Oddities of Various Purana-s

[Jaskaran Singh]

...it's not only an Indological notion that the Veda-s came first, but primarily a Hindu facet of religious reality.

Who said that? In vaiShNava thought, the purANa-s, just like the veda-s, are manifested during each kalpa and both are coeternal with bhagavAn, for they proceed from him, just as jIva-s do. In a sense, the purANa-s too are neither born, nor are they destroyed. This is similar to the view of Agama-s in shaiva siddhAnta and kashmIr shaiva tradition.

And, you think I believe there are strict prohibitions on reading said scriptures for the knowledge and wisdom they contain?

You were saying that the manusmR^iti does not agree; that is incorrect.

Since I do not abide by the shAkhA-s of the Veda-s other than one of the Rg-Veda, it would not be of any importance to me on what those Veda-s say. To acquire the pramANa of their inclinations, I would have to consult shAkhA-s that deal with those scriptures.

This doesn't change the logical fact that if you disagree with a statement, then you reject the authority of that statement; since that statement is located in the veda-s, that means that you technically reject the authority of the veda-s as a whole; hence, that makes you nAstika. QED. Happy now? I make one statement and the thread goes off on a tangent, lol.

 

[Poeticus]

Who said that? In vaiShNava thought, the purANa-s, just like the veda-s, are manifested during each kalpa and both are coeternal with bhagavAn, for they proceed from him, just as jIva-s do. In a sense, the purANa-s too are neither born, nor are they destroyed. This is similar to the view of Agama-s in shaiva siddhAnta and kashmIr shaiva tradition.

In Vaishnava thought, I see.

This doesn't change the logical fact that if you disagree with a statement, then you reject the authority of that statement; since that statement is mentioned in the veda-s, that means that you technically reject the authority as a whole; hence, that makes you nAstika. QED. Happy now; I make one statement and the thread goes off on a tangent, lol.

If it makes you feel better calling me a nAstika, then so be it.

Just keep in mind that I never once stressed that I reject that verse from the Atharvaveda...thereby, making your "feel good" diatribe moot.

You were saying that the manusmR^iti does not agree; that is incorrect.

Reading a book or scripture to gain knowledge, in its most general sense, is recreational. Therefore, the Manusmriti clearly does not agree, since this vehemently interpolated "scripture" clearly dislikes the idea of "non-upper-castes" passing the time by "hearing" or reading the Veda-s. Either way, it still doesn't change the fact that my "like, Manusmriti, like" comment was in no way meant to be taken seriously and was a parody in and of itself. Again, you go after it as if your life depended on it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Did the marriage go through?

Oh, yes. That is how she became my (elder) aunt - in Hindi - Tai.

You take that back, Aup!

You know, MaitraqVarunih, I will not do that. I value Vedas, Puranas, and BhagawadGita as the life of Hinduism. They are becons for us, the illustrators of what is good and what is bad. So too are the Gods and Goddesses of Hinduism for me. They are my culture's heroes and heroines. Without the Gods and Goddesses, and the scriptures, there is no Hinduism. But I am an atheist. I do not believe in Gods, therefore, no divine scriptures. I hope you would kindly excuse me. Hinduism gives me the freedom to hold my 'mata' (opinion).

I know someone very well who used to post here on RF before he decided to no longer post. He made a very convincing argument, using all sorts of things - theological, scriptural, Indological, social, political, you name it - to prove his point, that various parts of the Purusha Sukta were interpolations.

I have not read Purusha Sukta that intently so as to comment. I take it as allegorical. My fav. however, is Nasadiya Sukta.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

If it makes you feel better calling me a nAstika, then so be it.

Stating an observation doesn't affect how I feel. The sky is blue, but stating as such doesn't change how I feel.

Just keep in mind that I never once stressed that I reject that verse from the Atharvaveda...thereby, making your "feel good" diatribe moot.

Since when was this a "feel good" diatribe? You're the one making a big drama off of a single statement. Regardless of whether you stressed that you reject that statment, your statement that "I still fail to find a few of them (purANa-s) as "divine"" necessitates that you reject the statement in the atharvaveda that views them as being divine.

 

[Poeticus]

Oh, yes. That is how she became mu (elder) aunt - in Hindi - Tai.

I like redheads.

Yopu know, MaitraqVarunih, I will not do that. I value Vedas, Puranas, and BhagawadGita as the life of Hinduism. They are becons for us, the illustrators of what is good and what is bad. So too are the Gods and Goddesses of Hinduism for me. They are my culture's heroes and heroines. Without the Gods and Goddesses, and the scriptures, there is no Hinduism. But I am an atheist. I do not believe in Gods, therefore, no divine scriptures. I hope you would kindly excuse me. Hinduism gives me the freedom to hold my 'mata' (opinion).I have not read Purusha Sukta that intently so as to comment. I take it as allegorical.

