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

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com
Sun Aug 28 09:18:32 CDT 2011

```*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 16:27, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

veda-s are infinite. It leaves no room for laukika words. It is not
acceptable.
Q : Words are infinite and their are two sets of infinite words, i.e.
laukika and vaidika. So, there is no problem.
A : You can not divide infinite in two sets. As soon as you divide infinite
words in two sets, it limits both sets to limited numbers even if you can't
count them. Whenever you are asked about a vaidika-vAkya, you say that it's
definitely not a laukika-vAkya, it's a vaidika one. So, you are limiting
both sets of words.

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.
>

Don't you think that this is your problem ? Your assumption created this.

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.
>

Leave it to indra. There is no rule that one must follow proportion.
Indra has to do his work and he did.
Again, this is arthavAda, a nindA-arthvAda. I think you and others saying
opposite can understand.

This is the key question. Did Ishvara have other knowledge than Vedic
> knowledge?

If not then he is not sarvaGYa and sarvavit.

> 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.
>

I'll see that there.

> 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.
>

Knowledge is not veda.
And what do you mean by word apauruSheya-knowledge ?

> 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  ?
>

There is no proof and no need. If these words are from some AchArya, quote
it in full, I will reply.

```