The phrase “Rigvedic History” is as paradoxing as “dark sun” – Just as sun cannot be dark, similarly vedas do not have any history.
This attempt of imagining history in vedas in a grave mistake we make which robs our dharma of its true identity and makes it vulnerable to attacks of anti-culturals.
If Vedas contain history, then all other texts, including new Purans at once become fraud texts without any further analysis. The list includes:
a. New Purans (Shiv, Vishnu, Bhagvat, etc etc)
b. Upanishads
c. Brahmans
d. Darshans (Yoga, Nyaya, Meemansa, Vedaant etc)
e. Ramayan
f. Mahabharat
g. Smritis: Manu etc
and all other texts of ancient times which we associate with our culture or knowledge.
Because each of them procliams clearly that Vedas/ Shruti are first knowedge to mankind, given at
beginning of creation and hence self-sufficient proofs. This is one common theme that unites all the various factions of so-called Hinduism.
To say that Vedas contain history because of words like Pururuva, Ram, Tutvasu is like saying Bhagvad Puran and poems of Soordas are stories of BJP because it contains mention of Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley, Atal, etc.
Its like saying history of freedom struggle is about ancestors of Sushma Swaraj.
Half-baked self-proclaimed intellectuals inspired by Max Muller et al continue their spree to discover various crazy people in Vedas. So far the list contains Christ, Muhammad, Kabeer, Ram, Krishna, etc etc.
Let us analyse vedas from its true context. only then shall the mantras make sense. Else if you search a place in London with map of New York, failure and wastage of time and energy and creating confusion in others would be the only outcomes.
History in Vedas
42 COMMENTS
LEAVE A REPLY
Give Aahuti in Yajna
Seriously the vedas must probably be the most misinterpreted scriptures in the world. The only so called ‘authentic’ and widely available translation of the vedas on the net is from Griffith which unfortunately does not even come close to what the vedas truly represent.I was so put off by it and i bet anyone with a bit of spiritual curiosity would discard them as some crazy folk songs made by some nomadic shepherds!
As a matter of fact, where can we find a genuine and educated translation of the vedas? I think its the right of every follower of the true eternal religion ‘sanatana dharma’ to know its true meaning and more importantly realise them!
You can find them on http://www.aryasamajjamnag.org .
If vedas were written by vyasa and he also wrote the puranas. Can we accept both (vedas and purana) as authentic hindu sastra?
Its a big misconception that Vedas were written or even compiled by Maharshi Vyaasa ji.
The Supreme Knowledge called Vedas are like water flowing in a river . They are ever since creation and even after "pralay" , Vedas will be there and will be grasped by the rishis of that after period when creation again takes place, like they were grasped by the rishis of the period of this creation( Agni , Vaayu , Angiraa and Aaditya rishii).
And the truth is that many of the so called Vyaas written puraanaas are also fraudulent books prepared by some selfish brahmins of the Medieval period
I do understand that Vedas are eternal. So was it Vyaasa ji the one who puts it in writing?
If it's not him who wrote it? How do we know the vedas are not fraudulent book too?
Thank you
http://satyavidya.org/must-read/unchangeable-veda…
This link is some portion of the answer to your query.
Thank you for the website. I can see that vedas is unchangeable because of the check and balance.
I would be grateful if my next question on who wrote the vedas is also answered with evidence.
Thank you
By "wrote" , you mean "wrote" or "revealed"?
Who was the first one to put the 4 vedas in to written forms (books). As I understand it was in sound form 1st then it was written down and compiled by some one. Just like the bible has 66 books with 30 authors. I am interested to know who wrote the revealed vedas. Is it Vyasa ji? Thank you
The Vedas have been traditionally passed from generation to generation orally through different Paath systems. When it was first written is difficult to ascertain. The popular story of Ved Vyas being the writer does not have very credible source. Even till today, the tradition of oral transmission of Vedas has not stopped.
Read the 7th chapter of the following link and if want to understand more, read "rigvedveda Bhaashyabhumika" by Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati".
http://aryasamajjamnagar.org/satyarth_prakash_eng…
You can ask your queries.
Only vedas are considered authentic revelations of ishwar. rest are human created texts and do not come close to vedas in terms of their authenticity.
You can find them on http://www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/ .
I agree several are misinterpreted for personal gains today. Lot of our past (may be with explanations that we cannot understand today) that was in the libraries of Nalanda and several Temples in our country is now destroyed by invaders.
But I wonder how many are putting effort in understanding/reasearching or atleast giving some thought. But the fact is, in todays world, we assume we know everything and we attempt to see the past through the glass of science. While this is good, science itself does not explain everything. Science cannot explain lot of thing in our present. So from whatever incomplete science we know, we try to judge and blindly say something is wrong or impossible or a MYTH.
A great example is DWARAKA. Bless those great archealogical researchers who went past books and looked into the ocean. But how many people are still researching and how well is it funded?
Compare this to other countries, even if a verrry small minute evidence is found, it is thoroghly reaseached. Is this happening in our country?
Added to this, there are several religions in our country and I dont think officials from other religions show much interest. Take a look at our neighbouring countries (above and below) that are predominated by other religions. How much interest do they take and worse how much is it destroyed there?
Upanishad are often called Vedanta which means "The end of the Veda". So I think we should consider the Upanishad as sacred as the Vedas.
My favorite Taittiriya Upanishad verse : ""Matridevo bhava" – "Let your mother be god to you." "
Upanishads are indeed treasure of knowledge. But apart from ishopanishad, rest are created by sages. Vedas however are revelations of ishwar and hence even these sages consider vedas to be most supreme.
False.
1. Only Veda Samhita have means of protection through Paatha Vidhi. Ishopanishad is primarily 40th Chapter of Yajurveda. Rest contain history, stories and are not Nitya Jnana.
2. Apart from Katyayana, no one has even claimed that Brahmans are Vedas. Even context and content of Katyayana is disputable.
3. All Vedas, Brahmans, Manusmriti, many Upanishads, Mahabharat, many Purans, Mahabhashya, Nirukta, Ramayan and even Sayanacharya declare that Vedas are 4 and none counts Brahmans or any Upanishads with them.
4. Sayanacharya (not an Arya Samaji and in fact most authoritative Vedic commentator for non-Arya Samajees states in Brihadaranyakvaartiksaar 2.4 that Vedic Mantras are 4 like Rigveda etc and Brahmans are 8.
5. None of the texts except mantras of Samhitas have a Devata, Rishi, Chhanda etc.
6. No Brahman text also states that Brahmans are Vedas.
7. Even Shankaracharya states in his commentary on Brihadaranyak Upanishad that "Chaturvidham Mantrajaatam" – the word Ved is Brahmans means 4 mantra samhitas.
8. Shatpath Brahman 10.4.2.23-25 states the size of various chhandas in Vedas and concludes that Vedas contain 24000 Brihatee Chhanda and hence 24000*36 alphabets. If Brahmans, Aranyaks, Upanishads be included, then this should come out to be much much more.
Also Puran is synonym of Brahmans and also means old. A puran that contains story of tulsidas, Akbar, Victoria etc cannot be as old as Vedas!
9. Before arrival of Arya Samaj, India was is dark ages for several centuries. So we do not know the actual beliefs of various schools. But none have preserved Upanishads, Brahmans and Aranyaks in same manner as Samhitas through Paatha Vidhi. Except Katyayana, there is no one who claims that Vedas refer to anything except Samhitas. Further, all have considered Vedas to be eternal and devoid of history, except few skeptics. These include non-Arya Samajis like Sayanacharya.
"If Vedas contain history, then all other texts, including new Purans at once become fraud texts without any further analysis."
Why should one come to such a conclusion?
If presence of history implies man made fraudulent texts, then how do you explain Atharva Veda verse which mentions Puranas?
ŕ̥caḥ sā́māni cʰándāṃsi purāṇáṃ yájuṣā sahá /
úccʰiṣṭāj jajñire sárve diví devā́ diviśrítaḥ //
The riks and the sâmans, the metres, the ancient legends (purânam) together with the yagus, all gods in the heavens, founded upon heaven, were born of the ukkhishta.(Atharva Veda 11:7:24)
The above verse from Atharva Veda Samhita shows the self-contradictory claim made by Arya Samajis.
1. If history is NOT there in Vedas how is it that the above Vedic verse talks about Vedas itself being manifested from Ishvar. Is this NOT time dependent event?
2. How is it that Puranas are mentioned also in Vedas if Puranas are man made?
Do not come up with new inventions about what constitutes Puranas. All through history of India, it is the group of 18 Puranas (Vishnu, Bhagavatha etc.) which were called as Puranas and NOT any oother group of texts.
Vedas are indeed Apowrusheya (unauthored) and Nitya (eternal), however Vedavyasa indeed for the first time made Vedas into written form for this age of Kali where memory is short.
Namaste
1. The Purans also refer to vedas as Apaurusheya and from inception of human civilization. Thus if Vedas have to contain history, then these would become fraud texts. And if Vedas have history, how can they be Nitya? Even Sayanacharya (not an Arya Samaji) has admitted that Vedas contain no history.
2. Purans mentioned in Vedas do not refer to 18 new Purans. That is pretty obvious. Because these 18 Purans contain stories of events and episodes which cannot be subject matter of Vedas which is Nitya or eternal.
3. Puran means old. Usage of Purana in Vedas does not imply it refers to books that contains stories of people born much later. Vedas existed before Krishna came. So Bhagvat cannot be as old as Vedas.
4. Kindly tell which are the names of 18 purans. Read them and you will know yourself that these cannot be as old as Vedas. There is dispute even on which 18 constitute the Puranas.
5. There is no evidence to prove that Veda Vyaysa wrote Vedas first. New Purans are not authority for this.
Dhanyavad
Vedas contain eternal knowledge and hence do not refer to any human event. That Vedas are given to civilization at inception on every cycle makes this part of knowledge a Nitya or eternal Jnana. Puranam means 'Old' and need not mean stories of history.
1. Reference to cyclical definite event does not constitute history. This verse would be applicable in future creations as well, and has been applicable always.
2. I agree it refers to the texts. And hence it proves that creation and destruction always occur in cycles. There has never been an absolute beginning or end. So Vedas being Nitya Jnana remain as ever -existent from time before, as ever. And hence the use of word Puran. The 4 vedas have always been equally old implying they are Nitya. They were Puran on a creation that happened before this and before that and before that and so on.
The word Puran does emphaszes that Vedas are Nitya.
1. What evidence has Madhavacharya for this claim? does he mean all the events of Purans happen in exactly same manner always? Proof? If words, sentence etc change, how is it Nitya! All writings are merely game of few alphabets being permutated and combined! Change them and Geeta will become Quran and Bible will become "Six point someone!".
2. Kindly tell which one are the 18 Purans and provide reference.
3. Puran means old. And something which is always equally old becomes Nitya. So the argument is based on basic meaning of Nitya.
1. The verse you gave only mentions word Puran and does not explain why it should refer to 18 Purans?
2. Why are Ved Samhita and Brahmans etc so silent about Avatars and Purans if they are so important.
3. There seems no consensus on which are the 18 purans.
4. if certain things in new Purans are found against Vedas, what would you do?
5. Kindly prove evidence that Purans mean only these new Purans, especially when they contain stories up to Queen Victoria and Vedas talk of free will?
For Vedas, only Vedas can be evidence, because they are the oldest. But if 18 Purans are equally old, then Vedas should contain more details about that except just mention of word Puran. And later texts like Brahmans, Upanshads, ramayan etc should also elaborate that very clearly. But all these texts including new Purans assert that Vedas are Apaursheya and Nitya but refuse to acknowledge so for Purans.
If we believe that Puran in the said mantra of Atharvaveda means 18 new Purans, then why all texts mention Rik, Yajur, Sama, Atharva veda everywhere but do not consider Purans. And where do Upanishad and Aranyak go?
