[Advaita-l] On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Wed Jan 23 06:25:22 CST 2013
praNAms Sri Rajaram prabhuji
How do the authors of pauresheya texts know? You can say they have special
powers but how do you or they know that they have special powers. You need
apauresheya text to say. Apauresheya texts are true because of sabdArtha
> I think the prefix aparusheya is unnecessary here. For example to know
the lakshaNa of sthitha prajnA dont we refer the verses of geeta?? To
evaluate paramahamasa's bhakti toward mAta, does not bhairavi brAhmaNi
used the bhAgavata??
> BTW, what exactly does this shabdArtha nityatva means?? And how does
this help to prove the apaurusheyatva of shruti-s?? Does nityatva of
shabdArtha-s restricted ONLY to the shabda-s in shruti ?? Please clarify.
Even you can't say Ishwara told me. How do you know someone is Ishwara?
You need apaureshya text to know Ishwara. Pauresheya is valid as a
secondary sabda pramana only.
> when the well known upanishads themselves under the deliberation for
its origin & source, what is the yard stick that we can use to ascertain
whether a particular text is paurusheya or apaurusheya?? For example
mAndUkya (Agama prakaraNa), dvaitins have a different take on this part
likewise we, the advaitins have our own reservations on mahAshruti & other
alien texts, which have been extensively quoted by Anandateertha in his
works :-)) Perhaps, Ishwara himself cannot be able to convince both
(dvaitins & advaitins) of us when it comes to these controversial
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list