[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Animal-Killing, and Soul-Merging Condemned
Vidya wrote:
>Hari Krishna Susarla 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. In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the Puranas, along with the Itihaasas
>and
>> Vedas are said to have been breathed out by the Absolute Truth.
>>
>Here we go again. It is wholly ungrammatical to translate the chAndogya
>upanishad to mean that the puranas are the fifth veda. Narada in the
>chAndogya, says no such thing. "vedAnAm veda:" means "the veda
>(knowledge) of the vedas" i.e. that by which the vedas are understood,
>meaning vyAkaraNa - grammar.
rigvedam bhagavao adhyemi yajurvedam saamavedam aatharvanam
chaturthamitihaasapuraanam panchamam vedaanaam vedam... (CU 7.1.2)
"Revered master, I know the Rig Veda, the Yajurveda, the Saamaveda, and the
Atharva as the fourth, the Itihaasa, Puranaas as the fifth, etc."
I'm no Sanskrit expert, but looking at the verse indicates to me that Naarada
is mentioning the various branches of knowledge which he has studied. The fact
that he has mentioned the Itihaasas and the Puraana is significant to me. The
classification of them as the fifth veda is seen also in the Puranas and
Itihasas themselves (see my response to Giri). Besides, if what you are saying
about the translation is correct, then that would mean that Naarada is talking
about ways of knowing the Vedas, rather than the Vedas themselves. That
doesn't make much sense, especially since he clearly mentions the Rig, Yajur,
Saama, etc Vedas. I really can't see how he would be saying that he studied
the itihaasa and puraana for learning vyaakarana to learn the veda.
> As for the br.hadAraNyaka, the whole
>universe, whatever that exists, is considered to be breathed out by the
>Absolute Truth, in the sense that "sarvam khalvidam brahma". There is no
>reason why you should take this to mean that the Puranas are given some
>special status along with the vedas. The specific reference in the
>br.hadAraNyaka also mentions a bunch of other things that were breathed
>out of the Absolute Truth.
What is clear to me after reading this verse is that all these various
branches of knowledge are breathed out by the Absolute Truth. The fact that
they come from the Absolute Truth means that they cannot be dismissed, and
they must also be considered a branch of knowledge, or Veda. Bringing up
"sarvam khalvidam brahma" in the sense that you described is somewhat
misleading. One might expect, in that sense, that the verse would include a
lot more. But instead, it only indicates various branches of knowledge, which,
along with what I already mentioned, are translated in my version as "pithy
verses, aphorisms, elucidations, and commentaries."
>If you want to understand what is veda i.e. Sruti and what is not, and
>what is the status of itihAsapurANam, you have to go back to the
>mImAmsA- and brahma- sUtras.
Madhva's commentary on the brahma-suutra gives the status of itihaasapuraanam
(see my reply to Giri).
> Nowhere within the centuries old tradition
>is the name "fifth veda" given to a specific Purana or to the whole
>collection of Puranas. On the other hand, "fifth veda" is a courtesy
>designation of the Mahabharata, which is not a purANa. A courtesy
Depends on what you consider to be a part of the centuries old tradition. The
classification is found in the Puraanas themselves.
>designation of "fifth veda" is also sometimes given to such diverse
>fields as Ayurveda, music and archery in order to eulogize something.
Perhaps.
It
>has no significance in granting this courtesy "fifth veda" the status of
>revealed scripture.
No, I don't believe that. There are many nonspiritual branches of knowledge in
the four Vedas, such as sacrificial ceremonies, ritualistic duties, musical
knowledge (from the Saama if I'm not mistaken) and others. With the exception
of the Bhaagavatam, most of the Vedic literatures contain knowledge under the
various headings of dharma, artha, kaama, and moksha. If the Puraanas are not
revealed scripture, then I fail to see why the BU would take the trouble of
pointing out that they were also breathed out by the Supreme. As far as I
know, only the advaitin school rejects their status as scripture, while other
sampradaayas do accept them.
regards,
-- HKS