Don't worry; I'm a nAstika now, apparently. Do you have room for one more in your club?

My fav. however, is Nasadiya Sukta.

He said that one was also interpolated. Lmao.

------------------------------

Since when was this a "feel good" diatribe? Regardless of whether you stressed that you reject that statment, your statement that "I still fail to find a few of them (purANa-s) as "divine"" necessitates that you reject the statement in the atharvaveda that views them as being divine.

The only thing it necessitates is your obsession with finding correlations. A few of them are not divine. Not one bit. They are far from being divine. In fact, a majority of them...heck almost all of them aren't even close to being divine. The Purana-s spoken in the Atharvaveda, for all we know, aren't even the ones we have currently. You yourself said they were all "one". Well, now they aren't. What went on through the years, we can't be sure of. But... We can be sure about the Vedas due to the insanely rigid oral tradition and regulatory laws that stayed in effect and are still extant.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Reading a book or scripture to gain knowledge, in its most general sense, is recreational.

Not if it's considered to be one of one's nityakarma-s; therein, it is mandatory.

Therefore, the Manusmriti clearly does not agree, since this vehemently interpolated "scripture" clearly dislikes the idea of "non-upper-castes" passing the time by "hearing" or reading the Veda-s.

Again, that's why the mahAbhAratam was made by vyAsa, so that shUdra-s could attain vedaj~nAna without having to read or listen to the veda-s themselves.

Either way, it still doesn't change the fact that my "like, Manusmriti, like" comment was in no way meant to be taken seriously and was a parody in and of itself. Again, you go after it as if your life depended on it.

Talk about hyperbole, lol. You seem to be the one making emotional judgements. I'm merely reiterating observations and logical conclusions I've reached.

 

[Poeticus]

Not if it's considered to be one of one's nityakarma-s; therein, it is mandatory.

Mandatory to the point that it is theologically prescribed...not for passing the time.

I'm merely reiterating observations and logical conclusions I've reached.

You have a wild imagination.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This one from the Atharva-veda? Heck, did the Padma Puran and other Vaishnava Purans that are popular today even exist when the Atharva was codified? Let me guess...you think they did?

I think they did. Atharva Veda is after all the latest of the Vedas. I won't comment on the contents.

 

[Poeticus]

I think they did. Atharva Veda is after all the latest of the Vedas. I won't comment on the contents.

There seems to be a desperate attempt going on that most likely was born from my statement of not seeing various Purana-s as divine. Thus, in retaliation, I am now being branded as a nAstika, from someone who, ironically, lauds a nAstika.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Clearly, if you don't believe in any of them, the weightage you give to them is 0, and 0=0=0=0=..

I have different reasons to give weightage to Gods and Goddesses, and also to Vedas and Puranas.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Mandatory to the point that it is theologically prescribed...not for passing the time.

When did the discussion ever have to do with reading texts to pass the time?

You have a wild imagination.

Not really, I just like to argue my point whenever I disagree with something, even if it's unproductive. After all, isn't rajas guNa supposed to be predominant in kShatriya-s, jk.

 

[Poeticus]

When did the discussion ever have to do with reading texts to pass the time?

It did, starting now.

Not really, I just like to argue my point whenever I disagree with something, even if it's unproductive. After all, isn't rajas guNa supposed to be predominant in kShatriya-s, jk.

"O' Kshatriya, please don't harm me! I'm just a lowly laborer. I'll serve you under your mighty warrior-like heel, your majesty. M'lord, this yAtudhAnic tongue of mine is most unclean. Please punish me as you see fit!" dreamed Jaskaran, as he was getting water for his Shudra employer.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

What went on through the years, we can't be sure of. But... We can be sure about the Vedas due to the insanely rigid oral tradition and regulatory laws that stayed in effect and are still extant.

Again, you're going back into Indologically based matters in which the conclusion wuld still be no, it is still not the exact same:
"We owe the text that we have, in its two forms, to the painstaking editorial work of Max Müller in the middle of the nineteenth century. Although fully aware that neither the Saṃhitā nor the Pada was a true representation of the original, he argued against making any changes to them. "What would a Greek scholar give, if he could say of Homer that his text was in every word, in every syllable, in every vowel, in every accent, the same as the text used by Peisistratos in the sixth century B.C.!" (Vedic Hymns, Oxford, 1891, p.xlvi). In attempting a reconstruction of the original metrical form of these ancient poems van Nooten and Holland have departed from the form of the text that we have inherited from ancient scholastic tradition, according to the systematic procedure outlined above."

 

[Poeticus]

Again, you're going back into Indologically based matters in which the conclusion wuld still be no, it is still not the exact same:
"We owe the text that we have, in its two forms, to the painstaking editorial work of Max Müller in the middle of the nineteenth century. Although fully aware that neither the Saṃhitā nor the Pada was a true representation of the original, he argued against making any changes to them. "What would a Greek scholar give, if he could say of Homer that his text was in every word, in every syllable, in every vowel, in every accent, the same as the text used by Peisistratos in the sixth century B.C.!" (Vedic Hymns, Oxford, 1891, p.xlvi). In attempting a reconstruction of the original metrical form of these ancient poems van Nooten and Holland have departed from the form of the text that we have inherited from ancient scholastic tradition, according to the systematic procedure outlined above."

There is nothing Indological about oral traditions of the Vedas ensuring there integrity. Even the Shrautic schools express an underlying notion that the Vedas we have today are not what we had initially...that many hymns were undoubtedly lost many, many years ago. That, what we have now is the closest we will get.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

It did, starting now.

Uh...okay.

"O' Kshatriya, please don't harm me! I'm just a lowly laborer. I'll serve you under your mighty warrior-like heel, your majesty. M'lord, this yAtudhAnic tongue of mine is most unclean. Please punish me as you see fit!" dreamed Jaskaran, as he was getting water for his Shudra employer.

Hey, I'm not casteist like that, nor do I think anyone else is here (well, maybe HLK, but I'm not too sure).

There is nothing Indological about oral traditions of the Vedas ensuring there integrity. Even the Shrautic schools express an underlying notion that the Vedas we have today are not what we had initially...that many hymns were undoubtedly lost many, many years ago. That, what we have now is the closest we will get.

Yes, and ironically, ISKCONites actually use that fact to try to assert the supremacy of the bhAgavatam over the veda-s:
The Supremacy of Srimad Bhagavatam over the Vedas | Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Ashram

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm very supportive of your indirect pro-polytheism. But, I find myself unable to reconcile highlighted-part-one with highlighted-part-two. Even I'll have to agree with Jaskaran, that since you don't believe in the Gods, personally, the equal weight you would give would be zero in the end.

...unless, you weren't talking about yourself, but in general - in advice-like terms. Maybe?

My answer is in this post which I think you must have read - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3655780-post43.html. Yes, this is the 'mata' for myself, and if some of the warring vaishnavas/shaivas/shaktas would accept it, my humble advice to them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

even the R^igveda is not divine, it was probably composed around 1700-1100 BC.

Since when did one have to give equal weight to all deities in order to be considered polytheistic? The Greeks didn't (Zeus was their chief deity), and they're the inventors of the term polytheïsmós.

If you ask Tilak, he would say RigVeda is at least 8,000 years old - could be older, dating from the last ice-age - Aditi period, when the sun rose on the day of vernal equinox in the asterism of Punarvasu (Castor and Pollux) and the Aryan New Year began in the month of Kartik.

As for polytheism, I do not know who started it, the Greeks, the Aryans, or the Indigenous people of India, Hindus.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There seems to be a desperate attempt going on that most likely was born from my statement of not seeing various Purana-s as divine. Thus, in retaliation, I am now being branded as a nAstika, from someone who, ironically, lauds a nAstika.

It is natural that I will have such views, since I am perhaps what they termed as 'nairukta' (people who give natural explanation to Gods/Goddesses/scriptures). Even the Aupamanyava of old (Wikipedia) was one such. I have nothing to say about theists. They are the majority people of my culture, even my whole family is. I have no grudges against them. I participate in their rituals and take 'charanamritam' with delight (my wife makes it very nice). I am not agressively atheist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In attempting a reconstruction of the original metrical form of these ancient poems van Nooten and Holland have departed from the form of the text that we have inherited from ancient scholastic tradition, according to the systematic procedure outlined above."

Jas, once I read a doctoral thesis by a researcher at University of Berkeley, California, where the researcher said that RigVeda in original was prose and it was later put in verse form by Samhitakaras, and that the translation shows the residue of the prose. I was not able to get back to that paper again.

 

[Tyaga]

Yes, and ironically, ISKCONites actually use that fact to try to assert the supremacy of the bhAgavatam over the veda-s:
The Supremacy of Srimad Bhagavatam over the Vedas | Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Ashram

Comparing a medieval era text to a bronze age era text?