Sanskrit verses are easy to memorize (especially for someone who knows the language), and their memorization is a crucial part of the tradition. They are in specific meters that help prevent miscommunication, and there would presumably have been redundancy with many people having memorized the same virtual books at the same time.
In 1995 I read an interview with an old man who could recite the entire Ṛg Veda both forwards and in reverse. He said this practice was common in his youth and lamented that the tradition could become lost because of the lack of mental strength in modern people.
Also, the Sanskrit language itself doesn't change, quite unlike English, so there would not be a need to revise what is passed down to preserve the meanings.
The Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition I follow says the name of Kṛṣṇa descends from the spiritual realm. The Vedas say we are in a dream; and often the easiest way to awaken from a dream is by hearing the name of the dreamer.
In the Padma Purāṇa, it is stated, " The Holy name of Kṛṣṇa is transcendentally blissful. It bestows all spiritual benediction, for it is Kṛṣṇa Himself, the reservoir of all transcendental
mellows. It is not a material name under any condition, and it is as powerful as Kṛṣṇa Himself." It goes on to say the name and form of Kṛṣṇa are identical, although except that the name is more merciful.
It's pleasing to Kṛṣṇa to hear His own name said with love, and Kṛṣṇa has explained that He gives knowledge of Himself to those who are devoted to serving Him. I find it very logical. The complete reality is undoubtedly conscious and independent, but loving relationships can only be voluntary and are therefore genuinely special even to one who literally has everything. The Sāṅkhya analysis says the whole is logically prior to the parts because of being the space in which the parts exist.
These are just a few points I wanted to clarify, as overall we seem to be in agreement.
While I appreciate that people likely have been able to fully or close to fully memorize completely and exactly the Vedas, someone having done so is in no way definitive proof that the Vedas are in their original form. That someone has done it so perfectly recently is circumstantial evidence regarding whether or not every single meaning in the Vedas is exactly and without error in its originally laid out form. There is no way to truly know, except to have outside knowledge and to carefully analyze whether every single thing said is actually true or not.
An example of this would be in the Bible:
While this is the Bible, it is a perfect example of how something can be written in a text that is held authoritatively and therefore not sufficiently critically analyzed and accepted at face value. In the King James Version, if the reader does not understand reality sufficiently, and if they hold the text as authoritative, then they will conclude that the love of money is the root of all evil. This is patentably untrue, however, for there are many evils that do not stem from money. Killing in the name of a cause, such as the Crusades, is not rooted in the love of money. However, other translations have much more open language that has a completely different meaning that allows for other loves of other parts of all to be recognizable as roots of evil.
In much the same way, without a sufficient understanding of reality to hinge to while reading Sanskrit, and with only circumstantial evidence that the text is in its original form and no bias has been interjected by humans in the specific choice of exact words (which is so highly unlikely that it arguably has necessarily occurred--even if no where else but in the translations to english), then there is no way of knowing for certain what carries the essence of the original message sufficiently except by looking elsewhere for details and analyzing all the layers of hidden meaning in all the nuances of the text.
What I mean by that is much the same as 1 Timothy 6:10; there is hidden meaning found in looking to several translations because the bias of the translator becomes more readily apparent, which unveils levels of depth to the text that are not there in a single translation. This occurs with translations of all varieties and the Vedas are certainly not exempt. But this adds depth and character and meaning that is hidden beneath the surface, which ultimately makes scriptures of these varieties that much more beautiful as works of art brought about by our distinctly Omnipotent God.
My position on this is firmly that the name is powerless next to whom it is referring. Does your name have more power, when spoken, to shape the world around you than you yourself? Or anyone, for that matter? Or is it in the true being of whom the name represents where the power lies? I would respond that this is precisely placing a portion of The All above the rest. A tradition where the power was known to rest in God, regardless of name, but over time became misconstrued that the name itself was what carried the power. This is not reasonable, and I would say is distinctly evidence against the complete accuracy of these sources of information. "As powerful as Krsna Himself."--There is no possibility of this having complete accuracy, and likely is the result of misconstrued information. No name has power, it is just a label. Even if it is a specific label laid out by The All as their own, it still would not contain within it equal power to The All. Did this name create all that is, was, and ever will be? Or did The All, the Being behind the name?
If the Sanskrit text specifically uses the term "He" and "Himself" and these masculine labels throughout, this would call into question the entire origination of the Vedas as a whole. There are distinctly individuals in the book of Genesis who are believed to be "God" and "the devil", but God is everything. This tells us someone was being interpreted as being God, rather than actually being God in the flesh. God in the flesh is Everything, Unlimited, The All. I would suspect that a similar tradition where someone with deep understanding, sufficient as to know themselves to be God (but also to know all else to be God), led to the Vedas by teaching their wisdom and then being misconstrued as literally being God.
