[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Sun Jun 24 06:09:04 CDT 2012
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:21 PM, V Subrahmanian wrote:
> 1. If we have a situation where the Veda has to wait to get revealed
> till a proper Rishi evolves, then there is this question: Are there no
> human beings before such a special human being evolves to be called a
> to receive the Veda?
This will need study of purANa-s.
Although, I think that the texts about sR^iShTi do not go in this much
They just say brahmA came and gave it to manu, etc.
Moreover, R^iShi-s are accepted in deva-loka, etc. also.
> 3. If the vedas can get revealed to a Rishi, an evolved person, and
> then get propagated and available for other humans, what is the fate of
> humans who evolved and remained before the Rishi-human evolved and
> the Veda?
If this happened then those people got birth for bhoga only. Although
practice of satya, etc. is also dharma, is to be remembered.
> 6. If the veda has to wait till a rishi is evolved, the humans, the less
> efficient ones than the rishi, who evolved logically before the more
> efficient one evolved (progressive), will be deprived of the means to
> purushartha. This is unfair.
Talk of unfairness doesn't apply to facts. If the above said happened, then
it was result of their karma, is to be accepted. There is nothing without
> 7. The former Sringeri Acharya, Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha
> SwaminaH in His replies to the (modern-educated scientist) disciple who
> asked Him about the admissibility of the modern theory of evolution into
> the Vedic thinking exactly cited the above BG verse and had said that
> with creation of humans the vedas were made available, along with many
> other points in support of His explanation. (see the Book: Exalting
> Elucidations (formerly known as 'The Jagadguru Replies' published by Sri
> Vidyatirtha Foundation, Chennai)
'Along with' means to say that in the same time. But, was this time a
second, is the wuestion.
> 10. There is the Br.Up. mantra: tad yo yo devaanAm pratyabudhyata,
> tathaRShINAm tathaa manuShyANAm ...which says that whoever from the
> rishi or devata classes comes to realize this Brahman, becomes Brahman,
> with sarvAtmabhAva. This mantra recognizes the categories of manushyas
> distinct from rishis and devatas.
Because they are common to both or distinct from both. They have some
qualities which are uncommon to manuShya and devatA-s.
> The Vedic sRShTi is always of the type where all the beings, with their
> classes and sub classes, are created, rather manifest, at the time of
> sRShTi, after pralayam ends. The Veda is also available at the very
> beginning for the humans to apply it in their lives. For, as soon as a
> child is born, or rather even before the birth of a child, the Veda-based
> rituals are to be performed for samskara.
Again the same question arises about the time called sR^iShTi. Is it a
specific second or vast flow of time ?
In first case, there could be no solution other than illusion for such
thing(sR^iShTi-kriyA) to take place.
In second case, which is accepted by mImAMsaka-s as well as scientists,
words quoted above don't fit.
mImAMsaka-s generally don't accept sR^iShTi and pralaya. They take this
world as pravAha-nitya.
> Is it
> a flaw if for some reason the Veda apaurusheyatva/prAmANya is not
> understood/explained logically within the context of the modern evolution
apauruSheyatva and prAmANya, both are different things - is to be
If apauruSheyatva is not established and prAmANya is established anyhow,
then there is not problem for vaidika-s.
But, if prAmANya can not be established, either by establishing
apauruSheyatva or pauruSheyatva, then everything said by veda-s loses it's
validity. If words are not pramANa, then they must be generators of bhrama
or saMshaya. So, this option is not acceptable.
My answer is: In the past there have been a number of jnanis who
> have followed the Veda as the traditional pUrvAchAryas followed and
> obtained freedom from samsara. The so-called illogicality behind veda
> apaurusheyatva/pramANya did not come in their way of becoming
> self-realized. The modern theory of evolution was completely unknown to
Your question and answers are not in harmony.
You question is related to people who feel that evolution theory is opposed
to prAmANya, etc. of veda-s and you answer talks about people unaware of
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list