What is scripture?

January 14, 2004

I won't spend much more time on this discussion, as to me it is obvious that some people refuse to see their beliefs for the faith it is. I can sense it makes them feel superior to other religious beliefs, that they think their belief is not a faith based religion, unlike others. Okay, have fun thinking this way.

Theist's point is simple and valid:

"Since I have never seen or even heard of any book existing without an author I would have to disagree that your point is logical."

It is logical to conclude that any text in the world is composed by an author. That's the reality that exists everywhere. If someone wants to claim that contrary to everyone's experience there is actually an unauthored text, it is up to them to prove it. Yes, an "unauthored text" is a "thing", the presence of which must be established by the claimant. This childish argument that "unauthoredness" must be assumed and proven wrong because it is the absence of a thing is complete foolishness. On the same line of thinking I can claim the following:

I have a non-made trash can that has existed eternally. A maker is something, where-as "maker-free" is the absence of something. Thus it is up to you to establish that my trash can has a maker and is not eternal. All faults in the world are due to "makers" (sorry, I don't have to establish this as truth, just accept it). Thus since my trash can has no "maker" it is the eternal absolute truth.

Yes, your "logic" is ridiculous. Your belief in the eternality and unauthoredness of the Vedas is simply based on your faith. Your faith is weak, and thus you refuse to accept that your world view is not an undisputable fact or based on faith. Like I said before, it probably makes you feel superior to other world religions to believe your books are logically and scientifically eternal and unauthored.

Let us analyze some more of this "logic". The Vedas are undisputably unauthored because:

1) There is no mention of an author in their texts.

2) There is a long tradition that believes the texts are unauthored.

3) There is no tradition that says the texts are authored.

By this same logic, one can establish some native american beliefs as unauthored eternal compositions. There is no mention of an author in some of their folktales, there is a long tradition believing that they are unauthored, and there is no tradition believing there to be an author. Are you prepared to accept these folktales as shruti? If not then you can stop babbling about this "logic" of the Vedas being apaurusheya.

Let us take a practical example:

Thakur Bhaktivinode discovered an "eternal unauthored shruti" text known as chaitanyopanishad. In the Gaudiya line it was immediately accepted as apaurusheya. In the text there is no mention of an author. Till the present in this line there is a tradition that it is unauthored. After 1,000 years this text will have a long tradition of being unauthored. Seeing the history in which India was converted from one religion to another (shavism/vaishnavism/shaktism, etc.) by the kings in the past, it would not take much for a king to establish the unauthoredness of such a text simply based on his personal belief. If Gaudiya's can accept a newly discovered text as unauthored and create a tradition around it, then why can't such a thing have occured with the Vedas.

If thousands of years ago a Rishi wrote a book and claimed to his followers that it was revealed to him, today it would have been handed down as unauthored through many paramparas. Simply because the tradition believes it is unauthored does not logically establish it as unauthored.

The Hinduism Today swami also claimed to have been revealed a text of the lemurian scrolls. Since we see "rishis" or "sadhus" today writing books and claiming they were revealed, a logical person would conclude that it is possible for the rishis of the past to have done the same - unless you have faith in their character. Faith is what your belief is based on.

Back to the point of unauthoredness and the need of proof. Someone claimed it is not required to prove unauthoredness since it is the lack of something. They claim it is up to us to prove an author existed. So let us pass this same logic to the Chaitanya Upanishad and the Lemurian Scrolls. Since they both claim they are unauthored, and since unauthoredness is the lack of a "thing", it becomes your duty to establish that they are authored. Yes, this is an absurd logic, I hope you understand that. It is as absurd as requesting you to prove my trash can has a "maker".

Please show me an oral tradition of "Allah upanishad" that has history which can be independently verified by other paramparAs.

The presence of various paramparas simply suggests that the mistake or disception took place at an early time of the religion. One of the original rishis made the claim his written text was unauthored, and later paramparas formed around it preserving his claim. This is not my belief, but this is the logical conclusion, one that does not require us to believe in things we don't experience such as flying monkeys, 10 headed beasts, or unauthored books.

That being said, there are indeed cases of disputes about which portions are apaurusheya and which not like the mAndukya kArikAs, but the concept of apaurusheyatva is itself not null and void.

Which establishes the fact that belief in apaurusheyatva is based on faith, just as other religions have faith their texts were given by God.

To say that people at "olden times" were gullible enough to not consider critically if a piece of work is actually unauthored or not is itself a platform of faith.

Thank you for stating this. As I said, your belief in the Vedas unauthoredness rests on your FAITH in the qualification of the people in ancient times to not make mistakes. I have already established that people have immediately accepted the Chaitanya Upanishad as unauthored simply because their teachers have said the same. Thus it is clear if one of the ancient Rishis told his disciples that his writings were actually unauthored it would be accepted without question and passed on through various paramparas. This is the fact with verifiable evidence from modern experience. Add to this the fact that no one has experience of an unauthored text existing and that all texts we find have authors, the logical conclusion is to assume the Vedas are authored. It requires faith to believe otherwise.

In case of randomly created sentences, the fault lies in the random process which cannot distinguish between truth and untruth and publishes in any case. If you say there is nothing to suggest that fault in a work requires a faulty creation process, then I say ok, find me a case where a work is faulty irrespective of the process of creation behind it (or no creation for it), if you cannot find me one, the converse is established.

Your conclusion is that because something has no author it is therefore faultless. On what do you base the conclusion that faults are only caused by authors or the process of creation? This is an unsubstantiated claim on your part. I have shown that even an authorless work can be faulty (i.e. randomly generated), thus apaurusheya texts are not automatically exempted from faults simply because they are without an author. Your reply that I should show you an unauthored text that has faults otherwise I must accept unauthroed texts to be faultless is ridiculous. First you must establish the existence of something called unauthored texts. Second, even if an unauthored text exists, there is no evidence to suggest it is free from faults other than your opinion that faults are caused by an author. Where did you find out that faults are caused by an author? When it is shown that this is not true, you now extend it to "faults are caused by the creation process". And if that is shown to be untrue you will extend it to "faults are caused by the rats that eat the blue cheese on the moon". This is all your subjective opinion.

By universally instantiating this rule, a statement that is not created by any person whatsoever has no source of flaw, and is thus flawless.

This is an unsubstantiated opinion. It has not been proven that flaws are only caused by faulty sources. If something with no source can convey valid ideas, then something with no source could just as well convey invalidd ideas.

There may be n number of traditions considering the Vedas to be authored, but we are talking about inter-tradition accepted recorded history considering a piece to be un-authored. To side step this piece of evidence is taking a big leap of faith.

No, we are speaking about what is the logical conclusion. If you want to change the argument to "what is the logical conclusion among those who accept Vedas", then that establishes my point that it is all based on faith in the Vedas. When a differing view is shown, then you reply, "That doesn't count, you can only cite people that agree with me." Where is your logic now? Traditions exist in the world that state the Vedas were composed in recent times (several thousands of years ago). After a thousand years, such traditions will be considered ancient, and by the above logic, undisputable. Thus my contention is the so-called logic presented in this thread is about as far from logic as one could go. And the replies that we can only cite those who accept the Vedas becomes even stupider.

Once it is established that the Veda is unauthored and because it is unauthored it is faultless...

1) The Vedas have not been established as unauthroed beyond faith (just as the Chaitanya Upanishad and Lemurian Scrolls)

2) It has not been established that faults are only caused by authors.

Thus you are left with using the Vedas to establish the eternality of the Vedas.

why should one be free to reject statements of the Veda about itself i.e. it being eternal and changeless.

Because you can't use a text to establish the authenticity of itself!

It had been mentioned that:

"It is logical to conclude that the Vedas were authored because they contain conversations between historical personalities, rishis and kings. It is foolish to think that a revealed text just happened to include the name of the Rishi's son in it. What an strange coincidence! It makes it convenient for the Rishi that the revealed eternal sound happened to contain his sons name in it so that he could repeat it in a conversation to his son without it making no sense."

In response you states:

What is so strange here. No amount of argumentation can lead one to have conclusive knowledge about things which are beyond the grasp of the senses - indriya-ateeta. Decision on these things will follow once we have agreement on what constitutes a valid source of knowledge!

You seem to miss the entire point.

1) If a Vedic text contains the conversations of historical personalities who existed in time, it is therefore proven that the Vedas are authored at a particular time in history. It is up to you to establish that they are not created at that time.

2) The eternal Vedic sound just happens to contain the name of the Rishis son in it so the Rishi can repeat it in a conversation to his son... "Dear Son, hear from me..." How can the eternal sound contain the name of the Rishi's son in it?

Thus logic concludes that the Vedas were authored at a particular time in history. Any other conclusion requires faith against the logical and probable - just like it requires faith to believe in flying monkeys and 10 headed demons.

This is the last reply I will give to this thread, as I see no end to the discussion.

Hare Krishna.

January 15, 2004

The author of vedanta is supposedly badarayana. So there are no issues here. But Krishna does not say the same for the veda, he does not say veda-krt. He did not say he is the author of veda. If he was indeed the author of veda he could have just as well have said that. He, as Ved Vyas, is the author of Vedanta, so if he was indeed the author of Veda, why be shy of saying so. Instead he carefully says, veda-vit --knower of veda

I have also explained this point as well, and yet I'm not sure why they keep bringing it up.

Gita 15.15 *clearly* says that Krishna is the "author" of the "VedAnta." Nowhere in that verse does He say He is the author of the Vedas. Even in the accompanying Bhaktivedanta purport, Prabhupada does not write anything about Krishna being the author of the Vedas. All that is said in that verse and its purport is that Krishna is the author of the VedAnta and the knower of the Vedas.

Also of note is the fact that I previously quoted Madhva's clear views on this question, and yet none of them care for it. I thought iskcon people valued the importance of following a guru. Well, Madhva is in their paramparA but they have no use for his views. Very well - I have no problem with that. But if they are going to disagree with Madhva, at least they ought to have some strong reasoning of their own. Thus far I have yet to see it.

I guess this is one issue where iskcon agrees with the Indologists of the West like Max Muller, etc - that Vedas were created at a specific time instead of being unauthored.

January 15, 2004

Dear "Pro-Vedas-Have-An-Author-Even-Though-I-Can't-Prove-It" Guest:

I won't spend much more time on this discussion, as to me it is obvious that some people refuse to see their beliefs for the faith it is. I can sense it makes them feel superior to other religious beliefs, that they think their belief is not a faith based religion, unlike others. Okay, have fun thinking this way.

As a general rule, I suggest that when you are not prepared to understand the flow of logic that makes up an opponent's point of view, you should resist the tendency to act haughty and criticize it.

I am amazed at the audacity of anyone claiming to be a Vaishnava, criticizing the one common view held by all Vaishnava VedAntins. I'm really trying to understand - are you this clueless, or is it that you do not care for any religion or philosophy (UGK follower?)?

This discussion is taking place because one individual wanted to know what made a thing scripture. Since this is a predominantly a Vaishnava forum, an answer was given to that individual citing the position of the Vaishnavas. Your objections are needlessly argumentative, and worse, self-contradictory and poorly thought-out. If you want to claim disinterest in arguing, you should have refrained from objecting in the first place based on ideas that are not held by any Vaishnava vedAntins.

Anyway, let us look at a few specific points made by you:

Theist's point is simple and valid:

"Since I have never seen or even heard of any book existing without an author I would have to disagree that your point is logical."

Unfortunately, this is not a valid point. Logically, one must admit the possibility of existence of things which fall outside one's sense perception and experience.

Many of you, before you met A.C. Bhaktivedanta, never saw or heard of any blue-skinned Deity who carried a flute and granted liberation to His devotees. Would it have been very proper to conclude at that time that He did not exist? Even now, many of you find yourselves believing in things, not because you can verify their truth by your experience, but because they come from some source of evidence you consider to be a higher authority.

The point?

Never say "no" merely because it cannot be verified by your own observations.

If someone wants to claim that contrary to everyone's experience there is actually an unauthored text, it is up to them to prove it. Yes, an "unauthored text" is a "thing", the presence of which must be established by the claimant. This childish argument that "unauthoredness" must be assumed and proven wrong because it is the absence of a thing is complete foolishness.

So, using your logic, if I tell you to stop beating your wife, and you deny such a thing, can I reasonably put the burden of proof on you to prove that you are not beating your wife? Apparently so.

There is no evidence of a creator of the Vedas anywhere. Despite your false bravado, you have not provided this. The burden of proof is actually on you to show that there is. Arguing that Vedas must have an author because all other books have an author is based on mistaken premise that Vedas are a "book" like everything else. That would be a very bizarre assumption to take. Not many other books can take human form and offer prayers directly to the Supreme Lord. Yet the Vedas did just that, according to the bhAgavata purAna 10th skandha, 87th adhyAya.

You need to change your underlying assumptions about the Vedas.

On the same line of thinking I can claim the following:

I have a non-made trash can that has existed eternally. A maker is something, where-as "maker-free" is the absence of something. Thus it is up to you to establish that my trash can has a maker and is not eternal.

This is riddled with such obvious errors of logic, that it is almost pointless to even justify it with a response.

First off, basic premise that trash existed eternally is an assumption - not proven at all, and in fact can be disproven by tracing the origin of the trash to that which produced it. Say your trash was originally a cardboard box. Somewhere a cardboard box factory is present which can be seen to make cardboard boxes, which then get purchased by consumers and end up being used for some time, only to be discarded as trash. So eternality of your trash is not proven and in fact is disproven by observation.

Same thing can be said about trash can, other types of trash, etc. These things have a finite origin which can be established by the senses. But Vedas have never been observed by anyone to be created - so one cannot argue that they were created merely because books in general have an author.

All faults in the world are due to "makers" (sorry, I don't have to establish this as truth, just accept it). Thus since my trash can has no "maker" it is the eternal absolute truth.

Trash can has maker. Work in a trash can factory and see for yourself. I know some iskcon devotees who do that in the name of "devotional service." Anyway, your analogy is just plain stupid. If you want to discuss, you should think about what is said before speaking.

Yes, your "logic" is ridiculous. Your belief in the eternality and unauthoredness of the Vedas is simply based on your faith. Your faith is weak, and thus you refuse to accept that your world view is not an undisputable fact or based on faith. Like I said before, it probably makes you feel superior to other world religions to believe your books are logically and scientifically eternal and unauthored.

All Vaishnavas accept the Vedas as such. Since you have so much contempt for their viewpoint, would you like to disprove it by logic? I hope you aren't going to tell us that the "trash can" thing was an attempt at logic.

Other religions that I am familiar with admit of a creation to their scriptures. Vedas do not, and neither do VedAntins. I cannot change this so that it will fit within your myopic view of spirituality. It is what it is. If you really are that foolish as to think Vedas are a "book" with a cover and pages, then you do not understand what Vedas are to begin with.

Let us analyze some more of this "logic". The Vedas are undisputably unauthored because:

1) There is no mention of an author in their texts.

By itself, this is not proof, only supportive. Why, when Vedas mention rishi, deva, and chandas, do they neglect to mention their author? Please do tell.

2) There is a long tradition that believes the texts are unauthored.

3) There is no tradition that says the texts are authored.

Each shruti-sampradAya holds the Vedas to be unauthored, even though they might differ with each other in terms of standard of interpretation or other custom. There is no evidence of any other tradition of Vedic study. Why are the opinions of traditional Vedic scholars irrelevant? This is the same bias exhibited by Western Indologists.

By this same logic, one can establish some native american beliefs as unauthored eternal compositions. There is no mention of an author in some of their folktales, there is a long tradition believing that they are unauthored, and there is no tradition believing there to be an author. Are you prepared to accept these folktales as shruti?

No, this is not a valid example. Native American beliefs are tribe-specific. You will not find one folktale repeated verbatim by another tribe thousand miles away. Thus, there is no independent verification of unauthoredness. Similarly, Native American folktales are also not known to have existed without beginning in the past, as practically all Native American tribes that I have heard of have a concept of creation of their culture, traditions, etc.

If not then you can stop babbling about this "logic" of the Vedas being apaurusheya.

Vedas being apaurusheya is self-evident according to Madhva:

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.

Is Madhva guilty of "silly logic?" If he was, it would be easy enough for you to refute it. Why have you not been able to do so?

Let us take a practical example:

Thakur Bhaktivinode discovered an "eternal unauthored shruti" text known as chaitanyopanishad. In the Gaudiya line it was immediately accepted as apaurusheya. In the text there is no mention of an author. Till the present in this line there is a tradition that it is unauthored. After 1,000 years this text will have a long tradition of being unauthored. Seeing the history in which India was converted from one religion to another (shavism/vaishnavism/shaktism, etc.) by the kings in the past, it would not take much for a king to establish the unauthoredness of such a text simply based on his personal belief. If Gaudiya's can accept a newly discovered text as unauthored and create a tradition around it, then why can't such a thing have occured with the Vedas.

First of all - this is a poor example.

The so-called "caitanyopaniSad" is only accepted by GaudIyas and no one else. This is because there is no paramparA which has transmitted this via the oral tradition. Discovery of this "upaniSad" in recent times is admitted by that sect - even gaudIyas have not passed it down as shruti.

The proof is to look at other shruti-paramparA-s and see if they are familiar with the text. I am sad to say you will not find any independent corroboration of the "caitanyopaniSad" anywhere. Perhaps it was at one time a real shruti text - but since it is no longer passed down as shruti it cannot be considered shruti, strictly speaking.

If thousands of years ago a Rishi wrote a book and claimed to his followers that it was revealed to him, today it would have been handed down as unauthored through many paramparas. Simply because the tradition believes it is unauthored does not logically establish it as unauthored.

First off, basic point is that you must prove either creation or authoredness (that is to say, you must prove they were created, even if you do not know who did it). Inability to prove it makes apaurusheyatva self-evident.

Secondly, the act of creating the text, even if one were to mislead others into thinking it was heard by divine revelation, means that there was some time prior to that event before which the text did not exist. Thus, there is some time during which people have never heard of this text - one cannot claim that at all times in the past the text was remembered as existing and without beginning.

The Hinduism Today swami also claimed to have been revealed a text of the lemurian scrolls. Since we see "rishis" or "sadhus" today writing books and claiming they were revealed, a logical person would conclude that it is possible for the rishis of the past to have done the same - unless you have faith in their character. Faith is what your belief is based on.

No, this example does not hold up under logical scrutiny. Because there is no independent verification of these "books" existing in the past - who is to say they were existing previously? Only the person who "heard" it and no one else.

Back to the point of unauthoredness and the need of proof. Someone claimed it is not required to prove unauthoredness since it is the lack of something.

Please prove to me that you are not beating your wife, your neighbor's wife, or the small children who play in your neighborhood.

They claim it is up to us to prove an author existed.

Which you have thus far not even done. Though you have given plenty of excuses disguised as "logic" as to why you haven't followed through. Too bad none of them are terribly convincing.

So let us pass this same logic to the Chaitanya Upanishad and the Lemurian Scrolls. Since they both claim they are unauthored, and since unauthoredness is the lack of a "thing", it becomes your duty to establish that they are authored.

There is no record of existence of the Caitanya UpaniSad prior to the 1800's. That in and of itself is sufficient proof to question its authenticity as an eternally existing text. That is why no Vaishnava VedAntins accept it - even Baladeva does not quote from it. How can you expect me to accept it as an eternally existing scripture when your own AcAryas have never heard of it until recently? Please, make some effort to think about what you are saying.

A text can be lost in time only to be found later. But the point is, if this is how the text is recovered, one cannot assign to it the status of shruti unless one has heard it in paramparA. ThAkura Bhaktivinod did not, by the available accounts, learn Caitanya upaniSad from his guru. Nor is the upaniSad familiar to any sampradAya outside of your own. Acceptance of Caitanya upaniSad as shruti is based on faith alone - which is why vedAntins do not accept it.

Yes, this is an absurd logic, I hope you understand that. It is as absurd as requesting you to prove my trash can has a "maker".

