Post 72 gave link to a paper written by DN Jha on 'Hindu Identity'.
Does this guy "Dwijendra" Jha even know some basic Sanskrit? In paper, he says Mundakopanishad is showing down Vedas by calling them "Apara vidya" (he interprets "Apara Vidya" to "lower knowledge"!)
"Para" and "Apara" come from the base word 'par'. 'par' obviousely means 'the other'. Para means through other and Apara means through no-other. Vidya comes from 'vid' dhatu which basically means 'to see' (visio of latin or vedeo of greek derive from this dhatu), and by extension 'vid' means 'know first hand' (similar to expression "I see!"). In India, that is why we have the word for philosophy as Darshan (= to see comprehensively)
So, Para Vidya means "knowing or perceiving through a reference, or seeing through some 'without' ", and on the contrast Apara Vidya means "knowing through within or in seeing in absence of any reference".
Vedas are Apaurusheya, they were not created but experienced, "heard", or witnessed by those who codified it. They are not 'learnt from outside' but 'experienced within'. That is what Mundakopanishad means when it calls Veda the 'Apara Vidya' and devotes one third of its content to Vedas.
Likewise the author claimed that Kabir, Dadu, Nanak and other Bhakt-Saints have 'rebelled against Vedas'. What idioticity! The Shabds of these saints (and Siddharta Gautama's deshanas before them), have only targeted the tendency of dogmatic dependance upon shastras without personal experience and Sadhana, and not the shastras themselves!
But I think this guy has good writing style, which a reader of common understanding can easily relate to and get impressed with. I wish we had some of that skill.
Does this guy "Dwijendra" Jha even know some basic Sanskrit? In paper, he says Mundakopanishad is showing down Vedas by calling them "Apara vidya" (he interprets "Apara Vidya" to "lower knowledge"!)
"Para" and "Apara" come from the base word 'par'. 'par' obviousely means 'the other'. Para means through other and Apara means through no-other. Vidya comes from 'vid' dhatu which basically means 'to see' (visio of latin or vedeo of greek derive from this dhatu), and by extension 'vid' means 'know first hand' (similar to expression "I see!"). In India, that is why we have the word for philosophy as Darshan (= to see comprehensively)
So, Para Vidya means "knowing or perceiving through a reference, or seeing through some 'without' ", and on the contrast Apara Vidya means "knowing through within or in seeing in absence of any reference".
Vedas are Apaurusheya, they were not created but experienced, "heard", or witnessed by those who codified it. They are not 'learnt from outside' but 'experienced within'. That is what Mundakopanishad means when it calls Veda the 'Apara Vidya' and devotes one third of its content to Vedas.
Likewise the author claimed that Kabir, Dadu, Nanak and other Bhakt-Saints have 'rebelled against Vedas'. What idioticity! The Shabds of these saints (and Siddharta Gautama's deshanas before them), have only targeted the tendency of dogmatic dependance upon shastras without personal experience and Sadhana, and not the shastras themselves!
But I think this guy has good writing style, which a reader of common understanding can easily relate to and get impressed with. I wish we had some of that skill.