Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

by Rishi Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:20 pm

In some chapters, Daya Krishna seems to talk as if he takes for granted that the Vedas are apaurusheya, “impersonal”, i.e. of supernatural origin, but in Indian Philosophy he musters arguments why the Vedas are just human literature. Thus, the existence of different versions of the Yajurveda was consciously countenanced by the Yajurvedic rishis: “Obviously, they would not have regarded it as apaurusheya or revealed” (p.84). Repetition of Vedic verses is another key to the natural process of intertextuality: ”It is not only that a very large number of Mantras from the Rgveda are repeated in the other Vedas, but that there are substantial repetitions in the Rgveda itself.” (p.86)

The rishis freely borrowed from each other, they could see far because they stood on the shoulders of giants: “But if this was the relation of one Vedic rsi to another, how can that relation be understood either in terms of apaurusheyatva or revelation, or even in terms of Vedic authority?” (p.86) Answer: it cannot, i.e. it should not be understood as a divine revelation like what is claimed for the Ten Commandments or the Quran. It must be seen as just a collection of hymns to (not from) the gods by human poets. We know their names, their genealogies (with one of them the brother or the grandfather of another), their whereabouts, roughly also their chronology, so we are very much dealing with a human composition.

In traditionalist circles it would be sacrilege to say this, but: “In fact, the very large proliferation of the shakhas [‘branches’, channels of transmission], at least as mentioned in the tradition, testifies to the fact that the Rishis of those days treated their Vedic patrimony with a degree of freedom that seems sacrilegious when viewed in the perspective of attitudes with which the Vedas have been traditionally looked at for a long time. (…) the Vedas were regarded in a totally different way in Vedic times.” (p.84) So, next time I say this, I can quote a Indian authority for it, and that will hopefully silence those who see Western conspiracies against Hinduism everywhere.

http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-indian-sceptic.html

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:29 pm

Apoorvasya doesn't equate to supernatural. If Daya Krishna thought in such simplistic ways, he will attain trisanku-swarga instead of mukti Razz

by Idéfix Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:42 pm

Guruvu-gaaru, he is talking about "apaurushEya," not Apoorva's belongings.

by Petrichor Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:52 pm

Rishi wrote:Answer: it cannot, i.e. it should not be understood as a divine revelation like what is claimed for the Ten Commandments or the Quran. It must be seen as just a collection of hymns to (not from) the gods by human poets. We know their names, their genealogies (with one of them the brother or the grandfather of another), their whereabouts, roughly also their chronology, so we are very much dealing with a human composition.

I did not go to the link but just curious if the author thinks Ten Commandments and Quran are considered revelations? with super-natural origins? Or is he doing the tongue-in-cheek "what is claimed"?

by Rishi Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:01 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:
Rishi wrote:Answer: it cannot, i.e. it should not be understood as a divine revelation like what is claimed for the Ten Commandments or the Quran. It must be seen as just a collection of hymns to (not from) the gods by human poets. We know their names, their genealogies (with one of them the brother or the grandfather of another), their whereabouts, roughly also their chronology, so we are very much dealing with a human composition.

I did not go to the link but just curious if the author thinks Ten Commandments and Quran are considered revelations? with super-natural origins? Or is he doing the tongue-in-cheek "what is claimed"?

Koenraad Elst is an agnostic. He does not consider Ten Commandments and Quran to be 'revealed'.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:00 pm

trofimov wrote:Guruvu-gaaru, he is talking about "apaurushEya," not Apoorva's belongings.

Oopse! Still, Apurusheya also doesn't need to be supernatural. Rtam and Rks can just be related to natural phenomena. Sages, rightly didn't take personal credit for the ideas. They didn't at the same time didn't claim that a burning bush wrote the stuff on a "taala patram" "with his own hand".

by Guest Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:04 pm

'apaurushEya' could mean from a higher state of consciousness, not necessarily 'revealed' by a supernatural power. The sages probably composed them from their deep meditative state, not by the worldly mind.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:05 pm

"They didn't at the same time didn't claim that a burning bush wrote the stuff on a "taala patram" "with his own hand"."

Hmm... It should be..

They didn't at the same time claim that a burning bush wrote the stuff on a "taala patram" "with his own hand".

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:09 pm

nenu wrote:'apaurushEya' could mean from a higher state of consciousness, not necessarily 'revealed' by a supernatural power. The sages probably composed them from their deep meditative state, not by the worldly mind.

Even that was not claimed. Many interpret it that way (may be because of the story of Viswamitra - he claims that after shedding his ahamkara and subduing vasanas, he was able to meditate and gain deeper understanding).

by Idéfix Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:28 pm

Well, the word would mean "not by human beings." If the text is in a human language, and it is claimed to be not written by human beings, it's hard to argue that a monkey-at-a-typewriter did it. I take your point about things being "related to natural phenomena," but those descriptions of natural phenomena are in a human language, and have to be attributed either to human beings, or to what we consider supernatural now. I say "now," because back then the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" was rather unclear; when thunder struck, they thought Indra was responsible but we attribute it to a different cause now.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:47 pm

trofimov wrote:Well, the word would mean "not by human beings." If the text is in a human language, and it is claimed to be not written by human beings, it's hard to argue that a monkey-at-a-typewriter did it. I take your point about things being "related to natural phenomena," but those descriptions of natural phenomena are in a human language, and have to be attributed either to human beings, or to what we consider supernatural now. I say "now," because back then the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" was rather unclear; when thunder struck, they thought Indra was responsible but we attribute it to a different cause now.

The sages did utter the words but refused to take credit for the ideas. Still, doesn't need to be due to the "burning bush that talks".

Indra and "his" thunderbolt - quite a natural phenomenon (but Aurobindo has an explanation that you may not like).

by Idéfix Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:56 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:The sages did utter the words but refused to take credit for the ideas. Still, doesn't need to be due to the "burning bush that talks".

Henceforth, I am not going to take credit for any ideas that I type here. Hopefully, centuries down the line, by words here will be treated as revelation of the non-burning-bush-that-talks variety.

by Hellsangel Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:58 pm

trofimov wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:The sages did utter the words but refused to take credit for the ideas. Still, doesn't need to be due to the "burning bush that talks".
Henceforth, I am not going to take credit for any ideas that I type here. Hopefully, centuries down the line, by words here will be treated as revelation of the non-burning-bush-that-talks variety.

You are related to 41 and 43?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:59 pm

trofimov wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:The sages did utter the words but refused to take credit for the ideas. Still, doesn't need to be due to the "burning bush that talks".
Henceforth, I am not going to take credit for any ideas that I type here. Hopefully, centuries down the line, by words here will be treated as revelation of the non-burning-bush-that-talks variety.

That will be extremely hard for you Basketball

by Idéfix Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:00 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
trofimov wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:The sages did utter the words but refused to take credit for the ideas. Still, doesn't need to be due to the "burning bush that talks".
Henceforth, I am not going to take credit for any ideas that I type here. Hopefully, centuries down the line, by words here will be treated as revelation of the non-burning-bush-that-talks variety.

That will be extremely hard for you

From here on out, I attribute all my ideas to my guruvu-gaaru, Google, and the internet.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:08 pm

Just give them all to Rashmun and say, "Krishnaarpanam".

Let us look at a purana story again. Durwasa was known to eat well (in pictures, they also show him with a pot belly). But, since he does "aatma" nivedana before putting the food in his mouth and after finishing, utters "krishaarpanam", his becomes a perpetual upavaasam!

by Idéfix Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:17 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Just give them all to Rashmun and say, "Krishnaarpanam".

by truthbetold Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:05 pm

guruvu garu has been beating around the bush nowadays. if he believes Veda are from Brahma, he should say so and defend it instead of hiding behind bushes.

by Sponsored content

Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.

Re: Vedas are just human literature. They were not revealed.