Vedas & Puranas : Shruti & Smriti

[En'me]

Jainarayan@ Thank you. I do similiar! Except for Dhanurveda. If that monster existed, I would study it whole, letter by letter.

Vinayaka@ I agree. That's the view I have adopted, otherwise it's trying to make sense of madness.

Ekanta@ A very nice perception. I like it. I have never heard of the quote you presented from the Vishnu Purana. How could I? Even the Srimad Bhagavatam could swallow me whole!

Originally Posted by Shuddhasattva

Namaste! Welcome.

..........

Thank you very much for this insightfull post, full of wisdom and clarifications!

I have checked out the Suktas. The last few days I have been leaning towards impersonalistic perception, even though I prefer a personal form, but then again, I'm not here to prefer and neither do I want to. Thanks to these Suktas I was... well, very suprised.

You asked me if you could see the documents from which I was presenting my views. It is a site, called Agniveer (at this moment I am not permitted to link to the site, but if you google "Agniveer" you will be able to find it no problem). Although I am immensely gratefull to Agniveer for clearing my doubts about the varna system (which I now know is not birth based), appearent sexism (also false) and superstitions, which make no sense.

After I cleared up my doubts about the conduct of Vedas as far as material living goes, I decided to start studying more of the Vedas. After a brief search of few hours, I was shocked to say the least. Being wrapped in the bubble called Vaishnavism or ISKCON, I had no idea about the diverse oppinion and number of sects. It had just never thought that it could be any different. Haha, this is kind of funny. I thought every Hindu was a.... well.... a Vaishnava. Huh, who would've thought?


Anyhow, you posted alot, like, alot, and it's still taking me time to get acquanited with all the knowledge you have presented. I will reply to your quotes and explanations in the near future, I promise you, no, me that. I was very happy upon your lenghty response!

But for right now, I just want to get one thing out of the way. Am I interpreting your explanations, as in base, that one should choose the form (or formless) he/she wants to worship?

For example, you provided the Narayana Sukta, singing praise of Naraya as the highest? Yet you take Shiva as the highest and I Krishna as the highest, but if decided to variate just a bit, I could be referring to Vishnu as the highest.

What is your oppinion on this then?


P.S.: Before I conclude, I feel obligated to offer you an apology for taking this much time to reply after your tremendous effort. I apologize.

[Gaura Priya]

Originally Posted by E.q.N

For example, you provided the Narayana Sukta, singing praise of Naraya as the highest? Yet you take Shiva as the highest and I Krishna as the highest, but if decided to variate just a bit, I could be referring to Vishnu as the highest.

Just to make a quibble... To me, Krishna and Narayana are one and the same, no matter what incarnation of Lord Vishnu/Krishna you worship.

And frankly, I really don't think God or any of the devatas care of what or who you worship. I think what's more important is how you are practicing and living the dharma.

Mind you, Vaishnavism is also a larger bubble than ISKCON, but for a non-academic, it would take a little time to distinguish the differentiating characteristics.

Haribol!

[Vrindavana Das]

Originally Posted by E.q.N

- Why is there no mention of Para Brahman or more specificaly, Krishna, Rama or any other deity as the Supreme God in the Vedas? How could God be so careless as to leave the concept of Para Brahman missing from the actual Vedas, if it really exists?

Vedās establish Para Brahman. In fact, they establish devotional service to the Par Brāhman.

The same is mentioned in the Bhagavad Gītā by Lord Kṛṣṇa as under:

sarvasya cāhaḿ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo
mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaḿ ca
vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham

I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.[B.G. 15.15]

- The deites in the Vedas have different roles, positions and importance then those of the Puranas? For example, in Puranic concepts, Indra is a minor deity. In Vedic concepts, however, Indra is the chief of Gods, the principle Deity, one who has come closer to realising Brahman more then anyone else... what???

Indrā is a demi-god. A minor deity and the King of Heaven. He is the principle deity of Heaven, and not even the material universe (what to speak of transcendental spiritual world).

- A certain Purana mentions that most of the Vedas have been lost? Let's say I reject the Puranas. Is there any other evidance of Vedas being lost?

I have never heard any Purāna says that Vedās have been lost. Please quote the Purana and the verse. I think there is a confusion here.

- Are Puranas and Itihasa really the "fifth Veda"?

Bhagavad Gītā is sometimes referred to as the 5th Veda. It is a part of Mahābhārata.

- What is the deal with sacrificing of animals in the "fifth Veda" Mahabharata?

There is no deal with sacrificing of animals in Vedās, except that it is prohibited in this age (Kaliyuga) as there are not qualified Brāhmans to perform such sacrifices.

- What is the deal with the Uttara Kanda part of Ramayana? It is said to be a latter text added in by Vaishnavas? Is there-in the whole meaning of the Hare-Krishna mantra meaningless?

This is incorrect. Rāmāyana is written by Vālmīkī Munī. He wrote the Rāmāyana even before Lord Rām appeared. No texts have been added by Vaishnavās to this later.

- Has anyone read the core 24.000 verses of Mahabharata called simply Bharata?

I have not read this verse. Could you please quote the Verse.

- Why are there blantant contradictions between Vishnu Purana, Shiva Purana, Agni Purana, etc. on who is Supreme? How could Veda Vyasa be so careless to be the cause of confusion in Kali Yuga for which people he EXACTLY wrote THE Puranas so that they would NOT be confused???

Just like Vedās have been classified according to the material modes of individuals - to uplift their consciousness from 'tamasik' to 'rajasik' to 'satvik' and ultimately to transcend these material modes and be established in transcendental plane, similarly, the Purānas have been classified. This is mentioned in the Padma Purāna also, which tells us which Purāna is under which category.

- Though the Vedas speak only of Brahman as an impersonal entity, the Puranas as far as origins of the universe make more sense and why the soul is hackeled to the material world. Because, if don't take the Puranas into account then Vedas themselves fall short of explaining the existance and purpose of souls? But if we take Para Brahman as a fact, then we have to face blatant contradictions and confusing, sometimes even anti-vedic concepts from the Puranas?

The hell???

Purānas have been derived from Vedās. There is no contradiction between the two. One is milk (Vedās) and the other is it's essence - butter (Purānas).

[Wannabe Yogi]

Originally Posted by Vrindavana Das

.
Purānas have been derived from Vedās. There is no contradiction between the two. One is milk (Vedās) and the other is it's essence - butter (Purānas).

Sorry this is not the Orthodox view of Hinduism.

The Puranas were man made the Vedas are divine. The Vedas are eternal the Puranas are not. Also the biggest problem is that Puranas were edited.

Few of the proofs of the editing of the Purana:

-The Mahabharata to make a long story short, it was extended from a shorter version of 24,000 verses called Bharata. The version we have now was edited during the early Gupta period. Different regions of India recensions of this text. They have been broadly classified as the northern and southern types.

-Bhagavadgita of the early 34 manuscripts found of the Mahabharata. Two did not even have the Gita in them. Since Sankara only excepted has 700 verses
the texts with 745 verses are viewed as added in some of the manuscripts.-Beginnings of Indian Philosophy by F. Edgerton p197

-Bhavishya Purana 1.2.2–3. Says there are 5 parts to it. But todays text only has four parts.

This is just a little of the proof that the Puranas have been edited.

[Wannabe Yogi]

Originally Posted by Vrindavana Das

I have not read this verse. Could you please quote the Verse.

I think this is it the on line text only has chapters marked not verses

Vyasa executed the compilation of the Bharata, exclusive of the episodes originally in twenty-four thousand verses; and so much only is called by the learned as the Bharata.
(1.1.61)

This is right after Ganesha says he will copy it down.

Ashvalayana Grhyasutra (3.4.4) makes a similar distinction.

Vaisampayana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Vrindavana Das]

Originally Posted by Wannabe Yogi

Sorry this is not the Orthodox view of Hinduism.

The Puranas were man made the Vedas are divine. The Vedas are eternal the Puranas are not. Also the biggest problem is that Puranas were edited.

Few of the proofs of the editing of the Purana:

-The Mahabharata to make a long story short, it was extended from a shorter version of 24,000 verses called Bharata. The version we have now was edited during the early Gupta period. Different regions of India recensions of this text. They have been broadly classified as the northern and southern types.

-Bhagavadgita of the early 34 manuscripts found of the Mahabharata. Two did not even have the Gita in them. Since Sankara only excepted has 700 verses
the texts with 745 verses are viewed as added in some of the manuscripts.-Beginnings of Indian Philosophy by F. Edgerton p197

-Bhavishya Purana 1.2.2–3. Says there are 5 parts to it. But todays text only has four parts.

This is just a little of the proof that the Puranas have been edited.

