizh if I remember, and I do not know sanskrit. So, here is the translation: what business has a fly in a smithy?
Taking your suggestion and moving the armchair to the lounge. I ain't no fly on the wall no more

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 13 Sep 2009, 02:20

SR,

I finally understood. From the start it was not your intention to make any scientific or logical sense. You weren't even trying to make metaphysical sense, or I would have known it.

Realizing the limits of both logic and science, you sacrificed them both at the altar of ignorance. You could now talk as you pleased without being questioned about relevance or meaning.

All that mattered was metaphysics. How foolish of me to attempt to understand your statements.

It was not your fault. It was my fault to bring logic into the discussion.

What was I thinking when I asked "how can a literature define itself in a human language at the beginning of existence". Geez!

As you so admirably explained "the rishis received space, time and the vedas at the beginning of existence". Fool that I am, I tried to find sense in that statement too, and finding none, I remonstrated.

Then you described the futility of making any sense.

It was then that I could understand the working of your mind.

Thanks for everything.

PS: I self-defined myself. This doesn't have to make sense, because the details are buried deep in metaphysics, which I will expound to you at a later date.

If someone bothers me about it, I will teach them the secret of self-defining themselves. They wont understand it of course, but they don't have to, hola it's metaphysics!

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 13 Sep 2009, 02:29

Two parallel lines - good ending

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 13 Sep 2009, 06:39

srkris wrote:What was I thinking when I asked "how can a literature define itself in a human language at the beginning of existence". Geez!

I already answered your question (this is the third time). For example, "self-assembly" of matter requires no human agent and is driven by "natural" forces. What are "words" ? Words are sound energy that assembles in certain patterns, whether humanly created or not. What exactly is your problem with their being created at the beginning of existence? Asking "how can literature define itself in a human language" is a circular question. Vedic is not pre-determined as a human language. Finally, the use of the term "literature" is erroneous. "Literature" refers to works written by the human hand (or machines that substitute for it). Thanks for everything too.

SR

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 13 Sep 2009, 07:04

If I understand the whole argument/fight correctly, it is not on the content of the vedas but about the vedas themselves. Meaning, the metaphysical aspects mentioned in the vedas are not the subject of debate but the eternity of the vedas.

SR, your post above leads me to think this issue is a fundamental philosophical difference in meta-linguistics. The normal linguistic assumption is, "meaning" originates with the source of the communicating agent and the sounds/words/syntax is subsidiary to that or vehicle for conveying the meaning. The normal duality in linguistics. What you wrote implies that sound and meaning are co-created. There is always this chicken-and-egg problem of how the first communicating agents managed to convey meaning to the other party, and this co-creation is a nice device to solve that problem.

See if the co-creation implication is right. Then I can see how one can work backwards and see that the meaning/sound wholeness is similar to creation of the universe itself. Before creation meaning existed and after creation meaning manifested itself as 'meaning embedded in sound on par'. At singularity, a state of minimal entropy, meaning alone need to exist without sound, since there is no need to communicate. Of course, there is some element of faith in believing in such things without proof ( axioms ).

BTW, the big bang concept was a necessity to explain the observed phenomenon. Similarly, is there a fundamental need to propose the eternity of vedic sounds? Is there something in the vedas that requires this axiom? What falls apart/remain unexplained if this assumption is not made?

Also, if the 'meaning/sound as one' is correct, does this mean all meaning/sound ( and not only the vedic sounds ) is eternal? If not, what/where is that demarcation point?

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 13 Sep 2009, 10:00

VK,

vasanthakokilam wrote:If I understand the whole argument/fight correctly, it is not on the content of the vedas itself but about the vedas themselves. Meaning, the metaphysical aspects mentioned in the vedas are not the subject of debate.

Both are interlinked (as they *must* be).

SR, your post above leads me to think this issue is a fundamental philosophical difference in meta-linguistics.

Yes. The theory of language existing in the Veda is of utmost importance.

co-creation is a nice device to solve that problem.

That might be an interpretation of the "modern" linguist. But the Indian philosophers did not propose it as a "device" to solve a problem.

Of course, there is some element of faith in believing in such things without proof ( axioms ).

In the case of the vedas, they are self-defining and supply the required axioms. Either one accepts these internal axioms, or one can make some random statement that the Indians who wrote the vedas inserted some false claims in them, and were all a bunch of liars.

Similarly, is there a fundamental need to propose the eternity of vedic sounds? Is there something in the vedas that requires this axiom? What falls apart/remain unexplained if this assumption is not made?

There is no need to "propose" it. For example:

1. RV 10.90.10: (from the Purusha Sukta)

tasmAd yajnAt sarvAhutah Rcah sAmAni jajnirE chandAmsi jajnirE tasmAt yajus tasmAd ajAyata

"From that yajna (in which the Purusha, i.e. the cosmic being himself was the offering) were born the Rks, the Samans, the prosody (i.e. the meters), and the Yajus."

If the Rgvedic mantras came out of the cosmic sacrifice that manifested the universe as we know it, the question of historical authors and the like are irrelevant.

2. Unless of course, the "authors" were highly astute and sophisticated liars (who according to "Indologists" doubled up as illiterate nomads and hunters in the Bronze/early Iron Age, by the way) and inserted these statements to delude future mankind. Of course, no such authors have ever been found nor claimed. The names of the rishis associated with the vedas are NOT the "authors" - unless they were idiots who claimed at the same time that the mantras came out of "creation" while at the same time signing off their names on the mantras. Immemorial traditions of the Indians have never claimed any authors of the vedas. Why should they be doubted ?

Also, if the meaning/sound wholesomeness is correct, does this mean all meaning/sound ( and not necessarily what is mentioned in the vedas ) is eternal? If not, what is that demarcation point?

Nope. Sound is NOT eternal, it is impermanent, subject to creation and destruction. Words of the Veda are eternal. They exist independent of their transient manifestation as sound. Not only the words, but also the Meaning is eternal. And finally, not only the Meaning, but the Order (i.e. the interrelationship) of the words in the mantras is eternal, pre-determined, and fixed. It cannot be altered, whereas the work of human authors consists of words that can be altered and their order switched. This Word-Meaning-Order in the veda is indestructible and reverberates through the entire universe. These mantras can only be "heard".

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 14 Sep 2009, 02:22

Do you want to know what the purusha sukta means when it claims that the rik, the yajus and the saman arose with the primordial yajna? The rik is the versified mantra, the yajus is the formula and the saman is the song. All of these are part and parcel of the vedic yajna. Since there can be no yajna without these three, the purushasukta claims that they are parts arising out of the primordial yajna, where the devas sacrifice a fourth of Purusha ("yatpurushena havisha deva yajnam atanvata") to give rise to the Vedas, the men, the sun and the moon etc, even as three fourths of him is hidden beyond our reach.

Now our scientist goes about claiming (no doubt out of great ignorance) that the purushasukta *literally* refers to the beginning of existence, time and space. Even then, we see that there was an undivided purusha earlier, a part of which was sacrificed by the devas at the first yajna to give rise to all kinds of matter and life. So there was a point of time and space before the sacrifice, the time and place of the sacrifice, the sacrficers, the sacrificed, and the things that arose as products of the sacrifice of the primordial purusha. What this means is - there was a past, a present and a future for the primordial sacrifice itself. The devas performed the primordial sacrifice, and they were apart from the purusha i.e they were not a subset of the purusha.

So even here, the Vedas did not self-define themselves, they arose out of an act of creation, they were not the agents of their own creation.

How stupid to even cite the purushasukta to defend nonsense.

Of course it may be highly superfluous to probe this much into it when it would be evident to the rest of intelligent humanity that the purushasukta is not the description of a literal event, but some scientists may need this level of kindergarten spoonfeeding.

--------------------------------------------

After claiming that a literature appeared out of nowhere in a language that appeared from nowhere, to a bunch of people who also simultaneously appeared out of nowhere to receive it at the point of "no time" and "no place", Sangeet Rasik is now proposing that the content of the literature is "no sense" (i.e. nonsense).

Let us take an example to show how he seeks to prove that the vedas are nonsense.

The Nasadiya Suktam, the hymn of the origin (don't listen to Sangeet Rasik as he brainwashes you into believing that purushasuktam is the hymn of the origin), raises very strong points against the claim that the Vedas self-defined themselves.

If the Veda defined itself at the beginning of existence, and gave itself to the rishis, why was the same veda speculating about the origin of existence in the Nasadiya sukta, unless it was confused of its own origin and its own self-definition?

Why would an infallible entity called veda or "knowledge", speculate about itself? Hasn't the joke gone too far Mr. Sangeet Rasik?

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 14 Sep 2009, 04:11

vasanthakokilam wrote:There is always this chicken-and-egg problem of how the first communicating agents managed to convey meaning to the other party, and this co-creation is a nice device to solve that problem.

No there was no chicken and egg problem about the origin of language.

The meaning that was sought to be conveyed by the first communicating agent to another was next to nothing, the language was no more than a combination of sights and sounds, or actions and grunts together seeking to convey that primitive meaning, just as apes beat their chests as they holler to their mates. The apes did not need to be co-created alongwith their sounds, to make sense to other apes.

Then slowly, as the requirement to convey "more" meaning arose, the primitive language evolved to the required complexity to fulfil that need. There arose a mind of sufficient understanding to understand what was communicated, a life of sufficient sophistication to entertain the evolved mind, the tools to live the life of such sophistication....

As communication became more and more complex, so did the language, so did the lifestyle, so did the science, so did logic and understanding and intelligence.

SR wants the fully grown chicken to go back into the egg now, and that is his chicken and egg problem.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 14 Sep 2009, 04:22

srkris,

srkris wrote:Now our scientist goes about claiming .....So even here, the Vedas did not self-define themselves, they arose out of an act of creation, they were not the agents of their own creation.

There is a saying: "it is better to be quiet and have everyone suspect one is a fool, than speak and remove all doubt".

You are contradicting yourself in your arguments, and also continuing to slander and misrepresent my views. Your familiarity with the text and import of the veda is limited.

Do you understand what "Self-definition" means or do I need to spoonfeed this to you? According to what you have yourself written, are not the vedas defining their own "creation" ? Is the purushasukta a part of anything else except the vedas, O genius ? Are they themselves not defining what they are ? After going on your long and meaningless tirade, your conclusions are at variance with your own argument.

Since you claim to be familiar with mimamsa and vedanta and a fine logician, please tell me, how can something that is non-being come into being ? Or are you a closet Buddhist quack who believes such nonsense? By "birth", the veda means *manifestation*. The rks - the Word-Meaning-Order - are eternal, they have always existed with Brahman and are merely manifested in the so-called "Creation". Something that did not exist previously can never come into being. This is a point that has been a cornerstone of Mimamsa and Vedanta, and it has stood the test of time. Now our genius comes along (about 2500 years late) and starts the same lame argument.

Why not take a few years to read up on the previous work of Indian philosophers? Did you just skip the dvitiya adhyaya in the Brahma Sutras which elaborates this very point and has been explained in great detail by Sankara? Probably Badarayana and Sankara were not up to your high philosophical standards, and you can just bypass their careful considerations and invent your own nonsense? I have already called your bluff on purvamimamsa, and I notice you have changed the subject conveniently - it looks like making random comments on purusha sukta is the next stop on your "tour de force" through Indian metaphysics and philosophy. How come you did not know that the Nyaya philosophers have already argued that the vedas are therefore authored by God during the "creation"? And how come you forgot to mention that this view has already been convincingly refuted in the Brahma Sutras?

And finally, O "ghanapaathin" that thou art, please tell me how the devas and rishis do a "yajna" without the "mantra" ? And if the mantra is different from the vedic mantra, where is that "other" mantra and why is it not manifested instead of the rks and samans and yajus which you claim are authored works? How come you conveniently forgot Kumarila's elaboration of this point ? Or maybe you are not aware of it, since "post-vedic" philosophers are not in line your all-encompassing vision ?

Your reference to the purushasukta not being a "literal" (whatever that means in your head) event is a red herring. Everyone knows that. The yajna is not a earthly yajna.

Of course it may be highly superfluous to probe this much into it when it would be evident to the rest of intelligent humanity that the purushasukta is not the description of a literal event, but some scientists may need this level of kindergarten spoonfeeding.

The level of insults that you stoop to is in direct proportion to your knowledge of this subject. Your appeal to the "rest of intelligent humanity" sounds more like clutching at straws. You cannot "win" this with the type of sophomoric arguments that you present - come back in a few years. But if you want to hang around, I am happy to keep supplying you the "rope to hang yourself with".

As regards the Nasadiya sukta, your interpretation is a joke. I am not not going to waste my precious time replying to your flame bait. I see a pattern in your behavior - just write some half-baked gobbledygook, claim my reasoned and well-supporte reply is "irrelevant", and then blithely move on to another topic to continue your insults.

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 14 Sep 2009, 04:31

Your reference to the purushasukta not being a "literal" event is a red herring. Everyone knows that. The yajna is not a literal yajna, and nor can the vedas be taken literally and interpreted in terms of your "home-made" ideas.

