View source for We have to understand Vedic knowledge on the authority of the disciplic succession not from mental speculators who are simply rascals and have no entrance into the Vedic knowledge

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"We have to understand Vedic knowledge on the authority of the disciplic succession not from mental speculators who are simply rascals and have no entrance into the Vedic knowledge"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Anurag}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2022-09-08T15:47:31Z}}
{{last|2022-09-08T15:47:31Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=0|Let=1}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:We Have To]]
[[Category:Understanding Vedic Knowledge]]
[[Category:Authorized Disciplic Succession]]
[[Category:Authority]]
[[Category:Mental Speculators]]
[[Category:Who Are]]
[[Category:Simply Rascals]]
[[Category:Entrance]]
[[Category:Vedic Knowledge]]
[[Category:Pages Needing Audio - ANURAG]]
</div>
<div id="section">
<h2>Correspondence</h2>
</div>
<div id="sub_section">
<h3>1974 Correspondence</h3>
</div>
<div class="quote">
<div class="quote_heading">
We have to understand Vedic knowledge on the authority of the disciplic succession not from mental speculators who are simply rascals and have no entrance into the Vedic knowledge. You mention Shankara, but Shankara hid so many things, so it is no wonder he did not mention Bhagwatam. There are great authorities of Bhagwatam and it is they we have to follow.
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:740315 - Letter to Brian Marvin written from Vrndavana|740315 - Letter to Brian Marvin written from Vrndavana]]
</div>
<div class="text">
You have further questioned how the Vedas can be 3,000 B.C. in age. Modern historians cannot pick up when the Vedas came into existence. From our historical references, however, we understand the Vedic knowledge has been current since the time of creation but the knowledge was originally accepted in disciplic succession from spiritual master to disciple. Later, when Vyasadeva found the peoples' memories decreasing he wrote it into language. Otherwise it was existing by sruti, or hearing. So when this hearing began there is no history. He simply recorded the sruti, and there is no question of change. We have to understand Vedic knowledge on the authority of the disciplic succession not from mental speculators who are simply rascals and have no entrance into the Vedic knowledge. You mention Shankara, but Shankara hid so many things, so it is no wonder he did not mention Bhagwatam. There are great authorities of Bhagwatam and it is they we have to follow.Similarly, the Bhagwatam is mentioned in an earlier Purana means that the whole language is sruti. Although the Bhagwatam may not have been written the tradition was there. It is written by Sridhar Swami quoting the Puranas, that the practice was to write out the Bhagwatam by hand and present it to a learned man.The Bhagwatam we have is the same Bhagwatam. It was originally spoken in four slokas by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to Lord Brahma. All these descriptions are in my books and I request you to read them very carefully as you are a learned scholar. I appreciate your humble attitude, and I have a good report of your activities from Jagadisha prabhu. Please go on increasing in Krsna Consciousness and you will find all spiritual understanding and happiness not only for you, but for whomever you meet.
</div>
</div>
</div>