How did the Rishis obtain the knowledge of the Vedas?

[ShivaFan]

Valjean, It seems Soma is associated with the Moon God Chandra - and humans would drink it, while it seems Amrita was only drunk by The Gods. Soma was also associated with being liquidly - again like something one would drink - but was also considered a product of "food" and not thus some water in a pond or stream ... so likely came from crushing a plant. The plant was sometimes described as giving "green" color "juice". I have seen also associations of "wandering NORTH" to get Soma. This may mean Soma was found in colder climates. In relation to Moon, Monday is called Somavaram in Sanskrit and in parts of Bengal - Monday is also said to be "Moon Day". Actually, there are MANY Sanskrit words found in, albeit mispronounced or corrupted, European languages and of course across to Persia and so on. Soma is a very interesting "study" and still a mystery as to what plant, but I fully believe it's origins will be reveled in time once again. I could be wrong, but I do not think it is a mushroom, but it probably was a plant that was in stems, not a thick branch like from a tree, but it seems to be found perhaps in colder climate, not warm. It was very important in the Rik (Rig) Veda, the "oldest" of the Four it seems.

Atanu, with all good intention, I do not have much doubt, despite strong traditions among "Vedantists" as well as some modern schools that favor "the Jain flavor of the post-Vedic anti-ritualism", that the Upanishads came later.

 

[atanu]

Atanu, with all good intention, I do not have much doubt, despite strong traditions among "Vedantists" as well as some modern schools that favor "the Jain flavor of the post-Vedic anti-ritualism", that the Upanishads came later.

If it came later then there can be no truth in upanishads. Upanishads, as part of and in mode similar as the Vedas, stand beyond time. What comes in time goes with time.

I have pointed out the view that all major Hindu schools hold. You are free to disagree, however.

And BTW, Soma is that amrta that confers immortality to Indra, as per Rig Veda.

 

[Jedster]

Yeah. But what is Soma?

I believe that the soma is the fluid that is tasted when practising the Kechari Mudra.
I am somewhat surprised that noone has mentioned it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not a Hindu chauvinist. But I do not think that this is a matter for arguing, especially when you have given your opinion, expressed in previous few posts, that Rig Veda is a work of drunkards that eulogises feats of drunk Lords such as Indra.

Now, when did I say so? Don't put words in my mouth. But all pastoral people like to have a swig and a leg-cut once in a while. That does not make them dumb. If it was that, then perhaps the number of Nobel Prize winners would have been less than 10% of the number today. That Indra and the other Aryan Gods (and so also their priests) liked Soma is well documented. I have said nothing which is not mentioned in RigVeda.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@atanu, Coming back to RigVeda 10.85.3, I have to admit that I have not got its purpose. I think it is word flourish. If you think, it is something other than that, kindly enlighten me. Same for 1.164.35, 9.2.10 and 9.60.1-2. I do not think these verses have anything philosophically or historically important. Perhaps our ancestors liked them for some reason. Soma for all reasons was the drink being cleaned through woolen threads.

The Upanishads came MUCH later than the Vedas, they are commentaries, some even during the times of Jainism and Buddhism.

IMHO, the time difference between the codification of Vedas and the writing of the older Upanishads may have been something like 500 years. The last hymns of RigVeda might have been written around 1,500 BC, while the older Upanishad may be dated to 1,000 BC - both were done in India by the Saraswati river valley people. Large in number, in Book 1 and Book 10. Then came the reaction, Jainism, Charvak and Buddhism around 500 BC. After that - history. ShivaFan, Upanishads are not commentaries nor are they appendices. They are philosophical treatises.

.. there was a RETURN yet again to Gods as Personalities and so Puranas, including the Bhagavatam Purana and it is there in the Purana, anr the Mahabharatam is later, that where the Gita is found, AFTER the Vedas.

But by that time the Gods had changed - assimilation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The best guess seems to be an infusion of Ephedra, containing the stimulant ephedrine; Papavar, containing the narcotic opium; and Cannabis, containing several psychoactive cannabinols.

Ephedra perhaps is the best guess, but it was not a concoction of many things. Just the golden brown leaves pressed with milk and sugar and filtered through woolen cloth - my guess. It was perhaps a sweet drink not different from 'bhang' - cannabis drink that we have in India.

Perhaps, the thread is ready for Same Faith Debate forum. We have been at it for a long time.

 

[Valjean]

But same faith would exclude a lot of people with valuable insight into the question, just because they aren't Hindu.

 

[ShivaFan]

I agree with Aup on the 500 years later, that is probably about right, what I was taught really isn't date specific but definetly sequential.

As for Soma, I have no idea what it is, but definetly Indra and such drank it. I would personally hesitate to drink it myself, also I still think it is DISTINCT from general Amrita or "nectar" (of the Gods) ... and Soma definetly was "conscious changing", almost like a drug maybe. But we may never know, my gut is however that very clever humans are going to figure out and prove what was the actual Soma.

As far as the emotions about "sequences" of things and dates and such ...

... This is similar to a conversation I had a few years ago with someone who was a member of a particular Christian sect, and also involved a denial of sequential events that take us into the modern times.

It had to do with the term "The Bible".

What was told to me was "The Bible" was about the creation of the world, Adam and Eve, the Flood, various wars and Prophets, and so on, and eventually about Jesus who was the "essence of the Bible", it's "conclusion" both as the final Chapter of God's Book "The Bible" and in Jesus is the entire spirit of the Bible itself. All this was "The Bible" - "the very" book. And the Book of Revelations of one of Jesus' disciples is also "The Bible" and a look into the future.

This entire scripture is called "The Bible" according to my friend who then got very angry with my perspective. Let me explain.

There are many extremely engaging aspects in "The Bible", and it is recommended reading. But I had already taken, even if it was not a theological view, and certainly not a "scholarly" deep dive - just getting up to speed from basic "reviews" and hard work of others, many of which were not theologians, but nor were they "anti-Christian" and meany critics, they were simply smart people who were looking at the historical sequence of "things" - I had already taken a look at things and it seemed pretty clear to me that, really, "The Bible", it was some "Bibles" that even included for example parts of the great Gilgamesh Epic and the Flood, but it was largely Jewish, had a "sequence of events" (first, second, third thing happened, and so on, in "this order"), yes it is often difficult to ascribe an extra "date" which is questionable even sometimes using "modern methods" but it is clear "this was before that, this came later" and so on even if we don't know the exact date necessarily.

So anyway, I had casually mentioned that it seems clear to me that the Jesus part of "The Bible" came later, that really it isn't the Jewish Bible, which itself is sort of Bibles instead of Bible, and it seems to me the Jesus part should rather be called the "New Testament" and not "The Bible" and really isn't so much Jewish, it was added later, an Appendix if you will, tacked onto the back of "The Bible" later by disciples and others who were also Jewish and non-Jewish and Romans and such, and really is NOT "The Bible", the New Testament is of great insight and of immense history, but is not "The Bible", it came later. In fact, quite a bit later by hundreds of years, probably 500 years later, and actually Jesus and really the spirit of the New Testament is against, critic of, a "clarification" in Christian terms, of the rituals and such of The Bible, but not "The Bible".

The guy went totally bezerker on me.

"How DARE you!" say it isn't "The Bible", and things like "Are you Jewish?" as if I cannot see something about "The Bible" in any "scholarly way" because I am from California and not born in "The Holy Lands", on it went. The Jesus part of "The Bible" is "the VERY ESSENCE and CONCLUSION of WHAT IS THE BIBLE!" and "IS The Bible" - so it was yelled at me, and I am a fool and so on.

I still liked the guy per say, but it was clear he didn't subscribe to my "view". Which is ok. But I still think what I have learned is correct, that the Jesus part came later, after the Bible(s), is not The Bible or Bibles, it was tacked on later and really an Appendix of sorts but not THE Bible.

So, I am sure the New Testament QUOTES The Bible. But is not THE. I am not going to be persuaded by this guy, that's for sure.

It is like this "conversation" I once had with a caste extremist who was a "theologian" of the Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham. The initial conversation was about caste, the guy was a caste extremist, but let us put that aside, this is a "Mutt" that claims to be established in Kanchi (Tamil Nadu, South India) by Sri Adi Sankara in "the year 482 B.C.", but having been to India more than a dozen times and for extended periods, and though I haven't yet been to Tamil Nadu, it was sort of clear to me that this "Mutt" or Head Quarters if you will of this Kanchi sect came LATER, after Adi Shankaracharya died, and also these claims he died at Kanchi Mutt are bogus, that in fact this Mutt came way later than Shankara, no Tamil, Sanskrit or Malayalam literature before 19th century speaks of Kanchi Mutt, it came LATER and Shankaracharya did NOT "establish" this Mutt, and speaking of the Vedas, each Mutt was assigned one Veda of the Four, the Jyothir Mutt at Badrinath in northern India with Atharva Veda, Sarada Mutt at Sringeri in southern India with Yajur Veda; Govardhan Mutt at Jaganath Puri in eastern India with Rig Veda and Kalika Mutt at Dwarka in western India with Sama Veda. He didn't establish any such Mutt in Kanchi, which caste extremist Tamil Iyer's of South India essentially made this up to give themselves an elitist "badge of honor" in modern British times in India and really even their "Brahmin" caste claims are dubious and they are Dravidians pretty much, there is nothing wrong with this except the denial of the "sequence" of things and no, they have no "authority" from being "established" by Shankara even if these Tamils "heard about Shankara" later, Shankara who was clearly influenced by Buddhists and Jains but is a wonderful Hindu.

So of course this guy goes bezerker on me. "How DARE you!" stuff, and "are you even one of the Trice born!" (caste stuff) or "even a Hindu!?!?"...

So it goes. There are some wonderful Hindu writings from this "Pope style Mutt", welcome to the Family of Hinduism, but Shankara you are not, but there is a sequence to things. These Tamils of this "Mutt" even set up allow a lineage of pontiffs like the Pope, it is very clear it has nothing to do with being established by Shankara, and totally is a British Era invention and power grab by caste extremists. No one is going to "persuade" me otherwise to what is clear and actually TAUGHT by much more "ancient" authorities, certainly not by yelling because you might lose some of your elitism, or for that matter what comes from impersonists of the flowerly Vedantism "supremacy", or thuse who simply construct very dubious caste status, or any such thing. Not all Hindus agree, no reason to get all huffy over identity crisis.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. which caste extremist Tamil Iyer's of South India essentially made this up to give themselves an elitist "badge of honor" in modern British times in India and really even their "Brahmin" caste claims are dubious and they are Dravidians pretty much, there is nothing wrong with this except the denial of the "sequence" of things and no, they have no "authority" from being "established" by Shankara even if these Tamils "heard about Shankara" later, Shankara who was clearly influenced by Buddhists and Jains but is a wonderful Hindu.

Here is where you go wrong, ShivaFan. The word is 'assimilation'. When the assimilation occured between Aryans and indigenous Hindus, the indgenous Hindus were given 'varnas' and similarly Aryans got 'castes'. What I mean is that indigenous people according to their professions were included in an equivalent varna. A shamn was included as a Brahmin and a village chief was included as a kshatriya, etc.

There are examples galore in later history when kings claimed descent through Suryavamsha or Chandravamsha (descent from Sun and Moon Gods) when they were demonstrably of tribal descent, but their claims were accepted. Two new vamshas (families) were created among kshatriyas - the Agnivamsha and the Nagavamsha (descent from Fire and Serpent Gods).

Yes, most probably the Kanchi matha came up only later and is not one of the four established by Sankara.

 

[ShivaFan]

Ok, Aup, I will accept that. I am no authority, I will take your guidance on that one. Absolutely, I never intend to insult Tamils or their leaders, saints, priests. I am obviously biased in favor of the business-farmers-traders (Vaishya), that's just me. I am also biased in favor of Varanasi Saivas and Bengali Shaktas. No offense.

 

[kalyan]

kanchi kAmakoti mutt is indeed a fake creation but the date of Shankara's birth is around 500 BC well that is the truth.

IMHO, the time difference between the codification of Vedas and the writing of the older Upanishads may have been something like 500 years. The last hymns of RigVeda might have been written around 1,500 BC, while the older Upanishad may be dated to 1,000 BC

You are confusing the people with your wrong claims, all vedam was written in textual format around 5000 BC, but we need to remember this was passed orally from time eternity but due to fear of loss, it was written down as a scripture. There are NO additions or removals in any part of VEDAM. It was as is as it was billions of years ago.

The only evil people are the people who have written some random texts and started giving an upanishad tag to it. That is where the confusion began, if I write something and name it is an upanishad, that has to be taken as a nonsense and ignored as if it did not exist.

This is where the trimadha acharyas like Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva come into picture, the 3 of them only referred 14 upanishads in their commentaries and those are the only pramAna...If some idiot writes other upanishads like 'chaitanya upanishad' for lulz, it is a complete fabricated piece of junk

 

[Terese]

kanchi kAmakoti mutt is indeed a fake creation but the date of Shankara's birth is around 500 BC well that is the truth.

You are confusing the people with your wrong claims, all vedam was written in textual format around 5000 BC, but we need to remember this was passed orally from time eternity but due to fear of loss, it was written down as a scripture. There are NO additions or removals in any part of VEDAM. It was as is as it was billions of years ago.

The only evil people are the people who have written some random texts and started giving an upanishad tag to it. That is where the confusion began, if I write something and name it is an upanishad, that has to be taken as a nonsense and ignored as if it did not exist.

This is where the trimadha acharyas like Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva come into picture, the 3 of them only referred 14 upanishads in their commentaries and those are the only pramAna...If some idiot writes other upanishads like 'chaitanya upanishad' for lulz, it is a complete fabricated piece of junk

Kalyan I thought Shankara was born in the 8th century. Care to enlighten me?

 

[kalyan]

Kalyan I thought Shankara was born in the 8th century. Care to enlighten me?

The contemporaries and based on the actual evidence, Adi Shankara date of birth revolves around 500 BC, the one in 8th century is not actual 'Adi Shankara' but an 'abhinava shankara' (another shankaracharya with the same name).

Nepalaraja Vamsavali:
In the Suryavamsi dynasty of Nepal the 18th king was Vrishadeva Varma. He reigned from 2554 Kali to 2615 Kali or 547 B.C., to 486 BC. (Vide “Chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed by this Author.)
It is stated in the Nepalaraja Vamsavli that; "Adi Sankaracharya came from the South and destroyed the Buddha faith." Kali 2614 or 487 B.C. (Vide The Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII p. 411 ff)

Temple of Sankaracharya in Kashmir:
"Gopaditya the 70th king in the list of Kashmir kings (417-357 B.C.) founded Agraharas and built the temples of Jyestheswara and Sankaracharya" (A short history of Kashmir By P. Gwasha Lal, B.A., Ed. 1932; p. 27).
“Sankaraoharya"-—"This shrine is situated in the city of Srinagar. Sankaracharya is an ancient temple crowning the Takht-i-Sulaiman hill and standing 1000 ft. above the valley. The temple and the hill on which it stands take their name from Sankaracharya, the great South Indian Teacher of Monism who came to Kashmir from Travancore. This temple was built by king Gopaditya who reigned in Kashmir from 368 to 308 B.C. It was repaired later by the liberal minded Muslim king Zainul Abdin." (Vide The Hindu dated 17——7·—1949 p. 15, 2nd column and Kali Saka Vijnanam by K. Venkatachalam part III, p. 66). The real time of Gopaditya is 417-357 B.C. `Therefore it is evident that Sri Adi Sankaracharya lived before Gopaditya’s time i. e. Between 509-477 B.C. (This is elaborately discussed in Nepala-Raja·Vamsavali by it author K. Venkatachalam)

http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.com/2009/04/age-of-sri-adi-sankaracharya.html

 

[atanu]

I believe that the soma is the fluid that is tasted when practising the Kechari Mudra.
I am somewhat surprised that noone has mentioned it.

You are correct. None has mentioned this because most here are considering Soma to be an external entheogen. During Kechari Mudra a taste of aatmaa is felt, when certain chakras are activated. It is the taste and intoxication of embracing own consciousness.

Rig Veda defines Soma as the adhyaatmaa, the primeval Soul before yajna and before its apparent division into many spendorous forms. Rig Vedic seers praise Soma as the Universal God, with which all living beings are filled to brim. They term Soma as the infinite Seer who sees through all eyes.

Saivas know Soma as 'sa umA', an epithet used for Shiva with umA.

Soma first entered plants as the aatmaa. Aushadhi (medicines) are said to be Soma filled just as devas are.

Union of mind with aatma is intoxicating. During samadhi or during other Kundalini raising experiences, the mind stills in its own abode.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I was not aware of that, but I am not one to believe in these esoteric exotic practices.

 

[sayak83]

If it came later then there can be no truth in upanishads. Upanishads, as part of and in mode similar as the Vedas, stand beyond time. What comes in time goes with time.

I have pointed out the view that all major Hindu schools hold. You are free to disagree, however.

And BTW, Soma is that amrta that confers immortality to Indra, as per Rig Veda.

The few I have read are conversations about among teacher-student or conversations in courts of kings discussing the deeper meaning of Vedic rituals or deeper knowledge beyond what the Vedas say. Upanisads freely say that Brahmin X, Y or Z does not know them and sometimes kings,sometimes other teachers instruct them on these deeper knowledge. Therefore its kind of obvious that the Upanisads are discourses that come after the Vedas and the Brahmana texts at least. The language differs too, being closer to Panini's day than the original Vedas (which themselves show a clear linguistic evolution among them).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh yes, King Janaka was an all-time Mahajnani, and so was Mahatma Vidura. Dharma Vyadha stands alone in his category.

 

[atanu]

The few I have read are conversations about among teacher-student or conversations in courts of kings discussing the deeper meaning of Vedic rituals or deeper knowledge beyond what the Vedas say. Upanisads freely say that Brahmin X, Y or Z does not know them and sometimes kings,sometimes other teachers instruct them on these deeper knowledge. Therefore its kind of obvious that the Upanisads are discourses that come after the Vedas and the Brahmana texts at least. The language differs too, being closer to Panini's day than the original Vedas (which themselves show a clear linguistic evolution among them).

My observations pertained to suggestion of ShivaFan that Upanishads were commentaries on Vedas and that they were separate from the Vedas and also to his allusion that upanishads came after Jainism and thus were different in contents from the Vedas.

Upanishads are very much embedded in the araynaka portions of the Vedas. For Hindu scripture drawing a chronological time line may not be a correct thing to do. For example, in Svestavatara upanishad the rishi says that the upanishad was taught in an earlier period. Similarly in Gita, Shri Krishna says that the same knowledge was earlier imparted to sun by Lord. My point was that the truth remains truth whether it is heard today or 500 hundred years later. The veda (knowledge) is understood to be the very body of param atman and thus does not come and go. In today's parlance, you may say that information is immortal.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

How did the Rishis obtain the knowledge of the Vedas?

One can become a mantra-draṣṭa (= ṛṣi) upon 'discovering' a new mantra or a new combination of mantras or a new modification of mantra or new meaning of mantra (that is consistent with the other veda mantras). The veda mantras are also called chhandas alluding to their nature of 'encapsulating the truth'. Every veda mantra encapsulates an aspect of supreme truth which when unraveled by a seeker, makes her/him a ṛṣi. The actual method of doing so can be sought from a guru.
Also, vedas are eternal, unlimited/unending (ananta) and not humanly/otherwise authored (apauruṣeya). The vedas were originally one called as mūla-veda, which was then classified into four by Veda Vyāsa. The currently available texts are only those that have survived, several śākhā-saṁhitas themselves have disappeared with their respective mantra bhāgas. There were 24 ṛk, 101 yajus, 1000 sāma, and 12 atharva = 1137 śākhā-samhitas of which only 3 + 5 + 3 + 1 = 12 remain.

Being apauruṣeya, the vedas manifest as follows:

Supreme Puruṣa Nārāyaṇa --> Brahma --> Devatas (like Rudra, Indra, etc) --> Ṛṣis

yo brahmāṇaṁ vidadhāti pūrvaṁ ... (śve-up 16|17), asya mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitametad yad ṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmavedo§tharvāṅgīrasa itihāsaḥ purāṇaṁ vidyā upaniṣadaḥ ślokāḥ sūtrāṇyanuvyākhyāni vyākhyānāni (bṛ-up 4|4|10)

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[kalyan]

There were 24 ṛk, 101 yajus, 1000 sāma, and 12 atharva = 1137 śākhā-samhitas of which only 3 + 5 + 3 + 1 = 12 remain.

i guess some are lost in course of time and most were taken by either britishers or ended up in german museums ?