Nature of Consciousness
panchap at ICSL.UCLA.EDU
Tue Jul 27 20:03:31 CDT 1999
One doubt on the 'apaurusheyatva' nature of Shruti. I haven't seen
it in the archives till now.
I read somewhere (I think it was a post in the archives by Vidyasankar)
that in (pUrva) mImAMsA, Kumarila Bhatta argues for apaurusheyatva of
Sruti because he doesn't want to accept the concept of an omniscient
Person, which the Jains were claiming for the Tirthankaras (and also the
sAnkhyans for Kapila). I read that that is also related to why he
argues hard against the concept of an omniscient ISvara who could be the
author of the Sruti (could you elaborate on this if relevant?)
I think in Sankara's commentary on one of the first few brahmasUtras, I
think it is 'SAstrayonitvAt') he says that it could have two
interpretations, one that either SAstra is the source for the knowledge of
Brahman or that Brahman is the source for the SAstras (the vedas, etc. are
the breath of Brahman - Br.Up., I think). The second interpretation is
unacceptable to pUrva mImAMsA. I don't think Sri Sankara says in that
place in the sUtra bhAshya which one he prefers. Does he indicate his
preference in any other work?
Anyway, since Vedanta does not deny an omniscient ISvara, would it be
equally acceptable to say that ISvara is their author? Isn't there a Sloka
in the Gita in which Krishna says he is the author of the Vedas?
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list