Nature of Consciousness
panchap at ICSL.UCLA.EDU
Wed Jul 28 12:38:52 CDT 1999
> Hi (Ganesh),
> In my opinion Vedas are called Apaurusheya because they are free from the
> limitation of human body and mind. Normally, any creation by human being
> suffers from 6 inherent defects like Pramada (forgetfullness), Bripalipsa
> (attachments towards one's own ideas), Karanapaatava etc (I don't remember
> them all) which are present in the creator. Now, the Vedas are spontaneous
> utterances of the Realized masters and in them there was no personal self.
> They were One with universe. Any expression thru their body and mind is
> therefore an expression free from personality(Purusha) defects.
I think you're you're indirectly saying that the Vedas being the creation
of Rshis who have realized Brahman, and so are omniscient, the defects of
knowledge associated with men are not present in them. As far as I have
understood, this is not what the MimAmsaka stand is. They say that the
Vedas are not the creation of anybody, not Rshis or even ISvara. In fact
some of them reject ISvara, and argue against omniscience.
> Therefore, the Vedas are called Apaurusheya. I think, I have read somewhere
> (in biography of Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa) that Bhagwan and Bhagwat are
> One. Therefore, the confusion that " either SAstra is the source for the
> knowledge of Brahman or that Brahman is the source for the SAstras" is
No, my doubt was not that. I just wanted to know if Sankara even takes a
specific stand on the issue. I accept the Vedas as infallible because of
faith in the Rshis and in ISvara, but am sceptical that their
unauthoredness can be 'proved'. Also I am asking whether Advaita Vedanta
requires us to accept the unauthoredness of the Sruti.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list