What is scripture?

[theist 1]

 

so what comes by krsna is scripture and "apaurusheya" because it has no material creation

 

 

Yes I agree. This seems to be the Reality.

 

Thank you

 

[ancient_paztriot 0]

Hi Theist, your post was convienent to reply to. I'ts just a general post.

 

We can't really help each other in a meaningful existential sense. If we somehow or other help others on an absolute level, that is also by divine grace.

 

Now you can take your pick …seeing what's available. But those choices reveal your motives.

 

One quibbles over what's available as if his consumer sense has to be pacified, but what is it they want?

[Guest guest]

 

Existence of autherless work does not imply God lacks the ability to be author. Even if God composes something, it is still authored - authored by God. Though God is faultless, there is no guarantee that God intends to give faultless knowledge in some of his authored work

 

 

Precisely. A perfect example is Buddha. He is Vishnu, yet he appeared to mislead atheists. Being Vishnu does not guarantee that what is spoken by Him is automatically faultless. Sometimes Vishnu cheats people too. He can teach right knowledge or He can mislead others. Being God means He is not constrained in any way.

 

Another point to consider is that God's identity is known only from Vedas. So if Vedas were only accepted as authority because they are created by a person we accept as God, then the problem of circular logic arises: we accept Krishna as God because Vedas say so. But we only accept Vedas as authority because they are allegedly "written" by Krishna, who is God. This is circular logic.

 

First of all there has to be agreement on valid sources of knowledge by different parties. Starting with the assumption that Krishna is God may be fine for those not interested in examining their faith critically, but it will not be sufficient for those who do not automatically accept this as an assumption. Based on their writings, it is obvious that traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas (i.e. the Six Gosvamis), never required someone to accept this as a given, but proceeded instead to prove it based on evidence. from shruti and smriti.

 

This methodology however, does not appear to be shared by contemporary Gaudiya Vaishnavas, many of whom I notice, do not seem interested in proving anything to anyone who does not accept their underlying assumptions, even when challenged to do so. Usually their arguments will be based on the ipso facto assumption that their guru's words are automatically correct in every way, that he is a personal servant of Krishna, etc. Of course, many Vaishnava VedAntins think of their respective gurus in a very exalted fashion - but they do not argue on this basis when it comes to defending their beliefs.

 

This transition from emphasizing an objective standard of evidence (as other authentic Vaishnavas do), in contrast to arguing on purely subjective and arbitrary grounds (as modern-day Gaudiyas do), is I believe an unfortunate departure from the Gaudiya Vaishnava predecessors. I do not believe it to be a feature of orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnavism, based on what I have read of their writings to date. Certainly it has nothing to do with VedAnta.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Precisely. A perfect example is Buddha. He is Vishnu, yet he appeared to mislead atheists. Being Vishnu does not guarantee that what is spoken by Him is automatically faultless. Sometimes Vishnu cheats people too. He can teach right knowledge or He can mislead others. Being God means He is not constrained in any way.

•••no this is not an example of god giving knowledge with faults... this knowledge is simply relative to a particular state of consciousness.. it could be not sanatana dharma because is not referring to the inner realiy of the living being, but is indeed a dharma, a reality and a truth.. so god ultimately does not tell lies.. even if when he cheats

 

we accept Krishna as God because Vedas say so. But we only accept Vedas as authority because they are allegedly "written" by Krishna, who is God. This is circular logic.

:::this circular logic is a problem of who practices and follow it..... if one uses "krsna is god" as a postulate to begin the study (as recommended in tha bhagavad gita commented by srila prabhupada) there's no problem... the problems come when, after years, the poor studies and the weak practices do not bring real realizations... there's no problem in putting a little faith in our study in the beginning, but she has not to remain alone

 

First of all there has to be agreement on valid sources of knowledge by different parties.

•••yes... we are in a forum when prabhupada is accepted as absolute... sometimes blindly, but in many cases because his direct or indirect followers have realized (partially or entirely) the truth of what he's preaching.. and also because many religious/cultural authorities accept him as an autority.

If it is not a common ground with you.. it is more correct to not use "prabhupada said" to discuss with you.

But the practice in itself is correct... sometimes the problems are achademical, but most of the times they are real and painful... if i can really help you saying "prabhupada says.. ", "gurudeva says...", "sridhara maharaja says..." i have no problem... i do it

 

Starting with the assumption that Krishna is God may be fine for those not interested in examining their faith critically,

•••already said... it is a postulate... if i read the gita there's the need to accept for first that krsna is god, then the realizations and the intellectual verification have surely to come. Everyone enters in a school with a preventive faith in it... then he has to develope something more

 

This methodology however, does not appear to be shared by contemporary Gaudiya Vaishnavas

•••maybe it does not appear to you... this is an offensive assumption that it will not help you in you practice and consciousness.. and it is the blind faith that you criticize in vaishnavas... you do not know all vaishnavas, you have some superficial impression and you criticize.. where is you vedic accuracy, your opposition to blind faith now?

 

many of whom I notice,

•••many or all?

 

Usually their arguments will be based on the ipso facto assumption that their guru's words are automatically correct in every way, that he is a personal servant of Krishna, etc.

•••and it is a good behaviour... the problem arises when this is used for covering ignorance, to use the guru as a weapon and when it is useless to say so because we are espected to preach even to who's not agreeing on vedas and on our guru.

I want to say to you that, with this big developement in the west, maybe, for the first time and in large scale we have vaishnavas able to preach to people not having anything in common with the vedic philosophy... there's the need to speak also of the basis of the human behaviour, like vegetarianism and simple basic spiritual things like the fact that we are not the body or so.

So this approach is successiful and not surely based only on blind faith... otherwise the results would be zero... and there's not zero results.. it is evident also to the blinds

 

Of course, many Vaishnava VedAntins think of their respective gurus in a very exalted fashion - but they do not argue on this basis when it comes to defending their beliefs.

•••many yes and many not... generalization generates aparadha, spiritual problems, falling in the practice... speak of specific cases "i have found that master or that disciple and he have said like this or that"

 

This transition from emphasizing an objective standard of evidence (as other authentic Vaishnavas do), in contrast to arguing on purely subjective and arbitrary grounds (as modern-day Gaudiyas do), is I believe an unfortunate departure from the Gaudiya Vaishnava predecessors.

•••you are surely speaking of a big and dangerous deviation... the problem is that this total corruption of gaudya vaishnavism is in your eyes and mind.. and you are not creatively helping anyone, you are only able to speak against guru tattva saying that in the modern vaishnavism the faith in the guru is generated only by fanaticism...... and obviously it is not true..

 

be creative... even if you are right, if you demonstrate only that we are all stupid what's the useof it?

[Guest guest]

 

no this is not an example of god giving knowledge with faults... this knowledge is simply relative to a particular state of consciousness.. it could be not sanatana dharma because is not referring to the inner realiy of the living being, but is indeed a dharma, a reality and a truth.. so god ultimately does not tell lies.. even if when he cheats

 

 

 

Here is the Bhaktivedanta translation for bhAgavata purAna 1.3.24:

 

"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist."

 

Webster's defines "to delude" as "To lead from truth or into error; to mislead the mind or judgment of; to beguile; to impose on; to dupe; to make a fool of."

 

Proof positive that God can lie if He so chooses. Obviously, there is nothing that God cannot do.

 

 

this circular logic is a problem of who practices and follow it..... if one uses "krsna is god" as a postulate to begin the study (as recommended in tha bhagavad gita commented by srila prabhupada) there's no problem...

 

 

No, that is *precisely* the problem. The fact is, it is still circular logic. "We know that Krishna is God, because scriptures which He wrote say He is." I could give modern-day examples of people who are obviously not God using that same "logic," but I don't what you to get fixated on the examples so much as the improper logic being postulated.

 

 

the problems come when, after years, the poor studies and the weak practices do not bring real realizations... there's no problem in putting a little faith in our study in the beginning, but she has not to remain alone

 

 

 

For Vaishnava VedAntins, the only article of faith is "Veda-apaurusheyatva." Everything else, even the qualifications and position of the guru, is derived from this principle. Obviously, you can disagree. I am simply explaining what authentic Vaishnava scholars have held in the past.

 

 

maybe it does not appear to you... this is an offensive assumption that it will not help you in you practice and consciousness.. and it is the blind faith that you criticize in vaishnavas... you do not know all vaishnavas, you have some superficial impression and you criticize.. where is you vedic accuracy, your opposition to blind faith now?

 

 

 

[sigh]

 

Please show me where in the writings of the Sad-Gosvamis it is explained that (1) Vedas were written by Krishna, and (2) that one must have faith in any person independent of what is said in the Vedas or their adjunctive literatures.

