Nature of Consciousness

praveen Tiwari praveen_kt at HOTMAIL.COM
Wed Jul 28 05:12:03 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.

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

Hari Om!


>From: Sankaran Panchapagesan <panchap at ICSL.UCLA.EDU>
>Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
>Subject: Re: Nature of Consciousness
>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:03:31 -0700
>Hi (Ramakrishnan).
>         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,
>Ieither SAstra is the source for the knowledge of
>Brahman or that Brahman is the source for the SAstras think it is
>'SAstrayonitvAt') he says that it could have two
>interpretations, one that (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?

Get Your Private, Free Email at

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list