Embedded Files
TADIPATRI GURUKULA
Answers by Shri Prasanna Tadipatri (PT) & Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (KT)
I have a few questions concerning the right to say veda-s. Who exactly has vedAdhikara, according to Sri Madhvacharya's philosophy? Is it just male brahmins? Is it forbidden for women to say the veda-s or is that just something made up by people later on? The veda-s being the only apaurusheya text are held to be the ultimate source of knowledge for right & wrong and it is said that Narayana is only known through the veda-s. So if women are forbidden from saying the veda-s, how are they supposed to obtain knowledge about Vishnu (especially prior to the composition of every paurusheya text).
And what exactly is the definition of “saying the Veda-s”. Since the veda-s consist of a sequence of words, if the entire Veda is forbidden for women to say, doesn't it necessarily imply that it's forbidden to say any of its components(in other words, they shouldn't say any of the words mentioned in the veda-s)? If not, is it ok for women to say the veda-s omitting parts ofit? But an even more perplexing question I have concerns the fact that in today's world, the prevalent conception about the veda-s is that Indra is the supreme deity & Vishnu is relegated to a lower position. This clearly violates one of the basic tenets of Madhva philosophy, but how are women supposed to differentiate between the right & wrong interpretation if the text itself is forbidden for them?
Who exactly has vedAdhikara, according to Sri Madhvacharya's philosophy? Is it just male brahmins? ... So if women are forbidden from saying the veda-s, how are they supposed to obtain knowledge about Vishnu (especially prior to the composition of every paurusheya text).
KT: I will try to answer this “prior to the composition...”.
The paurusheya texts like “Mahabharata” are nityAnitya. In this cyclic process of creation, God is so gracious that He always makes sure that such a contingency does not arise (I.e. composes such paurusheya texts for the deserving souls).
And what exactly is the definition of “saying the Veda-s”. Since the veda-s consist of a sequence of words, if the entire Veda is forbidden for women to say, doesn't it necessarily imply that it's forbidden to say any of its components(in other words, they shouldn't say any of the words mentioned in the veda-s)? If not, is it ok for women to say the veda-s omitting parts of it?
KT: I don't know what does this question mean? If it implies “the word 'Narayana' comes in the vedas and so women cannot say that”, then that is surely wrong. If it implies “skip some passages and say some passages”, that is also wrong. Any restriction on reciting vedas concerns “reciting mantras”, “bIjAxaras” etc. from the vedas. “saying the vedas” means reciting vedas as prescribed by the vedangas.
There are rules and restrictions for every thing. People don't question restrictions imposed in mundane world and they don't see it as discrimination (like certain medication, procedure etc.,may be prohibited for certain kind etc.) Women above certain level have vedadhikara and others don't. But it is wrong to think that without vedadhikara, there is no scope for right knowledge and there is no scope for mukti.
But an even more perplexing question I have concerns the fact that in today's world, the prevalent conception about the veda-s is that Indra is the supreme deity & Vishnu is relegated to a lower position.
KT: One cannot help the prevalence of such ignorance, when Amara chitra kathas and the like are taken as authority.
how are women supposed to differentiate between the right & wrong interpretation if the text itself is forbidden for them?
KT: This differentiation can also be done using paurusheya texts.
It is only a myth to think that without vedas, it cannot be done.
Whatever is not opposed to these, is a pramANa, not otherwise; whatever is opposed to these, that is not a pramANa under any circumstance.
PT: But, surely, to establish this, one must be allowed to understand the vedA-s(which is impossible if its recitation is forbidden). Even though it may be far beyond our capabilities to verify the veracity of works like the Mahabharata, one must still be allowed to compare the two in case there is any debate over interpretations etc. It would be absurd for a woman to state that the Upanishads/Mahabharata do not contradict the Veda-s if she's forbidden from reciting the vedAs!
I must point out that the fundamental premise “bhArata vedas” is flawed, however, since there is also an authority which states that the Vedas are supreme:
PT: Only the Veda-s can serve as a supreme authority for anything because they are not dependent on any particular time period. For other works, there is no guarantee that what is contained in it is true for all eternity. This is the crux of my argument, the supreme source of knowledge must be accessible to those who desire it, because nothing else can serve as a substitute(since all other works are compared relative to the vedA-s).
`vij~neyaM paramaM brahma j~nApikA paramA shrutiH | anAdinityA sA tachcha vinA tAM na sa gamyate' ||
-- iti kAtyAyanashrutiH |
Brahman is the supreme knowable, and Shruti is the greatest source of knowledge; it is beginningless and eternal, as is He, and without it, He cannot be known.
PT: Now this is puzzling. Shruti can only refer to the vedA-s, so without knowing the vedA-s, one cannot understand Vishnu at all. But the Bhagavad Gita:
mAm hi pArtha vyapAshritya ye.pi syuH pApayonayaH | striyo vaishyAstathA shudraaste.pi yAnti parAm gatim ||
O Partha, even those who out of sinful acts have been born in inferior lives as women, vaisyas, & Shudras & are yet devoted to me attain the highest goal.
So if one holds that it's possible to attain Vishnu without the vedA-s (since some people say that vedA-s are forbidden for women), then doesn't that render the vedA-s unimportant? If this goal can only be obtained through study of shastra (eventually leading to vedA-s), then all these women, shudras, vaishyas who attained moksha must have studied them (or is moksha possible with an incorrect understanding of Vishnu?)
There are rules and restrictions for every thing. People don't question restrictions imposed in mundane world This is an excellent point that is often ignored. Almost every activity of a social nature has certain restrictions that everybody obeys implicitly.One can find hundreds of such instances in daily life.
PT: But those restrictions are of a different nature. Someone actually has a choice whether he wears a shirt & tie to a meeting, or nothing but boxers (granted that the choice to do anything is only in accordance with one's nature, and that everything happens as Shri Hari wills it, according to that nature), and in such a case the attitude of his boss would be justifiable.
Concerning whether one is male or female, there are male & female souls, and it is impossible to change that. So restrictions in day to day life are completely different from restrictions such as restricting the Veda-s, which represent knowledge. Even if there are restrictions, even then, it should be restricted to those who are capable of understanding it at least to some degree. Otherwise, Vishnu can be accused of giving it to people unworthy of reading it (because they can't say it properly), and banning it to people worthy of it (because of having studied Sanskrit to a far superior degree).
A perception is that people who cannot study the apourusheya vedas have to settle for something far less than the real thing! That is certainly not true. In the gIta bhAshya, shrimadAchArya clearly quotes an incident where the gods balanced the vedas against mahAbhArata and found them to be lacking.
It is also said that whatever one can find in other texts, one can find that in the mahAbhArata, and what is not there in the mahAbhArata is not there elsewhere. There are no restrictions on reading mahAbhArata, yet how many have read this gem and understood its true purport, as revealed in the MBTN.
PT: But the authority of the Mahabharata is established by the Veda-s, isn't it?And if you're maintaining that what is in the Mahabharata is contained in the Veda-s, then it should not matter at all which one people read. One cannot be punished for reading one & rewarded for reading the other, if they both contain the same material. This point has been nagging me for a while, and it would be nice to receive an answer for it. I don't mean to sound cynical or anything. One definite drawback of E-mail is that the tone you take while speaking is definitely lost & what I post may be misinterpreted as offensive. I don't mean to sound like that at all.
But, surely, to establish this, one must be allowed to understand the vedA-s (which is impossible if its recitation is forbidden).
Not so. Recall that the prose Upanishads, etc., are not recited at all by anybody, and that most reciters of Vedic texts have negligible understanding of what they're saying. They just recite the verses as they are taught to do. There is thus no correlation between ability to recite and spiritual understanding.
PT: It is possible to recite something without understanding it, but it's impossible to understand it without saying/reading it. So it would appear that there is a correlation: For spiritual understanding one needs to understand the essence of the Veda-s (the Veda-s being the only text which is independent of time).
There is an interesting concept at play here, to wit, that a person's learning correlates not with the study of specific texts (much less recitation of them), but with the performance of his or her given duty without desire for temporal reward. The story is told in the Mahabharata, which I'm sure most of us are familiar with, of a Vedic scholar who had his pride of erudition skewered by a housewife and by a righteous butcher.
The message to him clearly was: don't think you are oh-so-great because you study the Vedas; even a housewife who does her duty in life faithfully, though it not be glorified, and a butcher who does his duty as he should, though it be distasteful, can achieve siddhi, even higher than yours.
PT: So you're claiming that it is against a women's Dharma (abandoning her duty)to study the Veda-s? I don't see a direct correlation between gender & the right to recite the Veda-s. Isn't it possible to have a male brahmin who by nature has no right to say the Veda-s, or a female who by nature has the right to say the Veda-s(or has attained such a high level of knowledge where understanding the Veda-s would be the next logical step)? Or maybe it's my misunderstanding. Is it possible for a women to ever attain a male birth?
The duty of a kshatriya is to fight, if he doesn't do so, it's possible that there would be no one to protect that society. If a vaishya doesn't trade, that society would fall apart since it would have no income. How would the mere recitation or not recitation of the Veda-s harm society or constitute a person's Dharma or Adharma?
It would be absurd for a woman to state that the Upanishads/Mahabharata do not contradict the Veda-s if she's forbidden from reciting the vedAs!
Considering that the expanse of the Vedas is very large (infinite according to tradition), the question could always arise, even for one who studies the Vedas, that there might be some conflict in portions not studied. What does this tell us? One does not have to taste every grain of rice in a pot to know that the rice is cooked; a smart cook does not have to taste even a single grain.
PT: But such knowledge in your examples only comes from prior knowledge. The cook makes a correlation between what cooked rice tastes like & what it looks like. In the case of the woman who encounters one text saying that ”The Veda-s proclaim the supremacy of Indra” & another: “The Veda-s proclaim the supremacy of Vishnu”, how would she establish the validity of either statement without consulting the Veda-s? The cook has prior experience of cooked rice, but this woman has no prior experience of the content of the Veda-s. So she must consult the Veda-s using a proper interpretation & find out how each party backs up its claim.
Only the Veda-s can serve as a supreme authority for anything because they are not dependent on any particular time period. For other works, there is no guarantee that what is contained in it is true for all eternity. Certainly there is. If an eternal source, viz., Shruti, is asserting their validity, no other conclusion is possible without discarding the credibility of the same.
PT: So I'm confused, do the Veda-s actually refer to a paurusheya text (specific quote?). Wouldn't the conclusion therefore be written after such a paurusheya text? Even otherwise,1)the shruti asserts the validity of the paurusheya text,
2) one is forbidden from reciting the shruti,
3) therefore one has no means of establishing the validity of the paurusheya text (you can't say that just because so-and-so says the Veda-s establish the validity of such-and-such a text, the text is valid, you need to directly perceive such knowledge or at least be allowed the means to do so)
Not so. Every subject in the world is ultimately based on doctoral theses and scholarly research articles, but it is not wise to require that even school-going students learn their subjects by studying those. Therefore, textbooks are needed that cover the same subject in an accessible manner.
These are based on the theses and higher-level publications, but it does not follow that only those who study the theses have any understanding at all, or even that schoolboys will remain dull unless they (continually) refer to theses.
PT: Yet in your example one has the means to do so, eventually at some point.
We learned that the area of a circle is pi*r^2 back in grammar school. But if we ever doubted it we could consult the actual proof for it. There was never the issue of “no, you can't look at the proof”. In fact as I recall, they gave copious proofs for every little insignificant theorem we ever learned in math class & ten times as much for the big ones. The point is, an ultimate source, the postulates, could be consulted & if we were really in the mood we can trace our way to every theorem. The Veda-s are the ultimate source, and I strongly feel that if anyone, anyone, wants to trace their way to the ultimate source, seeing how Sri Madhva's philosophy is consistent with the Veda-s (we're obviously not at such a level), we should have the means to do so, without it being condemned as adharma. Unless you're accepting that apaurusheya texts which everyone can access have a higher authority than the Veda-s, in which case I have no argument. Just as postulates are accessible in math, because if they are not allowed, everything derived from it becomes questionable, in the same manner, if the Veda-s are not allowed, everything based upon it becomes questionable.
mAm hi pArtha vyapAshritya ye.pi syuH pApayonayaH | striyo vaishyAstathA shudraaste.pi yAnti parAm gatim ||
O Partha, even those who out of sinful acts have been born in inferior lives as women, vaisyas, & Shudras & are yet devoted to me attain the highest goal.
Your translation is wrong. This verse was discussed extensively on the late soc.religion.vaishnava in late 1995 and early 1996 (if deja.com ever comes back properly, look in the archives for postings with `Gita 9-32' or similar terms in the title). Sankara and Ramanuja explain women, etc., as special cases of “those born of sinful wombs,” but Madhva would have that as a separate category by itself.
PT: I pulled that quote out of Srimad Bhagavad Gita by Nagaraj Sharma (I don't know if he's any authority in Madhva philosophy), but the foreword by SMSO Sabha says it's written according to Madhva philosophy.
So if one holds that it's possible to attain Vishnu without the vedA-s ( since some people say that vedA-s are forbidden for women), then doesn't that render the vedA-s unimportant?
No. In all cases, mukti results not from study of the Vedas or any particular set of texts, but from performance of such duties as one is enjoined to do, without question [1]. It is better to do one's own duty badly, than to do another's well [2]. For some the duty requires the study of the Vedas, while for others it does not. Dedication to Vishnu is a common factor, but it is unreasonable to expect that all persons in society must have the very same goals always; a diversity of occupations is essential for a sustainable society.
PT: How does one know what his duty is, unless he has a proper understanding of it? If a person has doubts about it, isn't questioning it the only way to ascertain its truth? There has to be an authority they can consult to clarify their doubts, not be sent to Naraka for trying to do so. I don't mean to sound cynical, but an authority is an authority, there is no question of some having access to the authority & others don't. If only some are given access to it, it gains the flaw of partiality it's tantamount to saying: “This is the way things are because the authoritative text says so, and btw, you will suffer if you try to verify my claim”.
In general, one may note that all of the Vedas as well as ancillary texts are closed to one who is not a devotee of Vishnu, and not possessed of the qualities of `shama', `dama', etc. [5], [6]. The qualification for study obtains as a result of one's svabhAva, and as a result of good deeds (I.e., performance of duty) [7]. The classification as shUdra, etc., can be “aupAdhika” (temporal) or “svAbhAvika” (natural). Those who are not devotees of Vishnu by nature are by nature shUdra-s whatever be their temporal station, and for them no text is available.
PT: But one who is a devotee of Vishnu, because of their anAdi karma & jIva svabhAva, can eventually gain the right to such a text, right? Isn't this a double standard--if one person reads a text it's ok, but if the other read it its wrong? What would matter more is how they interpret a text, either with dvesha towards Vishnu or bhakti. If anyone reads a text & as a result becomes more devoted to Vishnu, they should be rewarded, not punished.
So if reciting the veda-s is forbidden, is it ok to understand the meaning of them? Also, the Veda-s must have been quoted in various other sources. If they are not meant to be read in the original, shouldn't those works which have quotes from the Veda-s also be forbidden? I don't understand what you are saying. Here is my basic argument. The veda-s consist of a sequence of words/sounds. The sequence in its entirety is forbidden. But what about its components? Either you're saying that
a)None of its components can be said, in which basically all the words that appear in the Veda-s would be forbidden. Or
b) It's only the sequence as a whole that's forbidden, in which case it's ok to read the entire Veda-s omitting selected passages/words.
KT: A typical example of the attitude “how much of the rule can be broken.”There are two kinds of rules in the world. 1. That appeals to the common sense and 2. That does not. Again this division is not so clear cut as what is common sense for one may not be so for another. But even in case of obviously simple and straightforward rules like “1. not to use rich text, 2. not to copy entire letter, 3. not to use improper language, etc.”, people tend to break them only as if rules are made to be broken only. One who has imperfect knowledge that “veda-s consist of a sequence of words/sounds” (and nothing else!), wants to be a judge for making a decision that some thing is “blatantly against what is right and common sense”. One who has completed first grade goes on to correct the thesis papers of Post Doctorates with the assumption that they are strings of letters and the first grader has learnt letters.
If simple rules can be broken, what prevents one from breaking the rules concerning “Amushmika”?
There are three kinds of people regarding rule-obeying.
1. Those who unquestioningly obey the rules
2. Those who constantly question the rules and never have the courage
to break them
3. Those who don't even bother to question them, but just go ahead and
break them.
Again based on many factors, people from one category can move into another category (unlike tripartite classification, where it is set).
If some one in category 2. is living under the illusion that after being successful in their questioning, will make a formal announcement, then there is no need for such an announcement as those in various categories continue doing what they are already doing.
I know for sure, that there are some elderly ladies (in chinmaya mission and other such organizations), who not only read vedas from the books but go on teaching them to others. They make attempt to translate the musing some dictionary and we end up with translations like “God is a big bug with thousand eyes etc.”.
There is a saying “manganige TenginakAyi koTTante”(like giving a coconut to a monkey). We are already seeing the outcome of the vedic texts reaching to so many undeserving ones. If the arguers go on turning the argument that why should it be “gender based”, they must have a full knowledge of the following.
1. These scramblers who want to harp on vedas directly must be aware that vedas proclaim God to be a perfect and impartial being.
2. God is beyond the limitations of gender.
3. Sri Vedavyasa Himself instructed Sri Madhvacharya and MukhyaprANa is the consort of Bharati and they do not think that “it is incorrect or is against common sense”. Here we have limitations of our commonsense.
The kind of knowledge floating around is that if some one can say a few slokas, the person claims to know vedas, worse than the case where some one knows a few words in a language and claims to know the language.
Vedic learning involves not only just a blind recitation of vedas, but a thorough “vedadhyana”, “vedopAsana”, etc. If so many undeserving ones can go on reciting veda-s, why not all the people (whom an arbitrary set of human beings deem fit)? This kind of argument has two flaws.
1. The attitude of comparing with “Johns and Jones” will not help, as two wrongs will not make one right.
2. The variation of interpretation in judging the capabilities.
Those, who think “If the some of the ones * who are labeled as deserving ones * go on reciting them and/or go on interpreting them incorrectly, why not those * who are labeled as undeserving ones * go on reciting them and studying them as some in the latter category may be more capable than many in the former category”, must realize the following
1. There is this tri-partite classification. So if some asuras take birth as Brahmins and misinterpret veda-s, it does not mean they are muktiyogya jIvas.
2. In such matters “Aptavaakya” is a safe refuge. What Sri Vedavyasa and Sri MadhvachArya (and other Acharyas in that lineage) told are AptavAkyAs.
This need not be labelled as blind faith as you are only admitting that your level of common sense is much lower than that of God and Acharyas.
Bharati Devi is the abhimani devata for speech (vaagdevi saa suvidyaadraviNadaviditA draupadi). But eventually when she attains moksha, someone else will take her place. Since time is nitya, it is quite possible that one of the women in today's world will eventually, through their sAdhana, reach such a position, eventually.
KT: Certainly one of common men/women can not reach a position of a devata through sAdhana. If one thinks that by constantly pouring water into a one litre vessel, eventually it can hold the entire ocean, that shows the lack of thinking on the part of such a person. For the correct classification of jIvas, refer “tatvasankhyAna”/”tatvaviveka”.
(it's in this world that many of the devata-s take birth to do their sAdhana, isn't it). How are we to be the judge of which women are eligible & which women are not?
KT: You are not. For you to be a judge in that case, you must be in a higher position. Since that is not the case, the question does not arise. Also when the devata-s do take birth (or avatara), 1. they are aware of it and
2. they know how to exercise their powers. That is the difference between the common ones and devata-s.
Would a woman who desires to study the Veda-s be committing a sin, but a male Brahmin doing the same deed be committing a good deed, *irrespective of their level of knowledge/devotion as well as pronunciation ability*? In today's world it is quite possible to come across a woman who is capable of understanding the meaning of the Veda-s & pronouncing it, and a man who is completely clueless as to whether he is saying the Veda-s right or not, or even the faintest clue as to what it could possibly mean, yet continues saying. Should the vedAdhikara be given to the person who is more fit to say the Veda-s or not?
KT: This is again a flawed thinking. Vedas are not just another chemistry book or biology book. If a man, who does not deserve to say it, keeps on saying it, God is there to handle such a situation. Since when do we start acting God? There are subsequent births and subsequent opportunities. Remember two points.
1. The soul in a female body can be a male soul or female soul.
2. Even though a person has brahmin birth now, there is no guarantee that
he will again get brahmin birth (even though he misuses it).
There can't be a compromise on right knowledge.
KT: Who said there is. Why the presumption that only vedas have the right knowledge.
You can't say that the Veda-s are the ultimate source of knowledge & maintain that those who say it who are of one gender/caste (by birth & actions) will be rewarded, while everyone of the other gender will be punished for saying it. Now, it can be argued that this is similar to varnaashrama Dharma, where doing your own duty miserably is better than someone else's imperfectly done. In which case, it's absolutely pointless to maintain that women should try and reach the same Vishnu through the study of paurusheya texts.
KT: Why so? So, you are saying that reaching Vishnu is not the goal, but reading apaurushheya vedas is the goal? Have you read any pramANa that said “the undeserving ones who say vedas will be punished”. We don't know whether the outcome is punishment or it is just total futility.
Paurusheya texts are written based on a particular time period, and are not an absolute authority on what is right & wrong. They can be read in addition to the Veda-s, but they can never serve as a substitute, since the Veda-s have been there forever & will be there forever. How is it established that works such as the Mahabharata, Upanishads, etc. have been written in accordance with the Veda-s.
KT: That is again flawed thinking. Vedas are svataH-prAmANya. Veda-s proclaim that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, unbiased, etc. Then what is the problem in believing that puranas written by God and the word of God that they are substitute for veda-s has to be true. We don't enter the loop “why God is Supreme, because it is said in this work. Who wrote this? God wrote this”, because we have apuarushheya veda-s. Since we trust Sri Vedavyasa and Sri Madhvacharya as our “Aptas” (well-wishers)”, we go based on Aptavakyas.
The Veda-s only rely on themselves for their authority, but what about these works? Their authority must come from the Veda-s, otherwise it becomes debatable when encountering an apparent conflict between the two, which one should be taken as a supreme authority.
KT: The beauty is that there is no real conflict. Veda-s proclaim that God is all-knowing, etc. If that were true, He must know all about Vedas and He must be capable to write a paurusheya text contaning all that is in vedas.
The apparent conflicts are due to deficient thinking on our part. That is when we take the support from our Gurus. When the conflict is apparent, it has to be resolved, and not take one and kill the other.
They can't be an authority in and of themselves, because they didn't exist at one point. It seems that for right knowledge about anything beyond the realm of pratyaksha & anumana, one must resort to the Veda-s or another text in such a way that its meaning is harmonized with the Veda-s (which can only be done if you know the Veda-s or have the capability to cross-check with the Veda-s)
KT: It is a very defective assumption that any one who reads vedas can understand them correctly. When a statement like “mUDha bhakti without j~nAna is no good” is made, only an Asuric tendency will lead to the thinking that “mUDha j~nAna without bhakti is O.K. and better that the prior one”. How can a person, who does not have basic understanding of anything, cross check with vedas. It is not a logarithmic table.
One cannot help the prevalence of such ignorance, when Amar chitra kathas and the like are taken as authority.
First of all, it's not just texts like the amar chitra katha, but college level courses on Hinduism in probably just about every university in the world that holds such views.
KT: I said “and the like” and that includes such college level courses as well.
The stance taken by some that the Veda-s are not open to all seems rather hypocritical to me. On one hand they maintain that the Veda-s are the supreme source of knowledge, but some who partake of it commit a sin, yet others don't. It would be tantamount to gems being offered to blind beggars, yet denied to someone who has studied it & yearns for it. This is the key objection I have.
KT: This is a typical example of shooting one's own foot. If you give a gem to a blind beggar, he will use it as a grinding stone only to crush something. Again the assumption that “the end/goal is reading vedas and not 'moxa'” is incorrect, as well as the assumption that reading veda-s is the only way for moxa. The final authority, who decides on whom to give moxa, is God only.
How can one, who keeps saying vedas (with no clue of it) and who leads a wretched life, get moxa? How can you further assume that one, who has not read any vedas (as he/she is not allowed), but reads other paurusheya texts, serves God and leads a noble life, will be denied moxa because he/she could not cross check with vedas? Also what does it mean “denying to someone who has studied it & yearns for it”. If studying is done, where is this denying? The objection results from a defective thinking arising out of misplaced goals and incorrect assumptions.
Fine, let it be denied to a few, but if you allow someone to study it simply because he has done Sandhyavandana, etc. yet has no clue how to pronounce it/interpret it, at the very least, someone far superior to him in knowledge regardless of who it is, should be allowed to say it, not be punished for saying it. I find it exremely ironic that some people can sin by reading right knowledge & others acquire merit by it.
KT: Again same flaw of thinking “two mistakes make it right”. Veda-s have to be learnt through proper gurus and in that case the question of “having no clue does not arise”. If some one * so horrible * is saying it, it does not make it right for some one else, * whom Mr. X considers fit and more capable *, to start saying and reading it. What is ironic is the assumption that every one, who says it, acquires merit and every one, who does not say it, is doomed for ever (even though reads the prescribed paurusheya texts and leads a noble life in all respects).
But if these paurusheya texts contain quotes from the Veda-s, they too must be rejected, right?
KT: This is again from the flawed thinking that veda-s are just a string of letters/words/sounds. If paurusheya texts are allowed, it means they are allowed. Period.
Knowledge that these paurusheya sources are correct can only come from either nirdosha pratyaksha, nirdosha anumana, or nirdosha agama.
The first 2 are ruled out, and the third can only be the Veda-s since a supreme authority can't depend on time.
KT: There is no such thing as “nirdosha Agama and dosha Agama”. Agama is”nirdosha shabda”. Veda-s are one among them. Since when do you start assigning “time restrictions” to God. It is preposterous to think against any of the following.
1. God knows all about the veda-s.
2. He can give the essence of veda-s in paurusheya texts.
3. He will make sure to provide his devotees what is needed at all times.
4. Based on what He promised to do for His devotees, He will do it.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse