X-posting an old post due to relevance:
Agnimitra wrote:RajeshA ji you've been missed here.
I second that.
Satyam, Satyam, Punah Satyam. RajeshA saar, come back, no!
Atleast, in this thread. Similarly, Shiv saar, at least for this thread.
KLP Dubey wrote:
Dipanker wrote:Aren't you contradicting yourself? If as per you the meaning of veda (RigVeda) is not known, then how can one ( and I am including you in that category too) demonstrate one's knowledge about about something whose meaning is not known?
I'm not contradicting myself. "Knowledge" of the Veda does not mean that one has 'deciphered its meaning'. It means a correct knowledge of its sounds (shiksha), their arrangement (chandas), accent and grammatical aspects (vyakarana). These disciplines have been highly successful and created a great deal of useful knowledge which the Indians have disseminated to the rest of humanity.
Dubey ji,how can you claim that the words of Veda are not Sanskrit when Vyakarna(Grammer) is a Veda-anga? How can you say that Vedic words are meaningless when Vyakarna(Grammer) is a Veda-anga?
KLP Dubey wrote:It also means a knowledge of the various meanings that humans have assigned to its sounds (nirukta). Note, nirukta is not a study of reliable meanings of the Veda or its interpretation. It is basically a catalog of previously suggested meanings. This discipline has had no clear success.
I think this is a disingenuous position. On one hand you are saying that people should not ignore what Hindhus have been saying for more than 5000 years, on the other hand you are yourself trying to undermine Niruktha just because its presence undermines your position?
But, the basic point is that Vedhas do contain a lot of knowledge(and they are not some meaningless mumble jumble). And to decode(or to understand) this knowledge, knowledge of Vedha-angas are required. One of the Vedha-angas being Kalpa(which deals with rituals, creation of altars, ...etc), it is obvious that Vedhas contain knowledge related to rituals or atleast, knowledge about rituals is required to understand the wisdom of Vedhas.
KLP Dubey wrote:The other two vedangas are concerned with trying to interpret its sounds - which contain universally valid information - in terms of their effects on the human condition (kalpa and jyotish). The 'success' of these disciplines is dependent on your epistemological viewpoint.
And since, Jyothishya is also a Vedha-anga, knowledge of Jyothishya is required to understand Vaidik wisdom.
And there are also Upa-Vedhas:
Medicine (Āyurvedha), associated with the Rigvedha
Archery (Dhanurvedha), associated with the Yajurvedha
Music and sacred dance (Gāndharva-vedha), associated with the Saamavedha
Military science (Shastrashastra), associated with the Atharvavedha
Upa-Vedha could mean knowledge branches derived from the Vedhas or it could also mean applied(i.e. practical) knowledge derived from the Vedhas. It is also clearly given which branch was derived from which Vedha.
This is also traditionally being studied by the Hindhus for more than 5000 years.
BTW, I wonder where the colonial EJ 'indologists' got 5000 year mark from? Just the good old creation day mentioned in THE BOOK?
KLP Dubey wrote:There is no successful discipline concerned with "decphering the meaning" of the Veda (i.e. the Rgveda Samhita) in terms of history, geography, and human civilization. All previous and current attempts have failed and give absurd results. Moreover, the successful darshanas (mimansa and vedanta) have shown that the sounds of the Veda cannot be assumed to be anything but eternal and impersonal.
They are eternal and impersonal, alright.
KLP Dubey wrote:As also mentioned previously, the ancient Indians were no fools. There is a clear division between Veda, Purana, and Itihasa. The latter two deal with human history and myth. The Veda is separate from these and this has been common knowledge from time immemorial. It is only after the western colonization of India that the politically motivated urge to find history and geography in the Veda has begun (AIT, AMT, OIT, etc).
I think this is a much better position. Vedhas have always been considered a storehouse of knowledge. The word 'Vedha' itself means 'knowledge'. The dhatu 'Vidh' denotes 'knowledge'. This is found in another word 'Vidh-van' which means 'scholar'. In sanskrit, 'vidh' is used even as a verb, correct me if I am wrong.
But, it has never been claimed(either in Vedhas Itself or by Vedha-angas or by Puranas or by Ithihaasas or by other Darshanas) that Vedha is a historical record.
It was the colonial EJ 'indologists' who came up with this new and revolutionary idea that Vedha is a historical record. I don't know whether Buddhists ever made this claim about Vedhas.
But, how can anyone just make an absurd claim without any reason when the traditions associated with the Vedhas nor Vedhas themselves support this claim(that Vedhas area historical record)? In fact, it has been explicitly said that Vedhas contain a lot of knowledge that is eternal(basically saying that Vedhas are not related to any one single location, time, circumstance or personality). This itself is an emphatic claim that Vedhas are not a historical record.
There are six-darshanas that accept the Vaidhik authority(which means that they derive their branch from the Vedhas.):
Nyaya: By Gauthama. It is based on logic(Tharka).
Vaisheshika: By Kanadha. It proposes atomic(kanam) structure of the elements.
Sankhya: By Kapila. It suggests the negation of all the things(Prakruthi) to arrive at the remainder(Purusha) which is eternal and impersonal.
Yoga: By Pathanjali. It deals with Physical and Mental exercises to control the mind(Chittha vritthi nirodha)
Mimamsa: By Vyasa->Jaimini->Kumarilla. It proposes the prominence of rituals.
Vedanta (or Uttara "later" Mimamsa): By Vyasa->Shankara. It talks about Moksha(liberation).
None of the above darshanas even suggest that Vedhas could be historical or geographical records.
Some events maybe mentioned in Vedhas while conveying a point. The point that the Vedha is trying to convey is the important thing, the event is a side-note. That event need not be historical at all because no one claims it to be history. It could be fiction/prediction/imagination/history/history mixed with imagination/prediction based upon past/...etc. It could be anything. The vital point is what Vedha is conveying. By ignoring the main point and concentrating on the side-note based on the presumption that it is a historical record leads to the strange narratives. Such narratives can be spun dime a dozen by anyone with some imagination, after all there is no need to base it on anything. One can come up with whatever one want to.
Hindhus have their historical records: Puraanas and Ithihaasas.
Ithihaasas, as the name clarifies, are precise historical records.
Puraanas, as the name suggests, are very old historical records which may have many omissions and commissions in the story telling due to the fact that they are very very old. MB, for example, is primarily a Ithihaasa. But it contains several Puraanas within it. So, it means the primary story of Paandavas and Kauravas is a Ithihaasa while the various other stories told within MB like Nala-Dhamayanthi, birth of Garooda-Naga, ...etc are Puraanas.
What the colonials have done is that they have completely reversed this.
Those records that Hindhus claim as their histories are dismissed as myths by the colonial EJs.
Those records that Hindhus claim as eternal knowledge(i.e. not historical) are claimed by the colonial EJs as historical records.
Its upside down. Its like, if I say, "X is my bro and Y is my grandfather and I pray to Z. Z is my Goddess."
Then the colonials say, "no you are lying. X cannot be your bro. Y must be your bro and Z must be your grandmother." And these colonials have no reason to make these claims except their own prejudice.
I had a doubt. How does one differentiate between adjective and noun in Sanskruth? And how to know whether a word is a common noun or proper noun?
For example, if it is said that Krushnah Sundharah.
How does one know whether Krushnah(black male) and Sundharah(beautiful male) is a common noun or adjective or proper noun?
I think that explanation would be on topic on this thread and also useful. Thanks in Advance.
end of X-post:Link to post
I accept that Vedhas have no history. But, I can't understand the argument that Vedhas have no meaning when clearly Grammar(Vyakarna) is a Vedhanga and Niruktha is also Vedhanga.
Vedhas will indeed be meaningless if one attempts to decipher them without the knowledge of Vedhanga as far as I understand.