I don't understand this. Could you ELI5 (explain like I'm 5)? I'm not the brightest diya at diwali.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where is the word Bhakti in the Vedas?
- Thread starter ShivaFan
- Start date
I don't understand this. Could you ELI5 (explain like I'm 5)? I'm not the brightest diya at diwali.
Except that the puranas themselves reiterate from the Vedas. For e.g. the Bhagavata Purana recountss the tale of King Prithu overseeing the performance of a 100 ashvamedha sacrifices. These sacrifices are conducted strictly as per the Vedic injunctions.
Good, thanks. Just for the record, I'm not saying that the Puranas are contradictory to the Vedas, just that it seems most Hindus know the Puranic stories and personalities of the deities better than they know the Vedas, and worship and believe according to that.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
You mean the Vedic rishis did not understand philosophy that they wrote richas in praise of Gods? Are you not a 'bhakta' of your culture and country? There is nothing wrong with 'bhakti'. It is one of the accepted ways to enlightenment in Hinduism. Philosophy is not everybody's cup of tea, that is why we have 'bhakti'. I see that you are a young person, but friend, you will need to do better than that in this forum.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
You are correct, Jai. It is majorly 'puranic', meaning that indigenous views prevailed and the Aryan views were relegated to second position.
I definitely do not think that the Yajurvedic Ashwamedha (Queen sleeping with a dead horse) was like the RigVedic Ashwamedha. Ashwamedha was an yearly ritual in RigVeda and a 'ratri-kratu' (night sacrifice).
Amanava
Member
, You got me wrong, what I am saying is people worshiping blindly Rudra, Brahma and other small gods is ok, but most of the current hindus do it for materialistic benefits, god give me this, give me that kind of. why ? Because they do not know the depths of vedic philosophy. Only if they understand that in depth, why God Krishna does what he does, then only love develops from him, then instead of begging god for simple low level benefits, you would do Service to him what is called as Kainkaryam
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Do you think that all 'bhaktas' worship Gods and Goddesses for material benefits? Even the writers of the richas wanted material benefits:
अग्निमीळे पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवं रत्वीजम l होतारं रत्नधातमम ll
aghnimīḷe purohitaṃ yajñasya devaṃ ṛtvījam l hotāraṃ ratnadhātamam ll
I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice; the hotar, lavisher of wealth.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rvi01.htm
तुभ्येदमिन्द्र परि षिच्यते मधु तवं सुतस्य कलशस्यराजसि l तवं रयिं पुरुवीरामु नस कर्धि तवं तपःपरितप्याजयः सवः ll
tubhyedamindra pari ṣicyate madhu tvaṃ sutasya kalaśasyarājasi l tvaṃ rayiṃ puruvīrāmu nas kṛdhi tvaṃ tapaḥparitapyājayaḥ svaḥ l
This pleasant drink, O Indra, is prepared for you: you are the ruling Lord of beaker and of juice; bestow upon us wealth with many hero sons, you, having glowed with fervor, bring heavenly light.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10167.htm
Last edited:
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
This is known by a combination of how things are done today and historical information gleaned from older sources (Puranas, etc.,).
The Vedas do not constitute the bedrock of all Darsanas. Only Mimamsa and Vedanta rely on the Veda and here too, we have a difference. Vedanta is only reliant on what it calls Jnana Kanda and Mimamsa has no interest at all in Jnana kanda. Mimamsa is hardly extant today and Vedanta has been interwined with Bhakti and rituals of Sampradaya - so much that well over 90% of what a lay Advaitin does as part of his religion is non-Vedic.
Between Puranic and Vedic - yes. We can trace more elements of modern day Hinduism to Puranas than to the Veda. However, most common Hindu practices are not scripture based.
The portion of Puranas that is not reiterating the Veda is far bigger. So, if you are saying that the Purana is based on the Veda, then that is not true.
It is because the common man has no interest in philosophy and after-life matters. Most people would prefer to focus on matters pertaining to this life and solving real world problems than to go solve an artificial problem (reincarnation) created by religion. If it were not for religion, you would not even bother to chase after Mukti. So, religion creates the problem in the first place by making you feel inadequate/incomplete and then offers solutions. It is like the television commercial that makes you feel your hair is not good enough and then offers this awesome conditioner that will make your hair look better.
shivsomashekhar said:
Are you familiar with the Nyaya text Nyayakusumanjali of Udayana? Why are traditions other than Mimamsa and Vedanta called astika? At this stage, I hesitate to ask for your views since they seem out of mainstream scholarship and tradition. So, if you could, please do quote any contemporary/traditional philosopher on these issues.
I have to ask for a source on this claim. While I get that you are trying to use hyperbole to make your point, sources other then your own opinions would be appreciated.
Same with the following claim.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
I've always thought Vedic Literature to mean Vedas, Upanisads and Puranas as well as their associated commentaries (Upa-Vedas, Upa-Puranas, Veda-angas). Its just that different schools give different importance to different bits, hence Hinduism. Its crazy rich. I mean, I've studied philosophy, and I can tell you, many if not all of the philosophical ideas found in the west can also be found somewhere in Vedic scripture, whether it be materialism, dualism, monotheism or polytheism. The Vedas (by which I mean all) are like a tree with nourish all spiritual practitioners in accordance with their spiritual qualifications. By the Mercy of the Lord we are all moving up slowly, yet surely.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Gathas are also prayer songs of Zoroaster.
Translation of Gathas The Holy Songs Of Zarathushtra
http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/gatha/az/The Gathas - FAZ.pdf
When I read Yasna, I enjoyed it.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Who are they? Are the priests/clergy?
Regards
What @Aupmanyav said.
Dvijas means "twice born". They are priests and teachers, warriors and merchants who undergo an initiation ritual as a spiritual rebirth.
Dvijas means "twice born". They are priests and teachers, warriors and merchants who undergo an initiation ritual as a spiritual rebirth.
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
The classification of astika/nastika darshanas is not as old as people think. It is as late as the 17th Century and therefore, does not mean much.
This classification labels schools that explicitly avowed the authority of the Veda as nastika. Other schools such as Nyaya, Vaisesika and Sankhya are treated as astika, though they have *zero* dependance on the Veda. Check Ishwara Krishna's sankhya karika and Gautama's Nyaya sutras (with Vatsyayana's commentary) and you will see that they are built on first principles - with no testimony whatsoever, from any of the Vedas. In fact, Ishwara Krishna's sankhya has no role for an Ishwara and in strict terms, is an atheistic doctrine (nirishwara sankhya) - and is yet labeled as astika in this classification.
If you are disputing a specific position, call it out and we can discuss it further.
On your other disagreements, before I go into details, please let me know if you are from India or have lived there for some time, so I know if your knowledge is first-hand or if you are relying on books.
Dvija = twice born. They receive the sacred thread in a formal ceremony, which makes them twice born and qualified to learn.
Based on the varna system, shudras are non-dvijas and cannot learn/recite the Veda. Among the other varnas, kshatriyas and vaishyas can learn, but cannot teach. Brahmanas are the only dvijas who are allowed to teach and that is why they have historically been the custodians of Sruti.
shivsomashekhar said:
I am familiar with these works. I am, however, quite astonished you claim Samkhya has no basis in the Vedas. How the gunas interact with each other during pralaya and how the process of evolution proceeds during srishti is developed in the Samkhyakarika from the cosmology stated in the RV. Samkhya/Yoga have their own interpretation of the devas that appear in the Vedic corpus. While the Nyayasutras do indeed predate Nyayakusumanjali, I suggest a study of this latter important Nyaya text to understand their upholding of the Vedas. The Nyayasutras lay down the philosophical aspect of disputation and ontology, but do not get into theology as much as the Nyayakusumanjali does. This is not because the Nyaya did not believe in the Vedas, but because the scope of the Nyayasutras was different. To state that they have *zero* dependence on the Vedas is not what the traditions themselves believe and is therefore simply not true.
I ask again, what classifies a darshana as astika?
I gave an example of a Puranic episode (and can give so many more) where the Vedas are revered and upheld and you said the puranas are not based on the Vedas.
Perhaps you need to explain what you mean when you say Text A is based on Text B.
Ekanta
om sai ram
Sorry for not participating in the actual discussion, will just give a hint I found useful.
