Last edited by MahaHrada; 04 November 2012 at 06:06 AM.
3. Dhatar, the great Creator, then formed in due order Sun and Moon.
He formed in order Heaven and Earth, the regions of the air, and light.
RV X-190-3
How is this a reference to a cyclical view of the universe, could you explain that to me?
But Veda clearly states that first at the beginning there was absolut transcendental void not even nothingness existed, except prana life force or breath:
Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?
Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.
Nasadiya sukta
This sukta also clearly states that the devas themselves have no idea how they came into existence:
after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
Last edited by MahaHrada; 02 November 2012 at 06:46 AM.
Sure.
Firstly, the translation of RV X-190-3 is "The Lord devised the sun and the moon as before." - (note the emphasis, it is not as you stated "in due order".) Shankara's/Ramanuja's commentary on Brahmasutras 2:1:35. This sutra deals with how the universe is beginningless. From a logical basis, the eternality of the universe is established. The purvapakshin challenges the sidhantha to provide a sruthi in support of this. RV X-190-3 is furnished in support.
Ramanuja's commentary on this sutra is:
"The Sutra refutes this [the absolute non-existence of souls/matter] and says the souls and their Karma form an eternal stream which is beginningless. Individual souls are not created but existed even before creation in a very subtle condition almost non-distinguishable from Brahman, and hence the scriptural texts which declare the non-existence of everything but Brahman before creation. What the texts deny is the existence of beings in a gross state with name and form. But the souls did exist in a subtle condition even before creation."
If you do not understand why this is not convincing me, please study the history of Indian religious traditions, while the vedas and the shrauta dharma date back to great antiquity, commentators like Shankara and Ramanuja and the philosophy and religion laid down in Puranas is of a more recent origin.
If we want to understand the original philosophy and import of the Vedas and early Upanishad we cannot rely on relatively recent commentaries that have already incorporated all kind of religions and philosophies that originally stem from other influences that came form outside the pale of the ancient sacrifical vedic religion or shrauta dharma.
The translation seems to me to be biased and born from the need to find some support to the idea of a cyclical universe, since this reading contradicts other statements as for example the purport of the nasadiya sukta, it is unconvincing.
(1)All Astika Darshanas believe in the eternality of the universe. What is good enough for Astika Darshanas is good enough for me. It apparently is insufficient for you.
(2)What is the source of your translation of RV X-190-3? Me thinks Griffith because you quoted verbatim from here.
If posterity of a translation is sufficient reason for you to disregard its purport, you should first of all junk Griffith. Do you have any alternate rendering of RV X-190-3?
It seems to me you place more emphasis on Griffith but are willing to throw Shankara/Ramanuja under the bus.
Actually i picked it randomly from google, whoever translated it had no reason to tamper with it i guess, while Ramanuja had a resaon to project his mediveal hindu worldview unto the Vedas even if it means to come up with unlikely and adventuros meanings in his bid to make shruti fit his preconceived ideas.
If I want to know more about medieval Hinduism and Vedanta i will rely on Shankara and Ramanuja etc. but not when trying to understand the meaning of early vedic concepts and the practice of the ancient vedic religion which are two different subjects.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks