[Advaita-l] Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 9 14:45:22 CST 2013
simple explanation without going into sentimental aspects is to understand that
no knowledge is pourusheyam. Knowledge is eternal and ignorance that covers the
knowledge has to be removed by a pramANa. This is true to dis-cover - or
removing cover - gravitational force or nuclear forces. No discoverer invents
the knowledge that he dis-covers.
Veda also means knowledge.
Vedas that reveal the highest knowledge cannot be gained by other 5 pramANas
that involves objectification. Shabda pramANa is based on aapta vaakyam to
reveal and recognize the truth that cannot be gained by any other means. Vedanta
in that sense is shabda pramANa - and the so-called prameya itself is aprameyam
since it is about the subject that is revealed as anantam or Brahman which
cannot be understood as objective knowledge.
The Rishis do not claim
themselves as dis-coverers but they claim that the truth is revealed to them
which they passed on to their disciplines who have that shraddhaa.
rest of the arguments presented in the post have not much of relevance for me.
> From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
>To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>Cc: Kalavai Venkat <kalavai.venkat at gmail.com>
>Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 2:25 PM
>Subject: [Advaita-l] Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?
>KK and Kalavai have posted very good arguments to show that the Vedas are
>not apauresheya according to the Vedas themselves.
>http://apaureshyatva.blogspot.co.uk/ If their argumeent is correct.
>a fundamental belief of vedanta school on which it is founded is incorrect.
>I have reached out to a few traditional scholars privately. Traditional
>scholars will not know about linguistic evolution, comparative mythology,
>genetics, archaelogy etc. But they should not to struggle to a key tenet
>common to all schools of vedanta and mimamsa from a sastra point of view.
>If vedas were apaurusheya and eternal, then we would expect them to
>constitute a single and unified whole. But internal evidence from the vedas
>and upanishads suggests that Sruti is stratified and not a single unified
>whole. Here are a few examples -
> 1. In purusha sUkta (Rig veda 10.90), the Rig veda, Yajur veda and Sama
> veda are spoken of as being created from the sacrifice. Note that the
> Atharva veda is missing because it is a later addition to the group of
> vedas. Further note that this talk of creation of vedas also shows that
> vedas do not consider themselves eternal.
> 2. In Chhandogya Upanishad (6.1.2), it is said that Svetaketu has
> studied all the vedas (sarvAn vedAn adhItya) and yet Svetaketu does not
> know anything about brahma-vidya. His father Uddalaka then goes on to give
> him the teaching on brahman. This shows that there was a point of time when
> Chhandogya upanishad was not considered as part of vedas (later it was
> added to Sama veda).
> 3. In Mundaka upanishad, (1.1.5), the Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva vedas
> are considered as apara-vidya (lower knowledge) while the knowledge of
> brahman (that is given by the upanishads) is considered as para vidya. This
> shows that there was a point of time when the upanishads (or the Mundaka
> upanishad at least) was not a part of the vedas. Sankara notes this as an
> objection but tries to explain it away by saying that vidya implies
> realization and not the assemblage of words in the upanishads. His
> explanation looks forced and artificial.
> 4. In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (2.4.10) it is said that the Rig veda,
> Yajur veda, Sama veda, Atharvangirasa, itihasa, purANam, vidya, Upanishads,
> Slokas, Sutras and elucidations and explanations are the breath of Brahman.
> This shows two things. First, since the Upanishads are mentioned separately
> from the vedas, it shows that there was a point of time, when the
> Upanishads were not considered to be part of the Vedas. Second, it also
> shows that the Vedas, Upanishads, itihasa, puranam and Sutras were treated
> similarly. So if Vedas are apaurusheya, then itihasa, and puranam should
> also be apaurusheya. But no traditionalist thinks the itihasa and puranam
> to be apaurusheya. Therefore, this shows that the Vedas also are not
> apaurusheya. Note that puranam is in singular. So it also most likely
> implies that there was only one puranam at some point of time.
> 5. In chhAndogya upanishad (beginning shlokas of chapter 7), nArada
> approaches sanatkumAra for instruction. Here nArada says that he knows all
> the four vedas and itihAsa and purANam (which he calls as the fifth veda)
> etc. and yet he does not know the Self. This is another instance to show
> that the chhAndogya upanishad was not considered as part of the Sama veda
> at one point of time. For if the chhAndogya upanishad were always a part of
> the Sama veda, then nArada would have already known what sanatkumAra would
> have said and thereby, approaching sanatkumAra would have been redundant.
> 6. One can bring up the simple example of the Puruṣa Sūkta which is to
> be found in multiple versions across various texts such as The Ṛgveda,
> Vājasaneyi Saṁhita, etc. These have varying number of verses (16 to 24) as
> well as the composition of the verses of the same sūkta in two different
> meters: anuṣṭubh and triṣṭubh thereby internally proving that it is a
> stratified product of composition by many hands that was subsequently
> redacted and collated.
>To unsubscribe or change your options:
>For assistance, contact:
>listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list