Fact is that all scholars have considered only 4 Vedas Samhitas as eternal and word of ishwar. Rest of all the books are considered human creation. Some are considered divinely inspired but none takes the position of Vedas. Go to any Vedic institution, and if you talk of Vedas, they would give 4 Veda Samhita. All the rest of Shakhas, Brahmans, Upanishads are respected as texts inspired by Vedas, but not Vedas themselves.
Go to south – Veda paathi recite only veda Samhita.
So kindly check the facts yourself. There is no confusion at all among most sects of Hinduism on what constitutes the 4 Vedas. The differences lie only in interpretation and relative importance of other texts.
I am not going into analysis of Purans because that would create unnecessary ruckus and help further the agenda of opponents of Hinduism. It is time to unite and ensure that our energies are not wasted in internal conflicts. We may have different beliefs and I respect that. Through introspection, analysis and research we can converge to truth. But in current time of emergency, unity for common goal should be focus.
Dhanyavad
1. If Purana refers to some text, that should be substantiated by other mantras or even other texts as well. Puranas themselves refuse to consider themselves eternal.
2. This mantra has to be studied as a whole in conjunction with 11.7.23, 25,26,27 because they follow the same pattern and same last line. These are referring to what all was created by Ishwar. So Puran can refer to the knowledge with regards to creation or primordial nature.
3. Further there is nothing to believe that this should refer to 18 new purans. No Brahman, Upanishad, Manu Smriti, ramayan, Mahabharat etc corroborates this belief. This is perhaps imagination of Madhvacharya and not of any ancient Rishi.
All mantras refer to 4 vedas or Trayee vidya, so this too has to be interpreted accordingly.
1. When Vedas are eternal, why should they state that Upanishads and Brahamans are NOT eternal. On contrary they should state them as eternal if indeed they are.
2. Which ancient school believes in 18 Purans to be as old as Vedas. Kindly elaborate. Provide references from old texts like Brahmans, ramayan etc. Purans are full of later age stories, many of which are blatantly against Vedas. As I said, they even glorify Queen Victoria. Do you consider that as eternal and as old as Vedas? And why it stops at victoria and does not proceed further? Because by then printing press had come!
I believe this argument is in vain. I have already made my points for everyone to analyze.
Dhanyavad
1. I think u did not understand. Samhitas cannot mention about Brahman etc because Brahmans etc are not eternal in first place. But if Brahmans and Purans etc were actually eternal, then they should have found mention in vedas. By your logic, even Zakir Naik is correct that Muhammad is mentioned in Vedas!
2. Cite me the oldest texts of the schools you have mentioned and where do they acknowledge 18 Purans as eternal and coming together with vedas.
3. Arya samaj simply adapted the beliefs of Brahmans, Nirukta, and other ancient texts. it gave no new concept in this regard.
4. Which shloka of Upanishad states that 18 Purans are divine.
5. The reference you have mentioned from Mahabharat only states the word Puran but does not state that it refers to 18 Purans or even that they are divine.
6. I still await the list of Purans you consider as authentic and then we can see how much debatable it remains.
7. With regards to Vedas being the Samhitas, there is absolutely no dispute. I can provide several references from ancient sources. But I find none to refer to 18 Purans
"1. When Vedas are eternal, why should they state that Upanishads and Brahamans are NOT eternal. On contrary they should state them as eternal if indeed they are."
Further on this topic…. You assume that Vedas constitute only Samhitas and hence made your statement as above.
But there is absolutely NO indication either in Vedas or historically that Brahmanas or Upanishads are NOT Vedas.
However there is historical concordance among various vedantic schools that Upanishads, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Samhitas together constitute Vedas.
Hence your argument is assuming your conclusion which is a logical fallacy.
"However there is historical concordance among various vedantic schools that Upanishads, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Samhitas together constitute Vedas. "
– This is again a fallacy. Apart from a sutra of Katyayana that comes from spurious source, none refer to Brahmans as part of Vedas. Even the meaning of that sutra is ambivalent.
