My Spiritual Quest

[ragam-talam]

I was going to ask something similar...
There are so many languages that are becoming extinct, e.g. see the Dying languages thread. Does the Veda say that these languages and sounds will live forever? (and had been in existence from antiquity?)

Reminds of the Zen koan: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?

[vasanthakokilam]

I do not want to get into the Vedas vs Buddhist debate since I know so little about this to even offer a comment. And I do not know anything about Vedas to even comment on SR's description of the Vedic prescription for the Ethical Action.

But I read the Daniel Arnold's article on KumArila Bhatta ( link provided by SR: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kumaarila/ ).

I suggest you all take your time to read it, if you are interested in vedic epistemological concerns, as commented by kumArila. This is a commentary on Śabara's interpretation of the Mīmāṃsā Sūtras of Jaimini.

It still may not be satisfactory or resolve the issues Nick has, namely, "Your "arguments" seemed to be very self-referential.". It may still seem like atomic hair-splitting, but that is what epistemology is. It goes to the roots of what is knowledge, how do we acquire them etc. Questions of the sort: 'Is what we perceive knowledge', 'Is what we reason knowledge', 'Is what we believe knowledge', 'When does knowledge become non-knowledge' etc. Some of this falls under doxastic logic ( reasoning about beliefs )

But at least, you will get to the same level as SR and have a better debate rather than quoting some koans here and there. Remember, you are debating not just SR but kumArila as well. So it is good to have some knowledge of that. The stuff about 'eternity of language' and 'mind-independent existence of language' etc. are all addressed in that article.

It takes a while to understand Arnold's paper but it is approachable and accessible. He does not defend kumArila's commentary or conclusions but just presents them to us. ( though it is easy to see that he is an admirer of kumArila's intellectual prowess when it comes to epistemology ).

I know that this eternity of all language thing sounds counter intuitive and bizarre. But Modern Linguistics have such theories too ( read Chomsky on that for such a theory but in a different dimension ). The thorny problem is with language itself.

To put the problem in some context, think about this: 'How come English dictionary is in English?". We all at some point in time wonder about it but move on since it seems to be useful and serving a good purpose. But most of us do not worry about that boot-strapping process we all have gone through to somehow pick up enough of the language for us to look up the Dictionary.

Now, think about what Dictionary and grammar book a child uses when it learns a language? How does that boot-strapping process work? This is one of the concerns of Linguists. ( I am simplifying here ).
Remember, the same child picks up the syntax and semantics of the language spoken by people around the child. I think Chomsky says, every child has all the languages in itself and it exhibits only the language of the environment and suppresses the others. Not every one in the linguistics community agrees with that but Chomsky is a respected linguist and there are always attempts to prove or disprove his hypothesis. You may have your own theory about how a child learns the language ( like, "what is the big deal.. you point to a cow and say "cow", the child knows to associate the word cow with that cow".. but if you try this with a linguist, you may not last for more than a couple of minutes ).

kumArila's ideas are in that domain. You may not agree with all that even after understanding his epistemological derivation of this linguistics problem. It is a bold proclamation indeed. ( it may be that he needed that in support of his much higher goals of the eternity of the vedas, but that is a different matter ).

[ragam-talam]

vk - you have misinterpreted Chomskyan linguistic theory. He talks about the syntactic structures that are hardwired in humans, not the semantics! i.e. we don't come into this world 'knowing' all the vocabulary.

This is an important distinction, and hence 'modern linguistics' (at least of the Chomskyan variety) cannot be used to support the rather wild claim attributed to Vedas that all the words and languages were already present from antiquity.

I will write more on linguistics, epistemology etc later - for now I have to rush to a linguistics seminar!

[Nick H]

Well, as I said, not all words are equal!

But how about the same concept in different languages: the power, surely, is in the concept?

[vasanthakokilam]

r-t, I have to admit I went far from my comfort zone when I mentioned Chomsky but I did not definitely mean to equate Chomsky's ideas with vedic ideas on linguistics. Just that, there are such 'universality of language' theories in modern linguistics as well which may sound strange at first blush. And the kind of reactions we see here are seen with such theories as well. It is all in the domain of linguistic theories, whether you happen to agree with the actual theory or not. We do not need to talk about Chomksy here since that may take this thread in a different direction.

To be sure, my main point is, take the time to read Arnold's account of kumArila, so we are all on the same page. Then the debate can be meaningful and lead somewhere even if you do not think much of kumArila's commentary. And you will also get some glimpses about Sanskrit at a much deeper level than just the language, how it is interconnected with the vedic epistemology ( beyond being a tool for communication - language and knowledge are quite interconnected ).

One thing I will guarantee. You will be absorbed in to that kind of thinking and drawn in even if you keep your skepticism knob high and put on the usual nonsense filters. They were not kidding around, they were engaged in no nonsense debates on some deep and subtle issues.

We hear about Sankara debating all these other scholars and winning them. This is the kind of stuff he was debating.

[srkris]

Shankara did not debate "all" the other schools nor did he win against them all. Neither did Kumarila. Neither did Shankara/Bhaskara agree entirely with Badarayana nor did Kumarila/Shabara/Prabhakara with Jaimini. Jaimini himself did not agree with Badarayana on essential issues.

Read this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[Sangeet Rasik]

All thought is ultimately Language (or Linguistic) or Words. I use the capital L and W to distinguish from languages and words - except Vedic - which are only tools of expression in particular contexts. That also applies to the "Supreme Being", or the "Ultimate State of Things", which *must be* a "Linguistically possessive" state. As only the Vedic words are seen to be eternal, they are in fact the Words existing in that ultimate state.

There is no ultimate state that can exist without the Words and Sentences of the Veda that embody the laws of nature. Claims of "undifferentiated, yet blissful, states" such as "Nirguna Brahman", "Shunyata", "Nirvana", etc are baseless and not justifiable.

[srkris]

1. All thoughts may be expressed in words but are not words themselves. Animals can think but they dont have words floating around inside their brains. Thoughts can be conveyed without using words. Words are not eternal in any sensible way. Even thoughts are not eternal for that matter.
2. Vedic is a normal language, as normal as any other language. It was spoken about 3000-4000 years back in north-western India. It is not eternal in any meaningful sense.
3. There is no supreme being. Neither is Brahman supreme nor does it "exist".
4. The words and sentences in the Vedas are not the laws of nature.
5. There is no such thing as an undifferentiated state, nor can it be blissful or woeful.

[Sangeet Rasik]

srkris,

It is apparent you are "at sea" here and unable to grasp the essence of philosophical inquiry - instead relying on hearsay, non-primary literature, and modern historical notions of ancient India (which is well-known to be unreliable).

In some old discussion (last year, I think), I had called your bluff on purvamimamsa (which you claimed you had read). But it is apparent that you have no idea of what Kumarila or his predecessors thought or said, much less on their theory of language and Vedic eternity.

Such an understanding does not come easily, and takes time. But it certainly will not come with your approach. The least you can do is listen. In Malayalam we call it "gurutvam illa".

SR

[arasi]

SR,
What does gurutvam mean?

[cmlover]

SR
so far you have been presenting your ideas elegantly without any controversy. Similarly srkris has been presenting his side equally elegantly. There is no need for each to refute the ideas presented by the other. Our Readers can discriminate and absorb the best from both sides. Especially 'ad hominems' will lead to verbal duels which can escalate and destroy this thread. I request you to refrain..

[Anusha]

While we are on the spiritual quest, I am reminded of a rhetoric: "Speak, only if it improves the silence"

[srkris]

Well said.

[Sangeet Rasik]

Especially 'ad hominems' will lead to verbal duels which can escalate and destroy this thread. I request you to refrain..

CML,

I'm happy to do that. I posted in order to correct and balance the profusion of nihilist and obscurantist posts posing as a discussion of "spiritual phenomena".

What annoys me is the approach of:

(a) provide no useful information/knowledge oneself
(b) then claim that true knowledge exists in some speechless/wordless/"meditative" state - which is why no real information was provided in the first place
(c) when the bluff is called and rational proofs advanced to falsify (b), resort to comments/quotations (I am making a random selection from posts above) such as "those who know don't speak"/"speak only if it improves the silence" etc. I find this to be a compulsive defense mechanism when obscurantist bluffs are called.

A reality check, and plain-and-simple reading of reliable information, are needed. We make progress (be it scientific/philosophical/artistic/economic) by arming ourselves with certain "common sense" assumptions of valid knowledge, and then making an honest, rational, and logical inquiry to figure out the rest and revise our knowledge as needed (but not engage in endless doubt where it is not warranted).

The situation in the Sep 2009 discussion is the same as in the Nov 2010 discussion despite information, advice, and references provided. What I am faced with is a viewpoint of essentially boundless skepticism coupled with a lack of reliable information. This does not seem to undergo any positive change. The natural result of that dangerous combination is a belief in some "undifferentiated"/"empty"/"speechless" explanation of reality, because that is the only construct in which such a nihilist attitude can be defended. That is most certainly not the non-dualism expounded by the Upanishads and enshrined eternally in the words of the Vedas. The "pUrNasya pUrNam, vAco ha vAcam, prANasya prANah" is not to be found in these beliefs.

Thanks.

SR

[srkris]

Arasi, gurutvam means heaviness (or gravity). SR meant to say that my posts were flippant.

I dont have a necessity either to deny or confirm that, so I didn't answer it.

"vedApaurusheyatvavAdam" (the theory of the veda being apaurusheya) is a very intricate though extremely interesting topic, it needs specialized attention and detailed analysis (both of which are beyond the scope of this thread, probably we can talk about it in a separate thread if someone is interested). It remained a pet theory of "some" mimamsakas in Kumarila's time

If I need to say it in one line, the theory is obviously untrue and its essential arguments illogical. It was discarded a long time back, remaining just a matter of faith for some. I prefer to remain silent until I come across anything worth replying to.

[Pratyaksham Bala]

Post #200
My doubts & the answers I could get:-

Do only words of Sanskrit language have an eternal existence, or words of all languages of the world?
No. Only Vedic words.

When a language 'dies', does it mean that though the words continue to exist, only their manifestation as speech and writing have ceased.
(If there is no written or voice record of the words of a 'dead' language, the language is gone for ever.)

Can we say that even those words 'newly coined' to name new products, inventions, etc. had been in existence waiting to be identified and used?
The question does not arise.

The theory is interesting. Any particular reference to this theory in the Vedas?
(Not sure.)

[vasanthakokilam]

>No. Only Vedic words.

I may be wrong here but when I read Arnold's account of kumArila, I think he says all words are eternal. Again, what we mean by ordinary use of the word 'word' may be subtly different from what kumArlia's epistemological use of the word 'word' is.

Someone please correct me if I my reading of what kumArila said is wrong.

[cmlover]

However when Vedantists use 'shabda pramANam' as a valid evidence (one of the eight admitted valid reasonings by them) they mean only Vedas (vedic words = shabda).

[Pratyaksham Bala]

I NOW HAVE THREE SETS OF ANSWERS:-

First set of answers:-
a) Only Vedic words are eternal. Other words, including those of Sanskrit and all other languages of the world are not eternal.

b) So, if there is no written or voice record of the words of a 'dead' language, the language is gone for ever.

c) One can coin/create any number of 'new' words in Sanskrit as well as in any language.

d) There is no reference in the Vedas on this 'eternal theory'.

Second set of answers:-
a) All words of all languages are eternal.

b) So, even when a language 'dies', the words continue to exist; only their manifestation as speech and writing have ceased.

c) Even those words 'newly coined' to name new products, inventions, etc. had been in existence waiting to be identified and used!

d) There is no reference in the Vedas on this 'eternal theory'.

Third set of answers:-
a) No word is eternal. All were coined/created by men.

b) If there is no written or voice record of the words of a 'dead' language, the language is gone for ever.

c) One can coin/create and add any number of 'new' words to any language.

d) There is no reference in the Vedas on this 'eternal theory'.

I PREFER the third set of answers.
I DO APPRECIATE the preference of others even if they are different from mine, and I EXPECT similar treatment!

[ragam-talam]

In the references above to 'the Vedas' which of the four Vedas is being referred to? Rig, Yajur, Sama or Atharva?
Or is this across all 4 Vedas?

[srkris]

The Vedas were originally three ("trayi vidya", cf. Satapatha Brahmana, Aitareya Brahmana & Kaushitaki Brahmana) until the time of the Buddha and even as late as the time of the Bhagavad Gita. The atharva veda after a long time of non-recognition was added as the fourth.

Krishna Dwaipayana's (Vyasa) followers further tried to add the epics & puranas (and particularly the mahabharata) as the fifth veda, but the idea was never really appreciated by the brahmins and failed to take off, the primary reason being that the vedas were in Vedic (the language of the rishis) while the epics were in sanskrit (the language of the commons).

[girish_a]

The Vedas were originally three ("trayi vidya", cf. Satapatha Brahmana, Aitareya Brahmana & Kaushitaki Brahmana) until the time of the Buddha and even as late as the time of the Bhagavad Gita.

Just curious. This seems to hint that the Gita was composed after the Buddha's time (indeed, I have seen some writings that suggest that the Gita was composed around the 10th or 12th century). Do you subscribe to that view? Apologies for the digression.

[Sangeet Rasik]

In the references above to 'the Vedas' which of the four Vedas is being referred to? Rig, Yajur, Sama or Atharva?
Or is this across all 4 Vedas?

The three Vedas (Rg, Saman and Yajus as referred to in the Rgveda 10.90 itself) are without a doubt referred to as the "apaurusheya" Vedas. The specific details of the "apaurusheyatva" of the Vedas are a matter for careful understanding. Although every single branch of Indian philosophy has been stumped by the meanings of the Mantras (i.e., the Samhitas) of the Vedas, and therefore paid more attention to the interpretation of the sacrificial portions (Brahmanas) and the "philosophical" portion (Upanishads). Since they could not understand the Mantras, they looked for practical guidance to the other portions.

However, the following points are clear from a careful reading of the Rgveda and the purvamimamsa and vedanta literature:

1. The Vedas - especially the Brahmanas and the Upanishads, but not necessarily the Mantras - are considered by Indian philosophy to have been "received" in some form by humans. Note that the "receipt" of the Vedas is by no means considered equivalent to their *composition by humans under some divine inspiration*. All the darshanas are essentially stumped by the meanings of the Mantras, and they are considered the legacy of a "lost age". They are most certainly not pastoralist hymns composed in 3000 BCE or something like that.

2. Every Rk in the Rgveda has a RSi, a meter (chandas), and a dEvatA ("deity"). Sometimes the Devas (e.g., Agni, Prajapati etc) themselves assume the role of the RSi. Furthermore, the RSis themselves are described in terms that definitely do not fit any human being. The rshis of the Rgveda (e.g., Vasishtha, Visvamitra, etc) are most certainly NOT the authors of the Vedas and are not human beings. The seven rshis (saptaRSayah) represent cosmic phenomena and entities associated with these phenomena. Later - e.g., in the puranas - they were associated with human beings and given human personifications.

3. Many misguided persons try to find history in the Rgveda, not realizing that the meanings of the Rgvedic words have long been converted into "mundane" meanings by various civilizations in history. For example, some believe that the Indus Valley civilization composed the Vedas. While the Indus Valley was almost certainly a "Vedic" civilization that possessed the Vedas, they were only associating Vedic names with places, natural objects, etc around them, and these associations have stuck and become popular through the Puranas and Epics. Similarly, the Puranas invented nomenclatures for tribes such as Bharatas, Trtsus, etc existing in India by associating them with certain words in the Rgveda. It is clear from the Veda that it does not refer to human tribes at all. Similarly, some think there is mention of rivers (e.g., "saptasindhu") in the Rgveda, whereas it is clear even from elementary reading that the "saptasindhu" in the Rgveda does not refer to a river. Anyone who believes that words such as "gau", "apah" etc in Rgveda refer to cows and water needs to actually read the Vedas.

Some like srkris have the belief that the "theory" that the Vedas are eternal was "discarded long ago". That is certainly not the case. Based on my interaction with him, my impression is that he does not have first-hand knowledge of the contents of the Vedas and is making such judgements based on hearsay and non-primary literature of dubious quality. It is true that the meaning of the Rgveda has been "lost", and hence it has not figured prominently in Western amateur discourse. Vedanta and Mimamsa - which are the bearers of the Vedic standard - are based on the principle of the Eternal Veda. They are very much a part of the Indian cultural landscape.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

>No. Only Vedic words.

I may be wrong here but when I read Arnold's account of kumArila, I think he says all words are eternal. Again, what we mean by ordinary use of the word 'word' may be subtly different from what kumArlia's epistemological use of the word 'word' is.

Someone please correct me if I my reading of what kumArila said is wrong.

You are correct. In purvamimamsa, the "Word" is associated with a meaning or property which is eternal, and does not refer to the specific "language", "tongue", or "sounds" (nAda) that manifests these meanings. ALL Words are eternal. However, only the words of the Veda can hold correct knowledge since they in fact have no author, and hence must hold the correct meanings of the Words that describe the laws of nature. All other works are historical in nature. They are clearly the work of human authors, and are defective (relative to the Vedas) due to the conceptions and conventions they have imposed upon the meaning of the Words in various ages and epochs.

SR

[Shivadasan]

May be the following website could introduce a change in the direction in which thread is moving.
http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/read_general.htm

[Sangeet Rasik]

I NOW HAVE THREE SETS OF ANSWERS:-

Please see my reply to VK's post. There seems a misunderstanding about the meaning of "Words".

SR

[srkris]

Most of the shakas of the vedas are lost irretreivably, but still they are eternal it seems. What a scientific theory! Wait, maybe science means something different?

[Sangeet Rasik]

Most of the shakas of the vedas are lost irretreivably, but still they are eternal it seems. What a scientific theory! Wait, maybe science means something different?

Are you serious ?

Did we prove/claim in this discussion that humans are eternal ? No, we didn't prove that. The Vedic shakhas are part of human history or even pre-history). The Vedas are impersonal and Fixed in the universe, and there is no evidence that they have any specific connection to the human race (or any other life form for that matter).

Did we also prove that words cannot possibly be altered by humans, or that they could not be rearranged or corrupted in error? No, we didn't prove/claim that either.

And there you go again - clubbing science and philosophy as identical.

SR

[srkris]

>>The Vedic shakhas are part of human history or even pre-history).<<
What is in the vedas if you remove all the shakas?

>>The Vedas are impersonal and Fixed in the universe<<
I see. Fixed fixed or just fixed?

>>there is no evidence that they have any specific connection to the human race (or any other life form for that matter).<<
Oh OK.The rishis were not of the human race, nor even were they life forms in that case.

>>Did we also prove that words cannot possibly be altered by humans, or that they could not be rearranged or corrupted in error?<<
This is how eternity got corrupted?

>>And there you go again - clubbing science and philosophy as identical.<<
I thought you said vedic philosophy is scientific.

[Sangeet Rasik]

What is in the vedas if you remove all the shakas?

Huh ? Didn't I tell you that the Words of the Vedas are eternal ? And did I say I am "removing" the shakhas (who identified themselves with some of the "RSis" listed in the Vedas? Everybody knows the shakhas existed, and some still do. Whether humans who received the Vedas branched into "shakhas" or "dalas" or whetever has no bearing on the impersonal and eternal nature of the Vedas.

I see. Fixed fixed or just fixed?

Sheer nonsense.

Oh OK.The rishis were not of the human race, nor even were they life forms in that case.

Have you read the Rgveda samhita ? I assume you have, so please convince me that:

For example, the RSi Vasishtha ("maitrAvaruNih") was a human being and born from Mitra and Varuna (who are "devas").

Or that Agni was the composer of, say, RV 10.140, in which he is listed as the RSi and also the devatA, and apparently praises himself in the second person ("you").

This is how eternity got corrupted?

What are you talking about ? It is revealed that there is no substance to any of your wild claims, and you are reduced merely to flaming comments. See my doubt below, which may explain it all.

I thought you said vedic philosophy is scientific.

Looks like you are "thinking" things that do not exist. Say, do you take any "party" substances (if you get my drift here)? When the effect wears off, peruse the thread and tell me exactly where I said that "vedic philosophy is scientific".

SR

[srkris]

>>Huh ? Didn't I tell you that the Words of the Vedas are eternal ? And did I say I am "removing" the shakhas (who identified themselves with some of the "RSis" listed in the Vedas? <<
Genius!

>>Have you read the Rgveda samhita ? I assume you have, so please convince me...<<
You must already know why Vashishta is maitravaruniH or who the agni rishi is, since you already know everything. Why do I need to convince you when I dont have gurutvam? Just one question- are you sure mitra and varuna had a homosexual relationship?

[arasi]

SR,
When it comes to folks like me (groundlings), we don't have to do 'party stuff' to upset you. Our very lack of knowledge about things discussed here is enough to put you off.
As for those who actively engage in debate with you, such references about them makes you resemble a political candidate, I'm afraid, rather than a scholar--which you truly are.

[Sangeet Rasik]

You must already know why Vashishta is maitravaruniH or who the agni rishi is, since you already know everything. Why do I need to convince you when I dont have gurutvam?

So, it looks like your bluff has been called - once again. I asked simple and specific questions which you should be able to answer with no difficulty considering the strength of your beliefs, but you are returning rhetorical questions instead.

Just one question- are you sure mitra and varuna had a censored word relationship?

I am pretty sure they didn't, which is really the point. Neither Mitra nor Varuna nor the RSi Vasishtha are persons or relatives, or composers, or writers of anything (and certainly not the Rks of the Veda). If you still believe that Vasishtha was a human being but are not sure what to make of the Rgvedic statements about the "birth" of Vasishtha, then you need to realize it is time to revise your beliefs based on 19th-century Western interpretations and their continuing legacy, and read the Vedas more carefully.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

As for those who actively engage in debate with you, such references about them makes you resemble a political candidate, I'm afraid, rather than a scholar--which you truly are.

Debate ? What debate ? I find it strange that you criticize my (half-in-jest) response, but seem to be perfectly fine with the "zero-content" replies given by srkris when it comes to the real stuff and substance of the discussion. He is a lion, until that stage of "substance" is reached.

SR

[Pratyaksham Bala]

It is time this thread is locked!

[arasi]

SR,
I am glad they are half in jest Humor is fine by me, even the scholastic kind No, I jest not when I say your are a scholar and a classic composer and respect you for those reasons. If I look in when you voice your opinioins, it's because I am interested in knowing if there are at least tidbits I can pick up by being a bystander when you folks discuss (is that the word?) things which are above my head

PB,
Our posts crossed. As for srkris, he can roar before he locks the thread, don't you think?
All in jest, of course!

[Sangeet Rasik]

If I look in when you voice your opinioins, it's because I am interested in knowing if there are at least tidbits I can pick up by being a bystander when you folks discuss (is that the word?) things which are above my head

Thanks. Then the purpose of this thread is being served, i.e. that deeper issues are being discussed (or at least attempted to be) and that readers are increasing their awareness.

SR

PS: Women should definitely study the Vedas, but please do not believe anyone that says that there are some "women RSis" in the Vedas

[arasi]

Darn! I was going to claim that one of them was my ancestor! Well, you win some, lose some

[ragam-talam]

It is time this thread is locked!

