Timeline for Do the Aitareya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads correctly interpret two hymns of Vamadeva?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2017 at 23:39 | comment | added | S K | "Finally, I am very wary of any supposed interpretations or commentaries by Western Sanskrit scholars. They learn their Sanskrit from other "Westerners and are Christian or Atheists in their own philosophies and have their own agendas in their translations. Most see Vedanta as a polytheistic religion and see the religious texts as mythology to be interpreted as such" @keshav srinivasan - those ignoramuses ! it is sooooooo obvious that EVERYTHING is vishnu in ALL scriptures, except "tamasic puranas" in which only portions praising Vishnu are true. | |
| May 4, 2015 at 1:14 | history | edited | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Mar 1, 2015 at 5:40 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | @SwamiVishwananda Beyond the opening verses, the main part of the two hymns is about Garuda's theft of pot of Amrita/Soma from the fortifications of Devaloka. Garuda broke through all the enclosures and flew off with the pot. So the claim is that in the opening verse of the second hymn, Chandra is describing what he was thinking while he was inside the enclosure. | |
| Mar 1, 2015 at 5:36 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | "Again, both Gambhirananda's and Nikhilananda's translations of the Upanishad refer the verse to Vamadeva." As I said, I'm not disputing that the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that it's Vamadeva; I'm trying to find why it says, i.e what in the text of the hymns indicates it. "The gods did not lie in a womb, only by human birth would one lie in the womb." Yes, but the claim is not that it's about Chandra in the womb. The claim is that "womb" is being used metaphorically to denote the enclosure in which the pot of Amrita/Soma is being kept before Garuda steals it. (Chandra is the god of Soma.) | |
| Mar 1, 2015 at 4:10 | comment | added | Swami Vishwananda | @KeshavSrinivasan Again, both Gambhirananda's and Nikhilananda's translations of the Upanishad refer the verse to Vamadeva. I would also refer to the opening line of the verse "while lying in the womb..." - The gods did not lie in a womb, only by human birth would one lie in the womb. | |
| Feb 28, 2015 at 0:38 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | @SwamiVishwananda I just found an actual confirmed Atmastuti of Indra: sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10048.htm See the Anukramani in my answer here for confirmation that Indra is the speaker. What indication is there in the words of Rig Veda IV.26 (the Vamadeva hymn we were discussing) compared to this one indicating that one is an Atmastuti of Indra and the other is not? They seem pretty parallel to me in describing the deeds of Indra. So what is the argument for one of them being a moment of self-realization by Vamadeva? | |
| Dec 28, 2014 at 6:12 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | @SwamiVishwananda OK, so what is there in the text of the two Rig Veda hymns we're discussing to indicate that it's a reference to illumined Knowledge as opposed to just intellectual knowledge? | |
| Dec 25, 2014 at 7:31 | comment | added | Swami Vishwananda | 1) Crest Jewel section entitled 'The Path'. Three things are necessary, human birth, longing for liberation, and holy company (disciple of an illumined person). Yes, the scriptures say that Indra studied Brahman with his teacher. I would grant that he has knowledge (intellectual) but Knowledge (illumined)...not so sure. Earth is the place where karma is made. Those in heaven or birth as gods can only use the karma that they generated to become gods. No new karma can be generated. Regardless of Indra, the scriptures are clear - you and I CAN realize Brahman in this life. | |
| Dec 25, 2014 at 4:08 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | @SwamiVishwananda Where in the Vivekachudamani does Adi Shankaracharya discuss human birth being necessary? Maybe I should post a new question about whether gods can attain Brahman. In any case, in interpreting the Rig Vedic verses in question, why do we even need to assume that the speakers got a full realization of Brahman? Why couldn't Indra and Chandra just have had some intellectual knowledge that they're Brahman, without actually realizing Brahman? Indra clearly had such knowledge of Brahman, as evidenced by Kaushitaki Upanishad III.2. So why couldn't this be another instance of that? | |
| Dec 25, 2014 at 0:30 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | @SwamiVishwananda I think that verse from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is just saying that all the wisdom and intellectual work of Man, both Shruti and Smriti, ultimately comes from Brahman. That doesn't mean that all the things listed are actually Shruti. | |
| Dec 24, 2014 at 13:11 | comment | added | Swami Vishwananda | "Devas cannot attain Brahman..." I was waiting to see if you caught that. There are good arguments to both sides of this, and there are conflicting references in scripture. Even Shankaracharya has made conflicting statements in his commentaries. One comment agreeing that they can attain to it, in another commentary saying human birth was necessary. In his commentary on the Brahma Sutra, the gods can attain to it, in his Crest Jewel, human birth is necessary. I tend to side with human birth being necessary. | |
| Dec 24, 2014 at 12:57 | comment | added | Swami Vishwananda | are all these, indeed, breathed forth." | |
| Dec 24, 2014 at 12:57 | comment | added | Swami Vishwananda | All the vedas were revealed by God at the same time. The Upanishads were not composed later. This is a theory that has been fostered by Western academics. See Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II. iv. 10. "As from a fire kindled with wet fuel various [kinds of] smoke issue forth, even so, my dear, the Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda, the Atharvangirasa, history (itihasa), mythology (purana), the arts (vidya), the Upanishads, verses (slokas), aphorisms (sutras), elucidations (anuvyakhyanas), and explanations (vyakhyanas), are [like] the breath of this infinite Reality. From this [Supreme Self] | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 10:10 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | "The reference to Vamadeva in the Brihadaranyaka is again, a reference to what an individual jiva can attain to. So it makes perfect sense that it would have a human name and not a deva name as an example of one who has realized the Self." But in Kaushitaki Upanishad III.2 Indra says "I am the Spirit of the vital breath, the intelligent Self. As such, worship me as life, as immortality." Why can't Indra be making a similar statement here? By the way, you may not trust Western Indologists, but what about sage Shaunka's Brihaddevata? That also says that it's Indra's atmastuti. | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 10:07 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | "It should also be noted that the chapter ends with Vamadeva and the first verse of the next chapter starts out with again a reference to Vamadeva." I'm not disputing that the Aitareya Upanishad says it is Vamadeva. I'm trying to understand why it must be Vamadeva. | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 9:58 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | "Devas cannot attain to Knowledge of Brahman in their birth as a deva. Only human birth can." No, that's not true. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad quote we're discussing specifically says "Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman)". And Adi Shankaracharya's Brahma Sutra Bhashya for Adhyaya 1, Pada 3, Sutra 26 clearly says that the gods can come to know Brahman while being gods. So Chandra, while being protected by the fortifications of Devaloka before being stolen by Garuda, could have certainly come to know Brahman. | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 9:53 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | "Both Swami Gambhirananda's translation with Shankaracarya's commentary and Swami Nikhilananda's translation and commentary both show the reference to Vamadeva." We don't need to refer to any commentaries. The text of the Upanishads themselves say that it's Vamadeva. I'm just trying to understand why it has to be Vamadeva. "The Aitareya verse is clearly not Indra." You're getting the claims mixed up. The claim is that the verse quoted in the Aitareya Upanishad is Chandra, who is the presiding deity of the Soma that is being stolen by Garuda, which is the subject of the two Rig Veda hymns. | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 9:46 | comment | added | Keshav Srinivasan♦ | "First, these 2 Upanishads were not composed by Yajnavalka and Aitareya. The Upanishads are the revealed word of God." Well, the issue is slightly more complicated than that. The portions of the Vedas that are direct revelation to Dhrishtas are the mantras recorded in the Samhitas of the Vedas. (That is why the Samhitas have associated Anukramanis.). The only reason the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads are considered Shruti is that they are divinely inspired explanations of the Samhitas. The Upanishads generally consist of shlokas, not mantras, so the specific words were chosen by humans. | |
| Dec 23, 2014 at 8:30 | history | answered | Swami Vishwananda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |