Where is the word Bhakti in the Vedas?

[निताइ dasa]

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.

Yes that is a beautiful pastime. There were no instruments at that time, so the Lord simply clapped the tune with His associates. I feel clapping creates every personal touch in Kirtan. Afterwords the Lord ordered the khol drum to be created for kirtan, with each of the straps of a Mrdanga representing the 32 syllables of Maha-mantra.

 

[paarsurrey]

What @Aupmanyav said.
Dvijas means "twice born". They are priests and teachers, warriors and merchants who undergo an initiation ritual as a spiritual rebirth.

Thanks and regards

 

[shivsomashekhar]

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.

The sankhya-karika is the oldest extant text on sankhya and it does not depend on the Veda for any of its content. If there are later texts which attempt to merge the two, I am not familiar with them. I am using the Colebrooke translation of the karikas commented by Gaudapada.

I ask again, what classifies a darshana as astika?

As explained earlier, the definition of nastika varies. Sometimes it is lack of belief in Ishvara and sometimes it is lack of belief in the Veda. In this context, the latter definition has been used to classify darsanas. But there are various classifications of darsanas (from the 5th Century CE Manimegalai), and the idea of separating them as astika/nastika is relatively recent. Even the Sarva-darsana-sangraha (14th Century or so) does not distinguish between astika and nastika darsanas. Again, accepting the validity of the Veda does not mean the text is based on the Veda, as in the case of the sankhya-karika.

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.

Reverence != basis. For instance, the Mahabharata talks of the antiquity of Pancharatras. but that cannot be taken to mean that the Mbh is based on the Pancharatra.

Perhaps you need to explain what you mean when you say Text A is based on Text B.

The best examples are Bhashyas, Vartikas, Karikas and Vrittis. They are specifically tied to a source text. A karika can still address extraneous content, but it is unambiguously based on a single source text. On the other hand, Puranas (by their self descriptions and the amara-kosha definition) never claim to be based on other source texts.

 

[3d2e1f]

The sankhya-karika is the oldest extant text on sankhya and it does not depend on the Veda for any of its content. If there are later texts which attempt to merge the two, I am not familiar with them. I am using the Colebrooke translation of the karikas commented by Gaudapada.

I do not have access to that version. I have Samkhyakarika with commentary by Vacaspati Misra by Swami Virupakshananda.

The very first verse of the karika is a propitiatory verse. The commentary on this verse mentions a variety of devatas and explicitly talks of Vedic injunctions and discusses their power to relive one of pain and suffering.

It is noted that you did not comment on the Nyayakusumanjali which discusses Nyaya theology and how it is related to the Vedas.

If you will excuse me, I find the rest of your arguments quite flimsy.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I do not have access to that version. I have Samkhyakarika with commentary by Vacaspati Misra by Swami Virupakshananda.

The very first verse of the karika is a propitiatory verse. The commentary on this verse mentions a variety of devatas and explicitly talks of Vedic injunctions and discusses their power to relive one of pain and suffering.

The propitiatory verse is not a karika and must have been added by the commentator (Gaudapada's commentary does not have it) and as you know, has nothing to do with Sankhya. In the Sankhya doctrine, there is no concept of devas and especially devas who can relieve suffering.

If you will excuse me, I find the rest of your arguments quite flimsy.

Excused.

 

[atanu]

The sankhya-karika is the oldest extant text on sankhya and it does not depend on the Veda for any of its content. If there are later texts which attempt to merge the two, I am not familiar with them. I am using the Colebrooke translation of the karikas commented by Gaudapada....

That is an odd claim.The Purusha, Prakriti, and Pradhana all come from the Vedas. Vedas, the darsanas, upanishads, puranas, and itihasa all have linkages. What is Aptavakya as valid pramana that samkhya upholds? Is it talking of kAmasutra?

As explained earlier, the definition of nastika varies. Sometimes it is lack of belief in Ishvara and sometimes it is lack of belief in the Veda.

Again an odd claim. Veda asserts Ishwara. So, accepting Ishwara is accepting Veda. And no. Samkhya does not teach that Ishwara (controller of Prakriti) is a wrong concept. Samkhya holds that creator cannot be Ishwara but it proposes a controller of Prakriti. Many upanishad further expound on the Samkhya categories of Purusha and Prakriti.

Samkhya Karika

III. The argument from control

1. Nature does not control herself.
2. But there is control, e.g. we overcome suffering.
3. A controller independent from nature must exist.

IV. The argument from experience to experiencer.

1. We have experiences of pain and pleasure.
2. There must be something to experience pain and pleasure.

V. Argument from ascetic isolation. Valid testimony of scripture and seers. There is something beyond nature, viz., an isolated spirit..
LVI. Evolution is on account of prakriti itself. Not by God, not Brahman, and not by Ishvara the Lord.
LVII. If God is a creator, he would create only happy mortals. And if mortals were in pain, he would be obligated to eliminate it. Thus, God cannot be involved in the operation of prakriti. As prakriti is basically insentient, it cannot be blamed for pain and evil.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nasadiya says differently.

 

[Chakra]

I suppose that is the answer to everything.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"shivsomashekhar, post: 4807440, member: 56157"

Namaste,

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.

What Astika/Nastika actually refers to may have changed during the times, which i agree with you there, but the concept of differing Dharshans being of either Nastika or Astika according to the Darshans themselves is a age old tradition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Āstika_and_nāstika

Namaste

 

[atanu]

Nasadiya says differently.

Nasadiya speaks of Seer.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here is the shortest and the best definition of who is an Astika and and who is a Nastika:

"Those who supported brahminical rituals and dakshina to brahmins were astikas, and those who opposed it were nastikas."

It were those ritualist/karmakandi brahmins who gave the labels. They made Buddha into an avatara whose purpose was to misguide. Simple, isn't it?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

That is an odd claim.The Purusha, Prakriti, and Pradhana all come from the Vedas.

No such claim is made in the oldest available text on Sankhya. It is a text that derives the doctrine from first principles. While, it allows testimony (apta-vachana) as a valid source of knowledge, there is no dependence on Vedic authority to support itself.

FYI, Shankara, in his Brahma-sutra-bhashya, criticized the Sankhya view of Pradhana and Purusha and called it non-Vedic. He also explicitly said that the Kapila of Shvetashvatara Upanishad is different from Kapila, the founder of Sankhya. Shankara. In short, your position contradicts Shankara's view of Sankhya. For more information, check "Classical Sankhya" by Larson. He devoted an entire epilogue to Shankara's position on Sankhya.

Vedas, the darsanas, upanishads, puranas, and itihasa all have linkages.

I am not aware of anyone disputing this.Besides, Jainism, Buddhism and Lokayata too, have links to all of the above and so, it does not mean anything in this context.

What is Aptavakya as valid pramana that samkhya upholds? Is it talking of kAmasutra?

apta-vakya means any of shruti and smriti. The *only* such source mentioned in the sankhya karika is Kapila's shashti-tantra. Later authors may have tried to draw additional parallels, but it does not take away from the fact that Sankhya as presented by Ishvara Krishna, is a logic based system (anvikshiki), which does not require Vedic support.

Again an odd claim. Veda asserts Ishwara. So, accepting Ishwara is accepting Veda.

Sankhya is an atheistic doctrine (criticized as such in the Padma Purana, etc.,). It has no use for an Ishwara.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Namaste,



What Astika/Nastika actually refers to may have changed during the times, which i agree with you there, but the concept of differing Dharshans being of either Nastika or Astika according to the Darshans themselves is a age old tradition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Āstika_and_nāstika

Namaste

The page you post is agreeing that Sankhya was a nastika doctrine (nirishwara). But it is also considered astika at the same time, for accepting the Veda as a valid source of knowledge. Paying lip service to the Veda (which may have been a socio-political need of the hour) and then creating an independent system which requires no Vedic testimony, speaks for itself - I would think.

The same applies to Mimamsa, for it has little use for Ishvara - which makes it both astika and nastika.

 

[atanu]

No such claim is made in the oldest available text on Sankhya. It is a text that derives the doctrine from first principles. While, it allows testimony (apta-vachana) as a valid source of knowledge, there is no dependence on Vedic authority to support itself.

FYI, Shankara, in his Brahma-sutra-bhashya, criticized the Sankhya view of Pradhana and Purusha and called it non-Vedic. He also explicitly said that the Kapila of Shvetashvatara Upanishad is different from Kapila, the founder of Sankhya. Shankara. In short, your position contradicts Shankara's view of Sankhya. For more information, check "Classical Sankhya" by Larson. He devoted an entire epilogue to Shankara's position on Sankhya.



I am not aware of anyone disputing this.Besides, Jainism, Buddhism and Lokayata too, have links to all of the above and so, it does not mean anything in this context.



apta-vakya means any of shruti and smriti. The *only* such source mentioned in the sankhya karika is Kapila's shashti-tantra. Later authors may have tried to draw additional parallels, but it does not take away from the fact that Sankhya as presented by Ishvara Krishna, is a logic based system (anvikshiki), which does not require Vedic support.

Sankhya is an atheistic doctrine (criticized as such in the Padma Purana, etc.,). It has no use for an Ishwara.

Whether Shankara opposed Samkhya is a moot point. Shankara an advaitin will oppose the dualism of Samkhya... There is no element of surprise.

But has Shankara said that Samkhya is non Vedic? I do not think so.

And Samkhya is not atheistic as I cited from it. Samkhya acknowledges a controller of Prakriti.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

But has Shankara said that Samkhya is non Vedic? I do not think so.

What I am saying is, it does not draw on the Veda (as testimony) to support its doctrine.

And Samkhya is not atheistic as I cited from it. Samkhya acknowledges a controller of Prakriti.

The Sankhya Purusha != Ishvara.

Check the sankhya karikas or any of Larson, Garbe, etc. Here is a wikipedia page too -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

 

[atanu]

What I am saying is, it does not draw on the Veda (as testimony) to support its doctrine.

Yes. Samkhya is very clear about it. Samkhya says that the goal is to attain the knowledge of the unmanifest. It says that the revealed scripture is of the category of manifest and is contaminated. Samkhya holds that only the knowledge of "Manifest", "Unmanifest", and "Knower" is to be sought.

But what you are missing is that this is the teaching of Veda only (is not vedanta Veda?).

The Sankhya Purusha != Ishvara.

Check the sankhya karikas or any of Larson, Garbe, etc. Here is a wikipedia page too -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

Yes. Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. Purusha, who is unentangled from Prakriti, is Ishwara. Veda itself teaches that. Remember "Two birds" from Asiya Vamiya sukta? BTW, Rishi Dirghatma, the seer of Asiya Vamiya sukta is also the seer in Purusha Suktam.

See. I will avoid reading commentaries of secular western academicians .. they have mostly no inkling of the spiritual. Wisdom does not take birth from materials. Wisdom is intrinsic in Atman. Most scholars have no way to appreciate that. These guys have almost converted Buddhism into Naturalism and are trying the same with Hinduism.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I think the matter has been discussed enough. I am summarizing my position here -

Among the so-called Astika Darshanas, only Mimamsa and Vedanta are built upon the Veda. That is, unlike the others, they go beyond mere acceptance of Shruti as a Pramana; they actually draw from it. In contrast, the other four doctrines claim Shruti as a Pramana, but do not rely on it to build their doctrine. Here, I am talking about their oldest known forms. There is no denying that these doctrines were cultivated in Brahminical circles, who also studied the Veda and hence, it is possible that they underwent changes over time to acquire syncretic forms.

This is also in line with the ancient classification in the Arthashastra of Anvikshiki (Sankhya, Yoga and Lokayata) vs. the Trayi. Anvikshiki consisted of logic based systems while Trayi consisted of Veda.

 

[atanu]

I think the matter has been discussed enough. I am summarizing my position here -

Among the so-called Astika Darshanas, only Mimamsa and Vedanta are built upon the Veda. That is, unlike the others, they go beyond mere acceptance of Shruti as a Pramana; they actually draw from it. In contrast, the other four doctrines claim Shruti as a Pramana, but do not rely on it to build their doctrine. Here, I am talking about their oldest known forms. There is no denying that these doctrines were cultivated in Brahminical circles, who also studied the Veda and hence, it is possible that they underwent changes over time to acquire syncretic forms.

This is also in line with the ancient classification in the Arthashastra of Anvikshiki (Sankhya, Yoga and Lokayata) vs. the Trayi. Anvikshiki consisted of logic based systems while Trayi consisted of Veda.

Goal of Samkhya is "Knowing the Knower". Samkhya no doubt says that the revealed vakya will not help one to know the knower. And it is correct and not contrary to what Veda teaches. Knower is not in the book called Veda. Knower is in self, which is the subject of Veda, which says "Who will know the Knower. Who will See the Seer?" And then we come to the subject of meditation and samadhi.

Do you think that Samkhya is talking of knowing the knower intellectually?

Please study Rig Vedic verses Purusha sukta and Asiya Vamiya Sukta (and some others) of Rishi Dirghatma and you will see Samkhya staring at you, including the concept of Gunas.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

The page you post is agreeing that Sankhya was a nastika doctrine (nirishwara). But it is also considered astika at the same time, for accepting the Veda as a valid source of knowledge. Paying lip service to the Veda (which may have been a socio-political need of the hour) and then creating an independent system which requires no Vedic testimony, speaks for itself - I would think.

The same applies to Mimamsa, for it has little use for Ishvara - which makes it both astika and nastika.

Namaste,

Well maybe it depends of what Nastika and Astika meant during the Sankhya and Memansa times, but these categorizations are not something new of the 17th century, this was my only point (unless you did not mean this, then my appollogies). The requirements may have changed, so for nowadays maybe the Abrahamic religions can be classified as Astika? who knows

Dhanyavad

 

[atanu]

Sankhya Karika II
The revealed is like the evident one, It is linked with impurity, destruction and inequality. Other than that is better,—proceeding from the right cognition of the Manifest, Unmanifest and the Knower.
...
In the premise itself, Samkhya points to Jnana Yoga.It says that the revealed is linked with impurity and for removal of pain, one must proceed from right cognition of Manifest, Unmanifest and the Knower.

What is non Vedic in that? Veda contains both the rituals and the jnana components, and especially the verses of Rishi Dirghatma have exact correspondence to Samkhya. The central core of Samkhya the Soul -- the Purusha, is the central subject of Veda too, unlike the Charvaka or Lokyata that deny soul.