Moreover, "those who are devoted to serving Him" is a dangerous line. What does it mean to be devoted and serving--are they allowed to question whether something is true or is this unacceptable? There is simply no way this is accepted or encouraged, and so I would say this is more evidence of misinterpretations propagating throughout the whole of the philosophy. God is Truth and does not require followers to serve without question or to be devoted in their actions to the cause, for all actions serve God. It does not matter what we choose to do, in the end it is precisely servitude to The Infinite God. The thing with God being Truth, though, is we don't need to believe. It doesn't matter what we believe, because it is true. Therefore, it is in our best interest to question and critically analyze this for whether or not it is true since if we do so we will arrive at the conclusion that it is what it is: Truth. But when something is not true at its core, it requires layers upon layers of details placed by devoted followers, forced/encouraged across generations to build up an elaborate picture that the falsehood is hidden beneath.
All in all, the Vedas deserve full consideration, but not without critical analysis and meticulous scrutiny built upon an extensive awareness of as many other sources of information as possible, in order to separate what is true from what is untrue and the depths of meaning carried beneath the surface.
There certainly are hidden meanings, but the method of succession from spiritual master to disciple is prescribed in the Vedas so everything is revealed. Kṛṣṇa guarantees in Bhagavad-gītā that He will deliver whatever is necessary for anyone dedicated to serving Him. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam He says information about Him in the scriptures is very confidential and is only revealed through devotional service.
I can't entertain a view that Kṛṣṇa's name is any less than Kṛṣṇa the person. I and my name are not relevant comparisons, because I'm not like absolute Kṛṣṇa, and the Sanskrit language has no arbitrary component like English. The Sanskrit alphabet is found in the cakra system that illustrates the subtle sounds created by the movement of energy between tiers of abstraction in matter. https://goo.gl/images/oyn87A (Each syllable shown on that cakra chart is the sound of a Sanskrit letter.) Sanskrit words have natural meanings. Those who chant Kṛṣṇa's names incessantly say the name Kṛṣṇa is also the person Kṛṣṇa. The relationship between Them is called advaya, which means nondual.
The form of God is not made of flesh. It's described as sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ, which means His form is existence-knowledge-bliss.
Questioning is certainly encouraged (Kṛṣṇa temples typically have at least two lectures per day covering verses from the Vedas, and every class ends with a Q/A session), but a humble attitude is necessary for learning. There are a variety of service moods, and the idea that everything is service to God is a nondevotional mood of neutrality that's far from ideal. Although Kṛṣṇa doesn't need anyone's service, He enjoys loving relationships and reciprocating with His devotees. The fact that everyone is always serving Kṛṣṇa one way or another doesn't imply we are doing our best and serving with love. Serving inevitably and serving voluntarily with love are not the same quality.
I should mention that the Vedas provide knowledge meant to encourage people to progress regardless of their present stage of development. There are books to inspire positive development the good, the passionate, and the ignorant; not that every verse makes the supreme knowledge obvious. What we find in the Vedas depends on what we are seeking.
The love Kṛṣṇa gives is from our perspective greater than the love He receives, but Kṛṣṇa sees it in reverse when someone is absorbed in loving Him. Kṛṣṇa said He cannot match the love of His pure devotees, which overwhelms Him and effectively purchases Him. Everything is done ultimately in service to Kṛṣṇa, but love is what Kṛṣṇa wants. There is a verse in multiple Upaniṣads that defines God as the eternal person who maintains everyone else, who are also eternal persons. If Kṛṣṇa is generous enough to maintain everyone even though we have forgotten about Him, how might Kṛṣṇa respond to those who try to fulfill Kṛṣṇa's desire?
CC Ādi 4.19: "In whatever transcendental mellow My devotee worships Me, I reciprocate with him. That is My natural behavior."
What defines a spiritual master? Master implies complete understanding of that which is Infinite. I would rebut that only God is the true Spiritual Master, and all others are disciples. Therefore, it is imperative to learn from God--All That Is--to gain understanding, rather than a specific individual whose perspective is based on their own experiences. No?
Where is the boundary of service? I would suggest that there is no boundary and it is only beneficial to consider all sources of information as carefully and completely as possible, as they come to our attention.
I appreciate that and ultimately know too little about the particulars of this to have additional input, besides to say that I will keep that in mind and am interested to look more deeply into this. It is possible that a specific tone/frequency can interact with the environment in very unique ways so as to achieve outcomes in the material world, and thereby having a tangible power to it. I would argue, though, that the name analogy is a solid one, as all things are connected and can be used as parallels to draw conclusions from. "As above, so below. As below, so above." There must be some subtlety to to this particular subject.
I agree, sorry I should have said "God in the 'flesh'", with quotations to differentiate.
I agree. My point was mainly that even if we believe we are devoted in service, if we are not serving The Infinite, then we are serving some portion thereof and it is not of the same quality, even when voluntarily.
Regarding the Vedas, I appreciate your perspective and do intend to give them a much closer inspection. I have tried in the past and struggled due to the difficulty of reading it (with many words that are not directly translated frequently, and just not finding very high quality english translations in general, and not knowing fully where to begin). I understand that this interaction is also God telling me there is important information that I should take a look at, that I will learn additional details about reality that will expand my awareness, and that it is worth my time to stop what I am doing and do so. I'll have to look into it further.
A spiritual master is someone in the line of disciples from God, and who has absorbed the knowledge that has been passed down. The Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition I try to follow is invigorated by the appearance of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu from 1486 to 1534, as He was predicted to in many verses of the Vedas with abundant details. Many of His direct students are spiritual masters, and many people have subsequently dedicated their lives to the profuse teachings coming from Lord Caitanya. This is called the paramparā, disciplic succession.
There is no boundary of service, but devotional service is specifically motivated by love.
On the subject of the oneness of God's names, form, and personality, the best book I know of is Harināma Cintāmaṇi, which is available for free direct download here:
http://ebooks.iskcondesiretree.com/pdf/Gaudiya_Books%20/Bhaktivinoda_Thakura/Bhaktivinoda_Thakura_Hari_Nama_Cintamani.pdf
The Vedas prescribe how to properly learn them, and the most authentic translations I have found are in the books by Śrīla Prabhupāda. The above linked text is written by his guru's guru's guru. Most of what is popularly presented as the teachings of the Vedas is what I consider misinterpretations. The best modern understanding of the Vedas I have found is at www.ashishdalela.com, where I am regularly amazed and inspired.
There are more great books about these subjects than are possible to read in a lifetime.
I somehow previously overlooked your doubt about the legitimacy of referring to the God as a "He." I haven't used this app nearly enough to be proficient. The concept of masculine and feminine in the Vedas relates to enjoyer and enjoyed, and Kṛṣṇa is described as the ultimate enjoyer. The internal nature of Kṛṣṇa is feminine though, as His internal energy is the form of Rādhā, the ultimate feminine person. Kṛṣṇa is identified as God, but He worships Rādhā. Their combined form is Lord Caitanya, mentioned here in the first paragraph. It's also said God is male because the combined form of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa is a celibate male.
CC Ādi 4.55: "The loving affairs of Śrī Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are transcendental manifestations of the Lord's internal pleasure-giving potency. Although Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are one in Their identity, They separated Themselves eternally. Now these two transcendental identities have again united, in the form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya. I bow down to Him, who has manifested Himself with the sentiment and complexion of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī although He is Kṛṣṇa Himself."
Www.vedabase.com/en/cc/adi/4
Sorry for the delay, I was traveling for a time. I read through Ādi 4 and some descriptions of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. If I may say, it reminds me very much of the founder of the Baha'i religion, Bahá'u'lláh.
In many instances, particular philosophies elaborate on the existence of an individual who is thereby prophesied. In every instance, there is a particular individual which the followers of the particular philosophy attribute these traits to.
However, there is no unification between viewpoints present in the world. This fact alone indicates that prophecies have not been fulfilled, as the world is not unified in understanding. I do not aim to disrespect your perspective, but I would argue that Vishvambhar Mishra, who has come to be considered to be the prophesied Lord Caitanya, did not manifest in fulfillment of the particulars written of in a full and complete manner.
This brings me back to my original point: there is no such thing as a true master, as the true master is God. While it is possible to obtain awareness of many things, to such a degree where an individuals appears greatly aware relative to others, it is not possible to obtain complete awareness because there are infinite topics to become infinitely aware of. As you mention, there are even more books on the above subjects than are possible to read in a lifetime. Therefore, it is impossible for an individual to truly be a master. Following an individual opposed to following God, which is Everything and not limited to any one "thing" (for example, a person), is the only way to continue to grow. Otherwise, we are limited by the ignorance of the "spiritual master", who only knows what they know and nothing more. No matter what one knows, next to Everything it is nothing.
If there is such a thing as a spiritual master, they might as well be individuals who simply point at God. Not one part of God, but All. Meaning, pointing at God in Everything. Deferring to the true master rather than acting as one.