[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.
lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com
Mon Sep 12 18:16:52 CDT 2011
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 01:32, Omkar Deshpande <omkar_deshpande at yahoo.com>wrote:
> I would argue that it's a very different claim, because
> a) Indian independence is a very recent event, so the time gap from the
> occurrence of that event is very small.
Do you mean to say that lesser time gap is an ingredient of prAmANya of
> Historical uncertainties increase with time gap.
Doubting authenticity of sources is enough to destroy it's validity. Time
gap is not only thing capable of this.
I already said that he was only citing that shabda is a pramANa and nothing
b) There is no school of thought arguing against that date (and even the
> countries hostile to India don't question it).
Correct. As long as you don't feel conflict, the first knowledge is taken as
valid. This is svataH-prAmANyam common to any pramANa.
> c) Historical documents from that time (written and audio-visual) still
They may not be essentially telling truth.
He already said that a doubt will be enough to destroy validity of those
So is the case of veda-s.
So, both cases are similar and hence need of faith in not new to shabda
pramANa or is not a weakness. Moreover, faith is needed in eyes too. What if
you start doubting your eyes ? You just believe that your eyes are OK and
they only generate correct knowledge. Same faith thing.
> There are two different claims here that need to be separated:
> a) The mantras were seen by a Rishi.
> b) Different Rishis independently saw the same mantras.
> Do Buddhists accept
> b) ? Any references on that would be great.
> The Canki Sutta from the Pali canon refers to the Rishis (examples are also
> given of Vishvamitra, Angirasa, Vamadeva, etc) as both the seers and
> composers of the Vedic hymns:
> So even if the Buddhists accept that the mantras are based on extrasensory
> vision of some kind, the sentences that come from the Rishi are considered
> by them as authored by the Rishi.
Thanks for providing this.
> But the same argument would apply for Buddhists also -- the Pali canon is
> well-preserved, and the tradition is unbroken, so can we trust the Buddhist
> parampara that the events in the Pali canon are factual?
> If it's said that they can be doubted because the events described are
> extraordinary (like the Buddha having a vision etc), the Rishi independently
> seeing a mantra (and many of them independently seeing the same mantra) is
> also an extraordinary event. How does one differentiate between the two
> kinds of claims?
nyAya and mImAMsA, both schools accept veda-words just repeated by R^iShis.
> Also, what about Vedic traditions like Nyaya and Vaisheshika who considered
> the Vedas as authored?
Authored by Ishvara and not R^iShis.
They are also refuted by mImAMsakas.
> Given the absence of unanimity on whether or not the Vedas are authored
> among the Vaidikas themselves, what exactly would the word parampara
> encompass when we say the parampara considers the Vedas to be unauthored?
vaidika-s either accept them authored by Ishvara or un-authored. So, both
views are meant by word 'paramparA'.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list