– I think you have not read Brahmans. If you read, you will understand that they attempt to explain vedic mantras and contain narration of events.
– With regards to Advait school, Shankaracharya clearly writes in commentary of Brihadaranyak that only mantra part constitute 4 vedas.
– If you look at historical concordance, it points to Vedas only being mantra samhitas and not anything else. because historically, only Veda Samhitas were protected from aduleration through Paatha Vidhi and Maatra symbols, only mantras are recited in Yajna and not verses from other texts, Shatpath Brahman 10.4.2.23-25 details the number of letters of vedas which match only with Samhita part, only mantras have Rishi, Devata, Chhanda,
– Bhatta Bhaskar states in Taittiriya Samhita commentary that Brahmans are texts that elaborate and explain the mantras.
– Sayanacharya states in introduction to commentary on Tattiriya Samhita that even though commonly people club Mantra and Brahman together, yet Brahmans are only explanations of Mantras and only Mantras were revealed in beginning. He repeats this in commentary on Kaanva Samhita
– Shatpath itself admits that Brahmans are explanations of mantras. In many places it states explains parts of the mantras and states that rest of the meaning is clear from original mantra. Refer first 9 chapters of Shatpath.
– in Mahabhashya, to give examples of Vedic words, only words from mantras are referred. yet to give examples of Laukik words, words from Brahmans are taken.
– In conclusion of Shatpath, it is written that Yajnavalkya explains the Shukla Yajurveda and it is written by someone else, clearly showing that it is human composed.
– In many places in Shatpath, it is stated that "Thus said yajnavalkya" clearly showing human authorship.
– Mahabhashya states that Maharshis created Brahmans to explain Vedas.
Also Puran is name of Brahmans only. Taittiriya Aranyak and Ashwalayan Grihyasutra state that Brahmans are also known as Itihas, Puran, Narashans, kalp and Gatha. Same is repeated by Shankaracharya in explanation of Brihadaranyak Upanishad 2.4.10. In this he also clearly states that Rik, yajur, Sama, Atharva are mantras and Brahman alone is known as Itihas and Puran.
Same is done by Sayanacharya in tattiriya Aranyak commentary 8.21
Further there is no evidence that Puran in any way refers to 18 purans in these texts. The oldest reference is from Mahabharat which itself is full of interpolations. And huge number of shlokas exost in Mahabharat that state that Vedas refer to mantras only
So one thing is clear. Vedas do contain events with references to time and you do not accept that Vedas contain "human events" what ever that means.
Now the question comes what constitutes human event and what does NOT?
What is the basis for your conclusion?
Vedas talk of fundamental laws and principles. Things that remain the same. Human actions are subject to human will for which ishwar has granted us freedom. Vedas will not foretell that. It can at best say that if you do x,y,z then a,b or c will happen. Vedas are books of science and hence do not deal with things that can change based on human will.
For example Vedas will not predict that Kaliyug will be full of problems. Ishwar has given us will and capability to change the present reality and declining trend. If indeed this were impossible, why would Vedas call for Purusharth to change society and self for better?
But Vedas will predict that the only way to win over Mrityu is by knowing ishwar the way He is. There is no other way.
If we try to know Him, different kind of human event will happen. If we refuse to do so, a different kind will happen. Collective of this over many people becomes a human historical event.
I never claimed that ONLY Arya Samaj interpretation is right. With regards to Vedas, there can be no final interpretation that can be documented. They contain knowledge to sustain entire creation from inception to end. But yes, I would refute any interpretation that is self-contradictory or contradicts some other messages of Vedas and is not backed by sound logic. Similarly those interpretations that prove vulgarity in Vedas or brutality in Vedas or beef in Vedas would be refuted even if given by a most imposing personality. Of course, if they can show sound logic for why they believe so, its a different matter. Communists and western indologists are unable to do so and hence deserve outright rejection. Translations of Mahidhar also falls in this category. Sayan is still better. But some verses have questionable interpretations. A scholar tried to explain them using root meaning of words to interpret the sayan interpretation differently. I have no objection to that. Only that it raises doubt that if interpretation needs such complicated reinterpretation, does it not fail the purpose of simplifying the original mantra?
I do not accept that Vedas contain any kind of history. It contains science and best practices. And hence it instructs humans that all that you see as old or in mantras or in sky or in earth or in vital breath is created by Ishwar. It also states that in each creation, Ishwar gives Vedas to deserving rishis so that they propagate to other humans. This is an unchangeable eternal truth and hence part of Vedas. But if Vedas were to contain descriptions of what events would happen due to interaction between humans with particular names, they would be contradicting themselves because they suggest that humans have full freedom to choose their path of action.
1. Nitya remains same all the time. History is temporary and changes with human actions. The very definition of Nitya implies lack of history.
2. Puran means old. It means that in each cycle the Vedas are given to humans at inception of civilization. I fail to understand why this should refer to 18 new Purans.
3. Evidence is simple for 18 Purans not being the ones being referred here. For example, Vedas have existed even before ramayan because ramayan also mentions Vedas. But Purans contain stories of people who came much after Ramayan – Krishna, Shivaji, Jesus, Muhammad etc. Do you want to now admit what Zakir wants to prove – that Vedas talk of Muhammad because Bhavishya Puran says so?
4. Where is it written that Puran means the 18 Purans. Can you even name the 18 Purans? Provide reference.
5. If it is Arya Samaj lie, prove it. Show in any text except 18 purans that Ved Vyasa wrote Vedas or what are the names of 18 purans? Why have Manu, Brahmans, Aranyaks, Upanishads, Ramayan, Mahabharat, Darshans, Nirukta etc etc all have refused to mention these Purans or anything contained in them completely?
Read the introduction of his commentary of Rigveda. In fact Sayana refuses history even in Brahmans.
Sayana is not a role model for Arya Samajis. I referred to Sayana merely to point that the belief of vedas containing no history is not restricted to Arya Samaj. Arya Samaj has simply gone to the basics and attempted to revive the original Vedic dharma.
Your claim has no historical support. Cite me verses from Shankaracharya, Sayana, Brahmans, Ramayan etc that state that Purans refer to 18 Purans. And you mean to imply that in Ram's era they used to study Bhagvat and Brahma Vaivart also!
refer my previous comment on counter references.
I have found no consistent list of 18 Purans ever. If you have kindly provide me with reference.
I am closing this discussion now till you provide such references. Dhanyavad
1. You do not read the answers carefully. I have provided evidence that Purans are used to denote Brahmans.
2. If you do not know the number also, how will one decide which book is Puran and which is not? You yourself admitted that they also have interpolations. You imply such weak foundations of Vedic dharma?
3. Large number of references have been given to show that Vedas refer to mantra part or Samhita. And there are none to claim that they refer to any other text.
4. The false claim of historical concordance is also busted with references from Sayana, Shankaracharya, Brahmans etc that never ever were Brahmans and Aranyaks considered part of Vedas. They were respected as explanations of vedas.
5. Fallacies arising from belief that Purans are as old as vedas have also been elaborated.
6. The mahabharat is a much adulterated book. It mentions Purans in same way as purans talk of Queen victoria. But that does not suffice to state that Mahabharat claims that Purans are as divine as Vedas.
7. You are not looking at things in a scientific manner and are merely arguing. Your belief in divine Puran is no different from belief in divine Bible or divine Quran. In case of Vedas though, the very method of its preservation and a glance on its contents suffices to conclude that it is different.
In summary, the belief that Purans are as divine and old as vedas is full of glaring loopholes and also not supported by any old text or school as claimed by you. If so, kindly provide evidence. This is my last comment on this discussion. For more details, kindly refer to books mentioned in previous comments and check them yourself.
Dhanyavad
"1. You do not read the answers carefully. I have provided evidence that Purans are used to denote Brahmans."
You ask so much evidences for my claim and yet you want me to accept Brahmanas are these Puranas. There is NOT an iota of evidence historically Brahmanas were referred to as Puranas.
Why should anybody accept this ridiculous claim?
