From our historical references, however, we understand the Vedic knowledge has been current since the time of creation but the knowledge was originally accepted in disciplic succession from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

Expressions researched:
"From our historical references, however, we understand the Vedic knowledge has been current since the time of creation but the knowledge was originally accepted in disciplic succession from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"

Correspondence

1974 Correspondence

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 From our historical references, however, we understand the Vedic knowledge has been current since the time of creation but the knowledge was originally accepted in disciplic succession from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.

740315 - Letter to Brian Marvin written from Vrndavana

Your first question is, how can the Vedas be considered eternal since they contain many historical references? But history is also eternal. For example, six months ago there was summer now there is a new season, and in another six months summer again. This calculation of one year is history but the summer and winter seasons are also eternal. There is a saying, "History repeats itself." Why make a distinction between history and eternity. Things are happening eternally; this is history.You have asked why the four Vedas are written in a different type of sanskrit from classical. This is not extraordinary. In India, sanskrit pronunciation is different in the North and South, and there are many different dialects. So the Vedas may also be presented with some differences within.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 From our historical references, however, we understand the Vedic knowledge has been current since the time of creation but the knowledge was originally accepted in disciplic succession from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.