[Advaita-l] veda is eternal implies jnAnI returns as a seeker ?

Raghav Kumar raghavkumar00 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 28 05:57:08 CDT 2011

shrI lalitAlAlita ji Maharaj
>
Hari Om

> you wrote - "You may say number of mantra-s is infinite. If one veda has
> infinite number,
> then other will have no mantra at all."
>
in dealing with infinite sets, we have to be a bit careful. There can be two
infinite sets which do not overlap, like "the set of even numbers" has
infinite members in it. But then there should be no non-even numbers left.
Yet there are non-even numbers called odd numbers.

>
>
>
> >Even if no one makes clear the meaning of word veda-s there, let us think
> of
> >it :
>
> >If vedA-s are ananta. It will make even our words veda. How ? because
> veda-s
> >are words. And if all possible words(including sentences) are veda, then
> >what I utter is veda too. (because anantA vai vedAH)
>

> The above logic needs revision.

If the above logic is right then we can say,
1. Laukika words are infinite. (because there are countless samAsa pada-s
possible)
3. Veda-mantras are words.
4. Veda-mantras are laukika words
I think you can see there is a problem in step 2.

>
> >If you say that GYAnam is veda, then GYAnam of ghaTa, paTa, etc. will
> become
> >veda. (because anantA vai

> >vedAH)
>
> >That's why I said that word vedAH means shAkhA-s of veda. Taking this
>meaning will not contradict the context in anyway.
The dRShTAnta is comaparing a fistful with a mountain. The almost-endless
mountain cannot stand for the shAkhAs. The number of shAkhas is - Yajurveda
with 101 recensions, Saamaveda with 1000 recensions, Rigveda with 21
recensions and Atharvaveda with nine recensions, that means a total of 1131
shakhas. Even if bhAradhvAja maharShi had studied say 11 shAkhas in all.
The proportion of what he studied in comparison with that he did not, is not
so large as to necessitate comparison with a tall mountain. Maybe a small
mound would have been more appropriate.

>>

> >In the same way whatever Ishvara knows
> >is not essentially veda.
>
This is the key question. Did Ishvara have other knowledge than Vedic
knowledge? I am trying to understand this aspect better. In the other thread
on anantA vai vedAH, I suggested that we cannot say that
शास्त्रयोनित्वात् ....ब्रह्मण: सर्वज्ञत्वम् सिद्धम्
unless all knowledge in derivable from Vedic mantras by purusha-prayatna.
Such knowledge ofcourse become paurusheya. But thats ok. Because there is
always other knowledge derived from the Veda like karma, upAsana and
aikya-j~nAnam which remain apaurusheya always.
I am suggesting that we have to accept that pANiNi etc got their
vyAkaraNa-j~nAnam only by expansion/tapas on Vedic mantra-s, otherwise there
is हेत्वाभास in  शास्त्रयोनित्वात् sUtra. Is there any other way of
understanding

वेदे ही सर्वार्थप्रकाशनसामर्थ्यम्  ?

ॐ

raghav

> Moreover, I saw people using veda as divine or some type of knowledge.
> That's wrong.
> veda-s are specific words without puruSha as origin. Knowledge is produced
> by them. They themselves are not knowledge.  Remember 'apauruSheyam vAkyam
> vedaH'.
>
> Moreover,
> vaktavyam aneka-shAkhAbhinnasya RgvedAdeH*--- this bhAShyam only says that
> origin of R^ik, etc. veda-s, i.e. Ishvara, has more knowledge than revealed
> in veda-s. It doesn't say that Ishvara has more veda than revealed veda-s.
>
>  2. Regarding the example of pANiNi, in shAstra-yonitvAt bhAShya, we see
> > yadyat-vistarArtham shAstram yasmAt puruShAt sambhavati, yatha
> >
> > "whatever shAstra is composed by a given person, even in the case of a
> > particular branch of knowledge such as grammar by pANiNi, we see that (on
> > the analogy of pANiNi) he would be endowed with much more knwoledge than
> > what was set forth/manifested." (so what to speak of sarvajna-Ishvara,
> this
> > kaimUtika-nyAya is presented.)
> >
>
> Just replied above.
>
>
> > The word adhikatara-vijnAna (one endowed with **more** knowledge) is
> > noteworthy, indicating that Ishvara has not exhausted all the knwoledge
> > which inseparably exists/rests in Him, in manifesting (not freshly
> > creating)
> > the Vedas as we know them.
> >
>
> Not all knowledge which exists in Ishvara is veda.
>
>
> > The next line also explains the **effortlessness** with which Ishvara
> > manifested the Veda, (aprayatnenaiva - leela-nyAyena as the next line
> > makes  clear) ensuring it is apaurusheya (not created but effortlessly
> > breathed out , i.e., manifested and so  the word "nishvasitam" is used.)
> >
>
> it's OK.
>
>
> > In the above, **more** seen in conjunction with ananto vai vedAH may
> > support
> > the idea that the Vedic mantras are infinite in number a small part of
> > which
> > was manifested at the beginning of this kalpa of creation.
> >  However, sAyana bhAShya will have the last word on this.
> >
>
> I've cleared that anantA vai vedhAH and bhAShya-vacanam, both are not
> showing any sign of unlimitedness of vedas.
>
>
> > 3. The mImAmsakah did not have to deal with the quesiton of return of the
> > jnAni in the next kalpa since for them sRShti has no kalpAnta pralaya as
> in
> > Vedanta and the beginning of another fresh kalpa with the same characters
> > does not arise for them.
> >
>
> Actually, they accepted it as abhyupagama and came near to vedAnta. Even
> shloka-vArtikam has some hints about it.
>
>
> > 4. Mithila, Magadha etc mentioned in the Veda have no connection
> whatsoever
> > with places bearing their names in ancient or contemporary India ? Really
> ?
> > (You have said "No, there is no connection" )
> > We can say that the mantras mentioning Magadha, Mithila, Janaka etc
> > pre-dated , existed before, any people or places which might have existed
> > historically (coincidentally by kAkatAliya-nyAya).
> >
>
> Nothing different from my view is meant here, I think.
> Otherwise, make clear so that I'll be able to reply.
>
>
> > 5.  But then the following question arises - what if any is the role
> played
> > by the mantradRShTR ? Did the mantradRShTR exist historically or not?
> > If the mediation of mantradRShTR is not accepted there are some difficult
> > questions which arise regarding the first manifestation of these mantras
> on
> > Earth etc., which I will elaborate in a subsequent mail.
> >
>
> What is the meaning of mantra-draShTA ?
> If you accept mediation of RiShis, it will prove that
> impossible to prove them apauruSheya.
> Moreover, mImAMsaka-s don't accept sarvaGYas or any other people with
> reveletion-type knowledge. If you accept, you will have to accept
> bauddha-matam as pramANam.
>  _______________________________________________