Mostly what I find absurd is that you actually think you are making any sense. CaitanyopaniSad does not claim to be unauthored. That was your claim only.

In reply to:

--

Please show me an oral tradition of "Allah upanishad" that has history which can be independently verified by other paramparAs.

--

Yes, please do that. Why did you not answer his question?

The presence of various paramparas simply suggests that the mistake or disception took place at an early time of the religion.

Yet there is no record in any of those paramparA-s of an "Allah Upanisad." If it had been introduced, say, 1000 years ago, then by your logic all of the paramparA-s would still be reciting it today. But in fact, not only are they not doing so, none of them have even heard of it!

One of the original rishis made the claim his written text was unauthored, and later paramparas formed around it preserving his claim. This is not my belief, but this is the logical conclusion, one that does not require us to believe in things we don't experience such as flying monkeys, 10 headed beasts, or unauthored books.

Your "logic" is something like this:

Has anyone seen your brain?

Has anyone touched your brain?

Has anyone experienced your brain?

QED You have no brain.

In reply to:

--

To say that people at "olden times" were gullible enough to not consider critically if a piece of work is actually unauthored or not is itself a platform of faith.

--

Thank you for stating this. As I said, your belief in the Vedas unauthoredness rests on your FAITH in the qualification of the people in ancient times to not make mistakes.

I believe what he was saying is that belief in the gullibility of people in the past is what requires faith. You aren't paying any attention to what you respond to.

I have already established that people have immediately accepted the Chaitanya Upanishad as unauthored simply because their teachers have said the same.

You have done no such thing.

First of all, you have not "established" that "people" have accepted the Chaitanya Upanishad as "unauthored." You have only claimed this about Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Others do not accept it as such.

Secondly, it appears that some Gaudiya Vaishnava (iskcon devotees, based on the responses of Theist and others) do not accept "unauthoredness" with regards to the Vedas - so obviously they do not accept it regarding Caitanya Upanisad. So you cannot even claim that all Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept this upanishad as unauthored.

Third, there is not independent verification of Caitanya Upanisad's status as shruti. No one ever heard of it until recent times.

Thus it is clear if one of the ancient Rishis told his disciples that his writings were actually unauthored it would be accepted without question and passed on through various paramparas.

Your paramparA may have a habit of accepting things on the basis of blind faith. Do not assume the same is true of others. Logical fallacies like, "I am right because I just follow my guru, chant so many rounds, build so many temples, do so much service," is an example of the kind of confused, cultish thinking that is not shared by authentic Vaishnava VedAntins.

This is the fact with verifiable evidence from modern experience. Add to this the fact that no one has experience of an unauthored text existing and that all texts we find have authors,

The bottom line is that Vedas are not a "text" to begin with. There is no experience of ANYTHING that is in the same category as Veda. Thus, the comparison to ordinary books is inappropriate.

Your conclusion is that because something has no author it is therefore faultless. On what do you base the conclusion that faults are only caused by authors or the process of creation? This is an unsubstantiated claim on your part.

He already explained why. Words and sounds as such do not have faults. It is only the ignorance or intention to deceive of someone putting them together to form ideas which leads to faults in that which is created.

I have shown that even an authorless work can be faulty (i.e. randomly generated),

Please. You have shown no such thing.

A randomly generated book is a fictitious entity. Since you base your arguments on that which you can empirically verify, can you show me a randomly generated philosophy that has a beginning? You can't.

Philosophy is created by people. Or it is derived from the Vedas. That which is created is subject to have faults reflecting that which created it.

[More tirades about how everyone who disagrees with you is ridiculous deleted, really if there was anything that was worth responding to here, I would have]

This is an unsubstantiated opinion. It has not been proven that flaws are only caused by faulty sources. If something with no source can convey valid ideas, then something with no source could just as well convey invalidd ideas.

Then you must follow through with your argument by demonstrating the existence of an idea, not created by anyone, which can then be found to have fault.

The problem is, there is no such thing as a "randomly generated" idea.

In reply to:

--

There may be n number of traditions considering the Vedas to be authored, but we are talking about inter-tradition accepted recorded history considering a piece to be un-authored. To side step this piece of evidence is taking a big leap of faith.

--

No, we are speaking about what is the logical conclusion.

No, you need to pay attention to what he just said. The point is that there are multiple traditions accepting unauthoredness, and simply ignoring them is arbitrary and lacking in objectivity.

If you want to change the argument to "what is the logical conclusion among those who accept Vedas", then that establishes my point that it is all based on faith in the Vedas.

His point was that those who accept the Vedas have an opinion too. You should learn to read what is written instead of changing the subject.

When a differing view is shown, then you reply, "That doesn't count, you can only cite people that agree with me." Where is your logic now? Traditions exist in the world that state the Vedas were composed in recent times (several thousands of years ago).

These "traditions" are themselves only 200-300 years old. Shruti-samprdAyas which accept Veda-apaurusheyatva have existed for much longer, even by the reckoning of Indological scholars.

Even those who opposed the shruti (i.e. Buddhists, Jains) did not make an argument against unauthoredness of shruti. If it was so easy to do so, then why did they not? Even as far back as the time of the heterdox philosophers, there was no objection to Veda-apaurusheyatva.

After a thousand years, such traditions will be considered ancient, and by the above logic, undisputable.

No, that is not our logic at all. The point is that such Indology "traditions" are well known by their own records to have a specific beginning, as are the ideas and theories generated by them. So they will not be regarded as on par with those of Vedic scholars.

Thus my contention is the so-called logic presented in this thread is about as far from logic as one could go. And the replies that we can only cite those who accept the Vedas becomes even stupider.

I think you must either be a Vivekananda follower or a atheistic UGK follower. Please tell me if I got it right. Those guys have specific patterns of illogical thinking that I recognize here.

1) The Vedas have not been established as unauthroed beyond faith (just as the Chaitanya Upanishad and Lemurian Scrolls)

It takes faith for me to believe that you do not abuse small children. You have yet to establish that you are not a child-molester.

2) It has not been established that faults are only caused by authors.

You have not established the existence of a randomly-generated collection of ideas.

Thus you are left with using the Vedas to establish the eternality of the Vedas.

No, this is not the position at all. The point is that there is NO evidence, within the Vedas or without, to suggest that the Vedas had a specific beginning in time.

In reply to:

--

why should one be free to reject statements of the Veda about itself i.e. it being eternal and changeless.

--

Because you can't use a text to establish the authenticity of itself!

On the contrary, a scripture that contains all knowledge would only logically be expected to have information about its own origins. However, his point was not that one had to depend on it exclusively - only that it should be taken into account. Is there any other convincing evidence to the contrary? You still have not shown any.

1) If a Vedic text contains the conversations of historical personalities who existed in time, it is therefore proven that the Vedas are authored at a particular time in history. It is up to you to establish that they are not created at that time.

2) The eternal Vedic sound just happens to contain the name of the Rishis son in it so the Rishi can repeat it in a conversation to his son... "Dear Son, hear from me..." How can the eternal sound contain the name of the Rishi's son in it?

Actually, there is nothing remarkable about this at all. Many events in Vedic history are cyclical - thus the same conversation occurs again and again and is recorded in Vedas. Thus, there is always a Shvetaketu who gets lectured on atat tvam asi, etc. Similarly, there is always a rAmAyaNam, always a Kurkshetra war, etc.

Thus logic concludes that the Vedas were authored at a particular time in history. Any other conclusion requires faith against the logical and probable - just like it requires faith to believe in flying monkeys and 10 headed demons.

I require faith to believe you do not look at child pornography on the internet. You have yet to establish you are innocent of this sin. Please do so now.

This is the last reply I will give to this thread, as I see no end to the discussion.

Hare Krishna.

Yes, you are like that, aren't you? What you do not understand - you object to. Whom you cannot defeat - you accuse of argumentativeness.

We have shown apaurusheyatva of Vedas based on arguments of Vaishnava AcAryas. This is in response to the question, what makes a thing scripture?

You have insisted on the contrary viewpoint based on NOTHING.

But by all means run away with your tail between your legs. I also lack interest in correcting everyone of your errors of logic. I cannot force you to think - it is your decision whether or not to try and understand what is spoken, or choose instead to knock down a strawman.

gHari · January 15, 2004

From the cream of the Vedas, the Srimad-Bhagavatam, verse 6.1.40 we learn:<BLOCKQUOTE><CENTER>yamadUtA UcuH

veda-praNihito dharmo

hy adharmas tad-viparyayaH

vedo nArAyaNaH sAkSAt

svayambhUr iti zuzruma

</center>

yamadUtAH UcuH--the order carriers of YamarAja said; veda--by the four Vedas (SAma, Yajur, Rg and Atharva); praNihitaH--prescribed; dharmaH--religious principles; hi--indeed; adharmaH--irreligious principles; tat-viparyayaH--the opposite of that (that which is not supported by Vedic injunctions); vedaH--the Vedas, books of knowledge; nArAyaNaH sAkSAt--directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead (being the words of NArAyaNa); svayam-bhUH--self-born, self-sufficient (appearing only from the breath of NArAyaNa and not being learned from anyone else); iti--thus; zuzruma--we have heard.

The YamadUtas replied: That which is prescribed in the Vedas constitutes dharma, the religious principles, and the opposite of that is irreligion. The Vedas are directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead, NArAyaNa, and are self-born. This we have heard from YamarAja.

PURPORT

The servants of YamarAja replied quite properly. They did not manufacture principles of religion or irreligion. Instead, they explained what they had heard from the authority YamarAja. MahAjano yena gataH sa panthAH: one should follow the mahAjana, the authorized person. YamarAja is one of twelve authorities. Therefore the servants of YamarAja, the YamadUtas, replied with perfect clarity when they said zuzruma ("we have heard").

The members of modern civilization manufacture defective religious principles through speculative concoction. This is not dharma. They do not know what is dharma and what is adharma. Therefore, as stated in the beginning of SrImad-BhAgavatam, dharmaH projjhita-kaitavo 'tra: [sB 1.1.2] dharma not supported by the Vedas is rejected from zrImad-bhAgavata-dharma. BhAgavata-dharma comprises only that which is given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

BhAgavata-dharma is sarva-dharmAn parityajya mAm ekaM zaraNaM vraja: [bg. 18.66] one must accept the authority of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and surrender to Him and whatever He says. That is dharma. Arjuna, for example, thinking that violence was adharma, was declining to fight, but KRSNa urged him to fight. Arjuna abided by the orders of KRSNa, and therefore he is actually a dharmI because the order of KRSNa is dharma. KRSNa says in Bhagavad-gItA (15.15), vedaiz ca sarvair aham eva vedyaH: "The real purpose of veda, knowledge, is to know Me." One who knows KRSNa perfectly is liberated. As KRSNa says in Bhagavad-gItA (4.9):

janma karma ca me divyam

evaM yo vetti tattvataH

tyaktvA dehaM punar janma

naiti mAm eti so 'rjuna

</center>

"One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna." One who understands KRSNa and abides by His order is a candidate for returning home, back to Godhead. It may be concluded that dharma, religion, refers to that which is ordered in the Vedas, and adharma, irreligion, refers to that which is not supported in the Vedas.

Dharma is not actually manufactured by NArAyaNa. As stated in the Vedas, asya mahato bhUtasya nizvasitam etad yad Rg-vedaH iti: the injunctions of dharma emanate from the breathing of NArAyaNa, the supreme living entity. NArAyaNa exists eternally and breathes eternally, and therefore dharma, the injunctions of NArAyaNa, also exist eternally. SrIla MadhvAcArya, the original AcArya for those who belong to the MAdhva-GauDIya-sampradAya, says:

vedAnAM prathamo vaktA

harir eva yato vibhuH

ato viSNv-AtmakA vedA

ity Ahur veda-vAdinaH

</center>

The transcendental words of the Vedas emanated from the mouth of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore the Vedic principles should be understood to be VaiSNava principles because ViSNu is the origin of the Vedas. The Vedas contain nothing besides the instructions of ViSNu, and one who follows the Vedic principles is a VaiSNava. The VaiSNava is not a member of a manufactured community of this material world. A VaiSNava is a real knower of the Vedas, as confirmed in Bhagavad-gItA (vedaiz ca sarvair aham eva vedyaH [bg. 15.15]).</BLOCKQUOTE>

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura answers questions regarding the self-evident truth that is present in every soul; this truth is called Veda. This is an excerpt of his VAISHNAVA-SIDDHANTA-MALA from 1892:<BLOCKQUOTE>Q. How can one know the truth of the Lord (Bhagavat-tattva)?

A. This can be known by the soul's knowledge of the self-evident truth (svatah-siddha-jnana).

Q. What is self-evident truth?

A. There are two types of knowledge (jnana): <BLOCKQUOTE>1) self-evident (svatah-siddha), and

2) that which depends on the senses (indriya-paratantra).

</BLOCKQUOTE>Self-evident knowledge is the natural truth that is inherently a feature of the pure spirit soul's original form. It is eternal, just as the totality of the divinely conscious realm is also eternal. This self-evident knowledge is called veda or amnaya. This veda, in the form of pure knowledge (siddha-jnana-rupa) has incarnated in the material world in the shape of Rk, Sama, Yajur and Atharva, along with the conditioned souls (baddha-jivas); this alone is the self-evident knowledge (svatah-siddha-jnana). Whatever knowledge that ordinary souls can gather through the use of their material senses is only the second type of knowledge, or indriya-paratantra (dependent on the senses).

Q. Can anyone know the Bhagavat-tattva (the truth of the Lord) by indriya-paratantra-jnana (sensual knowledge)?

A. No. Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond the scope of all the material senses. For this reason, He is known as Adhoksaja. The senses, as well as all the material conceptions gathered from the sense perceptions, always remain very far away from the Bhagavat-tattva, the truth of the Lord.

Q. If Bhagavan is attainable through self-evident knowledge (svatah-siddha-jnana), then we should be able to attain Him by whatever svatah-siddha-jnana that we presently have. What then is the need to study the Vedic scriptures?

A. The Veda is present in every pure spirit soul's existence in the form of svatah-siddha-jnana. According to the different levels of different souls in the materially conditioned state, this Veda will spontaneously manifest itself to one person, or may remain veiled to someone else. Therefore, to help reawaken the forgetful conditioned souls to the eternally self-evident truths, the Veda has also incarnated in the form of written books which may be studied, recited and heard.

Q. We have heard that Bhagavan is perceivable only through bhakti (devotional service). If this is true, then how can we say that He is perceivable by jnana, even svatah-siddha-jnana?

A. That which is called svatah-siddha-jnana is another name for bhakti. When speaking of topics related to the supreme truth (para-tattva), some call it jnana and some call it bhakti. </BLOCKQUOTE>

January 15, 2004

If thousands of years ago a Rishi wrote a book and claimed to his followers that it was revealed to him, today it would have been handed down as unauthored through many paramparas. Simply because the tradition believes it is unauthored does not logically establish it as unauthored.

There is an assumption here that revelation is something that is a closed door issue and the transfer is something that is done in secret one to one from Guru to disciple. In any case, the stupidity of this *argument* (and what I am targetting is the sin, not the sinner) is revealed by the fact that in certain sampradayas, "Guru revelation" is not accepted beyond the selected coterie, and harsh inter-Guru wars are going-on.

However in case of a revelation of Veda to a dRStA, the revelation has to be corroborated by some paramparA who already has *non-disputable* responsibility for that part of the veda, otherwise it cannot happen that the revelation is accepted as true veda. The transmission is not done one to one but hundreds and thousands are given responsibility to remove any possibility of error. Thus, oral tradition has ample measure of checks to prevent corruption. However, in the case if the paramparA gets diluted, the part of Sruti becomes doubtful.

From Dvaita List:-

>> 3. No author is known to have existed for the BU and also none can be

>> imagined for the same.

> There is a ^RShi for each part of Sruti (or so I

> understand); and who is that ^RShi for BU? How is he known? Has to

> be either through Srtui itself, or through tradition (parampara).

> In either case, it can be said that the ^RShi composed the BU

>and passed it on as "authorless" to his unsuspecting disciples.

>

>> 4. There exists no lack of paramparA[of recitation] for the BU.

>It started with the ^RShi though.

Shri Jayatiirtha has actually mentioned the above objection, he says thus :

nanu na adhyetR^iparamparA abhAvena gUDhakartR^ikasya vedalakshaNAbhAvaH anumAtuM shakyate |

It cannot be said that by virtue of a lack of tradition the anonymous work lacks the property of the veda.

Why?

adhyayanena vinA vasishhThAdayaH vedAnpashyantIti bhavadaN^gIkArAt.h |

It is accepted (by you) that even without studying vasishhTa and others *see* vedas. [ vasishhTa and others are the veda dR^ishhTAs ]

tatascha svayameva pratibhAto vedaH yeshhAM taiH dR^ishhTasya paramparA abhAvena vedalakshaNAbhAvApatyA vedatvAbhAvApatteH |

That being so the vedas which are revealed of themselves to these seers cannot be construed to be vedas by virtue of a lack of parampara.

[ KP has reworded the above and asked why those seers can't pass their own compositions as vedic ]

Here Srimad AchArya says -

na cha svayampratibhAtavedairdR^ishhTamavedavAkyaM bhavati | - (9)

It is not that these self revealing vedas which are *seen* are non-vedic.

Why?

paramparAsiddhavedavAkyAnusAritvAt.h | -(10)

Because these (revealed vedas) follow those (vedas) that have been established by tradition.

Therefore it is not possible for any veda-dR^ishhTa to pass off his own composition as vedic. Because the vedas he *sees* should follow the same pattern of the already existing shrutis.

January 15, 2004

It is logical to conclude that any text in the world is composed by an author. That's the reality that exists everywhere. If someone wants to claim that contrary to everyone's experience there is actually an unauthored text, it is up to them to prove it. Yes, an "unauthored text" is a "thing", the presence of which must be established by the claimant. This childish argument that "unauthoredness" must be assumed and proven wrong because it is the absence of a thing is complete foolishness.

This is the argument:-

Authored texts do not have the reputation (non-disputable recognised oral traditions) of un-authoredness.

Before going into this argument there has to be agreement that there is something as "non-disputable recognised oral traditions" which is something one can verify with some survey. Now if the opposition does not agree to the above stated assertion, he will have to bring out an authored text (simple) which has the reputation of being unauthored (doubtful). Kindly note: it has to be proved that the text is authored and that it has the reputation of unauthoredness. He cannot bring us any Shruti text, because its unauthoredness is still undecided. In the event that the opposition cannot bring out any such instance, the above assertion holds. Just like rabbits do not have horns. Why? If so, bring us at least one instance of a rabbit with a horn.

If we take help from Logic 101 and formulate the above argument as:

P(x) = x is authored

Q(x) = x has the reputation of being unauthored

then we can state the above assertion as:

P(x) => ~Q(x), where ~ means "not" and => means "then"

which is equavalent to saying

~(~Q(x)) => ~P(x)

which is

Q(x) => ~P(x)

which means -- If x has the reputation of being unauthored, then x is not authored.

(You cannot give an argument that all texts are authored, because then we will bring out Shruti and prove its unauthoredness via above.)

January 15, 2004

Thank you for stating this. As I said, your belief in the Vedas unauthoredness rests on your FAITH in the qualification of the people in ancient times to not make mistakes. I have already established that people have immediately accepted the Chaitanya Upanishad as unauthored simply because their teachers have said the same.

Mistakes can be made, however, is there enough error detection and correction in place. I can bet my whole life savings that you did not know about this part in case of oral traditions. Even computers make mistakes, they have things like redundancy and check sequence. Why should it be any different with the oral traditions? Do original ideas only come out from a certain geographical location? You have assumed a level of qualification of the saints without *any* sort of survey. Why such an uncritical bias?

About Chaitanya Upanishad, not even the entire Gaudiya community is united, what to speak of others!

January 15, 2004

The presence of various paramparas simply suggests that the mistake or disception took place at an early time of the religion. One of the original rishis made the claim his written text was unauthored, and later paramparas formed around it preserving his claim.

Nice stories.

Anyway, yesterday I was watching the history channel, and the anthropological scholars there (in Egypt) were trying to understand Egyptian culture from the hieroglyphics. Every second sentence of theirs was prefixed with "maybe...." - maybe this, maybe that...

Maybe you need to learn something about research involving circumstantial evidence from those who you eulogize.

January 15, 2004

Well, Madhva is in their paramparA but they have no use for his views. Very well - I have no problem with that.

There is a history behind that. Anyway, not all reject Madhva. There are some differences mentioned by Baladev. But some of them have taken on the differences, perhaps feeding on an agenda of vendetta, to go as far as considering everything mentioned by Madhva and his sampradaya to be not worth their time and consideration.

January 15, 2004

If Gaudiya's can accept a newly discovered text as unauthored and create a tradition around it, then why can't such a thing have occured with the Vedas.

OK, bring me an oral tradition that at the very least considers Chaitanya Upanishad to be 100, 200, 300, ( or whatever age you fix ) old.

January 15, 2004

Your conclusion is that because something has no author it is therefore faultless. On what do you base the conclusion that faults are only caused by authors or the process of creation? This is an unsubstantiated claim on your part. I have shown that even an authorless work can be faulty (i.e. randomly generated), thus apaurusheya texts are not automatically exempted from faults simply because they are without an author.

What you have done is successfully demonstrated the argument I am forwarding. Even if granting the possibility of your thought experiment, i.e. a random sentence generator, that in several permutations generates obviously faulty "philosophy", what I am saying is that you can trace the fault in the creator - sentient or non-sentient. Obviously if the non-sentient program had any sense of correct knowledge, such faulty "philosophies" would have been automatically pre-empted. Further an auxiliary argument, such a random sentence generator cannot just spring out of thin air; there needs to be a designer behind it, and thus you can find a sentient being responsible for the "randomly generated philosophy". The crux of the argument is that as per terrestrial observation (nothing more than pratyaksha - direct sense perception and anuman - logical inference), a fault in a sentence can *always* be traced back to the creator and nowhere else. Therefore Logic 101 says, if there is no author, there can be no faults.

Inspite of this observation, if you say there is still a possibility of flaw to have been eternally and causelesly associated with an eternal sentence, because I cannot pre-empt the possibility, then this is not valid, because you have to demonstrate it. A flaw can only be known if contrary to the (assumed fallacious) pramAna, there is a stronger pramAna or more number of pramAna against it. How am I supposed to know that the rope I am seeing is not a rope, but snake? Because if it is indeed a snake, contrary (more number and stronger) pramaNas like its hissing, movement and visibility in better light conditions will present themselves.

January 15, 2004

No, we are speaking about what is the logical conclusion. If you want to change the argument to "what is the logical conclusion among those who accept Vedas", then that establishes my point that it is all based on faith in the Vedas. When a differing view is shown, then you reply, "That doesn't count, you can only cite people that agree with me." Where is your logic now? Traditions exist in the world that state the Vedas were composed in recent times (several thousands of years ago). After a thousand years, such traditions will be considered ancient, and by the above logic, undisputable. Thus my contention is the so-called logic presented in this thread is about as far from logic as one could go. And the replies that we can only cite those who accept the Vedas becomes even stupider.

Since you said "ample evidence", I said "senseless extrapolations" -- account equal. If you have some argument to present, then I may be able to analyse that and present my opinion!

In any case, you all are making "every text is authored" argument because you have not had any experience of oral traditions, I am yet to understand that given this level of scepticism, how you are able to build philosophical citadels regarding a blue coloued cowherd boy??!!!!

January 15, 2004

In any case, you all are making "every text is authored" argument because you have not had any experience of oral traditions, I am yet to understand that given this level of scepticism, how you are able to build philosophical citadels regarding a blue coloued cowherd boy??!!!!

Someone has claimed that there is no faith involved in accepting the Vedas as apaurusheya, and in reply I have shown such a belief is also based on faith. No one here believes the Vedas to be authored books.

Acceptance of the Vedas as unauthored requires:

Faith in the Rishis who first were revealed the Vedic knowledge.

Faith in the traditions to properly preserve the Vedas without adulteration.

Faith in the existence of something that is not experienced in the world (an unauthored literature).

Faith that the use of language has not changed in millions of years to render the words of the Vedas faulty.

Faith in Brahma for not distorting the Vedic knowledge in the beginning.

Faith in the process of revelation and the perfection of revealed knowledge.

The entire process is based on faith. There is nothing wrong with faith, it is one of the requirements to develop bhakti. One should not try to pretend his belief system is somehow beyond faith because he has read a couple books on tarka that he bought from motilal banarsidass.

If you fail to see the logical fallacies given by other guests here to support the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas then I assume you are closing your eyes because they agree with your conclusion.

ancient_paztriot · January 15, 2004

So you want some logic? eh? (Never mind you don't have any)

WHAT IF you've decided to go to hell and your extended difiance to God is to take us with you? Now that's alot more logical than your ..

Alright BIG THINKER, pray tell us, what is your logical concept of reality driving all this innane talk? Now don't forget your logic when you reply. Actually, all you can do is express your rather POOR faith. So prove me wrong.

..........................

By the way, there's nothing logical in simply proposing "IF". Logically, I'm the President since I'm also an American. We can justify anything for the sake of our own SICK ego. We can deny everything good and right in favor of our own gratification.

Logic simply means the hypothesis follows the premise (or something like that). You're so logical about reality AFTER you decide there is no God. But is it logical to conclude this world is up for grabs? None of us here accept that premise. Our EXPERIENCE tells us different.

God is not there and all the empirical evidence and testimoy of millions of people are just NOTHING as you tell it. Logic? Really? We should just ignore and otherwise deny our deepest feeling and intellect because you can babble alot?

I'm just wondering how you feel as you rant like you do. Do you feel foolish?

ancient_paztriot · January 15, 2004

Hridyananda…

Now what are you gonna do with that bag? How are you going to justify a society? If you say we should have a moral society, we should have a just society, we should have a society of law and order because this is good for the common good, that way everyone can be happy…

For example if we all accept traffic regulations, if we all stop at the red light and go at the green light and so on and so forth, then all of us will be happy, all of us will enjoy. But you see that involves another value judgement, that there's some inherent or innate benefit in everyone enjoying.

But if one particular person, a despotic person, a tyrant can somehow overwhelm all of you, overpower you or trick you or cheat you or somehow gain control, then there's nothing immoral about that… that it's not a question of ethics. It's simply a particular status or particular state of energy, a particular flux of power. As human beings we have a certain amount of energy within our bodies and our minds and by living socially we create social energy and the particular flux or state of that social energy at a particular time simply has to be accepted objectively as a particular state of energy without any moral or ethical considerations. So are we really prepared to live in such a society in which there are no real moral or ethical considerations other than the simple struggle for power; survival of the fittest? Do we really want to live in that type of environment?

But that is the inevitable conclusion or ramification, implication and result of saying there is no soul and no God. There is no actual solid basis or realistic or logically consistent basis for establishing any kind of morality and ethics if there is not God and there is no soul other than mutual self-interest. But self-interest can break down, self-interest can shift. So if we… So what we are criticizing is a movement which states that it's goal is to create a just society, a moral society, an ethical society and at the same time rejects the very basis of such a society which is the authority of God.

........................

The students are so busy, they're so addicted to so many useless things… First of all they have their studies which makes they qualified to find a master when they graduate. And then they have so many addictions. There's the sex addiction. They have to go out into the street and try to satisfy the sex addiction. They have to go here or go there and do so many things. There's no time for the actual purpose of life. There's no time to even think about what you are; you see what you are, who you are, where you've come from. There's no time for that. That's not relevant. This is the society we live in. What you are is not relevant. That's not the point. Well who am I? That's not the point, you see. This is more or less an insane situation. They have so many nice brick buildings on campus and so many nice facilities, but without self-realization it's all (tape chewed in player. Had to jump forward). So we are encouraging the students and everyone else. Take… uh try to acquire an education which will actually make you enlightened. This is education. Not simply a dog to go find a master. This is not education. Why study all these… Go to the final conclusion. Why should we study material science if the conclusion is a bunch of subatomic particles? That's what it all comes to. So what's the point? This is all a bluff. Just like sociology. The ants… Have you ever seen an ant farm? Have you seen how the ants work? They are fantastically harmonious and integrated. Their society functions so nicely. They don't have sociologists. Ants and bees don't have sociologists, but heir society is perfectly integrated. So all these psychological sciences, social sciences, biological sciences, these things are not… refer even to us. They don't even refer to us because we are pure consciousness.

So in our Vedic culture we are trying to urge everyone to wake up. Don't be bamboozled, bluffed and cheated. Don't be converted into an animal. Because that's what this society is meant for. I don't just America… America, Russia, Cambodia, uh Paraguay. What's the difference? It's all the same junk everywhere around the world. India is not trying to become junky as soon as possible. Uh modernization, they're on a ten year junkinization program. (tape seems to jump)

This science contained in Vedic literature, hundreds and thousands of books which have been compiled over hundreds and thousands of years, are the greatest enlightened sages and yogis in the history of the earth. This science of consciousness cannot be duplicated or equalled in any other literature in the world. This is not simply like someone trying to sell you uh you know a Ford or something. You know you can't beat a ford. It's not simply a sales job that because I'm a member of this thing, so for my own ego gratification or to convince myself or encourage myself or… I'm trying to get other people to join because it'll make me feel good. It's not like that. This is our challenge to you. If you're actually RATIONAL, then you study this literature and you'll see it is the most scientific treatment of consciousness existing anywhere on the planet or any other planet. And that is our challenge to you.

Uh purely in terms of demonstration and logic and practicality and result, you cannot beat this Vedic literature if you actually want to know what you are. If you don't want to know what you are, then have a good time out there with all the other crazy people. But if you actually want to know what you are, then we challenge you that this is the most scientific, pragmatic, uh… this is the best analysis of consciousness in the world – what you really are – that you can find anywhere. It is traditional and authoritative and it has been going on for thousands of years and millions of people have done it.

This is not an experiment. It's not that I was sailing around on a yacht somewhere and I suddenly decided to invent the Hare Krsna movement. It's not like that… you see… or that I suddenly understood that I was actually God. This is also another ridiculous thing. Obviously we're not God. God uh wouldn't have one of these bodies made out of blood, stool, mucus, bile, uh that's not divine. So we're not God… I'm not God. You're not God. And this is not some concocted movement. It's not an experimental movement. It's not some new thing. It's not… It's simply the old standard authoritative method of understanding consciousness and God. It's been going on for thousands and millions of years, it's always worked and it's the real thing. So anyway, I don't want to go on indefinitely. I want to be definitive. So we'll end here at this point, this particular lecture, uh and we'd like to invite your questions.

.........................

This is not asking you to accept 'our faith' (as you call it) that God exists. This is just good logic. You can dispute these observations too.

ancient_paztriot · January 15, 2004

Hridayananda…

There must be some psychological factor involved. You take a… not even theory, something which has not even theory and crystallize into a theory… They are trying to make it into a theory. And if they succeed to make it into a theory, it still theoretical. You know it's already been propagated on the cover of a big new magazine and it's not… it hasn't even reached the point of a theory yet. In other words, why are some people trying so hard to push their creationism, uh material creationism? So uh there's something rotten in all of this. Something is not right. Something is not right. They're trying too hard. It betrays their… There's some motivation.

...................................

Now what we really want when we go beyond the boundaries of material science is not simply to uh reject the whole notion of rationality or logic or reasonableness and simply become wild-eyed mystics or fanatics. That's really not what lies beyond the boundaries of science. But rather beyond the boundaries of material science, there is spiritual science. And that is the next phase of existential development.

.................

So obviously what is involved is a decision on our part based on experience and based on faith and faith is also really inseparable from experience, unless we're talking about blind faith, but that also… anyway, I won't go into the psychology of faith as a separate discussion. But what it does come down to is we as free souls and as free citizens, uh we have the opportunity to experience and ultimately we have to make a decision. Now you can leap… you can make a leap of faith to believe or you can make a leap of faith and not believe. They are both leaps. So why leap to something which has no possibility of helping you? It's not to deny the existence of the soul is a scientific position or a logical position or a hardheaded pragmatic position. It's actually rather stupid position because it involves exactly the same type of faith as believing in the soul and has absolutely no possibility of doing anything for you. So it's actually not at all pragmatic or rational or empirical. It's stupid actually. If we have to make a leap of faith somewhere, why not try to get over the chasm instead of just deciding Well I won't make it anyway, I'll just dive headfirst into the pit. So somehow or other our modern society in the uh… with a type of pseudo rationality and pseudo logic has actually become spiritually suicidal. As I've already explained, if you say only things which we can see with our senses can be verified. If you make that statement, that statement is in itself cannot be empirically verified because if you try to bring in empirical evidence, that's circular reasoning. In other words, you cannot demonstrate the validity of empiricism within an empirical proof, that's begging the question. To demonstrate the validity of empiricism as a system, you have to bring in evidence from outside, but empiricism itself states that evidence is invalid. So empiricism is a system which by definition cannot be validated. It's pretty stupid, isn't it? Whereas if within your system you admit the existence of God, then at least within your epistemology or within your concept of life there are elements or entities which – as you define them – are capable of validating experience.

.........................

Guest: Well, of course there are atheists who have looked for existence… for proofs of the existence of God for years and years and years.

Hridy: Well the very fact that they're looking for some type of material proof means they're not looking the right way. If I'm looking for a master… a masterful understanding of physics and I go to the gym department, you know I go into the basketball gym, I may not get it… or if I go to the agriculture department. I have to go to the physics department. So if you're looking for a proof of God along material lines, then that itself means your whole approach is not well thought out. Because what is material logic? Material logic describes uh we might say necessary relationships among entities, between entities based on observation and how this world works. But the point is that we're not talking about this world, we're talking about a superior world in which those types of necessary relationships may not hold because…

Guest: How can you say superior? You're making a value judgement.

Hridy: I am very definitely making a value judgement just like Christ did and just like Plato did and just like so many other people did. Because the values are there. I'm not against value judgements. We should make correct value judgements. But my point is that there's an antithesis of necessity and that's called freedom. Just like I may say necessarily you must go to class or you may choose to go to class or not. So logic deals with necessary relationships. But in a spiritual world based on a superior freedom – more freedom than this world – obviously we're not going to find the same types of necessary relationships. We're going to find more freedom and therefore material logic is not going to be adequate to describe that superior world. And that's logical.

ancient_paztriot · January 15, 2004

Hridyananda…

Therefore, if something else claims to be real it has to be somehow or other in a physical way. Now that is not a fact. That is just a theory. It's a bad theory. It's a pretty stupid one. But uh in neutral language we could simply say it's a metaphysical position. Now when I approach someone and say I want you to prove the soul and God, but I want you to prove it within the boundaries of my religious views… In other words, within my metaphysical position, that uh it doesn't make sense. There's no logic to that. If I assert that there's a soul and God I am asserting a philosophy, metaphysical position which is diametrically opposed to the born again empiricism. Therefore, if the demand is made upon me that my system of thought or the reality which I perceive is somehow or other boiled down to or expressed in terms of diametrically opposed metaphysical position and that's the only way it's acceptable, what that means is I have to accept the materialist is right before we even begin. In other words the rules of the game… what are the rules governing valid proof? What constitutes a valid proof? Who evaluates the proof? What's the criteria? You see? In other words, all those rules are set up as if the materialists is correct. So if all the rules are set up as if materialism is the correct metaphysical position, how within such biased rules could I demonstrate a diametrically opposed philosophy which is a spiritual philosophy? So that's a very stupid way to go about things. And yet that kind of stupid way of going about things actually is getting passed off nowadays as you know an intellectual uh posture or… I mean it's ridiculous. It's just completely idiotic. And yet when people rattle off these slogans they actually think they're being intellectual, although they're being totally irrational and incoherent… and unfair because if you… And if you say to them Alright, let's try to discuss this issue within a neutral context, Well what does that mean? You see? What would that mean? What would the rules be? Let's say we have to establish rules governing valid proofs. So what would it mean… what types of rules would be neutral?

So the simple fact is God is there and some people accept it and some people don't accept it. Now if you think that in the history of the West, intellectual people tend to be skeptical and sort of the simple dumb people tend to accept God and go and you know and church and things like that, then you just don't know Western intellectual history because the truth is actually the opposite. In other words most of the best philosophers – Western history in fact – did accept God. So now we live in a particular point in history where its obvious what has happened. We have discovered or unleashed or somehow ran into some uh… in our childish minds that we consider to be amazing technology… that if you build machines in certain ways all kinds of rockets go off and talk on the telephone and shoot laser rays and… Now in our childish naive minds we think these things are very impressive. So impressive in fact, we become so puffed-up with these uh flashy achievements that uh we think that now we've just outdone god, we don't need God or uh you know, God's on the defensive. Alright God, the ball is in your court. Now you prove yourself. Then it's a very flashy 20th century toys… and even there were some 19th century toys. We've come up out of the type of gross ignorance that people were in and now we know something about the material world. We become so exhilarated and so intoxicated with pride by these somewhat childish achievements uh that we deny God… which of course is leading to a very unhappy end… a very unhappy end.

..................

Because people tend to be egocentric, when they get into academic life, that egocentrism just comes through loud and clear in their discipline. They identify with a particular discipline which becomes the center of their reality which is just an extension of their own egocentrism. There is only one realistic egocentrism and that is God’s egocentrism. In other words, when God thinks I am the center, that is a correct observation on His part. If anyone else thinks I am the center, that’s actually a mistake. But God is simply seeing things as they actually are. And when God gives His opinion, that’s the way things really are. If anyone else gives their opinion different from God, that’s a mistake. So therefore, when we try to impose our egocentrism in different ways, we are imitating God. Rather, God’s egocentrism is absolutely objective. Whereas our egocentrism is never actually objective. So therefore, when that egocentrism becomes reflected in the illusory idea that the boundaries of my academic discipline are the boundaries of reality itself, rather that explaining reality, we tend to distort it.

By pushing forward in chemistry, physics, anthropology or psychology we are making our little gains. But in asserting that these gains actually represent some profound understanding of life, we’re creating more ignorance than knowledge. In other words, if you measure how much knowledge we have uncovered by our research and how much ignorance we have created by distorting reality and saying this is the real picture, this is the whole picture, it actually turns out that we’ve created a lot more ignorance than knowledge.

..................

Krsna consciousness is not realized merely by intellectual processes. There must be singing, dancing and feasting in association with devotees. In the Brahma-sutra, Vedanta-sutra we find the statement ??? that if you want to know the Absolute Truth you have to accept knowledge from the right source. We cannot dictate to God how He will be known. For example, we can see with our eyes. So if you say, ‘No I want to see with my nose, you can stick your nose in but you won’t see anything. If you want to see colors but you insist, I have to see it with my nose. Is that intelligent? You’re a scientist. Is that intelligent? The eyes are there to see. You don’t quibble about eyes, nose and ears. If you’re given the eyes to see, then look at it with your eyes, open your eyes. Similarly, we are given sastra or revealed scripture so we can see the Absolute Truth. So if you’re given that faculty, you have to take it. You can’t insist I’ll know the Absolute Truth by empirical methods or by logical inference based on my own concepts. You can say that but it’s useless. Just like I say even though I’ve been given eyes to see, I don’t want to see with my eyes. I want to see with my nose. Foolishness. Similarly, we’ve been given a process by which we can know the Absolute Truth. If we want to know the Absolute Truth, that’s the process. Why should you argue about that? What will the scientists say? Actually many scientists like this. We find very good response at some science schools like at M.I.T.

...............

Hridy: No, first let us talk about that phrase only a statement. I tell you the fire is hot. Is that only a statement? It refers to something real. If I say fire is cold, that statement doesn’t refer to anything real. Isn’t it? That’s only a statement. There’s nothing in reality which the statement points to. Now normally when we communicate, we use words to indicate objects or ideas which are real. Of course, sometimes we are simply trying to tease or cheat people. Take the general kind of conversation used when telling someone how to get to someplace. I’m in Gainsville, Florida. How do I get to Lake City, Utah? So of course there are different types of communication. But that type we would refer to things that actually exists. So if someone tells me go to interstate 75, I wouldn’t say that’s only a statement. It seems by saying it’s only a statement you’re avoiding the real issue here. To say something is only a statement means it doesn’t refer to anything in the real world. Now specifically we’re making statements about epistomology. ??? our knowledge. We’re making statements about processes to acquire knowledge. So for you to say they’re only statements… Is that actually what you want to say? Because then you’re taking a very radical position in regard to our statements. You’re categorically denying they refer to anything which actually exists. Do you have some basis to make such a radical statement or have you just been trained to carelessly throw out phrases like, “that’s only a statement” like a knee jerk response. When you tap a scientist in a certain spot, he says, “That’s only a statement. Why should I accept that? That’s just your opinion.” They’re just slogans that come out. They can do it while they’re sleeping. In other words, isn’t your response to my statement somewhat dogmatic? You haven’t actually considered what I said nor the basis of it, you simply reacted dogmatically. Isn’t it?

Guest: That depends on what you have said.

Hridy: But in this particular case. Sastra ??? quoting from Rama-sutra. Actually, there is an absolute truth and if we want to know it, this is the process. Now why should you deny that? Do you feel you should deny it? Do you somehow feel that position is threatening to what you consider to be reality? Do you find the possibility that reality is bigger than what you counted on threatening?

Actually, if reality is larger than what these small minded scientists are thinking, the first problem which arises is they loose control of reality. If reality is defined as only those things they can control, then by definition, they control everything. This is a very convienent starting point. Yes? Given that we are God. So we control everything. If we cannot control something it doesn’t exists. In other words… It seems alot of scientists really ??? They’re not too concerned with whether or not they have an accurate picture of what the world is. They simply are interested in what will work.

ancient_paztriot · January 15, 2004

Hridayananda…

Human life is meant to find the Absolute Truth. So if someone is taking a salary, he has to speak according to the whims of the master. Just like in public schools, one cannot speak about God. So even though one may be interested in God, He cannot cultivate that. He has to teach something else. Or if one is also too proud, not knowledge for it’s own sake but just methodology for it’s own sake. In other words, the truth is just a trophy and I want to bag it. I want to win it as a trophy. I don’t want to read scriptures or surrender to God. I want to use touch logic and experiment because the truth is a trophy. It’s not something you surrender to, it’s a trophy you take home and put on your self. The object is to get your name put on the theory like Beetlebomb’s theory of twisted helixes or something. So, that’s what they think. They think the truth is a trophy. You see? It’s a prize you win and enjoy. They don’t want to surrender to the truth and serve the truth submissively. They want to win it as a trophy. Therefore if they just surrender, there’s no trophy. So if you have that kind of bias in your mind because of your vanity and pride, your desire for the truth is not unconditional, “I want the truth if I can win it myself by my own intelligence. I don’t want someone to just hand it to me on a platter.” Isn’t that their position? So that’s not ???, knowledge for it’s own sake. That’s just pride. So their search for knowledge is prejudiced by their own pride, it’s prejudiced by their own commitment to a master that pays them. In many ways, they’re disqualified. In many ways they’re inept and unqualified. They’re not serious candidates

........................

But people have become such asses that they… The scientists they say No, there is no God. It’s going on automatically. To run their little space center NASA, NASA, their little NASA, their nasty little NASA… How many scientists are sitting at the control boards watching all the little lights go… little different colored lights and pushing buttons and pulling levers and winding things up and then… Isn’t it? So many scientists are sitting… Thousands of scientists are sitting there working just so one little metal ball can go. These scientists are such asses that just to make one little metal ball fly in the sky, they have thousands of scientists and trillions of dollars of computers and lights flashing. And when the see millions of billions of planets and stars, balls all floating in space they think There’s no scientists for that. This is their logic. This is their common… This is their logic. This is their brain. To make one metal ball go in the sky there are thousands of scientists. And to make thousands of planets float there are no scientists. This is their logic. In other words, they are crazy.

So at the present time because we have been taught by the scientists not to believe in God, instead we should be nationalists, we should be scientists, So therefore the whole world is becoming degraded. That’s all.

..........................

Hridy: By that… by that logic, by that logic you could justify anything.

Guest: ???

Hridy: No, no, no. By that logic you can do anything you like. For example if I kill you, I can simply say that according to Gita, unless it was your karma to be killed, how could I kill you? And therefore you can do anything. But if we study… You see? Now this is the way of logic… You see? This is called… we are doing philosophy now. If you take your conclusion. Your conclusion is hypothesis because it is not sastra, but you are hypothetically presenting this may be taken as a fact. Now if what you say is true, other things necessarily must also be true. And since those other things contradict sastra directly, your original statement must be rejected. Because the necessary consequence of your hypothesis is contradictory… necessary consequence. Now we find in the sastra that there are many injunctions, ???, many injunctions. Therefore the idea that you can kill anyone. How can that be dharma?

........................

But in fact, people do think some things are really right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, they do think there is a soul, although they can’t make this logical connection because people in Kali-yuga people are pretty stupid. But the fact is that if you do – as everyone does – really think some things are in fact right and some things are in fact wrong, you are indirectly admitting the existence of a soul because materially, these things just cannot be philosophically justified.

.......................

Guest: Well, you have blind faith that you’re right.

Hridy: No, because we can see what we really are. We can see Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Now, you say blind faith that we… You have blind faith that we have blind faith. You don’t know our faith is blind. But you have blind faith that we have blind faith. So you’re a hypocrite. The pot calls the kettle black. Yes, because you don’t know. Actually, I made this point that in order to correct someone’s statement, you have to have real knowledge. The teacher corrects the student because the teacher knows. So if you say what we know or don’t know or that we have blind faith, that means you must know all these things. But you don’t know. And therefore, you’re really not in a position to correct because actually you don’t know. You see? If you say I don’t know and you don’t know either, that’s illogical, that’s irrational. For example, I don’t know mathematical equations where you… Now you state some equation and I say that’s wrong. Now if I don’t know, how do I know you’re wrong? I can only say you’re wrong to the extent that I do know. We are talking about simple epistemology. What I meant to say is if you take the position, “I don’t know. But I know that you don’t know.” Well, what does that mean? You see? There is something basically irrational about that position because if you don’t know, how can you evaluate someone else’s statement? So what I’m questioning is the principle of saying, “I don’t know. But you don’t know either.” I’m questioning whether that is a rational position to hold or wether there is something fundamentally irrational about that position. “I don’t know and you don’t know either” is irrational because the person that corrects must be the teacher, he has to know.

They are not used to meeting people that do know. No, they’re not. They are used to meeting hypocrites and witch doctors and things like that. Well, because they tend not to be open-minded. So therefore the position of saying, “Well I don’t know. But you don’t know either”. I say there’s something fundamentally illogical about taking that position. Yea, well that’s just your opinion. Now we could say because we know what God is. Therefore, if you say God is a little green man with antennas coming out of His head. We would say “you don’t really know what God is” ‘cause we know. Therefore, we could say your statement is wrong. Generally, the physics professor can correct the statements about physics. The chemistry teacher can correct statements made about chemistry. Someone who knows the history of European art can correct filaceous or erroneous statements about that topic. But you can only correct statements within an area in which you’re expert. Otherwise, you can’t correct others. For example, if you make a statement about Hungarian cooking, I couldn’t say whether it was true or false. If you say in Hungarian cooking they use a lot of garlic, I couldn’t say whether it’s right or not. And I couldn’t say whether you know or not. If you write a mathematical formula with lots of fancy symbols and all kinds of stuff, I don’t know. It could be a real formula. It could be symbolic gibberish. It could be a complete bluff and meaningless. I’ll give you an example: When I was in high school, my friend and I entered a debate tournament in Los Angeles. And so they gave you several months to prepare. You had to debate both sides of the issue. And then people would come with these boxes full of cards with all their quotes on them. The issue was whether there should be compulsory arbitration of labor disputes. And so we had all blank cards. We just went there ?? to play a game. We all had all blank cards and whatever the opponent said we had a better quote because we just made everything up. And then we won the gold metal. We’d just make up quotes as we went along. The President said this and the Secretary of Labor said that and a recent study showed that actually 79% of the, you know, this and that and it was all a bluff. We did that just as a joke. But because the other side didn’t know, they couldn’t correct us. So unless you yourself know, how can you evaluate someone else’s statement? So the position I don’t know, but you don’t know either is irrational. So when people generally say, “Well, that’s just your opinion” that’s an irrational statement. It’s illogical to even say that. It doesn’t mean anything.

..........................

Thankyou Srimad George Harrison …for capturing the essence of Prabhupada's teachings in modern media:

My sweet lord

Hm, my lord

I really want to see you

Really want to be with you

Really want to see you lord

But it takes so long, my lord

My sweet lord

Hm, my lord

I really want to know you

Really want to go with you

Really want to show you lord

That it won't take long, my lord (hallelujah)

My sweet lord (hallelujah)

Hm, my lord (hallelujah)

My sweet lord (hallelujah)

I really want to see you

Really want to see you

Really want to see you, lord

But it takes so long, my lord (hallelujah)

My sweet lord (hallelujah)

Hm, my lord (hallelujah)

My, my, my lord (hallelujah)

I really want to know you (hallelujah)

Really want to go with you (hallelujah)

Really want to show you lord (aaah)

That it won't take long, my lord (hallelujah)

Hmm (hallelujah)

My sweet lord (hallelujah)

My, my, lord (hallelujah)

Hm, my lord (hare krishna)

My, my, my lord (hare krishna)

Oh hm, my sweet lord (krishna, krishna)

Oh-uuh-uh (hare hare)

Now, I really want to see you (hare rama)

Really want to be with you (hare rama)

Really want to see you lord (aaah)

But it takes so long, my lord (hallelujah)

Hm, my lord (hallelujah)

My, my, my lord (hare krishna)

My sweet lord (hare krishna)

My sweet lord (krishna krishna)

My lord (hare hare)

Hm, hm (Gurur Brahma)

Hm, hm (Gurur Vishnu)

Hm, hm (Gurur Devo)

Hm, hm (Maheshwara)

My sweet lord (Gurur Sakshaat)

My sweet lord (Parabrahma)

My, my, my lord (Tasmayi Shree)

My, my, my, my lord (Guruve Namah)

My sweet lord (Hare Rama)

[fade:]

(hare krishna)

My sweet lord (hare krishna)

My sweet lord (krishna krishna)

My lord (hare hare)

January 16, 2004

In any case, you all are making "every text is authored"

I must apologoze for making this rash statement as it was only directed towards Theist and "Mr. Faith Believer".

Dear "Mr. Faith Believer",

I can understand your position as a person who is still gathering his senses and trying to figure out what hit him.

That is not your fault, it is force in MadhvAchArya's argument!

Someone has claimed that there is no faith involved in accepting the Vedas as apaurusheya

There is no blind faith. There is conviction based on logical conclusions.

and in reply I have shown such a belief is also based on faith.

Of yes, I can see how minutely you have analysed your opponent's views and presented such lengthy and cogent arguments.

No one here believes the Vedas to be authored books.

Au contraire, it was you and theist who were the most vocal proponents of the "Vedas are authored" theory.

You:-

Theist's point is simple and valid:

"Since I have never seen or even heard of any book existing without an author I would have to disagree that your point is logical."

It is logical to conclude that any text in the world is composed by an author.

Anyway, I would like to know if there is anything other than the obvious cause for your volte-face on the issue.

Acceptance of the Vedas as unauthored requires:

Faith in the Rishis who first were revealed the Vedic knowledge.

No, the Rishis cannot reveal that which is not already known as shruti by parampara. Otherwise the natural consequence of dispute will inevitably occur.

Faith in the traditions to properly preserve the Vedas without adulteration.

No, it requires the analysis of the transmission precess to understand how Shruti is preserved. The information content in Shruti is not unmanageably high. What needs to be preserved is the syntactic structure and the meter (pronunciation). Meter can be back assimilated into syntax. Therefore it a mechanized process and could possibly be done by a computer. If it were not the case that the supposed efficacy of the mantra is lost outside the parampara, then indeed it would have been something akin to a digital copy. With sufficient redundancy, the probability of error is exceedingly low. However in the case where there is reason to suspect even a minute dilution, the status of the recitation as Shruti is lost.

Faith in the existence of something that is not experienced in the world (an unauthored literature).

No, the existence of unauthored literature is a natural corollary of the understanding that authored texts do not have the quality of having a reputation (non-disputable recognised oral traditions) of unauthoredness. This is akin to saying "rabbits do not have horns." Perhaps, by this analogy, it could be understood the force with which the assertion is being made.

Faith that the use of language has not changed in millions of years to render the words of the Vedas faulty.

Before you speak such gibberish, it would be better that you do a comparative study of Vedic Sanskrit and other languages. The tight integration of grammatical rules of Vedic sanskrit with the syntax is a far cry from the "usage patterns" of other languages dependent on the whims of people at different times and places. Inspite of evidence to the contrary, you keep on presenting possibilities as events with high probability of occurance. However that does not suffice; you need evidence that overrides your opponent's evidence. Your arguments are like this -- there is a possibility of my being a brain in a beaker with all my neurons being connected to a super super computer (something akin to The Matrix). Therefore there is a possibility that my surroundings, together with my body, are not real, but only a simulation by the super super computer. Therefore my belief that the world is real is uncertain.

Faith in Brahma for not distorting the Vedic knowledge in the beginning.

Son, you really need a break! How about a week in the caribbean?

Faith in the process of revelation and the perfection of revealed knowledge.

For your benefit, I again repeat what I have already said above.No, the Rishis cannot reveal that which is not already known as shruti by parampara.

The entire process is based on faith.

I guess you want others to consider your own high opinion about your "successful" effort to demolish your opposition, to be an understatement.

There is nothing wrong with faith,

Ah, finally the shoe that pinches. Because you have invested huge amount of resources - time, money and physical effort towards your successfully advertised "Faith Citadel", you find it frightening that others discover gaping holes in it. Therefore, to guard yourself from your own conscience - i.e. your ability to think rationally, you make it a point to prove (albeit unsuccessfully), by hook or by crook, that it is impossible to build a fortress without these gaping holes and thus feel supremely satisfied by being able to defend your paper castle from your own questioning self.

it is one of the requirements to develop bhakti.

Adau SraddhA... does not mean that the possibility of a rational basis to one's spiritual endeavour is automatically pre-empted. It means that those who have enough sukriti, will be attracted to Krishna, and those who are competent enough will find a rational basis for it. A vehicle driver does not necessarily need to know the workings of an internal combustion engine, but that does not mean that no driver can know the workings of the ICE.

One should not try to pretend his belief system is somehow beyond faith because he has read a couple books on tarka that he bought from motilal banarsidass.

One should not try to pretend that just because his belief system is based on blind faith, so also it is imperative for others. In any case, the "tarka" you are talking of is the Logic 101 course offered in technical universities - nothing out of the way.

If you fail to see the logical fallacies given by other guests here to support the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas then I assume you are closing your eyes because they agree with your conclusion.

I have no desire of taking time out of my hard schedule to engage with you, however, you are broadcasting a fallacious viewpoint in a public forum and it is the duty of every responsible person who is clear about the facts to challenge such nonsense for public good. In any case, I can see that however much reason we present you with, you will not listen to us because you have made it a prestige issue and have locked up your brain. So it is up to each to judge for himself. We have presented a view that there is possibility of a rational foundation in spiritual matters for those who care to put sincere effort in that direction and the opposition has presented a view that blind faith is the only way to God. It is upon each individual to make his own choice.

ancient_paztriot · January 16, 2004

Everyone has faith. Period. It is simply a matter of what you believe. The fighting starts when we compare our preferences.

"We have presented a view that there is possibility of a rational foundation in spiritual matters for those who care to put sincere effort in that direction and the opposition has presented a view that blind faith is the only way to God. It is upon each individual to make his own choice."

You have blind faith that we have blind faith. All you can do is shout, "I'm objective and rational! I'm right!" But when pressed for a defensible world view, you ignore it. So these are not the actions of someone seeking truth, it is just the innane ramblings of an envious soul who has a demoniac agenda. Basically, you're trying to get everyone to give up God because "it might have been like I said", and you try so hard to pass this off as logic.

Your attitude is incomprehensible to me. Have you ever read any of these scriptures we're discussing? I wonder if you're criticizing something you haven't even bothered to investigate.

Do you even understand the point that morality cannot be justified empirically or materially? I mean, this is just LOGICAL.

We all KNOW and EXPERIENCE this… the scriptures teach us how to be a GOOD PERSON - SCIENTIFICALLY! Now what's wrong with that?

January 16, 2004

Faith in Brahma for not distorting the Vedic knowledge in the beginning.

What makes you think that brahmA is the single point of delegation of Shruti, just because he is supposed to be the first person to be born? The evidence in scripture is quite to the contrary.

January 16, 2004

>No one here believes the Vedas to be authored books.

Au contraire, it was you and theist who were the most vocal proponents of the "Vedas are authored" theory.

You:-

Anyway, I would like to know if there is anything other than the obvious cause for your volte-face on the issue.

To say something is logical is not the same as saying something is one's accepted belief. It is logical to conclude that all books have authors. This does not mean one believes all books to have authors. Go ask your logic 101 professor for more help on this, or if that fails, your english professor.

January 16, 2004

To say something is logical is not the same as saying something is one's accepted belief.

In your belief system. I would personally suggest you a psychologist.

Anyway thank you all for your time. I would better run away before I start needing a psychiatrist ;-)

January 16, 2004

Every living entity within this material world is subject to four deficiencies: he commits mistakes, he accepts one thing for another, he cheats, and he has imperfect senses. The Vedas, however, are not written by any living creature within this material world. Therefore they are said to be apaurusheya.

All other systems of knowledge are defective because they have been written or spoken by men or demigods who are products of this material creation, but Bhagavad-gita is apaurusheya, for it was not spoken by any human being or any demigod of this material creation; it was spoken by Lord Krishna, who is beyond the material creation.

The author of the Vedas is the Personality of Godhead Himself. Consequently, His Bhagavad-gita is the finest summary of all the teachings in the Vedas (the books of knowledge), and there is no doubt about it.

According to the Vedanta-sutras (shastra-yonitvat), the Supreme Lord is the author of all revealed scriptures, and all revealed scriptures are for knowing the Supreme Lord.

January 17, 2004

The author of the Vedas is the Personality of Godhead Himself.

It amazes me that some people, in order to get around the objections to their faith-based beliefs, get in the habit of simply repeating these beliefs without any logical analysis, as if by mere repetition they suddenly validate what is being disputed in the first place.

Consequently, His Bhagavad-gita is the finest summary of all the teachings in the Vedas (the books of knowledge), and there is no doubt about it.

And then go on to state irrelevant, undisputed points.

According to the Vedanta-sutras (shastra-yonitvat), the Supreme Lord is the author of all revealed scriptures,

How does "shastra-yonitvat" translate into "author of all revealed scriptures?" Simple - it doesn't.

Baladeva VidyAbhUSana is the vedAnta commentator of the gaudIya sampradAya. In his commentary to this sUtra (1.1.3), he does not in any place refer to God being the "author" or "creator" of sAstras. On the contrary, he takes the meaning of sAstra-yonitvAt.h as meaning that "Brahman can be known only through scripture" (yoni here being taken to mean that which arises or produces the knowledge of a thing). This meaning better fits the context. Saying "God is author of Vedas," aside from being a mistranslation, also is illogical because it does not fit in context of the sUtras.

Sign In

What is scripture?

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites