-3

Since Brahma only comes into 'being' during Srushti (creation), and he will cease to be after Pralaya, that means Vedas reference a temporary person at a particular time in the history of the universe.

Even if we leave aside Brahma, still Vedas contain references to Surya, or Chandra. At least the solar system must have been created by Brahma. Which means Vedas were composed AFTER Sun/Moon came into existence.

Some say that Vedas contain eternal truths that transcend 'space and time', and refer this verse as an example :

'अग्निरस्मि जन्मना जातवेदा' - I am Agni by birth omniscient

It is obvious that there was no Agni (the visible portion of fire) prior to the creation of samsara.
If Vedas are really universal and eternal, how can they contain localized reference a particular person or time?

This answer says that the words of Vedas themselves are not eternal, but the truths espoused by them are.

What eternal truth exactly do these non-eternal words illuminate?

ram
  • 8,076
  • 2
  • 30
  • 57
  • tagging @RamAbloh since he is OA of linked question – ram Mar 31 '21 at 02:51
  • Probably talking to Brahman dwelling inside them. Like Aham Brahmasmi, Tvam Brahmasi – Adiyarkku Mar 31 '21 at 03:40
  • @Archit - the word brahman is in sanskrit. people of france do not understand sanskrit. also, sanskrit was created by shiva's dumroo sounds. hence brahman refers to a particular name/person, and is only understood by certain people. hence it is not eternal. – ram Mar 31 '21 at 03:42
  • By definition, you are Hindu if you accept the vedas. The vedas say they are eternal. To not accept the eternity of the vedas is to deny the vedas. To deny the vedas is to reject Hinduism. – Swami Vishwananda Mar 31 '21 at 05:27
  • @SwamiVishwananda - some people say that Vedas are not eternal because they refer to North-Indian geography. This post is a satire to counter those arguments. – ram Mar 31 '21 at 05:38
  • The premise of the question is wrong. https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/28155/are-vedas-re-revealed-every-mahayuga-manvantara-or-kalpa https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/16401/how-do-the-vedas-survive-during-the-dissolution-of-the-universe – S K Mar 31 '21 at 20:33
  • If this is a rephrasing of the existing closed question, you may delete older one. – Pandya Apr 01 '21 at 16:21
  • @mar "This post is a satire to counter those arguments" This type of question is not encouraged. See X-Y Problem – Pandya Apr 03 '21 at 16:33

5 Answers5

3

The spiritual laws revealed in the Vedas is eternal. Not every thing mentioned in the Vedas is eternal.

There was a time when the Vedas themselves were considered eternal in the sense in which the divine truths contained therein were changeless and permanent and were only revealed to man. At a subsequent time, it appears that the utterances of the Vedic hymns with the knowledge of its meaning was important; and it was held that the hymns themselves must have had a divine origin. At a still later period, the meaning of the hymns showed that many of them could not be of divine origin, because they inculcated upon mankind performance of various unholy acts, such as torturing animals; and we can find many ridiculous stories in the Vedas. The correct meaning of the statement "The Vedas are beginningless and eternal" is that the law or truth revealed by them to man is permanent and changeless. Logic, geometry, chemistry, etc., reveal also a law or truth which is permanent and changeless and in that sense they are also beginningless and eternal. But no truth or law is absent from the Vedas, and I ask any one of you to point out to me any truth which is not treated of in them.

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.5: With the Swami Vivekananda at Madura, pp.205-206

Pradip Gangopadhyay
  • 37,405
  • 3
  • 54
  • 124
  • You mean to partly eternal and partly non eternal I believe this mutually exclusive question vedas means whole of vedas not parts and piece it cannot be both Swami vivekananda doesn't understand vedas or gita that is the conclusion I'm getting from your answer – Prasanna R Mar 31 '21 at 11:57
  • 2
    I agree with Swami V that the Vedas are a mixture of noise and truth. Even Adi Sankaracharya was hinting the same thing when he wrote in his commentary on Gita 18.66 that the idea of infallibility of the Vedas is ill conceived. – Pradip Gangopadhyay Mar 31 '21 at 12:02
  • "But no truth or law is absent from the Vedas, and I ask any one of you to point out to me any truth which is not treated of in them." - Vedas do not talk about moon landing by NASA. If you say moon-landing is not eternal, I will respond with - neither is Brahma (who doesn't exist prior to creation), but Vedas talk about him. – ram Apr 01 '21 at 00:41
  • He means spiritual truth. – Pradip Gangopadhyay Apr 02 '21 at 12:30
  • 1
    @PradipGangopadhyay - is Brahma creating earth (Yatha Purvam Akalpayat) spiritual truth or not ? If it is spiritual why does it talk about a temporary created being ? If it is noise, then whole of Vedas is noise because everything it refers to is created after Srushti. – ram Apr 03 '21 at 04:31
  • @mar The spiritual truths are eternal, the VAKYAMS aren't eternal. Some rishi has darshana of Brahman creating the universe and writes a veda-vakyam which says "yatha purvam akalpayat". You're confusing vakyam with what the vakyam speaks about. – Ikshvaku Apr 04 '21 at 09:12
  • @Ikshvaku - you probably don't realize that shabda is the source of truth when anything referring to creation is mentioned, and not the other way around. Shabda Tanmatra is the source of Akasha, not the other way around. Sparsha tanmatra is the source of Vayu, not the other way around.. same for all pancha tanmatra being source of pancha bhuta. the shabda 'Go' creates the cow. The cow is not named 'Go' after creation. – ram Apr 04 '21 at 17:11
  • @mar I've addressed that in my recent question. That verse just means Brahman wills into existence various entities simply by thinking of them. It's like the first page of the Bible where it says, "God said 'let thereby light' and there was light." It's an analogy of his omnipotence and will. – Ikshvaku Apr 05 '21 at 02:06
  • @Ikshvaku - yes, and it's possible rishis hear those same sounds and repeat them to us – ram Apr 05 '21 at 03:34
  • @mar Then it just means the statements are authored every kalpa, because when God says "let there be Earth", he is authoring that statement. When Indra says "I killed vrtra" every kalpa, he is authoring the statement every kalpa. – Ikshvaku Apr 05 '21 at 04:15
  • @Ikshvaku - that's where scholars opine that even Bhagavan does not 'author' them in the sense that he creates a new one each time i.e. they just exist as shabda-brahmam. This is what I meant last time when we discussed what would really throw one's head for a loop - i.e. Apaurusheya includes even Bhagavan inside the Purusha. – ram Apr 05 '21 at 05:05
  • @mar But what would be the significance then? Even English statements like "Today is a hot day" would be eternal statements. – Ikshvaku Apr 05 '21 at 06:45
3

This exact question has been raised in the Govinda Bhashya of Baladeva Vidyabhushana. (Please note that this translation often uses the word "demigod" in place of "deva." Also, keep in mind that in this bhashya of the Brahma Sutras, Vishnu is revered as Brahman.):

The objector may say: "[...] There remains, however, a contradiction in the description of the words of the Vedas. Before the birth and after the death of each demigod, a period would exist when the name of that demigod would not have any meaning. At that time the words of the Vedas would become meaningless, like the statement ‘the son of a barren woman.’ In this way this idea is refuted. The Mīmāṁsā-Sūtra says: autpattikas tu śabdenārthasya sambandhaḥ: ‘In the Vedas the relation between name and the object named is eternal.’ This idea [that the devas are embodied souls] would then contradict the eternality of the names in the Vedas.” If this objection is raised, then he [Vyāsa] replies:

[If someone objects that this idea is inconsistent with the eternal nature of] the words in the Vedas, then I say no, because of [the description of] the creation [of the world, and also because of the evidence given] in śruti and smṛti. [Sutra 1.3.28]

The creation of the material bodies of the devas and other beings in the universe is done by Lord Brahmā, remembering their eternal, archetypal forms recorded in the statements of the Vedas. These archetypal forms are eternal, and existed before any of the bodies of the living entities were manifested. [...] The Vedic words describing the devas and other kinds of living entities are not names of specific individuals, but of certain classes of living entities, just as the word “cow” is the name of a certain kind of living entity.

“By reciting the words of the Vedas in the beginning, Lord Brahmā created the names and forms of the material elements, the rituals, the devas, and all other living entities.” [Vishnu Purana 1.5.64]

And therefore the eternity [of the Veda is proved]. [Sutra 1.3.29]

The eternity of the Vedas is proved by the fact that the creator Lord Brahmā creates the world by reciting the Vedic words describing the eternal forms and by remembering the previous creation. Kaṭhaka Muni and the other sages should be understood to be merely the speakers and not the authors of the Vedas. It is stated in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa: “**The Vedas, in their entirety, are eternal, enduring, and present in the mind of Viṣṇu; in creation after creation, they are brought up as they are, with the same order, same characters and the same notes, never otherwise. [...] The objection may be raised: “So be it. The śruti explains that by remembering the words of the Vedas Lord Brahmā creates the forms of the devas and other living entities. This may be in the case after the partial cosmic devastation [naimittika], but how can this method of creation be employed after the complete cosmic devastation [prākṛta], when absolutely everything is destroyed, and how can the Vedas be eternal under the circumstances of such complete destruction?” If this is said, then he replies:

Because the names and forms remain the same even at the beginning of a new creation, there is no contradiction. This is proved by śruti and smṛti. [Sutra 1.3.30]

The core of the meaning is “Because the previously spoken names and forms remain the same.” At the time of the great cosmic devastation, the eternal Vedas and the eternal archetypal forms described by the Vedas enter Lord Hari, the master of transcendental potencies, and rest within Him, becoming one with Him. At the time of the next creation they again become manifested from the Lord. Lord Hari and the four-faced demigod Brahmā both precede their acts of creation with recitation of Vedic mantras, which leads to meditation on the archetypal forms. At the time of a new creation, the Creator remembers what He created in the previous creation, and He again creates as He did before. This is like a potter, who by saying the word “pot” remembers the forms of pots he previously fashioned, and goes on to make another pot just like them. The process of creation after the partial cosmic devastation, and also after the complete cosmic devastation, is performed in this way.

The smṛti says: nyagrodhaḥ su-mahān alpe yathā bīje vyavasthitaḥ samyame viśvam akhilam bīja-bhūte yathā tvayi “O Lord, just as a great banyan tree rests within a tiny seed, in the same way at the time of cosmic devastation the entire universe rests within You, the seed from which it originally sprouted.” [Viṣṇu Purāṇa]

Everything has been explained clearly, so I will not have to really elaborate. In summary, the main idea is that the Vedas are a blueprint for archetypal forms of the devas, so the creation or destruction of individual devas within the universe do not at all contradict the position that the Vedas are eternal.

MassEnquirer
  • 300
  • 2
  • 8
  • Many Hindus believe Brahma is Supreme Brahman, same as Vishnu and Siva. To many Hindus, to call a member of the trinity a "demigod" would be offensive.The word "demi-god" has entered English translations of Hindu scriptures only in the past 50 years and many Hindus can't relate to what it is supposed to mean @massenquirer – S K Apr 05 '21 at 21:27
  • 1
    @SK I am well aware of the ongoing debate about the word "demigod," but that's besides the point. I personally haven't used it in my answer; I only quoted a source that used it. Of course, I can't just go and tamper the original source from which I based my whole argument. – MassEnquirer Apr 05 '21 at 22:06
  • 1
    @SK Besides, the same source uses the word 'devas' as well. Also, I am not here to relay the opinions of all Hindus since obviously there will always be disagreement as to the nature of Brahman (if Brahman is the ultimate goal at all). My answer is based on the position that Vishnu alone is Brahman, so hopefully everyone can understand that. After all, we are from a diverse tradition of mutual respect. – MassEnquirer Apr 05 '21 at 22:10
  • You didn't go to the original source which must have been in Sanskrit. You used a translation that has a word MANY Hindus object to. Are you aware of it? @massenquirer In addition to the points you are making with this citation, you are eiher intentionally or unintentionally offending many Hindus. – S K Apr 05 '21 at 22:11
  • "My answer is based on the position that Vishnu alone is Brahman" - you are presenting something that is true for you as a truth for all Hindus. If you recast your argument as presenting knowledge instead of truth , there will be no issues @massenquirer – S K Apr 05 '21 at 22:15
  • 1
    @SK I will refrain from debate. However, since the question itself is based on the presupposition that Brahma is a created entity ("Since Brahma only comes into 'being' during Srushti (creation)..."), it would be appropriate to answer based on the same premise. This question in itself would not appeal to many Hindus, let alone my response. – MassEnquirer Apr 05 '21 at 22:16
  • @SK Ok, I will try to preface my response to be more neutral. – MassEnquirer Apr 05 '21 at 22:17
  • Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! @massenquirer . That wasn't so hard, was it? – S K Apr 05 '21 at 22:23
  • @SK It looks like even with all those exclamation marks, you still have a problem with the answer. – MassEnquirer Apr 05 '21 at 23:05
  • Of course, I totally reject the answer - but we are not in a quarrel. Your answer is correct given the assumptions and once the assumptions are stated the answer doesn't offend me in the least. But each time conclusions from unstated assumptions are stated as facts ("Brahma is a created entity") it has been an irritant at HSE from the beginning @massenquirer – S K Apr 05 '21 at 23:25
  • 1
    I undownvoted after the reasonable change @massenquirer – S K Apr 06 '21 at 02:14
  • Wow just wow just wow! – Adiyarkku Apr 06 '21 at 03:02
  • Your says veda are meaningless before creation saidbaladeca who live recently I'm saying baladeva doesn't have father this also needs be accepted as I say it now – Prasanna R Apr 06 '21 at 06:21
1

The terms like Surya, Brahma, Agni, Indra etc. in Vedas are used for Supereme God. These all are epithets of god.

Rigveda Mandala 2 Sukta 1

  1. THOU, Agni, shining in thy glory through the days, art brought to life from out the waters, from the stone: From out the forest trees and herbs that grow on ground, thou, Sovran Lord of men art generatad [sic] pure.2. Thine is the Herald's task and Cleanser's duly timed; Leader art thou, and Kindler for the pious man. Thou art Director, thou the ministering Priest: thou art the Brahman, Lord and Master in our home.3. Hero of Heroes, Agni! Thou art Indra, thou art Visnu of the Mighty Stride, adorable: Thou, Brahmanaspati, the Brahman finding wealth: thou, O Sustainer, with thy wisdom tendest us.4. Agni, thou art King Varuna whose laws stand fast; as Mitra, WonderWorker, thou must be implored. Aryaman, heroes' Lord, art thou, enrich ing all, and liberal Amsa in the synod, O thou God.5. Thou givest strength, as Tvastar, to the worshipper: thou wielding Mitra's power hast kinship with the Dames. Thou, urging thy fleet coursers, givest noble steeds: a host of heroes art thou with great store of wealth.6. Rudra art thou, the Asura of mighty heaven: thou art the Maruts' host, thou art the Lord of food, Thou goest with red winds: bliss hast thou in thine home. As Pusan thou thyself protectest worshippers.7. Giver of wealth art thou to him who honours thee; thou art God Savitar, granter of precious things. As Bhaga, Lord of men! thou rulest over wealth, and guardest in his house him who hath served thee well.8. To thee, the people's Lord within the house, the folk press forward to their King most graciously inclined. Lord of the lovely look, all things belong to thee: ten, hundred, yea, a thousand are outweighed by thee.9. Agni, men seek thee as a Father with their prayers, win thee, brightformed, to brotherhood with holy act. Thou art a Son to him who duly worships thee, and as a trusty Friend thou guardest from attack.10. A Rbhu art thou, Agni, near to be adored thou art the Sovran Lord of foodful spoil and wealth. Thou shinest brightly forth, thou burnest to bestow: pervading sacrifice, thou lendest us thine help.11. Thou, God, art Aditi to him who offers gifts: thou, Hotri, Bharati, art strengthened by the song. Thou art the hundred-wintered Ila to give strength, Lord of Wealth! Vrtraslayer and Sarasvati.12. Thou, Agni, cherished well, art highest vital power; in thy delightful hue are glories visible. Thou art the lofty might that furthers each design: thou art wealth manifold, diffused on every side.13. Thee, Agni, have the Adityas taken as their mouth; the Bright Ones have made thee, O Sage, to be their tongue. They who love offerings cling to thee at solemn rites: by thee the Gods devour the duly offered food.

So the words like Agni, Surya and Indra don't refer to fire, sun etc. but they refer to supereme God.

Shwetashwara Upanishad IV-2: That Itself is the Agni, That is the Surya, That is the Vayu, That is the Chandra, That is also the starry firmament, That is the Brahman, That is the waters, That is Prajapati.

Sanatan Darshan
  • 8,149
  • 1
  • 16
  • 50
  • Even if that is the case, why use the word Agni (fire) to refer to Brahman ? The very fact that Agni is used shows that Vedas were composed AFTER Agni. Since Agni cannot exist prior to creation, Vedas, which refer to Agni, are also created, hence not apaurusheya. – ram Apr 01 '21 at 04:33
  • 1
    @mar vedantic school of tought believes in shadha pramana (sound as fact or truth) from sound came the beings not the other way in materialistic world where you create things and name it. – Prasanna R Apr 01 '21 at 06:20
  • @PrasannaR - in that case, the presence of North Indian geographic names like Ganga or rishis like Vishvamitra, or battle of 10 kings (Dasharjana) are also shabda pramana, hence they do not 'localize' Vedas in any way i.e. presence of "historical" events or places or times does not reduce their apaurusheya-tvam in any way. – ram Apr 01 '21 at 06:22
  • @Ikshvaku - see above – ram Apr 01 '21 at 06:23
  • @mar what is history is also future in different kalpa.. Same gods are repeated.. Take matsya avatara of hindu god.. one of the main feet performed is recovering the vedas from Asura, The story goes like this brahma spitted veda Asura stole it. Matsya killed the Asura and retrieved it. If read verbatim Brahma spitted Book from his mouth that book was stolen by Asura.. That book was reterieved. Will Brahma spitt veda in the form of book? – Prasanna R Apr 01 '21 at 06:32
  • The real meaning when Brahma Utter Vedas The tatva abhimai devatas got created, The Asura stole all the Tatva Abhimani devatas and kept them. Matsya avatara released all the devatas from Asura.. @mar This is what is ment from Bannaje Govindacharya and also all vedantic school. – Prasanna R Apr 01 '21 at 06:35
  • @PrasannaR - you're combining 2 or 3 different things. 1. is matsya avatar mentioned in vedas or puranas?. 2. the term book need not mean written book. in those days, there was no need to write anything down since everything was oral/memory. 3. sound is literally spit out of the mouth. 4. we are discussing the equivalence between accepting Brahma is eternal/recurring and accepting Ganga/Vishvamitra/Dasharjana as eternal/recurring. If you believe in one, there is no reason to not believe in the other. – ram Apr 01 '21 at 06:38
  • Ganga/Vishvamitra antaryami(brahman) eternal. So veda is eternal.. – Prasanna R Apr 01 '21 at 06:42
  • @mar The scriptures specifically say that some being called Brahma by the Hindus creates the universe every kalpa. The scriptures don't say that the dasharajna battle, or yajnavalkya splitting someone's head, happens every kalpa. – Ikshvaku Apr 04 '21 at 05:30
  • @Ikshvaku - those same scriptures say that Vedas are eternal. Hence the other events can also be believed to happen every kalpa if you believe that one of them happen every kalpa. – ram Apr 04 '21 at 17:12
  • @mar Any statement saying that the vedas are eternal should be reconciled with statements that say that the rishis are the makers. Eternal Veda != events recurring. "Eternal Veda" means the spiritual knowledge in it is eternal, not random historical events. Who cares that some rishi had orgasms or the dasharajna battle happened? Why would God keep repeating those specific events? – Ikshvaku Apr 05 '21 at 02:04
  • @Ikshvaku - for the same reason why he repeats Brahma and Srushti & Pralaya. u consider dasharjana as random historical event and kings as random historical persons, while I consider Brahma as random historical person and Srushti as random historical event. – ram Apr 05 '21 at 03:35
  • @Ikshvaku like i repeatedly said, the ONLY EVER possible evidence against apaurusheya-tvam of Vedas is Rishis/Scriptures themselves saying 'Vedas are not apaurusheya cos I made them'. Nothing else. All other arguments of random/historical/geographical have been voided because of their equivalency with brahma & srushti's eternal recurringness. – ram Apr 05 '21 at 03:37
  • @mar Veda specifically says that Bhagavan creates a being (whom the Indians call BrahmA) to create the universe every kalpa. Bhagavan has no reason to repeat the dasharajna battle because it's not significant, anymore than ww2 or American civil war are significant. – Ikshvaku Apr 05 '21 at 04:11
  • Nowhere is it said the dasharajna battle happens every kalpa. In fact, it's not even mentioned in Puranas, that's how insignifcant it is. – Ikshvaku Apr 05 '21 at 04:12
0

If a text is truly or literally eternal, then it shouldn't make mention of TEMPORAL or HISTORIC occurrences. Otherwise, we can put a time stamp on it.

For example, Rig Veda mentions the Dasharajna battle. This means that those mantras that reference the battle have to be composed after the battle happened by the Rishi of those mantras. OR the Rishi had Bhavishya siddhi and saw the war before it happened, and then composed the verse. But if you read the context of the war in the Vedas, it looks like it was composed after the event happened.

Another analogy is books mentioning world war 2. World war 2 happened in 1940s. So, any book that references WW2 has to logically and chronologically be produced after WW2. So, we can infer that those books were composed AFTER WW2.

Why can't this logic be applied to the Veda? The Veda is another text like the books on WW2, and hence it can be analyzed in the same way.

On the other hand, certain schools like Mimamsa and Vedanta believe that the actual Vedic VAKYAS are eternal themselves. But in reality what "eternal Veda" means is that the primary knowledge within the Vedas is eternal because the purpose of the Vedas is to talk about eternal things like Brahman, dharma, karma, reincarnation, tri-guna, etc. The historic events like Dasharajna battle, etc. are all subsidiary to the primary knowledge and serve as examples for the eternal worship of Devatas and Brahman.

Ikshvaku
  • 22,130
  • 2
  • 39
  • 116
0

B.G. 15.15

सर्वस्य चाहं हृदि सन्निविष्टो मत्त: स्मृतिर्ज्ञानमपोहनं च | वेदैश्च सर्वैरहमेव वेद्यो वेदान्तकृद्वेदविदेव चाहम् || 15||

sarvasya chāhaṁ hṛidi sanniviṣhṭo mattaḥ smṛitir jñānam apohanaṁ cha vedaiśh cha sarvair aham eva vedyo vedānta-kṛid veda-vid eva chāham

I am seated in the hearts of all living beings, and from Me come memory, knowledge, as well as forgetfulness. I alone am to be known by all the Vedas, am the author of the Vedānt, and the knower of the meaning of the Vedas.

From these statement of sri krishna we can easily conclude that the words, letters and sentence mean only Lord Krishna as primary meaning. That is what sri madvacharya states clearly that all words, letters sentence mean only krishna he is the single letter OM. And meaning of all words of vedas. Before creation Vedas do refer only one entity that is God. After dissolution Vedas mean again the same entity. So We can safely conclude Vedas are enternal and meant only Lord sri krishna as main meaning instead of Agni, Indra or other deity. otherwise the above statement is false.

Prasanna R
  • 1,471
  • 2
  • 9
  • 19