 

Eventually, you have to give up the mistaken idea that because someone disagrees with you, they are therefore "offensive." If you remain open to dialogue, you might find that many ideas about Vaishnava epistemology are not in fact what you thought them to be.

 

[theist 1]

so, is it being suggested that scripture is a phenomena that is independent of God's control? It just manifested itself for some reason? Or are we just getting hung up on termonology.

[Guest guest]

 

if vedas are absolute and my guru is a rascal the result of my reading of vedas is almost zero even if them are apaurusheya

 

 

 

That is true for any non-trivial subject matter of study.

[Guest guest]

vedaiS ca sarvair aham eva vedyaH -- Gita

 

mukhyaM cha sarvavedAnAM tAtparyaM shrIpateH paramH -- mahAvArAha upanishad

 

The ultimate purpose of the veda is to know Brahman only

 

 

so, is it being suggested that scripture is a phenomena that is independent of God's control?

 

 

 

What has the above argument to do with the un-authoredness of Shruti? Just like the jiva and prakriti are anAdi, ajah, does that mean phenomena like the jiva and prakriti are independent of God's control?

 

Without the support of God, qualities of Shruti like eternal and unchangeable will not remain.

[Guest guest]

vedaiS ca sarvair aham eva vedyaH -- Gita

 

mukhyaM cha sarvavedAnAM tAtparyaM shrIpateH paramH -- mahAvArAha upanishad

 

The ultimate purpose of the veda is to know Brahman only

 

 

 

so, is it being suggested that scripture is a phenomena that is independent of God's control?

 

 

 

What has the above argument to do with the un-authoredness of Shruti? Just like the jiva and prakriti are anAdi, ajah, does that mean phenomena like the jiva and prakriti are independent of God's control?

 

Without the support of God, qualities of Shruti like eternal and unchangeable will not remain.

[theist 1]

So the author is also the controller of his book. Because we accept all phenomena,both material and spiritual, as having a source, we can accept sastra as having a source or in this case we can say author.

[Guest guest]

 

So the author is also the controller of his book. Because we accept all phenomena,both material and spiritual, as having a source, we can accept sastra as having a source or in this case we can say author.

 

 

 

I think there is some basic misunderstanding of the terms as source and support. God is the support i.e. without which the thing cannot exist, and not the source in terms of causing the beginning of certain entities. Also the author may be the controller of his authored book, but the converse is not necessarily true i.e the controller of a work need not necessarily be its author.

[Guest guest]

 

 

I think there is some basic misunderstanding of the terms as source and support. God is the support i.e. without which the thing cannot exist, and not the source in terms of causing the beginning of certain entities. Also the author may be the controller of his authored book, but the converse is not necessarily true i.e the controller of a work need not necessarily be its author.

 

 

I agree with you and disagree with Theist. "Authorship" and "dependence" are two different things. jIva-s are not created by the Lord, but they are dependent on Him. Dependence does not imply creation.

 

Also, I am still unclear on why some are trying to postulate authorship for the Vedas. I asked this question before but have yet to receive a response - where is the evidence of Vedas being authored/created by anyone? Is there evidence in Vedas? Is there evidence outside of Vedas? So far, the creationists have not provided a solid answer. So I am unclear as to why they continue to suggest authorship when they cannot bring forward evidence to support this position.

[Kulapavana 0]

in the broad sense of the term "scripture" it is any text that contains God's message to mankind. God speaks, people listen and... then it gets complicated /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

...some misunderstand the message, or add stuff to it, ot skip stuff as convenient, or the message gets "lost in translation" as it is written down and passed through generations. that is why we see all kinds of scriptures out there. When Srimad Bhagavatam is called "the spotless Purana" that kind of implies that other Puranas have spots, doesn't it? What to speak of differences in quality between Vedic texts and all other scriptures.

[Guest guest]

you have understood very clearly that who, in this forum have spoken of authorship and creation, have not said it in the biblical or material sense... we all know that the correct sense is EMANATION and that "authorship" and "creation" are used even if slightly improperly (in a scholar context) in that sense..

 

so you will not be gratificated by stupid fellows saying that rig veda was created sunday 3 october 1972 at 2pm after two slices of apple pie

 

all your criticisms of vaishnavas are not "pratic", you are not bringing any advantage to the real preaching for helping ourselves and people , you are ignorantly trying to demonstrate that all "modern" gaudya vaishnavas are ignorant and blind followers... and this cannot be accepted,,, if you have not learned in your deep vedic study that everyone is a single person with his own relationship with krishna and that the judgements have to be on personal basis not on cathegory, group. sect, math, what's the use of your study... better to close the vedas and spend the time on playstation, MTV, jogging, bird watching, sleeping

[Guest guest]

When Srimad Bhagavatam is called "the spotless Purana" that kind of implies that other Puranas have spots, doesn't it?

•••no... the sense is not material.. the spots are not material mistakes... the sense is that after all his writing, vyasadeva has made a scripture that gives the real sense and meaning to all vedic literature, because in bhagavat purana we find the supreme personality of godhead and how to obtain the love for him...

 

so it is spotless because nowhere in bhagavatam is possible to find a hole, a spot, a link, to get an impersonal interpretation of the absolute truth

 

but all the vedic scriptures are without defect...

[Kulapavana 0]

"spots" can certainly mean a lot of things, and "defect" can also be defined in many ways. an understanding that Lord Shiva is the Supreme Person (as presented in some Puranas) may be labelled in several ways, depending on the perspective of the student. Truth is multi-dimensional and ultimately the apparent contradictions in Vedic scriptures are resolved once the student develops deep understanding of both spiritual and material subjects.

[Guest guest]

 

God is the support i.e. without which the thing cannot exist, and not the source in terms of causing the beginning of certain entities.

 

 

Bhagavan is the source of everything, including the Vedas. Everything emanates from him:

 

The claims of circular logic are silly, since the acceptance of unauthoredness and validity of the Vedas requires "faith". Is there any difference in circular logic as opposed to trying to establish a point based on faith in an unsubstantiated view?

 

Someone claims a text is unauthored. Does this mean the information contained therein is true? If a true text has the ability to exist without an author, then a false text could just as well exist without an author. Thus we are left with faith that the supposed unauthored text is truth, and that the use of language has not changed from time immemorial (millions of years) to render a different meaning than the original "truth".

[Guest guest]

aham sarvasya prabhavo

mattah sarvam pravartate

iti matva bhajante mam

budha bhava-samanvitah

 

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."

[Guest guest]

Apaurusheya means having no source from a human ("purusha"). This does not mean something is unauthored. That is the conclusion of an interpreter or commentator. Thus one cannot state the Vedas to be authorless without basing it on the interpretations of an authored text. Another case of circular logic and faith.

[Guest guest]

"depending on the perspective of the student."

•••yes... this is the key... when we see dubious concepts in holy scriptures it goes all at his place if we consider the complete scene, and, most important, that the scripture has the purpose to bring people back to godhead..

 

so for the advancement of some one it is better to say that shiva is the supreme.. or brahman is the supreme.... or yamaraja is the supreme (as the yamadutas believe in the ajamila's story) considering that sanatana dharma, the dharma for everyone, is that krsna bhagavan is the supreme

 

so everything in the vedas is perfect for the purpose of preaching according to time, plece, circumstance and individual

 

everything bring us gradually to the sanatana dharma

 

"Truth is multi-dimensional and ultimately the apparent contradictions in Vedic scriptures are resolved once the student develops deep understanding of both spiritual and material subjects. "

yes... i completely agree

[ancient_paztriot 0]

"The claims of circular logic are silly, since the acceptance of unauthoredness and validity of the Vedas requires "faith".

 

Yes, FAITH; the same kind of faith you display when you accept that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet or there really was a George Washington or any of the other innumerable things around you.

 

What a hyprocrite. YOU can't understand anything - including empirical knowledge - without faith. The proof lies within our minds. The issue of objective proof? It's more consistent in the spiritual realm.

 

Your FAITH is useless to you, since your only result is the agitation you feel by talking like an idiot.

 

Our FAITH can lead us to infinity.

 

So faith is needed in the beginning. It is so with any mundane knowledge too. Later, after following the disciplines of a particular field, the faith turns to knowledge.

 

There have been many nice answers here concerning this issue of 'authorship'. Many devotees have patiently tried to explain. The Vedas themselves cite their origin AND we believe that. Ultimately, we don't care what speculators think.

[theist 1]

 

Apaurusheya means having no source from a human ("purusha"). This does not mean something is unauthored. That is the conclusion of an interpreter or commentator.