Oh there you go again, you were the one to take serious objection to my statement that the vedas were composed by Rishis, instead of being literally received by them along with space and time at the beginning of existence.

Then you quoted the purushasukta in your defense. When I asked how can you quote the purusha sukta as a defence of your literal origin theory, you say everyone knows the Purusha sukta is not about a literal origin.

And finally, O "ghanapaathin" that thou art, please tell me how the devas and rishis do a "yajna" without the "mantra" ?

Did the Devas praise themselves too using the same mantras as are there in the vedas? Did they sacrifice to themselves?

Tsk tsk, again a literal interpretation, when will you grow out of literal interpretations?

As regards the Nasadiya sukta, your interpretation is a joke.

What? Are you going to create a new meaning for that too?

Is the purushasukta a part of anything else except the vedas, O genius ? Are they themselves not defining what they are ?

You are really trying very hard to twist the meaning of "self-definition" to mean self-reference. The attempt was so transparent. The vedas did not define themselves by appearing at the beginning of existence to rishis, they only refer to themselves.

Since you claim to be familiar with mimamsa and vedanta and a fine logician, please tell me, how can something that is non-being come into being ?

Another literal interpretation, sheesh!

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 14 Sep 2009, 04:42

srkris wrote:Then slowly, as the requirement to convey "more" meaning arose, the primitive language evolved to the required complexity to fulfil that need. There arose a mind of sufficient understanding to understand what was communicated, a life of sufficient sophistication to entertain the evolved mind, the tools to live the life of such sophistication.....

Keep dreaming at home

. I guess it is Sunday after all.

SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 14 Sep 2009, 04:54

srkris wrote:You are really trying very hard to twist "definition" to mean reference. Did I ever say the vedas never refer to themselves?

The "reference" we are discussing, O ghanapaathin that thou art, is to their *own eternity* and not being authored by some illiterate pastoralists a couple of dozen centuries ago. That is the definition I am talking about. This whole discussion began with that idea. Or have you forgotten that by now - your old "flame-and-run" trick ?

You are just writing "stream-of-consciousness" replies to my posts without any thought or study whatsoever.

I am moving on. No more posts from me on this topic. I think I have written enough that any intelligent person can separate sense from nonsense masquerading as rationality.

SR

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 14 Sep 2009, 05:01

The "reference" we are discussing, O ghanapaathin that thou art, is to their *own eternity* and not being authored by some illiterate pastoralists a couple of dozen centuries ago.

Again a literal interpretation. So you agree the Vedas did not define themselves at the beginning of existence, since by the testimony of the vedas, the gods were already there to do the first yajna, and as per the Nasadiya Sukta, the gods were not there at the beginning of existence.

How many more times are you going to go through the knots by claiming that the literal meaning of the purushasukta is a proof of their self-formation at the beginning of existence?

You are still yet to tell me whether Agni chanted "Agnim ile purohitam yajnasya daivam rtvijam hotaram ratnadhatamam..." at the first sacrifice. Did Rudra assemble at that place to chant namakam and chamakam to himself? Or did Indra chant the mantras addressed to Soma before drinking him up, and the viswedevas chanted to each other?

Oh I forget, there was no time and place until the vedas self-defined themselves during the yajna, so all these were happening in a black hole. The yajna never got completed since there was no time to move into the future, and the vedas never came forth from that sacrifice.

How entertaining.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 14 Sep 2009, 05:23

and not being authored by some illiterate pastoralists a couple of dozen centuries ago.

Why do you try to offend the rishis? They are not going to get offended, they are no more (unless you believe in the stars).

The Rishis may not have been illiterate. True, they heavily emphasized oral tradition, but they may have known writing. We can't decide either way because no proof is available. My presumption is they may have been functionally literate, although they didnt use that knowledge to write the vedas.

There is no harm in being pastoralists, dont hold their profession against them. One pastoral fellow called Krishna is now a God.

Finally, it was not a couple of dozen centuries but likely 3 dozen centuries ago that the vedas were composed.

vakul12 · Post by **vakul12** » 04 Aug 2010, 03:17

Just bumping this thread for original link to Vedas in case new people (like me) are in, it is a timeless treasure and I am glad I got these.

http://www.uppathil.net/Pages/vedams.htm

rasikas.org

Complete collection of vedic chants (one samhita)

Re: Complete collection of vedic chants (one samhita)