No, please don't! No need to close the thread just because the discussion has reached the 'duel' stage.

Suggest we all take a breather, then come back and continue here. And perhaps not pursue the 'Vedic' side-topic any more, and get back to 'spiritual quest'!

Thank you.

[vasanthakokilam]

Shall we avoid the personal ridicule? And if someone has a different interpretation or point of view, why is that a cause for ridicule or put down? We are talking about some really esoteric stuff here and expecting unanimity or converge is next to impossible. And we have scholars and philosophers who have debated this for thousands of years. ( having stated that, in Indian debating bANi a rhetorical device used is making fun of the other side's arguments. It is fair game when done in jest and without taking the focus away from the main point being made ).

I told myself that I am not going to repeat what I did last time, namely trying to get in between you two and ask questions but I can't help it this time either.

SR, srkris: one problem is that not everyone is even aware of the full theory/facts/reality/whatever about the vedas that you have in your mind let alone debating whether one agrees with that position or not. I for one would like to get a cogent treatment of the theory you believe in to be true. That initial description should be free of bashing any other theories or beliefs while clearly stating what source material one is using for these things. This way, posts like 'Where did I say this?' etc. are minimized. And make sure you state if you are re-stating what is said in books or this is what you personally believe in ( e.g. over-riding what is stated in books or "I am treating what is stated in books as metaphorical only" etc. )

(SR, I know you have quoted chapter and verse from the vedas, but the various key points are all in various posts. Bring them all together as a full description without any need for justification or critiquing or contrasting with other schools etc. )

Then we all can ask questions on the respective theories, poke holes, get them filled etc. One key thing I expect in this treatment is what are the fundamental assumptions that are taken to be true which should not be questioned from which everything else can be understood.

I have a queston for you, SR. If you want to answer this as part of the full theory description, that is fine as well.

When you state "Neither Mitra nor Varuna nor the RSi Vasishtha are persons or relatives, or composers, or writers of anything", do these names follow the vedic sanskrit language syntax for Male human beings? I thought of his when you stated later not to look for female RSis in the vedas, I thought if many of them are non human beings, does the gender even apply? If the gender does not apply, what language construct does Vedic offers to represent them in the various parts of speech. If I take all this seriously, knowledge and language are inseparable and I would expect these to be addressed properly in a consistent manner.

[srkris]

Now since it appears to people that I am arguing with SR equally, let me say this very plainly:

1. I am not trying to win in, what appears to be, an argument. I dont even want to argue if that were possible. SR makes me appear like I am trying to prove him wrong. Nothing could be further from truth, I have no intention to prove him wrong. I hope he is always right.
2. I care less about whether SR is the most scholarly of scholars, or is just a wannabe trying too hard to win public acceptance. At this moment, it appears very much the latter, but that doesnt matter to me at all in any case. By telling this, I am not trying to put him down. Maybe he thinks I am a wannabe too, oh well!
3. The thing that irks me is that this thread has been intentionally twisted out of its original scope. I therefore refused to answer questions about the veda. This thread is not a discussion on the veda mantras or on purvamimamsa.. this is why I suggested that a new thread be started and this thread be left alone for spirituality related talk.
4. I do not like the "you vs me" style of argumentation at all that SR employs everytime, it is very degrading to me to do that, for SR it appears to have exactly the opposite effect.

[Sangeet Rasik]

do these names follow the vedic sanskrit language syntax for Male human beings? I thought of his when you stated later not to look for female RSis in the vedas, I thought if many of them are non human beings, does the gender even apply? If the gender does not apply, what language construct does Vedic offers to represent them in the various parts of speech.

Excellent question. What we know as "gender" today is merely one of the means used for classifications in the Vedas, and is independent of humans or the animal kingdom. "Gender" is used in various ways in the Vedas, for example to describe pairs of opposites/complementary entities. Every "male deity" such as Agni, Indra, Varuna, etc has a "female" counterpart such as Agnayi, Indrani, Varunani, etc. Entities that are "absolute" in some sense such as "Rtam" (the universal order) and "vratAni" (laws of nature) are assigned a "neuter gender". This latter approach is also followed in Vedanta (with Brahman). Gender is not the only classification used - for example, other words, such as what we call "colors" today (black, white, red), are used.

When I talked about "women Rshis", I was referring to the belief held by some that the Rshis were human and some were women.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

4. I do not like the "you vs me" style of argumentation at all that SR employs everytime, it is very degrading to me to do that, for SR it appears to have exactly the opposite effect.

I do not do that. I have simply asked you straightforward questions (I have lost count of the numbers by now), and I do not receive answers that reveal a degree of deeper thought or familiarity with the source material on your part. Now if you want to justify that as a "lack of interest" in the discussion, that is good to know (finally!).

I do not know you personally, I have no personal interest in "proving you wrong" nor in "gaining public acceptance" (whatever that means).I am usually too busy to participate in this fine forum here as of late. I do know - as I mentioned in 2009 - that I have found you spreading misleading information - and therefore I attempt to post balanced and rational information when I find that nonsense is being propagated to a large number of readers. If this were some closed academic forum of limited interest, I would not bother.

My posts were made because nihilism and obscurantism were being promoted as "spirituality". I will always oppose that to a practical extent. My posts have a place in this thread. If there is a desire in a person to reflect on what is real in the Universe, then I am posting information that can lead to such reflections on reality, not unreality.

I am also not making any original arguments here, I am restating what is well known to those who have taken the trouble to read and understand (I include myself). Such people cannot be fooled by suggestions of who is a "wannabe" and who is not. The situation is all too clear.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

Some time ago I came across comments (in simple language) by Kapila Vatsyayan that I found really captured the spirit of the Vedas and futility of "historical" approaches trying find "Indo-Europeans, Aryans, horses, chariots", etc in the Vedas. I was in Delhi then but could not attend this event. There is a lot of superfluous information in this link, so I will post the relevant excerpts:

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2009/ ... delhi.html

Kapila Vatsyayan gave her opinion after the question hour by taking atleast 10 minutes (very lightly with her trade mark pleasing smile). The main points she made were:

1. Witzel and all of the academic community working on the AIT are concentrating mainly on comparitive mythology. If myths are dissected for the purpose of finding parallels between civilizations, and historical conclusions are drawn out of them, then myths cease to be 'myths'.

2. The main background of RgVeda is subjects like cosmology etc.(do not confuse the word cosmology with religion!!). Your studies never highlight that aspect. To create a voluminous text and start a revolution of intellectual work based on very tough subjects like cosmology, just imagination is not enough. We have to accept that. We should study how the Vedic people were able to work in such a higher intellectual plain which can't be seen anywhere else.

3. RgVeda is poetry of very high level. And such a high level poetry, and that too with a very difficult subject as its base, cannot be made by a people who do not have a good intellectual lineage and practice.

4. It is not acceptable that history is tried to be proved just by using comparative mythology, linguistics or one or two other streams. There should be a multi-disciplinary approach towards learning history.

5. Everyone of us recites the Vedas to Upanishads daily without thinking who made it or where it originated. Whether it belong to Mesopotamia, or Greece or India, it never matters much to us..jo research ho raha hai..hone do..we never care for that. Because we understand the reason why we are reciting it. So please take note of this when you do the research.

The last point is the crux of the matter. The Vedas are indifferent to the history, geography, and culture of the Earth. There is no use trying to find these things in it. It is the source of correct knowledge for those who want to reflect upon reality. Running after dubious claims of "spiritual realization" made by various "saints" and "ascetics" will not lead to a good knowledge.

SR

[VK RAMAN]

jo research ho raha hai..hone do - let the researchers not pollute the innocent followers!

[srkris]

VK,

It is not even possible to begin to understand Kumarila just by reading a random article about him, there is such a lot of material on the topic that it can take several lives to go through them all and reach a reasonable level of understanding. Not all mimamsakas said the same thing, and there is no single source of truth. Kumarila forms a really negligible part (<1%) when you consider the big picture of Mimamsa, he was not even among the most important of the mimamsakas to begin with.

To say that mimamsakas as a whole claimed the veda to be eternal is a gross misstatement. That was a fringe claim made very late in the history of mimamsa, it is not representative of the whole of mimamsa philosophy. Purvamimamsa is not advaita, and it deals with positive knowledge. Anyone who claims to know "the truth" about mimamsa is lying.

I am not going to get into pigfights with the likes of SR here however much he tries to confront me. I am not even interested to answer such claims as "the vedas are indifferent about the earth", "the mantras are fixed in the universe", "the rishis had no lives" etc which are not only patently absurd but also not representative of mimamsa. In any case, purvamimamsa has nothing to do with this topic.

[Sangeet Rasik]

I am posting exact information from primary sources (and not opinions) that can be verified by anyone who is interested in the truth. It is not a personal attack on anyone.

As a matter of fact, the principle of Eternal Veda was well accepted for thousands of years before Kumarila. Jaimini and Badarayana, who composed the mimamsasutra and vedantasutra at least a thousand years before Kumarila, state this in no uncertain terms.

For a specific example, if the Eternal Veda was a "fringe idea" from 700 CE, why on Earth would Jaimini spend sutras 1.1.6-1.1.11 listing the objections (as known to him then) about eternality of ALL Words, then spend sutras 1.1.12-1.1.17 refuting these objections, then sutras 1.1.18-1.1.23 further supporting the eternality of ALL Words, then 1.1.24-1.1.31 and much of chapter 1.2 showing that the eternality and apaurusheya nature of the Vedic Words is an uncontradicted principle ? What would be the point of writing the voluminous mimamsasutras elaborating the principles of Dharma, if the Vedic words were not shown to be eternal and fully reliable at the outset before going to all this trouble ?

Just as a specific example (I do not have time to type out all the sutras and their commentary), Jaimini states the sutra 1.1.27 as a launching pad to summarize objections to the unauthored nature of the Vedas before refuting it in detail:

1.1.27: vedAns' ca EkE sannikarsham purushAkhyAh
"(Someone claims that) the Vedas are humanly authored."

Let us be clear: the Eternal Veda has always been the status quo position in recorded history. It is only when the Nyaya and Sankhya philosophers, and then later the Charvakas and Buddhists, began to express doubt (or outright denial) about this, that philosophers such as Kumarila and others wrote further detailed commentaries. The sutra-style of Jaimini and the commentary of Shabara was not enough to refute the new objections made over a 1000+ year period. Continuous updations and elaborations have been continuing.

Although mimamsakas have disagreed on other detailed matters in the philosophical system, all are in 100% unanimous agreement on the Eternal Veda. Also note, it is well known that the sutras of Jaimini and Badarayana are themselves formal statements of philosophical streams and knowledge that predated them for ages, in other words they represent a continuing tradition and are not the founders. Jaimini was continuing the philosophical traditions of the Brahmanas, and Badarayana that of the Upanishads. Let there be no doubt about this.

It appears everybody who has detailed knowledge on this subject is "random". Only srkris, who dismisses well known ideas as "rubbish", tries to hide facts, yet (I am now almost certain) has never read or understood the mimamsasutras, brahmasutras, or their commentaries, is "knowledgable".

Best Wishes,
SR

[Pratyaksham Bala]

It is clear that for thousands of years there have been people for the theory of 'eternal vedas', and also against it. The postings in this thread make it clear that the position has not changed. It will continue to be so.

There may be others who laugh at the discussion and ignore it.

The vast majority of people have no interest in such a discussion.

Let us appreciate this and move on.

[Sangeet Rasik]

It was not my intention to get side-tracked too much by having to deal with falsification of facts and intellectual insecurity. Although such people are probably an extreme case, I do understand, and sympathize, with the young modern Indian's lack of comprehension of an Indian world-view that is not constrained by a recent colonial past.

Perhaps the posts giving factual and detailed information on Indian philosophy will lead to some thinking among the readers.

My original post was regarding the path of dharma (ethical action). The essential framework of Vedic (Mimamsa) and Vedantic philosophy is magnificent and entirely valid. Where they erred was in its application to ethical Action.

The central purpose of life is Yajna. That is truly and uniquely the Indian world-view.

The Brahmanic ritualist attempts to continually enact the cosmic Yajna through a carefully choreographed "physical" sacrificial performance ultimately made sacred by the presence of the Mantras of the Veda. This is the human acknowledgement of the fact that the Vedic mantra is omnipresent in all natural processes, contains the laws of nature. The advantage of this approach is the direct involvement of the sublime Vedic Words, but its great disadvantage is the incorrect interpretation of these Words in terms of earthly creatures and objects, and the false promise of "going to heaven" etc. by performing earthly sacrifices (however well-intended).

The Upanishadic ritualist attempts to continually enact the cosmic Yajna through a "mental" sacrificial performance aimed at acquiring right intellectual understanding and knowledge by contemplation of the words of the Upanishads. Its advantage lies in the power of intellectual advancement and thought, but its disadvantages lie in de-emphasizing the Vedic Mantra and a dangerously close shave with nihilist and obscurantist ideas that promote a false dream of achieving "bliss" through introversion/ascetism and "feel-good" thoughts.

Perhaps a happy combination of the two, eschewing their defects, has merit in defining a path of continuous and firm action. Some questions - from a Vedic standpoint, not the more commonly considered Vedantic one:

How can one be like the yajamAna and his wife, providing the resources for continuing the life-yajna in a righteous manner ?

How can one be like the hotR, who has a firm knowledge of the fundamental and truthful Rgvedic Mantras and clearly articulates them ?

How can one be like the adhvaryu, who efficiently performs the important Yajurvedic duties and mechanics of a Yajna ?

How can one be like the udgAtR, who sensitively renders the music of a Yajna, putting the Rgvedic truths into Samavedic song ?

How can one be like the brAhmaNa, who has the knowledge of Brahman - underlying unity of all things - and its place in the cosmic order ?

Best Wishes,
SR

[ragam-talam]

The central purpose of life is Yajna.

Well, some people feel that there may be no purpose to life at all. (Articulation of purpose is itself a product of language and thinking, hence it's a bit presumptuous to aver a purpose to life using language and thinking!)
Having said that, let's not quibble over these points, and get back to the topic of this thread.