[Advaita-l] Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 18 12:08:56 CST 2013
Dear Shri Rajaram,
Quest for truth is admirable. Now if that is your concern why do you go so far to the "Apaurusheyatva of the Veda" (which is bugging you so much and you are not satisfied with all that has been said so far by different writers in this forum)? First decide yourself whether you accept the theory of rebirth (one of the basis of the Vedic religion), as no one to my knowledge has been able to give any tangible proof of that and that is why the scholars of the semitic religions do not accept that . If however you believe in rebirth please logically explain why you think the correctness in accepting the theory of rebirth (with proof to support your statement). I earnestly request you not to evade this like you have evaded some of my earlier questions, which could have been inconvenient to you.
Secondly may I request you not to bring in the texts of other scriptures into this discussions as you may not even be aware that there are verses in the Qurana which are contradicted by verses in the same text and the Qurana, not being chronologically arranged, does not allow the reader to find out which verse superseded which verse. Secondly why at all any verse in a text should contradict another verse in the same text if it is claimed that God himself was the source of those verses ?
From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?
> So, I suppose a fundamental issue is this. Are you interested in
> elucidating veda apaurusheyatva in order to convince the general Hindu on
> the street or are you interested in it for the sake of arguing with
> Christians and Muslims who argue for the exclusive claim to truth in their
> own respective texts? If the latter, then there are many other means to do
> it, instead of going after apaurusheyatva of the veda.
> RV : I agree that there are are many ways to deal with Christianity and
Islam. I know both the inclusive approach of ISKCON and exclusive approach
Sam Harris, Kalavai etc. Both are effective depending on the audience. My
concern here is only with truth of apauresheya. If it serves a purpose of
defending and spreading sanatana dharma giving people bliss, great.
All scriptures are verbal testimonies. Logical arguments can be used to
establish correctness of one over the other. People have done it which is
why evil practices such as slavery and witch hunting have gone away and new
memes have replaced old ones. But the easiest approach is to accept any
verbal testimony, hindu smrtis or bible or quran, only if they don't
contradict apauresheya Veda. Apauresheya texts constitute primary verbal
testimony and hence the need to establish it.
> Within the Astika milieu, the authority of smRti is accepted as secondary
> to that of Sruti both by those who accept apaurusheyatva of Sruti and by
> those who reject apaurusheyatva of Sruti. The only other criterion for
> accepting a given smRti as a pramANa would be to hold that the said smRti
> is accepted by SishTa-s, but in an indirect way, this again makes its
> authority dependent on that of Sruti, because a SishTa, by definition,
> already holds that Sruti is pramANa. So again, apaurusheyatva is not an
> invariable prerequisite for accepting smRti pramANa.
RV: What is the logical reason to accept Shruti as the basis for smrti? The
only difference is former is apauresheya and the latter pauresheya. If
some astika traditions have flaws in their thinking, we have to call it out
not accept it.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list