Sathya Sai Baba says that:
"The word Bhakthi might not be used, as such, in the Samhithas, but is not the word "Sraddha" found?
Sraddhayaagnih Samidhyathe Sraddhaahooyathe havih
Sraddhaam bhagasya moordhanivachassaa Vedayaamasi [Śraddhā Sūkta]
"It is only through Sraddha that the Flame of the Sacrificial Fire is lit and fed. It is through Sraddha alone that the offerings reach the Gods who are called. Let us praise Sraddha, which is the highest form of worship". See, how mighty is the power of Sraddha!...
...The seeds of Bhakthi which are found scattered in the Vedasamhithas, sprout in the Upanishads, and begin to grow with many a blossom-full branch in the Puranas."
http://www.saibaba.ws/vahini/dharmavahini/dharmavahini11.htm
There is also a nice article about this shraddha in the Prabuddha Bharata by Swami Utsargananda, starting at page 58
"Etymologically, the word śraddhā is derived from śrat, a root noun probably cognate with the English word ‘heart’, and dhā to place; it would thus mean: “to put one’s heart on something”.’ Though generally the English word ‘faith’ is used to translate ‘shraddha’, it does not convey the same meaning. ”
http://www.advaitaashrama.org/Content/pb/2010/012010.pdf
(edited: ps... this is an extremely good article!)
Sathya Sai Baba says that:
"The word Bhakthi might not be used, as such, in the Samhithas, but is not the word "Sraddha" found?
Sraddhayaagnih Samidhyathe Sraddhaahooyathe havih
Sraddhaam bhagasya moordhanivachassaa Vedayaamasi [Śraddhā Sūkta]
"It is only through Sraddha that the Flame of the Sacrificial Fire is lit and fed. It is through Sraddha alone that the offerings reach the Gods who are called. Let us praise Sraddha, which is the highest form of worship". See, how mighty is the power of Sraddha!...
...The seeds of Bhakthi which are found scattered in the Vedasamhithas, sprout in the Upanishads, and begin to grow with many a blossom-full branch in the Puranas."
http://www.saibaba.ws/vahini/dharmavahini/dharmavahini11.htm
There is also a nice article about this shraddha in the Prabuddha Bharata by Swami Utsargananda, starting at page 58
"Etymologically, the word śraddhā is derived from śrat, a root noun probably cognate with the English word ‘heart’, and dhā to place; it would thus mean: “to put one’s heart on something”.’ Though generally the English word ‘faith’ is used to translate ‘shraddha’, it does not convey the same meaning. ”
http://www.advaitaashrama.org/Content/pb/2010/012010.pdf
(edited: ps... this is an extremely good article!)
In North Bengal, in Paharpur Bihara, the Buddhists still had a strong hold there more than 1000 years ago. This would be about 1000 AD, Christian calendar. There was formed at that time, a semi-secret mysterous sect that, may have been a reaction to the decline of Buddhism and various social enigmas. This sect emerged publically in North Bengal, and taking to public venues and on foot in groups, accompanied by drum instruments, they would parade down the path with arms raise to the sky and chanting mantras of the names of Buddha. But this Buddha was a young teenager. A carving of such parades was found later in China, having been brought there to a Buddhist temple but depicts Indians and India. They had cymbals and drums. They would stop, and jump in a dance.
It is like the Sankirtan of Chaitanya, 500 years before Chaitanya.
So there was a form of Bhakti in Buddhism as well.
But we see something approximate even earlier - in the public parades, chanting, arms raised, and musical instruments, in the devotees and priests of Isis of Egypt (Mother Goddess). They had cymbals. They would stop the parade, and begin to jump in a dance. 2000 years ago or more.
Now here is something interesting. It is said that Chaitanya was the founder, or prophet if you will, of Sankirtan. The public parade, with cymbals and drums, the chanting and singing of the Mahamantra.