"2. If you do not know the number also, how will one decide which book is Puran and which is not?"
a. This is known from the lists given in well known Puranas, like Padma Purana or Garuda Purana or Bhagavatha Purana which are Puranas.
"You yourself admitted that they also have interpolations. You imply such weak foundations of Vedic dharma?"
Interpolations can be figured out from Vedas,. What agree with Vedic teachings are acceptable. Hence there is no weak foundation as long as Vedas are there.
"3. Large number of references have been given to show that Vedas refer to mantra part or Samhita. And there are none to claim that they refer to any other text."
I did NOT see one quote here. why?
"4. The false claim of historical concordance is also busted with references from Sayana, Shankaracharya, Brahmans etc that never ever were Brahmans and Aranyaks considered part of Vedas. They were respected as explanations of vedas."
Again where are these references? Where did Shankaracharya or Sayana say Brahmanas etc. are explanations and NOT Vedas. Why do you make claims with no references?
"5. Fallacies arising from belief that Purans are as old as vedas have also been elaborated."
Yuor so called fallacies were exposed as mere logical fallacies on yuo rpart.
"6. The mahabharat is a much adulterated book. It mentions Purans in same way as purans talk of Queen victoria. But that does not suffice to state that Mahabharat claims that Purans are as divine as Vedas."
Anything that does NOT agree with my foregone conclusion is adulterated. No evidenec is necessary. Is this your argument? I am afraid who let you into IIT?
"7. You are not looking at things in a scientific manner and are merely arguing. Your belief in divine Puran is no different from belief in divine Bible or divine Quran."
One can say the same thing regarding your belief in Vedas. Can you elaborate how Vedic belief in in concordance with scientific theories, say regarding evolution theory?
"In case of Vedas though, the very method of its preservation and a glance on its contents suffices to conclude that it is different."
So…. How much is your knowledge of Sanskrit? Zero as per your own statements.
"In summary, the belief that Purans are as divine and old as vedas is full of glaring loopholes and also not supported by any old text or school as claimed by you."
Veda samhita itself says Puranas are old. You have provided no evidence that the Puranas referred to in Vedas are not the popularly known texts. Instead you came up with a bogus theory spread by your Dayananda that Brahmanas constitute this Purana when there is absolutely no history behind such a claim before Dayananda fabricated this hallucination.
"If so, kindly provide evidence. This is my last comment on this discussion. For more details, kindly refer to books mentioned in previous comments and check them yourself.
Dhanyavad "
The reference to Puranas is made even by Guru of Shankaracharya, Bhagavatha in particular. What say you? Bssides 5th century jain work called as nadi-Sutra also refers to Bhagavatha Purana by name. All these show your claims are proven wrong and that Puranas have history behind them. Just because they were interpolated does NOT negate their historical presence.
I do not know where Dayanand claimed Bhagvad to be composed in 15th century. But an analysis of the book would bring forth the reasons why Dayanand rejected this book. He is not alone and many modern saints have also started admitting that many verses may have been interpolated especially those in 10th canto regarding Raas Lila and Kubja etc. That is not the subject matter for this post so let us not discuss that further.
Also I would request that if you have to debate a topic, let us not use comment system for that because that makes discussion and page loading heavier for general user. After all this is a personal blog and not a discussion forum.
Dhanyavad
@ Raghu…
brother..
you said
"̥caḥ sā́māni cʰándāṃsi purāṇáṃ yájuṣā sahá /
úccʰiṣṭāj jajñire sárve diví devā́ diviśrítaḥ // "
deva does not mean Gods… They are helpers(living or non living entity)…
Ask any one who believes in God….
"From Where did life come from, which is the power behind rain(Indra…god of rain), air(Vaayu)…etc
He says "God!!!"
Its a casual reply by any one who believes in God!!
In the same way if anyone ask "Who is God?"
Then he says god is one from whom everything came!!
Its a common sense.. not history…
[…] This translation in Gujarati has been contributed by Ronak and Kruti. Original post in English is available at http://agniveer.com/history-vedas/ […]