The orthodox Hindu view is that Vedavyāsa is an incarnation of Supreme Lord, who divided the one Vada into four and then further gave Puranas, Vedanta Sutra etc. to the man of Kaliyuga.

So, even the Purānas are not written by an ordinary mortal. Please note that in Hinduism, we do not accept anything written by an ordinary conditioned soul as scriptures. An ordinary conditioned soul cannot impart perfect knowledge due to four defects - but that is a different topic, so I will not venture into it here.

Please check this link Vyasa

This is not a Vaishnava philosophy alone. Here also, Vedavyāsa has been accepted as the incarnation of Supreme Lord.

As for the editing of the Purānas, Vedavyāsa gave us 18 Purānas. If the Purānas are edited by anyone, they loose their sanctity for the reason mentioned above and become material work, thereby spiritually unacceptable. The spiritually accepted ones exist, and there may be some which are commentaries by laymen, which an intelligent person should discard as mundane work. One can write any commentary, but unless it is authorized and spiritually accepted, it is just a disturbance. Bhavishya Purāna, like you mention, has one part missing (possible reason is that it was published during the British rule and any prediction against the rule/that may harm the interest of ruling Govt., was destroyed. (This is my personal opinion).

[Vrindavana Das]

Originally Posted by Wannabe Yogi

I think this is it the on line text only has chapters marked not verses

Vyasa executed the compilation of the Bharata, exclusive of the episodes originally in twenty-four thousand verses; and so much only is called by the learned as the Bharata.
(1.1.61)

What I understand is that Vyāsadeva executed the compilation of Jaya (Victory) with 8,800 verses. Bharata with 24,000 verses was recited by Vaisampayana. Mahabhārata (total epic) as recited by Ugrasrava Sauti has 100,000 verses.

[Satyamavejayanti]

E.q.N;2978487]

Will try to answer

- Why is there no mention of Para Brahman or more specificaly, Krishna, Rama or any other deity as the Supreme God in the Vedas? How could God be so careless as to leave the concept of Para Brahman missing from the actual Vedas, if it really exists?

These concepts are from upanishads, not Vedas. Vedas were before all Hindu scriptures. Krishna and Upanishads is post Vedas.

- The deites in the Vedas have different roles, positions and importance then those of the Puranas? For example, in Puranic concepts, Indra is a minor deity. In Vedic concepts, however, Indra is the chief of Gods, the principle Deity, one who has come closer to realising Brahman more then anyone else... what???

In Vedas Indra is means many different things according to context of Mantras. Indra is also called the supreme Ishwar in Vedas. Indra is only an attribute.

- A certain Purana mentions that most of the Vedas have been lost? Let's say I reject the Puranas. Is there any other evidance of Vedas being lost?

There is a myth that many Vedas are lost, but i have all 4 of them. so dont know which ones are lost, maybe the vedanga (BRANCHES OF VEDAS) but not the Samhitas.

- Are Puranas and Itihasa really the "fifth Veda"?

Veda means knowledge, Puranas and Itihas are different from veda samhita, as there is no history or proper nouns in the vedas, but Puranas and Ithihas is historical records, but they do contain some Vidya.

- What is the deal with sacrificing of animals in the "fifth Veda" Mahabharata?

Dont know, cant remember where this story comes in, can you please provide verses.

- What is the deal with the Uttara Kanda part of Ramayana? It is said to be a latter text added in by Vaishnavas? Is there-in the whole meaning of the Hare-Krishna mantra meaningless?

sorry Not too firmilier with Puranas and ithihas.

- Has anyone read the core 24.000 verses of Mahabharata called simply Bharata?

maybe, who knows..

- Why are there blantant contradictions between Vishnu Purana, Shiva Purana, Agni Purana, etc. on who is Supreme? How could Veda Vyasa be so careless to be the cause of confusion in Kali Yuga for which people he EXACTLY wrote THE Puranas so that they would NOT be confused???

As far as i know different people wrote the different Puranas. Veda Vyas means compiler not writter.

- Though the Vedas speak only of Brahman as an impersonal entity, the Puranas as far as origins of the universe make more sense and why the soul is hackeled to the material world. Because, if don't take the Puranas into account then Vedas themselves fall short of explaining the existance and purpose of souls? But if we take Para Brahman as a fact, then we have to face blatant contradictions and confusing, sometimes even anti-vedic concepts from the Puranas?

Have you read the Vedas???

The hell???

That pretty much sums up my confusion. I know Satya is there somehere in the Vedas, but where? I hope I get some replies so all of us may debate about this.