But what is interesting is, the very first time Chaitanya did this before his students (he was a teacher in a school in Bengal), he sang the following and prompted his students to join in, and stand, and then parade, chanting in song the following:
Haraye Namaha
Krishna Yadavaya Namaha
Gopala Govinda Rama
Sri Madhu-su-dhana
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare
So it is clear, Lord Chaitanya's very first Sankirtana was not an abstract interpretation of the Mahamantra. We see Chaitanya sing (it started as a song then became a chant and then the parade and then the dance) to another - "The Name of Hari, Krishna and Yadava, Cow Protector, Cowherd, Rama! The beautiful slayer of Madhu! Vishnu of Krishna, oh Krishna! Krishna! Vishnu of Rama! oh Rama! Rama!"
So, Sankirtan seems to be a human quality of devotion to a cherished personality that is too strikingly like a human yet a God, that goes way, way back in our being from long ago. Why do the hands raise up? Reaching? To the sky? Humans have been doing this for a long time. They want to hold the hands up - to the sky. When they do this with a song and chant to a Lord, some sort of "electricity" goes through the body down the fingers, arms, shoulders, to the brain, like the electrolytes of drinking water.
Caitanya would start to jump. We see the humans in the parade suddenly dance by jumping.
Up to the sky. Can they jump so high? Can they touch the sky? They say, "I want to go home".
Was our home... in the sky?
Probably.
The earth spins. The sky may be one direction out to space that changes every minute, up it isn't here. Up there. In the space.
Did we come from there?
Who are the captains of our ship?
Bhakti might also be a journey. You leave here to go home. You know it is far away, but you can almost touch the sky if you get on the boat with the sails that catch the wind. The wind traveled a long way already, but where is it's head, and where is it's tail?
Mother, give me food. Where are you? I will leave the nest now. I have never flown before. Now I will leap. To the sky.
Bhakti. Or something like that. Nothing new. Very old. But - very Bengali. (huh?)
It is like the Sankirtan of Chaitanya, 500 years before Chaitanya.
So there was a form of Bhakti in Buddhism as well.
But we see something approximate even earlier - in the public parades, chanting, arms raised, and musical instruments, in the devotees and priests of Isis of Egypt (Mother Goddess). They had cymbals. They would stop the parade, and begin to jump in a dance. 2000 years ago or more.
Now here is something interesting. It is said that Chaitanya was the founder, or prophet if you will, of Sankirtan. The public parade, with cymbals and drums, the chanting and singing of the Mahamantra.
But what is interesting is, the very first time Chaitanya did this before his students (he was a teacher in a school in Bengal), he sang the following and prompted his students to join in, and stand, and then parade, chanting in song the following:
Haraye Namaha
Krishna Yadavaya Namaha
Gopala Govinda Rama
Sri Madhu-su-dhana
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare
So it is clear, Lord Chaitanya's very first Sankirtana was not an abstract interpretation of the Mahamantra. We see Chaitanya sing (it started as a song then became a chant and then the parade and then the dance) to another - "The Name of Hari, Krishna and Yadava, Cow Protector, Cowherd, Rama! The beautiful slayer of Madhu! Vishnu of Krishna, oh Krishna! Krishna! Vishnu of Rama! oh Rama! Rama!"
So, Sankirtan seems to be a human quality of devotion to a cherished personality that is too strikingly like a human yet a God, that goes way, way back in our being from long ago. Why do the hands raise up? Reaching? To the sky? Humans have been doing this for a long time. They want to hold the hands up - to the sky. When they do this with a song and chant to a Lord, some sort of "electricity" goes through the body down the fingers, arms, shoulders, to the brain, like the electrolytes of drinking water.
Caitanya would start to jump. We see the humans in the parade suddenly dance by jumping.
Up to the sky. Can they jump so high? Can they touch the sky? They say, "I want to go home".
Was our home... in the sky?
Probably.
The earth spins. The sky may be one direction out to space that changes every minute, up it isn't here. Up there. In the space.
Did we come from there?
Who are the captains of our ship?
Bhakti might also be a journey. You leave here to go home. You know it is far away, but you can almost touch the sky if you get on the boat with the sails that catch the wind. The wind traveled a long way already, but where is it's head, and where is it's tail?
Mother, give me food. Where are you? I will leave the nest now. I have never flown before. Now I will leap. To the sky.
Bhakti. Or something like that. Nothing new. Very old. But - very Bengali. (huh?)