 

 

[theist 1]

TRANSLATION

I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedänta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

 

PURPORT

The Supreme Lord is situated as Paramätmä in everyone’s heart, and it is from Him that all activities are initiated. The living entity forgets everything of his past life, but he has to act according to the direction of the Supreme Lord, who is witness to all his work. Therefore he begins his work according to his past deeds. Required knowledge is supplied to him, and remembrance is given to him, and he forgets, also, about his past life. Thus, the Lord is not only all-pervading; He is also localized in every individual heart. He awards the different fruitive results. He is worshipable not only as the impersonal Brahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the localized Paramätmä, but as the form of the incarnation of the Vedas as well. The Vedas give the right direction to people so that they can properly mold their lives and come back to Godhead, back to home. The Vedas offer knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, and Krsna in His incarnation as Vyäsadeva is the compiler of the Vedänta-sütra. The commentation on the Vedänta-sütra by Vyäsadeva in the Srimad-Bhägavatam gives the real understanding of Vedänta-sütra. The Supreme Lord is so full that for the deliverance of the conditioned soul He is the supplier and digester of foodstuff, the witness of his activity, and the giver of knowledge in the form of Vedas and as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krsna, the teacher of the Bhagavad-gétä. He is worshipable by the conditioned soul. Thus God is all-good; God is all-merciful.

Antaù-praviñöaù çästä janänäm. The living entity forgets as soon as he quits his present body, but he begins his work again, initiated by the Supreme Lord. Although he forgets, the Lord gives him the intelligence to renew his work where he ended his last life. So not only does a living entity enjoy or suffer in this world according to the dictation from the Supreme Lord situated locally in the heart, but he receives the opportunity to understand the Vedas from Him. If one is serious about understanding the Vedic knowledge, then Krsna gives the required intelligence. Why does He present the Vedic knowledge for understanding? Because a living entity individually needs to understand Krsna. Vedic literature confirms this: yo ’sau sarvair vedair géyate. In all Vedic literature, beginning from the four Vedas, Vedänta-sütra and the Upaniñads and Puräëas, the glories of the Supreme Lord are celebrated. By performance of Vedic rituals, discussion of the Vedic philosophy and worship of the Lord in devotional service, He is attained. Therefore the purpose of the Vedas is to understand Krsna. The Vedas give us direction by which to understand Krsna and the process of realizing Him. The ultimate goal is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Vedänta-sütra (1.1.4) confirms this in the following words: tat tu samanvayät. One can attain perfection in three stages. By understanding Vedic literature one can understand his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, by performing the different processes one can approach Him, and at the end one can attain the supreme goal, who is no other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this verse the purpose of the Vedas, the understanding of the Vedas, and the goal of the Vedas are clearly defined.

 

[Guest guest]

 

The claims of circular logic are silly, since the acceptance of unauthoredness and validity of the Vedas requires "faith".

 

 

 

That is not true. Acceptance of unauthoredness is only logical, as there is no evidence of an author, nor is there even evidence of a tradition of considering them authored.

 

In this regard, Sri Madhva writes in viSNutattvavinirNaya (7):

 

apauruSeyatvaM ca svata eva siddhiM vedakartuH aprasiddheH |

 

The fact that the Vedas are revealed and not composed by any individual is self-evident since the Vedas are known to be without any author by a long tradition.

 

Note that this is not the same thing as saying "author unknown." Many things (like folk songs), are authored by unknown persons, but the point is that it was known at some point in the past that these things were created by someone.

 

On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest a specific time at which Vedas came into being. Thus, if they always existed, where is the question of an author? If you can prove there was some time before which the Vedas came into existence, then that would be sufficient to suggest their creation and hence, a creator. But you cannot do this.

 

Your point of view, that Vedas have an author, is what requires faith. Where is your evidence that Vedas were authored by anyone? This is the third time the question has been asked, and given the lack of a response, I find this telling. Where do the Vedas say they were authored by anyone? When Vedic suktas record their rishi, chandas, and deva, why do they not also record their creator/author?

 

In this regard, Sri Madhva also writes:

 

aprasiddhau ca tatkartuH tatkalpane kalpanAgauravam.h | akalpane ca akartutvaM siddhameva |

 

In spite of such a long tradition, if an author is postulated, then, it would be a superfluous postulation. In view of this, if an author is not postulated, then unauthored nature of the Vedas is a foregone conclusion.

 

In short, where is your evidence to the contrary?

 

Western Indologists suggest that Vedas have an author. Vaishnava VedAntins do not. You should decide which side of the fence you are on - the great sages who worship Vishnu, or the scholars in academic universities who speculate for money. The former accept Veda-apaurusheyatva. Only the latter do not.

 

 

Is there any difference in circular logic as opposed to trying to establish a point based on faith in an unsubstantiated view?

 

 

A minimum amount of thinking is required in order to understand the arguments which are being presented. Refusing to think, and instead responding based on prejudice or bias is a waste of time.

 

Please consider:

"Authoredness" is the presence of a thing (specifically, an author), while "unauthoredness" is the absence of that thing. The burden of proof is therefore on those who postulate an "author" to show that authorship exists. Clearly, to prove that "absence of a thing" is NOT true, one must show "presence of a thing." So, where is your evidence suggesting a creator of the Veda? Note that even if you did not know who created the Veda, at least you should be able to prove that there was a creation in the first place. If you cannot even do that, then you have no evidence.

 

 

Someone claims a text is unauthored. Does this mean the information contained therein is true? If a true text has the ability to exist without an author, then a false text could just as well exist without an author.

 

 

Words themselves do not have faults, only the ideas conveyed by those who put them together have faults. These faults reflect the faults (or intention to deceive) of those who have created the ideas. Thus, faults are a function of an author. Absence of author means absence of faults. This requires fewer assumptions than assuming an author.

 

To assume a scripture's authoritativeness in spite of it being authored by someone requires further assumptions that the person is indeed knowledgeable about the subject matter and has no intention to deceive. Such assumptions are not necessary if the scripture is accepted as revealed as opposed to authored. This is also Madhva's view (viSNutattvavinirNaya -6):

 

na ca pauruSeyeNa vAkyena tatsiddhiH aj~nAnavipralambhayoH prApteH |

na ca tadarthatvena sarvaj~na kalpyeta | anyatra ahRSTasya sarvaj~natvasya kalpanaM tasya avipralambhakatvakalpanaM tasya tatkRtatvakalpanaM ceti kalpanAgauravaprApteH |

apauruSeyavAkyA^ngIkAre na ki~ncat kalpyam |

 

Dharma, Adharma, etc, tenets that are beyond sense-perception cannot be comprehended through the staements or compositions made by individual persons. This is a possibility of ignorance and deception on the part of such persons.

To envisage an omniscient person to avoid the contingency of ignorance and deception will not be proper. Because, such envisaging will involve the envisaging of an omniscient person, his being free from the drawbacks of ignorance, and deception, and evisaging that he composed the work considered as authority. This amounts to postulating too many things, not observed elsewhere.

On the other hand if a revealed scripture is considered as the source of Dharma, Adharma etc., nothing beyond this needs to be postulated.

 

Someone will no doubt make some silly remark that, "Oh you are just saying my guru is a rascal." etc. That is not the point, and some thinking is required of those reading instead of them resorting to emotional histrionics that are usually the tactics of Neo-VedAntin mAyAvAdis.

 

The point is that validity of knowledge should not rest on assumptions regarding the source - that he is God, that he is a great devotee, that he is the Lord's right-hand-man, that he is a shakti-avesa avatara, etc etc. Such articles of faith can change based on sentiment. But one's belief in Krishna based on Vedas should not change.

 

I once had a friend in iskcon who used to be atheist and then got interested in Bhakti-yoga thanks to meeting iskcon devotees. I thought it was great. But he thought his guru in iskcon was a "pure devotee," and he insisted that everyone follow his guru because of this. Then later he admitted that his guru was engaged in some unspeakable degraded activity, and so he "lost faith" and left iskcon. I asked him why he no longer practiced bhakti-yoga, and he replied that since his guru was not a pure devotee like he thought, that he didn't care anymore for the philosophy.

 

Now, I don't know this guru and I don't really care whether he did something wrong or if it was just some gossip. My point is, if this individual were convinced based on shaastra of the correctness of bhakti, then he should have continued the process. Instead, thanks to the confused thinking that his friends taught him, he instead wants to hold any potential guru to unreasonable standards which he cannot, by his senses verify. And so the result is that he does nothing devotional.

 

Another point to consider is that this individual believed his guru was a "pure devotee," based on no other standard but his belief and the admiration of others. Was it true because they believed it? He felt it was. But then his belief changed. So was his guru a "pure devotee" before and then changed? Or was he never a pure devotee in the first place? This is the problem with faith. People who base everything on it cannot acknowledge its drawbacks - until it is too late.

 

My friend now thinks he has to find a "pure devotee," whose "pure devotion" is self-evident, before he can accept anything that the Vedas say. Apparently, he was taught that nothing in the Vedas is right unless a "pure devotee" first accepts it. So, because he cannot verify a "pure devotee" with his senses, he pretty much does nothing. This is an example of the confused thinking that is taught by some in the name of bhakti.

 

 

Thus we are left with faith that the supposed unauthored text is truth, and that the use of language has not changed from time immemorial (millions of years) to render a different meaning than the original "truth".

 

 

That may indeed be a problem for non-Vedic religions. But transmission of shruti is accomplished via paramparA. Even going from one paramparA to another, there is identical preservation of texts mutually accepted as shruti. It takes faith to suggest that there is some adulteration, as that would require believing that the same adulteration occurred in every different paramparA independently. Does that seem logical? I think not.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Up till now I'm not sure if anyone has claimed the Vedas are authored at a particular time. All I have seen stated is that Krishna is the source of everything including the Vedas. You seem to interpret this as meaning the Vedas are authored.

 

 

That is not true. Acceptance of unauthoredness is only logical, as there is no evidence of an author, nor is there even evidence of a tradition of considering them authored.

 

 

 

There is no logic in this line of thinking. There is no evidence of an author for the Allah Upanishad either. There has never been a tradition of the Allah Upanishad being considered authored. The same can be said for a number of Vedic and non-vedic scriptures, authentic and bogus alike. This does not establish the unauthoredness of a text. It is all based on faith, not logic. Lack of evidence does not establish a hypothesis as truth.

 

If this is the absolute "proof" of unauthoredness, then any text that does not declare an author and has no tradition of a known author thereby becomes apaurusheya shruti. Be prepared to accept many scriptures from other religions as shruti if this is the standard of proof. Are you prepared to accept native american mythology as shruti?

 

The fact that some literary work exists implies it was composed by a conscious person. This is the reality everyone experiences. Any statement to the contrary would require evidence that a literary work can self-manifest or be eternal, neither of which are verifiable by experience nor logic. Simply because the text never says it was authored does not establish unauthoredness. Thus the unauthoredness of Vedas requires faith on the part of believers, faith that goes against all practical (worldly) experience and history. We see all written material in existence was authored by someone (known or unknown), thus common logic would be to accept the Vedas as also authored by someone. Devotees armed with faith in the Vedas go against common logic and accept the Vedas as unauthored despite all indications pointing to the improbibility of such an occurence (having no daily experience of such occurences).

 

 

Note that this is not the same thing as saying "author unknown." Many things (like folk songs), are authored by unknown persons, but the point is that it was known at some point in the past that these things were created by someone.

 

 

 

On what basis can you say it was known in the past that these folk songs were authored? The songs do not state an author, but you presume there is an other (and it must have been known in the past). On what basis? This presumption is based only on the fact that all compositions have authors. Otherwise point to the tradition that states such and such folksong was authored or had an author. There are no such traditions, but everyone presumes the folksongs to be authored as that is the reality of compositions. If you are logical you should hold the same conclusion for the Vedas. Why there is no tradition for the Vedas to be considered authored? Because there is a tradition of faith in India, that despite it appearing illogical, still the scriptures are venerated as transcendental unauthored sound. It is faith alone that has created this tradition, not logic, the same faith that has created similar traditions among other cultures of the world in regards to their own scriptures and mythologies.

 

 

On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest a specific time at which Vedas came into being.

 

 

 

There is ample evidence, such as language usage, variations due to shakas, citations of historical events, etc. Thus even in India now there is a "tradition" among scholars to accept the Vedas as authored. If this tradition continues for 1,000 years it would become a "long tradition" and based on your logic would be undisputable proof that the Vedas were authored. Bizare logic in my opinion.

 

 

If you can prove there was some time before which the Vedas came into existence, then that would be sufficient to suggest their creation and hence, a creator. But you cannot do this.

 

 

 

The Vedas themselves establish an end to the material world (universal disolution), whereby everything is put into a state that transcends time. Therefore the eternal existence of the Vedas requires belief of an existence beyond this universe wherein the Vedas reside during disolution. If one wants to propose that the Vedas are eternal one must establish the existence of this timeless realm beyond the universe wherein the Vedas reside eternally. To think such a conclusion is established logically simply because the Vedas don't declare themselves to have an author is foolish.

 

 

Your point of view, that Vedas have an author, is what requires faith. Where is your evidence that Vedas were authored by anyone?

 

 

 

My point of view is not that the Vedas are authored, but that their source is Krishna. Why should one logically conclude that the Vedas (or any text) is authored? Because our direct experience (however faulty it may be) is that every literature we have come across has been authored by someone or some people. Our direct experience is that no literature has ever been found to self-manifest, nor has there ever been a literature found or proven to be eternal beyond faith. Acceptance of a literature as eternal or unauthored requires faith, a faith that goes against direct experience and inference.

 

 

Western Indologists suggest that Vedas have an author. Vaishnava VedAntins do not. You should decide which side of the fence you are on - the great sages who worship Vishnu, or the scholars in academic universities who speculate for money.

 

 

 

It has nothing to do with which side one believes in. The discusion is what is the logical conclusion and what requires faith. It is beyond doubt that faith is required to accept the Vedas as being without an author. If this wasn't the case the entire world would have accepted the Vedas as being without an author.

 

 

Words themselves do not have faults, only the ideas conveyed by those who put them together have faults.

 

 

 

This is not true. Words convey a meaning regardless of the author. Whether I write a sentence, or whether a random text placement produces the exact same sentence after trying millions of combinations - the meaning remains the same. A randomly created sentence can be untruth despite the fact that there is no conscious author behind it composing it. Thus faults in a literature are not based on the faults of an author but on the literatures comparison to the objective reality. If the reality differs from the text, then it is untruth regardless of whether it is authored or unauthored.

 

 

Words themselves do not have faults, only the ideas conveyed by those who put them together have faults.

 

 

 

Another point regarding this is that the Vedas also convey ideas. Thus it is an incorrectly conveyed idea that is faulty, not the fact that a text has an author. There is no evidence to suggest an eternal literature cannot convey an incorrect idea. Again it requires faith to believe faults are caused by authors. There is no proof that all faults are caused only by authors. There is no guarantee that the conveyed ideas of the Vedas, despite being eternal, are not faulty - faults caused by some other cause than an author. Again we are left with faith in the Vedas and their correctness.

 

 

Thus, faults are a function of an author. Absence of author means absence of faults.

 

 

 

We have no evidence that faults are only caused by authors and absence of an author would result in no faults. It is another step of faith.

 

 

To assume a scripture's authoritativeness in spite of it being authored by someone requires further assumptions that the person is indeed knowledgeable about the subject matter and has no intention to deceive. Such assumptions are not necessary if the scripture is accepted as revealed as opposed to authored.

 

 

 

This all presupposes that the scriptures are indeed truth, a great step of faith. It is much more logical to conclude that the Vedas, as all scriptures in the world, were composed by man in ancient times, and that the authors have been forgotten over time. If 90% of the Vedas themselves are lost, then knowledge of the authors could also have been lost over thousands of years.

 

 

On the other hand if a revealed scripture is considered as the source of Dharma, Adharma etc., nothing beyond this needs to be postulated.

 

 

 

One requires less assumptions, but still the fundamental point is based on a huge assumption. Just because there are fewer assumptions does not mean something is a fact or that belief in it does not require faith. If one concludes all literature to be man made one requires no assumptions of things "not observed elsewhere". This is the simplest logical conclusion requiring little faith, though it may be incorrect.

 

 

That may indeed be a problem for non-Vedic religions. But transmission of shruti is accomplished via paramparA.

 

 

 

There are variations in the recitations based on various shakas and paramparas. This would suggest that there is adulteration. The other alternative (which requires more faith) is that there are alternate versions of the same text eternally.

 

This point has not been addressed:

 

"Apaurusheya means having no source from a human ("purusha"). This does not mean something is unauthored. That is the conclusion of an interpreter or commentator. Thus one cannot state the Vedas to be authorless without basing it on the interpretations of an authored text. Another case of circular logic and faith."

 

Even presupposing that the Vedas are eternal and contain truth, it requires faith to accept that the meanings of words have not changed in thousands of years, thereby preserving that truth in the Vedas.