[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Hindu scholarship and Vivekananda
Paliath Narendran (dran@panini.cs.albany.edu) wrote:
: I would like to see a serious discussion of this. It will be too
: easy to dismiss Rambachan's and Coward's arguments as prejudiced.
Dear Sri Narendran:
Thank you for a most interesting review. As far as I know, this is an
old issue, Swamiji simply followed the established line, and this is not
a reinterpretation. Perhaps this may be considered his validation of an
established thinking. I will discuss the outline of what I have read
about this issue of Scriptural authority.
A few ancient Sages insisted that the Vedas are literally "mantramayi
form of God". This view was easily challenged and suppressed. In the
RigVeda, Rishi Dirghatamas described that he only wrote what he
understood of what he saw in revelation. A more serious and more
recent criticism was from Sage Patanjali (or Panini ?), who said that the
words of the Vedas are very much flavored by human experiences, and this
is quite well known. Most of all, Sri Krishna also said that in the Gita.
I had the occassoion of quoting this verse sometime ago, it is:
purvAbhyAsena tenoiva hriyate hyavashopi sah.
jijnAsurapi yogasya *shabdabrahmAtivartate*. 6.44
This shabdabrahma is the Veda. Some authors have translated it as Vedic
ritualism, but that is an extrapolation. Sri Krishna is simply saying
that God is greater than all the revelations in the Vedas.
Perhaps, scholars almost require to say something different than
established views, for their own reasons.
With best regards,
Dhruba.