Thank you,

- EqN

Vedas are knowlodge and there is truth in every Mantra, i have read them.

[En'me]

Originally Posted by Shuddhasattva

Namaste! Welcome.
This is not a correct reading of the Vedas. May I ask what exactly you are reading, may I look at the documents?

I am reading from Agniveer. That man has simuntaneously removed doubts about polygamy, casteism, alchohol consumption in Vedas, etc. and at the same time he confused me with his interpretation of the Absolute.

Originally Posted by Shuddhasattva

Your use of Parabrahman is somewhat accurate in the traditional vedantic sense although I can see where you picked up the habit of its use in this way. You are referring to Saguna Brahman; Ishwar. And there is numerous mention throughout the vedas. Saguna Brahman is brahman with form, the absolute beinghood of God made manifest. Parabrahman is the nondifference between the two (the formless and the formed, the absolutely attributed and the attributeless absolute) and absolute transcendence thereof. These are all concepts openly expressed in the Vedas and the Vedic Upanishads.

Here, let me suggest 3 plain suktas - where the bulk of the Vedas speaks in code, these are clear.

Nasidaya sukta
Purusha sukta
Narayana sukta

These alone should dispel some illusions.

In many, many places in the Vedas, the absolute reality of Vishnu, or Shiva, or Vak! is made known as Brahman.

Thank you very much, prabhu! Those suktas have indeed dispelled much of my illusion. You should have seen my face when I heard them. To me, they were, like a mini-revalation . However, I did not find the Nasidaya sukta. Also, who is Nasidaya or what is it?

Also, who is "Vak!"?

Originally Posted by Shuddhasattva

Yes, this much is certainly true. There was a theological revolution within Hinduism, and it became another religion than the Vedic one.

To this I question you, not from a challenging position, but from a humble position out of curiosity, if you believe that there was a theological revolution within Hinduism, why do you follow the revolutionized one, or atleast, support it?

Originally Posted by Shuddhasattva

Mahabharata also contains some of the storngest verses against non-vegetarianism in all of the Hindu 'canon.' You'll also find animal sacrifice in the Ramayana, and perhaps most importantly, the Vedas (many, many verses), although its meaning in the Vedas is different, esoteric.

Animal sacrifice in could be interpolations in the smrtis, they could be literal accounts and recommendations, or they could be esoteric retellings of the Vedic sacrifices.

I see. I'm not sure anymore. I would simply like to see the original story Jaya. I do believe it does not exist anymore .

Originally Posted by Shuddhasattva

I don't know about the Uttara Kanda, but the Hare Rama mantra is certainly not meaningless. It is also in the Narayana Upanishad, which is not a Vedic upanishad, but still precious. It is truly a Mahamantra.

About this, I have heard that the original story of Valmiki, Rama in Ramayan was a normal human. I have also heard that Krishna was a human. Again, I read this at Agniveer.

Chanting on the absolute is chanting on the absolute, but if Krishna and Rama were not avatars, than this chant loses it's purpose, which is chanting on the Absolute. That is what I meant.

Originally Posted by Shuddhasattva

Please see earlier remarks on Vyasa's identity and the source of the smritis. Some of it also comes down to sectarian interpolations/recensions.

So the only thing Vyasadeva wrote was Jaya? Puranas were written latter, because he inspired them. Please excuse my ignorance on this, but how did he or can a person inspire you in that sense? That you would write something in the direction of the puranas? I mean, what did his inspiration consist of? How did he inspire people? If that makes sense .

Also, I'm very interested: What is/are the main text/s that you follow? I read you are a Shaiva, so I presumed you follow the Shiva Purana, but now I am not so sure any more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Shuddhasattva

Dvaita and A-Dvaita simply denote dualism and non-dualism (a.k.a monism). Dualism as used by Dvaita school simply means that there are two order of reality - Svatantra (independent) and Paratantra (dependent).

Whichever theology subscribes to the principle above is a dualistic philosophy (as defined in the Indian philosophical context) - be is Shaivism or Vaishnavism or other popular forms of worship.

So, do not conflate Vaishnavism with Dvaita and Shaivism with Advaita. You need to understand what these entail and what the underlying philosophies mean...


.
.
.

This is very astounding. There is so much I don't know and have had to google and am still googling. It will take me some times before I am completely familiar with the explanations that you are giving of Hinduism and also your terminology.

Originally Posted by Shuddhasattva

Though one, He appears as Shiva and Shakti. Whether it is Shiva joined to Shakti
Or Shakti joined to Shiva,
No one can tell.
I bow to these parents of the worlds,
Who, by revealing to each other their oneness, Enable me also to know it.
I make obeisance to Shambhu (Shiva), That perfect Lord who is
The cause of the beginning, Preservation, and end of the world; The manifestation of the beginning, Middle and end of the world;
And the dissolution of the three as well...
.
.
.

These quotes were just wonderful. After reading them for the fourth time, very carefully, I was really drawn into them, even though they work on a higher level than what I'm capable of grasping. Perhaps that is what attracted me.

Originally Posted by Shuddhasattva

Fundamentally, in order to establish faith in the path, those who are to be disciplined must be convinced of the superiority of that path, as reason to follow it, as they must be convinced of the superiority of men, in order to follow them, or the supremacy of gods, in order to bow to them.

Thus, the varying messages for varying minds, which too often result in minds at odds rather than at peace.

Last question. Should I then accept a scripture that is based on facts as well as my own personal attraction as suggested by Vinyaka?

[Shuddhasattva]

However, I did not find the Nasidaya sukta. Also, who is Nasidaya or what is it?

Sorry, Nasadiya sukta - some letter salad there. Nasadiya, the sukta of not not existence; creation.

Also, who is "Vak!"?

Vak is the Holy Word or Speech, the Vedic Shakti. She bends the bow of Rudra.

To this I question you, not from a challenging position, but from a humble position out of curiosity, if you believe that there was a theological revolution within Hinduism, why do you follow the revolutionized one, or atleast, support it?

I chose my words poorly. I had meant in the sense of the turning of a wheel, like we say 'agricultural revolution,' 'industrial revolution,' etc., rather than a violent opposition or reaction.

Vedanta is supposed to carry the Vedas forward in their essence.

About this, I have heard that the original story of Valmiki, Rama in Ramayan was a normal human. I have also heard that Krishna was a human. Again, I read this at Agniveer.

Chanting on the absolute is chanting on the absolute, but if Krishna and Rama were not avatars, than this chant loses it's purpose, which is chanting on the Absolute. That is what I meant.

I can't comment on this aside to say that I do not agree with Agniveer's interpretations.

So the only thing Vyasadeva wrote was Jaya? Puranas were written latter, because he inspired them. Please excuse my ignorance on this, but how did he or can a person inspire you in that sense? That you would write something in the direction of the puranas? I mean, what did his inspiration consist of? How did he inspire people? If that makes sense.

Vyasa is the compiler of the Vedas, it is he who distills the breath of Brahma into human language.

Vyasa is the literary archetype. When people write scriptures, they are attributed to him, and likely inspired by his example. In writing a scripture, one becomes a reflection of Vyasa.

Also, I'm very interested: What is/are the main text/s that you follow? I read you are a Shaiva, so I presumed you follow the Shiva Purana, but now I am not so sure any more.

The Shiva purana is actually, for most Shaivites, somewhat secondary to the Vayu purana and the Linga purana. Vayu is considered oldest and most influential. However I personally prefer, like many Shaivas, the agamas to the puranas.

The most important one for me is the Malinivijayottara, and the Shiva Sutras (Vasugupta) along with it.

The Vedas, Upanishads and Brahma & Yoga Sutras are also important to me, along with advaitin texts.

One is not restricted to following just this or that scripture or set of scriptures though, it is best to have a wide spread in my opinion. Learning even about philosophies one disagrees with will enhance one's understanding of one's own by helping to define it from without as well as within.

Last question. Should I then accept a scripture that is based on facts as well as my own personal attraction as suggested by Vinyaka?

Vinayaka's advice is wise. At the end of the day, how you feel about a philosophy determines your ability to put it into practice, not the obligations foisted upon you by this or that group to uphold this or that text.

Submit everything to your own pramana - your ability to judge according to valid sources of knowledge.

In Advaita Vedānta, the following pramanas are accepted[4]:

Pratyakṣa — the knowledge gained by means of the senses
Anumāna — the knowledge gained by means of inference
Upamāna — the knowledge gained by means of analogy
Arthāpatti — the knowledge gained by superimposing the known knowledge on an appearing knowledge that does not concur with the known knowledge
Anupalabdi — non apprehension and skepticism in the face of non-apprehension
Āgama — the knowledge gained by means of texts such as Vedas (also known as Āptavākya, Śabda pramana)

WIkipedia: Pramana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia