Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[SriKumar]

An extremist view could be that anything that is written is not the Veda at all, we can only accept what is recited as the real deal - this indeed is a valid traditional view on this subject, irrespective of your feelings about it. ........ Finally, my hope is you can see what is lost if the Vedas are in print, and yes there is valid question to their acceptance. The best wastern scholars have to say is that, these arguments are preposterous and incredulous - but that is no argument at all. Especially in face of their utter failure to defend their own books against such argumentation.
(with no apologies to Prof. Sen)

Couple of questions (by the way, I have no idea who you refer to as the 'half-priced book people' but the question below is not related to that) In the schools where vedas are taught today....(or 50 years ago), is there any reliance on texts at all (to your knowledge)? If the traditionalist view holds that putting vedas in writing degrades it (i.e. via the mode of transmission) could one extrapolate that vedic schools would have no written texts (and if there is, it would most certainly not be used for teaching veda).

[SriKumar]

I can only point out that is is the standard reductionist approach of modern science and this approach has worked in so many areas that it would be wrong to simply dismiss the approach as unnecessary.

My contention is that the utility/value of the Vedas as chanted is in the effect the whole, as heard (and as taught and learned) has on humans as opposed to the value of its parts measured by arbitrary reductionist processes that first transcribe an auditory-cognitive phenomenon into a visible script and then seek to analyse that script for value.

Someone (possibly Feynman or Dawkins?) described this sort of reductionist approach as smashing a wristwatch into small bits to try and figure out how it works. The Vedas have existed for long enough along with the information that they are to be taken "as-is" orally-verbally and they lose their value when written down. Commentaries and interpretations of the Vedas can be written down and examined for value. But doing that to the Vedas destroys their essence and invalidates the very "how-to-use" manual that came down to us with the Vedas.

I agree with your contention about the utility/value of the vedas, in fact never opposed it. To experience the full effect, you have to experience the full edifice...no problem. And neither did I advocate a reductionist approach to the exclusion of other approaches. With the Vedas, one can adopt a reductionist approach, and see what they get (probably nothing, but you never know) and then move on to a more holistic approach, with intuition, vibration and everything else in it. The Vedic wrist-watch will survive any reductionist smashing.

I think the question of the chanting of the Vedas, oral transmission, the sounds and the effect they have need to be approached from an angle that we are not taught to use in our education.

I agree....the question is: how do we get there. I dont think there is simple, straight way to get there (if there is, I am interested, simple or complex).

[shiv]

With the Vedas, one can adopt a reductionist approach, and see what they get (probably nothing, but you never know)

I believe that there may be value in a reductionist type study of the Vedas as chanted, but such study of the transcribed version has been shown to be worthless.

As far as teaching of the Vedas goes - in Vedic schools - textual material as in notes are allowed but those textual materials cannot be passed off as the Veda any more than an aircraft's "how to fly" manual can be passed off as a substitute for the act of flying the plane.

While I am no scholar here - I think "Vedic studies" are not just the Vedas alone but essential associated disciplines which are the six Vedangas which, to cut and paste from Wiki are:

The Vedanga (vedāṅga, "limbs of the Veda") are six auxiliary disciplines traditionally associated with the study and understanding of the Vedas.

Shiksha (śikṣā): phonetics, phonology and morphophonology (sandhi)
Kalpa (kalpa): ritual
Vyakarana (vyākaraṇa): grammar
Nirukta (nirukta): etymology
Chandas (chandas): meter
Jyotisha (jyotiṣa): astronomy

I think written material is allowed for the study of some of these. I have an e book version of a study of THE Panini himself where the author (a German, incidentally) disputes the idea that writing was absent in Panini's time and that there are references that indicate that students probably did use written material as aids.

If you look at the study of the Vedas including the six above disciplines one can speculate on the sort of expertise that a Vedic scholar would have at his disposal. At the core would be a knowledge of the Veda itself and the benefits that are claimed from simply knowing and chanting the Veda. In addition the scholar would have a grasp of grammar, elements of music and astronomy, The latter would include some knowledge that comes under "math" and "science" in this day and age. Stemming from these would be philosophy and Ayurveda (medicine)

So we are talking about an entire education from primary school to graduate school and he doctorate after that.

[Pulikeshi]

If the traditionalist view holds that putting vedas in writing degrades it (i.e. via the mode of transmission) could one extrapolate that vedic schools would have no written texts (and if there is, it would most certainly not be used for teaching veda).

Veda are to be transmitted orally (period). Just because someone put it on paper or used a powerpoint, wrote a book, published a pdf, tweeted it on twitter, uploaded it to youtube to aid teaching it or sharing it, etc. does not mean it degrades the Vedas as a whole. The traditionalist when they say - Veda - is that which is transmitted orally, you are welcome to put on paper for discourse, commentary or education. If there is ever a time when the Veda are not transmitted orally, then they are not eternal. Simble onlee no?

[Pulikeshi]

Vedas == Integral (-infinity to today) of (Genetic Knowledge + knowledge in inorganic substances + knowledge in extra-terrestrial, extra-galactic fields/matter/energy)

As applied to humans, it is reduced to Genetic knowledge since the rest is inaccessible/lost.

But that is a steep learning curve to explain to a skeptical 10-year-old.

As for the whole "Into India vs Out of India" bissing contest, the only right answer I see is:

The knowledge was everywhere. It was best preserved in codified form as a result of human thought, in India.

Where comes such equations? Based in what? What does Genetic Knowledge mean here?
Why are 10 year olds only skeptical? Whereas they have shown themselves to be unnecessarily argumentative

The phissing contest is just that... whose father what goes onlee... why drag the Veda into this?
(unless you have me on ignore list and have not read a word I have written )

PS: You are welcome to drag the Veda into it, but there was civilization in India prior, so what gives?

[schinnas]

If there is ever a time when the Veda are not transmitted orally, then they are not eternal. Simble onlee no?

Sir, my understanding is that Vedas are eternal regardless of whether there are people who can transmit them orally. Even if all of humanity is gone, Vedas (the vibrations of Vedic Mantras) remain in the universe and hence they are eternal. They existed before humanity and probably will exist after humanity should humanity cease to exist. Just my humble opinion.

[Pulikeshi]

^^^Hat tip! Job done on my part
For bonus points you can extrapolate on how to deal with Roko's Basilisk -
There is a way forward... albeit completely out of topic here...

Since we agree it is eternal - what means OIT and AIT to it?

[UlanBatori]

My logic sequence is listed above the equation.

If the knowledge passed down in the Vedas does not include what is called Genetic Knowledge, then what does it include? IOW, if the Vedas exclude the vast portion of what people, monkeys, snails, snakes, flies, pakistanis, all "know" from birth, or realized shortly thereafter, then how can the Vedas be the all-encompassing knowledge base? Or is it your position that the Vedas are highly select knowledge transmission limited to The Chosen?

As far as reading your extensive posts, my deepest apologies, I generally scan whatever I can, but I have only reached Page 1 and a few others out of 205, and I may not have the Genetic Knowledge or Discipline for some of the posts to trigger The Vibrations inside me that convert the content of the posts to knowledge or understanding. It may be because of the lack of accompanying rhythmic chants. That is just a sign of my lowly status. Karma.

If on the other hand, the Vedas encompass ALL knowledge, then they MUST include what animals and all living beings (trees, bacterial included) know, and have "instilled" in them from birth or even before. The fact that such knowledge transmission to the unborn occurs is well-accepted in the Puranas (Abhimanyu). If they include all such knowledge, then transmission must occur through other than human verbal chants or words.

Did civilization in India precede the reduction of the Vedas to succinct, verbally transmissible form? Absolutely. Just as the knowledge to tell time, a system for transmitting time, and to construct gears and springs all pre-dated the first wrist-watch, long before it was hammered to pieces to see how to reconstruct all that knowledge from the pieces.

But no one may have sat down and tried to compose all that into a set of Rks and precise instructions on how to recite those Rks.

I see the Vedas as a superset of efforts of the following kind:
Say that one asked every BRF member (incl all 1,700,000,000 browsors) to write and say/sing and record EVERYTHING that they have ever learned/felt/understood/suspected. (to make it totally unmanageable, change the analogy to FaceBook). Then suppose one took all that and derived succinct lessons from that, and further reduced that to one-liners or two-liners, along with the right frequency content, temporal variations, atmospheric vibrations, physiological vibrations etc (the last few by sheer trial and error if necessary). And composed these into websites. (Yes, I know, if the Rakshasas did it they would get Twitter which is full of twits, or whatever the NSA has going). THAT would surely take 10,327 Rks, plus the hajaar-hajaar other instruction manuals and interpretations and explanations of the other 3 Vedas and the 18 Puranas.

Try summarizing the "gnaw-lidj" in just this thread, u will c what I mean. My Evil 6th Coujin (E6C) has tried a few of those in the distant past when threads were only about 20 pages long.

And this is why OIT is OK, but the reality may be that the basic KNOWLEDGE existed all over Creation, it's just that in much of the ****known**** Life in the Universe (remember that there are hajaar-hajaar other planets all over..) reduction of that knowledge base to one concise set, and preservation of that set, have not been successfully accomplished anywhere else than in India. The other competing accumulations of knowledge that have survived, limit themselves to such things as how to wash behind the ears and in other parts, how many wives to have, how to slaughter goats etc.

[shiv]

I would like to strike a note of dissent, so I am going to make a sarcastic comment. I don't want to hurt any feelings but I wish to indicate how strongly I feel about it.

A senior of mine at college had failed several years and had joined my class. After one more exam fail the man was high on pot and stated that he was about to renounce everything and take up sanyasa. I laughed at the guy and told him that it was a bullshit thought because he had nothing to renounce. Renunciation is fine if you have achieved something in life - wealth, fame, or at least your duties in life as a human. Without that "renunciation" is a worthless drama.

Similarly, the idea that the Vedas are eternal may be 100% true, but it can only be experienced or perceived by a person who has see/achieved the absolute/"Brahman". As for us lesser mortals, we need the Vedas as a guide to achieve that state of realization, so the fact that Vedas exist with or without humans chanting them is a worthless act of rationalization at a time when much has been lost. We lesser humans need the Vedas as handed down to us in humanly identifiable form and they are a precious gift. They may be eternal and ineffable but once we lose the link, we lesser humans have lost the "how-to" manual to see the absolute Brahman, and that is not a loss that can be dismissed lightly in the knowledge that the eternal Vedas exist anyway with or without us. A Paki-mind (hypothetical as it may seem) could say - "OK Fine. The Vedas are eternal. You can always get them." And then proceed to kill all verbal transmission so we lesser beings lose them forever.

So any "satisfaction" we may get out of the knowledge of the omniscience and transcendental immortality of the Veda needs to be tempered by the very human need to keep the oral transmission system alive and thriving. Among humans.

[UlanBatori]

I would agree 400% with that. Also that the complete experience is required for transmission and survival of the knowledge, or at least of the instructions on how to access the knowledge (not just written words archived somewhere). Just trying to reconcile as many of the disparate observations as possible.

[KLP Dubey]

Shiksha (śikṣā): phonetics, phonology and morphophonology (sandhi)
Kalpa (kalpa): ritual
Vyakarana (vyākaraṇa): grammar
Nirukta (nirukta): etymology
Chandas (chandas): meter
Jyotisha (jyotiṣa): astronomy

I think written material is allowed for the study of some of these.

There is absolutely no problem in having 'written material' for 'Vedic studies' in any human language whatsoever. They represent human attempts to organize and understand different aspects of the Vedic sounds by whatever means/tools of choice. For example, all the foundational texts of the Vedangas are written in Sanskrit. They may be in any other language.

However, as clearly explained in Mimamsa, none of the Vedangas can be considered authoritative on their own as regards Dharma, if their conclusions are found to contradict the Veda.

