[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 14 16:34:43 CDT 2011

Sir - abaadhita is already implied in the very pramANa definition. Thanks for pointing out that I missed to restate again.
Hari Om!

--- On Wed, 9/14/11, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com> wrote:

From: श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 2:52 PM

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 17:01, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Vedas are pramANa not because they are apoursheyam but they provide the
> knowledge that cannot be obtained by other pramANas.

One people told you about a ghost which is not known by you with any
pramANa. Are you going to set pramANa tag with that word ?
So, we need abAdhitatvam too. You told this but not here.
Again, what if we have doubt about character of the person uttering veda-s.
You can not determine that veda-s are pramANa in that case, even if they
actually are. So, you need to shatter away that doubt too. And that is done
by tagging it apauruSheya.
So, veda-s are pramAna because they are apauruSheya.

For rest of your post :
Your problem is that you don't even think about other parts of veda which
don't say anything about brahma-GYAnam
You take is granted that oneness is a fact without fixing validity of
veda-s, who first told you about that, prior to it. How can you expect to
accept something without fixing validity of only pramANa telling about it ?
Again, I leave it for others to explain. They are really good at it. ;)
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list