Doubts related to contents of scriptures

[animesh]

I will use this topic to post the doubts that I get after reading scriptures.

My first doubt is:

It is written in Bhagwat Puran that at the end of previous kalpa, vedas fell from the mouth of Brahma and a demon named Hayagriva stole it. But vedas are said to be transcedental sound. How can anybody steal it? Is there any hidden meaning in this story? If yes, what?

[shvu]

 

Hi Animesh,

 

I don't have a traditional answer to your doubt, so I won't give mine. However there is something that I have to say here.

 

Shastra is actually not supposed to be read through books like we people do. It is to be learnt at the feet of an accomplished Guru. That is the traditional and proper way. It takes years of dedicated study like an engineering or medical course. It is only through such learning that one can go above all the millions of inconsistencies that are found while reading these books. Apparently in the olden days, the Vedas were exclusive to one set of people. They were orally handed down from generation to generation and were never written down. They had a technique of remembering the whole thing in memory. This served two purposes. One was that it would not fall into wrong hands. Second was that it could not be interpolated. However with changing times, these scriptures have been written down and now just about anyone can get hold of a book and start reading. Especially the Bhagavad Gita, which has become public property.

Add to it the fact that it is hard to come by a worthy Guru. Reading books seems to be the only option. Invariably numerous doubts crop up.

 

Some people [including myself] believe that this happend because of Buddhism. The Buddha had no reservations and treated all people equal. His teachings were for one and all. The threatened Brahmins realized that they would soon loose their power. They then came out with the Smriti in the form of stories, which was available to one and all. By still retaining control over the Sruti, they could have the upper hand. Of course, this is strictly speculation.

 

On this forum, I seriously doubt if anyone has had traditional learning under a proper Guru with the possible exception of Jndas. If anyone here can give a proper answer to your question, it has got to be him. He has given some good answers to my questions in the past.

 

Cheers

[animesh]

I want to ask something about the famous Gayatri mantra which is taken from Rg Veda (3.62.10). There are many mantras in vedas, but I find that this particular mantra is the most well known. In fact, I have seen houses where even children known this mantra by heart even if they do not know any other verse from all scriptures.

My question is: Why is this particular mantra considered so significant?

[animesh]

There is a creation hymna in Rig Veda. Which book, stanza contains this?

[animesh]

Using search engines, I have found the answer. It is Rig Veda 10.129

[animesh]

Why is God also called as "Vaasudev"? Earlier I was under impression that He was called Vaasudev because He took birth as son of Vasudev. But, as I have read in Bhagwat Puran, He was called by that name even before that. For example, Narad gave the mantra

"Aum Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaya"

to Dhruv.

 

So, why exactly is "Vaasudev" one of His many names?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

There are many meanings for the name Vaasudeva, one of which is the Lord or wealth.

 

But the most common meaning given to vaasudeva is "one situated on the platform of vishudha sattva". I will try to provide details later when I get time.

 

[shvu]

 

Vaasudeva also means the all permeating one which is used to refer to Vaasudeva the Supreme. It also means son of vasudeva which is used to refer to the Krishna of Mahabharata. The Sri-Vaishnavas differentiate between the two, quoting from the padma-tantra and the Taittreya Upanishad [Vishnu-Gayathri passage]. Quoting from these sources they maintain that the Pancharathras mean Vaasudeva the Supreme and so were in existence from time immemorial.

 

The Gaudiya Vaishnavas don't differentiate between the 2 Vaasudevas and hence state that Krishna is the source of all. I have no idea about the position of the Sad-Vaishnavas on this. Shankara rejected the Pancharathras showing that they were contradicting the Vedas (If I am not mistaken, he accepted part of it as true).

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The Gaudiya Vaishnavas don't differentiate between the 2 Vaasudevas and hence state that Krishna is the source of all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gaudiyas actually make a distinction between three Vaasudevas, but hey consider Krishna, the son of vasudeva, to be the foremost form. They also acknowledge two Vaasudevas in the chatur-vyuha expansions of vasudeva, sankarshana, pradyumna and aniruddha. There are two separate chatur-vyuha expansions, so a total of three Vaasudevas. The chatur-vyuha vaasudevas are four-armed Narayana forms. Then there is a form known as "sukshma-vaasudeva", who is relatively unknown, but is briefly mentioned in various pancharatras. He is a two armed form.

[animesh]

Was Ved Vyasa present when the dialog between Suta swami and Saunak took place? In Bhagwat Puran, Sukdev Swami tells Parikshit what he learnt from his father Ved Vyasa. Suta swami tells Saunak and some other sages what Sukdev swami told Parikshit. Of course, he gives some other information too. Ved Vyasa writes what Suta swami told to Saunak.

[shvu]

 

I had this doubt myself and got it clarified. Veda Vyasa composed the Bhagavatam that was told by Shuka to Parikshit. But the final form of the Bhagavatam with all the conversations was by someone else. Commonly believed to be one of his disciples.

 

Cheers

[animesh]

Yes Shvu,

I also guessed this but wanted to get it clarified by people on this forum. At nearly the end of Bhagwat Puran, Suta swami tells Saunak that there are 18,000 shlokas in Bhagwat Puran. This is exactly equal to the total no. of shlokas that we read in the Bhagwat Puran at present. This is strange because when Suta swami talked about Bhagwat PPuran, then definitely he was not talking about the Bhagwat Puran that we have now. He must have been talking about Bhagwat Puran that existed before he explained it to Saunak. (May be the talk between Sukdev and Parikshit). Let us assume that there is a book of stories in which there are x sentences. You are reading those to me. From time to time I ask you some questions, which you answer. Now if someone is to write down the dialog that took place between us, it will definitely have more than X sentences. Let it be Y. Now let us assume that while reading the stories from the book, you tell me the no. of sentences in the book. You will tell me X and not Y. Similarly, when Suta swami told Saunak about the no. of shlokas, he should have used a no. less than 18,000 because 18,000 includes the many shlokas which Sukdev swami had not told to Parikshit. It will be extremely surprising if it is found that you told me the no. of sentences in the book as Y and not X. Similarly, it is surprising that Suta swami told Saunak that the no. of shlokas in Bhagwat Puran was equal to 18,000 and not a no. less than that.

[Guest guest]

I have heard that when the sages came together to hear Suta speak at the thousand year sacrifice that not only was the Bhagavat Purana spoken, but the other Puranas were spoken as well...Vaishnav, Shavite and Shakta etc..

Can anyone clarify this or give more detailed information?

 

YS,

 

jijaji

[shvu]

 

Excellent point, Animesh.

 

Cheers

[animesh]

Puranas talk of people being alive for thousands of years. But when we read Vedas, we find that hundred years was considered to be a long life span then. As an example, here is a part of a prayer from Yajurveda: -

 

__________

Whatever defect I have of eye, of heart, of mind,

Or whatever excess there is,

May Brihaspati remedy it.

Gracious to us be the Lord of the Universe!

Indra is King over all;

May there be grace on the biped, grace on the quadruped.

May the wind blow us health,

And the sun shine cheer on us,

And may the clouds with loud thunder

Rain their grace on us.

The peace in the sky, the peace in the mid-air,

The peace on the earth, the peace in waters,

The peace in plants, the peace in forest trees,

The peace in All Devas, the peace in Brahman,

The peace in all things,

The peace in peace-

May that peace come to me!

Strong One! Make me strong!

May all beings look on me with the eye of friend!

May I look on all beings with the eye of friend!

May we look on one another with the eye of friend!

That eye of the sky, divinely placed, rising bright before us-

May we see for a hundred autums!

And may we live for a hundred autums,

And may we hear for a hundred autums,

May we hold our heads high for a hundred autums,

Yea, even more than a hundred autums.

_________

 

We know that 100 years contain 100 autumns.

If being alive for thousands of years was normal at that time, then why should anybody pray for being alive for 100 years. Should we take the stories of puranas as literally?

 

[Guest guest]

In Gita 2.54 is stated:

 

sruti-vipratipanna te / yada sthasyati niscala

samadhav acala buddhis / tada yogam avapsyasi

 

"When your intelligence becomes detached from hearing various interpretations of the Vedas, and when it becomes free from all other attachments while remaining steadfast in Paramesvara, then you will attain the fruit of yoga."

 

Veda is to be considered as siddha-jñana-rupa, or the form of pure knowledge. This knowledge is called veda or amnaya, and its manifestation in the material world is made by R€dhik€, Sama, Yajuh and Atharva among with the conditioned souls (baddha-jivas). This is the only pure knowledge and it is only attained by sabdha-brahma, transcendental sound imparted by a self-realized soul (guru).

 

Other forms of indriya-paratantra, the kind of knowledge that jivas may attain through their material senses cannot give one the fruit of yoga. This includes to read sastra by one's own account and to follow mundane philosophical schools.

 

So, Sri Ksna is saying, "You will become detached from hearing about mundane subject matters, and also Vedic instructions, and as you do so, you will become steadfast; your mind will not be deceived by the apparent attraction of such topics."

 

When one finally attain samadhi by following this instruction ®ri Bhagavan assures Arjuna, "Then, by having direct experience of transcendence through yoga, you will attain freedom from material bondage." Not by reading sastra without any guidance and sadhu-sanga.

 

In Srimad Bhagavatam there is also a similar statement made by Sri Krsna Himself:

 

na sadhayati mam yogo / na sankhyam dharma uddhava

na svadhyayas tapas tyago / yatha bhaktir mamorjita

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.14.20)

 

"O Uddhava! Yoga, sankhya, study of the Vedas, tapasya and dana (charity) cannot overpower Me as does the intense bhakti performed solely to attain Me."

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Guest guest]

Quote:

Reged: 08/12/00

Posts: 526

Loc: Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Re: Doubts related to contents of scriptures

04/02/01 05:09 PM Edit Reply

Why is God also called as "Vaasudev"? Earlier I was under impression that He was called Vaasudev because He took birth as son of Vasudev. But, as I have read in Bhagwat Puran, He was called by that name even before that. For example, Narad gave the mantra

"Aum Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaya"

to Dhruv.

 

So, why exactly is "Vaasudev" one of His many names?

"

 

Did you get an answer for this question?

[Guest guest]

{Shastra is actually not supposed to be read through books like we people do. It is to be learnt at the feet of an accomplished Guru. That is the traditional and proper way. It takes years of dedicated study like an engineering or medical course.}

 

Yes, but nowadays we have commentaries which explain the meaning of verses of a particular shastra, this may not be the same as learning from a guru but you can get a better understanding if the guru is a genuine accomplished guru. The popularity of commentaries with shastras is probably an example of how Hinduism will evolve in the future as there may be less genuine gurus in the future. Many of these gurus base their commentaries on older commentaries by the acharyas of their sampradaya.

[Guest guest]

Oji, Please be advised that all the different avataris have a thousand names and more and Vasudeva is only one of them. The meanings are all auspicious. Try not to get bogged down with any one unless you wish to do japa or meditation.Also VASUDEVA CAN BE SPLIT UP eg. VA- sudeva, or vasu- deva, or even vasud-eva. It depends on what one is looking for. REMEMBER, SARVAM KALVIDAM BRAHMA... all is God, in fact, there is only God. Reflect on this for one year and see how you feel.

Hari OM

[Sephiroth]

But vedas are said to be transcedental sound. How can anybody steal it? Is there any hidden meaning in this story? If yes, what?

 

Maybe Brahma pre-recorded it and kept the tapes (or some sort of recording medium) aside, to be delivered to Manu and others when time comes.

 

If the demon, Hagriva can steal sound, it means it should be in a form which can ne carried off.

 

I watched a show (about 10 Avatars in Astro) and they pictured the Vedas as 4 Children born from Vishnu's Mouth and give to Brahma for safe keep and the way Hagriva stole them was by tricking the children to come and play with him.

 

Is it possible also that the Vedas (said to come from Mouth of God) could be some sort of early Avatars or maybe Enlightned Souls who came down to teach Man?

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

Veda means knowledge which comes from the root, vid--to know, stealing knowledge also can mean injecting ignorance

 

Initially Vedas was revealed to Brahma, but due to Brahma's some fault (may be laziness, sleep, material desire, etc., ) This knowledge was taken back and he was blinded with ignorance.

 

Additional notes: Hayagriva is considered as an avatar of Vishnu by many, which means Vishnu reveals the Vedas and takes (or steals) it back some times.

 

Also this can be considered as happening at the birth of every person (if you consider Aham Brahamsi) and not just once long long ago.

 

It is called stealth, because it is taken away without the "knowledge" of the owner (or should i say lessee since only One is the Owner of it)

[narayanadasa]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

What if someone who talked Srimad Bhagavatam a long time ago foresaw the happenings (remember, Vyasa could foresee) so he compiled the Bhagavatam with the various questions and answers that will be specifically asked in future. Bhagavatam had many future events that had not happened at that time.. so foreseeing may be true.