Veda-Brahman-Devas RELATIONSHIP?

[Ram11]

So, shruti itself speaks of the Supreme Purusha. This Purusha is the Absolute Truth. You can say therefore, your IshTa Dev is the walking talking breathing Truth. Therefore the Veda are His breath.

Namaste Ji,

I think the Pandita had these thoughts in his mind when he said that statement.

Namaste ji

Truth triumphs. Bhakta does not mean just bhakta by emotion. If s/he is a bhakta of the Absolute Truth, of that SacchidAnanda ParamAtmA, having a righteous mind, with no wish to harm anyone, then Truth i.e. ParamAtmA will be on his side.

If the intent of the powerful X was malicious / stemmed from ego (ahaMkAr) / pride etc. then ParamAtmA will not be on their side.

Ji,I understand that you believe in giving equal priority to both the Vedas and Bhagavan.

But I am forced to draw the conclusion that you have inadvertently introduced an arbitrator.From what you said,Bhagavan is the dispenser of justice,he judges and declares the results of actions based on the intentions of the doer.In a nutshell,he is above the law or in our hypothetical case he is decides how the Veda Mantra should work i.e. the Veda works not by itself but as Bhagavan directs,thus it follows that Bhagavan is the ultimate authority.If I have misunderstood,please correct me.

Let me propose a quick question:
Suppose I you hand me a rock, would it logically followed that I had created it? Furthermore, what do you suppose came first, the atoms in the rock, or the atoms in my body?

Namaste Ji,

I can't say which came first.

I'd also like to provide the following (I know madhvAchArya's and Adi sha~NkarAchArya's opinion, but I'm interested in how you would approach it).
तस्माद्यज्ञात्सर्वहुत ऋचःसामानिजज्ञिरे
छन्दांसिजज्ञिरेतस्माद्यजुस्तस्माद् अजायतः

I studied Samskruta as a part of our school curriculum many years ago,that too very little(a bit of vyakarana,some sandhis & chandas,few Sri BG shlokas etc.).Since I never studied beyond the syllabus or never applied it personally,I am telling with shame that I have forgotten most of what I studied.I am not in a position to provide interpretations of my own.I rely heavily on translations into other Indian languages or English and need to look up in a dictionary every time.

Please provide the interpretation of the venerable Purvacharyas.

No, don't worry, your questions are relevant and I can make sense of them (although English isn't my first language either).
In regard to the next part of your post, I believe (although I could well be wrong) that the main difference between devaH (puMsalai~Ngika) and devatA (strIlai~Ngika) is one of gender. devAH is not used to refer to devyaH (goddesses, plural of devI, i.e. goddess), whereas devatAH refers to all deities (both masculine and feminine), this is why in the Rigveda itself, there is a mantram "tAnrohidashwagirvaNastrayastriMshatamAvaha" meaning
tAn- [you with] those, plural of tam
rohidashwa - red horses
girvaNaH - who likes speech/praise
trayastriMshatam - the thirty three (dvitIyAvibhaktau/karmakArakENa, so object of the action)
Avaha - bring here
Here, they use the term trayastriMshatam, which is in the feminine, rather than trayastriMshantam, and this is obviously referring to the devatA-s, and it is by this action that he becomes विश्ववेदाः or जातवेदाः, just as similarly indra becomes mahendra from slaying vRitra.

So 'Devata' is preferable as it represents all of them.Thank you.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Ram11 and all


It is said that the Vedas are apaurusheya which means that they do not have an author. Not only Vedas do not have a human authors, namely that tells that the Rishis (sages) -- those which are said to have been Vedic seers -- received Vedas as a revelation and therefore they are not the authors but only recipients of the Vedic texts, but not even the gods (devas) and even the Supreme God (Vishnu) also were not the authors of the Vedas!
The apaurusheya character of the Vedas (all Shruti texts) simply follows from the fact that they are eternal. Something which is eternal has no beginning and no end in time and therefore can be said that has never been created! If it has never been created then it has no creator or author!
Thus Vedas, Brahman, His holy name and form (holy names such as Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, Shiva, ... , and forms of the Supreme Lord such as four-handed form of Lord Narayana and two-handed form of Lord Krishna, etc), His abode (Vaikuntha, Goloka, Sadasivaloka, ... etc), and also we living beings (jivas) are said to be eternal. Hence all these has never been created!
Sometimes it is said that God created living beings. But that does not mean that He has created the spiritual souls (jivas, jiva souls), but that only means that He created the material bodies of living beings in this material world. In this sense it is not wrong to say that the Lord created living beings, however it would be wrong to think that the Lord created the jiva souls!