Additionally, Panini's grammar pertains primarily to Sanskrit, and not to the Veda. It is not authoritative on the latter. The texts of Vedic grammar are now lost, although Yaska's Nirukta mentions several 'Vedic' grammarians by name.

[Nilesh Oak]

However, as clearly explained in Mimamsa, none of the Vedangas can be considered authoritative on their own as regards Dharma, if their conclusions are found to contradict the Veda.

And Adi Shakaracharya said, that Veda can not be accepted as valid if it contradicts with the experience (He quoted the example of 'fire'/flame as being cool/cold).

[shiv]

However, as clearly explained in Mimamsa, none of the Vedangas can be considered authoritative on their own as regards Dharma, if their conclusions are found to contradict the Veda.

And Adi Shakaracharya said, that Veda can not be accepted as valid if it contradicts with the experience (He quoted the example of 'fire'/flame as being cool/cold).

Either way there is an analogy pertinent to my viewpoint

Expert A says we need Blisk
Expert B says,no need for Blisk, just clean up tolerances and airflow around blades.

In both cases the discussion is between experts who have the experience. Similarly, commenting on the Veda can only come from the experts and such people will not exist if the Vedas are corrupted or lost to humans. They may continue to exist as cosmic sounds in intangible form undetectable by ordinary humans, but that will not make a whit of s difference to we who have allowed what we had to be lost and corrupted by ignorance and failure of fundamental duties and a fake, pretend understanding of the Vedas in utter neglect of what has been said so far by those who have handed the Vedas down to us.

Our duty is to preserve the Veda as is so that it can be continued to be available for use. Dissecting, transcribing, translating or raping the Vedas are all options, but none of these will preserve the Vedas in humanly usable form as given to us and handed down for thousands of years. The only option we have is to support and foster the schools and scholars who preserve the continuity of oral transmission of the Veda.

In fact a modern reductionist research study of how any information can be preserved uncorrupted for a test period of just 1 month by oral transmission alone would give us an idea of what we are dealing with regarding the Vedas and what exactly has come OIT.

[Pulikeshi]

The failure is collectively of those who care about or want to protect Dharma – that a clear articulation has not been provided. It is also the failure to protect tradition.

The confusion arises due to two reasons – one a very utilitarian scientific training and two confusing Veda with knowledge and that the content itself leads one to Moksha. To clarify from a traditional position – none of my arguments are remotely related to Moksha or (spirituality or method to achieve it). Personally, I have no desire for Moksha.

If the knowledge passed down in the Vedas does not include what is called Genetic Knowledge, then what does it include?

The Veda, I repeat, have no knowledge. It is good intuition that if knowledge is encoded or transcripted in any way oral, written or otherwise, it becomes obsolete the minute it was… ipso facto “na vedam veda”
In modern terms, any reference manual is obsolete the very minute it is written - hence we never read them
That is why it is good intuition that the Veda are the key not the goal itself.

The other competing accumulations of knowledge that have survived, limit themselves to such things as how to wash behind the ears and in other parts, how many wives to have, how to slaughter goats etc.

You are confusing the Smrithi with Sruthi and doing an equal equal of Sruthi with Al Kitab folks. None such equality exists. If at all such equality can be argued it is Smirthi versus the Al Kitab. Even here, the Smrithi is a document repeatedly revised for the current age, it is not a once birthed, immediately ossified book source of knowledge.

So any "satisfaction" we may get out of the knowledge of the omniscience and transcendental immortality of the Veda needs to be tempered by the very human need to keep the oral transmission system alive and thriving.

The Veda are the key and the necessary and sufficient condition to achieve Moksha, but they are not a source of all knowledge, as Brahman is beyond even that… – therefore the dictum “na vedam veda” no knowledge in the Veda which I have explained in a previous post.

That humans can lose the key and have done so and recovered it per our myths, I completely agree with… those who suggest a robust defense of the key. In this any effort to fund, for example, Vedic schools that continue the oral traditions, a recording of the ganapatha recitation of the entire Veda, a new bhashya worthy of the present time we live in, even if it is in English, etc. are all very much in focus.

[Pulikeshi]

For the theory of OIT and AIT - here are some salient points - again based on intuition:

• The genetic and cultural spread from the sub-continent is scientific fact today. What is missing is a non-biased argumentation to create a OIT story.
• As a middle-class based in India expands, it is but reasonable to assume that they will craft for themselves a OIT story. My preference is for such edumacated folks in BRF to articulate what that might be, rather than argue against AIT. This is in spirit of saying the story, rather than denouncing myths. Destroying myths take eons, it is more productive to construct well argued stories for OIT.
• The reason for opposition to OIT in the West may have been originally racist, tied to European supremacy, etc. Whatever be the real reason for opposition today, the failure is entirely ours in that a decent theory of OIT has never been told.
• Before any of you jump on my points above. All I am saying is, it is not enough to say here is some genetic evidence, here is some god called Indra, Mitra, etc. that is in this treaty, here is some coins, artifacts, etc. What is needed is a simple cohesive story on one possible story from say the time frame of Bhimbetka. Maybe one flavor is Out of India Migration Theory, as opposed to the Out of India Invasion Theory

Where is(are) the OIT story(ies)? After all this is the thread of OIT - theory to truth - better to tell the story no?

[KLP Dubey]

However, as clearly explained in Mimamsa, none of the Vedangas can be considered authoritative on their own as regards Dharma, if their conclusions are found to contradict the Veda.

And Adi Shakaracharya said, that Veda can not be accepted as valid if it contradicts with the experience (He quoted the example of 'fire'/flame as being cool/cold).

1) Adi Shankara was not an expert in Vaidikadharma. He was a Vedanti and an 'ascetic'. He has no reliably attributed works analyzing the Veda (Rk-Saman-Yajus). His main works are commentaries on the Brahma Sutra, Bhagavadgita, and Upanishads.

2) Advaita Vedanta fully accepts the eternality of the Veda and is aligned with Mimamsa on this matter. Its position is that the particular *interpretation* of the Veda cannot be accepted as valid if it is contradictory to some established experience (which itself must be a pramana). It does not hold that the Veda itself is invalid. Vaidika-shabda (Vedic testimony) is one of the pramanas in all schools of Vedanta. It cannot be considered invalid under any circumstances.

[UlanBatori]

Pullikeshi:

Question 4 clarification. A huge difference between SD and "Abrahamic" faiths is that SD recognizes ALL beings as having/being one with Atman. Thus "the key" to salvation must have been made available to these beings as well, not just to humans - or does one have to accept the superiority of (some) humans as being one step removed from Moksham?

What happens when an advanced civilization contacts us from one of those hajaar-hajaar planets that are allowing themselves to be "discovered"? Surely they are anticipated by the Vedas and Puranas (again since we have not painted ourselves into a 4004BCE and "Lawd Made Man In His Image" corner)?

So the Vedas may be "the key" as handed down via humans, but there must be equivalents among other species (at least theoretically). Constructing a narrative of SD that rigidly rules out all such things and insists on one form of The Key may not be the best recipe going forward. Assuming of course that The Best Is Yet 2B, not long gone 3.141216 Yugams ago. Or is one permitted to hope that there is a better future with a role for SD as always relevant and consistent with advancing human understanding?

[KLP Dubey]

The Veda are the key and the necessary and sufficient condition to achieve Moksha, but they are not a source of all knowledge, as Brahman is beyond even that… – therefore the dictum “na vedam veda” no knowledge in the Veda which I have explained in a previous post.

Pulikeshi -

You have made a number of useful points in your recent posts; however, on the above important issue I must point out the errors. This whole idea of "formless and unknowable-by-ordinary-means" Brahman is not a principle of Vaidikadharma - it has been erroneously created by Advaita Vedanta based upon their interpretation of the Upanishads.

After detailed consideration of Vedanta and other Darshanas over more than a decade, I conclude that the idea of 'Brahman' is a useful and convenient construct to tackle certain philosophical problems (and outwit certain undesirable opponents), but it is not a tenable or practically useful viewpoint at the end of the day.

Both Mimamsa and Advaita hold that the Vedic shabda is eternal, impersonal, and devoid of any specific/pre-determined connection to the human race. The Veda has its own creative power by means of its 'linguistic' features. The 'language' of the Veda itself creates and upholds the entire Universe in whatever forms (or even lack thereof). There is nothing beyond the Veda.

It is OK to say something like "Brahman is Veda" but to say that "Brahman is even beyond the Veda" is not a tenable viewpoint. The Mimamsa got it right, not the Vedanta.

The notion of Brahman is just one thread in the Vedic corpus. The Vedanta schools are obsessed with explaining its nature, and I believe the Advaita has the most reasonable working explanation. But the theory of Brahman is a relatively trivial and practically almost useless achievement in the annals of Indian thought. The Vedanta greatly exaggerates its importance.

It is unfortunate that many are perfectly willing to accept this ultimately dangerous "Idealist" and "Mayavadi" idea of "unknowable" and "mysterious" Brahman which can only be attained by renouncing the world and becoming a "sanyasi" - whereas Vaidikadharma elucidates a solid "Realist" path of sustained action towards upholding the World-Order through propagation of the Vedic Mantra (particularly Samhita) and by sustained Yajna (based upon the injunctions in the Brahmana).

Furthermore, so-called "dictums" like "na vedam veda..." found in a Shaiva text have absolutely no independent authority in commenting upon Veda. So one should be very careful in starting analysis based upon unreliable foundations. It is almost needless to say that this 'dictum' is fundamentally inconsistent with both Mimamsa and Vedanta, which stipulate that Vedic testimony is a pramana.

[shiv]

Aurobindo has some very interesting speculation about the origins of language - thoughts that are no less exciting than a SciFi novel by Terry Pratchett suggesting that Stars can be sentient beings.

If one considers the origin of sentient life from inanimate objects, and say that eventually "language" arose from within that sentient life, it can also be surmised that the earliest "language" consisted of "words" to describe what the sentient animal sensed (saw or felt or heard). Seeing or feeling something is always an effect that the "something" has on the being that is seeing or feeling. In other words the object being "seen" describes itself in a particular way to the sentient creature's senses and the object is identified by a unique "word" that then becomes associated with how the senses sense that object.

In other words anything that exists and is detected as separate from oneself (such as a rock) by a live being is first sensed and described and that description is the "word" that sets the object apart as a separate thing. This is the origin of the idea that "In the beginning there was the word". The first words were for things that were sensed by a "live/sentient being" as different from me - and needing to be differentiated by a definition/word. No word, no separate thing.

Indian philosophy has some very deep and fundamental concepts that in no way contradict known scientific principles. If you look at the origin of the universe as one single point of zero size - it corresponds to the universe as nothingness - one uniform idea of no light no dark no heat no cold no nothing.

If the "big bang" is seen as creation, this corresponds perfectly well with the event when the "nothingness"/Ishvara as mentioned above seeing fit to create contrasts - light and dark, heat and cold. Pure nothingness and pure energy may well be the same thing - but I digress.

But Indian philosophy has actually gone some steps ahead, and posits that when contrast ("matter") arises out of nothingness, each area of "difference" in the contrast can only exist by some description that sets it apart. Each has a self descriptive "word" or name. The ability to "feel" and sense everything in the universe (hear every name) and know that the entire universe is one point or pure energy manifesting as innumerable different types of matter and energy is
1. An attribute of Ishvara/God
2. Humans can become aware of this by realizing the absolute Brahman. Then they can "hear every sound there is"

As "eternal sounds" the Veda possibly represent the "names of things in the Universe" in a form that is accessible to humans - at least as per one interpretation. I am guessing that there could be different Vedas accessible to Martians - transmitted as EM waves of some type.

[member_22872]

Interpretation of the Veda letter was written in response to criticisms of the opening chapter of The Secret of the Veda - Sri Aurobindo Ghose

[KLP Dubey]

As "eternal sounds" the Veda possibly represent the "names of things in the Universe" in a form that is accessible to humans - at least as per one interpretation. I am guessing that there could be different Vedas accessible to Martians - transmitted as EM waves of some type.

Certainly there are "names of things in the universe" in the Veda, but they must have a character of universal validity. There can be no separate "Martian Veda" and "Earth Veda" etc etc.

The use of Veda to obtain "names" of cosmic entities ("devatas") is already well established. One of the purposes of referring to the Samhita (Mantra) during the conduct of earthly Yajnas is to obtain the name of the devata in question. This cannot be obtained from any other source other than the Mantra.

However, laws of nature cannot just contain "names". They have to be connected with other things, like VERBS. In fact, the Indians have made a great discovery from the Veda that verbs appear to be more fundamental than nouns. Furthermore, the majority of "names" themselves have verbal roots. Obviously verbs cannot be different on Earth and Mars.

Where I agree with you is that the *implementation of the Vedic injunction* can be different on Earth and on Mars.

[Prem]

Reg Sounds, Names etc etc, Is it right Understanding that Vedas deal with Diversity only and not Absoluteness as main subject/object of Upanishads?

[shiv]

However, laws of nature cannot just contain "names". They have to be connected with other things, like VERBS. In fact, the Indians have made a great discovery from the Veda that verbs appear to be more fundamental than nouns. Furthermore, the majority of "names" themselves have verbal roots. Obviously verbs cannot be different on Earth and Mars.
.

Yes I have to agree that my post above is misleading in my use of the concept of "contrasts" developing which got "names" (nouns)

John Woodroffe in "The Garland of Letters" always speaks of "movement" that arose in the featureless/motionless Ishvara. He does not refer to contrasts. It is movement and the words are senses of this movement - so they are "action words" or verbs. The examples he gives are also illustrative of this - as in word for the movement of cration, the word for "Agni" and the word for the movement of sap in a tree etc.

Aurobindo too used an action word example in his commentary on the Vedas and I will post a longish quote in a separate post below because I found his explanation fascinating and convincing

[shiv]

This passage taken from Aurobindo's "Serets of the Vead" illustrates his explanation on the origins of language, language and meaning as used in Vedic Sanskrit and how action words later evolved to become nouns/names - see the "wolf" example at the end. As an aside, even in English "Wolf" itself comes in two forms - "Wolf the animal and "to wolf down" (verb)

From this past history of language certain consequences
derive which are of considerable importance in Vedic inter-
pretation. In the first place by a knowledge of the laws under
which the relations of sound and sense formed themselves in the
Sanskrit tongue and by a careful and minute study of its word-
families it is possible to a great extent to restore the past history
of individual words. It is possible to account for the meanings
actually possessed by them, to show how they were worked out
through the various stages of language-development, to establish
the mutual relations of different significances and to explain how
they came to be attached to the same word in spite of the wide
difference and sometimes even the direct contrariety of their
sense-values. It is possible also to restore lost senses of words on
a sure and scientific basis and to justify them by an appeal to the
observed laws of association which governed the development
of the old Aryan tongues, to the secret evidence of the word itself
and to the corroborative evidence of its immediate kindred. Thus
instead of having a purely floating and conjectural basis for our
dealings with the vocables of the Vedic language, we can work
with confidence upon a solid and reliable foundation.
Naturally, it does not follow that because a Vedic word
may or must have had at one time a particular significance,
that significance can be safely applied to the actual text of the
Veda. But we do establish a sound sense and a clear possibility
of its being the right sense for the Veda. The rest is a matter of
comparative study of the passages in which the word occurs and
of constant fitness in the context. I have continually found that
a sense thus restored illumines always the context wherever it is
applied and on the other hand that a sense demanded always by
the context is precisely that to which we are led by the history
of the word. This is a sufficient basis for a moral, if not for an
absolute certainty.

Secondly, one remarkable feature of language in its inception
is the enormous number of different meanings of which a single
word was capable and also the enormous number of words
which could be used to represent a single idea. Afterwards this
tropical luxuriance came to be cut down. The intellect intervened
with its growing need of precision, its growing sense of economy.
The bearing capacity of words progressively diminished; and it
became less and less tolerable to be burdened with a superfluous
number of words for the same idea, a redundant variety of
ideas for the same word. A considerable, though not too rigid
economy in these respects, modified by a demand for a temperate
richness of variation, became the final law of language. But the
Sanskrit tongue never quite reached the final stages of this devel-
opment; it dissolved too early into the Prakrit dialects. Even in
its latest and most literary form it is lavish of varieties of mean-
ings for the same word; it overflows with a redundant wealth
of synonyms. Hence its extraordinary capacity for rhetorical
devices which in any other language would be difficult, forced
and hopelessly artificial, and especially for the figure of double
sense, of slesa.

The Vedic Sanskrit represents a still earlier stratum in the
development of language. Even in its outward features it is less
fixed than any classical tongue; it abounds in a variety of forms
and inflexions; it is fluid and vague, yet richly subtle in its use
of cases and tenses. And on its psychological side it has not
yet crystallised, is not entirely hardened into the rigid forms
of intellectual precision. The word for the Vedic Rishi is still
a living thing, a thing of power, creative, formative. It is not
yet a conventional symbol for an idea, but itself the parent and
former of ideas. It carries within it the memory of its roots, is
still conscient of its own history.

The Rishis’ use of language was governed by this ancient
psychology of the Word. When in English we use the word
“wolf” or “cow”, we mean by it simply the animal designated;
we are not conscious of any reason why we should use that
particular sound for the idea except the immemorial custom of
the language; and we cannot use it for any other sense or purpose
except by an artificial device of style. But for the Vedic Rishi
“vrika” meant the tearer and therefore, among other applica-
tions of the sense, a wolf; “dhenu” meant the fosterer, nourisher,
and therefore a cow. But the original and general sense predom-
inates, the derived and particular is secondary. Therefore, it was
possible for the fashioner of the hymn to use these common
words with a great pliability, sometimes putting forward the
image of the wolf or the cow, sometimes using it to colour the
more general sense, sometimes keeping it merely as a conven-
tional figure for the psychological conception on which his mind
was dwelling, sometimes losing sight of the image altogether. It
is in the light of this psychology of the old language that we
have to understand the peculiar figures of Vedic symbolism as
handled by the Rishis, even to the most apparently common and
concrete. It is so that words like “ghritam”, the clarified butter,
“soma”, the sacred wine, and a host of others are used.

[UlanBatori]

“soma”, the sacred wine

This business of associating the moon with fine hooch seems to be universal and timeless, as in "moonshine". Do the Vedic rks (hic!) read like one of kgoan's posts on a Friday night?

[shiv]

“soma”, the sacred wine

This business of associating the moon with fine hooch seems to be universal and timeless, as in "moonshine". Do the Vedic rks (hic!) read like one of kgoan's posts on a Friday night?

In Griffiths' translation yes.

In Aurobindo's explanation Soma consistently relates to "Ananda" or bliss and not hooch.

[KLP Dubey]

This business of associating the moon with fine hooch seems to be universal and timeless, as in "moonshine". Do the Vedic rks (hic!) read like one of kgoan's posts on a Friday night?

In Griffiths' translation yes.

In Aurobindo's explanation Soma consistently relates to "Ananda" or bliss and not hooch.

Why blame only Griffiths ? Nirukta (see sections 11.2-11.5) assigns the following primary meaning to soma, and that is a juice/drink extracted from some herbs. Yaska goes to great lengths to explain this meaning. He does mention a secondary meaning (the moon) but doesn't discuss it. As far as the moon is concerned, he only discusses "candramas" (11.6).

[SriKumar]

[*] the content of the Veda ... they are based on intuitive processes that induce higher order thinking... at the end of the day it is a feeling... you get it if you have listened or recited the mantras...

...

is there a physical manifestation to this feeling? Any manifestation? For example. does a person think differently after the 'feeling' induced by the mantras. Does anything change in a person after a prolonged experience of the feeling.

...repeating above...... is there a physical manifestation to this feeling? Any manifestation? For example. does a person think differently after the 'feeling' induced by the mantras. Does anything change in a person after a prolonged experience of the feeling.
Also, what did you mean when you said that 'Vedas, I repeat, have no knowledge'. You follow it up with a comment on how knowledge is obsolete the moment it is written down but can you define what you meant by knowledge? I dont want to put words in your mouth but are you defining knowledge as only something which does not become obsolete?

[Nilesh Oak]

Why blame only Griffiths ? Nirukta (see sections 11.2-11.5) assigns the following primary meaning to soma, and that is a juice/drink extracted from some herbs. Yaska goes to great lengths to explain this meaning. He does mention a secondary meaning (the moon) but doesn't discuss it. As far as the moon is concerned, he only discusses "candramas" (11.6).

KLP ji,

Do we know time of Nirukta?

[UlanBatori]

Kalkibhagwanji this should help your collection, in my humble opinion. This work is by the people who know what they are doing. Notice the earliest dates being mentioned.
http://drs.nio.org/drs/bitstream/2264/4 ... _28_57.pdf
Yogi_G Re. "Just wondering is it possible to carbon date a stone/rock?"
.

Following Sri Pullikesi's admonition, I was browsing pages 2 onwards of this epic thread, when I came across the discussion that led to the post I have quoted above (see circa p. 3-4). So there is evidence of a chronology that pushes far beyond the 4000BCE horizons of most discussions and "civilization science", and accordingly pushes the Vedas much further out. Rajesh's caution about giving ammo to the types is well-taken, but now tempered by the fact that there is clear logic (i.e., mine, of course ) plausibly linking the Vedas to period far, far before the bounds of "recorded history" and "modern archaeology".

It is useful to go back to the idea that gravity drives heavy stuff down. Modern archaeology only manages to dig down about 10,000 years. Dinosaur remains from a million years ago are found in some remote places, true. But where there has been continuous habitation, such remains if they still exist, must be at depths comparable to those for oil extraction - and hence may have been mostly crushed into molecular mush. Undersea finds are likely to go further back than land-based finds, since soil/rock is at least 2.5 times as heavy as water, and you cal reach great depths in the ocean much easier than you can on land. Given the finds at Mahabalipuram and Dwaraka, it appears important to focus more on the coastal regions than in the deserts.

Perhaps what is needed (at least for me) is when humans figured out various technologies. Did these occur at the same time all over the world? Why/how? Could it be that technology/civilization could have been far more advanced in certain parts, but isolated from the rest of the world because there was (a) no easy way of reaching there and (b) those who reached were likely to be eaten?

There was a long period when India had broken away from Gondwana and then from Australia, but had not quite reached the Northern Arunachal boundary. During this period, contact with other parts of the world would have been rather hard. Was intelligent habitation possible in this period?

Note that per the latest (above), it is not necessary to be tied to the superstition that Vedic knowledge was limited to HUMANs. The Vedas could very well transmit Sruti from a far pre-human era, with the VedaVyasa edition merely being the human strain of the Wisdom Stream. Hence, memories could be embedded from a far pre-human era (Matsya Avatara).

[A_Gupta]

This passage taken from Aurobindo's "Serets of the Vead" illustrates his explanation on the origins of language, language and meaning as used in Vedic Sanskrit and how action words later evolved to become nouns/names - see the "wolf" example at the end. As an aside, even in English "Wolf" itself comes in two forms - "Wolf the animal and "to wolf down" (verb)

Yes, but note the inversion. In English "wolf down" derives from "wolf" and observation of how it ingests its food. Note that the English dictionary also gives "wolf" the verb meaning of "to hunt wolves". I take Aurobindo to be saying that in Sanskrit, the name for wolf, "vrika", derives from "the tearer". I suspect then, "to hunt wolves", having no relationship to "tearer" cannot follow a similar derivation in Sanskrit.

[shiv]

This passage taken from Aurobindo's "Serets of the Vead" illustrates his explanation on the origins of language, language and meaning as used in Vedic Sanskrit and how action words later evolved to become nouns/names - see the "wolf" example at the end. As an aside, even in English "Wolf" itself comes in two forms - "Wolf the animal and "to wolf down" (verb)

Yes, but note the inversion. In English "wolf down" derives from "wolf" and observation of how it ingests its food. Note that the English dictionary also gives "wolf" the verb meaning of "to hunt wolves". I take Aurobindo to be saying that in Sanskrit, the name for wolf, "vrika", derives from "the tearer". I suspect then, "to hunt wolves", having no relationship to "tearer" cannot follow a similar derivation in Sanskrit.

Of course Aurobindo was referring to Sanskrit alone - the "wolf" analogy was mine. However if you look at etymology online (and ignore the PIE and other cooked up proto languages that I hate)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none
Words for wolf:
Sanskrit: vrkas
Old Persian: verkana
Lithuanian: vilkas
Old Church Slavonic: vluku
Old Norse: ulfr
Gothic: wulfs
German: wolf
Latin: lupus

[UlanBatori]

Found in the course of finding other things: about the Shankh

So the Shankh came to be adopted as an essential ingredient of rituals by all segments/lines of worship, and is said to come from the Vedas. It also came to be adopted in Sikhism and Buddhism. All belief lines born in the Himalayas/Punjab/Bihar. And the Vedas are said to have come from wherever, first handed down to ppl in the Himalayas/Punjab etc.

Question: How did the Shankh, obviously something derived from ocean life, come to be so adopted by these highlanders/ flatlanders/desert dwellers? There can't have been many large shank-creatures in the glacier/monsoon-fed Himalayan rivers, hain?

Also, the reasons for the popularity of the shankh are interesting:

The shankha (conch-shell) is regarded sacred and auspicious in the Indian system. Like the swastika symbol [c.f. Akhand Jyoti Jan-Feb 2005], it is an integral part of Vedic sacraments. It is blown to initiate religious ceremonies. God Vishnu is shown with a shankha in one hand and a disc (chakra) in the other. In the battlefield (Kurukshetra) of Mahabharata, Lord Krishna is said to have wielded a mighty shankha called the ’Panchajanya’. It is believed that when it is blown it announces the victory of good over evil.

Using tremendous lung-power, stamina and sustained breath control the player blows air into the shell to produce a powerful resounding reverberation that is deemed to match with the primal sound of creation. While the shankha has but one note, by controlling the breath, the player can alter the magnitude, timbre and resonance of the note. Though it does not have much application as a musical instrument, the vibrant, sonorous sound of shankha inspires valor, courage, enthusiasm and inner spirit. The holy Gurbani of the Sikhs also recognizes these effects as "Sankhan ki dhun ghantan ki kar phulan ki barkha barkhavae ...". (The conch and the bell produce blissful sounds…).

An adept yogi is said to subliminally hear the shankhanada (sound of perfect blowing of a shankha), within himself during the higher stages of trance in Nadayoga Sadhana. When the conch is blown with controlled breath, the primordial sound of "Om" (Oam) emanates from it. This eternal sound is said to be the origin of all Vedas. All knowledge enshrined in the Vedas is an elaboration of the omnipresent sublime sound of Om. It was this sound that was chanted by the Lord before manifesting the cosmos. It represents the creation and the Truth behind it. It represents dharma or righteousness that is one of the four noble goals of human life.

As per the scholarly analysis of Shastric terminology, that which leads to welfare is called "shankha". It is with the sounding of conch that the doors of temples are opened. Another well-known purpose of blowing the conch with or without some devotional instruments, known traditionally to produce auspicious sounds, is to ward off negative vibrations or noises that may disturb the ambience or the minds of the devotees.

Interesting in view of the preceding discussions on non-verbal transmission.

Now in normal operation in its native environment, the shankha is presumably occupied by a fleshy creature, so it was not naturally designed for blowing by humans. Does water flowing slowly past the orifice of a shankha produce tones (Helmholtz resonator)? Are these heard in underwater acoustics?

[A_Gupta]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none
Words for wolf:
Sanskrit: vrkas
Old Persian: verkana
Lithuanian: vilkas
Old Church Slavonic: vluku
Old Norse: ulfr
Gothic: wulfs
German: wolf
Latin: lupus

Not ignoring any of that. But no doubt the understanding of the word has changed in the other languages.

[Pulikeshi]

...not just to humans - or does one have to accept the superiority of (some) humans as being one step removed from Moksham?

What happens when an advanced civilization contacts us from one of those hajaar-hajaar planets that are allowing themselves to be "discovered"? Surely they are anticipated by the Vedas and Puranas (again since we have not painted ourselves into a 4004BCE and "Lawd Made Man In His Image" corner)?

It is one dimensional to think SD only deals with moksha (salvation).
SD is Sanathana Dharma not Sanathana Moksha
This overt bias is modern, artificial and incorrect. Moksha is personal.
Dharma (Smrithi based) applies critically to Artha & Kama parts of Purushartha.

Shruthi IS irrespective of questions on animals, humans, aliens, AI, etc.
If we are dealing with society (that is any sentient social entity) they fall under the
preview of the Smrithi for coordination and more importantly preservation of Dharma.

Your question on Aliens, Animals, etc I had fully anticipated, a more detailed discussion
is not possible today, but there is a way forward with the Smrithi.

PS: on a break so may be slow to respond...

[Pulikeshi]

For example. does a person think differently after the 'feeling' induced by the mantras. Does anything change in a person after a prolonged experience of the feeling.

... but are you defining knowledge as only something which does not become obsolete?

I have not done any empirical tests, but I can say I feel changed...
On knowledge, the Vedantic position is that the only true knowledge is the knowledge of Brahman.

[Pulikeshi]

...however, on the above important issue I must point out the errors. This whole idea of "formless and unknowable-by-ordinary-means" Brahman is not a principle of Vaidikadharma - it has been erroneously created by Advaita Vedanta based upon their interpretation of the Upanishads.

Advaita, Dvaita, variants, etc. are what was... I am liberally borrowing from each to posit my own argument, so either they stand on their own merit or they do not... I welcome ur criticism.
This is beyond (Upa-ni-sat as in near-down-sit). To say Brahman is not a principle of Vaidika is to say democracy is not the principle of the constitution

After detailed consideration of Vedanta and other Darshanas over more than a decade, I conclude that the idea of 'Brahman' is a useful and convenient construct to tackle certain philosophical problems (and outwit certain undesirable opponents), but it is not a tenable or practically useful viewpoint at the end of the day.

Brahman is about as much a convenient construct as you are... The Vaidika do not even like to call it by a name... In my view Brahman can never be attained (the path is different attainment is not same as doing so), why does one need Sanyasa for that? Moksha as an end goal is the illusion, not Brahman. We need to change our thinking from Param-Atma to Karma-Atma. But this needs changing the way we see Purusharta... That is human Karma needs to be given it's due importance and we need to attenuate the Moksha business. The order is Artha, Kama and then Moksha.

It is OK to say something like "Brahman is Veda" but to say that "Brahman is even beyond the Veda" is not a tenable viewpoint. The Mimamsa got it right, not the Vedanta.

So is Brahman a concept or not?
So if one knows the Veda one automatically realises Brahman?

It is unfortunate that many are perfectly willing to accept this ultimately dangerous "Idealist" and "Mayavadi" idea of "unknowable" and "mysterious" Brahman which can only be attained by renouncing the world and becoming a "sanyasi" -

This criticism of Advaita shows ur bias more than it does illuminate anything new.

Furthermore, so-called "dictums" like "na vedam veda..." found in a Shaiva text have absolutely no independent authority in commenting upon Veda.

Within the contours of Dharma, there will never be an end to argumentation, and I for one welcome it, but to denounce a dictum since it comes from one school or an other does not strengthen ur argument against what I am proposing. Even the Budha-mata and Jaina-mata followers have commented on the Vedas, who is to say who has authority and who does not?

[UlanBatori]

Shruthi IS irrespective of questions on animals, humans, aliens, AI, etc.
If we are dealing with society (that is any sentient social entity) they fall under the
preview of the Smrithi for coordination and more importantly preservation of Dharma.
Your question on Aliens, Animals, etc I had fully anticipated, a more detailed discussion
is not possible today, but there is a way forward with the Smrithi.

Thanks. As you may have guessed, I am trying to develop a coherent presentation that can be conveyed to ppl who are first-time learners on SD/Hinduism - or ppl like me who were born Hindus and taught a few things on Sruti basis, were told many stories, learned/guessed some things by watching elders and traditions and rituals and festivals, and learned from the standard SSLC textbooks, and read The Hindu and Indian Express and Illustrated Weekly (Smriti), not the Vedas. But... we may have seen things that did not make sense then, but may be clicking well now.

For this learner base, one has to have a model of SD that is consistent with our other experiences/understanding, however flawed and ignorant those may be. Among other things, it has be consistent with the notion that there are many other worlds out there.

I don't get what you say about Moksha. If there is no Houristan out there, no Heaven, no Nirvana, and now you say there is no Moksha, what is the motivation to do any good Karma or observe good Dharma in this life?

Why not just "have a ball" in the best traditions of the Rolls Royce Swamis and the guy in 3.5 Men? If you tell ppl that they just have to keep being very Dharmic and keep doing good Karma non-stop, don't you risk running into the Abdul Bin Seychelles problem? IOW, WHY?

As I understand it, the Vedic/A-Dvaita ppl tried telling everyone that there was just One ParamAtman, that It is inside everyone, so there's no one out there to listen to one's worship, it's all impersonal, nothing is real, all is Maya, all effort is totally useless...

and ppl rebelled big-time. So I am not going that route, thx.

[ramana]

UB, Do you know what is 'saligrama' is and why/how its worshiped ?

[UlanBatori]

Heard the name, didn't know what it was. Per Wikipeda Maharishi:

The Shilas (Ammonite fossils) are worshipped as manifestations of Vishnu himself, identifiable from other stones by special markings which resemble Vishnu's paraphernalia such as mace, conch, lotus and disc (chakra). Narasimhadeva, Varahadeva and Vamanadeva are popular forms of worship. They are either black, red, or mixed in colour and are usually kept closed in a box and are only brought out for daily worship (puja). The Shilas are usually hereditary and are passed down through many generations, never being purchased or sold.

According to Vaishnava belief, the worshipper of a Shaligram Shila must adhere to strict rules, such as not touching the Shaligrama without bathing, never placing the Shaligrama on the ground, eating only prasad, and not indulging in bad practices. In most Vaishnava temples the main deity is usually decorated with a 'garland' mala, specifically an Akshamala, of 108 Saligrama Shilas. But the real scientific story of Ammonoid fossil is not being told to the common people.The Ammonoid Is an extinct sea animal. Now days when original fossils are not being found, artificial ammonoid fossils in different form are being made available in the market for worship of Satnarayan Bhagwan.

So one may claim that it denotes an ancient genetic memory that the Original Beings came from the sea. And that it was at the upthrust of the Himalayas, at the edge of the northward-racing continental plate, that the miraculous phenomena occurred and many miraculous entities appeared above sea level - and kept on rising into the clouds.

The more I think about it, the more I get the feeling that there is a strong memory of the continental collision behind much of Himalayan lore. The story of the Kurma Avatara, and of what came up when the Primeaval Ocean Was Churned, may refer to a galactic churning, but also to the upheaval when mountains rose out of the sea at the northern edge of BharataVarsha. Fantastic no doubt, but the idea that some(one) was watching when it happened, and passed that knowledge down, is not out of the realm of possibility. If you were told the story of what they saw then, how would you repeat it? It would sound so utterly impossible in its original form, so you would modify the story and introduce some miraculous aspects into it.

But aeons later when people dared to venture into the Himalayas, they would have found things like the Salagrama that validated the Sruti, hence they treasured and worshipped them.