[Advaita-l] Re: [advaitin] Re: Origin of vedas

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namste Bhaskar Prabhu-Ji:
   
  If we say something without understanding then it is nothing more than "bakavaasa". Whenever we speak it has to be "synthesized" by the mind so why should it be different for "bhrama" !? 
   
  IMHO - The knowledge given (encompassed within the R^icaaa) is apaureSheua because we know the R^ishi who delivered (expressed) those thoughts as vaidic shR^iti.  All those sages live amongst us only through their thoughts not physically.  Acharya lives amongst us only through what he wrote.  If written language did not exist then what Acharya said would have also remained as "smR^iti" only because he is part of the known history, where as the historical evidence for vaidic sages mentioned in veda does not exist.
   
  What should be important for us is to try and understand the real practical meaning what has been said by those sages rather than gloating that our veda are apauruSheya.
   
  R^ico axare parame vyoman yasmin devaa adhi vish{}ve niSheduH |
yastanna veda kimR^icaa kariShyati ya ittad vidusta ime samaasate || (R^igveda. 1.164.39)
   
  To me the meaning is knowledge and not the words that is why pat~njala muni recommends the "manana of matraa" and not just mechanical recitation.
   
  tatjjapastadrthabhaabvanam | (samaadhipaada 28)
   
  Just my $0.02
   
  Dr. Yadu


bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com wrote:
  
Brihadaranyakopanishad II ? 4 ? 10 says ?*asya mahato bhUtasya
nishvasitametat ?* This was the exhaled breath of the Great Lord.
The Vedas are the breath of the Lord. They are as old as He. He did
not create them. There was no time when the Lord did not exist. So
also of the Vedas.

praNAms
Hare Krishna

I have a small doubt here...in bruhadAraNyaka we have list of R^shis who
have realised the ultimate (brahma jnAni-s in R^shi paraMpara)...whether
shruti predicted future brahma jnAni's & mentioned those names or this
upanishad *written* after these R^shis realisation?? Considering the
traditional belief that vEda-s are apaurushEya, we have to say it is
former. But if that is the case, how can shruti excluded the names of
shankara bhagavadpAda, ramaNa etc. etc. who we consider with utmost faith
as brahma jnAni-s?? just a curious academic question..nothing to disturb
our firm conviction in shruti-s apaurushEyatva...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!!
bhaskar

PS : I am posing this question to Advaita-L also, just to get the opnions
of scholars there...



_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org



 		
---------------------------------
Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.