[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Animal-Killing, and Soul-Merging Condemned
Giri wrote:
susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) writes:
>In article <4fecr0$7jm@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> gmadras@pinto.engr.ucdavis.edu (Giri) wrote:
>Puraanas are not to be to be thought of as less than the Vedas, however. In
>Chandogya Upanishads, they are considered by Naarada Muni to be the Fifth
>Veda.
>HKSji, I guess you are referring to Ch. U 7.1.4,
>itihasa-purANa pancamaH vedanaM vedaH
>
> Would you kindly explain to me how this can be interpreted to
>mean purANa-s are fifth veda ?
> First, the word is singular so it can refer to only one purANa,
>while there are atleast 18 [including tamsic ones:)]. Can you support
>that the contention that it refers to all purANa-s; commentaries by
>Shankara, Madhva or Ramanuja would be OK.
Don't quote me on this, but I once heard that the 18 Puranas were originally
one. I can't confirm that, though. I do know that the Puranas are considered
as supplemental Vedic literatures by the Vaishnava acharyas. Madhva, in his
commentary on Vedanta-sutra 2.1.6 quotes the Bhavishya Puraana as follows:
rig-yajuhu-saamaartharvaas' ca
bhaaratam pancaraatrakam
muula-raamaayanam caiva
veda ity eva s'abditaha
puraanaani ca yaaniiha
vaishnavaani vido viduhu
"The Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Saama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahaabhaarata [which
includes the Bhagavad-gita], Pancaraatra, and the original raamaayana are all
considered Vedic literature... The Vaishnava supplements, the Puraanas, are
also Vedic literature."
Also, in Srimad Bhaagavatam, a mainstream scripture for Vaishnavs, we find the
following:
rig-yajuhu-saamaatharvaakhyaa
vedaas' catvaara uddhritaaha
itihaasa-puraanam ca
pancamo veda ucyate
"The four divisions of the original sources of knowledge [the Vedas] were made
separately. But the historical facts and authentic stories mentioned in the
Puraanas are called the fifth Veda." (SB 1.4.20, translation by HDG A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)
> As far as i understand upanishhads, Sanatkumara asks Narada to
>list the branches of knowledge. If I remember right, Narada says
>Rig, Yagur, Sama, Atharva, Itihasa-PurANa and grammar (?). I would
>interpret it as Narada saying this is the fifth branch of knowledge
>he knows because by your logic, grammar would become the six veda.
> Of course, all this contentions of mine fails if you are not
>referring to this verse in Ch.U or if you support it from commentaries
>by Shankara, Ramanuja or Madhva on this verse.
That is correct, but Veda means knowledge. So to call them the fifth veda is
still valid. As far as I know, Sankara does not accept this classification of
the itihasa and puraanas, but the other sampradaayas such as those of Madhva,
Ramaanuja, Nimbarka, Caitanya do.
> Please note that I am not saying you are wrong, but kindly asking
>you to support this statement with commentaries from acharyas. Thanks very
>much.
>The reason is you, A, B can intrepret this in various ways but i would
>rather believe the three acharyas to you,A,B [no offense to you].
That's ok. I would rather you take such a scholarly approach rather than
listen to mental speculators. That is the way these scriptures must be
understood.
regards,
-- H. Krishna Susarla
