Sanskrit or Hindi

[Anirudh]

Namaste brahma jijnasa,

When I said "I've never heard that some holy scripture was written in a language other than Sanskrit" then by "holy scripture" I meant all those scriptures that were composed or provided by the Lord Himself or one of His representatives such as Vyasa and the great sages who are authorities in the field of Vedic knowledge

but these scriptures were not composed by such great authorities recognized in the Puranas such as Vyasa, Narada, Brahma, or by sages associated with some of the old traditions of Sruti Vedas as it was Shaunaka.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant by "holy scriptures".

I gave my comments on Thirukkural because it is not a Shaivite scripture. I can quote Thirukkural in support, but not many here may be interested nor it will support the OP.

Now the question remains is, why Alvars or Nayanars or any other saints are not considered as representatives of Bhagwaan or they did not possess Vedic knowledge? This will help me to understand the meaning of the phrase "holy scriptures".

Thanks in advance.

[fem_phoenix1109]

Namaste,

Is this the same Thirukural that you speak of? I get daily emails with a few of the couplets in English from the Himalayan Academy, and like it very much. I was just wondering if this is the same thing.

http://archive.feedblitz.com/331900

Thanks!

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste,

Is this the same Thirukural that you speak of? I get daily emails with a few of the couplets in English from the Himalayan Academy, and like it very much. I was just wondering if this is the same thing.

http://archive.feedblitz.com/331900

Thanks!

Vannakkam: Yes, it's the same one. There are several translations. If memory serves me right, HA looked at several and picked the one that they thought was best. Perhaps not, though.

Aum Namasivaya

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Now the question remains is, why Alvars or Nayanars or any other saints are not considered as representatives of Bhagwaan or they did not possess Vedic knowledge? This will help me to understand the meaning of the phrase "holy scriptures".

I meant all those scriptures that were composed or provided by the Lord Himself or one of His representatives such as Vyasa and the great sages who are authorities in the field of Vedic knowledge

When we talk about holy scriptures it is a question of authority.
Hindus accept the Vedas or shruti as the supreme authority. Then immediately after Shruti comes Smriti as an authority who follows Shruti. Atharva Veda mentions the Puranas and Itihasas which are Smriti. Chandogya Upanishad says that Puranas and Itihasas are the fifth Veda. Just as there are four Vedas -- Rig, Sama, Yajur, Atharva -- Puranas and Itihasas are considered to be the fifth Veda. The authority of Puranas and Itihasas like Mahabharata and Ramayana is not questionable. So they should be accepted too.

There are a whole host of Smriti writings compiled by sages. So we are faced with a practical question: Which Smriti to accept and which not?
It is obvious that all those Smritis compiled by sages who are mentioned in the Vedas and Puranas should be accepted. Thus Vedas and Puranas mentioned sages such as Vyasadeva, Manu, Narada, Kumaras, Brahma, Shiva, etc, and so they are accepted as authorities in the field of Vedic knowledge. Their Smritis should be accepted too. Thus, for example, Manu-smriti and Narada bhakti sutra should be accepted.

But in addition to these sages that I mentioned above there are many of them who are not mentioned in Vedas, Puranas and Itihasas. For example there are many sages who came recently or in the modern era.
Now, we are faced with another practical question:
Which of these sages and their Smriti scriptures should be accepted as authorities in the field of Vedic knowledge?
Since they all came recently or in the modern era the only way to examine their authenticity is to determine whether they are representatives of Vyasadeva.
What does that mean?
It is said that Vyasadeva appeared at the end of Dvapara Yuga and collected existing Vedic knowledge in order to preserve it in written form (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/21/en) :

"Thereafter, in the seventeenth incarnation of Godhead, Śrī Vyāsadeva appeared in the womb of Satyavatī through Parāśara Muni, and he divided the one Veda into several branches and subbranches, seeing that the people in general were less intelligent." (Bhāgavatam 1.3.21)

So simply put, all the wise men shall be representatives who follow Vyasadeva. If they deviate from the knowledge that Vyasadeva has left us, the sages are not authentic and their writings are not authentic likewise.

Do you know what is vyasasana?
See this:
http://theharekrishnamovement.files....-vyasasana.jpg
http://theharekrishnamovement.files..../vyasasana.jpg
http://www.lotusimprints.com/new/blo...-1970s0002.jpg
http://theharekrishnamovement.files....-vyasasana.jpg

A representative of Vyasadeva can sit on the vyasasana, an elevated seat or the seat of Sri Vyasadeva.

The problem with Alvars and other sages is just of a practical nature. Since they all came recently or in the modern era anyone who does not belong to their tradition will not just easily accept their teachings. So their writings do not have the strength of authority of the Puranas, or Ramayana, or Narada bhakti sutra for instance.
If they do not deviate from the knowledge that Vyasadeva has left us, but are in compliance with it, certainly their writings are holy but even then as far as the general acceptance is concerned we can not compare these writings with the strength of authority of the Puranas, or Ramayana, or Narada bhakti sutra for instance.

regards

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam:

Where, in your opinion, do Agamas fit into this?

Aum Namasivaya

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Vannakkam:

Where, in your opinion, do Agamas fit into this?

Aum Namasivaya

Agamas are Smriti mentioned in the Puranas, so they are accepted.

Bhāgavatam 11.13.4 (http://vedabase.net/sb/11/13/4/) :

āgamo 'paḥ prajā deśaḥ ...

"According to the quality of religious scriptures, water, one's association with one's children or with people in general, the particular place, the time, activities, birth, meditation, chanting of mantras, and purificatory rituals, the modes of nature become differently prominent."

However there is something important in relation to this. See above verse and especially part marked bold "the modes of nature become differently prominent". Not only the water we drink, our association with people (good or bad people), activities that we do (good or bad deeds, ie karma), birth that we get (born in a higher or lower varna -- as brahmana or shudra, born in a higher or lower species of life -- as deva, human, or animal), etc., but also religious scriptures has the modes of nature differently prominent!!!

There are the qualities or modes of nature called gunas: sattva (goodness), rajas (passion), tamas (darkness, ignorance).
These gunas become differently prominent in water, our association with people, the particular place, the time, activities, birth, but also religious scriptures!
It is said that sattva is the highest guna, and tamas is the lowest. Thus it is said that we should not eat tamasic food (flesh), associate with tamasic people (bad people), do tamasic activities (bad deeds, a sin), and accordingly in our study of Vedic knowledge should be carefully avoided doctrines or teachings that are tamasic in nature.
For spiritual progress, the person is advised to stick to everything that is sattvic in nature.

This is elaborated in Bhāgavatam canto 11, ch. 13: http://vedabase.net/sb/11/13/en

regards

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste Sudas Paijavana, Anirudh and others

When I said "I've never heard that some holy scripture was written in a language other than Sanskrit" then by "holy scripture" I meant all those scriptures that were composed or provided by the Lord Himself or one of His representatives such as Vyasa and the great sages who are authorities in the field of Vedic knowledge such as Manu (Manu-smriti), Parashara (Parashara-smriti), Valmiki (Ramayana), Narada (Narada bhakti sutra), Pancaratras (composed by Sanat-Kumara, Narada, etc), Brahma (Brahma-samhita), Shaunaka (Rigvidhana) ...

So you don't consider the Divya-prabandham to by a holy scripture? That's weird; wasn't Andal (one of the Azhwars) considered to be an incarnation of pṛthvī-devī?

[Anirudh]

Namaste brahma jijnasa,

Thus, for example, Manu-smriti and Narada bhakti sutra should be accepted.

The problem with Alvars and other sages is just of a practical nature. Since they all came recently or in the modern era anyone who does not belong to their tradition will not just easily accept their teachings. So their writings do not have the strength of authority of the Puranas, or Ramayana, or Narada bhakti sutra for instance.

Thank you very much for taking time to explain your position on the meaning of Holy scriptures.

It is interesting to learn that Manu Smriti (in the form available in public domain) which is blatantly biased are considered as Holy scriptures while pure devotional texts like Thiruppavai are not.

Incidentally found that names of Alvars have been mentioned in Srimad Bhagavat puran and the controversy revolving around it.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Anirudh and Jaskaran Singh

Incidentally found that names of Alvars have been mentioned in Srimad Bhagavat puran and the controversy revolving around it.

So you don't consider the Divya-prabandham to by a holy scripture? That's weird; wasn't Andal (one of the Azhwars) considered to be an incarnation of pṛthvī-devī?

This is interesting. Where are Alvars mentioned in Bhagavatam? Does Bhagavatam mentions by name all 12 of them?
If not then how do we know exactly who are authentic sages among them?
I mean, I do not question the sanctity of Alvars as sages, but I want to say that we can not be sure who are exactly the ones mentioned in Bhagavatam. See, it is quite a different case with the sages such as Vyasadeva, Manu, Narada, Kumaras, Brahma, Shiva, etc, because they are explicitly and frequently mentioned in the Vedas, Mahabharata, and Puranas.
My position is this: The sanctity of Alvars as sages is confirmed if they are the wise men, the representatives who follow Vyasadeva. If they do not deviate from the knowledge that Vyasadeva has left us, but are in compliance with it, certainly their writings are holy.
But even then as far as the general acceptance is concerned we can not compare these writings with the strength of authority of the Puranas, or Ramayana, or Narada bhakti sutra for instance.

It is interesting to learn that Manu Smriti (in the form available in public domain) which is blatantly biased are considered as Holy scriptures while pure devotional texts like Thiruppavai are not.

You did not properly understand my position on the subject. I was talking about sages who are authorities in the field of Vedic knowledge and their writings.
Now, are these writings well preserved to this day or not is quite another question.

Thiruppavai is probably not widely accepted as far as the general acceptance is concerned. Just like one Caitanya Caritamrita written in the 16th century, a biography of the saint Sri Caitanya of the Gaudiya vaishnava tradition, is probably not widely accepted as far as the general acceptance is concerned.
Practically speaking, this means that if you want to give scriptural evidence for some point of Vedic knowledge you can quote from Thiruppavai and Caitanya Caritamrita, but the question is who will accept these quotations as scriptural evidence?
Obviously it will be accepted by one who is a follower in the line of Alvars and Gaudiya vaishnavas respectively. Will it be accepted by one who is a follower in the line of Madhva sampradaya, or Nimbarka sampradaya, or some other sampradaya? Who knows?
It is quite another thing when quoting from Mahabharata or some Purana or Narada bhakti sutra for instance.

regards

[Anirudh]

Namaste brahma jijnasa,

I was talking about sages who are authorities in the field of Vedic knowledge and their writings. Now, are these writings well preserved to this day or not is quite another question.

People from the southern block revere Naalaaira Thivya Prabandam as Holy scriptures. As a Vishnu Bhakth, I agree with their belief.

Though a native Hindi speaker my Vedic knowledge is limited to English translations and I know for sure my case is not unique in the list. Unquestionably Manu Smriti has played a destructive role in killing Sanskrit as well as stopping Vedic knowledge from reaching common man.

We better face the reality than try to cover it up and expect the whole world believe us...

To a tell a person from south that thiruppavai is not holy scripture because it or Kothai was not referred in Vedic Text is nothing but an act of questioning their faith and sentiments. This stand is awful when we don't condemn other Scriptures which promotes hatred instead we revere them.

We should also understand that the person in the context didn't had the opportunity to learn Sanskrit or to understand Vedic scripture. Present form of Manu Smriti has to be blamed to a larger extent for that.

I am not even going to explain how Aandaal's Thiruppavai or the rest of Naalaira Thivya Prabandam have hidden meaning that is directly related to Vedic Knowledge. Internet is open enough.

Also I am not insulting those Sages whom you believe as revered but only questioning the practice which has led to the present abysmal state of Bhaarath.

I think it is like saying चित भी मेरी पट्ट भी मेरी .....

Either people should come forward and accept that Manu Smriti in the present form is tampered so the rules regulations provided init doesn't make sense or should not question the other person's beliefs and tradition.

I haven't seen such clarifications or acknowledgement in the threads I shared my views. but I must admit that have seen VHP doing that in a similar form, and respect their views on that subject.

Having said these, I also accept that at this point we are digressing from the OP.

It all began with the individual opinion on the phrase Holy Scripture. I have given my views also don't have any more worthy ideas to share in this direction.

Thanks again for your time and patience....