Authoritative Vedas - Revision history

Convert 2.0-bot: Conversion/restructure for compatibility with the version 2.0 of the compile tools

2009-10-04T13:16:02Z

Conversion/restructure for compatibility with the version 2.0 of the compile tools

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:16, 4 October 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div id="compilation">
			<div id="facts">
	{{terms\|"Vedas are authoritative"\|"authoritative vedas"\|"they would not be authoritative"}}		{{terms\|"Vedas are authoritative"\|"authoritative vedas"\|"they would not be authoritative"}}

Line 19:		Line 21:
	[[Category:Authoritative]]		[[Category:Authoritative]]
	[[Category:Vedas]]		[[Category:Vedas]]
			</div>

	== Srimad-Bhagavatam ==		<div class="section" id="Srimad-Bhagavatam" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam"><h2>Srimad-Bhagavatam</h2></div>

	=== SB Canto 4 ~~===~~		<div class="sub_section" id="SB_Canto_4" text="SB Canto 4"><h3>SB Canto 4</h3></div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~The conclusion is that persons who rebel against the Vedic principles are themselves the evidence that the Vedas are authoritative, because by not following the Vedic principles they become like animals.~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="SB" link="SB 4.2.31" link_text="SB 4.2.31, Purport">
			<div class="heading">The conclusion is that persons who rebel against the Vedic principles are themselves the evidence that the Vedas are authoritative, because by not following the Vedic principles they become like animals.</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~SB-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:SB 4.2.31\|SB 4.2.31, Purport]]:''' This system is sanātana—it comes from time immemorial, and it will continue in the same way. There is no power in the world which can stop it. Therefore, since this sanātana-dharma system is eternal, one can elevate himself to the highest standard of spiritual life by following the Vedic principles.		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:SB 4.2.31\|SB 4.2.31, Purport]]:''' This system is sanātana—it comes from time immemorial, and it will continue in the same way. There is no power in the world which can stop it. Therefore, since this sanātana-dharma system is eternal, one can elevate himself to the highest standard of spiritual life by following the Vedic principles.
	It is stated that formerly the sages followed this system; therefore to follow the Vedic system is to follow the standard etiquette of society. But the followers of Lord Śiva, who are drunkards, who are addicted to intoxicants and sex life, who do not bathe and who smoke gāñjā, are against all human etiquette. The conclusion is that persons who rebel against the Vedic principles are themselves the evidence that the Vedas are authoritative, because by not following the Vedic principles they become like animals. Such animalistic persons are themselves evidence of the supremacy of the Vedic regulations.</~~span~~>		It is stated that formerly the sages followed this system; therefore to follow the Vedic system is to follow the standard etiquette of society. But the followers of Lord Śiva, who are drunkards, who are addicted to intoxicants and sex life, who do not bathe and who smoke gāñjā, are against all human etiquette. The conclusion is that persons who rebel against the Vedic principles are themselves the evidence that the Vedas are authoritative, because by not following the Vedic principles they become like animals. Such animalistic persons are themselves evidence of the supremacy of the Vedic regulations.</div>
			</div>

	== Sri Caitanya-caritamrta ==		<div class="section" id="Sri_Caitanya-caritamrta" text="Sri Caitanya-caritamrta"><h2>Sri Caitanya-caritamrta</h2></div>

	=== CC Madhya-lila ~~===~~		<div class="sub_section" id="CC_Madhya-lila" text="CC Madhya-lila"><h3>CC Madhya-lila</h3></div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~According to the Buddhist cult, the Vedas are compiled by ordinary human beings. If this were the case, they would not be authoritative. ~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="CC" link="CC Madhya 9.49" link_text="CC Madhya 9.49, Purport">
			<div class="heading">According to the Buddhist cult, the Vedas are compiled by ordinary human beings. If this were the case, they would not be authoritative.</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~CC-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:CC Madhya 9.49\|CC Madhya 9.49, Purport]]:''' We cannot accept the theory that the Buddhist philosophy is the only way, for there are so many defects in that philosophy. A perfect philosophy is one that has no defects, and that is Vedānta philosophy. No one can point out any defects in Vedānta philosophy, and therefore we can conclude that Vedānta is the supreme philosophical way of understanding the truth. According to the Buddhist cult, the Vedas are compiled by ordinary human beings. If this were the case, they would not be authoritative. From the Vedic literatures we understand that shortly after the creation Lord Brahmā was instructed in the Vedas. It is not that the Vedas were created by Brahmā, although Brahmā is the original person in the universe. If Brahmā did not create the Vedas but he is acknowledged as the first created being, wherefrom did Vedic knowledge come to Brahmā? Obviously the Vedas did not come from an ordinary person born in this material world. According to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye: [SB 1.1.1] after the creation, the Supreme Person imparted Vedic knowledge within the heart of Brahmā. There was no person in the beginning of the creation other than Brahmā, yet he did not compile the Vedas; therefore the conclusion is that the Vedas were not compiled by any created being. Vedic knowledge was given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who created this material world. This is also accepted by Śaṅkarācārya, although he is not a Vaiṣṇava.</~~span~~>		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:CC Madhya 9.49\|CC Madhya 9.49, Purport]]:''' We cannot accept the theory that the Buddhist philosophy is the only way, for there are so many defects in that philosophy. A perfect philosophy is one that has no defects, and that is Vedānta philosophy. No one can point out any defects in Vedānta philosophy, and therefore we can conclude that Vedānta is the supreme philosophical way of understanding the truth. According to the Buddhist cult, the Vedas are compiled by ordinary human beings. If this were the case, they would not be authoritative. From the Vedic literatures we understand that shortly after the creation Lord Brahmā was instructed in the Vedas. It is not that the Vedas were created by Brahmā, although Brahmā is the original person in the universe. If Brahmā did not create the Vedas but he is acknowledged as the first created being, wherefrom did Vedic knowledge come to Brahmā? Obviously the Vedas did not come from an ordinary person born in this material world. According to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye: [SB 1.1.1] after the creation, the Supreme Person imparted Vedic knowledge within the heart of Brahmā. There was no person in the beginning of the creation other than Brahmā, yet he did not compile the Vedas; therefore the conclusion is that the Vedas were not compiled by any created being. Vedic knowledge was given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who created this material world. This is also accepted by Śaṅkarācārya, although he is not a Vaiṣṇava.</div>
			</div>

	== Lectures ==		<div class="section" id="Lectures" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2></div>

	=== Philosophy Discussions ~~===~~		<div class="sub_section" id="Philosophy_Discussions" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3></div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~One who inquires from authoritative Vedas, śāstras, he's a human being. And those who are not inquisitive, they are not considered to be human being.~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="Lec" link="Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain">
			<div class="heading">One who inquires from authoritative Vedas, śāstras, he's a human being. And those who are not inquisitive, they are not considered to be human being.</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~LEC-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain\|Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain]]:'''		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain\|Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain]]:'''

	Human life must be inquisitive, "What is its cause? What is the essence?" Just like Sanātana Gosvāmī approached Lord Caitanya that "Why I suffer some threefold miseries? I do not wish to suffer, but why?" This "why" question, unless this "why" question is there, then he's not to be considered as human being. Śrī Rāmānujācārya, when writing comments on Bhagavad-gītā, manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu [Bg. 7.3], he says manuṣya means "inquisitive." Not with two legs and hands. That is not a manuṣya; that is an animal. (indistinct) vikara (indistinct). One who inquires from authoritative Vedas, śāstras, he's a human being. And those who are not inquisitive, they are not considered to be human being. "What is the essence?" that is human being. Otherwise animal life. And tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. And one who is actually inquisitive, he, he requires to have the guidance of spiritual master. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam [SB 11.3.21]. Guru is required for him who is inquisitive of the higher essence, not for... To accept a guru is not a fashion. Those, without being inquisitive of the highest essence, accept from guru, they think it is a fashion to keep a guru. Just like one keeps one dog by fashion: "My friend is keeping a dog, I shall keep a dog. My friend is keeping a car, I shall keep a car." Such kind of acceptance of guru is useless. It has no meaning. Actually, guru means... One..., the disciple must be very much inquisitive, interest into this is to understand the original essence. And he should approach a suitable bona fide person who can answer about the original essence. This is the system of guru and disciple. It is not a fashion, bogus fashion. A śiṣya must be intently inquisitive to understand the original essence, and guru must be a well-conversant person who can answer the disciple's relevant questions. This is guru and śiṣya.</~~span~~>		Human life must be inquisitive, "What is its cause? What is the essence?" Just like Sanātana Gosvāmī approached Lord Caitanya that "Why I suffer some threefold miseries? I do not wish to suffer, but why?" This "why" question, unless this "why" question is there, then he's not to be considered as human being. Śrī Rāmānujācārya, when writing comments on Bhagavad-gītā, manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu [Bg. 7.3], he says manuṣya means "inquisitive." Not with two legs and hands. That is not a manuṣya; that is an animal. (indistinct) vikara (indistinct). One who inquires from authoritative Vedas, śāstras, he's a human being. And those who are not inquisitive, they are not considered to be human being. "What is the essence?" that is human being. Otherwise animal life. And tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. And one who is actually inquisitive, he, he requires to have the guidance of spiritual master. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam [SB 11.3.21]. Guru is required for him who is inquisitive of the higher essence, not for... To accept a guru is not a fashion. Those, without being inquisitive of the highest essence, accept from guru, they think it is a fashion to keep a guru. Just like one keeps one dog by fashion: "My friend is keeping a dog, I shall keep a dog. My friend is keeping a car, I shall keep a car." Such kind of acceptance of guru is useless. It has no meaning. Actually, guru means... One..., the disciple must be very much inquisitive, interest into this is to understand the original essence. And he should approach a suitable bona fide person who can answer about the original essence. This is the system of guru and disciple. It is not a fashion, bogus fashion. A śiṣya must be intently inquisitive to understand the original essence, and guru must be a well-conversant person who can answer the disciple's relevant questions. This is guru and śiṣya.</div>
			</div>
			</div>

Visnu Murti at 08:02, 7 December 2008

2008-12-07T08:02:34Z

New page

{{terms|"Vedas are authoritative"|"authoritative vedas"|"they would not be authoritative"}}

{{notes|}}

{{compiler|Visnu Murti}}

{{complete|ALL}}

{{first|16Oct08}}

{{last|16Oct08}}

{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=1|CC=1|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}

{{total|3}}

{{toc right}}

[[Category:Authoritative]]
[[Category:Vedas]]

== Srimad-Bhagavatam ==

=== SB Canto 4 ===

'''The conclusion is that persons who rebel against the Vedic principles are themselves the evidence that the Vedas are authoritative, because by not following the Vedic principles they become like animals.'''

'''[[Vanisource:SB 4.2.31|SB 4.2.31, Purport]]:''' This system is sanātana—it comes from time immemorial, and it will continue in the same way. There is no power in the world which can stop it. Therefore, since this sanātana-dharma system is eternal, one can elevate himself to the highest standard of spiritual life by following the Vedic principles.
It is stated that formerly the sages followed this system; therefore to follow the Vedic system is to follow the standard etiquette of society. But the followers of Lord Śiva, who are drunkards, who are addicted to intoxicants and sex life, who do not bathe and who smoke gāñjā, are against all human etiquette. The conclusion is that persons who rebel against the Vedic principles are themselves the evidence that the Vedas are authoritative, because by not following the Vedic principles they become like animals. Such animalistic persons are themselves evidence of the supremacy of the Vedic regulations.

== Sri Caitanya-caritamrta ==

=== CC Madhya-lila ===

'''According to the Buddhist cult, the Vedas are compiled by ordinary human beings. If this were the case, they would not be authoritative. '''

'''[[Vanisource:CC Madhya 9.49|CC Madhya 9.49, Purport]]:''' We cannot accept the theory that the Buddhist philosophy is the only way, for there are so many defects in that philosophy. A perfect philosophy is one that has no defects, and that is Vedānta philosophy. No one can point out any defects in Vedānta philosophy, and therefore we can conclude that Vedānta is the supreme philosophical way of understanding the truth. According to the Buddhist cult, the Vedas are compiled by ordinary human beings. If this were the case, they would not be authoritative. From the Vedic literatures we understand that shortly after the creation Lord Brahmā was instructed in the Vedas. It is not that the Vedas were created by Brahmā, although Brahmā is the original person in the universe. If Brahmā did not create the Vedas but he is acknowledged as the first created being, wherefrom did Vedic knowledge come to Brahmā? Obviously the Vedas did not come from an ordinary person born in this material world. According to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye: [SB 1.1.1] after the creation, the Supreme Person imparted Vedic knowledge within the heart of Brahmā. There was no person in the beginning of the creation other than Brahmā, yet he did not compile the Vedas; therefore the conclusion is that the Vedas were not compiled by any created being. Vedic knowledge was given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who created this material world. This is also accepted by Śaṅkarācārya, although he is not a Vaiṣṇava.

== Lectures ==

=== Philosophy Discussions ===

'''One who inquires from authoritative Vedas, śāstras, he's a human being. And those who are not inquisitive, they are not considered to be human being.'''

'''[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain|Philosophy Discussion on Jacques Maritain]]:'''

Human life must be inquisitive, "What is its cause? What is the essence?" Just like Sanātana Gosvāmī approached Lord Caitanya that "Why I suffer some threefold miseries? I do not wish to suffer, but why?" This "why" question, unless this "why" question is there, then he's not to be considered as human being. Śrī Rāmānujācārya, when writing comments on Bhagavad-gītā, manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu [Bg. 7.3], he says manuṣya means "inquisitive." Not with two legs and hands. That is not a manuṣya; that is an animal. (indistinct) vikara (indistinct). One who inquires from authoritative Vedas, śāstras, he's a human being. And those who are not inquisitive, they are not considered to be human being. "What is the essence?" that is human being. Otherwise animal life. And tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. And one who is actually inquisitive, he, he requires to have the guidance of spiritual master. Tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam [SB 11.3.21]. Guru is required for him who is inquisitive of the higher essence, not for... To accept a guru is not a fashion. Those, without being inquisitive of the highest essence, accept from guru, they think it is a fashion to keep a guru. Just like one keeps one dog by fashion: "My friend is keeping a dog, I shall keep a dog. My friend is keeping a car, I shall keep a car." Such kind of acceptance of guru is useless. It has no meaning. Actually, guru means... One..., the disciple must be very much inquisitive, interest into this is to understand the original essence. And he should approach a suitable bona fide person who can answer about the original essence. This is the system of guru and disciple. It is not a fashion, bogus fashion. A śiṣya must be intently inquisitive to understand the original essence, and guru must be a well-conversant person who can answer the disciple's relevant questions. This is guru and śiṣya.