[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

Gopi Sankaran gkoct68 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 8 23:52:42 CDT 2011

Apureshyatva of vedas I think was mainly intended to indicate that There is
no Pouresheya Dosha. A book written by an individual may have his intention
along with it. May be over emphasis or if an injunction is given it may be
perceived as given out of greed or with ulterior motives. Such a dosha cant
be there in Vedas. To emphasise that it is concluded that  Vedas are
apouresheya. Not only that even to explain one the taste of puliahora I took
in the morning will be very difficult to put in words or make one understand
the real taste I had and real feeling I had. ie. It is almost impossible to
tell in human words. That means my pleasure or knowledge was more than what
I told in words. So it  becomes less than the ultimate. So it is dosha, may
be a pouresheya dosha. To emphasise this ulitmate truth we are forced to
call Vedas as apouresheya. Where the Pratayaksha and Anumana pramanas fail,
there comes the Vedas to emphasise a point. So the vedas have to be
interpreted as Apuresheya. There are no MantraKartas there are only manthra
dhrishtas in our ancient tradition. This argument also to evade the
poureshya dosha only.
Just sharing my thought that is all. Itis not a rejoinder.


On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Srikanta Narayanaswami <
srikanta.narayanaswami at yahoo.com> wrote:

> The following is my argument for apaurushey​atva of veda. Pl. correct me if
> it is wrong. If vedas are apaurusheya, they should exist independent of any
> purusha or person. That is they have to exist as an entity in their own
> right with the same words and meter. Such an independent existence can be
> proved only if two persons removed in space and time discover the same
> mantra. Indological research shows that over 60 generations of 423 rishis
> have discovered many common mantras. This is very different and unique in
> human history. There are many instances of two or more people coming up
> with
> similar ideas (e.g.  calculus by Newton and Leibnitz) but they are not
> exactly the same in form and content. On the  other hand, some of the Veda
> mantras discovered by different rishis are exactly the same to the meter.
> ________________________________________________________________________________-----
> The same yardstick that is applied to mundane matters cannot be applied to
> Vedas..The discovery of a scientist can be verified.In science and
> mathematics they are mere formulations.They need not be true.But,the Vedas
> are the "truth"and they have to be accepted as there is no way of verifying
> as in Mathematics or science.They are the very breath of "Sarveshvara".It
> cannot be proved which 'Rishi"cameup with which mantra,since there is no way
> of verifying them.In the "Upanishads"it is said only about the "Shakha"to
> which "Rishi"belonged to which "Shakha",like ""Ashvalayana"shakha,or
> "Pippalada"shakha.
> In the beginning the "Vedas"were one huge mass and it is said the
> "VedaVyasa"only codified them into different
> Vedas like,Rigveda,Yajurveda.SamaVeda,and AtharvanaVeda.The various shakhas
> belonged to one Veda or the Other.The "Upanishads"also belonged to one
> "shakha"or the other.The "KenaUpanishad belonged to the "Talavakara"shaka of
> the Samaveda.We find the "Ishavasyopanishath"in the middle of the
> "Samhita".Infact,this is the only "Upanishad'which is found in the middle of
> the "Samhita".It has two rescensions,the Kanva and the Madhyandina.We find
> that there is little difference in the rescensions.There are many shakhas
> which are lost for the posterity.
> N.Srikanta.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list