So if you want a confirmation from the scriptures about Vedas being apaurusheya then do not ask where in the scriptures is said something like "The Vedas are apaurusheya" because such a statement probably you will not find anywhere, but ask where is stated that Vedas are eternal.
Acaryas usually quote a verse from the Rig Veda 8.75.6 about that:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv08075.htm

tasmai nūnamabhidyave vācā virūpa nityayā |
vṛṣṇe codasva suṣṭutim ||

However the Griffith's English translation of this verse is located as verse number 8.64.6 at sacred-texts.com:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv08064.htm

"Now, O Virūpa, rouse for him, Strong God who shines at early morn,
Fair praise with voice that ceases not."

I do not know why the discrepancy arises between these two different ways of counting verses.
This part of the verse which Griffith translated as "voice that ceases not" other translators give as "the eternal Vedic speech". Hence the eternality of the Vedas is declared in this verse. From this the apaurusheya character of the Vedas is established.

However sometimes we read statements in the scriptures that say:

"From that great general sacrifice Ṛcas and Sāma-hymns were born:
Therefrom were spells and charms produced; the Yajus had its birth from it." (Rig Veda 10.90.9)

Somebody could say that the above passage proves that the Vedas (Rig Veda, Sama Veda and Yajur Veda mentioned in the verse) were born and, because they were born, must also perish in the end. For this reason the Vedas are not eternal. Hence they are not apaurusheya! Somebody could say that.
But it is not so. The word "born" or "produced" here means "manifested" (not born in the ordinary sense). Thus the Vedas were just manifested or revealed to the Rishis (sages) and to the gods. For this reason it is said that the Vedas are revealed holy scriptures.

The eternal character of the Vedas is also pronounced elsewhere in the scriptures.
It is said in the Srimad Bhagavatam 6.16.51 that the Vedas are called "śabda-brahma" which means "the sound vibration (or voice) of the Vedas", and the same verse says this śabda-brahma is śāśvatī "eternal" (śabda-brahma paraḿ brahma mamobhe śāśvatī tanū). Compare this with the above mentioned Rig Veda vācā virūpa nityayā "voice that ceases not" or "the eternal Vedic speech".

Manu-smriti, chapter 12, says:

94. "The Veda is the eternal eye of the manes, gods, and men"

99. "The eternal lore of the Veda upholds all created beings"

- lore -- accumulated knowledge or beliefs held by a group about a subject, especially when passed from generation to generation by oral tradition

Namaste,

Recently,I heard a discourse on the TV.The speaker said something like 'the Vedas are the breath(not sure of the exact word) of God'.I was like "WHAT?"

Yes, indeed, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.4.10 says:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15061.htm

'As clouds of smoke proceed by themselves out of a lighted fire kindled with damp fuel, thus, verily, O Maitreyî, has been breathed forth from this great Being what we have as Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, Sama-veda, Atharvâṅgirasas, Itihâsa (legends), Purâna (cosmogonies), Vidyâ (knowledge), the Upanishads, Slokas (verses), Sûtras (prose rules), Anuvyâkhyânas (glosses), Vyâkhyânas (commentaries). From him alone all these were breathed forth.

The same Upanishad in 4.5.11 repeating the same thing and adds:

" ... what is sacrificed, what is poured out, food, drink, this world and the other world, and all creatures. From him alone all these were breathed forth."

So not only the Vedas were breathed forth from the Lord but this whole world (universe), and all creatures (including gods), food, etc.



regards

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste Ram11,

Every theonym (deity-name) is unique and points to a unique deity. So, Brahm, Mitra, Agni, Indra etc - all have different independent existences. They are the Swayambhu-s of the Reality: together they constitute Reality.

Brahm (or brahm*** if you may ) is special (all of them are special btw) in the sense He (it?) is not enumerated in the 33-devatas' of Veda. Consistently, Brahm is not mentioned directly by name EVEN ONCE in the RgVeda. To some members here, e.g. Sudas, I suppose considering Brahm isn't essential at all - justified isn't it.

For others, like me, the three Brahm Devata-s (say, Sat, Chid and Ananda Brahm) are the 34th, the 35th and the 36th hidden devatas of Veda. Brahm, true to His nature, has simply refused to speak out in the Veda. IMO this is His nature and His highest philosophy.

[Ram11]

Namaste Ram11,

Every theonym (deity-name) is unique and points to a unique deity. So, Brahm, Mitra, Agni, Indra etc - all have different independent existences. They are the Swayambhu-s of the Reality: together they constitute Reality.

Namaste Kalicharan Ji,

Some say there is only 'One' and now after reading your words I am stunned.But please do tell what is the nature of relationship between all these independent Ones.

Brahm (or brahm*** if you may ) is special (all of them are special btw) in the sense He (it?) is not enumerated in the 33-devatas' of Veda. Consistently, Brahm is not mentioned directly by name EVEN ONCE in the RgVeda. To some members here, e.g. Sudas, I suppose considering Brahm isn't essential at all - justified isn't it.

I read that in order to distinguish between Brahma Deva and Brahma-The Ultimate Substance, a 'n' was added in English translations,so Brahma-The Ultimate Substance is written as Brahman.Is Brahma Deva not mentioned or Brahman not mentioned?How are these both distinguished in the mantras?

For others, like me, the three Brahm Devata-s (say, Sat, Chid and Ananda Brahm) are the 34th, the 35th and the 36th hidden devatas of Veda. Brahm, true to His nature, has simply refused to speak out in the Veda. IMO this is His nature and His highest philosophy.

You say very little like a mystic(and I have to read between the lines to know what exactly you are telling).But I am not a scholar,so I request for few more words.

[smaranam]

Every theonym (deity-name) is unique and points to a unique deity. So, Brahm, Mitra, Agni, Indra etc - all have different independent existences. They are the Swayambhu-s of the Reality: together they constitute Reality

Namaste

The blue statement and the orange statement contradict.
If Mitra Agni Indra are svayambhus of the Reality (called Bramhan') then they are dependant on and parts of that Reality (called Bramhan').

That they are individual deities is a different story. Individual, not independent. Right?
For instance, VaruN presides over waters,liquid,fluidity VAyu over air/wind, Prithvi over earth-principle, Saraswati (VANI, vAgdevtA)) over vAk (speech) Ashwini Kumar (physicians) preside over eyes/ears? etc.

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste Kalicharan Ji,
Some say there is only 'One' and now after reading your words I am stunned.But please do tell what is the nature of relationship between all these independent Ones.

Namaste Ram,

I don't mean to cause any disturbance. I am not rejecting anything or anyone here. But I am not being elitist as well, to say :" this is the highest knowledge so and so, and only few are Adhikari so and so..", because that isn't true. At least understanding clearly what I am saying here is not difficult at all.

I read that in order to distinguish between Brahma Deva and Brahma-The Ultimate Substance, a 'n' was added in English translations,so Brahma-The Ultimate Substance is written as Brahman.Is Brahma Deva not mentioned or Brahman not mentioned?How are these both distinguished in the mantras?

I mean Brahman by Brahm ब्रह्म here. In RgVeda Brahm is never mentioned. Brahman is actually the root of the word Brahm, but for some reasons as you said in English it was decided to continue with the compromised formula of using Brahman just because in English it is impossible then to differentiate between Brahm and BrahmA.
BrahmA (the ritvija priest) is mentioned in RgVeda, and so is BrAhmaNa (prayer).

You say very little like a mystic(and I have to read between the lines to know what exactly you are telling).But I am not a scholar,so I request for few more words.

Far from it, I think it as my responsibility to share anything that is worthwhile but not in circulation (else, what is the point).

Namaste

The blue statement and the orange statement contradict.
If Mitra Agni Indra are svayambhus of the Reality (called Bramhan') then they are dependant on and parts of that Reality (called Bramhan').

That they are individual deities is a different story. Individual, not independent. Right?
For instance, VaruN presides over waters,liquid,fluidity VAyu over air/wind, Prithvi over earth-principle, Saraswati (VANI, vAgdevtA)) over vAk (speech) Ashwini Kumar (physicians) preside over eyes/ears? etc.

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

Pranam,

If you carefully read my post, I never said that Brahman is the whole Reality. So there is no contradiction when I said, Swayambhu-s, Independents. This is the first principle, the rest comes next. But this is more important and pertinent, before and above anything.

I will reiterate that I've nothing against anything or any Hindu, other than greatest respect and love. I will not respect someone if I thought they were horribly wrong, right?

[smaranam]

Pranam Kalicharanji

I did notice earlier that you have put Bramhan' in the same list as all devas. I was the one who turned it into reality = Bramhan'
However, it seems you agree that Reality is one.
Also, if your 34th, 35th, 36th are BramhA VishNu Mahesh, they are also guNAvatAr manifestations of the one reality.

Just saying

[Ram11]

Originally Posted by Ram11
Namaste Kalicharan Ji,
Some say there is only 'One' and now after reading your words I am stunned.But please do tell what is the nature of relationship between all these independent Ones.

Namaste Ram,

I don't mean to cause any disturbance. I am not rejecting anything or anyone here. But I am not being elitist as well, to say :" this is the highest knowledge so and so, and only few are Adhikari so and so..", because that isn't true.

Namaste Kalicharan Ji,

Some say that there is only one God(aka monotheism) and all the others are His/Her/Its forms/names/aspects.But when you said 'independent existence' it seemed to me like polytheism,so I asked if you were suggesting that the Vedas are teaching polytheism.(*I'm not taking sides*)

I do not understand how 'Adhikara' or 'elitism' popped up in this discussion.These terms are bound to attract attention and I do not want a debate/fire to start in this thread.Please clarify what you were saying,why did you use these words?

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

I do not understand how 'Adhikara' or 'elitism' popped up in this discussion.These terms are bound to attract attention and [/SIZE]I do not want a debate/fire to start in this thread.Please clarify what you were saying,why did you use these words?

Namaste Ram11,
I said that what I wrote is simple to understand, isn't something that requires special super powers or a premium club membership. And that even if it is misunderstood for reasons other than intended, I am not going to judge.

Some say that there is only one God(aka monotheism) and all the others are [SIZE=3]His/Her/Its forms/names/aspects.But when you said 'independent existence' it seemed to me like polytheism,so I asked if you were suggesting that the Vedas are teaching polytheism.(*I'm not taking sides*)

Yes I do agree that it sounds like polytheism.

Pranam Kalicharanji
I did notice earlier that you have put Bramhan' in the same list as all devas. I was the one who turned it into reality = Bramhan'

In a conversation I suppose we should walk together, not walk ahead of each other. Not an issue, however.

However, it seems you agree that Reality is one.

No, I mean: Reality is emergent upon the Devata-s. Reality doesn't define Devata-s, it is the Devata-s who define Reality. Devata-s are the essentials, the basis terms of the immortal language.

Also, if your 34th, 35th, 36th are BramhA VishNu Mahesh, they are also guNAvatAr manifestations of the one reality.

I never said this. The 34th, 35th and 36th are in my view the three hidden Brahman Devata-s (or, the three aspects of Brahman- a correct use of "aspect" principle). These are neither BrahmA, nor Vishnu or Shiva, who are composite ("All") Devata-s, not the basic ones.
I will never insinuate something like, "there is a nAma greater than the nAma of Vishnu." Sorry, not possible.

[Ram11]

Namaste,

There was a thread related to this topic in another sub-forum

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=11714